HyperHumanity (The God Series Book 11)

Table of contents :
HyperHumanity
Quotations
Table of Contents
The Illuminati
Worm Gods
The Decline of the West
Pseudomorphosis
The Blood Contract
Alexander the Great, Caesar and Napoleon
Historical Organisms
The New Man
The Fall of the Caesars
Gangsters and Banksters
The Death of America
Blood Money
The Soul Image
Humanity as Robots
The Jews: An Earlier Human Species?
The Glass Bead Game
Ars Combinatoria
What is Consciousness?
The Messiah and the Apocalypse
The Religious Virus
The Magic Theatre
The Chrysalids
The Village of the Damned
The Difference between a Criminal and a Capitalist
The Knight Archetype
The “Infinite” God
Schhhhhhh!!!!!
Mythic Religion
The Light Body
Abrupt Death
The Birth of “I”
True Love
Geniuses
Kabbalah and Reincarnation
Stardust People
The Extermination of Humanity
Apocalypse Now
The Life Principle
The WASP Conspiracy
White Holes and Souls
The Magic of Music
The Divine Balance of Power
Superhero?
God the Child Murderer
The Eternal War
Bios and Zoe
Magic
Young Souls
Eros and Agape
Rebooting Everything
Scientific versus Dialectical Materialism
The Fire Stealers
Higher Consciousness
Jesus Hitler
The Facebook Super Spy
The Ark of the Covenant: the Devil’s Tabernacle
The Last of the Magicians
Optimates and Populares
The Ego Ideal
Serpent or Genie?
The Great Fallacy
The HyperHuman Future

Citation preview

HyperHumanity M P

H H

B

Copyright © Mike Hockney 2013 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.

Quotations “Great people are meteors designed to burn so that the earth may be lighted.” – Napoleon Bonaparte “To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.” – Oscar Wilde “Genius: the superhuman in man.” – Victor Hugo “I always had a repulsive need to be something more than human. I felt very puny as a human. I thought, ‘Fuck that. I want to be a superhuman.’” – David Bowie “Superhuman effort isn’t worth a damn unless it achieves results.” – Ernest Shackleton “Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman – a rope over an abyss.” – Nietzsche “The Superman...Who has organized the chaos of his passions, given style to his character, and become creative. Aware of life’s terrors, he affirms life without resentment.” – Nietzsche “I teach you the Superman. Man is something that should be overcome.” – Nietzsche

Table of Contents HyperHumanity Quotations Table of Contents The Illuminati Worm Gods The Decline of the West Pseudomorphosis The Blood Contract Alexander the Great, Caesar and Napoleon Historical Organisms The New Man The Fall of the Caesars Gangsters and Banksters The Death of America Blood Money The Soul Image Humanity as Robots The Jews: An Earlier Human Species? The Glass Bead Game Ars Combinatoria What is Consciousness?

The Messiah and the Apocalypse The Religious Virus The Magic Theatre The Chrysalids The Village of the Damned The Difference between a Criminal and a Capitalist The Knight Archetype The “Infinite” God Schhhhhhh!!!!! Mythic Religion The Light Body Abrupt Death The Birth of “I” True Love Geniuses Kabbalah and Reincarnation Stardust People The Extermination of Humanity Apocalypse Now The Life Principle The WASP Conspiracy White Holes and Souls

The Magic of Music The Divine Balance of Power Superhero? God the Child Murderer The Eternal War Bios and Zoe Magic Young Souls Eros and Agape Rebooting Everything Scientific versus Dialectical Materialism The Fire Stealers Higher Consciousness Jesus Hitler The Facebook Super Spy The Ark of the Covenant: the Devil’s Tabernacle The Last of the Magicians Optimates and Populares The Ego Ideal Serpent or Genie? The Great Fallacy The HyperHuman Future

The Illuminati THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the cosmology, philosophy, ontology, epistemology, politics and religion of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day.

Worm Gods “O senseless man who cannot make a worm, and yet makes gods by dozens.” – Michel de Montaigne

Becoming Human; Becoming Superhuman How did humans come to be as they are? Can they be radically different? Can they become something newer, better, higher? Can they become HyperHumans? Humanity is a single biological species but has split into two different mental species labelled Mythos and Logos. The Mythos species is driven by emotional stories, not by facts, evidence or rational arguments. Christians believe that the all-powerful Creator of the universe, rather than simply sort out Earth’s problems, chose to be born of a 14-year-old Jewish “virgin”, have himself arrested by the Romans and crucified to death for committing treason by calling himself King of the Jews, then resurrect himself, while taking great care to be seen only by his most fanatical supporters and not by anyone who didn’t believe in him. The Jews believe that Moses went up a mountain and received two stone tablets of the Ten Commandments, written by God’s fiery finger. The Muslims believe that the illiterate “prophet” Mohammed went into a cave and had the Word of God (the Koran) dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel on behalf of the Creator of the Universe, Allah. These are all staggeringly far-fetched claims, more or less comically absurd, that would surely require the strongest possible evidence before anyone could take them seriously. Yet they are not supported by any facts or evidence at all, and they wholly contradict reason. You are required to have “faith” in them. It’s apparent that faith is the antidote to reason, allowing the believers to ignore all rational objections. The Enlightenment – the Age of Reason – was when a new human mental species came to the fore – Logos humanity. It was born in ancient Greece but proved unable to beat the endarkened forces of faith. Its hour finally came when reason gained traction in the world through the unarguable success of science. However, only a fraction of the human race benefited from the Enlightenment. Most of the world is as benighted as ever, locked into Mythos and faith. Islam has had no Enlightenment and continues to reject more or less all knowledge generated since the

appearance of the Koran. Who needs knowledge when you have the “infallible truth” written by God himself? Another force of absolute irrationalism has now conquered the world. It’s not a religious Mythos but an economic Mythos – free-market capitalism. Its advocates have absolute faith that irrational markets reflecting ineradicable selfishness and self-interest generate an “invisible hand” (i.e. God or, more accurately, Mammon) that miraculously resolves all of the problems of the world. Even scientific materialism is a Mythos – the sensory Mythos – which asserts that “rational unobservables”, undetectable by the senses, simply cannot exist. Thus science, though it is based on mathematics, irrationally accepts only the “positive real numbers” subset of mathematics, while rejecting imaginary numbers entirely, barely tolerating negative real numbers and absolutely forbidding zero and infinity. Scientists provide no sufficient reason why reality should miraculously choose to be expressed only through positive real numbers, and that all other numbers are somehow unreal and fantastical. HyperHumanity is the upgrade of Logos humanity. It advocates Hyperrationalism and calls for the replacement of science by hyperrational ontological mathematics, whereby all numbers are accepted as having reality. Where science is based on real numbers, ontological mathematics is based on complex numbers. Where science rejects zero and infinity (“dimensionless” existence), these are the defining numbers of ontological mathematics, from which all other numbers (the “dimensional” numbers) originate. As soon as you accept dimensionless existence, you have accepted the existence of the dimensionless soul. The soul is simply a mathematical information system – a “singularity” – defined by zero and infinity. The Big Bang Super Singularity – from which the physical world came – was comprised of infinite singularities (souls). Thus, it was a Soul Collective that gave rise to the universe! It did so mathematically, not physically. Real numbers define space and imaginary numbers define time, so “spacetime” is defined by complex numbers. Ontological mathematics explains everything and does so via mathematical points – singularities – that are also thinking souls, as per Descartes’ definition that the thinking substance is “unextended”, i.e. dimensionless.

The next Great Age will be that of Hyperreason when Mythos is finally cast down. Abrahamism and free-market capitalism will both fall. Moreover, the half-baked, incomplete, irrational subset of applied mathematics known as scientific materialism will also perish. Humanity’s immediate future will be determined by how well it understands the past. The past is studied by historians and typically involves lists of dates of great events and the names and biographies of those great figures involved with these memorable events. However, history is inadequate to the task of understanding the human past. History unfolds within the context of a great war of ideas, and these ideas are all about religion, philosophy, ideology, psychology, sociology, science, technology and economics. Therefore, the philosophy of history is the key subject, not mere history. By the same token, science would be enormously improved if all scientists understood the philosophy of science and realized the incredible extent to which their work is dictated by Meta Paradigms that are all about philosophy and nothing to do with science. The great philosophers of history are Hegel, Marx and Oswald Spengler – all Germans, and it’s notable that the Germans have replaced the Jews as the world’s most historical and fateful people. Hegel saw human history unfolding as a great dialectic in which events are inevitably shaped according to the triadic process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Hegel (an idealist) viewed the dialectic in terms of the development of mind. Marx (a materialist) turned Hegel’s system on its head and made the dialectic all about the development of matter. He viewed economics as the subject which determines the material conditions of human beings, and these conditions then shape the consciousness of human beings: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” Economics dictates the “social being” of people and creates what we recognize as the “class system” where economic wealth and power place everyone in particular classes. So, economics gave rise to class struggle, and the whole of history can be viewed through this prism. Everything that happens in history arises from the “upper” class seeking to maintain their power, the “middle” class seeking to rise to the upper class and avoid falling to the “lower” class, and the “lower” class seeking to become middle class and avoid plunging into the hell of the “underclass”. The upper class always seek to give those below them a bad deal and those below them are

always striving to get a better deal. Given these facts, the history of humanity is unsurprising. Oscar Spengler adopted a biological and seasonal view of history. He thought in terms of cultures being born (“spring”), maturing (“summer”), decaying (“autumn”) and dying (“winter”), and competing with other cultures for their survival. He rejected the dialectical convergence on a final omega point of human development (“the End of History”) that Hegel and Marx foresaw. Spengler was a purposeless Darwinist in this regard. He saw natural selection rather than teleology driving history.

***** According to the Book of Genesis, neither natural selection nor dialectics are real. “God” made a grown, adult man called Adam, then gave him an adult female companion called Eve, fashioned from one of Adam’s ribs (so women are “spare ribs”). This is a Creationist, “fixed nature” view of humanity. It excludes the possibility of evolving minds, morals, attitudes and “truths”. It says that humans haven’t changed at all since Adam and Eve (since God hasn’t changed the template in any way). There’s no dialectical progress in this worldview, no “natural selection”, no “mutation”, no change at all. Everything remains exactly as God designed it.

The Decline of the West The Decline of the West (1918) is the title of Oswald Spengler’s controversial masterwork, and much of its fatalistic tone reflects the horrors of World War I. Wikipedia provides a serviceable summary of this immensely influential work: “The book introduces itself as a ‘Copernican overturning’ and rejects the Euro-centric view of history, especially the division of history into the linear ‘ancient-medieval-modern’ rubric. According to Spengler the meaningful units for history are not epochs but whole cultures which evolve as organisms. He acknowledges eight high cultures: Babylonian, Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, Mexican (Mayan/ Aztec), Classical (Greek/ Roman), Arabian, Western or ‘European-American’. Cultures have a limited lifespan of some thousand years. The final stage of each culture is, in his word use, a ‘civilization’. “The book also presents the idea of Muslims, Jews and Christians, as well as their Persian and Semitic forebears, being Magian; Mediterranean cultures of the antiquity such as Ancient Greece and Rome being Apollonian; and the modern Westerners being Faustian. “According to the theory, the Western world is actually ending and we are witnessing the last season – ‘winter time’ – of the Faustian civilization. In Spengler’s depiction Western Man is a proud but tragic figure, for, while he strives and creates, he secretly knows the actual goal will never be reached.” – Wikipedia Spengler’s pessimistic worldview accorded with the post-WWI German mood, and, in many ways, psychologically paved the way for the ascent of Hitler. The book presented democracy as enfeebled and as the type of government chosen by declining civilizations, which can no longer generate great leaders and take on challenges. Spengler, an admirer of Nietzsche, shared the philosopher’s contempt for democracy and Nietzsche’s belief that it breeds weak, sly, “last men” intent on petty comforts and as easy a life as possible. Spengler argued that the real driver of democracy was money (i.e. it was hard-wired to capitalist interests), and that it spurned glory and achievement. He wrote, “As everywhere, the elections, from being

nominations of class-representatives, have become the battle-ground of party candidates, an area ready for the intervention of money, and . . . of ever bigger and bigger money. The greater became the wealth which was capable of concentration in the hands of individuals, the more the fight for political power developed into a question of money.” All that any democrat cares about is his financial well-being. With money at the core of everything, everything is susceptible to corruption. Look around you. Hasn’t Spengler been proved spectacularly right? Consider the Rupert Murdoch scandal in the UK. An enormously wealthy, powerful and bullying media mogul became the de facto leader of Britain, with the political class in his pocket, along with the police and the law. Everyone was too scared to challenge him for fear of Murdoch’s media attack dogs being turned on them. The national media dutifully promoted his ideology and served his agenda. His tastes and ideas came to define the culture of the UK – one of utter sleaze, corruption, trivia, junk and the lowest common denominator. Murdoch did nothing but lead a race to the bottom, and capitalist democracy was his surest friend in dragging down a once-great nation and empire into the gutter; an immensely profitable gutter for Murdoch and his cronies. Spengler predicted the collapse of democracy and its replacement by dictatorship: government by a strong-willed, non-democratic leader – a modern-day Caesar. This, of course, was exactly what happened in Germany, Italy and Spain in the decades after WWI. Russia turned to communism rather than capitalist democracy, with Lenin and then Stalin as dictators. Japan became an imperial war machine with the Emperor regarded as an all-powerful leader and almost a human God. America became ultra capitalist, with Mammon as its true leader, and the super rich elite class pulling all of the strings of this so-called democracy. The UK remained a monarchy with a rich nobility that continued to control everything. The fact is that true democracy (based on the ancient Athenian model but extending the vote to everyone and abolishing slavery) never happened at all, and was never allowed to happen. Modern democracy is just a dishonest cloak used by elites to create the illusion in the minds of the ordinary people that they are in charge (hence have no one to blame for bad government except themselves), while the elite get on with doing what they have always done – running the country in their own interests. This type of

hypocritical, deceitful politics – a kind of Wizard of Oz political system where the real power is hidden behind a curtain that no one’s allowed to pull back – was a clear sign of complete Western degeneration, and remains so to this day. Democracy cannot survive. All democracies are decadent and degenerate, with inept, enfeebled leaders lacking any vision or real power. They are a modern echo of the lack of strong leadership of the Roman Empire as it entered its phase of terminal decline and inevitable collapse. Spengler’s world-historical view was shaped above all by the radical outlook of the towering genius Goethe, followed by the devastating critique of modernity provided by Nietzsche (who also revered Goethe). Spengler complained that Goethe’s supremely life-enhancing philosophy was never taken seriously by the philosophical establishment because it wasn’t presented in the dry, academic, systematic style professional philosophers demanded (and Nietzsche was of course loathed by many academic philosophers because of his extraordinary aphoristic style, and the same was true to a lesser extent of Nietzsche’s early hero, Schopenhauer.) Spengler said that his approach was driven by Goethe’s statement of the superiority of becoming over being: “The Godhead is effective in the living and not in the dead, in the becoming and the changing, not in the become and the set-fast; and therefore, similarly, the reason is concerned only to strive towards the divine through the becoming and the living, and the understanding only to make use of the become and the set-fast.” Spengler declared, “This sentence comprises my entire philosophy.” In other words, anything that had become stagnant and weak was doomed. A vital coming force was sure to topple it. Spengler stressed that that the downfall of the West would not involve any sudden catastrophe, but rather a long, drawn-out decline: a twilight or sunset. The West would become an “evening land” rather than a land of bright, energetic day. Great Britain provides a classic example. Once a vital, ambitious, grand imperial power, it has shrunk to a minor and rather irrelevant nation state. It claims to be a democracy while actually being a constitutional monarchy. America now shows every sign of going the same way as Britain. Everywhere, its control and power are slipping. Challengers are appearing everywhere. America lacks any direction and leadership. It’s the puppet of an economic system – free-market capitalism – that does not even acknowledge the nation state and is instead nakedly globalist.

Free-market capitalists will go anywhere in the world where they can maximize their profits. They have no loyalty to America and no interest in the American people. To surrender power to an economic system that doesn’t care about your welfare – as the Americans have eagerly done – is to court inevitable disaster. That disaster is now arriving. The chickens have well and truly come home to roost. Americans thought that free-market capitalism would allow them, as the most powerful capitalist nation, to rule the world. Instead, it’s free-market capitalism itself, not America, that rules the world. America is just one node of a globalist system and the ruling capitalists have no particular interest in it. If China, Brazil, India, Russia and the nations of Africa offer higher returns than America then that’s where the capitalists will invest their money, regardless of what that means for America. America, through its greatest treasure (capitalism) has destroyed itself, and, moreover, that was always the inherent logic of free-market capitalism. Only a degenerate nation cannot see when it’s drinking poison. Part of Spengler’s point was that the West had more or less accomplished everything implicit in its cultural values. There was little more to achieve within this Western paradigm. For the world to move on, a new paradigm was needed and it would come, Spengler thought, from the East. The West would slip away into oblivion, before being resurrected in the future, with a radically new paradigm separating it from what had gone before in the West. Are we in that precise position now? The West has failed and the star of the East (especially China) is rising rapidly. The West, at best, will slip slowly into the shadows, but now a cataclysm looks just as likely. We are in a phase where the West is reaching the end of the tracks laid by the axioms on which it was founded. We in the West must either find new axioms and reinvent ourselves (and lay new tracks) – or perish. Abrahamic capitalist democracy has run its course. To persevere with this zombie system is madness. As Nietzsche understood, degenerate cultures are those that actively select what is harmful to them. They choose sickness over health because they are themselves sick. The West is now in that position. Consider the movie Olympus Has Fallen, the catchline for which portentously declares: The White House Under Siege. A Nation Under Attack. Imdb.com provides a synopsis: “When the White House (Secret

Service Code: ‘Olympus’) is captured by a terrorist mastermind and the President is kidnapped, disgraced former Presidential guard Mike Banning finds himself trapped within the building. As our national security team scrambles to respond, they are forced to rely on Banning’s inside knowledge to help retake the White House, save the President and avert an even bigger disaster.” The title of the movie literally references the fall of the home of the gods – as if the White House were some sort of divine location on Earth. All such Apocalyptic themes – of which Hollywood has been full for the last few years – convey the irresistible feeling that Ragnarok is coming and we are entering the twilight of the Gods, followed by their complete annihilation. The End is being presaged. Everyone can sense it coming. The Old Order is rotten and is collapsing.

The Democratic Smokescreen Spengler talks of the “devices many of which to us would be repellent and almost intolerable” in relation to the rhetoric and manipulation routinely used by politicians ... “such as rehearsed sob-effects and the rending of garments; by shameless flattery of the audience, fantastic lies about opponents; by the employment of brilliant phrases and resounding cadenzas... by games and presents; by threats and money; but, above all, by money. We have its beginnings in the Athens of 400, and its appalling culmination in the Rome of Caesar and Cicero.” Spengler was talking about the Classical world, but everything he mentioned could be as validly said about modern politics. Democracy does nothing but breed hypocrisy and corruption. How can anyone stomach this nauseating system?

Civilization versus Culture Spengler defined “civilization” as what a culture becomes once its creative energy has subsided. When it loses its direction and force, it succumbs to skepticism, cynicism, factionalism, nostalgia, sentimentality, overmoralising and analysis paralysis. Culture is “becoming” while civilization is the thing become (“being”). Civilization is “petrified” or reified culture, divorced from the “soul”. It’s the twilight, the dying embers, rather than the zenith of a culture’s development. Civilization is the end of the line, the culmination of a

particular culture, but also its death sentence. It will have to commit “civilization suicide” if it wishes to reinvigorate itself. Spengler said, “Civilization is the ultimate destiny of the Culture… Civilizations are the most external and artificial states of which a species of developed humanity is capable. They are a conclusion, the thing-become succeeding the thingbecoming, death following life, rigidity following expansion… petrifying world-city following mother-earth and the spiritual childhood.” Spengler believed that rationality destroyed spirituality (which is certainly true in the case of scientific materialism). He was thus reflecting Nietzsche’s famous Apollonian-Dionysian dichotomy. Nietzsche argued that Greek culture started to decline as soon as it turned its back on wild Dionysian forces and replaced them with tame Apollonian rationalism. Spengler made the claim that intellect rules when the soul has abdicated. We might say that he was warning against excess Logos, and pleading for a space for Mythos to be retained. Mythos must be subordinate to Logos, but it must not be eradicated by Logos. Scientific materialism has delivered exactly what Spengler feared – a soulless, nihilistic ideology where people are transformed into deterministic robots directed by inevitable causality rather than living beings that can exercise free will. Science is the Apollonian gone out of control. It has utterly detached itself from the Dionysian. It has killed religion, spirituality and Mythos. It has denied the efficacy of consciousness, it has denied the unconscious domain, it has denied free will, the independent existence of mind ... and it comes remarkably close to asserting that there’s no real difference between living human beings and dead androids. Many scientists believe that machines could one day be as “human” as we are. The Replicants (biorobots; “skinjobs”) of the movie Blade Runner are more or less indistinguishable from humans. In reality, no humanly constructed “being” could ever emulate a real human because all real humans have living, dimensionless souls – something that no human engineer could ever provide!

Pseudomorphosis Pseudomorphosis: from ancient Greek pseudomorphos meaning “false form; disguising one’s form”. In mineralogy pseudomorphosis describes conversion into a false or deceptive form; being forced into an abnormal state. Spengler introduced a fascinating concept of pseudomorphosis, appropriated from the vocabulary of mineralogy, and used it to express how old, ingrained forms can prevent the proper formation of new forms. Some cultures, like some new minerals, are only half-developed, half-expressed, half-manifested, half-actualised in their true form. They have been inhibited and curtailed by the old form from which they grew, but from which they did not break free (like children who never rebel against their parents and are condemned to live someone else’s life – that of their parents – rather their own; just look at Islam and Judaism). Old cultures, no matter how deeply ingrained, must be eradicated. In fact, the more ingrained they are, the more essential it is to dig up their roots and destroy them, to burn every trace so that not one particle remains. The true Faustian West will never come into being until the Magian past of Abrahamism has been obliterated. You cannot have an authentic Faustian culture arising from Magian soil. You need brand new soil. Logos cannot emerge from Mythos, nor Mythos from Logos. Mythos simply sprouts more Mythos. By the same token, Logos – pure mathematics, for example – does not suddenly deviate into, “Once upon a time, there was a great being in the sky...” Nothing is more important than destroying the Abrahamic brainwashing system that corrupts the minds of children from birth and irredeemably contaminates the “soil” of the mind. People claim that it’s harmless for parents to teach their children Abrahamism. On the contrary, it pollutes their minds and makes it enormously more difficult for them to think properly (in Logos rather than Mythos terms). The minds of children must be protected from Mythos pollution just as their bodies have to be protected from disease. Spengler said that the failure to comprehensively cast off the old caused the “young soul” to be cast in the old moulds. That’s exactly right. Young feelings are rendered old, and creative energy is killed off, made senile and

conservative by the dead hand of the past. Islam is the perfect example of how old, dead, idiotic ideas keep destroying new generations. Islam is like an ancient death star, pointing a deadly ray at all people born into Islam and wrecking their potential forever. Islam is an ancient system for making people stupid, and is almost perfect at achieving its objective. Every Muslim prays five times a day, every day for life. No one who does that can ever be intelligent! We must create brand new “forms” in brand new soil, and actively prevent rotten, rancid old soil from corrupting, distorting and inhibiting the new forms, and making them grow wrongly, strangely and falsely.

The Blood Contract Spengler argued that “blood” (or we might say spirit, vitality, or life force) was the only power strong enough to overthrow money, the dominant, dehumanising, objectifying power of human history and especially of the modern age. Free-market capitalism literally turns everything – especially people – into commodities. Everything has a price. Everything is being bought and sold. The world is a marketplace. The profit principle is all that matters and as soon as you are no longer profitable you’re on the scrapheap: you are powerless and irrelevant, an object that no longer has a purpose, fit only for the trash. Capitalism is Protestantism’s great “gift” to the world, making this arguably the most evil religion of all time, the Devil’s own creed. Spengler spoke of a final struggle between Capitalism and Socialism, but with Socialism defined as “the will to call into life a mighty politicoeconomic order that transcends all class interests, a system of lofty thoughtfulness and duty sense”. In this respect, National Socialism (extreme right wing socialism!) is as valid a form of socialism as Communism (extreme left wing socialism). The Nazis did not like free markets and rich capitalists dominating a nation any more than Communists did. Capitalism is a system that nakedly serves the interests of those with the most capital or control of capital. It therefore has a class system built into it. “Socialism” in its broadest sense means getting rid of this economic class system. Traditionally, this is seen as a left wing enterprise, but the Nazis showed that it can also be right wing. Capitalism is about private power while socialism is about public power. Someone such as Hitler believed that he should be the leader of a united, classless people. He did not want an upper class, middle class, working class and underclass – which is what contemporary capitalism gives us. In capitalist nations, private elites wield more power than elected governments, thus subverting the whole political process. The rich allowed “democracy” to become the dominant political system in the modern world precisely because it posed no threat at all to their power. You can be certain the rich would denounce democracy as the quintessence of evil and fight to get rid of it if the people ever democratically voted to impose 100% inheritance tax on them. The anarcho-capitalist libertarian movement in America is essentially a capitalist backlash against democracy: against, community, society and,

especially, the “Big” State. It seeks to remove all State controls and regulation and have completely unrestrained capitalism (with effectively zero taxation), which is of course in the absolute interests of the rich, but not of anyone else. Frank Zappa said, “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.” Here, the word “freedom” could just as easily be replaced by “democracy”. Democracy is endorsed by the rich because it does not get in their way. The rich would never accept the democracy of ancient Athens where the power of rich elites was genuinely enormously constrained and inhibited. Free-market capitalism was the ingenious economic system that allowed the rich to bypass democracy without anyone noticing. When democracies based their economies on free-market capitalism, they effectively surrendered political control to the super rich private “players” who shape the markets. In Nazi Germany, the rich were not allowed to dictate to the State. Instead, a totalitarian Party exerted complete control. Modern Communist China is likewise ruled by a totalitarian political Party. The ideal is to have neither private factions nor totalitarian political parties in charge of a nation. Only the people themselves can be allowed to be in charge. The private rich must be deposed, and so must oppressive parties. Publicly elected meritocrats, who belong to no political party at all, are the rightful guardians and guides of the State. These “independents” are completely accountable to those who elected them and can be replaced without compensation if they fail to perform well. Spengler wrote, “A power can be overthrown only by another power, not by a principle, and only one power that can confront money is left. Money is overthrown and abolished by blood. Life is alpha and omega ... It is the fact of facts ... Before the irresistible rhythm on the generation-sequence, everything built up by the waking-consciousness in its intellectual world vanishes at the last.”

Apollonians, Magians and Faustians Spengler described Classical (Greek and Roman) culture as “Apollonian”, Middle-Eastern culture as “Magian” and Western culture as “Faustian”.

Magian Culture embraces Abrahamism (Jews, Christians and Muslims) and Persian Zoroastrianism (the religion of the Magi, which was a huge influence on Judaism). Magian culture is all about Mythos and magic, and utterly resistant to Logos. Ancient Greece was once Magian, under the intoxicating influence of the irrational Dionysian Mythos. However, it became responsible for humanity’s greatest boon – the birth of Logos. With Logos, Apollo began to dominate Dionysus and the ancient Greek pagans became the most philosophical people there have ever been on this planet. When the Romans conquered Greece, they came under the spell of Greek culture and allied it to their own incredible practicality and superb engineering skills. With this potent mix, they established one of the greatest empires in history. What brought it down? In many ways, it was simply exhausted, but the final toxic element was Magian Christianity, an alien and deadly Jewish-born disease that wiped out paganism and Logos. Apollonian culture didn’t revert to its Dionysian forebear. Instead, Apollo and Dionysus were both overcome by “magic” – Jewish monotheism. Faustian civilization began in Western Europe with, Spengler said, Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire (the reincarnation of the Roman Empire). Although nominally Catholic, this new Empire in many ways reflected ancient Rome’s pagan values. The Pope and the Emperor were often in conflict, and the Empire was keen on military technology and engineering, just as ancient Rome was. By the 20th century, Western Faustianism dominated the world. By the end of that century, America had reached its zenith and best exemplified the Faustian lust for power and technology. The Classical world was all about the finite and tangible (the Greeks even had their gods living on Earth, potentially reachable by the most intrepid adventurers). The Magian world was all about the infinite gap between men and God, and, in this belief system, God became invisible, intangible and unreachable (although, via the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the “Word” became flesh). In the Magian worldview, God created the Earth, and humanity was central to God’s cosmic plan. As for the Faustian world, it was all about infinity and the Faustians began to speculate that God simply wasn’t out there at all, meaning that we were on our own ... and we might transform ourselves into gods!

Brilliant though his ideas are, Spengler was unquestionably wrong to emphasize the Faustian nature of the West. In fact, it has historically been ferociously Magian (Judaeo-Christian), with only a small number of Logos thinkers promoting Apollonian and Faustian values. This minority gained traction only with the Renaissance and then, especially, the Enlightenment. In truth, we in the West live in a Magian culture to this day and the Faustian culture has barely begun. There has been no “crisis” of Western Faustianism, but, in fact, of Western Magian civilization. The “death of God” , as pronounced by Nietzsche, has occurred. The Magians know it, but are in extreme denial. However, all of their energy has dissipated. They are mere shadows and echoes now, fading away in front of us. To understand how enfeebled Western Magians are, one need only look at Muslim Magians – as fanatical as the Christians of 600 years ago! Islam is of course 600 younger than Christianity. Humanity must kill off Magian influence everywhere other than in the sphere of entertainment. Humanity must become overtly Apollonian and Faustian in its working mode – with Magian and Dionysian forces reserved for humanity at play when the day’s work is finished. Humanity’s greatest error was to allow stories – fiction and fantasy – to be treated as fact. The Torah, Bible and Koran are pure Mythos. They have no Logos content, hence zero truth content. Humanity can never make proper progress until it can immediately distinguish between Mythos and Logos, and never let either intrude into the other’s territory.

The Eight Cultures According to Spengler, eight High Cultures have existed: 1) Sumerian/Babylonian. 2) Egyptian. 3) Chinese. 4) Indian. 5) Mexican (Mayan/Aztec). 6) Classical (Greek/Roman).

7) Arabian. 8) Western or “European-American”. Each culture has an active lifespan of about 1,000 years ... and it’s time up for Western culture. Using Spengler’s vocabulary but not his analysis, we would say that Western classical, pagan culture – a superb platform for human development – was infected and destroyed by Magian Judaeo-Christianity with its grotesque cosmic magician called Jehovah, credited with pulling a whole universe out of a hat. With the fall of Rome, the West immediately entered the Dark Ages, and, to make things worse, a new Magian power appeared on the scene – the backward monstrosity of Islam (Arab Judaism, in effect, since Islam simply replaced the Jewish religion based on Isaac with an equivalent Arab version based on Ishmael). The true Faustian West did not begin to take shape until the time of Copernicus (1473 – 1543), Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), Galileo (1564 – 1642), Hobbes (1588 – 1679) and Descartes (1596 – 1650). This was the first widespread reappearance of Logos since Aristotle. Ever since, the Faustians (Logos thinkers) have been engaged in a bitter war with the Magians (Mythos magic thinkers). The war rages to this day and still the Magians make up 90% of the world. The Magian system has wholly failed in terms of anything worthwhile, but, because of the astounding success of its tried and tested, culturally embedded brainwashing techniques, it’s ferociously difficult to defeat. It’s now just a zombie, staggering on despite being long dead, and continuing to infect countless new victims. That’s all it does: spread its disease. It’s a plague, the ultimate contagion. It’s time quarantine was imposed and the fatal, Satanic infection eliminated from humanity once and for all. We call for the unconditional victory of the Faustian forces. To the extent that Mythos is accepted at all, it will be the pagan Mythos of the Classical period – the gods of Greece and Rome, the Celtic gods, the Egyptian and Babylonian pagan gods, and all compatible ancient gods. The Magian Monotheistic God must be banished from human consciousness. Only then will we be truly free from the Devil, the Demiurge, the Satan who has tormented humanity for so long.

The Devil’s greatest trick was to have himself declared God by the Magians, the people of black magic.

The Spenglerian Seasons Spengler compared the rise and fall of a culture to the four seasons of spring, summer, autumn and winter. Wikipedia provides this summary of Spengler’s account of the rise and decline of Western culture and civilization:

Spring Intuition, powerful cultural creation from awakening souls, unity and abundance. Religion: Birth of a grand myth signifying a new conception of God. Fear and longing for the world. Earliest metaphysical organization of the world. High scholasticism. Art: Religious art considered as an integrated part of religious devotion. Gothic cathedrals, Doric temples. Development of Ornamental art as against the persistent, ahistorical type of Imitative art. Politics: Feudalism, warrior aristocracies. Division between two primary Estates: Nobility, which is the estate proper, contains within itself the highest aspirations of its race and is therefore symbolic of the particular people in question, as well as being representative of Time in the sense of Directedness and Destiny; and Priesthood, which is the anti-Estate, pursuing eternal Truth and attempting to subordinate Blood to Intellect primarily through asceticism, but also through scholasticism.

Summer Maturing consciousness. Earliest urban-civil society and critical thought. Religion: Reformation: revolt of the religious moderates against the early religion. Beginnings of a purely philosophical movement. Contrasting idealistic and realistic systems. Mathematical breakthroughs leading to a new conception of the world. Rationalism. The depletion of mysticism from religion.

Art: Development of high artistic traditions. Both artistic medium and style express the fundamental nature of the soul of the culture. Struggle between different artistic mediums, representing the culture’s striving to discover its proper mode of self-representation. Politics: Absolutist states. Conflicts between aristocracy and monarchy. The political centre shifts from castles and estates to the cities.

Autumn Urban rise. High point of disciplined organizational strength. Religion: Faith in the omnipotence of rationality. Cult of Nature. The height of mathematical thought. The last idealists. Theories of knowledge and logic. Art: Fulfilment of high artistic potentials of culture- sculpture in Greece, contrapuntal music in the West. At the beginning of Autumn, art possesses complete freedom to manifest the Destiny-vision of a people through its particular perfected formal technique. However, the end of Autumn witnesses the exhaustion of the possibilities of that technique, leading to craft-art in imitation of the great style as well as artistic revolt. Politics: Struggles between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. Revolutions. Napoleonism.

Winter Coming fissure in the world-urban civilization. Exhaustion of mental organization strength. Irreligiousness rises. Religion: Materialism: Cults of science, utility, and luck. Ethical-social ideals: philosophy without mathematics, skepticism. The last mathematical thinkers. Decline of abstract thinkers, and the rise of specialized academic philosophy. Spread of the last ideas. Art: End of symbolic art. All art becomes meaningless subjects of fashion. Politics: Democracy, the rule of the rich, followed by Caesarism and bureaucracy.

*****

There’s certainly a great deal of this analysis with which we agree – Spengler, despite being long dead, uncannily describes today’s world – but he has failed to highlight the central problem: the cataclysmic effect of Magian Abrahamism in the West. Science has taken on an absolutely atheistic and materialistic form precisely because of its understandable and legitimate hatred of Abrahamism. Had the insanity of Abrahamism been absent, science would have developed along spiritual lines such as those envisaged by the three great rationalist philosophers: Descartes, Spinoza and, above all, Leibniz. Pythagoras, 2,500 years ago, made a religion out of mathematics and reason while Abrahamism made a religion out of unreason, non-science, anti-philosophy and anti-mathematics ... out of pure Mythos and magic. Abrahamism succeeded spectacularly because it was “religion for dummies”, without a shred of rationality. It was all about feelings. It made virtues out of superstition, ignorance and blind faith in lunatic assertions that people wished and hoped were true. Religion never needed to be that way. Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Neoplatonism, Alchemy, Rationalism, and the Eastern enlightenment religions all showed how it was possible to have spirituality in a rational – even hyper-rational – form without any mumbo jumbo, woo woo, Mythos or magic. That’s the track to which humanity must return. Science and religion can be reunited via mathematics – the true language of divinity – and give rise to an astounding spiritual renaissance. Humanity can at last embark on becoming gods, rather than being on their knees to the Abrahamic Devil God – Yahweh (aka Allah/ Christ). Humanity can never be free until it has removed the two supreme shackles: Abrahamism (Judaism, Christianity and Islam – the three world religions of absolute evil; the Devil’s tools for torturing humanity), and Mammon (free-market capitalism, monarchy, nobility and feudalism). Mammon is the gospel of profit, objectification and commodification. It turns human beings into walking financial transactions; it makes them depersonalised, dehumanised objects to be sold to the highest bidder, and the winning bid is usually extremely low to ensure the highest profit. When they have served their financial purpose, “people” are literally useless: broken-down toys that can never be repaired and must be tossed in the garbage can.

Mammon, the cult of the dollar, turns persons into unpersons. It’s an assault on everything that makes us human. It objectifies us. It expresses hatred of humanity. The Old World Order despise people – that’s why they’re Satan’s finest and most loyal servants. The super rich are the Devil’s disease. They are the plague we must exterminate. As for the “cult of Jehovah” (Abrahamism), this also seeks to turn us into objects – the degraded, debased slaves of “God”, on our knees in abject fear and submission. We are 100% alienated from our inner selves, our divine Higher Selves. Liberation of humanity necessitates the wholesale and irrevocable eradication of Mammon and Jehovah, the twin Satanic ideologies that want to make objects and slaves of us, ruled over by the rich on one hand, and the Torture God on the other. This is the most horrific vision of human life that there could possibly be – yet it’s the one under which we still live. Future humanity will never tire of despising the memory of the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the monarchists, the nobles, and super rich capitalists for all the damage they did to our world. Their pictures will be hung in the eternal gallery of shame as the uttermost human criminals, for whom there can never be any forgiveness. Above them all, will hang a picture of their Lord and God – the Devil himself! The real Faustian Age is only five hundred years old, and hasn’t yet taken on its proper form thanks to the interference of the Magians. What’s the Faustian Age all about? It concerns the supreme quest for knowledge. It’s all about the Philosopher’s Stone and the transformation of lower forms (“base metals”) into their ultimate, perfect form (“gold”). It’s about the attainment of the Holy Grail that makes us gods. The supreme Faustian religion is Illumination, the religion of the Illuminati. It’s about building heaven on this Earth and making every one of us gods. There will be no human objects, and no alienated slaves worshipping a cosmic Terrorist who fills them with fear and dread through his threats of infinite and eternal pain in hell. How on earth could any sane person imagine that a “God” who issued the most diabolical, blood-curdling ultimatums of pure intimidation could be a loving Creator? Faust was the genius who would do anything for ultimate knowledge, to know the final secrets and mysteries of existence, to enjoy a single moment of divine perfection. He was willing to pay any price – metaphorically described as “selling his soul to the Devil”. What this refers to, of course, is

not some diabolical transaction but the willingness to endure hell to get to heaven, to undergo the most horrendous suffering and pain if, on the other side, heaven and divinity lie. “Last men” would never tolerate any discomfort. They’d sacrifice nothing and take on no arduous tests, trials or quests. They want the easy life, the path of least resistance, a world where they always have their feet up, and all the petty and trivial comforts all around them, within easy rich. That, for them, is the “good life”. These people are spiritually dead. They are the human undead, an insult to humanity, a disgrace and abomination. The Faustian religion demands that we never shirk the greatest challenges. We must embrace them, seek them out, glorify them. In the Faustian Age, science, religion, mathematics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, politics and economics become one grand Faustian synthesis, the full expression of the Faustian Man: the Superman. We’ll build an Earth fit for gods. We’ll build bridges to the heavens. We’ll travel to the stars and beyond. We’ll acknowledge no limits. We won’t stop until we are actual gods, know everything and have infinite power. Is that not the only legitimate dream of strong, intelligent human beings? Who cares what the pathetic, weak, ignorant, superstitious masses think? Only the gods count. If you subscribe to the Faustian Pact then you are one of the gods-in-the-making. You have embarked on your own divine alchemical transformation. The future is ours and ours alone – because we are the illuminated ones, the divine ones, the gods themselves, and we shall have no other gods. Humanity is made in the image of God only insofar as humans have it within themselves to be Gods. Ancient cultures all had a notion of decline and fall. They imagined a Golden Age of the Gods, followed by a Silver Age, a Bronze Age, a Heroic Age (a brief echo of the Golden Age), and then a ghastly Iron Age of violence, greed and selfishness (the current age). The Faustian project represents the opposite trajectory: we will go from this nightmare time to the only, true Golden Age – the one where we are gods ourselves and not at the mercy of any alien gods.

In Time Or Out Of Time? “Spengler distinguishes between ahistorical peoples and peoples caught up in world-history. While he recognizes that all people are a part of history, he

argues that only certain cultures imbue a wider sense of historical involvement. Thus some people see themselves as part of a grand historical design or tradition, while others view themselves in a self-contained manner. For the latter, there is no world-historical consciousness.” – Wikipedia Greeks and Romans did not seem themselves as particularly in time, with a great clock ticking down on them. However, the Persians, Jews, Christians and Muslims were all obsessed with the concept of an imminent Apocalypse. For the Magians, the clock was most certainly ticking down. The Faustians, thanks to the Hegelian dialectic, were in time too. In this case, the passage of time was associated with inevitable improvement, not with approaching cataclysm. This was an idea seized upon by Marx in an economic, political, social and even quasi-scientific sense where he regarded communism as the dialectical culmination of human progress. There was an Apocalypse in Marx’s worldview – but only for the old, ruling elite. Their demise was everyone else’s liberation. Darwinian evolution also pointed to a better adapted future, and the scientific method promised more and more reliable knowledge. All of this has made the West highly aware of time and progress. As for the capitalists, they say, “Time is money.” They have even objectified and commoditized time itself! “Spengler adopts an organic conception of culture. Primitive Culture is simply a collection, a sum, of its constituent and incoherent parts (individuals, tribes, clans, etc.). Higher Culture, in its maturity and coherence, becomes an organism in its own right, according to Spengler. The Culture is capable of sublimating the various customs, myths, techniques, arts, peoples, and classes into a single strong undiffused historical tendency.” – Wikipedia Nietzsche was the champion of the sublimated Will to Power, but he was interested in the individual rather than society. Yet a society strong enough and smart enough to sublimate its Will to Power is exactly what we need. “Spengler divides the concepts of culture and civilization, the former focused inward and growing, the latter outward and merely expanding. However, he sees Civilization as the destiny of every Culture. The transition is not a matter of choice—it is not the conscious will of individuals, classes,

or peoples that decides. Whereas Cultures are “things-becoming”, Civilizations are the “thing-become.” As the conclusion of a Culture’s arc of growth, Civilizations are outwardly focused, and in that sense artificial or insincere. Civilizations are what Cultures become when they are no longer creative and growing. For example, Spengler points to the Greeks and Romans, saying that the imaginative Greek culture declined into wholly practical Roman civilization.” – Wikipedia If Islam, Christianity, Judaism are now in their “civilised” state, imagine how horrific things must have been five or six hundred years ago!

Auto-Immune Disease Spengler believed in a four-stage development of religion within a culture. Religion starts out with a strong identity but gradually falters and generates opposition. A reformation is provoked, followed by a period of rationalism, which then gives way to a rebirth of the original religious impulse but at a lower and less tenable level of fervour. Spengler believed that Enlightenment rationalism would inevitably undermine and destroy itself, with its own skepticism and rationalism attacking itself, like an auto-immune disease. “The Cartesian self-centred rationalism leads to schools of thought that do not cognize outside of their own constructed worlds, ignoring actual everyday life experience. It applies criticism to its own artificial world until it exhausts itself in meaninglessness. In reaction to the educated elites, the masses give rise to the Second Religiousness, which manifests as deeply suspicious of academia and science.” – Wikipedia The philosophical school of postmodernism certainly “applies criticism to its own artificial world until it exhausts itself in meaninglessness.” Baudrillard’s hyperreality characterizes the world as turning into a simulacrum of reality where fact and fiction cannot be distinguished. Modern art has become entirely self-referential and no longer says anything of significance. Enlightenment rationalism self-destructs – if it can’t elevate itself to a spiritual level.

The Media Monster

Spengler mounted a devastating attack on democracy and the free press, and can anyone deny that he was right? Wikipedia provides an excellent summary of his position: “Spengler asserts that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the media is the means through which money operates a democratic political system. The thorough penetration of money’s power throughout a society is yet another marker of the shift from Culture to Civilization. “Democracy and plutocracy are equivalent in Spengler’s argument. The ‘tragic comedy of the world-improvers and freedom-teachers’ is that they are simply assisting money to be more effective. The principles of equality, natural rights, universal suffrage, and freedom of the press are all disguises for class war (the bourgeois against the aristocracy). Freedom, to Spengler, is a negative concept, simply entailing the repudiation of any tradition. In reality, freedom of the press requires money, and entails ownership, thus serving money at the end. Suffrage involves electioneering, in which the donations rule the day. The ideologies espoused by candidates, whether Socialism or Liberalism, are set in motion by, and ultimately serve, only money. ‘Free’ press does not spread free opinion—it generates opinion, Spengler maintains. “Spengler admits that in his era money has already won, in the form of democracy. But in destroying the old elements of the Culture, it prepares the way for the rise of a new and overpowering figure: the Caesar. Before such a leader, money collapses, and in the Imperial Age the politics of money fades away. “Spengler’s analysis of democratic systems argues that even the use of one’s own constitutional rights requires money, and that voting can only really work as designed in the absence of organized leadership working on the election process. As soon as the election process becomes organized by political leaders, to the extent that money allows, the vote ceases to be truly significant. It is no more than a recorded opinion of the masses on the organizations of government over which they possess no positive influence whatsoever. “Spengler notes that the greater the concentration of wealth in individuals, the more the fight for political power revolves around questions of money. One cannot even call this corruption or degeneracy, because this is in fact the necessary end of mature democratic systems.

“On the subject of the press, Spengler is equally as contemptuous. Instead of conversations between men, the press and the ‘electrical newsservice keep the waking-consciousness of whole people and continents under a deafening drum-fire of theses, catchwords, standpoints, scenes, feelings, day by day and year by year.’ Through the media, money is turned into force—the more spent, the more intense its influence. “For the press to function, universal education is necessary. Along with schooling comes a demand for the shepherding of the masses, as an object of party politics. Those that originally believed education to be solely for the enlightenment of each individual prepared the way for the power of the press, and eventually for the rise of the Caesar. There is no longer a need for leaders to impose military service, because the press will stir the public into a frenzy, clamour for weapons, and force their leaders into a conflict. “The only force which can counter money, in Spengler’s estimation, is blood. As for Marx, his critique of capitalism is put forth in the same language and on the same assumptions as those of Adam Smith. His protest is more a recognition of capitalism’s veracity, than a refutation. The only aim is to ‘confer upon objects the advantage of being subjects.’ “The Second Religiousness appears as a harbinger of the decline of mature Civilization into an ahistorical state. The Second Religiousness occurs concurrently with Caesarism, the final political constitution of Late Civilization. Both the Second Religiousness and Caesarism demonstrate the lack of youthful strength or creativity that the Early Culture once possessed. The Second Religiousness is simply a rehashing of the original religious trend of the Culture.” Nazi Germany, arising several years after the publication of Spengler’s book provides a classic illustration of his ideas. Hitler was the new Caesar, and the religious fervour that greeted Nazism was like a rebirth of fanatical Judaeo-Christianity, with Hitler talking the role of both Jehovah (the God of justice and wrath) and Christ (the incarnated Messiah). In the great conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, the Nazis represented “blood” while the Soviets were what Spengler describes as human objects seeking to be subjects. Although the Soviets won, there’s no question that their triumph was brought about by their vastly greater manpower. On a one to one basis, the Nazis – the “bloods” – were enormously superior: much better educated and better trained.

Spengler talks of people ceasing to participate in elections, and the most qualified people refusing to engage with the political process until it’s dominated by second-rate bureaucrats and “middle managers”, universally held in contempt. This is the end of “great politics”. Is that not precisely the phase we are in now?

Mathematics Spengler was fascinated by mathematics, seeing it as once of humanity’s greatest achievements. He wrote: “The brilliant period of the Baroque mathematics lies substantially in the 18th century and extends from the decisive discoveries of Newton and Leibniz through Euler, Lagrange, Laplace and D’Alembert to Gauss. Once this immense creation found wings, its rise was miraculous. Men hardly dared believe their senses. The age of refined scepticism witnessed the emergence of one seemingly impossible truth after another. Regarding the theory of the differential coefficient, D’Alembert had to say: ‘Go forward, and faith will come to you.’ Logic itself seemed to raise objections and to prove foundations fallacious. But the goal was reached. This century was a very carnival of abstract and immaterial thinking, in which the great masters of analysis and, with them, Bach, Gluck, Haydn and Mozart – a small group of rare and deep intellects – revelled in the most refined discoveries and speculations, from which Goethe and Kant remained aloof. … “Descartes and Leibniz stand beside Newton and Gauss at the summit of mathematical development. But already in Kant the philosopher has become, as mathematician, negligible. Kant no more penetrated to the last subtleties of the calculus as it stood in his own day than he absorbed the axiomatic of Leibniz. And thenceforward there is no philosopher who is counted as a mathematician. Fichte, Hegel and the Romantics were entirely unmathematical. Schopenhauer in this field is weak to the point of crudity, and of Nietzsche the less said the better.” Regarding Hegel, while he was certainly no Leibniz, he was mathematically literate and wrote about infinity to great effect and with superb insight. While the headmaster of a high school, he taught mathematics, as well as religion and philosophy, writing in a letter, “You know that I have been too involved, not only with ancient literature, but also with mathematics, and of

late with higher analysis, differential calculus, physics, natural history and chemistry for me to be deluded by the fraud of natural philosophy, namely to philosophize by imagination without hard facts or to take the empty fantasies of folly itself for genuine ideas.” Spengler, despite his reservations about Hegel’s mathematical abilities, admired Hegel and indeed his book is highly Hegelian in tone and attitude. Spengler wrote, “Hegel stands above, Marx below the level of historical actuality. Take away Hegel’s metaphysics and you will discover a political thinker with a sense of reality unequalled in modern philosophy. As a ‘Prussian’ by intellectual choice he placed the state at the centre of his extraordinarily profound, well-nigh Goethean vision of historical development, whereas Marx, the Englishman by choice, assigned to the economic life the central role in his Darwinian and mechanistic theory of historical ‘evolution’ (he would call it ‘progress’).” Hegel’s Philosophy of History had a tremendously powerful effect on Spengler, but whereas Hegel saw a single sweep of dialectical history, reflecting the Absolute Idea as it was transformed into the Absolute Spirit, and converging on an inevitable “End of History”, Spengler’s view was, we might say, of many separate cultures, each dialectically evolving to its own natural end, but not all tied together in the unifying Hegelian system. For Hegel, all cultures were harnessed together as aspects of a single evolving global culture while Spengler saw them as separately evolving cultures with no necessary connections. While Hegel predicted an End of History where human culture has attained a final form that, from then on, will never significantly change, Spengler predicted that an individual culture will reach its end and die off, to be replaced by a new culture, and this process will go on indefinitely. The birth, rise and fall of cultures and civilizations resemble the birth, maturing, waning and death of human beings. There’s no absolute end, no final convergence on a single global culture and civilization. When Francis Fukuyama wrote The End of History and the Last Man, he adopted the Hegelian worldview, and proposed that capitalist democracy was the final cultural system of humanity that would absorb all other cultures. The final cultural form will in fact be Meritocracy. Star Trek already provides a vision of what the human future will be like. In Star Trek, there’s no money and Earth is ruled by a supreme meritocratic council. Starships are crewed by strictly meritocratic teams.

There are no cruel, fanatical and fantastical religions, no celebrity culture, and the super rich elite have long since vanished. Humanity is intent on travelling across the universe and learning all of its secrets. Is that not what we ought to be doing rather than getting on our knees to Allah, or wailing in front of the Wailing Wall, or rolling on the floor and proclaiming that Jesus will save us, or worshipping celebrities and the super rich?

***** “If we look at the whole picture—the expansion of the Copernican world into that aspect of stellar space that we possess today; the development of Columbus’s discovery into a worldwide command of the earth’s surface by the West; the perspective of oil-painting and the theatre; the passion of our Civilization for swift transit, the conquest of the air, the exploration of the Polar regions and the climbing of almost impossible mountain-peaks—we see, emerging everywhere, the prime symbol of the Faustian soul, Limitless Space. And those specially Western creations of the soul-myth called ‘Will,’ ‘Force,’ and ‘Deed’ must be regarded as derivatives of this prime symbol.” – Spengler

***** Spengler asserted that every Culture has its own mathematics. Illuminism has ontological mathematics – the complete, consistent mathematics of existence itself. Since there’s nothing beyond ontological mathematics, this is therefore the culminating human Culture, the omega point of the human dialectic. Scientific materialism is all about the finite, about the “limit”. This is thus not a Faustian thought system (as Spengler wrongly asserted). True Faustian science is about the infinite and the unlimited, the essence of ontological mathematics. Illuminism knows it’s radically different from all other systems of thought because it has its own, unique mathematics. That’s a prerequisite for any new Culture.

***** In the end, the whole of existence revolves around the mathematical point – which is where zero and infinity collide. The point defines the Faustian, Promethean HyperHuman. The point is the mind... the soul! There are

infinite points, infinite souls, and the whole of existence is grounded in them. That’s the supreme key to understanding existence.

Alexander the Great, Caesar and Napoleon Spengler drew parallels between the historical periods from a) Alexander the Great to Julius and Augustus Caesar and b) the Napoleonic period to the post-WWI contests of “strong men” in defeated Germany and Russia. Alexander the Great, a Macedonian, greatly admired Greek culture (although the Greeks didn’t like him or his country!) and imagined himself as a new Achilles, Son of Zeus. He was famously tutored by Aristotle and greatly respected Diogenes the Cynic. A romantic, he was intent on spreading a “higher culture” to barbarians, and, whenever he found high culture amongst the barbarians, he was open-minded enough to embrace it and incorporate it. He wasn’t just a crude soldier as his father was. What about Julius Caesar? He was a megalomaniac intent on overthrowing the Roman Republic and making himself the king and indeed emperor of the Romans. He was no champion of culture, no visionary, no respecter of philosophy. An archetypal “strong man”, he had an extraordinary lust for personal power. When he “crossed the Rubicon”, it was purely to pursue his own glory. It was no accident that Caesar was assassinated. Many Roman Senators saw exactly how dangerous his personal ambition was and that it could end only with his death or the death of the Roman Republic. Ironically, both things happened: Caesar died and the Republic fell. Civil war erupted after Caesar’s death and, when everything settled down, Augustus Caesar took up where his great-uncle left off and became the first Roman Emperor. (Spengler believed that it would have been better if Marc Antony had defeated Augustus and Roman power had relocated eastwards to Egypt.) As for Napoleon, he was from an extremely humble background in comparison with Alexander and Caesar. Therefore, he was a “New Man” – someone who got to the top from a position of initial obscurity. He enjoyed none of the status, prestige and privilege of Alexander and Caesar. For them, they saw power as their birthright, something to which they were entitled. Alexander was the heir to the throne, and Caesar belonged to one of Rome’s most illustrious families. Napoleon, on the other hand, could have had no realistic expectation of becoming a world-historic figure. He was from a Corsican family nowhere near the corridors of power. Napoleon made himself. To prove that point, at his coronation ceremony to make him the Emperor of the French, he took the crown that the Pope

was supposed to place on his head and placed it on his own head. He was a man of culture who read Goethe, and was also a romantic who wanted to change the old Europe forever and deliver to it many of the values of the French Revolution. In 1804, he introduced the Napoleonic Code – the French civil code – which granted freedom of religion, forbade hereditary privileges and established a government meritocracy. Given that he was also a power-hungry warrior, it was no wonder that he posed a problem for Nietzsche who saw him as half superman and half monster. Napoleon bore similarities to Alexander the Great. Where Alexander brought Greek values of freedom to empires groaning under tyranny (such as the Persian Empire), Napoleon brought French values of freedom to tyrannical European monarchies. Both Alexander and Napoleon were great integrationists, and they had no xenophobia towards the countries and peoples they conquered. In Spengler’s view, Julius Caesar brought an end to the romantic Alexandrian period and replaced it, via Augustus Caesar, with the sterile civilization of Imperial Rome, and the Classical period thus entered its steady decline and fall. The Roman Empire never regained the energy of the Roman Republic that had defeated Carthage despite the catastrophic losses it suffered at the hands of Carthage’s great general, Hannibal. The Roman Empire, as opposed to Roman Republic, could never have survived Hannibal, and, indeed, it succumbed to the most insidious of enemies – Christianity, the supreme poison. Similarly, the Napoleonic Age ended with the rise of cynical dictators – the new Caesars – such as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin and Mao. These people were non-integrationist and mostly racist and/ or xenophobic, and extremely paranoid. The cult of personality surrounded all of them. Each had effectively made himself a God and become associated with a kind of primal religious awe. For Spengler, the portents were all there that the West, like the Roman Empire, had entered its terminal decline – and its death was inevitable. In effect, the Old Order has already died, but no one has “called it”: no time of death has been announced. What’s for sure is that we either devise a vibrant New Order, or we fade away and allow the East – China, India and Russia – to dominate the world. It’s our choice. Do we have the guts to abandon the old, failed ways – Abrahamism, democracy and free-market capitalism? Will we revalue all values? Will we transcend the death of

God? Can we construct a New World Order of Faustianism and meritocracy? It’s not too late. We still have time to save the West. One thing that we certainly can’t do is look to the leaders who represent the past, look to the values and traditions of the past, and become fundamentalists of ideologies that have already failed. The anarcho-capitalist libertarians on one hand, and Christian Fundamentalists on the other, represent the worst possible response. The libertarians say that capitalism hasn’t failed but only a false version of it (which they call “crony capitalism”). They call for “pure” capitalism, for capitalist fundamentalism. These people haven’t understood a single thing about the true nature of capitalism. By the same token, the Christians point to a decline of Christian morality and values and demand a born-again nation that goes back to Christian basics. (Muslims believe that the global imposition of Sharia Law – “God’s Law” – is how to make the world perfect. In fact, it would lead to all-out war.) This type of thinking has to be abolished. The old ideas have been tried and they have failed. It’s time for new ideas, for new humans and a new world.

***** Alexander the Great is to Caesar in the Classical Age as Napoleon Bonaparte is to Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot and various other dictators in the modern age. In Spengler’s system, Napoleon is said to be “morphologically contemporary” with Alexander. A greater Caesar may yet come, and that was Spengler’s expectation. Many think that America will produce the last Caesar of the West. In fact, it already has, but “Caesar” isn’t one person but rather an elite group – America’s super rich capitalists who are effective dictators. No one can overthrow them and they control all of the levers of power.

Biological History At one level, Spengler “biologizes” history and makes it Darwinist. At another, he depicts cultures in quite Hegelian spiritual terms – each as the unfolding of a particular “Idea”. His approach has also been called a

“comparative morphology of cultures” since he believes that all Cultures share key forms, producing predictable patterns of historical development. The key to Spengler’s thinking is that a culture encapsulates the spiritual orientation of a people that has achieved a common, unitary worldview. Every part of that culture reflects a harmonious, integrated system, embracing art, religion, philosophy, politics and economics, and even warfare. The Catholic Church in medieval Europe represented a complete culture. Dante’s Divine Comedy provided a perfect synthesis of religion, cosmology and philosophy. The moment a culture fragments, it’s no longer an authentic culture. Modern nations with their extremely polarised political views – conservatives versus liberals versus radicals are hopelessly divided and pathetic. They express nothing but muddle and confusion. They can’t achieve anything great because of the constant bickering. Unity of vision and purpose is essential to progress. Positive liberty requires unity; negative liberty implies conflict and distrust of the State. In Spengler’s philosophy, cultures have no rational connection with one another. They share certain forms but beyond that have nothing in common. In Hegel’s view, all such cultures are rationally bound together, and responding to each other,, each expressing the Absolute Spirit, and making its linked contribution to the inevitable culmination of the dialectic at the omega point.

Culture as a Life Form Spengler asserted that the fundamental units of history are not dates or events or great figures but “cultures”, comparable to living organisms with a definite lifecycle. We might imagine a Darwinian struggle between these cultures, with the fittest prospering and the unfittest fading to the margins. However, perversely, even cultures that have manifestly failed can continue to expand. In our day, Islam is a backward ideology famous only for terrorism and fanaticism, and with no scientific or artistic achievements to its name. It is marginalised by the West and treated with thinly disguised contempt, yet the total number of Muslims continues to grow. Almost no Muslim ever faces the self-evident facts of Islam’s failure and chooses to abandon his religion. So, even an unfit culture – as objectively judged by a host of metrics – can have features that make it incredibly powerful. Islam’s greatest “attribute” is of course its system of brainwashing, to which

Muslims are subjected from their first breath. Islam, like Judaism, is made so fundamental to people’s identities that they find it almost impossible to escape. It’s so tightly enmeshed with the way the community is organised and run that you have to leave your community – and everyone you know, including your family – to be free of it. Interestingly, the success of Islam can be viewed as a critique of scientific materialist Darwinism. Darwinism is often associated with the “survival of the fittest”, or survival of the best adapted. Islam is exceptionally poorly adapted to the needs of modernity but is so strong and embedded that it can kill off any new and better adapted ideas. Nietzsche regarded Darwinism as being about the triumph of the mediocre, the mass, the herd, over exceptional individuals. Darwinism is not in any way an efficient tool of progress and evolution. Any “mutation” has to confer an overwhelming advantage before it stands any chance of success. A significant but insufficiently decisive improvement is invariably lost. Think of what it would take to end Islam (or Christianity or Judaism for that matter). So, Spengler viewed culture as a living organism, and therefore it’s born, grows, and eventually dies. Although Muslims think Islam cannot possibly die, it definitely will, just as Judaism and Christianity are as certain to die as the old pagan religions they replaced. With Islam, some vital ingredient will eventually change (such as the long-awaited Islamic Reformation) that will make people doubt their old ways. Or a technology such as the internet will open Muslims’ eyes to how the rest of the world lives, make them question how they do things and yearn for other things. The “Arab Spring” was the first sure sign that Islam as we know it is starting to die. Its demise may in fact happen extraordinarily quickly. As soon as its brainwashing engine breaks down, it’s all over for Islam. The prevailing Western culture will fall too – in fact it already has. It died in 2008 with the collapse of the Lehman Brothers’ Investment Bank and the subsequent insolvency of capitalism, which needed to be bailed out by socialist means. The West now has a clear choice – to remain “undead” and stagger on like a zombie for a few more generations of everaccelerating decline, or replace free-market capitalism, democracy, privilege and Abrahamism: the four pillars of contemporary Western civilization.

We are either “born again”, or we become irrelevant and perish. We are certainly doomed if we hang on to the old, failed ways because we do not have the strength, courage and imagination to reinvent ourselves, to rise again like the Phoenix. Arnold Toynbee (1889 – 1975), a thinker heavily influenced by Spengler, contended that the essential entity that constitutes world history is not a region, an ethnic people or a nation, but a civilization, and he maintained that each civilization passes through five stages: genesis, growth, breakdown, disintegration, and dissolution (death). Islam, with the Arab Spring, has entered its breakdown phase. It will suffer an increasing identity clash as its old, tired ways conflict more and more with modernity, and it will split into traditionalists and modernisers and a great schism will develop, as happened between Catholicism and Protestantism, and into the gap will flow a rationalist Enlightenment that will eventually kill Islam (just as rationalism has already dealt a fatal blow to Judaeo-Christianity, but the zombie refuses to die for the time being). The West has also broken down (as the current financial crisis continues to prove) and could disintegrate rapidly. In fact, the sooner it dissolves, the better. There’s no point in prolonging the agony. Capitalism danced on the grave of Communism in 1989 and now it too has died just a few decades later. Communism collapsed with astounding speed, and the same thing could easily happen to capitalism. The genesis of a new culture lies in the human response to some profound change in the natural or social environment, requiring an urgent adaptation. We can imagine that our rival human species – Neanderthal Man – died out because he failed to adapt at a critical juncture. We did adapt and we prospered. Neanderthal Man didn’t and suffered a long, lingering death. That’s the pitiless lesson from history to all of us. We could literally become extinct if we don’t find the right adaptation. For humanity, only one adaptation is possible – we must leave behind the ignorant, superstitious, faith-driven, irrationalist Mythos-based past and embrace a rationalist, knowledge-based Logos future. If we don’t, we’re finished. Our extinction is certain. The Four Riders of the Apocalypse are circling us: global warming and increasingly extreme weather conditions, continual famines and droughts, overpopulation, shortage of drinking water, failure of capitalism, increasing

personal expectations, serious possibility of deadly global pandemics in an interlinked, overcrowded world. Praying to God won’t save anyone. Mythos won’t save us. It’s Logos or death. A creative, committed minority fosters the new culture and it can grow rapidly. However, when their original creative impetus fades, decay sets in. The original creative minority becomes an uncreative, dogmatic “establishment”, upholding the old ways. A priest caste and a “noble” caste (the rich) run the civilization in their own interests, in the form of privileged minorities dominating the weak, submissive majority. They create a “universal State” where their paradigm is present everywhere and everyone is programmed to obey the paradigm, and this is usually accompanied by an extremist religion (such as Judaism, Christianity or Islam) and a “universal Church” that actively seeks to destroy all outsiders, freethinkers, heretics, blasphemers and infidels that challenge the orthodoxy and thus cows everyone else (the common herd, the sheeple). Yet it’s precisely because a paradigm becomes so fanatically entrenched that its demise is rendered inevitable. It can’t adapt, can’t respond to new facts. It’s so deeply dug in, it can’t get out again. As soon as the Catholic Church refused to accept the evidence furnished by Galileo’s telescopes and preferred the scriptural position that the sun revolves around the earth, it was finished. The Catholic Church is a prime example of a great institution that becomes more and more irrelevant and powerless with every passing year. It has almost no positive influence in the world. Few people listen to it or obey it. Billions pays lip service, but don’t authentically believe. Catholicism is a twitching corpse, with post-mortem gas emerging from its orifices, giving the illusion that it’s still moving. Can anyone imagine a Catholic Church 1,000 years from now? Yet, because it built its foundations so deep, it remains standing. Nevertheless, it’s already an irrelevance. No forward-thinking person would ever say to himself, “Hey, I had better join the Catholic Church!” How can Catholicism reinvent itself? It can’t. Hence it has no future. That’s true of all rigid paradigms. Only dialectical paradigms – paradigms in which change and becoming are inbuilt – can adapt to new information. Had the Catholic Church been dialectical, it would have accepted Galileo’s evidence. It was anti-dialectical and didn’t.

Catholicism is now the kingdom of night. It will never see the dawn. It’s all over. And it’s all over too for Judaism, Protestantism and Islam. They are all “dead men walking”. This is the planet of the living dead.

The Dialectic Hegel held that reason, or the rational world spirit as we might say, was the dialectical driver of history. For him, all of the different civilizations were dialectically inevitable, just as it was dialectically inevitable that they would be replaced by superior, more rational civilizations, and equally inevitable that the dialectic will arrive at a definitive conclusion: the omega point, the end of history. Where Hegel was an idealist, Marx was a materialist and he held that Communism was the inevitable solution upon which history has been converging since the dawn of time. He maintained that the class war between the bourgeoisie (ruling class) and proletariat (ruled class) could be resolved only within a classless society (the “kingdom of freedom”). On the face of it, he has been decisively refuted by history. We assert that rationalist meritocracy is in fact the inescapable end-point of history. These two views (Hegelian dialectical idealism and Marxist dialectical materialism) propose that an underlying, convergent force is at work, which is the ultimate determinant of human fate. We are all, in some sense, puppets of this force. Hegel, of course, is right that increasing freedom, reason and consciousness are driving humanity. These have an ultimate convergence point (omega point) – divinity. Humanity literally has a divine destiny. However, it’s possible for degeneration to appear and spread, and sabotage the natural progress of the dialectic. We might even say that there are two dialectics, one going forward and one going back: one taking us on an ascending trajectory to the heavens and the gods, and the other taking us on a descending trajectory back to the caves and the primordial slime. If we oppose our own ascending destiny, we will become extinct. (Islam, Judaism and Christianity clearly have no future and have no interest in the future: they explicitly declare that the final truth was revealed long ago. These are extinction forces, siding with the anti-dialectic that works in reverse. Just look at Islamic Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Egypt, and many others, to see nations accelerating back to the caves.)

If we prefer slavery (enslavement to “God” or money) over freedom; unreason (obsession with superstition, faith and Mythos) over reason; or subordinated consciousness (recognising “God” as the supreme consciousness) over autonomous, free consciousness, then we are doomed. We become Gods or we die. It’s that simple. We go all the way, or we stagnate, then regress and perish. We embrace the forward dialectic and constant ascending change, or we embrace dogmatic stasis (which soon becomes the backward dialectic), get on our knees to “God” and fade into the night. Why does capitalist democracy seem to work? It’s because elections offer the illusion of change, of renewal, of getting rid of failed parties and unpopular leaders. Yet, of course, nothing truly changes. The parties are almost identical and have almost identical policies. It makes no difference who’s in the White House. The rich remain rich, and the poor poor. Almost no rich people become poor and almost no poor people become rich. Everyone is stuck in their place. Anyway, it’s the super rich, their “markets” and lobbyists that control what governments can and cannot do. The electorate – the people – are irrelevant. All they ever do is change the way their flag is waving from left to right and then back again – over and over again. It seems to keep the sheeple happy. Capitalism churns out endless glittering products, again fostering the illusion of change. But isn’t it just the same old junk in a new wrapper? Is Action Movie 102 any better than Action Movie 1? Hasn’t Bruce Willis been playing the same role forever? Is the prequel any better than the sequel? Is iPod 100, iPad 100 or iPhone 100 really changing your life? It’s all a con, an illusion. Capitalism was, however, a much more successful con than communism. Communism didn’t allow you to change the ruling party, or have any say at all about who was in charge. As for products, you were given whatever the State made for you, and you had no choice. There was no market and no competition. For all that it claimed to be a dialectical system, communism had, in practice, complete contempt for the dialectic, for change and becoming – hence was certain to fail. Marx and his followers thought that material conditions changed human consciousness. Hegel knew that freedom was the key to human behaviour. Communism failed above all because, as materialists, communists (like

scientific materialists) had contempt for freedom and didn’t really accept its existence. They put no effort into creating a great sense of freedom amongst the people (quite the reverse in fact, with endless authoritarian and restrictive rules and regulations, the oppression of artists and intellectuals, and drastic curbs on leaving the country for any reason, including simple vacations). In the West, capitalist consumerism, elections, free speech and ease of travel fostered a credible notion of freedom, so – by Hegel’s analysis of the critical role of freedom – capitalism was dialectically guaranteed to beat communism. Marx screwed up when he “inverted” Hegel’s dialectical idealism, thereby failing to understand how the dialectic actually functions. The dialectic is about mind, not matter. Freedom is a quality of mind, not of matter. The system that dialectically triumphs is the one that offers the most freedom to the most people. Communism did not offer freedom; it simply offered a grim materialist “equality”, one wholly defined by the totalitarian Communist Party. Capitalism offers the illusion of freedom but, in reality, only the super rich capitalists are authentically free in capitalism, and all the rest are various types of slave. There can never be true freedom where a privileged elite holds dynastic power: anyone excluded from that elite cannot be free. Meritocracy asserts that the quintessence of freedom is equal opportunities, and equal opportunities cannot existence in a society broken into classes by privilege. Equal opportunities must be considered as a philosophical principle. Authentic free speech is a corollary of equal opportunities: if one person has the opportunity to express himself in his own way, so must everyone else be afforded the same opportunity. In the West, the media is controlled by rich media moguls and no realistic free speech is offered to anyone with genuinely radical ideas that threaten the interests of the elite. The internet has provided an equal opportunities platform to some degree, but the celebrities and personalities approved and backed by the elite still get disproportionate attention, even on the internet. Indeed, especially on the internet. What kind of system will ultimately succeed? Only one with the dialectic inbuilt, one that ensures that the smartest, most talented and hardest working people are in charge of society (well, you wouldn’t want

the stupidest, least talented and laziest, would you?), one that gives everyone an equal opportunity, with no one being fixed in place by class, caste, race, gender, sexuality or any system of privilege or discrimination that favours some (the elite) and penalises everyone else. Only a rational meritocracy will suffice. Such a system is all about change, development, growth, innovation, reinvention – about becoming. New ideas are continually adopted and embraced. Institutions move with the times. Nothing is set in stone. There is no fixed establishment. Anyone can rise to the top from any background. Society has a clear purpose – to create heaven on earth, to overcome all obstacles, to acquire all knowledge, to create a community of gods. Spengler and Toynbee envisaged history in terms of separate, autonomous cultures and civilizations. For Hegel, all cultures and civilizations are dialectically harnessed together. All of them are affecting other each other and are in dialectical loops with each other. Everything reacts to everything else. Just as no man is an island, nor is any culture or civilization. For example, Islam is not a separate, autonomous “life form”. It was a direct Arabic response to, and adaptation of, Judaeo-Christian monotheism. Christianity, meanwhile, was an amalgam of Judaism and Greek paganism. Protestantism was a rejection of pagan philosophy and a return to Jewish scripturalism. Capitalism, with all of its inequalities, was given a rocket boost by the Calvinist idea of the saved (the elect) and the damned (the undeserving poor). Communism was simply Christianity without Christ, Christianity converted into economics (do and give unto your neighbour as you would have him do and give unto you, thus everyone should be equal economically). It was the dialectical response to unrestrained, Calvinist, free-market capitalism. Democratic, regulated capitalism was the capitalist dialectical response to communism, and so on. Everything takes place within a context. No one starts a new culture or civilization out of nothing. It’s always a reaction to something else, hence is dialectical. Hegel was unequivocally correct, while Marx was right that economics are important, but wrong that mental considerations – especially those regarding freedom, choice and fulfilment – are not paramount. Communism failed because Marx, Lenin and Stalin did not truly understand dialectics. Dialectics are not materialist, they are idealist. They are about our mental, not our physical well-being.

Abraham Maslow’s famous pyramidal hierarchy of needs, describes the pattern that human motivations move through. It rises from a base of physiological needs to safety to belongingness and love, to esteem, to selfactualization and finally self-transcendence. The dialectic needs to address complex psychological issues such as these, not simple economic equality.

The Religious Garden Of Taoist Chinese culture, Spengler said it was the only one where “the art of gardening is a grand religious art.”

Dying Civilizations Dying civilizations should be euthanized. That which is falling should be pushed over. How do we deal the death blow to that which is already dead or dying? How do we stop zombie cultures that lumber around long after they expired?

The Spirit According to Marxist historical materialism, history is about the development of the productive, economic forces (historical materialism is an aspect of dialectical materialism), rather than the development of the spirit (historical idealism). In fact, if the Hegelian development of spirit and reason takes place, the productive, economic forces will thereby become more rational and just. Equally, improved productive and economic circumstances can feed back to improved spirituality: it’s not easy to be spiritual if you live in a hovel! You need a certain basic level of comfort and security before you can start growing as a person. Otherwise you will be struggling just to stay alive and get by for another day.

Goethe and Nietzsche Spengler contrasted Goethe and Nietzsche as the insider versus the outsider. Of Goethe, Spengler said that he was able to “understand and solve the great problems of his time as a recognized member of his society”. As for Nietzsche, Spengler said that he “shatters the ideals” of his own culture and

“protests passionately against everything contemporary, if he was to rescue anything his forebears had bequeathed to him as a cultural heritage.” Both Goethe and Nietzsche, in their own ways, demanded a “revaluation of all values,” promoted a “philosophy of becoming” and the overthrow of old idols and modes of being, especially those of Christianity. Nietzsche’s searing attacks on contemporary culture – which he saw as degenerate – gave Spengler the tools and vocabulary to diagnose the decline of the West, seemingly in its death throes.

Dead Empires Spengler said that empires such as those of Rome, Egypt, and China became phantom civilizations or “dead bodies” that endured for hundreds of years after their spirit had died. Arguably, Rome died the moment it destroyed its greatest rival, Carthage, in 146 BCE. After a long and terrible siege, the Romans stormed the city, slaughtered its citizens, and torched it, the huge fire blazing for seventeen days. After, the ground was ploughed and virtually no trace of the city remained. The conquering Roman general solemnly cursed anyone who should venture to build a new city on this ground in the future. In the following years, Rome became gripped by internal squabbles. Brutal dictators slaughtered their political enemies. This period did not come to an end until the assassination of Julius Caesar, the subsequent Civil War, and the creation of the Roman Empire under Augustus Caesar in 30 BCE. The spirit of Rome was now spent. It was a zombie, its decline already underway. Its submission to the slave morality of Christianity was the beginning of the terminal phase – the Downfall of the Roman Empire.

Historical Organisms Spengler described his theory of history as “organic”, based on “cultures as organisms.” History is therefore alive – a living, breathing entity. He took his inspiration from Goethe’s idea of “living nature” (an anticipation of James Lovelock’s Gaia theory where the planet becomes a self-regulating, living organism). “I see world-history as a picture of endless formations and transformations, of the marvellous waxing and waning of organic forms.” – Spengler

Faustians “Expansion is everything ... these stars ... these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could.” – Cecil Rhodes “The Faustian strove through all sensuous barriers toward infinity. ... [towards] pure, imperceptible, unlimited space. ... In place of the sensuous element of concrete lines and planes . . . there emerged the abstract, spatial, un-Classical element of the point.” – Spengler For Spengler, “Faustian” culture concerns the restless pursuit of the boundless and unattainable. It’s archetypally “infinity-seeking.” The Faustian individual “strives to direct the world according to his will.” Spengler saw in Gothic architecture, with its thrusting spires and enormous spaces, a radical difference between the Faustian mind and that of the Classical or Magian mind. The Greeks and Romans built quite simple temples. The Magians also built simple temples, mosques, synagogues and churches. The scale and ambition of Gothic cathedrals was something altogether different. Only a different mindset was capable of designing such a building. The Classical and Magian minds were about being; the Faustian mind was devoted to becoming. The first glimpse of the Faustian mind – the mind that acknowledged no limits – was none other than the Tower of Babel. “God” was of course appalled, and set about sabotaging the work of the Faustians. And thus it has always been – the struggle between the Faustian mind and God. The Classical mind acknowledged human-like gods; the Magian mind was terrified of a remote, cosmic God, and the Faustian mind wanted to become God.

The Magian mind is entirely alienated from God and fears to venture into the territory of God, who is conceived as something beyond the human imagining. The Classical mind sees the gods as superhumans rather than beyond human understanding. The Faustian mind thinks it can emulate the Mind of God. So, we have a scale: 1) The Magians: the gap between men and God is infinite and unbridgeable. (No one can become God.) 2) The Classicals: the gap between men and gods is large and unlikely to be bridged, but this is not impossible. A hero might be promoted to a god, but heroes are extremely rare, and usually the children of Gods, albeit with mortal mothers. 3) The Faustians: the gap between men and God is large but realistically bridgeable – the greatest geniuses can become God. These are the three different attitudes of the Western mind. The Magian mind is stupid, ignorant, superstitious, fearful and faith-based. The Faustian mind is clever, rational, bold, fearless, and knowledge-based. The Classical mind lies between these two. The first type of human mind, with its origin in non-conscious bicameralism, was the Magian, followed by the Classical where proper consciousness first appeared, and finally the Faustian where higher consciousness became possible. Jews, Muslims and Christians are literally people with ancient, primitive minds that have failed to evolve. The Classical mind has vanished in the West, replaced by the Faustian mind (but, arguably, the Classical mind is the one that best describes the contemporary Eastern mind: it’s more advanced than the Magian, Abrahamic mind, but less advanced than the analytic Faustian mind). So, there are now two mental species: the Mythos (Magian) species, and the Logos (Faustian) species. The future of humanity – of whether we will be on our knees to God, or we ourselves will become Gods – will be decided entirely on the basis of which type of mind triumphs. The Faustian mind is associated with the forward dialectic and the Magian mind with the backward dialectic. The Faustian mind is enormously more powerful than the Magian mind, but there are enormously more Magians than Faustians,

and culture is ruled by Magians. Moreover, Faustians often bicker with each other intellectually. It’s by no means certain that the more highly mentally evolved Faustians will defeat the primitive, retarded Magians. To succeed, the Faustians must unite under a single banner of rationality. All atheists, agnostics, skeptics, Gnostics and Easterners must come together and defeat the Magian masses.

***** The Western world is not in fact Faustian, as Spengler claimed, but Magian with a powerful Faustian minority component. When Spengler talks of the decline of the West, he really means the decline of this unsustainable hybrid. Something has to give. Spengler pointed to atonal music, avant-garde art for a small elite, mass media manipulation of the public opinion, and imperialist attitudes, as symptoms of cultural decay. He said that just as Goethe’s Faust became the slave of his insatiable quest for knowledge, so “Faustian man has become the slave of his creation,” meaning his machines and technology. Spengler also condemned “Caesarism” where real authority becomes increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Our present world is effectively run by a few thousand rich people, almost all of them unelected and unaccountable to the people. This is another manifestation of cultural disaster and of an untenable, doomed civilization.

***** Every life has a high point. Yours may lie ahead of you, or it might already be behind you. Similarly, every culture reaches its apogee ... and then its downhill all the way. Decay sets in, then rapid degeneration and finally dissolution. For Spengler, only the ascending phase towards the zenith is when an organism is truly alive and vital. “Each Culture has its own possibilities of self-expression which arise, ripen, decay, and never return.” – Spengler “I hope to show that without exception all great creations and forms in religion, art, politics, social life, economy and science appear, fulfil themselves, and die down contemporaneously in all the cultures; that the inner structure of one corresponds strictly with that of all others; that there is not a single phenomenon of deep physiognomic importance in the record

of one for which we could not find a counterpart in the record of every other; and that this counterpart is to be found under a characteristic form and in a perfectly definite chronological position.” – Spengler “Every Culture has its own Civilization. In this work, for the first time, the two words are used in a periodic sense, to express a strict and necessary organic succession. The Civilization is the inevitable destiny of the Culture. Civilizations are the most external and artificial states which a species of developed humanity is capable. They are a conclusion, the thing-become succeeding the thing-becoming. They are an end, irrevocable, yet by inward necessity reached again and again.” – Spengler It’s fascinating and provocative that Spengler sees “civilization” as the dying embers of a culture rather than its most perfect realization. Civilization is formed at the point at which Culture ceases to evolve and grow; it is the Culture brought to fruition, but at the same time sentenced to death. The last phase maintains the conventions and systems Culture has brought into being, but these are now incapable of taking an ascending trajectory. The only way is down. Alienation and decay are inevitable.

Mathematics – the Divine Key “Every philosophy has hitherto grown up in conjunction with a mathematic belonging to it. Number is the symbol of causal necessity. Like the conception of God, it contains the ultimate meaning of the world-asnature.” – Spengler Spengler was from a mathematical background, and appreciated its phenomenal power. A Culture’s attitude to mathematics defines it. The Greeks, in general, didn’t like zero and infinity. Most were strongly opposed to “nothingness”, and “boundlessness”. The Indians on the other hand relished zero, the Void, nothingness. Nor did they fear infinity since they believed in eternity and endless cyclical Ages, though they did not develop the concept of infinity in any sophisticated way. The Muslims took up the concept of zero because Allah allegedly created the universe out of nothing. (However, they were afraid of infinity as they associated it directly with Allah, hence it was blasphemous to ponder and probe it too much.) As a result of the Muslim conquest of Spain, and then the Spanish Reconquest, zero came to the West. Later the

imaginary number came onto the scene in the West and then infinity began to be seriously probed mathematically. The Faustians became the masters of mathematics. Yet Western science has proved anything but Faustian. It has remained terrified of zero, imaginary numbers, negative numbers and infinity, and has actually waged war against them and sought to exterminate them in the ontological sense (i.e. to deny them any possibility of actual existence). The true Faustian Age cannot begin until all numbers are embraced as ontologically real. Zero and infinity are the two numbers that define calculus, yet science and indeed the mathematical community itself, refuse to countenance their actual existence. Is that not weird? Once humanity has embraced the ontological reality of zero and infinity (as well as negative and imaginary numbers), we will have literally run out of mathematical road. At that point, we will at last be on the path to becoming Gods – those who have absolute knowledge of existence, and absolute mental power over it. Everything depends on our acceptance of these numbers. That means we must overcome scientific materialism, the last bastion of Classical thinking, the last bastion of worship of the finite and direct measurement. Zero and infinity cannot be measured, and that’s the whole point, and is exactly why they are so critically important. Only when we abandon our obsession with direct measurement, with our obsession with having to “see” things, with our reliance on our fallible senses, will we advance to the highest stage of our evolution. We must reject empiricism (the final mode of Classical thinking), and accept rationalism (the beginning of the true Faustian Age). Scientific empiricist materialism must be replaced by scientific rationalist idealism.

***** The Greeks loved measurement. Zero and infinity are no use for measurement. Zero and infinity are the numbers of metaphysics, of the soul, the afterlife and God. Western scientific materialism loves measurement too, hence is also repulsed by zero and infinity. Western scientific materialism can actually be regarded as the high point of Classical thinking. It’s highly Greek in its conception, merely an elaboration of ancient Greek atomic theory. Western science must become

Faustian science, and it can do so only by radically changing its attitude to mathematics. It has to overcome its horror of zero and infinity. Only then can we have a true science of the future, one that reconciles religion and metaphysics with science, via ontological mathematics. “Faustian” man is supposed to be obsessed with infinity. In fact, he hasn’t been obsessed nearly enough. He must truly embrace infinity if he wants to become God.

***** Mathematics is the most abstract and therefore the most universal human endeavour. A good mathematician in any country, from any culture, religion or background, will know exactly what another mathematician is talking about – without conflict or ambiguity. It’s the great unifier. Any intelligent alien species would be able to understand human mathematics, but there is no guarantee it would understand anything of human science. Science is species-specific; mathematics isn’t.

The Death Space “A deep relation, and one which is early felt, exists between space and death. Man is the only being that knows death.... The child suddenly grasps the lifeless corpse for what it is, something that has become wholly matter, wholly space, and at the same moment it feels itself as an individual being in an alien extended world.” – Spengler

The End of Days Spengler envisaged a final conflict in the Western world between democratic societies, with their rule by money and economics, and Caesarized societies, with their rule by “blood” and power. In fact, that’s exactly what WWII and then the Cold War were all about. Since the fall of Communism, the elite of the democratic societies have taken onboard the megalomania and “blood” obsession of the Caesars. We now have super rich dynastic elites, determined to create hereditary power, to worship their own “bloodlines”, to completely dominate the masses. We now have economic Caesars who think they can control the world, not through will but through money. Spengler believed that the will, technology, force and blood of Caesarism would triumph over democratic “money”; the sword would

defeat the banker. In fact, Caesarism did win WWII, but it was the Caesarism of Stalinist Russia rather that Hitler’s Nazi Germany. But American money then defeated Soviet Caesarism. The final stage in the Western decline is for money to lose its power. That is exactly what happened in 2008. The West will now become irrelevant or find a new Culture not based on the power and money of the rich.

The Classical World The Classical world revolved around Greek soul and intellect, Alexander the Great’s boundless zeal for exploration, travel and conquest, and Roman know-how, engineering, practicality and pragmatism. The Greeks provided Culture, and the Romans furnished the Civilization (the Romans themselves created almost no original art, poetry, drama, philosophy, religion, science or mathematics). The Greeks were the dreamers (the introverts – inward focused) and the Romans were the practical people (the extraverts – outward focused). The Germans in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries most resembled the ancient Greeks, and indeed the great German philosophers were obsessed with them and wrote about them continually. The British of the nineteenth century and the Americans of the twentieth century most resembled the Romans. Cultures almost always have introverted beginnings – all great ideas are produced by introverted geniuses – and civilizations are almost always extraverted (hence are in their death phase because they are incapable of generating creativity and new ideas). “Last Men” are extraverts and “First Men” are introverts. Introverts are soulful, spiritual people of mind, intellect and dreams. They are future oriented. Extraverts are practical, common sense people wedded to their senses and feelings. They live in the present, and are usually obsessed with money. Philosophy and mathematics are quintessentially introverted. Scientific empiricist materialism is extraverted, but scientific rationalist idealism is introverted. We need a new introverted rather than extraverted science if we are to fulfil our appointment with the Gods. The Highest Gods are all introverted rationalist idealist intellectuals. The Lowest Gods (such as Jehovah/ Christ/ Allah/ Satan) are all extraverted empiricist materialists:

common sense and practically oriented. These Lower Gods are not interested in truth but in raw power and dominion over others. That’s what defines them. They are beings of will, desire, feelings and sensuality rather than intellect. Yet intellect delivers ultimate power because it reveals the secrets of existence itself, while anything else delivers fantasy, delusion and Mythos. Logos thinkers are introverted and Mythos people are extraverted. Logos thinkers are metaphysical and Mythos people physical (scientific materialism is the most sophisticated form of Mythos). The Greeks were metaphysicians, and the Romans wholly nonmetaphysical. The Romans were strong, practical, common sense people – very much like most modern Americans. We can compare Europe with the Greeks (the creators of Culture), and the Americans with the Romans (those who turned the creative Culture into a powerful but zombified Civilization). Europe gave rise to America, and America surpassed Europe, but at the dreadful expense of being antiCulture. Americans love power, success, money, status. They are stereotypically a loud, brash, extraverted people. Culture and introversion are almost completely absent or just dead in that nation. Is power enough? Obviously not. Yet because America lacks authentic creativity (its only form of creativity lies in continual capitalist reinvention – endless ways of repackaging junk and objectifying humanity), it has already started to die. Its power is now coming to its end. It will soon be eclipsed by the ascending star of the East. Americans (certainly of the Republican stripe) don’t have the imagination or Culture to save themselves – but Europeans do. However, the European political and financial elite, by worshipping American power, money and “civilization” have tied themselves to America and hence will fall with America. Europe must get rid of its current elite if it’s to stand any chance of reinventing itself. Civilization is the late period of Culture, the exhausted period when creativity has run dry. Soul is replaced by practicality, idealism is replaced by materialism, metaphysics is replaced by physics. The living, breathing, growing elements of Culture, become sick, old and diseased. One by one they die. Cynicism, skepticism and nihilism abound. The organic becomes the inorganic. The living become the dead. A vibrant Culture decays into an

undead Civilization: a glass-eyed, lurching zombie, a blood-sucking vampire. Civilization consists of the progressive exhaustion of once-vivid forms. The hour is late, but we still have time to save ourselves, but there’s only one way – Illumination. If the West is not Illuminated then it will become benighted and perish. That’s a certainty. One feature of Culture is that creativity can arise anywhere and there’s usually a multiplicity of creative centres. Look at Ancient Greece – full of countless city-states, some big and some small, but all capable of making a contribution. The Greek colonies (in the territories of modern Turkey and Italy) were staggeringly important in terms of the birth of Greek Culture, with many of the most important Greek philosophers not coming from mainland Greece at all.

The Mega Cities Civilization is associated with the absolute dominance of a few big, megacities. Look at Britain – only London counts. All the power, wealth and decision-making are there. Everywhere else is a backwater and basket case. London has destroyed the vitality of the rest of the country. The elite all live in London, and London is all they care about. In France, Paris is overwhelmingly dominant. In Germany, it’s Berlin. In America, New York, Washington D.C. and Los Angeles are the most important cities with a second tier of Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Miami, Vegas and Huston. A few “world cities” rather than nation states now dominate the world. These world cities are all about “civilization” and have nothing to do with culture. The pace of life in these cities is frantic and extravert. There’s no room for the source of creativity: introversion. The introverted are marginalised and excluded. World cities are all about power and money, about the global elite – the Old World Order. They transcend the nation State and render it irrelevant. They have zero Cultural content. Look at “art” – an activity wholly controlled by rich patrons looking for investments. Art is now about showmanship, and Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin in the UK are its most crass and shameless exponents. They are not artists, they are business people. Art is dead. It was killed by the rich and by an exhausted civilization.

The mega cities control everything now, and the provinces are left to rot. All of their creativity has been thrown on the scrapheap. In the modern age, the world cities define “civilization”. They are like black holes, sucking in power and wealth, and draining it from everywhere else (from the provinces). But they do not become centres of Culture and energy. They simply become battlegrounds for massive contests of power, wealth, influence and status. There’s no creativity in this power war. It’s crude and brutal, waged by Caesars who have never had a clever idea in their lives. World cities are now the homes of the Caesarism of which Spengler spoke. The modern Caesars aren’t military men. They’re media moguls like Rupert Murdoch. They’re CEOs, star traders, celebrities, Hollywood movers and shakers, Wall Street bankers, ambitious politicians, and so on. They are petty Caesars, ersatz Caesars, simulacra of Caesar – not a patch on the real thing. These are feeble “last men” Caesars. That’s what free-market capitalist democracy has delivered. It’s generating last men by the billions, led by “last men” Caesars. What a vision of hell! Look at what happened in Russia when communism fell. Did the people assume power? Did meritocrats rise to the top? You must be joking. Boris Yeltsin, a corrupt and inept demagogic politician – and great friend of the Western elite – became President. The spectacular assets and natural resources of Russia, formerly owned by the Russian people, were simply handed out to Yeltsin’s friends, cronies and Jewish financiers for derisory amounts, and these people then became the multi-billionaire and notorious oligarchs. When Yeltsin’s health faded, the oligarchs found a new man to support – Vladimir Putin. But Putin wasn’t a puppet, he was a Caesar. Just as the German elite mistakenly believed they could control Hitler because they had never encountered that kind of person before and thought he was “just like all the rest”, so the oligarchs made exactly the same mistake with Putin. Russia is now a gangster nation, full of corruption, brute power, assassinations, and vulgar wealth alongside extreme poverty. It’s a “Caesar society”. The world has seen it all before. Moscow is one of the great world-cities. As Spengler rightly said, a world city is a point (narrow, dimensionless, hyperconcentrated). It eradicates dimensionality and absorbs the life of the broad regions, of the provinces, leaving them to wither and dry up. People of the soil, people of

roots, are replaced in the cities by rootless nomads. Communities are replaced by anonymous, atomised, ephemeral aggregations, continually breaking apart and reforming with new members. There’s no solidity, no identity. Nothing endures. It’s like the ocean, with the tides breaking ceaselessly on the shore. There are no ships, no harbours, no islands, no places where character and culture can take hold. In world cities, people become “last men”, continually preoccupied with the river of life that incessantly sweeps them along, in which they are always seeking small advantages here and there, and always thinking of their petty comforts. World cities are meat grinders. They’re sausage factories squeezing out human “gloop”. World cities are “other-directed”; everyone’s looking to everyone else. There are no leaders. Great cultures are not born of such poor raw material, so buffeted by the winds of fashion, conformity and expediency. We need a return to the “city-state” model of society rather than the world-city. In the UK, for example, there’s one world-city – London – and the rest of the country is left to atrophy. With a population of sixty million, the UK ought to have sixty city-states, each catering for a region of about one million people. The city-state should be the hub of a region, while having extremely close connections with the whole region, and anyone in the region will be no more than an hour away. The energy of the whole nation can thus be harvested, and the regions will no longer be dying on the vine. There would be incredible inter-city dialectical competition, leading to the kind of miraculous creativity that characterised the ancient Greece of the sixth, fifth and fourth centuries BCE, and the Renaissance Italy citystates. The mega cities must perish. Russian billionaires go to New York, Paris and London and buy huge mansions in each city. What do these Stateless, rootless people have to offer? The rich no longer recognize nations and peoples. As far as the rich are concerned, the world comprises mega cities and they can go to any of them and indulge their wealth and power as they see fit. Mega cities have become the means by which the rich elite control the world. They are the arteries of globalism, of corporate control by multinationals. They set the tone for everything. They are also the perfect transmission routes for deadly global pandemics: the plague superhighway. They are a catastrophe waiting to

happen. They are culture destroyers. They create atomised, game-theory human beings, all obsessed with self-interest, and happy to screw over everyone who gets in their way. World-cities breed selfish, vile, unspiritual, petty, dehumanized people (or indeed unpersons). It’s an inevitable consequence of mega city living. The populations of world cities are unstable, fluid masses. As Spengler said, city dwellers are parasitical, traditionless, matter-of-fact, religionless, clever in a narrow, selfish “streetwise” way, unhelpful, uncreative and deeply contemptuous of their countrymen outside the city (who are regarded as backward, rustic, unsophisticated “sheep shaggers”). Spengler characterised the provinces as organic and Cultural while the world cities are inorganic – the agents of “civilization”, and thus of death, decay and degeneration. Is there any world city that’s not utterly degenerate? And the denizens of these Dantesque hells probably think that’s a compliment! Destroy the mega cities! Tear them down and replace them with regional, sensibly-sized city-states. Let’s a have cultural revolution. The biggest obstacles to a New World Order are the all-powerful world cities, the towers of power of the Old World Order that stand like the castles of the medieval Feudal Lords of Europe, dominating and intimidating the serfs. The Feudal Lords exterminated general culture. Only in the great halls of their castles did artists, poets, singers, storytellers, philosophers and entertainers gather. Everywhere else was left as a cultural desert. The Feudal Lords were of course in unholy alliance with the religious elite. In medieval England, the nobility and the religious elite constituted ten percent of the population. The other ninety percent were serfs, treated as mere objects. The world city of London has over ten percent of the UK’s population – and everyone else in Britain belongs to the irrelevant serf class (the subhumans). World cities are the peak of civilization, but that means they have killed culture. They’re like Death Stars (Orbital Battle Stations) from Star Wars. Spengler said that the world city meant cosmopolitanism rather than “home”. The Stateless, global elite don’t mind which world city they go to because these cities are all much the same, offering the same penthouse suites in luxury gated communities. Neither the rich elite nor the world cities have any loyalty to their host nation states.

The world city is populated by a mob, not by a people. Travelling through London, it would be easy to never come into contact with anything or anyone British, or hear English being spoken. Britain has become unrecognisable in its own capital. You could be anywhere. All world cities are more and more like the dark vision presented in Blade Runner. World cities have now become a direct rival to nation states, if not their direct replacements. Faceless, multinational corporations go to whatever world city offers them the best deal. They don’t care about nations. The world city recognises no traditions, whether good or bad. Its population is far too transient. “Panem et circenses” – the ruling elite’s formula for controlling the Roman mob (Rome was the first world city) – is as pervasive today as it was back then. All world cities are devoted to this doctrine, to the Society of the Spectacle. The elite have seen no need to change their tactics. World cities explore and reflect the culture of exhaustion – meaningless “conceptual” art, postmodernism, Reality TV, ubiquitous simulacra, fast food, junk food, video games, the Society of the Spectacle, hyperreality to provide stimulation to wholly jaded senses. “Football, beer, and above all gambling, filled up the horizons of their minds. To keep them in control was not difficult.” – George Orwell, 1984

The New Man Faustian = Promethean We need a new humanity, and a new Mythos for the human race. Instead of the Mythos of worshipping and serving the Gods, we need to celebrate those who defied the gods, who wanted the secrets of the gods and wanted to help humanity rather than dominate them. Prometheus “In Greek mythology, Prometheus is a Titan, culture hero, and trickster figure who is credited with the creation of man from clay and the theft of fire for human use, an act that enabled progress and civilization. He is known for his intelligence, and as a champion of humanity. “The punishment of Prometheus as a consequence of the theft is a major theme of his mythology, and is a popular subject of both ancient and modern art. Zeus, king of the Olympian gods, sentenced the Titan to eternal torment for his transgression. The immortal Prometheus was bound to a rock, where each day an eagle, the emblem of Zeus, was sent to feed on his liver, which would then grow back to be eaten again the next day. In some stories, Prometheus is freed at last by the hero Heracles (Hercules). “In another of his myths, Prometheus establishes the form of animal sacrifice practiced in ancient Greek religion. Evidence of a cult to Prometheus himself is not widespread. He was a focus of religious activity mainly at Athens, where he was linked to Athena and Hephaestus, other Greek deities of creative skills and technology. “In the Western classical tradition, Prometheus became a figure who represented human striving, particularly the quest for scientific knowledge, and the risk of overreaching or unintended consequences. In particular, he was regarded in the Romantic era as embodying the lone genius whose efforts to improve human existence could also result in tragedy: Mary Shelley, for instance, gave The Modern Prometheus as the subtitle to her novel Frankenstein (1818).” – Wikipedia Faust “Faust is the protagonist of a classic German legend; a highly successful scholar but one dissatisfied with his life who therefore makes a pact with

the Devil, exchanging his soul for unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures. The Faust legend has been the basis for many literary, artistic, cinematic, and musical works that have reinterpreted it through the ages. Faust and the adjective Faustian imply a situation in which an ambitious person surrenders moral integrity in order to achieve power and success for a delimited term. Translated as ‘fist’ in High German, the name ‘Faust’ suggests someone who resorts to extraordinary means to achieve goals, akin to if not actually including force; it also implies unusual tenacity and persistence. “The Faust of early books—as well as the ballads, dramas, movies and puppet-plays which grew out of them—is irrevocably damned because he prefers human to divine knowledge; ‘he laid the Holy Scriptures behind the door and under the bench, refused to be called doctor of Theology, but preferred to be styled doctor of Medicine’. Plays and comic puppet theatre loosely based on this legend were popular throughout Germany in the 16th century, often reducing Faust and Mephistopheles to figures of vulgar fun. The story was popularised in England by Christopher Marlowe, who gave it a classic treatment in his play, The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. In Goethe’s reworking of the story two hundred years later, Faust becomes a dissatisfied intellectual that yearns for ‘more than earthly meat and drink’ in his life.” – Wikipedia Prometheus and Faust would never have bowed to the Abrahamic God. The whole of the human condition reduces to two extremely simple questions: 1) Would you or would you not eat the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge? 2) Would you or would you not bow to the Abrahamic God? All those who refuse to eat and insist on bowing are slaves. Those who eat and never bow are masters. (It’s impossible to find anyone who would eat and bow, or not eat and not bow.) Mythos humanity are the slaves and Logos humanity the masters.

Exiting History Spengler claimed that while Cultures exist, they are historical, in time, making progress, evolving, developing. However, once they reach the stage of civilization – the dying phase of a culture – they start to leave time and

history, “to pass, slowly and imperceptibly, into the non-historical state in which time-periods cease to mean anything.” Imagine the American Golden Age (allegedly) of the 1950s, lasting for a century. Imagine nothing but “Pleasantville” all across America. Wouldn’t it seem as if time had stopped? Islam seeks to stop time. It wants the world to never change from the time and circumstances described in the Koran – because then the Koran will never be in danger of being out of date. The Afghani Taliban actively seek to drag their country back to the primitivism characteristic of Mohammed’s Arabia. Imagine the status of the Koran 10,000 years from now. You would literally have to be retarded to still be treating it as anything other than a silly document of ancient history, no different in kind from stories about the Greek gods on Mount Olympus. The same goes for the Torah and Bible. It’s already obvious that this is going to happen – indeed has already happened. So, the Abrahamists have literally left time and history. If they kept going forward, their frozen holy texts would become more and more irrelevant. These are books fixed in time. They can’t evolve. They can’t suddenly say anything new. As human knowledge increases, these books recede inevitably into meaningless oblivion. Therefore, the Abrahamists have chosen to freeze themselves. If they don’t move forward in time then their sacred texts are less and relevant with each passing second. They don’t want any new knowledge. They don’t want to learn anything. The Tree of Knowledge need fear nothing from them. They will never eat its fruit. They already have everything they need. The Abrahamic “Civilization” is stone dead. Look at the Amish, the Muslims at Mecca, the Catholics in St Peter’s Square, the Orthodox Jews in front of the Wailing Wall. These people have stepped out of the time stream. They have no interest in evolution or progress. They dream of time frozen, stopped, a world where clocks never tick. Interestingly, the clock that greeted the Jewish transport trains at Treblinka railway station never ticked either. It was the clock of life and death, of eternity itself. The religious fundamentalists want all clocks to be reset to the hour when their holy text was completed. What need of time after that? What need of time in Eden? Being = frozen time.

Becoming = moving time; dialectical time. The Magian Abrahamists are people of being, the Faustians people of becoming. The Faustians dream of the future, and the Magians of the past. These are two radically different species. They have nothing in common. Their attitude to time itself could not be more different. Creationism = Being. Evolution = Becoming. Over and over again, we see this clash between Creationism and Evolution. Everything about you is defined by whether you are a Creationist or Evolutionist. Creationists believe in a static universe of being, ruled over by a static God. Evolutionists exist in a universe of becoming, and they themselves are becoming God. Creationists are slaves of their Creator. Evolutionists are the slaves of no one. Creationism = a master/slave mentality. Evolution = a self-actualising, autonomous mentality. We must obliterate the Creationist mindset. We must have an evolutionary, dialectical mindset, continually adjusting to the future. All old, decrepit, “sacred” texts must be destroyed.

Second Religiousness Spengler argued that the rise of Caesarism was accompanied by what he called the “Second Religiousness”. He wrote, “The material of the Second Religiousness is simply that of the first, genuine, young religiousness – only otherwise experienced and expressed. It starts with Rationalism’s fading out in helplessness, then the forms of the springtime become visible and finally the whole world of the primitive religion, which had receded before the grand forms of the early faith, returns to the foreground, powerful, in the guise of the popular syncretism that is to be found in every Culture at this phase.” Spengler said that the Second Religiousness is the necessary counterpart of Caesarism, “which is the final political constitution of Late Civilization.”

Nazism – a form of paganism based on the cult of the king (the supreme leader; the earthly God) – was in many ways a perfect example of the Second Religiousness. It was a return to Germany’s pagan, Nordic, Viking, Anglo-Saxon past, the world of Wotan, of the hero Siegfried, of the Valkyries and Valhalla, of everything celebrated by Wagner (Hitler was a great admirer of Wagner, of course). In the present day, we can clearly see that we have arrived at the end of the current phase of Western Civilization. Caesarism is rife – in the form not of military dictators but of all-powerful, super rich capitalists. Spengler thought “blood” would beat money, but in the end the dictators were defeated by the rich. The Caesars thus became of the financial rather than military type, but Spengler’s essential point remained true: strong, dominant individuals started running society purely in their own interests. That’s precisely what we have seen in the last three decades. Have we also seen the Second Religiousness? Indeed we have, but in numerous forms. We have bizarre New Age and hippie cults (peace, light and love, man), interest in Eastern religions (especially Buddhism), the cult of celebrity (similar to the worship of ancient Greek gods and heroes), the cult of consumerism and shopping (“retail therapy” as the highest good, as exemplified by Sex and the City), the worship of the super rich (Mammon’s most successful lords and barons), conspiracy theories (religion transformed into science fiction, science fantasy, aliens and devils, with its own prophets – gurus – warning about imminent Apocalypse), militant atheism (so antireligious as to be religious itself – like a “holy” Crusade of unbelief (!)), anarcho-capitalist libertarianism (the religion of “Fuck you – don’t tell me what to do.”), and, above all, Muslim, Jewish and Christian Fundamentalism.

What a Mess! The world is in absolute crisis economically and spiritually. There’s only one way out – a hitherto unknown religion of absolute truth based on the sole subject of absolute truth, mathematics. That secret religion is of course Illumination. Illumination allows atheists, agnostics, and skeptics to embrace a rational religion of mathematics, science, philosophy and evolution. It allows East and West to be reconciled via a common religion of enlightenment, reincarnation, and union with the Godhead. It heals the

rift between science and religion, by making religion mathematical i.e. completely rational, with no faith elements at all, and no Mythos elements. Illumination’s political aspect – meritocracy – gets rids of the super rich Caesars via 100% inheritance tax. Illumination, and Illumination alone, solves all of the world’s problems.

Napoleonism and Caesarism “The fault for turning a Culture into a Civilization [Spengler] lays partly at the feet of the bourgeoisie. At the inflection point he sees an independent and decisive bourgeois intervention in political affairs. The bourgeois is hostile (often violently) toward the absolute state, which represents the traditional institutions, aristocrats and cultural symbols.” – Wikipedia In the present day, the anarcho-capitalist libertarians – the supporters of the super rich – despise everything about the “Big” State and seek to demolish it. These people are often armed with dozens of pistols and assault rifles and have a real expectation that they will end up in a violent conflict with the “sinister” forces of the State. For these zealots, the Waco Siege presaged what’s coming. “Decline is also evidenced by a formlessness of political institutions within a state. As the proper form dissolves, increasingly authoritarian leaders arise, signalling decline. The first step toward formlessness Spengler designates Napoleonism. A new leader assumes powers and creates a new state structure without reference to ‘self-evident’ bases for governance. The new regime is thus accidental rather than traditional and experienced, and relies not on a trained minority but the chance of an adequate successor. Spengler argues that those states with continuous traditions of governance have been immensely more successful than those that have rejected tradition. Spengler posits a two-century or more transitional period between two states of decline: Napoleonism and Caesarism. The formlessness introduced by the first contributes to the rise of the latter.” – Wikipedia Spengler believed that during the transition from Napoleonism to Caesarism, a period of gigantic conflicts was embarked upon. Certainly, in the ancient world in the period between the death of Alexander the Great and Augustus becoming Emperor of Rome, there was no shortage of

conflict, with the titanic struggle between Rome and Carthage being the greatest of all. After the Battle of Waterloo and the fall of Napoleon, the rise of the Prussian State took centre stage, culminating in the formation of an aggressive, ultra energetic united Germany. There was no question that the young power was heading for a showdown with the old powers of Britain, France and Russia – and so it happened across two World Wars. Another even greater power was on the rise, almost unseen – America. America played a decisive role in allowing the Allies to win WWI. In WWII, Russia played the dominant role, but America wasn’t far behind. It helped defeat Germany and it decisively defeated Imperial Japan and took control of the Pacific. By the end of WWII, Germany was destroyed and Britain and France were spent forces, exhausted and shattered. The Soviet Union was now the dominant force in Europe, and it was confronted by the new super power of America, protecting Western Europe. Thus the Cold War began, and America’s extreme paranoia about Communism, resulting in the wars in Korea and Vietnam. This was the age of military Caesarism. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Communism collapsed and we entered the phase of economic Caesarism, which has now rapidly ended with the West bankrupt financially, culturally, spiritually, morally and intellectually. The West has fallen and just doesn’t realise yet. Spengler wrote these prophetic words, “Through money, democracy becomes its own destroyer, after money has destroyed intellect.” So it happened. Money destroyed intellect then destroyed democracy. A super rich oligarchy – the Old World Order – was allowed to rule the world. Now the tyrants must be overthrown.

***** After the English Civil War and the execution of King Charles I, strong man and fanatical Puritan Oliver Cromwell became England’s “Lord Protector”. This of course was a role not grounded in any traditions. When Cromwell died, his son was appointed Lord Protector, but the son was nothing like the father and lasted only nine months. Later, the monarchy was restored and Charles II was crowned king. Strong leaders are the rarest breed; only other strong men can successfully replace them, as Stalin replaced Lenin, and as Augustus Caesar replaced Julius Caesar. Napoleon had no dominant figure waiting to

succeed him, nor did Alexander the Great. The only person who could realistically have succeeded Hitler was Reinhard Heydrich (who was in fact assassinated in 1942). Himmler could no more have succeeded Hitler than Beria, chief of the Soviet security and secret police apparatus (NKVD) could have succeeded Stalin The most common tradition of succession is of course royal heredity, but that has never worked well.

The Period of Contending States “Spengler predicts that the permanent mass conscription armies will be replaced by smaller professional volunteer armies. From millions, states will revert to armies of hundreds of thousands. However, the professional armies will not be for deterrence, but for waging war. Spengler states that they will precipitate wars upon which whole continents—India, China, South Africa, Russia, Islam—will be staked. The great powers will dispose of smaller states, which will come to be viewed merely as means to an end. This period in Civilizational decline he labels the period of Contending States.” Spengler must have been struck by the way Britain, France, Portugal, Belgium and Germany callously carved up Africa between them, seeing the African nations as mere ends in the power politics of Western Europe. This competition culminated in the First World War, and then its deadly echo – World War Two, which became inevitable following the disastrously harsh and punitive Treaty of Versailles that humiliated Germany and necessitated a violent response. “I see . . . the drama of a number of mighty Cultures, each springing with primitive strength from the soil of a mother-region to which it remains firmly bound throughout its whole life-cycle; each stamping its material, its mankind, in its own image; each having its own idea, its own passions, its own life, will and feeling, its own death.” – Spengler Imagine if those “peace” negotiators who had sat in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles had been philosophers of history, equipped with Spengler’s theories. Germany represented a great Culture, one that would never accept humiliation, and so to go ahead and humiliate it was simply to light the fuse of a follow-up war to undo the humiliation of the first.

“Despite having fought wars for democracy and rights during the period of Contending States, the populace can no longer be moved to use those rights. People cease to take part in elections, and the most qualified people remove themselves from the political process. This is the end of great politics. Only private history, private politics, and private ambitions rule at this point. The wars are private wars, ‘more fearful than any State wars because they are formless.’ The imperial peace involves private renunciation of war on the part of the immense majority, but conversely requires submission to that minority which has not renounced war. The world peace that began in a wish for universal reconciliation, ends in passivity in the face of misfortune, as long as it only affects one’s neighbour. In personal politics the struggle becomes not for principles but for executive power. Even popular revolutions are no exception: the methods of governing are not significantly altered, the position of the governed remains the same, and the strong few determined to rule remain over top the rest of humanity.” Doesn’t that describe our world? The people are disengaging from mainstream politics, and the most talented are disgusted with what’s going on and having nothing to do with it. All that remains is for the elite political class to play their own games, decoupled from the people. “Spengler has a low opinion of Civilizations, even those that engaged in significant expansion, because that expansion was not actual growth. One of his principal examples is that of Roman ‘world domination.’ It was not an achievement because the Romans faced no significant resistance to their expansion. Thus they did not so much conquer their empire, but rather simply took possession of that which lay open to everyone. Spengler asserts that the Roman Empire did not come into existence because of the kind of Cultural energy that they had displayed in the Punic Wars. After the Battle of Zama, Spengler believes that the Romans never waged, or even were capable of waging, a war against a competing great military power.” – Wikipedia Similarly, the British Empire involved occupying lands that were incapable of offering serious resistance. The modern British army can’t beat anyone or anything. All it does is act as Robin to America’s Batman; it’s the rather feeble sidekick. As for America, it can no longer fight and win wars in any convincing way. Since Vietnam, America has been a paper Tiger. Its efforts in Iraq and

Afghanistan were pathetic. Does anyone believe that any kind of victory was achieved?

The Fall of the Caesars The super rich Caesars and their henchmen have destroyed our world. These people are the notorious “1%”. In their race to become as rich as possible, they cared not one jot for the “99%”. They didn’t care what bodies they trampled over. Justice demands payback. It’s time to tax these criminals out of existence via 100% inheritance tax. If they complain and make any attempt to evade the tax, all of their assets should be seized there and then. If they manage to flee the country, they should be declared “public enemies” and never allowed back unto their country. International treaties should be arranged with like-minded nations to deny safe havens for these fugitives. They should be given the status of “persona non grata” and made international pariahs. Let them reap what they have sown. Can anyone complain about this? The Caesars got us into this disaster because of their greed, and now their money should be used to get us out. Isn’t that justice? Within a generation or two, there won’t be a single super rich family left on Earth.

***** “Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.” – John Lennon

Unifiers Spengler regarded Alexander the Great and Napoleon as “grand unifiers”. Caesars, on the other hand, are divisive figures. They are grand schismatics.

The Imperium The Imperium – the rich men’s empire, the empire of the financial Caesars, the Old World Order.

History Repeats Itself For Hegel, history is ascending; it’s dialectically rising towards a final, optimal destination (the Absolute). For Spengler, there’s no historical

progress. The same general pattern – the cultural life cycle – is repeated again and again. The same types of historical figures appear over and over again.

The History of the Western World The recorded history of civilization begins with the Sumerians and Egyptians. These were polytheistic pagan societies ruled by kings/ pharaohs, who enjoyed a semi-divine state and were regarded as gods, or the chosen agents of the gods, on Earth. Religion was quintessentially about Mythos. Endless tales were told about the origins and deeds of the gods and what they wanted from people. The heretic pharaoh Akhenaten was the first to take a decisive step towards the monotheism Mythos, and he was a powerful influence on the Jews. As the power of Egypt waned, the Hittites became more influential, followed by the Assyrians then Babylonians then Persians then Greeks and Macedonians then Romans. These were all polytheistic pagan societies, although the Persians, under the Zoroastrian religion, had become dualistic. The Persians, as the liberators of the Jews from the Babylonians, had a dramatic influence on the Jews who completed their transition from polytheism to monotheism, but now adding the Persian notion of a cosmic war between good and evil. Thus the notion of a Devil, opposed to the monotheistic God and the true source of evil, began to develop. In Greece in the 6th century BCE, meanwhile, something extraordinary had happened: rational philosophy appeared for the first time. Logical, scientific minds keen on rational enquiry came into being. They developed the tool of mathematics, and thus moved away from religious Mythos mumbo jumbo. This was the birth of the Logos, and the Apollonian, Classical mind. Judaism generated a famous heresy (Christianity!), which was then merged with pagan elements – mostly Mithraism – to form a Mythos attractive to pagans. The Devil, hell and a vision of Apocalypse (the end of the world) became the bedrock of the new vision, and suitably terrifying for all superstitious minds. Later, Arabian Islam, based on the Jewish and Christian Mythos, appeared on the scene and savage Muslim armies spread across the world, slaughtering and conquering with the sword. Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam gave rise to the Magian Mythos – magic thinking, with the supreme magician (God) at its pinnacle.

This Mythos featured no Logos elements – no philosophy, mathematics, science, logic or rationalism. It was pure anti-Logos. Christianity conquered the Roman Empire, Rome fell to barbarians, and the Dark Ages descended on Europe. During this time Europe was dominated by the Magian Mythos. The Muslims, meanwhile, had conquered parts of the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire that had remained intact even after the West fell), and old Greek manuscripts fell into their hands, of the type that had mostly vanished from the West thanks to the havoc and chaos everywhere. The Muslims – exposed to pagan Logos thinking for the first time – experienced their one and only intellectual flourishing (thanks to paganism, of course, and no thanks to the Koran). Southern Spain, conquered by the Muslims, became a cultural hothouse. When Spanish Crusaders reconquered the South, the precious pagan Logos books fell into their hands, and thus the Western intellectual flourishing of the Renaissance began (thanks, once again to pagan Logos thinking, and not to the Bible). The Renaissance created the space for the Roman Catholic Church to be challenged, and thus the Protestant Reformation took place. This, in turn, created room for an anti-religious, rational Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was just a full-blown rebirth and modernization of the Apollonian Logos thinking of the ancient Greeks. This was not yet, however, the birth of the Faustian mind. The Faustian mind was a radical departure from the old Classical mind. What made it so different was that it began to find infinity wondrous rather than worrying. The Faustian mind saw that only infinity was good enough for God – he must not be bounded in any way. No limitations could apply to him. Nicholas of Cusa (a Catholic Cardinal and secret Illuminatus), Giordano Bruno (a Dominican monk and secret Illuminatus who was burned at the stake for heresy by the Inquisition) and Gottfried Leibniz (the greatest intellectual Grand Master of the Illuminati) were the three men who most loved infinity. It was they who created the Faustian mindset, and Goethe (the greatest artistic Grand Master of the Illuminati) who gave that mentality a suitably inspirational Mythos to accompany it with his tale of Faust. While scientific empiricist materialism remained fundamentally ancient Greek (the Classical mode of thinking), the scientific rationalist idealism of

the Faustians represented something new and wondrous. The problem of the Western world is that it has failed to get rid of either the old Magian thinking (Abrahamism) or the old Classical thinking (scientific materialism). The Age of Faust hasn’t properly begun. It can’t until Abrahamism and scientific materialism have disappeared and created the necessary space. The Faustian Age is the future of humanity, where the dialectic propels us to divinity. It’s time to properly enter that Age.

***** So, humanity is driven by three mindsets: 1) Magian (Mythos). 2) Apollonian (Logos – Classic). 3) Faustian (Logos – Modern). Abrahamists are the irrationalist Magians, scientific materialists are the Apollonian Classicists and the Faustians are the Logos futurists. The Magians and the Apollonians are the past; the Faustians are the future.

The Business Caesars The business Caesars have given us a trashy, ephemeral, disposable world of instant gratification, low quality and the lowest common denominator (because that’s what generates the highest profits). There’s nothing more important than that the Profit Principle – the prime motivator of the controllers of our society – should be abolished. It must be replaced by a Quality Principle. Quality should always be rising, especially the quality of the people. Anything that panders to their worst aspects must be resisted. Free-market capitalism is an economic system that degrades human beings in order to deliver higher returns to the super rich. This ideology is about turning people into Pavlovian beasts – you press the right buttons and the masses pay you lots of money. Free-market capitalists are interested in everything that’s most addictive, stopping just short of the most addictive product of all: drugs. The problem with drugs is that they ultimately stupefy people and ruin their consumerist

capacity. The trick is to produce the optimal consumer, someone who is always buying, who loves shopping and gets a delicious thrill from it. How many women openly proclaim that they “love” shopping? Isn’t that the most depressing thing ever? Women are superb consumerists, perfect little capitalists.

***** Brash, flash, volatile, arrogant, contemptuous of others, psychopathic, devoid of conscience, no self control, no morality: these are the business Caesars, ruling our world. No one anywhere asks, “What is the quality of our leaders?” In fact, no questions are ever asked of the rich. Their wealth itself is taken to be an infallible measure of their quality and merit. This is the biggest lie ever sold. The super rich are the lowest quality people on this planet.

Gangsters and Banksters Gangsterism is the dominant mode of our society. All powerful people are gangsters in one way or another. Sure, they have endless ways of disguising their gangsterism, but drill down not too far and the basic gangster creed will soon appear. The central doctrine of gangsterism is of course, “We’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse.” Every day when people go to work they are being made an offer they can’t refuse. Virtually all jobs are soul-destroying. The people having a great time are the people at the top of society, who all have lucrative, fulfilling, powerful, interesting, influential jobs. Everyone beneath them is subjected to endless drudgery. How do you manage to con billions of people into doing dreadful jobs to allow a few people to be super rich? Only by giving them no choice, by designing society so that they can’t do anything other than what you tell them to do if they want to have any sort of decent standard of living within the law.

Emphasizing the Negative We all have a negativity bias. We process negative information with much more alacrity than positive information i.e. we prioritise negativity. Why? For reasons of basic survival. If you’re too busy smelling the flowers, and not paying any attention to the approaching lion, you’re not long for this world. In a harsh, negative world, optimists literally get wiped out. They don’t take enough precautions. Schopenhauer made a whole philosophy out of human misery, out of the shocking truth that pain makes much more of an impression on us than pleasure. Horrors can haunt our whole lives, while pleasures may soon be quickly forgotten. In fact, pleasure itself becomes a horror when we are tormented by past pleasures no longer accessible to us.

***** “When it’s you against the world, bet on the world.” – Kafka For almost all of humanity, Kafka’s right. But, of course, the world changes precisely because certain individuals bet on themselves against the world ...

and win. Mohammed changed the world – for the worse – but he changed it nevertheless. The genius – the HyperHuman – always backs himself against the world, and wins in the end. Kafka himself – one of the immortal philosophical novelists – has had an enormous influence on the world.

Gloom Sells It’s said Gloom sells, and Doom sells. If you want to be successful, be as gloomy and negative as possible. Ratchet up the gloom. Increase the doom quotient. Emphasize the negative. Fuck the positive. “If it bleeds, it leads” is the mantra of any newsdesk. No one is interested in good news. Only misery grabs our attention. No one wants to listen to Dr Pangloss: “All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.” Yet Dr Pangloss is modelled on Leibniz, and all true Faustians revere Leibniz as the ultimate Faustian.

The Wondrous Faustians The Faustians are true elite of the human race, and they’re defined by the quality of their ideas, not the amount of their money. There’s no more pernicious idea than that wealth has any connection with talent. It’s almost inversely related. The smartest people have never been rich. A ‘Faustian’ culture is one that values continual, restless striving for everything, and, above all, for total, conclusive knowledge. A Faustian could never bear it if God had more knowledge than he did. He must have it all. A Faustian would never spend his day working out how to create a money-spinning idea. Think of how much invaluable intellectual time has been expended on capitalist nonsense and Wall Street speculation. If that same effort had been directed at science, technology, philosophy and mathematics, we would have colonies on Mars by now.

***** Spengler was very much an advocate of the cyclical nature of culture. Every culture is a living thing (since it’s comprised of living people), and is born, grows, decays and dies. We are watching the death of the West at the moment and the rebirth of the East. The West could itself be reborn ... if it killed off those (the rich, privileged elite) who poisoned it. It never will, of

course. It’s far too weak and decadent. It’s too dumb to seek out those – the meritocrats – who can save it.

***** In the Middle Ages, before the Renaissance arrived, and long before the advent of the modern Enlightenment, human beings inhabited a world of magic and fantasy. Wonders where everywhere. Demons and angels lurked around every corner. Magian Mythos dominated every aspect of life. There was a flourishing trade in relics (or religious memorabilia as we might now say), nearly all of them fake. People thought that sin could be “eaten” by special people, that you could buy yourself a reduced sentence in Purgatory, that praying to the Virgin and the saints could produce miracles. Mythos thinking is an alternative to Logos thinking. The former relies on stories, narratives, fables, parables, poems, allegories, romances, folk tales, fairytales. Everything revolves around plot, character, pathos, drama, excitement, hope, fear, and so on. The latter involves logic, reason, equations, precise arguments, experiments, facts, evidence, is often extremely abstract and contains zero emotional content. The Enlightenment was about replacing Mythos thinking with Logos thinking, but only about 10% of the human race were capable of adopting the new, advanced, more highly evolved way of thinking. The rest remained locked in their primitive Mythos thinking. To hear any Jew, Christian or Muslim explaining their religious beliefs – and expecting to be taken seriously – is like listening to human beings of the Stone Age who haven’t yet discovered fire. These people have failed to evolve. They think that ancient Mythos books contain infinitely more truth than the entire output of the Enlightenment, and all of the incredible science, technology, mathematics and philosophy that flowed from it. In fact, any book on arithmetic and geometry contains more truth and valuable knowledge than all of the “sacred” religious texts of the world put together. How could any sane, rational person read the Torah, Bible and Koran and imagine that these books referred to the truth even once? How could any sane, rational person believe that these books contain more truth and knowledge than all the books that have followed them?

*****

The “clash of civilizations” – the West versus Islam – is something that emerges naturally from Spengler’s worldview. Don’t kid yourself about Islam. It’s the uttermost enemy of the West and anyone in the West who doesn’t get that has already gifted victory to Islam. The Muslims openly talk of imposing Sharia Law on the West, and thus making the West Islamic. How many Westerners openly talk of imposing Logos on Islam and thus making Islam Western? If Islam wants to wipe out the West, and the West wants to tolerate and be liberal towards Islam, who’s going to win? The West is enfeebled, pathetic, decadent and degenerate. It has already died. The sooner it’s killed off and something new put in its place, the better.

The Death of America Spengler’s theory embraced all of history and its core contention was that every culture (and the civilization to which it finally gives rise) has a limited lifespan. No matter how seemingly wealthy, powerful and successful, all civilizations ultimately decay and die. Isn’t that history’s surest and most obvious lesson? Look at all the mighty empires that have crumbled over the millennia. The great powers have come and gone. Not one has stayed the course. And what is true of civilizations and empires is also true of cultures, religions, nation states, corporations, institutions, dynastic families and even individuals. The only “organism” that can survive is the one that continually and automatically replenishes itself. Only a State that has the most stable, rational and fair set of laws can be immune to new forces that seek to supplant it. The whole world can now see that the West – America and Europe – are in terminal decline. The current Western model has died. That’s a fact. For the West to survive and prosper, it must explicitly acknowledge that fact and seek its own rebirth, its own reincarnation, via a radical new system, the culmination of the dialectic: meritocracy. Why do even superpowers such as America die? It’s because toxic elements build up in the national bloodstream caused by poisons that were there all along but had never achieved a sufficient concentration. What killed America was the greed of the top 1%. While they were restrained, America prospered. When they shook off all restraints, the nation was beset by deadly forces and contradictions that overwhelmed its immune system. Anything in a nation that is excessively out of balance becomes a dialectical force that invariably summons dialectical opposition and then conflict and collapse. The “synthesis” of the thesis and antithesis in these circumstances tends to be something weak, consensual and unambitious. The nation never properly recovers from the earlier carnage: too much damage was done. Then a long period of slow declines begins, and all of the predators begin to circle. Look at Britain. It once had a mighty Empire and ruled the world. It’s ambition and lust for glory and achievement were endless. Now it’s a fifth rate, enfeebled nation, haunted by past glory but with no spirit and no ability to reinvent itself. Its death as a significant player is already inevitable. In fact, it has already happened.

***** Spengler believed that the West would enjoy a culminating phase of power and glory before its star began to fade. Was the millennium the high point of the West? Is it downhill from now on?

Spengler and Nazism “In 1920 Spengler produced Prussiandom and Socialism, which argued for an organic, nationalist version of socialism and authoritarianism. Some Nazis (such as Goebbels) held Spengler as an intellectual precursor but he was ostracised by the Nazis after 1933 for his pessimism about Germany’s and Europe’s future, his refusal to support Nazi ideas of racial superiority, and his critical work The Hour of Decision. ... The Hour of Decision, published in 1934, was a bestseller, but the Nazis later banned it for its critiques of National Socialism. Spengler’s criticisms of liberalism were welcomed by the Nazis, but Spengler disagreed with their biological ideology and anti-Semitism. While racial mysticism played a key role in his own worldview, Spengler had always been an outspoken critic of the pseudo-scientific racial theories professed by the Nazis and many others in his time, and was not inclined to change his views upon Hitler’s rise to power. Although himself a German nationalist, Spengler viewed the Nazis as too narrowly German, and not occidental enough to lead the fight against other peoples. The book also warned of a coming world war in which Western Civilization risked being destroyed, and was widely distributed abroad before eventually being banned in Germany. ... “Spengler argued that German socialism differed from Marxism, and was in fact compatible with traditional German conservatism. ... Shortly before his death, in a letter to a friend, he remarked that ‘the German Reich in ten years will probably no longer exist’. He died of a heart attack on May 8, 1936 in Munich, three weeks before his 56th birthday and exactly nine years before the fall of the Third Reich.” – Wikipedia Spengler’s predictions were rather impressive. He foresaw the rise of the Nazis and their defeat in just a few years, he foresaw that the West would fail (WWII was, in Europe, won decisively by the Soviet Union, with the Iron Curtain descending over half the Continent), and he recognized that something was rotten to the core in the West.

It’s also fascinating that Spengler and the Germans constructed, uniquely, a vision of socialism that was conservative and right wing rather than liberal or radical and left wing. This is a crucial point. Socialism does not have to be left wing. All that socialism actually says is that the people should control the means of production. This is typically seen as left wing because it involves the removal of the power of rich, private, right wing, elites. However, as Nazism proved, a right wing regime can decide to own the State in the name of the people, and have the rich private elite entirely tamed and controlled, yet still in existence. Modern Communist China – which is in fact Capitalist China – also allows a political Party on behalf of the State to control the rich elite, rather than the other way around. In America and Europe, rich capitalists dictate to governments and always get their own way. The rich, not the government or the people, control the State.

The Collapse, the Downfall, the End Britain is a classic tale of decline. Over the years, many books have reflected its slow slide into oblivion. Consider these book titles: What’s Wrong With Britain?; The Suicide of a Nation; The Stagnant Society; Broken Britain; Gone to the Dogs; A Cultural Cul-De-Sac; 50 People Who Buggered Up Britain; The Rotten State of Britain; Bog-Standard Britain: How Mediocrity Ruined This Great Nation; Going South: Why Britain Will Have a Third-World Economy by 2014. When a nation talks incessantly of its own decline then its fate is sealed. Where are the books presenting a brand new image, a new formula, a new politics, a new ideology, a philosophy of ascent rather than descent?

Spengler’s Legacy Spengler’s analysis of world history is fascinating and instructive, and reflects many valid and recognizable features. However, he fails in several crucial regards. He never foresaw globalism – a whole different ball game from that of competing nation States and rival cultures. He failed to see that the Caesars would end up being bankers, traders and CEOs rather than generals and dictators. Above all, he never saw just how powerful money is and how it can trump even “blood”.

The Nazis accorded an almost sacred value to the purity of “blood”, and were obsessed with preventing its corruption, intermingling or dilution, or anything that would drain its supposed power. Nowadays, money is without question humanity’s most sacred and revered God and object of desire. In the past, those who dealt with ideology, religion, race, “blood”, nationalism, patriotism and politics were those who ruled the world. Now, the world is run by those who have the most money and control the flow of money. All other considerations bow to money.

The Political Class Spengler said that most States have a single social stratum from which the members of the political class come. Therefore, that class represents the world-historical character of a State i.e. it’s that privileged class that shapes how the nation acts on the world stage and defines its values and policies. By implication, the ordinary people have no say. Power always resides in the hands of a few. A further implication is that the leader of the State is typically entirely focused on the needs of the select class from which he came and by which he is defined. The people are an abstract, irrelevant background. Nations are not in fact nations at all. Nations are ruled by an elite class and that elite class decides what a Nation is or isn’t. Look at contemporary America. Who rules is? Wall Street or Main Street? The rhetoric is about the people being in charge. The reality is that the people have no say whatsoever. When the financial crisis of 2008 took place, the people weren’t consulted in any way. Wall Street types sat in a luxury room and decided what America’s policy would be. Congress wasn’t present in these discussions. Not even the President wasn’t there. Never has the truth of who runs America been more blatantly demonstrated. Did the people rise up in righteous anger? Did they hell. The people don’t count. They never have. And they know it themselves. They’re far too lazy, cowed, submissive and apathetic. That’s just what the ruling class intended, of course.

***** In the UK, only 4% of Members of Parliament come from backgrounds of manual labour. 4%, including Prime Minister David Cameron, come from a single elite private school – Eton. The right wing Conservative Party are

mostly upper class, while the centrist Liberal Democratic Party and “left wing” Labour Party are mostly upper middle class. The leaders of these three Parties come from almost identical, elite, Oxbridge backgrounds. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Mayor of London all attended the ultra-elitist and exclusive Bullingdon Club at Oxford University. All three went to private schools (two went to Eton). The British Coalition Government’s Deputy Prime Minister (leader of the Liberal Democrats) went to an elite private school and Cambridge University. Most politicians have been practising lawyers, businessmen, or have worked in political jobs all their lives. They know nothing of the real world and ordinary people. Almost no British MPs have PhDs. Almost none have backgrounds in science, technology, engineering, philosophy, psychology, sociology or mathematics. Britain is a perfect example of where a privileged, rather stupid, inbred elite class dominates the political scene to the extreme detriment of the nation. They have no leadership qualities, no ability, no vision and are essentially useless. They are, of course, also very rich and very privileged. They are an anti-meritocracy.

***** Spengler rejected Parliamentarianism, and indeed it’s hard to see what possible value is served by any Parliament, Congress, or Assembly. These are simply the shams set up to fool the stupid masses that they have some influence and can genuinely elect meaningful people to represent their interests. Naturally, the people aren’t represented in Wall Street, in the banks and in the corporate boardrooms where all true power resides. Political parties should be abolished. Everyone should be an independent. All the power of the State must reside in these independents, elected by the people and accountable to the people. There should be no political parties and political classes serving their own particular wills and there should be no external powers such as bankers, traders or CEOs.

Who Rules? “Caesarism is essentially the death of the spirit that originally animated a nation and its institutions. It is marked by a government which is formless irrespective of its de jure constitutional structure. The antique forms are dead, despite the careful maintenance of the institutions; those institutions now have no meaning or weight. The only aspect of governance is the

personal power exercised by the Caesar. This is the beginning of the Imperial Age.” – Wikipedia In modern “democracies”, Caesar isn’t one person – a Hitlerian dictator – but rather a whole privileged class that rules exclusively in its own interests, while paying lip-service to the lie that people have some relevance and influence. It is not the death of the culture’s original spirit but rather its logical culmination. The ultimate logic of capitalism has always been that the whole world should be owned by one person – the winner of the global Monopoly Game.

Neo Imperialism “Spengler notes the urge of a nation toward universalism, idealism, and imperialism in the wake of a major geopolitical enemy’s defeat. He cites the example of Rome after the defeat of Hannibal — instead of forgoing the annexation of the East, Scipio’s party moved toward outright imperialism, in an attempt to bring their immediate world into one system, and thus prevent further wars.” – Wikipedia This describes the American “neocon” vision. America, having defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War, wanted to bring the whole world under its influence and ideology, hence the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the general thrust of American foreign and economic policy.

The People versus a Population “Closely connected to race is Spengler’s definition of a ‘people,’ which he defines as a unit of the soul. ‘The great events of history were not really achieved by peoples; they themselves created the peoples. Every act alters the soul of the doer.’ Such events include migrations and wars. For example, the American people did not migrate from Europe, but were formed by events such as the American Revolution and the U.S. Civil War. ‘Neither unity of speech nor physical descent is decisive.’ What distinguishes a people from a population is ‘the inwardly lived experience of “we”,’ which exists so long as a people’s soul lasts. ‘The name Roman in Hannibal’s day meant a people, in Trajan’s time nothing more than a population.’ In his view, ‘Peoples are neither linguistic nor political nor zoological, but spiritual units.’ – Wikipedia

The difference between a people and a population is a key distinction. The “people” of modern nations aren’t people at all; they’re simply populations. They often divide into large, opposed factions. In America, roughly 50% are Democrats, 40% Republicans and 10% anarcho-capitalist libertarians. These are separate peoples within one nation and they are so divided and antagonistic towards each other that no progress is possible. As for the American super rich, they are at home anywhere in the world, so no longer have loyalty to America at all, even though they rule it. No nation or city-state can succeed unless it consists of single, united people, all with the same spiritual values and social and political objectives, and with a leadership committed to it and not to anything else. A meritocratic State can succeed only if it has a 100% meritocratic people who all treasure that ethos. There can be no dissenters, no antimeritocrats, no saboteurs, no malcontents. A “population” is no good to anyone. A people is required. The failed experiment of European multiculturalism has provided populations but no peoples. Multicultural nations – such as the UK – can achieve nothing on the world stage, and cannot transform themselves. How do you move forward when you have countless different groups seeking different, opposing things? “Spengler adopts an organic conception of culture. Primitive Culture is simply a collection, a sum, of its constituent and incoherent parts (individuals, tribes, clans, etc.). Higher Culture, in its maturity and coherence, becomes an organism in its own right, according to Spengler. The Culture is capable of sublimating the various customs, myths, techniques, arts, peoples, and classes into a single strong undiffused historical tendency.” – Wikipedia Since modern nations have no people, but only populations, so they have no high culture but only primitive culture directed at the lowest common denominator, which, of course, is exactly what free-market capitalism targets. High culture is absent from modern nations. We live in world of ubiquitous low culture. “Spengler divides the concepts of culture and civilization, the former focused inward and growing, the latter outward and merely expanding. However, he sees Civilization as the destiny of every Culture. The transition is not a matter of choice — it is not the conscious will of individuals, classes, or peoples that decides. Whereas Cultures are ‘things-becoming’,

Civilizations are the ‘thing-become.’ As the conclusion of a Culture’s arc of growth, Civilizations are outwardly focused, and in that sense artificial or insincere. Civilizations are what Cultures become when they are no longer creative and growing. For example, Spengler points to the Greeks and Romans, saying that the imaginative Greek culture declined into wholly practical Roman civilization.” – Wikipedia In these terms, the modern world is full of civilization but has no culture. The civilization, such as it is, is insincere, inauthentic, fake and phoney. It’s a “Reality TV” civilization, an anti-culture. “Spengler also compares the ‘world-city’ and province, as concepts analogous to civilization and culture respectively. This argument has elements of Marxist conceptions of a core and periphery. The city draws upon and collects the life of broad surrounding regions. He contrasts the ‘true-type’ rural born, with the nomadic, traditionless, irreligious, matter-offact, clever, unfruitful, and contemptuous-of-the-countryman city dweller. In the cities he sees only the ‘mob’, not a people, hostile to the traditions that represent Culture (in Spengler’s view these traditions are: nobility, church, privileges, dynasties, convention in art, and limits on scientific knowledge). City dwellers possess cold intelligence that confounds peasant wisdom, a new-fashioned naturalism in attitudes towards sex which are a return to primitive instincts, and a dying inner religiousness.” – Wikipedia Just as there are transient populations rather than rooted peoples, and shallow civilizations rather than deep cultures, so nations are dominated by world cities that have no necessary connection with the nation, while the provinces where a nation’s actual people live are increasingly irrelevant. World cities now comprise a kind of global nation: a polyglot nation of countless different individuals with next to nothing in common. “Further, Spengler sees in urban wage-disputes and a focus on lavish sport expenditures for entertainment the final aspects that signal the closing of Culture and the rise of the Civilization.” – Wikipedia There’s nothing surer than that entertainment and sport – full of global brands (superstars such as Tiger Woods, Ronaldo, Messi, McIlroy, Federer, Nadal and so on) – represent the only things that the people (the “Roman mobs”) of the world cities have in common. Entertainment – movies, TV shows, video games, pop songs, Reality TV and so on – these are the “glue”

for the lowest common denominator world city “civilization”. The Roman elite offered bread and circuses to pacify and control the fickle Roman mob, and nothing has changed. Bread has been replaced by junk food and the circus has extended to all forms of entertainment that are available 24/7. Most people have boring jobs to pay the bills, and then spend the rest of their time eating junk and watching junk. That’s what now constitutes an average life, sunk in fantasy and denial. “Spengler distinguishes between ahistorical peoples and peoples caught up in world-history. While he recognizes that all people are a part of history, he argues that only certain cultures imbue a wider sense of historical involvement. Thus some people see themselves as part of a grand historical design or tradition, while others view themselves in a self-contained manner. For the latter, there is no world-historical consciousness.” – Wikipedia How many people today see themselves as part of history, making a decisive contribution to human destiny? The world is guided by the doctrine of “negative liberty” whereby the State is expected to keep out of people’s lives as much as possible. A negative liberty nation is always petty, trivial and full of “last men”. Only a positive liberty nation can change anything, but the super rich Freemasons and the Zionist Jews have done everything in their power to reject positive liberty since they are terrified of State power. Nazi Germany was a positive liberty State but doesn’t serve as much of a poster boy. However, while there’s no doubt that Hitler created an abomination, imagine if someone such as Goethe, Nietzsche, Hegel or Leibniz were leading Germany. What could such a nation under such leadership not have accomplished? It could have achieved anything to which it turned its mind and will. “For Spengler, a world-historical view points toward the meaning of history itself, by breaking the historian or observer out of his crude culturallyparochial classifications of history. By learning about different courses taken by other civilizations, one can better understand his own culture and identity. Those who still maintain a historical view of the world are the very same who continue to ‘make’ history. Spengler asserts that life and mankind as a whole have an ultimate aim. However, he maintains a distinction between world-historical peoples, and ahistorical peoples — the former will have a historical destiny as part of a high Culture, the latter will

have a merely zoological fate. World-historical man’s destiny is selffulfilment as a part of his Culture. Further, Spengler asserts that not only is pre-Cultural man without history, he loses his historical weight as his Culture becomes exhausted and becomes a more and more defined Civilization.” – Wikipedia With his distinction between historical and ahistorical peoples, Spengler in fact starts to approach the Hegelian and Marxist view of history having an “end”. Historical peoples exist in history, in time, and look for patterns and a culmination of history. These are the people carried along by the dialectic. Ahistorical people are “outside” time: they are oblivious to history, ignorant of what happened in the past, don’t care about it and just want to get on with their petty, trivial, “last men” lives. The people of world cities are of this kind. They constitute a huge melting point of atemporal, ahistorical ignoramuses who know all about the latest sports stars and celebrities, but nothing at all about history. These are “zoological” humans. Like animals, they exist in the moment. They aren’t teleological. They make no plans for the future. They have no vision of a wondrous higher humanity. They want the State to leave them alone (negative liberty; free from interference) rather than turn them into a new type of human being (positive liberty; free for building a new world). Historical peoples are dialectical and looking for self-fulfilment. Ahistorical peoples are Darwinist and their cultures and civilizations merely repeat history without ever learning from it. Ahistorical, Darwinist types are blown along by historical currents that they fail to understand. History happens to them. Historical, teleological types try to control the historical currents. Only they can make history. Negative liberty is anti-history; such States have no vision of reality. They simply react to positive liberty States. In the Cold War, Communism stood for a new vision of humanity (positive liberty) while the West simply stood for consumerism, entertainment, self-indulgence, instant gratification and living in the moment (negative liberty). Communism was dialectical and the West zoological. The West won because the Communists were incompetent and didn’t properly understand the dialectic. The West won by default, not through anything it did. The Soviet Union simply collapsed from within, destroyed by its own contradictions. In the Vietnam War, however, the difference between a historical and zoological people was all too clear. The

Vietnamese had a true purpose and vision; the Americans did not – they were simply trying to stop the Communists, not trying to create anything themselves. Capitalism is about profit. Profit does not constitute a vision of the world. It’s a spiritually dead ideology. Profit is ahistorical; it’s zoological; it’s Darwinist. It’s for animals! Capitalism dehumanizes people and objectifies them. It panders to the lowest common denominator and promotes a constant race to the bottom. It’s incapable of generating any High Culture. When has capitalism ever created anything like the Sistine Chapel? All that capitalism can do is create ersatz culture, simulacra, fakes. Las Vegas sums up capitalism. It’s the fakest city on Earth. All it does is copy art and culture from elsewhere in order to make a profit from it. It never creates its own art and culture. It doesn’t know how to. It wouldn’t know where to begin. It’s no surprise that capitalism doesn’t feature in the Star Trek vision of the future. How could it? Capitalism is the dead past. Well, are you a maker of history? Or does history make you? Historical peoples are “becoming people” – moving in time; ahistorical people are “being” people – frozen in time. What are you? “Spengler classifies Classical and Indian civilizations as ahistorical, whereas the Egyptian and Western civilizations developed conceptions of historical time. He sees all cultures as necessarily placed on equal footing in the study of world-historical development. From this idea flows a kind of historical relativism or dispensationalism. Historical data, in Spengler’s mind, are an expression of their historical time, contingent upon and relative to that context. Thus, the insights of one era are not unshakeable or valid in another time or culture — ‘there are no eternal truths.’ Each man has a duty to look beyond his own Culture to see what men of other Cultures have with equal certainty created for themselves. What is significant is not whether the past thinkers’ insights are relevant today, but whether they were exceptionally relevant to the great facts of their own time.” – Wikipedia It’s true that the Classical and Indian civilizations were ahistorical. As for Egypt, Spengler wrote, “For the Egyptian, the depth-experience which governed his world-form was so emphatically directional that he comprehended space more or less as a continuous process of actualization.”

He envisaged the Egyptian “soul” as something moving relentlessly down a narrow, one-dimensional track: a “life-path” leading to life’s final judgment. The Apocalyptic religions – Zoroastrianism, Abrahamism, the Norse religion and the Mayan/Aztec religion – all imposed a timetable on humanity (get ready for the imminent end!), and thus made people contemplate the future rather than live in the moment. Christianity and capitalism are an exceptionally odd couple because the former focuses on the current state of your soul and whether you ready for the Rapture, Apocalypse or Second Coming while capitalism couldn’t care less about the state of anyone’s souls and doesn’t ponder any future cataclysms (except to make lucrative blockbuster movies about them). It simply cares about making profits right now.

Globalism “Each culture arises within a specific geographical area and is defined by its internal coherence of style in terms of art, religious behaviour and psychological perspective. Central to each one is its conception of space which is expressed by an ‘Ursymbol’. Whilst not amenable to a strictly logical examination, Spengler’s idea of the culture is, he claims, justifiable through the existence of recurrent patterns of development and decline across the 1,000 years of each culture’s active lifetime.” – Wikipedia Globalism is a phenomenon that Spengler never considered. The rise of global capital, global communications and the internet that links everyone in the world has allowed, for the first time, the possibility of a single world culture. At the moment, it’s going disastrously wrong. World cities – each a melting point of “last men” from every corner of the globe – are the first face of the global paradigm and “culture”, and it’s a hideous face that offers no prospects of a HyperHuman future.

The Perils of Rationalism? “Civilisation for Spengler ... is what a culture becomes once its creative impulses wane and the critical impulse gains ascendancy. Culture is the becoming, Civilisation is the thing become. Rousseau, Socrates, and Buddha each mark the point where their Cultures transformed into Civilisation. They each buried centuries of spiritual depth by presenting the

world in rational terms —the intellect comes to rule once the soul has abdicated.” – Wikipedia Spengler follows Nietzsche’s example of condemning rationalism and seeing it as killing off the Dionysian impulses that drive authentic life. However, the problem is not with rationalism per se but with rationalism’s attitude to irrationalism. If rationalism seeks to exterminate irrationalism then that is indeed a catastrophe. The task is to find the right space for irrational, Dionysian forces. During the day, people should work hard rationally, consciously and productively: at night they should play hard and explore their irrational, unconscious Shadow. We should be separate Day and Night people, and thus fully balanced in terms of reason and unreason. Where rationalists tend to idiotically persecute irrationalism, so “moralists” idiotically persecute “immorality”. Abrahamists have tried to exterminate our Dionysian self, with appalling consequences, and all the grotesque psychological distress and misery of a world of “sin”, “guilt” and “fear of God”. Scientific materialists have been no better. Their vision is one of human beings living pointlessly in a meaningless universe. They have destroyed the human spirit for the sake of what? – of mindless, lifeless “matter”.

False Form Pseudomorphosis concerns partially formed – malformed – Cultures. They have been unable to escape an older, embedded Culture, so their roots have grown together and the new Culture has never taken on its own unique character and strength. It has never become its true self displaying its authentic, rightful form. That’s why it’s so crucial to destroy the brainwashing systems of Abrahamism and capitalism. While these exist, new healthy new cultures cannot grow. They will always be contaminated and deformed. Young Culture, like young adults, must decisively break free from their parents if they are to exist in their own right rather than as imitations and echoes of others. Tradition-directed people (under the influence of community elders) and inner-directed people (under the influence of their parents) tend to be “malformed”. Equally, other-directed people (under the influence of their peers) have no clear direction or purpose, hence create no fixed forms.

Only autonomous people can give rise to healthy new, self-defining, self-creating Cultures that can truly find their own form and fully express themselves. It’s a disaster when a young soul is cast in an old mould. There should be no moulds at all. Moulded young souls become old and useless before their time. In fact, they were never truly free. They rapidly turn senile and reactionary. They are uncreative and opposed to risk and change. Conservatives and conservatism are the inevitable outcome. All such people are right wing. They’re scared of change and scared of others.

Blood Money “Spengler sees Blood as the only power strong enough to overthrow Money, currently the dominant power of our age. Blood is commonly understood to mean race-feeling, and this is partially true but misleading. Spengler’s idea of race has nothing to do with ethnic identity, indeed he was hostile to racists in that sense. The book talks about a population becoming a race when it’s united in outlook, possibly diverse ethnic origins are not a concern. Crucially Spengler talks about the final struggle with money also being a battle between capitalism and socialism, but again socialism in a special sense: ‘the will to call into life a mighty politico-economic order that transcends all class interests, a system of lofty thoughtfulness and duty sense’. He also writes ‘A power can be overthrown only by another power, not by a principle, and only one power that can confront money is left. Money is overthrown and abolished by blood. Life is alpha and omega ... It is the fact of facts ... Before the irresistible rhythm on the generationsequence, everything built up by the waking –consciousness in its intellectual world vanishes at the last’. Therefore if we wanted to replace Blood by a single word it would be more correct to use life-force rather than race-feeling.” – Wikipedia Spengler got this completely wrong. Blood, in the sense he intended, utterly failed to defeat money. The global super rich who dominate the world feel no loyalty to any nation or people – only to themselves and their families. In other words, money itself became indissolubly linked to blood, but to a very narrow definition of “blood” – your own blood, that of you and your family. This is the dominant model of our world, the basis of the dynastic Old World Order and of “inheritance”.

Capitalist Democracy There’s nothing surprising about democracy becoming the Siamese twin of capitalism. Spengler said that democracy is entirely driven by money and therefore easily and inevitably corruptible. Corruption is endemic in capitalist democracy. Who could possibly deny the truth of this? It has been proved countless times. The financial meltdown of 2008 revealed that endless “democratic” forces were bought and paid for by the rich

puppetmasters. Everyone was serving their own interests, not those of the demos, the populus – the people. We are in the winter time of Abrahamic capitalist democracy. It’s in terminal decline. Its demise is inevitable. This is a doomed culture. The sooner it perishes, the better.

The Soul of Culture A culture has a “soul”. Of course, that soul can be healthy or unhealthy. A new culture arises whenever a people in a particular region develops a “soul”, which we might define as a new, fresh, distinctive way of looking at the world that usually encapsulates their notions of God and the afterlife. This new culture can be horrific – as in the case of Islam – or wondrous, as in the case of the European Enlightenment. Each culture strives as far as possible to express itself fully, to unravel the complete “logic” of its position. Islam succeeded in doing so – well over a billion people in our world are under its brainwashing spell. Muslim fanatics want even more Islam. They dream of a 100% Muslim world under 100% Sharia Law. That’s the inevitable logic of all cultures. They all seek world domination – for everyone to be like them. The European Enlightenment actually failed because, in order to qualify as a new culture, it needed to eradicate Abrahamism and it never did. It thus became a pseudo form. The West comprises an absurd mixture of Mythos and Logos. We have people such as the Pope and Richard Dawkins existing within the same cultural sphere, which is self-evidently untenable. While scientists pursue the Higgs Boson and beyond, millions of Americans believe in Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, the Flood and the Rapture. One way or another, Logos thinkers must detach themselves from the Abrahamists. Logos must establish itself in a way that’s completely free of Mythos roots. Only then can it achieve its potential.

Money In a multicultural, polyglot, ghettoised “culture”, money becomes the common currency. It’s what everyone wants and understands. But a moneybased culture is not a culture at all. It’s a mechanical, dehumanized process.

The full logic of the free-market capitalist “culture” is expressed in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. At its conclusion, government and the State cease to exist. The rich rule the world, markets are ubiquitous and everything is privatized. You must pay for everything and thus increase the profits of the rich, making them even richer and the gap between rich and poor ever wider. This is a chasm that can never be bridged. The present world is very close to a complete realization of Rand’s vile vision. Rand notoriously promoted the “virtue of selfishness.” Fictional Gordon Gekko summed it up even better: “Greed is good.” That is the sacred credo of the ruling elite.

America and Europe Just as many competing city-states within ancient Greece produced a wondrous Hellenic Culture, so many competing nation states within Europe created a dazzling culture, the greatest in world history. Just as the monolithic Roman empire crushed Greece and then adopted its culture, so monolithic America has become the single power that makes Europe dance to its tune, but all American “high culture” has European roots and all homegrown American “culture” is crass, vulgar and redneck ... trailer trash culture. Countless Americans have extremely primitive, almost childlike, fundamentalist religious beliefs, while almost no native Europeans now hold such beliefs (Muslim immigrants are Europe’s religious fundamentalists and maniacs). Even the Pope has to operate within highly nuanced European parameters. The Roman Empire effectively ended when Rome, under Emperor Constantine, abandoned Logos Greek culture and adopted the Magian Mythos culture of Judaeo-Christianity. The American Empire flourished while it was doing European things better than Europe. It’s now being killed by backward Judaeo-Christianity and unrestrained free-market capitalism. The hour has come when America must reinvent itself. The same is true of Europe. The European population, at some 750 million people, is much vaster than that of America at 300 million. A united Europe would instantly replace America as the world’s superpower. It’s not too late.

Europe represents the world’s Highest Culture. The spirit of ancient Greece still resides in Europe, and especially, historically, in Germany (not Greece itself, sadly). Germany can save the world. Its Nazi period was its first abortive attempt. An illuminated meritocratic Germany would make right everything that Nazism got wrong.

Progress “Mankind has no aim, no idea, no plan, any more than the family of butterflies or orchids.” – Spengler Spengler rejected any idea of progress. He viewed history in terms of discrete civilizations each reflecting a distinct culture, and with a characteristic lifecycle. He therefore rejected any universal culture, hence would not have comprehended globalism. Fascinatingly, Spengler believed that no culture can be imposed on another, either peacefully or through force of arms (tell that to the Americans!). For Spengler, history never ends (there’s no culmination). For Hegel and Marx, history does end (there is a culmination). Spengler insisted that all cultures and civilizations decline and fall: this is an inviolable rule. One way or another, whether we follow Spengler or Hegel/Marx, we can be certain that one day the nightmares of Abrahamism and free-market capitalism will come to an end. That, at least, is comforting.

Britain versus Germany One of Spengler’s main themes was the difference between Great Britain, with its trade empire and “democratic” capitalism, versus a “socialistic”, rising German empire. In this context, it’s important to understand that Britain was and remains the most class-divided nation on Earth. Germany has always been more “socialistic” in the sense that the Germans have always been a far more equal people than the British. However, German “socialism” (meaning the solidarity and unity of the people) was always nationalistic and, under Nazism, completely racist. The Germans were the only nation to develop a right wing notion of socialism.

The British frequently express their pride that no Hitler or Nazi Party could ever realistically come to power in the UK. However, Oliver Cromwell, the “Lord Protector” of England following the English Civil War, was a totalitarian forerunner of Hitler, and his fanatical Puritans and New Model Army were forerunners of the Nazis and the SS. Much of what Cromwell did, including countless atrocities in Ireland where he treated Catholics as subhuman (in the same way as Hitler treated the Jews), the seizing of emergency powers, dissolving Parliament when it suited him, ruling by way of a personality cult (meaning that as soon as he died his regime collapsed), trying to convert the whole nation to his beliefs – these are all archetypal Nazi behaviours. So, the British, and the English in particular, are deluded that they have no Nazi instincts or tendencies. The whole British Empire was a Nazi enterprise. It was even the British who invented concentration camps (in the Boer War). However, let’s indulge the British fantasy. Why couldn’t there be a Nazi movement in modern Britain? It’s for an entirely negative, Spenglerian reason. The British are not a people, they are a population. The British provinces are dead and all of the power resides in the world city of London, which has no connection with “real” Britain, and no British identity at all. Britain is a bitterly class divided nation and, moreover, it’s multicultural. Since it has no people and no single culture, it cannot rally behind any cause. The Germans, as a “socialistic” people with extremely strong internal cohesion and identity, were capable of adopting a new idea. The only nations and peoples that will succeed in the future are those capable of supporting a mono-culture. Any multicultural society, such as the UK, is doomed to be a mess of conflicting aims. It has no hope of driving forward in a single direction to achieve great things. Multiculturalism represents the death of a nation, the death of national identity, the death of a people, the death of culture, the death of ambition, the death of progress, the death of the future itself. Multiculturalism is zoological. It can never generate anything great.

***** Spengler said that democratic Britain had an ethic of success and that “socialist” Germany had an ethic of duty. This is a brilliant point. The spectacular greed of Wall Street and the City that wrecked the world

economy could never have happened in Germany, only in Manhattan and London (where the “Anglo-Saxon” economic model is practised). There, success is everything, and these people have no loyalty at all to anyone else and feel no sense of duty to society. The Wall Street/ City mentality – win at any cost; trample over any bodies – must be eradicated. This is the “psychopath” mentality that has ruined the world.

Church and State Spengler wrote, “In the Magian world . . . the separation of politics and religion is theoretically impossible and nonsensical, whereas in the Faustian Culture the battle of Church and State is inherent in the very conceptions — logical, necessary, unending.” It’s certainly true that Church and State cannot be genuinely separated in a Magian State. America claims to have separated Church and State and yet an atheist President is unthinkable. A Catholic (Kennedy) an African American (Obama), a Jew, or woman was always infinitely more likely than an atheist! In Illuminism, religion is the spiritual expression of meritocracy and, therefore, is absolutely entwined with the political system. Anyone who does not want to become God (or, for atheists, a Nietzschean Superman) cannot be a true meritocrat. They have not bought into the notion of the Community of Gods, and the Society of the Divine.

Pseudoart Spengler insisted that modern art no longer reflected any cultural values but in fact assaulted them. Modern art is a sure sign of decadence and degeneration. Art no longer raises us up. It’s no longer spiritual. It’s just a cynical meta commentary on society. What point does it serve? Only the rich are interested in it and promote it.

Exceptionalism America believes in a) its own exceptionalism and b) Western universalism based on the free-market capitalist democratic principles that drive America. A) and b) are of course related since America believes that freemarket capitalist democracy has made it what it is. If the world obeys the b) model then America will rule all since, as a truly exceptional nation (in its own estimation), it will be No.1 at implementing the b) model. America, in

essence, wants the whole of the world to be like America, but for America to be permanently guaranteed the top status. This is an absurd and deluded vision. America is not exceptional. China will soon surpass it, and a united Europe would wipe the floor with America (but Europe is sadly and pathetically incapable of uniting). Nor will Islam or the East ever accept the American way of doing thing, so the universalist policy is doomed to fail. The Americans thought Iraq would lap up the American way of doing things. Well, that worked out well, didn’t it? Never has a foreign policy and “vision” been so comprehensively refuted.

Ultimate Aims “...I would protest against two assumptions which have so far vitiated all historical thought: the assertion of an ultimate aim of mankind as a whole and the denial of there being ultimate aims at all. The life has aim. It is the fulfilment of that which was ordained at its conception. But the individual belongs by birth to the particular high Culture on the one hand and to the type man on the other. ... His destiny must lie either in the zoological or the world-historical field. ‘Historical’ man as I understand the word and as all great historians have meant it to be taken, is the man of a Culture that is in full march towards self-fulfilment. Before this, after this, outside this, man is historyless ... From this there follows a fact of the most decisive importance, and one that has never before been established: that man is not only historyless before the birth of Culture, but again becomes so as soon as a Civilization has worked itself out fully to the definitive form which betokens the end of the living development of the Culture and the exhaustion of the last potentialities of its significant existence.” – Spengler “Spengler asserts that life and mankind as a whole have an ultimate aim. However, he maintains a distinction between world-historical peoples, and ahistorical peoples—the former will have a historical destiny as part of a high Culture, the latter will have a merely zoological fate. World-historical man’s destiny is self-fulfilment as a part of his Culture. Further, Spengler asserts that not only is pre-Cultural man without history, he loses his historical weight as his Culture becomes exhausted and becomes a more and more defined Civilization.” – Wikipedia

Spengler does not make any claim that that life and mankind have any ultimate aim. What he says is that a historical people seeks to fulfil its cultural and historical destiny. That is an ultimate aim relative to the culture in question, but it is no kind of ultimate aim in the religious or dialectical sense.

The Soul Image Spengler said that the “Soul-image” is a function of World-image.” This is consistent with the Hermetic doctrine of as above, so below, and man as a microcosm of the macrocosm (the universe). In Illuminism, one monad has the same form as the whole universe – which simply consists of infinite monads. The Hermetic Principle is built into Illuminism and the Monadology.

***** Spengler said every science is built on a religion. The “religion” of science is empiricist materialism. It can convert to a new and more spiritual religion: rationalist idealism.

The Control of Space Spengler said that whereas the Faustian mind longed for soaring spaces (skyscrapers and spires, we might say), the Magians were transfixed by the notion of the World-Cavern. The dome of St. Peter’s Basilica and of mosques expresses this love of the cavern. If science is all about finite limits, Illuminism is all about the ultimate limits: zero and infinity, which come together in the mathematical singularity – the point.

The End of Bullshit Network (Sidney Lumet, 1976) Howard Beale: “Good evening. Today is Wednesday, September the 24th, and this is my last broadcast. Yesterday I announced on this program that I was going to commit public suicide, admittedly an act of madness. Well, I’ll tell you what happened: I just ran out of bullshit. Am I still on the air? I really don’t know any other way to say it other than I just ran out of bullshit. Bullshit is all the reasons we give for living. And if we can’t think up any reasons of our own, we always have the God bullshit. We don’t know why we’re going through all this pointless pain, humiliation, decay, so there better be someone somewhere who does know. That’s the God bullshit. And then, there’s the noble man bullshit; that man is a noble

creature that can order his own world; who needs God? Well, if there’s anybody out there that can look around this demented slaughterhouse of a world we live in and tell me that man is a noble creature, believe me: That man is full of bullshit. I don’t have anything going for me. I haven’t got any kids. And I was married for thirty-three years of shrill, shrieking fraud. So I don’t have any bullshit left. I just ran out of it, you see.” The whole world has run out of bullshit. Ronnie Real has come calling... and the people are terrified.

The Wisdom of Howard Beale Howard Beale: “I’m a human being, GOD DAMNIT! My life has value.” In capitalism, you are a commodity with a price. Price is not value. You are accorded no value. You’re not priceless, you’re worthless. Howard Beale: “I don’t have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It’s a depression. Everybody’s out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel’s worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there’s nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there’s no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV’s while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that’s the way it’s supposed to be. We know things are bad – worse than bad. They’re crazy. It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don’t go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, ‘Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.’ Well, I’m not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot – I don’t want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write. I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad. You’ve got to say, ‘I’m a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!’ So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell,

‘I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!’ I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell – ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ Things have got to change. But first, you’ve gotta get mad!... You’ve got to say, ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ Then we’ll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: ‘I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!’ Well, are you or are you not going to keep taking it?

Humanity as Robots Howard Beale: “What is finished, is the idea that this great country is dedicated to the freedom and flourishing of every individual in it. It’s the individual that’s finished. It’s the single, solitary human being that’s finished. It’s every single one of you out there that’s finished, because this is no longer a nation of independent individuals. It’s a nation of some 200odd million transistorized, deodorized, whiter-than-white, steel-belted bodies, totally unnecessary as human beings, and as replaceable as piston rods... Well, the time has come to say, is dehumanization such a bad word. Because good or bad, that’s what is so. The whole world is becoming humanoid – creatures that look human but aren’t. The whole world not just us. We’re just the most advanced country, so we’re getting there first. The whole world’s people are becoming mass-produced, programmed, numbered, insensate things.” But that’s the whole logic of capitalism. It’s all about the objectification, depersonalization and commodification of human beings. Would capitalists be just as happy to deal with a world population of consumerist androids? You bet! What’s the difference between the androids and the “people” if they’re just as good at playing the part of paying customers? Humanity doesn’t matter in the slightest in capitalism, only money.

The Media Lie (Hyperreality) Howard Beale: [laughing to himself] “But, man, you’re never going to get any truth from us. We’ll tell you anything you want to hear; we lie like hell. We’ll tell you that, uh, Kojak always gets the killer, or that nobody ever gets cancer at Archie Bunker’s house, and no matter how much trouble the hero is in, don’t worry, just look at your watch; at the end of the hour he’s going to win. We’ll tell you any shit you want to hear. We deal in *illusions*, man! None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colours, creeds. We’re all you know. You’re beginning to believe the illusions we’re spinning here. You’re beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you! You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even ‘think’ like the tube! This is mass madness,

you maniacs! In God’s name, you people are the real thing! ‘WE’ are the illusion! So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off! Turn them off right in the middle of the sentence I’m speaking to you now! TURN THEM OFF! [collapses in a prophetic swoon as the audience erupts in thunderous applause].” This is hyperreality. People watch the TV to see how to behave and what to dress like and that then becomes “reality”, but it’s all based on a fictional representation of reality. So fact is born from fiction that set out to simulate fact. Fact and fiction can no longer be extricated from one another. No one knows what belongs to the Matrix and what doesn’t. Reality has eaten itself. Hyperreality is implicit in the Mythos world where fantasy is routinely treated as fact. A man proclaims his fantasy that he encountered the Angel Gabriel in a cave and he becomes a world prophet with billions of followers. How is such a thing possible unless humans are congenitally incapable of separating fantasy and reality? As Nietzsche observed, what humanity lacks is an “organ of truth”.

***** Howard Beale: “Because less than three percent of you people read books! Because less than fifteen percent of you read newspapers! Because the only truth you know is what you get over this tube. Right now, there is a whole, an entire generation that never knew anything that didn’t come out of this tube! This tube is the Gospel, the ultimate revelation. This tube can make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers... This tube is the most awesome God-damned force in the whole godless world, and woe is us if it ever falls in to the hands of the wrong people, and that’s why woe is us that Edward George Ruddy died. Because this company is now in the hands of CCA – the Communication Corporation of America. There’s a new Chairman of the Board, a man called Frank Hackett, sitting in Mr. Ruddy’s office on the twentieth floor. And when the twelfth largest company in the world controls the most awesome God-damned propaganda force in the whole godless world, who knows what shit will be peddled for truth on this network?” Howard Beale: [ascending the stage] “So, you listen to me. Listen to me: Television is not the truth! Television is a God-damned amusement park! Television is a circus, a carnival, a travelling troupe of acrobats, storytellers,

dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We’re in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that’s the only place you’re ever going to find any real truth.” The whole world now revolves around the “boredom-killing business.” It’s the basis of capitalism.

The Truths of Arthur Jensen Network (Sidney Lumet, 1976) “There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immense, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU, WILL, ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale.” “The world is a business.” That’s exactly right. That’s what capitalism turned it into. Happy with that? Is the glory of humanity to be expressed through business, spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations? Is that what we’ve been reduced to by Bill Gates and Steve Jobs? Nations and ideologies have vanished. World cities, multinational corporations, global banking and the global elite now define the world. Happy with that?

When History Ends Spengler’s version of the End of History was rather different from Hegel’s. For Hegel, history ended for the whole of humanity once it reached its omega point. This doesn’t mean that events no longer take place or that some Apocalypse has transpired. It simply means that the great dialectical movements of history have ceased and humanity has reached the political state of maximum stability. Any change from here would decrease rather than increase stability. The omega point is the ground state, the most stable state, of politics. For Spengler, history ends only in the context of cultures. When each culture runs out of creative energy, its historical significance and contribution is effectively over. It then becomes a mere “civilization” – a dead culture that has run out of anything to say and is just continuing like a monstrous zombie. It can’t create; it doesn’t generate any new institutions; there’s no new art or philosophy. All the ideas have dried up. There’s no spirituality. A culture is under cosmic direction; a civilization is earthbound.

The End of the West “All that remains is the struggle for mere power, for animal advantage per se. Whereas previously power, even when to all appearance destitute of any inspiration, was always serving the Idea somehow or other, in the late Civilization even the most convincing illusion of an idea is only the mask for purely zoological strivings.” – Spengler Are we in the West today not in that time of mere zoological strivings? This is the dead West. It’s time for its rebirth: under meritocracy and Illuminism.

Heraclitus Spengler wrote a doctoral thesis on Heraclitus. It’s odd, then, that he didn’t have a more dialectical understanding of history, in the manner of Hegel and Marx who also studied Heraclitus. In the Marxist history of philosophy, Heraclitus is regarded as the earliest predecessor of Dialectical Materialism. Heraclitus taught that higher truths are reached from contradictions, a theme taken up and made into a grand system by Hegel. For Hegel, the underlying general law of development of nature, society, religion, art, philosophy, logic, science and thought is the dialectic. From a conflict between thesis and antithesis comes

a synthesis, which becomes a new, higher thesis, leading to a new, higher iteration of the dialectic, and so on until ultimate convergence is attained. Hegel said, “There is no sentence of Heraclitus’ that I have not taken into my Logik.” Nietzsche also admired Heraclitus and his great prophet Zarathustra was inspired by Heraclitus.

The Jews: An Earlier Human Species? “Pre-Adamite hypothesis or Preadamism is a hypothesis within theology that humans existed before Adam. This theoretical assumption is contrary to beliefs describing Adam as the first human, as stated in the Bible and the Qur’an. The theory of Preadamism is therefore distinct from the conventional religious belief that Adam was the first human. Preadamism has a long history, probably having its origins in early pagan responses to Abrahamic claims regarding the origins of the human race.” – Wikipedia Voltaire subscribed to a version of the pre-Adamite theory which said that the Jews were remnants of an older, not-quite modern human species (something akin to Neanderthals we might say). Lilith, often described as the first wife of Adam, might have been a reference to a pre-Adamite humanity.

The Golden Age In the ancient world, people believed that humanity was better in the past (when a great Golden Age existed), and things were always getting worse. The ancients were pessimists. In the modern world, people believe that humanity will be better in the future. The Golden Age lies ahead of us, not behind. Modern people are optimists.

***** Many conservatives, like the ancients, tend to look back to some imagined Golden Age and hanker to turn the clock back. Radicals always look to a Golden Age yet to come. They always want to move the clock forward. How can these two types co-exist? They are opposed in every way.

The Cosmic Psyche Since the universe is alive and has a mind, we can think of it terms of the Freudian model of the psyche. The universe has an id and an opposing superego, with a rational ego acting as mediator. The id obeys the Pleasure Principle. It’s all about looking after “No. 1”. It’s about “Me, me, me.” It cares only for its own advantage, its own power

and has no concern for others. It wants to do whatever it likes whenever it likes. It is pure selfishness. It acts only out of self-interest. It’s pure will, pure drive. Any reason it has is pressed into the service of its lusts. It fanatically pursues hedonism. It lusts to dominate others. It’s a psychopath. Its dialectical opponent is the cosmic superego. This is acutely aware of others and their needs. It obeys the Morality Principle. It’s about “We, we, we.” It emphasises community, doing no harm to others, cooperating with others, togetherness, empathy and sympathy, altruism. It’s a saint. Sitting between them is the mediator, the cosmic ego obeying the Reality Principle. It’s a rationalist.

***** The id is fundamentally irrational and wilful. In terms of Paul MacLean’s theory of the triune brain, it’s associated with the reptilian brain. The superego is fundamentally emotional, sentimental, “unconditionally loving”. In terms of the triune brain, it’s associated with the limbic system. The ego is rational and, in terms of the triune brain, it’s associated with the neocortex. The ego is the youngest part of the cosmic mind: reason is the last mental component to make its appearance (pure will and desire is first, and emotion second.) The universe begins as pure will, driving forward like an irresistible reptile. The universe is full of conflict and brutality at this stage – this is the ultimate cosmic jungle. Then emotion – centred on the experience of pleasure and pain – evolves and allows much more nuanced behaviour than the reptilian mind permits. It also allows the pleasure of cooperation to manifest itself. A dialectical tension now exists between selfishness and cooperation. What’s the best strategy? Entities that cooperate can become stronger through strength of numbers. Entities that don’t cooperate have to act as lone wolves, but they get exactly what they want: they never have to compromise with others. Any mind always wants to get what it wants, but it often doesn’t want to have to fight to get it. If it can cooperate and get some of what it wants, that’s better than having to fight for something and perhaps getting nothing at all.

So, a world of dialectical game theory is brought into being. Everything is trying to work out the best way to achieve its goals, taking into account the risks and likelihood of success. “Evil” is when a mind chooses the option of doing extreme harm to others in order to get its way (zero-sum game: one winner and one loser); “good” is when a mind chooses to cooperate with others to achieve a common goal (a “win-win” situation). Hence the dialectic of good and evil has come into existence. With the advent of reason and calculation, a new possibility exists: going beyond good and evil. Reason will almost always be on the side of “good” because cooperation is the best option in most situations. However, it’s not compelled to always be good. Good and evil are associated with Mythos, and beyond good and evil with Logos. In Illuminism, Satan is associated with the id, with evil and the reptilian mind, while Lucifer is associated with the superego, good, and the limbic system. Abraxas is linked to the rational ego, to the calculating neocortex. Abraxas is beyond good and evil. Satan in Illuminism is both archetype and a real cosmic being. Satan was (and is) a being that always followed the id route, and never contemplated cooperation. It was this entity that brought into being the cosmic archetype of the id, giving it a settled form. Every one of us has access to this archetype – in other words, we’re all in touch with the mind of Satan. No one is conscious of this. Satan isn’t literally whispering in our ears and urging us to do evil, or anything silly and superstitious like that. No, his archetype is available to us, and we can choose to reflect it or not. All the selfish people in the world can literally be said to be tuning into the Satanic archetype and choosing to be Satan’s followers. No one makes them do it. It’s their nature. Similarly, everyone can tune into the female Luciferian archetype and be moral and altruistic. And everyone can tune into the rational Abraxas archetype. Our own psyches reflect the cosmic archetypes. All of us are influenced by all three, but the balance is radically different between different types of people. Some of us are barely evil at all. Some are almost always evil. Some of us are mostly rational, and so on. Humanity’s religions reflect the cosmic archetypes. The Abrahamic religions follow an all-powerful, wilful Torture God who in every way

matches the description of Satan. He has no redeeming features, and zero rationality. “Earth Goddess”, New Age, hippie and Eastern religions are highly Luciferian. Illuminism is a pure Abraxas religion. For humanity to progress, the Satanic religions of Abrahamism must be eradicated. The Jews, Christians and Muslims have no place in a civilised, decent, moral world. They have chosen to worship the Devil, ruined our world and turned it into hell. There’s nothing that wouldn’t be immediately improved if all the Abrahamists suddenly vanished (“raptured” into hell to be with their Satanic God).

The Two Structures Marx distinguished between a society’s infrastructure (material) and superstructure (mental, spiritual, institutional). The elite control both. They control the investment that dictates the bricks and mortar infrastructure, and they ensure that they live in the finest parts of the country with the best infrastructure, while the poor are allowed to live in ghettos, with collapsing infrastructure. They also control the superstructure: the law, the education system, the army, police, religion, economy, banking system, stock market, corporate world and all the major institutions. They have you completely controlled, materially, mentally, religiously and institutionally.

Private versus Public Language If a private language – one understood by only one person and not capable of being learned by any other person, while functioning exactly like a normal language – cannot exist then this means that the Abrahamic God, when he was on his own prior to Creation, could not have had any language skills, hence could not have formulated any concepts, hence could not have been conscious. The impossibility of a private language has, as an immediate corollary, the impossibility of a conscious Creator. Languages are always public. Consciousness is a function of language hence, like language is a social phenomenon, driven by the need to communicate. Just as no man is an island, no man can have a language on his own, and no man can be conscious on his own. All of us are dependent on each other for language and consciousness. It’s therefore mad not to cooperate with and help each other. We all stand

together. We are defined be our togetherness, not our separateness.

The Power of the Image “The real does not efface itself in favour of the imaginary; it effaces itself in favour of the more real than real, the hyperreal. The truer than the true: this is simulation [the domain of simulacra].” – Jean Baudrillard, Fatal Strategies “The successive phases of the image: * It is the reflection of a profound reality; * It masks and denatures a profound reality; * It masks the absence of a profound reality; * It has no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum.” – Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation The same analysis might be applied to Spengler’s “Cultures”, with the terminal “Civilization” becoming a simulacrum that has no meaningful relation to the original Culture from which it grew. Kierkegaard railed against bourgeois Danish Christendom, seeing it as all about appearance and social conformity, and nothing at all to do with actual Christianity. In fact, Baudrillard’s four stages can be validly applied to all religions, art, politics and even science. “[Simulacra are generated] by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map ... it is the map that precedes the territory. It is the real ... whose vestiges persist here and there in the deserts that are ... ours. The desert of the real itself.” – Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation

***** “How the Real World at last became a Myth.” – Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

Out of Fashion “If the word ‘untimely,’ which he himself coined, is applicable to anyone at all, then it is Nietzsche. One searches in vain throughout his whole life and

all of his thought for any indication that he might have yielded inwardly to any vogue or fad. ... Nietzsche could remain true to his task only by turning his back on society. His frightful loneliness stands as a symbol over against Goethe’s cheerful gregariousness. One of these great men gave shape to existing things; the other brooded over nonexisting things. One of them worked for a prevailing form; the other against a prevailing formlessness. ... Just as Goethe was the last of the Classics, Nietzsche was, next to Wagner, the last of the Romantics. By their lives and their creations they exhausted the possibilities of these two movements. ... The Romantic is enticed by whatever is strange to his nature, the Classic by what is proper to his nature. Noble dreamers on the one hand, noble masters of dreams on the other. The one type adored the conquerors, rebels, and criminals of the past, or ideal states and supermen of the future; the other type construed statesmanship in practical, methodical terms or, like Goethe and Humboldt, even practised it themselves. ... Nietzsche’s longing for remoteness also explains his aristocratic taste, which was that of a completely lonely and visionary personality. ... Nietzsche never really became familiar with the democracy of his time in all its strength and weakness. To be sure, he rebelled against the herd instinct with the wrath of his extremely sensitive soul, but the chief cause of his anger was to be found somewhere in the historical past. He was doubtless the first to demonstrate in such radical fashion how in all cultures and epochs of the past the masses count for nothing, that they suffer from history but do not create it, that they are at all times the pawns and victims of the personal will of individuals and classes born to be rulers. People had sensed this often enough before, but Nietzsche was the first to destroy the traditional image of ‘humanity’ as progress toward the solution of ideal problems through the agency of its leaders. ... These were the years when Western Rationalism, after abandoning its glorious beginnings with Rousseau, Voltaire, and Lessing, ended as a farce. Darwin’s theories, together with the new faith in matter and energy, became the religion of the big cities; the soul was regarded as a chemical process involving proteins, and the meaning of the universe boiled down to the social ethics of enlightened philistines. Not a single fibre of Nietzsche’s being was party to these developments.” – Spengler

The Failure of Democracy

Democracy fails in all possible ways. It claims to be about “people power”, yet all democratic leaders are either from a particular privileged class from which ordinary people are excluded, or have learned to be palatable to that class, hence are ersatz members of that class (such as Obama). No ordinary people ever walk the corridors of power in a democracy. So much for the people. Next, the democratic leaders do not rule the country at all. The plutocrats who run the economy are the true power in the land, and they are never up for election and are entirely unaccountable to the people. Via lobbying, bribery, corruption and intimidation, they get the democratic leaders to do their bidding at all times. Worst of all, democracy already comes with a “divide and rule” paradigm built in. The notion of opposing political parties means that there can never be a common purpose in a democratic nation. Opposing factions are locked together in an idiotic process that swings one way and then the other, to no good, productive end. Look at the political chaos in America, where everything is permanently gridlocked. Cui bono? The ruling elite, of course. All controversial, adventurous policies that seek to achieve real change are automatically voted down and thwarted in a democracy. In Spengler’s terms, democracies, as well as being vehicles for plutocrats to surreptitiously rule the gullible, credulous masses, are all about populations rather than people. Populations are inherently divided and have no unity of purpose. They serve particular wills rather than the General Will. Only a people obeying the General Will can accomplish great things. Democracies are all about particular wills and chaotic populations that can never agree on anything. They are all about muddle, confusion, compromise and committees that can’t change anything. Democracies are doomed!

Hermann Hesse Hermann Hesse (1877 – 1962) was a German-Swiss novelist and poet. In 1931, he began his masterpiece Das Glasperlenspiel (“The Glass Bead Game”; an alternative title is Magister Ludi: “Master of the Game”), but it wasn’t published until 1943, in the midst of the savage convulsions of World War II. It was his last novel, his last great work: he was creatively spent after its completion. This extraordinary novel, of formidable length, daunting complexity and the highest possible ambition, helped Hesse win

the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1946. With World War II just ended, the novel’s depiction of a war-free, tranquil Europe of the future held special appeal. Hesse died in 1962, with a reputation as a difficult, esoteric and obscure writer. However, the hippies of the 1960s fell in love with his books, seeing them as guides to the path of spiritual enlightenment. His novels achieved widespread popularity and Hesse became a major figure of the Counter Culture. Apart from The Glass Bead Game, Hesse’s best-known novels are Siddhartha, Demian and Steppenwolf. His central theme is “coming of age” in one way or another, about transcending cultural norms and expectations, and, above all, about the long, hard journey to enlightenment. He typically focuses on a gifted young man rising from obscurity, progressing through life, achieving greatness and finally discovering the true meaning of life, or that what he has taken to be the true meaning is false, an illusion. Yet even that failure points to the possibility of future success since if you are able to “see through” seductive thought systems and know they are not the real deal then one day you may discover a system that has no flaws: Illuminism.

The Glass Bead Game The Glass Bead Game is set in an unspecified future year in an unidentified German-speaking part of Europe (probably Switzerland), with an ideal geography of mountains, lakes, forests and secluded valleys. Within this land exists a cloistered spiritual province, called Castalia, perfectly protected and insulated from the vicissitudes and dangers of the outside world. All is serenity and beauty. Its inhabitants form a greatly respected, exclusively male, spiritual elite – like monks of the mind – governed by strict laws of initiation and obedient within a meritocratic intellectual hierarchy. Castalia reflects the main disciplines of the humanities, but with music and mathematics accorded the highest status and value. In esoteric terms, going back to Pythagoras, both of these combine in a comprehensive, all-pervading harmony (the cosmic Music of the Spheres), which seems to exist almost physically throughout Castalia. Each academic discipline in Castalia is led by a master (a “Magister”), who is elected by the other members of his discipline. Each Magister is therefore entirely meritocratic, with a talent recognized and acknowledged by all. Each Magister is considered a person of the utmost spiritual excellence. However, all disciplines bow to one which unites them all – the Glass Bead Game – reserved for the most elite students of all. Only the finest minds are officially permitted to play this ultimate game, and the unique band of players constitute the apex of Castalia’s spiritual elite. A special, interdisciplinary initiation is required for the players. The master of the Game, the Magister Ludi, is the de facto head of the whole of Castalia, a kind of Pope of the Intellect. The Glass Bead Game is all about transcending individual disciplines and seeing what unites them all, even when there seem to be no links at all. The Game players are those able to see the hidden correspondences, the secret connections, the unseen network of mental strands entwining all things. The task of the Game is to generate higher syntheses and sublime spiritual insights and unexpected links that light up the mind. The Game is won by the player who can create the most beautiful pattern of beads, reflecting the most extraordinary and unforeseen connections between ideas. The more beautiful the arrangement of the beads, the more it reflects transcendental truths, and the closer it is to inducing enlightenment.

The most beautiful bead pattern of all would be the “God Pattern”, reflecting all possible knowledge in the simplest and most elegant form. In Illuminist terms, no pattern could be more beautiful than Euler’s Formula: the ultimate ontological definition of energy, information and motion, and from which the whole of ontological mathematics is derived. The Glass Bead Game is the central focus of a great annual festival attended by many people from outside Castalia. It’s covered by the radio and the press (and TV, it must be assumed – although this wasn’t mainstream when Hesse was writing this novel) in which wannabe players from outside Castalia were, on this special occasion, permitted to challenge the supreme masters of the game (just as chess amateurs like to test themselves against a chess Grand Master, who often plays blindfolded, or against dozens of people at once). The festival provided a great spiritual communion for Castalia and the surrounding State. There’s certainly nothing like it in today’s world. It would be like all the Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim festivals put together. The Glass Bead Game is practised by its expert players as a universal science of learning (mathesis universalis), governed by the pure equations and notes of mathematics and music. The Game itself raises the players to a higher spiritual level. It’s enormously superior to meditation.

The Game of Life Hesse later revealed that the principal narrator of The Glass Bead Game, an unknown member of the fictional Castalian Order, is writing around the beginning of the 25th century, and describing an unusual hero – Joseph Knecht – who had lived long enough ago to have become the subject of legends. Therefore, the central action takes place around the year 2200. In this future world, Europe has been peaceful for some two hundred years and is enjoying something of a golden age. The era may be considered post-historical or even anti-historical. In a manner of speaking, the Hegelian end of history has arrived where events still happen, but none of the great dramas and conflicts of “active” history. Alternatively, the period reflects the dying embers of a Spenglerian “civilization”. The setting for the book is, as noted earlier, Castalia, a futuristic, utopian society, and the narrative chronicles the life of the singular,

aforementioned Joseph Knecht, whose surname translates as “knave” or “servant”. A prodigy, Knecht enjoys a stellar rise through the elite schools of the Castalian Order, the band of elite intellectuals who live a closeted, quasimonastic life of study, who cultivate the highest scholarship and spiritual values, and play the eponymous Glass Bead Game. This game is the supreme test of intellectual merit and also a sort of mental sport that has captivated Knecht’s entire civilization and dominates the lives of all the book’s major characters. It might be considered in terms of a kind of superadvanced, artistic, cultural, existential chess. It proceeds via the players making deep and unexpected connections between seemingly unrelated topics, seeing unifying principles that bring together disparate ideas. Knecht is arguably the best player of the game of all time and he’s duly elevated to the highest echelon of the Order and the pinnacle of intellectual life by attaining the position of Magister Ludi (Master of the Game – the effective Pope or Grand Master of the Order). Despite being seemingly born for the role, he soon suffers a crisis of confidence in the purpose of the Order, and becomes more and more affected by doubt, something entirely alien to the Enlightenment rationalism of the Castalian Order. He starts to see the Order as ridiculously idealistic and cut off from society, and wonders whether the intellectually gifted have the right to withdraw from the problems of the world. He ultimately concludes that the Castalian Order – and its obsession with the pointless, endless, all-consuming Glass Bead Game – is grossly irresponsible and begins to openly question the Game’s importance. Astoundingly, he resigns and walks away, with the same shock value as if a newly elected Pope had renounced his position within days of his appointment. Knecht enters the larger world, determined to do something of value, and to be of service to people. He takes up the role of tutor to a boy called Tito, the troublesome, energetic and strong-willed son of a rich, decadent, aristocratic political family, but, within days, Tito challenges him to go swimming in an icy cold, alpine mountain lake and Knecht accepts. While Tito swims effortlessly, Knecht is overcome by the extreme cold, suffers a heart attack and drowns. Given his cloistered past, he was entirely unfit for such an exertion. It therefore seems Knecht has wasted his brilliance and accomplished nothing at all. Yet following his tragic death, Castalia reforms and is

revitalized, once again becoming an authentic centre of learning and progress. Its long stasis is over. Hesse depicts Knecht’s abrupt death, which occurred as the sun rose, as a ritual sacrifice, performed by nature itself against the most outstanding member of a community that, in their intellectual and spiritual obsession, had “denatured” themselves. The members of Castalia – all men, no women – were cut off from love and their bodily instincts and desires. Castalia is an impeccable, artificial society, the supreme construct of the mind and spirit, which had more or less renounced the body in its entirety. It doesn’t even pay for itself. It’s entirely dependent on the surrounding State (unnamed throughout the text), which is willing to sustain it despite the financial burden. Tito, before entering the cold lake for the fatal race, had performed an orgiastic dance honouring the rising sun, thus invoking its power, which was then seemingly directed at Knecht. The sun symbolizes the ferocious energy of nature. Tito is transformed by this strange, almost mystical event from a rebellious teenager into a potentially ideal candidate to sustain the Glass Bead Game in the future. His short time with Knecht – the allegorical servant of humanity (a kind of self-sacrificing intellectual Jesus) – has had the most profound effect on him. He has been deeply affected by the great man’s wisdom and humanity and, consequently, gone from being a spoiled, self-indulgent, unruly and rebellious teenager into a potentially perfect candidate to be a radical, reforming Magister Ludi who reinvigorates the Glass Bed Game. Knecht died just as he was discovering his true self, just as he was on the point of becoming enlightened, but in a sense he was immediately reincarnated in his bright pupil who was set to become a great leader who would reform society for the better and usher in a Golden Age of Logos balanced by Mythos, of reason tempered by emotion, in preference to an emotionally dead over-intellectualism, or a dumb, emotional antiintellectualism. Knecht is thereby transformed into a secular Christ-like figure, a martyr who gave his life at his supreme point of self-discovery. Through his spiritual revolt and sacrifice, life is born anew in what had been a decaying, dying society, thus leading to more fulfilled lives for everyone.

Art for Art’s sake Hesse immensely admired Goethe, the greatest artistic genius of the Illuminati. Thanks to Goethe, the Illuminati have traditionally adopted a complex attitude to artists and to extreme individualist intellectuals (such as Nietzsche or Jung). As Goethe insisted, sometimes an artist is best left to his own devices if he’s to accomplish his greatest work. The lonely, frustrated, tormented genius in his miserable, depressing garret – and with his overwhelming sense of being contra mundum (against the world) – is often able to raise himself to the level of the gods precisely by having to overcome so much bitter adversity. Would he really prefer to be given a happier and more conventionally successful life if the price paid was that he was rendered incapable of creating the immortal meisterwerk that would define his personal existence and indeed his entire Age? Hesse’s genius was clear to the Illuminati and he had several meetings with members of the Illuminati. He was keen to join the Order, but the Grand Master specifically excluded him, telling him that the “game” required Hesse to be left on the outside. This episode may in fact have been the inspiration for The Glass Bead Game. The Castalian Order of that book is without question Hesse’s coded depiction of the Illuminati, and he certainly captures much of the spirit of the Illuminati’s obsessive pursuit of intellectual purity and perfection. The book is also saturated with themes from Spengler’s Decline of the West. The Glass Bead Game is not what would popularly be regarded as an enjoyable read – a “good read” – but, if you pick it up in the right mood and at the right moment in your life, it may be the greatest book you ever read, one that marks you forever. All such works of genius are perched over an abyss of absolute tedium on one hand, and staggering insight into the deepest secrets of the universe on the other.

The Nature of the Game Here are a couple of Hesse’s suggestive and intriguing descriptions of the eponymous Glass Bead Game: “Under the shifting hegemony of now this, now that science or art, the Game of games had developed into a kind of universal language through which the players could express values and set these in relation to one another. Throughout its history the Game was closely allied with music, and

usually proceeded according to musical and mathematical rules. One theme, two themes, or three themes were stated, elaborated, varied, and underwent a development quite similar to that of the theme in a Bach fugue or a concerto movement. A Game, for example, might start from a given astronomical configuration, or from the actual theme of a Bach fugue, or from a sentence out of Leibniz or the Upanishads, and from this theme, depending on the intentions and talents of the player, it could either further explore and elaborate the initial motif or else enrich its expressiveness by allusions to kindred concepts. Beginners learned how to establish parallels, by means of the Game’s symbols, between a piece of classical music and the formula for some law of nature. Experts and Masters of the Game freely wove the initial theme into unlimited combinations.” “ ...a mode of playing with the total contents and values of our culture; it plays with them as, say, in the great age of the arts a painter might have played with the colours on his palette. All the insights, noble thoughts, and works of art that the human race has produced in its creative eras, all that subsequent periods of scholarly study have reduced to concepts and converted into intellectual property – on all this immense body of intellectual values the Glass Bead Game player plays like the organist on an organ. And this organ has attained an almost unimaginable perfection; its manuals and pedals range over the entire intellectual cosmos; its stops are almost beyond number. Theoretically this instrument is capable of reproducing in the Game the entire intellectual content of the universe. ...On the other hand, within this fixed structure, or to abide by our image, within the complicated mechanism of this giant organ, a whole universe of possibilities and combinations is available to the individual player. For even two out of a thousand stringently played games to resemble each other more than superficially is hardly possible. Even if it should so happen that two players by chance were to choose precisely the same small assortment of themes for the content of their Game, those two Games could present an entirely different appearance and run an entirely different course, depending on the qualities of mind, character, mood, and virtuosity of the players.”

***** We might think of the game as being played by Mozarts of the mind, great composers of thought, who devise ingenious concertos, sonatas, operas, and

entire symphonies weaved out of not musical notes but scientific, mathematical, psychological, sociological, theological, philosophical, political and artistic theories. Wondrous connections are made between different fields of study; they are blended into great soaring harmonies, stunning overtures, the most stirring of climaxes. Imagine music for the intellect rather than music for the ears. Musical instruments are replaced by the instruments of the mind: reason, logic, narrative, poetry, organization, order, pattern, connection, synthesis, analysis, dialectics. The Glass Bead Game is a kind of terrestrial version of Pythagoras’s cosmic Music of the Spheres. Are not the greatest geniuses those who can compose marvels of the mind, ideas so powerful that they transfix all those who encounter them? They have the same effect on intellect that music does on emotions. To be a Glass Bead Game player was to play the God Game itself, to see the divine connections between all things. Music was used to act as the glue between many of the connections, ensuring an emotional as well as intellectual transmission of ideas. In some sense, the Glass Bead Game actually replaced God in Castalia. Or the experts playing the game could realistically see themselves as Gods. Some commentators have suggested that the Game is rather pointless and very clever people waste their lives playing it. Is it therefore a critique of philosophy, of academia in general, of the life of the ivory towers, cut off from the ordinary people and deemed irrelevant by the ordinary people? The world we live in is one that plays lip service to education while having almost total contempt for it. Those who are exceptionally beautiful, funny, famous, supremely skilled at sport or acting or singing, or, above all, those who are spectacularly wealthy, are those who dominate our world. The smart people are all locked away, as if they were lunatics. What are universities if not cunning asylums where the intelligent voluntarily confine themselves to escape the madness of the wider world, the planetary asylum of Earth itself?

The Second Religiousness In the Europe depicted by The Glass Bead Game, Protestantism has died out. Catholicism is once again entirely dominant (corresponding to Spengler’s Second Religiousness, the late echo of a Culture’s first great religion).

After the horrific wars of the past, people have decided to live a better life i.e. more moral and intellectual; away from the passions that drove the great wars of aggression. To ensure peace between the Catholic Church and the secularists and rationalists, a secular priesthood – much like the Catholic Jesuits or Catholic monks – has come into being and, rather than worship God, they have chosen to worship thinking. This is the Order of Castalia that plays the Glass Bead Game. The Game developed as the most aesthetic way of practising and cultivating thought. It’s part mathematics, part music, part art, part philosophy, part non-religious ideas of perfection. All of the players are atheists but have a profound spiritual sensibility (rather like Nietzsche who, despite being an atheist was obsessed with religion and even created his own prophet – Zarathustra – and his own holy text – Thus spoke Zarathustra), and they act as an intellectual priesthood. They enjoy the most cordial relations with the Catholic Church, have great respect for it and are in fact subsidized by Catholicism. There’s no Galileo versus the Inquisition in this Europe of the future. The Church and the rationalists coexist peacefully, each sticking to their own domain. The Church doesn’t interfere with the Glass Bead Game, and the players don’t interfere with or attack the Church. Indeed, the doctrines of the Church can be weaved into the intricate patterns of the game without any contradiction.

***** The Glass Bead Game is about an intellectual elite, but it’s no celebration and glorification of ultra rationalism. Indeed, it can be interpreted as an attack on rational certainty, seeing it as almost totalitarian and contemptuous of doubts and dissent. Another theme is the horror of assuming the top job – from which there is no formal resignation (as was the case for the Pope for many centuries) – and believing yourself to be entirely the wrong person; a person who could actually destroy the Order. Despite being expressly forbidden, Josef Knecht abdicates from his position, and the Glass Bead Game is, for a time, fatally undermined, losing its significance as an index of the health of society. Knecht found a new life of peace and stability with a wife and became a tutor of the young son of a rich family. His choice unnerved his peers, and

subverted their previous certainty and confidence. He rejected his destiny; he rejected his Order, he rejected the Glass Bead Game. This was the ultimate heresy. It would be as shocking as the Pope declaring his allegiance to Richard Dawkins.

***** In a way, Knecht challenged the power of reason and celebrated the body and emotionalism instead. This was effectively an inside attack on Logos culture and a desire to return to Mythos ways of doing things, or, rather, it can be seen as a plea to harness reason and emotion, rather than cut off emotion as the Castalian Order traditionally did. If the Logos world is full of people like Spock (from the first Star Trek) the Mythos world is much closer to the emotionalism of Dr McCoy. What is needed is the synthesis of logic and emotion – in the shape of Captain Kirk!

Don’t Provide Too Much Detail! In a work of fiction, less can be more. Should Hesse have described the Glass Bead Game exactly, or was it better to simply provide tantalising glimpses and let the reader imagine it for himself and try to work out its mysterious rules? You can ruin a novel by going into too much detail, and perhaps the Glass Bead Game, in particular, had to avoid a definite, defined form. Moreover, it would have been remarkably hard for Hesse to devise a true version of the Game that serious intellectuals could endeavour to play. The construction of the Game would have offered challenges as great as those that faced Leibniz when he was planning his infallible thinking machines, his “God devices”.

The History of the Game It was said that an early prototype of the Game used actual glass beads. The annual matches were followed as closely and widely as the most competitive chess tournaments (such as the incendiary Spassky (USSR) versus Fischer (USA) world championship during the Cold War). The matches were either televised or somehow projected using special equipment so that everyone could see them. The game might involve elaborate musical scores or intricate and painstaking calligraphy. The Game could be played by people on their own, while the great competitive

matches were analysed in immense detail like the best chess contests between the world’s best Grand Masters.

***** The Glass Bead Game involves connections – uncovering hidden links between disparate things. It’s about homologies, homology being the study of agreement, correspondence and similarity. Clearly, music is similar to mathematics (in fact it’s just aural mathematics), but is a sonata by Beethoven homologous to a Riemann Sphere? Does a particular piece by Bach correspond to a Gaussian distribution? Does the Gaussian distribution tell us something about human weight? Does human weight tell us anything about human psychology (are fat and thin people psychologically different)? Does human psychology tell us anything about religious beliefs? Do your religious beliefs determine how wealthy you are? So, does the original Bach piece, and your response to it, allow your wealth to be determined? Can two “beads” that apparently have nothing in common be seen to actually be two aspects of the same thing? Can we find homologies in history, geography, science, economics, mathematics, sociology, religion, psychology, music, philosophy, astronomy, cosmology, sport, art, drama, language? Do the notes of a musical scale correspond to the letters of the alphabet, prime numbers, or the arrangement of the elements in the Periodic Table? Does the growth of a plant match the growth of a population of rabbits, or humans? Can artistic styles be said to reflect the colours or shapes of different flowers? Something akin to the Glass Bead Game is played by the Illuminati with the purpose of expanding the mind. Two entirely different subjects are chosen at random and the player must then find as many intriguing analogies between them as possible, and make a presentation of the highest aesthetic quality showing the results of his investigations. In Hesse’s future Europe, this Illuminist game has been made actual at the most sophisticated level possible and is now part of the institutional framework of society. Everyone is aware of it and affected by it. All phenomena are described and embraced by the game. An internationally respected authority oversees the game and maintains its integrity. This supreme arbiter ensures that none of the rules are broken.

The Game has been described as “a competitive jazz of literary and scientific allusions”. Where, before, intellectuals might have been stuck in their academic ivory towers producing obscure research papers, now the finest minds are all engaged with the Game. It’s all-consuming and has actually replaced academia. It’s an artform as well as a rigorous mental discipline. It’s where the mathematical genius, the musical virtuoso, the polymath and Renaissance Man become one. Numbers, notes, equations and ideas are conducted as one. The Game renders all subjects beautiful, artistic, harmonious, vibrant, fluid, full of colour and energy. It constitutes an explosion of the mind, an irresistible flow of creativity, generating endless novel connections and unexpected insights. It’s the supreme outlet for higher minds. It beats everything such as meditation, yoga, and academic study (although these can all be used in becoming a master of the Game). It might be said to be a channel to the Mind of God; it links us to the Neoplatonic Nous where all the Platonic Forms are held in mind at once and all their connections are instantly apparent. It is thus the ultimate path to spiritual enlightenment. It’s Buddhism with go-faster stripes, and enormously more intellectual. It tears down the shimmering veil of Maya, and reveals all. It makes visible all that’s hidden. It seeks to reflect the whole domain of creativity, art and thought. It’s the God Game.

***** There are twelve Magisters of the national Board of Educators, including the Magister Ludi, Magister Mathematicae, Magister Musicae, and so on. Their primary duty is to oversee the teaching of their subjects in the elite schools from which the Game players are chosen. The Magisters as a group oversee Castalia. Hesse does not make it entirely plain what Castalia actually is, deliberately leaving it vague. It’s either a distinct geographical province or an administrative designation, referring to the unity of all the different disciplines that comprise it. The students of the elite schools of Castalia are all boys and are recruited as young children. When they have graduated, they serve as teachers, researchers or Game players. These roles last for life. The Castalian Order to which they belong resembles a Catholic monastic Order. They live in poverty, albeit comfortably enough, and are permanent

bachelors. They are mostly celibate and if they have sex it is with the same caution that any monk would exercise for fear of being discovered. The ordinary people refer to them as “Mandarins”, but they do not exercise any power over society any more than monks do. The Castalian schools are purely for the intellectual elite. Society also has ordinary schools, up to university level, whose students practise the normal, practical professions of mainstream society. While Castalia supplies many of the teachers for the public system, the Magisters do not control the State education system. Castalia is wholly dependent on public funding, and the Magisters must devote time to lobbying against any cuts, and seeking additional funds. In many ways, the denizens of Castalia resemble Plato’s elite Guardians, except they have only educational power and no political power. They do not administer the State. Their function is simply to embody the highest intellectual values of society. In the Castalian Age, political parties, elections, and the media still exist. However, there are none of the “fireworks” of previous eras. Not only have violence and instability disappeared from society, so have all the energy and creativity. Nothing much ever changes. It’s as if a permanent Chinese bureaucracy has taken over and everything stays the same for generation after generation. The liberal arts have been brought into alliance with the hard sciences and engineering, thus acquiring far more rigour, but at the same time the hard sciences and engineering have become far more artistic. There’s no problem of “two cultures”, one artistic and one scientific. The Glass Bead Game is all about synthesis. This new society of the future is neither theocratic nor secular. The Vatican is immensely powerful once more, but does not seek to dominate everything as it once did and works in partnership with secular, rational, atheistic Castalia. Old ideologies such as capitalism and communism have become literally incomprehensible. Knecht feels that this idyll is about to be shattered. Just before his resignation, he warns the other Magisters, “The world is once again about to shift its centre of gravity.” Knecht himself can no longer endure the “eternal recurrence” of routine in this frozen society. He says wistfully, “Yes, Castalia and the Glass Bead Game are wonderful things; they come close to being perfect. Only perhaps

they are too much so, too beautiful. They are so beautiful that one can scarcely contemplate them without fearing for them.” He’s also painfully aware of the extraordinary cheerfulness of some of his colleagues, which, sadly for him, he cannot share. He says, “Even though whole peoples and languages have attempted to fathom the depths of the universe in myths, cosmologies, and religions, their supreme, their ultimate attainment has been this cheerfulness. …With us scholarship, which is the cult of truth, is chiefly allied also with the cult of the beautiful, and also with the practice of spiritual refreshment by meditation. Consequently it can never entirely lose its supreme cheerfulness.”

The Mathematical Game Mathematics: the science of pattern. Music: the art of pattern. Mathematics and music are the objective and subjective approaches to pattern. Originally, the progress of the Glass Bead Game was recorded on an apparatus resembling an abacus, with metal wires corresponding to lines of music, and coloured glass beads to particular notes. Mathematicians replaced the lines of music with equations, and the beads became strings of mathematical symbols. Then other scholarly disciplines modified it for their purposes. Eventually, it was a multi-purpose device reflecting all intellectual and artistic subjects, and it became possible to start comparing similar or identical patterns generated by different disciplines, and seeing hitherto hidden connections. The bead patterns revealed all. Eventually, one grand game emerged, embracing and reflecting all of the intellectual and artistic interests of the mind in a single, remarkable device. Architects, for example, used it to establish links between the visual arts and mathematics and were thus able to design fabulous new buildings. The Game evolved into more and more abstract forms, involving a kind of universal language of symbols and formulas unifying mathematics and music (objectivity and subjectivity). Eventually, the Game was completely internalised and, like the best chess players who don’t need any board or pieces but can play the whole game in their minds, the elite could play the Game wholly mentally. Originally, it was a highly competitive game and although a competitive element remained (for the entertainment of the masses), it became

predominantly contemplative, and was the common framework and language binding the minds of all geniuses. Via the Glass Bead Game, experts in any discipline could have a full understanding of any other discipline. It healed the rift between the two cultures of science and art. It allowed for an extraordinary expansion of the mind, and offered the possibility of total enlightenment for the very best players. A game might start from one, two or three themes. There might be a painting by Van Gogh, an equation from quantum mechanics, some text from the Latin Mass. As many parallels and relations as possible would then be established. However, Hesse portrayed the Glass Bead Game as intellectually sterile, incapable of creating new knowledge and simply reconnecting existing dots. Yet isn’t that what all new knowledge is? What have we come up with in the 21st century that doesn’t have its clear antecedents in the thoughts of the ancient Greeks? All we ever do is make their original ideas more are more refined, but no one has ever generated any idea that would be incomprehensible to Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Thales, Democritus, Zeno, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Leucippus, Parmenides or Heraclitus. In fact, many of their ideas remain incomprehensible to most contemporary human beings, so advanced and dazzling was their thinking. Arguably, the Glass Bead Game, hypothetical though it is, is the best possible way for generating new ideas and new knowledge, for producing remarkable syntheses, innovations and fresh ways of seeing the world. The Armageddon Conspiracy website is a kind of real-life manifestation of the Glass Bead Game – showing endless connections between music, mathematics, art, story, religion, history, psychology, philosophy, science, sociology, movies, poetry, hip hop, myths, legends, sport, economics, politics, sex, conspiracy theories. This series of books – the God Series – is also a version of the Glass Bead Game. It plays countless different notes across a vast range of subjects and often doubles back on it itself, seeking deeper connections and new and unexpected meanings. It has a hyperlinked feel, jumping from one subject to another to produce a dizzying, disorienting effect that breaks down the ingrained habits of the mind and opens it to new and wondrous possibilities.

The entire aphoristic style in which it’s written is a homage to both Nietzsche and Hesse’s Glass Bead Game.

***** The Glass Bead Game reflects on the polarity between mind and body, between man’s higher and lower instincts. The Castalian Order is almost wholly devoted to the needs of the mind, with the body largely ignored. It is of course bodily exercise – swimming in icy water – that brings about Knecht’s death. His neglect of the body literally killed him. Various figures in the book become allegorical figures for a) the two halves of Knecht’s consciousness, b) for the conflicts between the intelligentsia and the people and c) for different types of intelligence. The book reflects on spiritualism, elitism, intellectualism, the tension between the contemplative life and social interaction, the role of the artist and intellectual in society and how best to deal with the problems of society. The Glass Bead Game contrasts social isolation with social gregariousness, transience with permanence, dissonance with harmony. It’s all about dialectics and the need to find syntheses that resolve contradictions, that heal conflicts. The game itself functions as a kind of Hegelian dialectical masterplan to reconcile disparate thoughts and ideas and bring them to their omega point of perfection – the Absolute. Music – the Pythagorean quintessence of harmony, balance and weaving together different and contrasting motifs – plays a key role and, along with mathematics, is the primary medium of the Glass Bead Game. Two notable characters in the tale are Father Jacobus (said to represent the great Swiss historian, Jacob Burckhardt, and Knecht’s antithesis in faith since Jacobus is a strong believer in God while Knecht has no belief), and Knecht’s brilliant but unstable friend Tegularius (said to represent Nietzsche; Nietzsche was himself a great admirer and former colleague of Burckhardt at Basel University). Tegularius is portrayed as someone going steadily mad because of living so intensely in the rarefied atmosphere of Castalia. Knecht’s predecessor as Magister Ludi was Thomas van der Trave – a coded reference to Hesse’s real-life friend, Thomas Mann, the great German writer and fellow Nobel Prize winner. (Mann, author of the brilliant novel The Magic Mountain, was yet another admirer of Nietzsche. Probably no

single figure has been as uniformly admired by intellectual writers and artists as Nietzsche.) The Game represents ideas, mathematics, literature – all knowledge and philosophy – as “glass beads”. The Game players are dedicated to the art of arranging these beads (symbols) in an optimal way. Hesse doesn’t describe the Game in detail. The basic concept is explained lucidly, but the rules and mechanics are not explained with any scrupulousness. The Game is primarily used as a device for Hesse to investigate the workings of an elite society dedicated to such an endeavour, to consider whether such a powerful spiritual game can legitimately replace religion, whether it can establish itself as the meaning of life, or simply be another false claimant with no real solidity and authenticity. Is it something more than a Game or a Game merely masquerading as something more profound? We can of course ask the same questions of mainstream religion and capitalism. Are these just elaborate games, ruled by the laws of Game Theory? The Glass Bead Game poses the deep question of whether extreme devotion to a particular idea (whether a game, religion, political or economic system) is itself just a type of game, and has no greater or higher meaning. Jews, Christians and Muslims – are they genuinely religious or just playing the game of religiosity (an entirely different thing)? Can a suitable game – ingeniously devised – come to seem like the authentic meaning of life? Jews play the game of being Jews, and invest their entire identities in it. Others, such as the Nazis, will persecute them for playing that game (and of course Nazism was just another, competing game with its own rules). How can we escape playing mere games and actually identify something that offers genuine truth and meaning? Muslims believe that the Koran is about absolute truth and meaning but in fact it has zero truth content and no meaning at all. Faith is the key to absurd games. Any game can be rendered “meaningful” if sufficient faith in it exists, but there’s no connection between faith and truth, or faith and meaning, no matter how much the faithful might believe otherwise. In fact there is one subject alone that is inherently about truth and meaning. That subject is mathematics, and it has no rivals at all. If the universe is not 100% mathematical then the universe cannot be a rational, meaningful place with any answers. Mathematics alone furnishes error-free, incontestable certainty. Only mathematics can furnish a perfect existential

continuum and plenum, without a single flaw, glitch, error, gap. If existence suffered from even one error it would dissolve into eternal chaos. The question of what constitutes the basis of existence is the same as the question of what provides a necessarily flawless platform for existence. Only a mathematical continuum and plenum – based on zero and infinity – can act as the ontological foundation for the universe we experience. What is just as certain is that faith furnishes no foundations for anything other than madness, and scientific materialism has no connection at all with incontestable, absolute, truths. It’s wholly ad hoc, arbitrary, contingent, synthetic, inductive and a posteriori.

***** The Glass Bead Game is a highly complex sign system. It originally involved sparkling, shimmering coloured glass beads like precious stones, strung on wires, with each bead symbolizing a theme or idea. By comparing existing bead patterns, or rearranging bead patterns to create correspondences, all manner of connections could be made between disparate thought systems. The Game thus functions as a single, wondrous instrument for organizing all human knowledge around a central idea, and furnishing the platform for the synthesis of all relationships. (We might see it in terms of the ultimate, artistic, aesthetic supercomputer.) Hesse visualized the game as a panacea, as nothing less than the Philosopher’s Stone, the alchemical key to transform dirt into gold. Hesse found his original inspiration for the Game in Leibniz’s “Universal Characteristic” (Characteristica Universalis): a proposed super calculator that would mechanise all reasoning processes through assigning unique numbers to all core basis thoughts, and then combining them to create all conceivable valid rational thoughts. (Such a system brings to mind the Fourier transform, with all spacetime functions being derived from combinations of basis frequencies). No one would have to argue about anything. People would simply say, “Let us calculate.” Of course, the whole system relies on people being rational and accepting the rational answers. It was therefore the most brilliant but far-fetched idea in the history of thought, and was mercilessly satirized by Jonathan Swift in Gulliver’s Travels.

As Wikipedia says, “After Gulliver’s ship was attacked by pirates, he is marooned close to a desolate rocky island near India. Fortunately, he is rescued by the flying island of Laputa, a kingdom devoted to the arts of music and mathematics but unable to use them for practical ends. (La puta is Spanish for ‘the whore’.) Since Swift was in Anglican holy orders, he, like so many of them, viewed reason as what Martin Luther had called ‘that great whore; and regarded Deism, whose practitioners attacked revealed religions, with pure horror.” Swift imagined Laputa as being full of Leibniz-type dreamers, forever concocting crazy schemes that would never intersect with reality. In many ways, Castalia is an earthbound Laputa. Knecht, suffering from a Swiftian bout of skepticism concerning the virtues of the Game, became disenchanted with the Game’s timeless, abstract, Platonic perfection and the purely contemplative existence of the members of the Castalian Order, so cut off from the ordinary problems of existence (just as medieval Catholic monks were cut off from the lives of the serfs, just as the dreamers of Laputa were soaring above the heads of all the ordinary people and just as the hyperrationalist Illuminati have nothing in common with the masses of the “faithful”). Plinio Designori (father of Tito) was originally a student from the outside world and belonged to an important political family. He came as a guest to Castalia to benefit from their preeminent education system and befriended Knecht. However, he continually criticized Castalia as an “ivory tower” having no impact on the real world. In the novel, Designori acts as the catalyst for Knecht’s growing disenchantment with the “magic kingdom” of Castalia, and furnishes him with the desire to experience the outside world – conventional “reality”. Knecht finally defected to the outside world where, with great irony, he found a sense of identity and permanence within this ephemeral, temporal realm. He’s likened to an embedded boulder in a fast-flowing river. Everything around him changes while he endures. Castalia is symbolic of Plato’s eternal, immutable domain of perfect, absolute, incontestable knowledge. The world outside is the inferior copy fashioned by the Demiurge, where there is no true knowledge and everything changes. Knecht, like the Gnostic souls that were tempted out of heaven because of their lusts for the material world, abandons the rational world in order to

experience the world beyond. Outside his proper domain, he soon perishes, yet, in the end, he had no choice. All souls must go into exile, must become alienated from their true, higher selves, in order to return to heaven on a higher, more meaningful and wiser plane. In Hegel’s philosophy, the dialectic, not the Platonic Demiurge, creates “Nature” – the alien environment into which all souls must venture in order to find themselves, raise themselves up and return with the sacred fire.

The Reincarnation of Knecht All irrational Mythos ideas of the soul revolve around resurrection. All rational Logos ideas of the soul are based on reincarnation. Resurrection is a Creationist idea, and reincarnation an Evolutionist idea. Resurrection makes you the Creator’s property and slave, and he can dispose of you as he sees fit. Resurrection goes hand in hand with the evil doctrines of slavery and private property (ownership) and it’s no coincidence that resurrectionist Abrahamists were the worst slave traders, and also those most obsessed with ownership and private property. Reincarnation is associated with the soul being uncreated and eternal, the slave and property of no one, and which it is impossible to annihilate. Reincarnation implies a great adventure through many incarnations, learning from each one and growing in knowledge and power. The culmination of reincarnation is a break out from conventional material existence (via gnosis; enlightenment), leading to union with a transcendent Godhead, or with becoming God in one’s own right. Reincarnation is absolute heresy in terms of Creationism. By the same token, resurrection is the uttermost abomination as far as Evolution goes. There can be no common ground whatsoever between Creationists and Evolutionists, between resurrectionists and reincarnationists. Resurrection goes hand in hand with the Satanic master-slave dialectic, with rule by elites, with pyramid power, with free-market capitalism and huge disparities in wealth. Reincarnation goes hand in hand with round table power, with the Jungian concept of individuation, of becoming one’s true, higher, autonomous self. Reincarnation explicitly rules out a Creator God, and does not in fact require any Gods at all, although the logic of reincarnational improvement across countless lives implies that each soul evolves into its own God (this is the Illuminist doctrine of “becoming God”; Abraxas was the first to accomplish that promotion to divinity, hence is the “God” of

Illuminism). There ought to be nothing but perpetual war between resurrectionists and reincarnationists. They couldn’t be ideologically any further apart. Resurrection and reincarnation are the only possibilities regarding the soul. Scientific materialists deny the existence of the soul entirely, and Buddhists likewise deny the existence of any permanent self, but believe in some transpersonal, collective World Soul, in which all phenomenal selves are finally dissolved and unified (nirvana). Knecht accepts the reality of reincarnation. The Glass Bead Game tells of three other lives that Knecht imagines he led. Wikipedia gives a good summary: “The three short stories labelled ‘Three Lives’ are presented as exercises by Knecht imagining his life had he been born in another time and place. The first story tells of a pagan rainmaker named Knecht who lived ‘many thousands of years ago, when women ruled.’ Eventually the shaman’s powers to summon rain fail, and he offers himself as a sacrifice for the good of the tribe. The second story is of Josephus, an early Christian hermit who acquires a reputation for piety but is inwardly troubled by selfloathing and seeks a confessor, only to find that same penitent had been seeking him. The final story concerns the life of Dasa, a prince wrongfully usurped by his half brother as heir to a kingdom and disguised as a cowherd to save his life. While working with the herdsmen as a young boy, Dasa encounters a yogi in meditation in the forest. He wishes to experience the same tranquillity as the yogi, but he’s unable to stay. He later leaves the herdsmen and marries a beautiful young woman, only to be cuckolded by his half brother (now the Rajah). In a cold fury, he kills his half brother and finds himself once again in the forest with the old yogi, who, through an experience of an alternate life, guides him on the spiritual path and out of the world of illusion (Maya). The four lives, including that as Magister Ludi, oscillate between extraversion (and getting married: rainmaker, Indian life) and introversion (father confessor, Magister Ludi) while developing the four basic psychic functions of Analytical Psychology: sensation (rainmaker), intuition (Indian life), feeling (father confessor), and thinking (Magister Ludi). Originally, Hesse intended several different lives of the same person as he is reincarnated. Instead, he focused on a story set in the future and placed the three shorter stories, ‘authored’ by Knecht in The Glass Bead Game at the end of the novel.”

It’s important to emphasize that Castalia is all about the rational, thinking function – it’s the World Reason and the Higher Mind. The name “Castalia” is taken from the Greek legend of the nymph Castalia who was transformed by Apollo, God of reason and music, into a fountain whose waters granted Apollonian inspiration.

***** The Glass Bead Game was written as a direct reaction to the tensions, oppressiveness and foreboding created by the rise of the anti-intellectual Nazi Party in Germany. Castalia is said to be based on Hesse’s childhood life in the German province of Swabia, but was later conceived in terms of Hesse’s adopted home of neutral Switzerland – a beautiful, timeless, intelligent and cultured small nation, outside the violent stream of European history. To Hesse, it was the physical embodiment of the antidote to the WWII cataclysm. The Glass Bead Game has sometimes been said to constitute a grand synthesis, most especially of the secrets of the Chinese I Ching and Western mathematics and music.

The Ultimate Game Knecht resigned because he was exasperated with the ahistorical nature of Castalia. It had placed itself outside time, yet no society or person can live forever outside history. One day, history was sure to come calling and engulf Castalia. The future would be unpredictable. The sense of protected permanence and eternity which sustained Castalia would be destroyed. Erosion and death are inescapable. Time is the great devourer. The ocean of time washes everything away in the end. Knecht becomes obsessed with Castalia as a dying cultural system – like a frozen Spenglerian civilization that had run its course. He left so as to be on the side of life once more, yet, ironically, almost instantly met his death. Castalia might be likened to the Grail Castle in a remote, inaccessible location, and the members of the Order of Castalia to the Grail Knights. The Magister Ludi is the Grail King, the spiritual Fisher King. In another sense, it’s Plato’s Academy brought to perfection, and transported, more or less, to the eternal domain of immutable, perfect Forms. Published in the midst of the ultra-violence of WWII, The Glass Bead Game presents Castalian life as serene, spiritual and timeless – the greatest

possible contrast with the collective hate, bloodshed and suffering of the temporal hell of world war. Castalia brings to life Spengler’s concept of historical Cultures (in time) and ahistorical Culture (outside time). In this sense, Cultures are actually defined by how they represent and interpret time. Modern physics is crippled by the fact that it simultaneously deploys two mutually exclusive versions of time: tenseless (static) and tensed (dynamic). At the deepest level, physics is a joke since, if it can’t define time – as quintessential to physics as space, matter and energy – what can it define? In fact, physics provides no clear, consistent definitions of any of its core concepts of space, time, matter and energy. The whole of physics is predicated on concepts that no physicist has ever clearly explained. Newtonian physics was staggeringly successful for two centuries despite using concepts of space, time, matter and energy that have nothing in common with those that result from Einsteinian physics. Yet these two radically contradictory theories – with immensely different ontological implications – produce almost identical results in most situations. This is the central problem of physics. It’s possible for it to produce highly successful and useful models of reality while not in fact modelling reality at all. Reality bears no resemblance to Newton’s conception of it, and yet the fact remains that Newtonian physics landed men on the moon! Newtonian physics is a set of useful mathematical equations that approximate the true equations of reality in particular contexts, but which do not in fact tell you anything about these true equations. Tenseless time, for example, is, ontologically, all about imaginary numbers and yet no imaginary numbers feature at all in Newtonian physics. When it comes to quantum physics, imaginary numbers are vital in its formulation, and yet all imaginary numbers are removed by the end of quantum mechanics, leading to the absurd probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics that famously and rightly prompted Einstein to declare, “God does not play dice.” Indeed, he doesn’t! There are no dice at all in quantum mechanics when it is understood in terms of the ontology of real and imaginary numbers, positive and negative numbers, zero and infinity, and infinite dimensionless basis frequencies outside space and time. The prevailing interpretation of quantum mechanics results from the absolute misinterpretation of ontological reality, caused by scientists’ slavish, faith-driven devotion to the Meta Paradigm of empiricism,

materialism and the privileged ontology of real numbers over imaginary numbers, and thus complex numbers. The whole of science fails because it does not understand the fundamental, analytic mathematical structure of reality based on complex numbers, not real numbers. All that science achieves is, by using the real-number mathematical equations of physics, an approximation to the complex-number equations of ontological mathematics. Science tells us about how to provide useful approximations to the core equations that define reality, but is so blinded by its success that it mistakes these approximations as some sort of reality in their own right, rather than as mere pointers and clues to a far deeper and infinitely more precise mathematical reality defined by Platonic mathematical laws. Space, time, matter and energy can all be precisely defined in terms of complex numbers; it’s impossible to define them in terms of real numbers alone. All the core concepts of physics are in fact derived – wrongly derived as things stand – from core concepts of analytic, ontological mathematics, which is simply ontological number theory. As Pythagoras said, “All things are numbers; number rules all.” You cannot define reality without including imaginary and negative numbers, zero and infinity. This is the key to Illuminism. Physics is an exclusively real-number theory of existence that forbids zero and infinity, and ontological mathematics is an exclusively complex-number theory of existence that has zero and infinity as its ultimate building blocks. Physics has no room for souls; ontological mathematics is all about the soul. Therefore, understanding number theory and the ontology of numbers goes to the heart of all the great religious questions of existence. We condemn physics for being irrational and a materialist “faith”. Physics has mathematics at its core, as its indispensible engine, and yet it actually rejects most of mathematics as “nonsense”, as having no bearing on reality. What kind of rational reality would selectively strip out part of mathematics and call this “real” and dismiss the rest as unreal? What conceivable sufficient reason could there be for this extraordinary attack on mathematical completeness, consistency and coherence? Why would any sane person accept the incomplete mathematics of physics over the complete mathematics of ontological mathematics? It’s the ultimate nobrainer for any rational person.

All rational people are confronted by a simple question to which they must formulate an answer since the fate of their souls depends on it. The question is this one: is physics or mathematics the defining subject of reality? Physics is empiricist, materialist, ad hoc, arbitrary, contingent, synthetic, inductive, a posteriori, temporal and experimental. There is not one part of it that has any necessary connection with absolute truth. Ontological mathematics is rationalist, idealist, analytic, necessary, deductive, a priori, immutable and eternal. It has no need of experiments, and it’s quintessentially all about absolute truth. Is there really any contest? Only the delusion that our senses somehow provide more persuasive evidence than our reason gives physics the preeminent status it currently enjoys. A rational humanity would have nothing but contempt for any subject that was not inherently about reason. Physics is about the senses and mathematics is about reason. Physics is empiricist and mathematics rationalist. Physics is materialist and mathematics idealist. Which will you choose? Spengler regarded ancient Greece as a classic “happy”, “eudemonic”, ahistorical Culture. As a whole, Greece saw reality in terms of static, cosmological perfection. There was no concept of Armageddon or Apocalypse, no notion of the clock ticking down on the world. There was no evolution, and history wasn’t leading anywhere – it had no culmination. Time was essentially a succession of present moments. Castalia reflects this mentality and attitude. Abrahamism, on the other hand, was all about the clock ticking towards Judgement Day. Time is always on the mind of Abrahamists. They were always “running out of time” to save their immortal souls. Mainstream Greek Culture accepted the existence of Hades, located underground on Earth, where the shades of the dead lingered forever. Again, they were outside time. They weren’t heading towards any particular fate. Abrahamism, over time, evolved the concepts of heaven and hell, far removed from the Earth. They also had the notion of a Messiah coming to the world, defeating the forces of darkness, and ruling over it for a time before a final Apocalypse presaging the Last Judgment. In a way, Knecht is Castalia’s Messiah, leading it into time from its timeless stasis. He passes his own Last Judgment on it, and he himself is judged by Nature, and ritually put to death.

Knecht starts to see Castalia as artificial, synthetic, sterile and lifeless. This “spiritual province”, by isolating itself from the rest of the world, has in fact become unspiritual. It’s desiccated, arid, a desert of the real. How does Buddhism respond to life? By trying to eliminate the main drivers of life: will and desire, which often lead to suffering, but also lead to tremendous joy. Where’s the logic of trying to lead a better life by denying life? Similarly, Castalia tries to elevate the spirit by cutting itself off from the true wellspring of the spirit – human life itself, with all of its mess. We become more spiritual by dialectically overcoming the obstacles in our path, not by fleeing from them, or shielding ourselves from them in some isolation bubble. Look at Catholic priests. They tried to become more spiritual by being celibate and avoiding the pleasures of the flesh, but, in doing so, they simply summoned their carnal Shadow and became monstrous child abusers. They became less spiritual and infinitely more sinful in their attempts to be perfectly pure and sinless. That’s why the doctrine of Sin for Salvation is so important. If you want to be a “good” person, make sure you have a healthy outlet for the drives likely to make you “bad”. Sublimate your dark side or explore it in a virtual or play space where it cannot harm others. Spengler contrasted the culture of the city and the culture of the province. The former reflects the impulsive, rootless faceless mob, with nothing in common, no enduring values to bind them and transform them from a population into a people. It would be described as “other-directed”: everyone is watching everyone else and following the prevailing fashions. Nothing in this culture is solid and embedded. The culture of the province, on the other hand, is tradition-directed, and Spengler much preferred this, seeing it as much wiser and being capable of generating peoples rather than populations. In fact, neither Culture is desirable. What is needed is an autonomous Culture: the Culture of the progressive, radical, meritocratic city-state. Spengler believed that spiritual, cloistered enclaves would be the perfect solution to the problem of the Mass Man being relentlessly churned out by vast, impersonal, anonymous cities, so Castalia – a bespoke, cultural, spiritual province where a highly qualified and dedicated elite could grow and flourish – would have received his full approval. Spengler’s thesis is, in

effect, precisely what Knecht denies and challenges with his act of rebellion. Hesse was an enthusiast for Eastern philosophy and religion and thought the serene, spiritual ways of the East could save European culture from disintegration. In The Glass Bead Game, Knecht is attracted to Buddhism and also turns to the wisdom of the Chinese I-Ching. However, surely the monks of the East are little different from the members of the Order of Castalia, and all the same criticisms can be made. Was Hesse unconsciously, or even consciously, expressing discontent with his own Eastern, spiritual inclinations, and seeing them as hopelessly irrelevant in a world capable of the uttermost horrors of war?

Gravity Even though Newton and Einstein are famous for their respective theories of gravity, gravity remains a total mystery, as evidenced by the spectacular failure of science to formulate a theory of quantum gravity. It can’t accomplish this task because time, space, matter and energy have no clear, consistent, coherent definitions in physics. How can you construct a final theory, a grand unified theory of everything, if you can’t define your most basic terms, if you literally don’t know what you’re talking about? It’s almost comical that scientists believe that a final theory is possible within their Meta Paradigm. You can never create anything final unless you can furnish definitive, unarguable terms that necessarily interlock perfectly with all other terms. Mathematics alone provides this. Science doesn’t even come close. Science is half-baked, irrational, incomplete mathematics, driven by synthetic “truths of fact” rather than analytic truths of reason.

Ars Combinatoria Ars combinatoria: the art of combination. Ars generalis ultima: the most general art. Ars magna: the great art. Mathesis universalis: universal mathematics. Lingua characteristic universalis: universal characteristic language. Calculemus! : Let us calculate! Calculus ratiocinator: the calculus of reason “The pursuit of an exact universal language for science in general and mathematics in particular can be traced far back into the mists of time, perhaps all the way back to Pythagoras. In fact, the Pythagorean view that concepts are in some way composed of numbers, or least in the same way as numbers, is at the very backbone of this quest. A prominent example of a philosopher attempting to exploit this Pythagorean idea ... was Lully [aka Llull], who invented a kind of mechanical device called Ars generalis ultima or Ars magna by which subjects and predicates were fitted together to form philosophical and theological truths. The ancient ideas were revived by the Neoplatonists in the 15th century: Ficino, Cusanus, da Vinci, and Copernicus ... and continued in the 16th century by Galilei, and Kepler. Another important contributor is Vieta with his analytic art which promises to leave no problem unsolved. 17th century proponents of the program include Wilkins with his new symbolism, Descartes with whom the phrase mathesis universalis is strongly connected, Weigel, who was Leibniz’s mathematics professor, and, of course, Leibniz himself, who took up Lully’s idea and called it ars combinatoria. The next step for Leibniz was the lingua characteristica universalis, an ideographic language, where each concept is represented by one symbol ... the idea of such a language was later taken up by Frege... Leibniz was not satisfied with a universal characteristic language, however, but thought that, once such a language was completed, one could find truth by merely computing the symbols of the language. This calculus was calculus ratiocinator and can be seen as the origin of symbolic language. Leibniz’s optimism concerning calculus

rationcinator was likely influenced by his interest in mechanical computers, first constructed by Pascal some 30 years before Leibniz presented his own design of such a device. Thus Calculemus! was to be the answer to any dispute, an idea which was not abandoned until it received the killing blow in the form of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.” – Johan Georg Granström, Treatise on Intuitionistic Type Theory “The Dissertatio de arte combinatoria is an early work by Gottfried Leibniz published in 1666 in Leipzig. It is an extended version of his doctoral dissertation, written before the author had seriously undertaken the study of mathematics. ... The main idea behind the text is that of an alphabet of human thought, which is attributed to Descartes. All concepts are nothing but combinations of a relatively small number of simple concepts, just as words are combinations of letters. All truths may be expressed as appropriate combinations of concepts, which can in turn be decomposed into simple ideas, rendering the analysis much easier. Therefore, this alphabet would provide a logic of invention, opposed to that of demonstration which was known so far. Since all sentences are composed of a subject and a predicate, one might 1) Find all the predicates which are appropriate to a given subject, or 2) Find all the subjects which are convenient to a given predicate. For this, Leibniz was inspired in the Ars Magna of Ramon Llull, although he criticized this author because of the arbitrariness of his categories and his indexing. ... The first examples of use of his ars combinatoria are taken from law, the musical registry of an organ, and the Aristotelian theory of generation of elements from the four primary qualities. But philosophical applications are of greater importance. He cites the idea of Hobbes that all reasoning is just a computation. ... Leibniz compares his system to the Chinese and Egyptian languages, although he did not really understand them at this point. For him, this is a first step towards the Characteristica Universalis, the perfect language which would provide a direct representation of ideas along with a calculus for the philosophical reasoning. As a preface, the work begins with a proof of the existence of God, cast in geometrical form, and based on the Argument from Motion.” – Wikipedia

***** Leibniz tried to create a numerical “God language” based on prime numbers, or binary numbers in another version.

The Alexandrian Game The Glass Bead Game is a Leibnizian ars combinatoria, but with much more emphasis on music and aesthetics than on strict logic. Castalia is a kind of future Alexandria, but even Alexandria lost its sheen when its famous library was burned down by those who despised the Tree of Knowledge and the thought of eating from it. Alexandria was the home of Neoplatonism, which began as an intellectual programme to rectify problems with Plato’s philosophy. However, Neoplatonism gradually slipped into magic and mysticism – much like Eastern religion which wholly lacks any rational rigour. Some commentators have said that the internet is a kind of Glass Bead Game, allowing endless hyperlinked connections to be formed between disparate subjects, against an ocean of videos, images and music. Moreover, a global online community of Glass Bead Game aficionados actually exists. Who knows ... maybe it’s a front for the Illuminati!

What is Consciousness? Consciousness is a communication system for interacting minds. It grows as the ability to communicate grows (hence animals have negligible consciousness). Language – whether mathematical or “natural” – is the basis of communication. Mathematical language – which is none other than the fabric of the universe since existence is 100% mathematical – is the essence of unconscious communication and takes place effortlessly between all things. All of the “laws of science” are in fact the laws of mathematics. They are ubiquitous, encoded in everything, inescapable and incapable of even one error. Unconscious mathematics is the perfect cosmic communication system. The universe mostly operates in this unconscious mode. “Natural” language (based on an alphabet, words, syntax and grammar) is the basis of consciousness. Everything can speak “mathematics” unconsciously but hardly anything can speak a natural language, and you have to be conscious to do so (to be more precise, consciousness and natural language exist in a mutual feedback loop and develop in conjunction; each requires the other). Only the most advanced souls have evolved this capacity. The better your language skills, the more conscious you are. Gods are the best communicators. A universe of nothing but Gods is a universe of consciousness. Existence becomes synonymous with consciousness. The Abrahamic God – all on his own – could never have been conscious. You need others – those with whom you communicate – before you can be conscious. The language you develop amongst you is a set of agreed concepts and rules. Language is a consensus activity. No one can develop a language on their own, i.e. there is no such thing as a private language. Since your consciousness increases in direction proportion to the language skills of your peers, you have a vested interest in making them as skilled in language as possible if you wish to be as conscious as possible. Stupid people, with poor language skills, are literally depressing and suppressing the consciousness of humanity. They are the enemies of consciousness.

Any sane, rational person understands how critical community and society are because these are the founts of consciousness. People who hate community, society and the State are obstructing human consciousness and progress. These retarded people must be defeated. Lone predators are not conscious. The Abrahamic God, as the ultimate lone predator, was incapable of consciousness when, allegedly, he existed on his own prior to Creation. Ant and bee colonies might be considered as group minds, or even as a single mind broken into many linked fragments. Animals in packs essentially have bicameral minds – whereby they are collectively guided by the pack leader: the alpha male, the group God. Abrahamism originates from the bicameral mind and the worship of the alpha male who controls and dominates all, and punishes or even kills anyone who opposes him. Abrahamism is therefore an Ape religion – for primitive ape-like human beings who have failed to evolve Logos minds. A planet of Abrahamists is the Planet of the Apes! Human consciousness is essentially a phenomenon of group mind. Not only do we have a Jungian Collective Unconscious, we also have a Collective Consciousness – it’s called language! All people with consciousness can share their thoughts, hence distribute their consciousness amongst others. The internet and social networking are expanding and magnifying this capacity to a staggering degree.

Memory The mathematical Fourier transform is the ultimate expression of ars combinatoria – the art of combination. You take basis frequencies, combine them in whatever way you want and thereby create infinite informational possibilities. All thoughts, all feelings, all sensations, all ideas, all desires, all willed actions, they are all the same thing: combinations of frequencies of different amplitudes and phases. How do you remember something? Do you go into the “past” and retrieve a memory? But the past doesn’t exist, so you can’t. Only “now” exists. “Remembering” is nothing other than replaying in the present a Fourier transform which you have recorded (hence is available to you in the present). As you replay it, you can easily contaminate it with new frequencies – which is why memories are so unreliable and changeable, and how false memory syndrome can so easily occur.

The science of the mind, like the science of everything else, is simply the science of the Fourier transform, and the Fourier transform is a direct consequence of Euler’s Formula – the God Equation that, on its own, defines ontological mathematics.

What are you? Are you a temporal collection of atoms that somehow come together to create “you”, and then they fall apart and “you” vanish with them into dust? That’s what science says. Or are you an immortal, indestructible, dimensionless system of energy and information – what we call a soul – that develops its own unique personality and character and can evolve to the highest possible levels of optimization (divinity)? That’s what ontological mathematics says. What do you say? It always comes back to the same issue – is science or mathematics right about the nature of reality? There are no other valid, sane, rational choices. A deluded Christian man appeared on a TV programme and said that when he died, he would cease to exist. However, at some point in the future, he said, “Jesus Christ” would resurrect him from the grave (in fact, he said that “recreate him” would be a better expression). Naturally, he offered no explanation whatsoever as to how this resurrection or recreation process operates; what its mechanism is. Of course, when you believe in a cosmic magician, you have no need for rational explanations. Magic suffices as the answer to everything. Does Jesus Christ use science or mathematics to resurrect the dead? If so, we should we able to work out how he does it. If he uses divine magic, we have no chance of working it out since there’s nothing to work out. Magic does not operate according to any reason, logic, science, mathematics or anything else ... it operates purely according to the fantasies and wishful thinking of the person who believes in the magician. It’s indistinguishable from insanity. A magician can accomplish anything because magic is not constrained by any rules at all – because it’s not real. Why do so many human beings believe in magic and a divine magician? What’s for sure is that these people cannot be reasoned with. They will never listen to rational argument.

*****

If the Christian man ceases to exist when he dies then whatever “thing” is later resurrected or recreated by Jesus Christ, whatever “thing” is raised from the grave, it definitely is not him. It’s something else: a replicant, a clone, a simulacrum. In fact, a soul cannot die, cannot “cease to exist”. That’s the whole point of it; that’s what defines it. Why are Christians so ignorant about their own religion? If this Christian turned to dust and non-existence and then was brought back, he’d be a Frankenstein monster, not a person, not a soul.

Living and Dying “We cannot be sure of having something to live for unless we are willing to die for it.” – Che Guevara Would you give your life for your belief in a cosmic magician who, in your opinion, can pull anything out of his cosmic hat? So, what are you willing to die for? What’s you sacred cause? Don’t have one? Then you’re one of the undead, or, even worse, a Last Man, or one of the Ignavi.

The Age of the Feuilleton “In the novel The Glass Bead Game, by Nobel Prize winning novelist Hermann Hesse, the current era is characterised and described as The Age of the Feuilleton. In Hesse’s novel, viewed retrospectively from a future scholarly society (Castalia) this age, so called, is generally but not simply portrayed as having an overweening, trivializing, or obfuscating character associated with the arbitrary and primitive nature of social production prior to the historical denouement which resulted in the creation of Castalia.” – Wikipedia In The Glass Bead Game, the people of that future time looked book at our time and labelled it “the Age of the Feuilleton”. Hesse meant a sketchy, lightweight, hyper-personalized, instant-gratification, self-indulgent, shallow culture, obsessed with novelty and incessant stimulation of the senses. News is dominated by shock value: “What bleeds leads.” Everything is about entertainment and distraction. People can’t endure tedium. Such a culture produces no roots and depth. Everything is surface, hyperreal.

Castalia is the opposite: hyper intellectual and spiritual, all about depth and enduring qualities. Castalia promotes the abstract rather than the concrete, idealism rather than materialism, rationalism rather than empiricism. Castalia is a place for Platonic and Leibnizian mathematicians rather than Aristotelian and Newtonian scientists.

Your Game Can you devise your own version of the Glass Bead Game? Can you attract an international, elite audience for your game? Can you achieve enlightenment through your game? Can you arrive at the ultimate bead pattern – ontological mathematics based on Euler’s Formula?

Creationist Rights? You often hear America far right extremists saying that civil and human rights are bogus because they are manmade (established by governments), hence mutable, temporal and fallible. The only true rights, they say, are God-given rights since these are immutable, eternal and infallible. Yet what are these alleged God-given rights? Can anyone name even one? Were Adam and Eve given a single right in the Garden of Eden? Where are these rights? Where are they listed? None are found in the Book of Genesis. None are found in the Torah, Bible or Koran. In fact, humanity has no rights at all in relation to the Creationist God. Such a thing is unthinkable. According to the doctrine of grace, human beings are irredeemably fallen, corrupt and evil, hence are all damned to hell (and who has any rights in hell?). The only thing that can save them is the gift of God’s grace, which he bestows randomly. So, it’s a disgusting lie – typical of the sort of nut jobs who support Ron Paul and Paul Ryan – that human beings have any God-given rights. In the theology of “God the Creator”, we are all his property, his slaves. He made us, owns us and can dispose of us as he sees fit. Only he has rights. Like slaves, we have no rights at all. We have no right to life, to existence, to freedom, to free choice, to free will, to autonomy. If we do anything at all to displease “God” we will be punished forever in hell. He is free to terrorize us and we have no right to resist him. We have no right of appeal. All disobedience is punished with eternal pain in hell. Is that what right wing extremists consider rights? God spare us from these maniacs!

How can any sane person talk about these God-given “rights” with anything other than contempt? The only authentic rights you have are those accorded you by the State, and your task is to help create the best State you can that affords you the best rights. “God” is a pernicious irrelevance. God damn God! Give us rights. Don’t give us God. The State alone can define rights. We alone can create the ideal State. We want the perfect State and the perfect citizens for that perfect State.

The Argument from Motion “Plato posited a basic argument in The Laws (Book X), in which he argued that motion in the world and the Cosmos was ‘imparted motion’ that required some kind of ‘self-originated motion’ to set it in motion and to maintain that motion Plato posited a ‘Demiurge’ of supreme wisdom and intelligence as the creator of the Cosmos in his work Timaeus.” – Wikipedia There’s scarcely a more fundamental question than the origin of motion. The ancient Greeks had a notion of some being or metaphysical entity being the source of motion. It made everything else move. It was an inherent source of motion while everything else was inherently static and had to be set in motion. Leibniz radically challenged this view. For him, everything is in motion all of the time. His position is fully justified by his own principle of sufficient reason. If one entity is an intrinsic source of motion, what sufficient reason could prevent an infinite number of such sources from existing? And that’s exactly where Leibniz’s monads come into play. Each of them is an eternal source of motion. All monads have zero net energy, which means that they can move without expending any energy, which means that they will be in motion for eternity. Monads are the perfect perpetual motion machines because they have zero expenditure of energy, and indeed have zero net energy. There are only two possibilities regarding the universe. Either every part of it is eternally static or every part is eternally moving. We know from our own experience that the latter is true and the former false, but what is the rational reason for this? It all comes back to the Euler unit circle generated by the Euler Formula. This circle expresses perfect balance between real and imaginary numbers, positive and negative numbers. No numbers are privileged over any others.

The net energy of this system is a perfect zero. However, the whole universe is based on points (monads), so if we imagine one point on the circumference of a circle, any location at all will privilege that location over all other possible locations on the circumference. Since there is no sufficient reason for any location to be privileged over any other, all locations must happen with equal frequency ... which automatically necessitates perfect, uniform, circular motion. This is the ontological origin of motion. Any static system would automatically privilege some locations over others, some numbers over others, and that is forbidden by the principle of sufficient reason. Perfect Euler motion leads to the generation of perfect cosine and sine waves, which form the basis waves of Fourier mathematics, which forms the basis of quantum mechanics, from which we get the material world of science!

***** One way to think of the world of monads is to consider an individual monad (ontological point). Imagine a point at an origin, surrounded by infinite Euler circles of every conceivable frequency, amplitude, phase and orientation. Since the monadic domain is unextended, dimensionless, outside space and time, with zero net energy, and in constant motion, we can imagine that point – an eternal point – to be everywhere at once, expressing every conceivable Euler possibility. It’s an infinite information system with zero net energy: the ultimate free lunch. A monadic subject – a soul – is simply that which selects, organizes and experiences all of this infinite information in which it’s immersed. It’s perhaps best to imagine all of the countless Euler circles as different piano keys. A soul plays this piano according to its own nature and generates its own signature tune of information, notes and experience. We are all composing our individual “Music of the Circles”!

The Messiah and the Apocalypse What, for weak people, is the most powerful Mythos of all? It’s the idea of being saved from catastrophe by the ultimate hero arriving at the last moment to save the day. He, of course, must be even more powerful than his foes in order to defeat them, and in fact must be all-powerful, so that he himself can never possibly be defeated. So, take your bow on the world stage – the Messiah!!! The Messiah goes hand in hand with the Apocalypse. First, catastrophe descends and then the Messiah arrives to put everything right, and, when he leaves, catastrophe sets in again. Who gave us this Mythos? – the Jews! The Jews were the slaves of the Egyptians and needed a Messiah (Moses, acting as Jehovah’s agent on earth) to lead them out of bondage (in the Exodus). Later, Assyria destroyed the Northern kingdom of Israel and ten tribes of Israel were “lost”. Then came the cataclysm that most haunted and haunts the Jewish mind – the Babylonian Captivity – when the two remaining Jewish tribes Judah and Benjamin (and also some Levi priests) in the kingdom of Judah were destroyed in battle with the Babylonians, made slaves and transported to Babylonia to do penal labour for their pagan masters. Strictly speaking, a Jew belongs to the tribe of Judah and is a descendant of the Kingdom of Judah – so “Israel” is a bogus name for the Jewish State. Descendants of the tribes of Benjamin and Levi are also Jewish because they lived in Judah. In captivity in a foreign land of a great power, the Jews stewed on their bitter fate. Yet rather than reach the obvious conclusion that their God was false or weak – hence why they were so easily defeated – the Jewish priests came up with a different narrative. They claimed that the Jews were insufficiently faithful to their God, hence why he had abandoned them, and must redouble their Jewishness, purify their divine Jewish blood and exterminate any “infidels” (exactly the same logic that later drove Nazi Germany: Aryan blood could be purified only by getting rid of the Jewish pollution). They became fanatical monotheists and they awaited the day when their God would deliver them – which, seemingly, he did, in the rather curious form of Cyrus the Great of Persia, who defeated the Babylonians, freed the Jews and allowed them to return home.

“Cyrus” – but conceived as a native Jew rather than Persian – became the Messiah figure (the Saviour Archetype) that beguiled the Jewish imagination. When the Greek-Macedonians conquered Judah, the Jews longed for a Jewish Cyrus, and he duly appeared in the shape of Judas Maccabee (who thus joined the pantheon of the other warrior Jewish Messiahs: Joshua, Gideon and David). When the pagan Romans conquered the Jews, the search was on for yet another Messiah (it never seemed to occur to the “clever” Jews that this never-ending need for Messiahs to overcome pagan conquerors didn’t say much for their God and his ability to make them powerful and in no need of Messiahs). Many tried and failed, and the Romans eventually became exasperated by these tiresome, extremist Jews (like modern Islamic suicide bombers) and exterminated all of the fighting men, enslaved everyone else and drove them out of Judea once and for all (well, until the Jews crept back in the twentieth century and stole the land from the Palestinians, just as they previously stole it from the Canaanites). One of the numerous anti-Roman Jewish Messiahs has become a world figure thanks to being give a metaphysical makeover by a Roman Jew called Saul of Tarsus (St Paul), who was steeped in pagan thinking and was a high priest of Mithraism (of which Tarsus was a key centre). Let’s be clear. Jesus Christ was a violent insurrectionist like all the other would-be Jewish Messiahs, but by claiming to be the “Son of God” who could raise people from the dead and would even raise himself from the dead, he hoped to introduce a religious fanaticism so fervent that even Rome would be unable to resist the collective and suicidal passion of the Jews. He was rightly crucified by the Roman authorities as a Jewish terrorist (an Osama bin Laden type figure; bin Laden of course saw himself in Messianic terms), and was mocked for claiming to be the King of the Jews. However, when Saul heard of this tale, and the idea of a Messiah coming back from the dead, he had his blinding revelation on the road to Damascus of combining Jewish Messianism and pagan Mithraism. He gave the whole concept of the Jewish Messiah the ultimate pagan makeover based on Platonic, Gnostic, Hermetic and, above all, Mithraic ideas. He thus detoxified the Jewish brand for pagans, and made it something they found rather intriguing, impressive and seductive.

Hundreds of years later, in Arabia, a pagan tribesman in a cave had the idea of combining the old Jewish idea of a prophet Messiah acting on God’s behalf (Moses), and a warrior Messiah acting with the force of God (like Joshua, Gideon, David and Judas Maccabee). That tribesman was the warrior prophet Mohammed, the “seal of prophets” and founder of Islam. Thus we have four Magian types of Messiah: 1) The holy prophet Messiah channelling the will of God (Moses). 2) The warrior Messiah defeating God’s enemies (Joshua, Gideon, David and Judas Maccabee). 3) The metaphysical Messiah who is God and transcends humanity (Jesus Christ, i.e. Yehoshua ben Yosef). 4) The holy prophet and great warrior Messiah enforcing God’s Will religiously, politically, economically, socially and militarily (Mohammed). Note that Jesus Christ also has a military function – he will defeat the forces of Satan in a final battle of Armageddon. Messiahs 1, 2 and 4 are men acting on behalf of God, while 3 is God himself, or the Son of God, depending on taste. Messiah 4 – Mohammed – is a synthesis of Jewish Messiahs 1 and 2. Mohammed denied that Jesus Christ was a type 3 Messiah and instead classified him as type 1 Messiah (another human prophet like Moses). The Messiah Mythos, combined with the Armageddon Mythos, has furnished the dominant narrative of the Western World (and haunts the imagination of many American Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists in the present day, who dream of being “raptured” into paradise), but was rejected by the Eastern Enlightenment religions, and by Western pagans and rationalists. It cannot be emphasised enough that the Messiah Mythos is the orgasmic dream of helpless slaves. Only weak, pathetic, pessimistic, masochistic submissives who believe that they have no control over the world or their own destiny are attracted to this shameful and disgusting Mythos. It makes humans the feeble playthings of higher, supernatural forces. It removes from the slaves the responsibility for changing their own lives, and it assigns all agency to the Messiah (who is always hoped for but never actually comes).

The Messiah Mythos makes a perfect match with the Creator God Mythos. Once again, we are rendered the slaves of a supreme power (God), and only he can save us if we get ourselves into trouble, by sending a Messiah. One of the oddest developments in the Messiah Mythos was provided by Christianity when it merged God (who sends the Messiah) with the “Son of God” (the Messiah himself). God and the Messiah were completely distinct in Judaism, but Christianity made them one and the same in the shape of Jesus Christ. Yet to explain how Jesus Christ “died” on the cross, it had to then separate God and the Son of God once more and came up with the insane formula of the Holy Trinity where one God became three “persons”: Father, Son and Spirit. This concept is literally incomprehensible. How can one being be three separate people? If they’re not separate people, how can they be distinguished from each other? But if they are separate persons, how can they be one God? The Trinity is a supreme Mythos concept that wants to have its cake and eat it. Christianity wants to be a monotheism, but a monotheism is too restrictive and does not permit God to incarnate himself on Earth. The ludicrous notion of the Trinity allowed Christianity to pretend to be a monotheism (it’s not; it’s a triadism – it involves three separate Gods), while being functionally polytheistic. Whenever it suits the Christian storytellers, the Father, Son and Spirit are separate, and whenever it doesn’t suit them then they’re all “one”. Who sentenced humanity to hell because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve? Was it Father, Son or Holy Spirit? But there’s only one Christian God – so therefore it was all three! Yet if the three Gods must agree on everything – if they didn’t they would be separate Gods – then how can they be distinct? If Jesus Christ is God and there’s only one God in Christianity then it must have been Jesus Christ imposed hell on humanity. Jesus Christ is the monster depicted in the Old Testament who exterminated the human race apart from Noah and his family (so much for Jesus Christ being loving, merciful, forgiving and compassionate). Jesus Christ chose the Jews as his special people and gave them a Promised Land. Jesus Christ was a Jew, not a Christian! The Magian Creator/ Messiah/ Apocalypse Mythos – invented by the Jews under Zoroastrian influence – is the worst idea in human history. It has done untold damage to the human psyche, has been responsible for the

death of hundreds of millions of people, and has held back human rational progress by thousands of years. Had this Mythos never arisen, humanity would now be living in a rational, meritocratic paradise. This Mythos has been so destructive to the human race that it can only be considered the work of the Devil himself: of all the evil, Satanic forces that beset humanity. Satan represents the force of unsublimated will, irrationality and selfishness. Satan’s power can be removed from the human race by the simple exercise of reason through science, mathematics, art, philosophy, psychology and sociology. To do so, we must destroy the Satanic Mythos of the Creator, Messiah and Apocalypse. They are silly and evil, and that’s quite a combination. The Faustian religion (of rational enlightenment and mathematics) and the Faustian Mythos (depicted in Goethe’s wondrous play) are humanity’s only hope. Via the Faustian religion and Mythos, West and East can be reconciled, and scientific materialism can be made spiritual and inspiring. The Faustian way forward is our only hope. Jehovah/ Christ/ Allah/ Satan must fall. In the Faustian world, we are responsible for our own lives. No one’s coming to save us. There are no Messiahs. To be a Faustian, you have to be strong, independent, smart and autonomous. No slave could ever be a Faustian. We have to eradicate the slavelike tendencies that have afflicted humanity and made them worship the Devil (Demiurge) as the supreme power of the cosmos. We can know everything. We can build heaven on earth. We can become Gods – but only by following the Faustian path of total self-actualization and perfection. “All things human ... were only passing reflections of great hidden truths.” – Goethe, Faust The greatest hidden truth is that we are not human at all – we are Gods not yet revealed to ourselves and to others. We are all our own Messiahs!

***** The earliest Apocalypse was the Great Flood. Only God’s chosen ones – Noah and his family – survived, by God’s will and protection. You see how the Mythos works? No one saves themselves by their own efforts. Always, they need a higher power to deliver them. People are always slaves and

never masters. Their fate is always out of their own control. They are always helpless, and they always have to pray to higher beings for salvation. This is the creed of programmed, learned helplessness. All people who subscribe to this Mythos are passive, frightened and submissive. They are weak and they don’t try to understand and influence their world. They pray to higher powers rather than think for themselves. They prefer ignorance and superstition over reason. They always think life is inflicted on them; that someone else is pulling all the levers (a belief shared by conspiracy theorists). Like the most primitive human beings, they believe they have to “appease the gods”. When Muslim mobs kill infidels because someone somewhere burned a Koran, they are appeasing their God in the same way that the Aztecs appeased their Gods – by committing human sacrifice. And never forget that Abraham – the so-called first Muslim – was someone fully prepared to make a human sacrifice of his own son to appease God and do his bidding. Abrahamism is foundationally a religion of human sacrifice. Not for one moment does it occur to any Abrahamic slaves that they can be gods themselves (they regard this as the uttermost blasphemy and heresy), that they can take control of their own life, that they can influence their world. They are all last men rather than men: weak, pathetic, apathetic, disgusting slaves – an insult to the power and glory of life.

The 9/11 Conspiracy? Conspiracy theorists are the new generation of Apocalyptic thinkers, with the “Big” State and government serving the role of the Devil, and people such as Icke, Jones and Makow as the new Messiahs who will show us the truth and save us all. 9/11 is their “proof” that the government engages in a lethal conspiracy against the people. They deny that “raghead” Muslims could have carried out such a deadly attack on America, so therefore the American government did it. Anyone who has seen the movie Executive Decision from 1996, featuring Kurt Russell combating Westernized suicidal Muslim plane hijackers armed with a weapon of mass destruction (a lethal nerve gas bomb) has found the source from where Osama bin Laden took his entire

strategy for attacking America. The entire plan is there. Bin Laden simply watched a movie! If the plot was shown in a crass Hollywood movie five years before 9/11 why does anyone think it was a sophisticated attack by American’s government on its own people?

Limbo For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church taught that unbaptized babies were sent to Limbo, on the edge of Hell! Doesn’t this prove how vile and sick Christianity is? If there was to be a Limbo at all, a benevolent religion would have placed it on the edge of Heaven.

The End of Christianity Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury (the leading religious personage in the Church of England) gave a fascinating Easter sermon revealing how spectacularly feeble he is as a person and how pathetic his Christian beliefs and religion are. “I wonder how many people here think that the future will be better than the past, and all problems can be solved if we put our minds to it. There is a general sense that if that is not the case then it ought to be, and someone must be doing something to stop it. Illusion is replaced by disappointment, both wrong.” Well, here we have the Christian gospel of despair that things can never get better. Well, they certainly won’t under Christianity, that’s for sure. “The hero leader culture has the same faults. A political party gets a new leader and three months later there is comment about disappointment. An economy suffers the worst blow in generations with a debt crisis and economic downturn, and the fact that not everything is perfect within five years is seen as total failure. Complexity and humanity are ignored and we end up unreasonably disappointed with every institution, group and policy, from politicians to NHS, education to environment.” Why bother with leaders at all if they can’t change anything? In fact, why is this guy the Archbishop of Canterbury given that he has already confessed that he will be a useless leader who won’t change anything and will –

rightly! – be a branded a failure in due course? Did “God” really choose this moaning whinger to be the leader of one of his Churches? “Papers reported on Friday that only 40% of churchgoers are convinced that the new Archbishop of Canterbury can resolve the problems of the Church of England.” Well, if he can’t solve them, shouldn’t they look for someone who can? A man who starts by announcing he won’t solve anything definitely won’t solve anything. “The disciples had expected that Israel would be delivered, and pinned all their hopes on Jesus as the deliverer, and on the people of Israel, including its leaders, recognising Him as such. That was a double mistake.” What, didn’t Jesus Christ call himself the all-powerful Son of God. Jesus, if the Son of God can’t deliver Israel then who the fuck can?! “As human beings we tend to live in the present, holding on to what we can. It is called sin. So the rulers of Israel held on to what they knew, for fear of something unexpected and worse, and did what we all do, failed to see the evidence of God in front of them.” Er, Jesus Christ didn’t present one shred of credible evidence that he was a God. Illusionist Derren Brown furnishes more evidence that he is “God” than Jesus Christ ever did. So, it’s a “sin” to live in the moment, is it? Are all animals sinners given that they live in the moment? Here, Welby condemns conservatism – the position of those who don’t want anything to change. Earlier, he was rubbishing radicalism – the notion that strong leaders with a new vision can change the world. What a silly, ineffectual, irrational liberal! “As well as fear a false view of people leads to hero leaders, who always fail.” And what about hero Messiahs who always fail? How does a guy dying on a cross for the crime of insurrection against Rome constitute a success? – except to the mad and deluded. “The disciples also had a wrong view of God. They did not understand that Jesus must die and must rise from the dead. Human disaster thus became ultimate disaster.”

So, Jesus’ closest companions didn’t understand him, but Archbishop Welby does, 2,000 years later, without ever having met the man?! “The accounts of the resurrection are brutally honest about the pervasive ignorance of the disciples. Key phrases are about not knowing, not understanding, believing without insight. Even Mary, the apostle to the apostles, the first witness, is able to say no more than ‘I have seen the Lord’, and what He said.” That’s because the whole thing is bullshit!

The Folly “There is no polite way to suggest to someone that they have devoted their life to a folly.” – Daniel Dennett How does one tell Daniel Dennett that he has devoted his life to the folly and error of scientific materialism that inverts the truth of existence by placing matter above mind? The universe is 100% mathematical and mathematics originates in the dimensionless domain of zero-infinity: the domain of the mathematical mind, the soul.

The End of Reason When Neoplatonist philosopher, mathematician, astronomer and Illuminist Grand Master Hypatia was slaughtered by a Christian mob in Alexandria in 415 CE, this was said by many to mark the end of Classical antiquity, and it certainly brought the wondrous intellectual life of Alexandria to an end. After that, no one dared to challenge Christian orthodoxy and fanaticism (thus proving that Abrahamic terrorism is extremely successful). It also brought to an end the possibility of female philosophers, rationalists and leaders. After that, women were completely marginalized by Christianity, given no role in the Church and no intellectual career roles. Hypatia’s death signalled the death of pagan feminism and the entrenchment of Christian patriarchy and misogyny.

The Three Ages The ancient Greek view of the world concerned three eras: that of the Gods (which we would call mythology), that of heroes (which we would call legend) and that of men (that we call history).

The Jews, and subsequently the Christians and Muslims, brought myth and legend into the heart of history as a “causal, explanatory” force (i.e. the will of God caused various events to happen). Jesus Christ is the supreme mixing of myth, legend and history in one person. Abrahamism is all about Mythos; it’s about explaining the world through stories of ancient myths and legends. It has absolutely nothing to do with the real world, the Logos world of facts, evidence, reason, proof and analytic truth. Hollywood freely mixes gods, heroes and humans. Human beings can’t get enough of this Mythos domain – which is why mainstream religion has proved so successful, especially Abrahamism, and Christianity in particular (with its God/man in one body). Tellingly, Hollywood provides no movies at all about the Logos world! No one’s interested. No profits can be made from Logos, only from Mythos. Celebrity culture is all about the “Gods” walking amongst us. The same goes for the super rich, the entrepreneurs, the CEOs, the star traders, the Wall Street masters of the universe, the Washington D.C. political giants. Star sportspeople are today’s version of the “heroes” of old. Supermodels are our visions of the divine. Humanity is saturated by Mythos tropes. Myth and legend are everywhere you look. The whole of advertising revolves around myth and legend. Sport, and life, is all about winning and the winners become the new gods and heroes crowned by their delirious worshippers. Money is taken as a sure sign of divinity. The more money you have, the more power and freedom you have, and therefore the more you resemble the Gods.

The Ages of Man “The Ages of Man are the stages of human existence on the Earth according to Greek mythology. Two classical authors (Hesiod and Ovid) in particular offer accounts of the successive ages of mankind, which tend to progress from an original, long-gone age in which humans enjoyed a nearly divine existence to the current age of the writer, in which humans are beset by innumerable pains and evils. In the two accounts that survive from ancient Greece and Rome, this degradation of the human condition over time is indicated symbolically with metals of successively decreasing value.” – Wikipedia

Hesiod’s Five Ages

“Golden Age – The Golden Age [of humanity] is the only age that falls within the rule of Cronus. Moulded out of the earth through the hands of Prometheus, these humans were said to live among the gods, and freely mingled with them. Peace and harmony prevailed during this age. Humans did not have to work to feed themselves, for the earth provided food in abundance. They lived to a very old age but with a youthful appearance and eventually died peacefully. Their spirits live on as ‘guardians’. Plato in Cratylus (397 e) recounts the golden race of men who came first. He clarifies that Hesiod did not mean men literally made of gold, but good and noble. He describes these men as daemons upon the earth. Since daimones is derived from daēmones (meaning knowing or wise), they are beneficent, preventing ills, and guardians of mortals.” – Wikipedia Here we can see the origin of the Jewish notion of the Watchers (Sons of God: angels) and Nephilim (their children by mortal women – ‘the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair’). Extract from Cratylus by Plato SOCRATES: What shall follow the Gods? HERMOGENES: Must not demons and heroes and men come next? SOCRATES: Demons! And what do you consider to be the meaning of this word? Tell me if my view is right. HERMOGENES: Let me hear. SOCRATES: You know how Hesiod uses the word? HERMOGENES: I do not. SOCRATES: Do you not remember that he speaks of a golden race of men who came first? HERMOGENES: Yes, I do. SOCRATES: He says of them— ‘But now that fate has closed over this race. They are holy demons upon the earth, Beneficent, averters of ills, guardians of mortal men.’ (Hesiod, Works and Days) HERMOGENES: What is the inference?

SOCRATES: What is the inference! Why, I suppose that he means by the golden men, not men literally made of gold, but good and noble; and I am convinced of this, because he further says that we are the iron race. HERMOGENES: That is true. SOCRATES: And do you not suppose that good men of our own day would by him be said to be of golden race? HERMOGENES: Very likely. SOCRATES: And are not the good wise? HERMOGENES: Yes, they are wise. SOCRATES: And therefore I have the most entire conviction that he called them demons, because they were daemones (knowing or wise), and in our older Attic dialect the word itself occurs. Now he and other poets say truly, that when a good man dies he has honour and a mighty portion among the dead, and becomes a demon; which is a name given to him signifying wisdom. And I say too, that every wise man who happens to be a good man is more than human (daimonion) both in life and death, and is rightly called a demon. HERMOGENES: Then I rather think that I am of one mind with you; but what is the meaning of the word ‘hero’? (Eros with an eta, in the old writing eros with an epsilon.) SOCRATES: I think that there is no difficulty in explaining, for the name is not much altered, and signifies that they were born of love. HERMOGENES: What do you mean? SOCRATES: Do you not know that the heroes are demigods? HERMOGENES: What then? SOCRATES: All of them sprang either from the love of a God for a mortal woman, or of a mortal man for a Goddess; think of the word in the old Attic, and you will see better that the name heros is only a slight alteration of Eros, from whom the heroes sprang: either this is the meaning, or, if not this, then they must have been skilful as rhetoricians and dialecticians, and able to put the question (erotan), for eirein is equivalent to legein. And

therefore, as I was saying, in the Attic dialect the heroes turn out to be rhetoricians and questioners. All this is easy enough; the noble breed of heroes are a tribe of sophists and rhetors.

***** Plato’s wise Guardians are echoes of the Golden Race of Men. They are “demons”.

***** “Silver Age – The Silver Age and every age that follows fall within the rule of Cronus’ successor and son, Zeus. Zeus created these humans out of the ash tree. Men in the Silver age lived for one hundred years under the dominion of their mothers. They lived only a short time as grown adults, and spent that time in strife with one another. During this Age men refused to worship the gods and Zeus destroyed them for their impiety. After death, humans of this age became ‘blessed spirits’ of the underworld.” – Wikipedia This is a Matriarchal Age, hidden from history.

***** “Bronze Age – Men of the Bronze Age were hardened and tough, as war was their purpose and passion. Not only were their arms and tools forged of bronze, but so were their very homes. The men of this Age were undone by their own violent ways and left no named spirits; instead, they dwell in the ‘dank house of Hades’. This Age came to an end with the flood of Deucalion.” – Wikipedia This is the Age of the Abrahamic “Flood” where humanity courageously rejected and resisted the Gods. (This was therefore actually a Golden Age when humans refused to be slaves.)

***** “Heroic Age – The Heroic Age is the one age that does not correspond with any metal. It is also the only age that improves upon the age it follows. These humans were created from the bones of the earth (stones) through the

actions of Deucalion and Pyrrha. In this period men lived with noble demigods and heroes. It was the heroes of this Age who fought at Thebes and Troy. This race of humans died and went to Elysium.” This is the Homeric Age of the Iliad and the Odyssey, of Hercules and Jason, of Theseus and Oedipus.

***** “Iron Age – Hesiod finds himself in the Iron Age. During this age humans live an existence of toil and misery. Children dishonour their parents, brother fights with brother and the social contract between guest and host (xenia) is forgotten. During this age might makes right, and bad men use lies to be thought good. At the height of this age, humans no longer feel shame or indignation at wrongdoing; babies will be born with grey hair and the gods will have completely forsaken humanity: ‘there will be no help against evil.’“ – Wikipedia This is the horrific Mythos age of faith, of Abrahamism and Karmism. Only Logos humanity – the Golden Race, the Shining Ones – can extract humanity from this Satanic nightmare.

A Child’s Wisdom (A six-year-old girl’s comments to her Mom) “Mom, we are the universe. We are the truth. Mom, the world never ends. It just keeps going and going and going. We are the light. We have to save people. People are trapped somewhere. We are the light. We have the brightest lights. We have to help people.” “There is a white cloud where I came from. There is a black cloud too. I went to the black cloud before and came back to the white cloud.” “Mom, you just have to keep on walking. You have to believe. You have to keep walking and believe in yourself.” “All you have to do is believe in yourself.” “Mom, if you stop believing in yourself for even just a minute you die.”

“Mom you just keep coming back over and over again. As a different baby. The universe never ends.” “Mom you don’t understand. Your mom is here. People never die.” “Mom, don’t ever leave me with them [Christian babysitters] again on a Sunday. They took me to this horrible place [church].” “Mom, why do you have badder problems than me? Like hanging out with idiots. Why do you hang out with idiots? [the Christians]. And why don’t you know what I know? I know everything. I keep telling you but you don’t listen. Is idiot a bad word?” “Mom, I can teach you how to remember. When I was in God’s belly button, I took a ‘remembering class’. All you do is think about what you want to remember 12 times. Two 12s then you never forget it.” “We all have good and evil in us. We just need to learn to control it.” “When you tell me about the True God you are talking about yourself. You are the true God and you are making everything happen.” “I can teach you how to remember. I went to a remembering school when I was in God’s bellybutton before I came here so I wouldn’t forget anything.” “Everyone has a dark side.” “Zero is the first number. Don’t you people know anything?” [In response to people saying they didn’t have the ability to understand the concept of where the universe ends and begins. Existence does indeed begin and end with zero – with “nothing”. And it’s imperative to understand that zero is also infinity: they are two sides of the same coin. As soon as you have one, you automatically have the other. We might say that there is in fact one “Urnumber” – “zero-infinity” – which expresses itself either as zero or infinity depending on the mathematical environment.]

Life Imitates Prison “We are trained to tell you things that are not exactly true.” – Anonymous Prison Guard As for politicians, they’re trained to tell us things that are never true.

The Tree of Knowledge The Illuminati are those who eat of the fruit of the Tree Knowledge and seek to be as the Gods. We seek to eradicate the weakness in so many human beings, their instinct for faith, Mythos and slavery. We don’t want anyone promoting any creed of weakness and passivity. We won’t have anyone obstructing the strong and smart. The whole of human culture will revolve around action rather than reaction, activity rather than passivity, knowledge rather than ignorance, reason rather than faith, intellect rather than superstition, strength rather than weakness. We want a tough, strong, smart world of self-actualising, autonomous and cooperative people.

Where is He? The followers of the Magian Messiah Mythos were brilliantly satirised by Samuel Beckett in Waiting for Godot. In this sardonic play, two tramps are permanently hanging around, waiting for the eponymous Godot. They spend their lives waiting for Godot, thinking of Godot, hoping for Godot, praying for Godot, contemplating Godot, wondering about Godot, speculating about Godot, discussing Godot, desiring Godot, wanting to be saved by Godot. Yet, of course, the whole point of Godot is that he never comes. His non-arrival is his essence, his true definition. He’s always expected even when people have been waiting forever. (There is no evidence that “God” even exists, but when would that ever stop anyone from waiting for him?) In every way, these tramps, these bums, are defined by Godot. They have no definition in their own right. Is that not true of all Abrahamists? Every one of them is 100% defined by the God they worship, and have no self-definition. They are the created; they are not the creators. They obey another’s system, never their own. They are always slaves and never masters. Waiting for Godot is a play that can only ever apply to the submissive, the passive, the weak, the non-achievers, the hopeless, those seeking to be defined by others so that they never need to take personal responsibility, so that they never have to act. In a world of Fausts, there could never be a play called Waiting for Godot, and there could never be a Messianic Abrahamic religion. Fausts are

never waiting for anyone. They neither expect nor want a Messiah. Your attitude to the “Messiah” defines you. If you’re Waiting for the Messiah, you’re a weak, pathetic coward and slave. If you are your own Messiah, you are becoming God.

The Answer? If you asked the “Creator” how he created the world and he said, “I thought about it and thus it happened. I willed it and thus it came to be. I am that I am.” Would that satisfy you? Is that an answer at all in any meaningful sense? Would it be any different from saying, “I did it by magic.” In fact, it would be apparent that God himself didn’t know the answer. God is not the answer to anything. God, to satisfy any thinking person, would have to explain his Creation using logic, reason, mathematics, science and philosophy. If he didn’t, he would have failed to provide the desired answer. The truly astounding thing about the Abrahamic “holy” texts is that they purport to be the “answer” yet they are devoid of any mathematical, scientific, logical, rational or philosophical content. No Logos thinker could ever be satisfied by the Abrahamic texts or find them anything other than an outright insult to the intelligence. If you’re not offended by the Torah, Bible or Koran, you have self-identified as an incredibly stupid person. Read any book on cosmology, relativity, quantum mechanics or string theory and it will instantly be vastly more plausible, rational challenging and fascinating than any holy text. Is that not astonishing? If God can’t explain his design plan in his three “infallible” texts then he has no explanation. In fact, he doesn’t seem to be remotely bothered about explaining himself. His only concern seems to be to achieve total dominance over stupid, servile people – to make them kneel and bow to him, to slavishly worship him, and to obey his every command without question. If they do, he will grant them heaven and, if they don’t, he will punish them forever in hell. Control – mastery, power over humanity – is his sole concern. He suffers from no desire to explain himself. He’s the ultimate non-explainer, the being who will tell you nothing, ever. He would send you to hell for daring to ask. Didn’t he condemn Adam and Eve for eating from the Tree of Knowledge? He doesn’t want anyone to know anything. To “worship” this entity is to declare that you are not interested in the answer to everything.

The real answer to existence can consist of only one thing – pure mathematics. No other answer is possible. The answer must be based on pure, unarguable reason and logic; eternal, analytic, necessary, incontestable Platonic truths. The answer is purely rational, purely intellectual, purely a matter for your own understanding. It has nothing to do with any being. “God” is no answer unless he logically sets out a design plan that you can rationally follow in every detail and see its absolute rational necessity – how it could not possibly have been otherwise.

The Religious Virus What keeps the religious virus working in the human system? It’s the desire to know “the answer”. Yet, as we have seen, the answer is itself problematic. To a rationalist, “God” certainly isn’t the answer if God’s answer isn’t rational. The mere “existence” of God is an answer to what, exactly? How would you know he really was God and not an impostor? Can God be trusted? What if he were a powerful Demiurge pretending to be the True God? What criteria would you use to resolve the problem? Reason alone is the answer, and infallible reason is nothing but mathematics, the sole (soul?) source of truth. It’s mathematics or nothing (and nothing is of course itself mathematical!)

***** Christians like to say, “God is always with us.” This comforts and reassures them. Is he with them when they’re taking a shit, pissing, getting drunk, screaming at their wife and kids, committing adultery, fucking, lying, cheating, licking asshole, being pathetic, being lazy, being stupid? If he is, what’s the point of “God”? He seems superfluous to requirements, and certainly doesn’t change anything or make anything better.

Doing it Better “Any activity becomes creative when the doer cares about doing it right, or better.” – John Updike What’s the central problem of free-market capitalism? It’s that it believes in doing things more profitably, while paying some people (the star talent, the “producers”) more and more. It therefore has to offset these higher costs by paying other people (the “workers”) less, by cutting back on production values, and so on. Capitalism invariably leads to lower quality in all but technological hardware where quality always rises because technology is always getting better (which is ultimately thanks to universities producing new research and ideas – not to capitalism).

Steppenwolf

Steppenwolf is another of Hermann Hesse’s great novels. Wikipedia provides this summary: “As [the book] begins, the hero is beset by reflections on his being ill-suited for the world of everyday, regular people, specifically for frivolous bourgeois society. In his aimless wanderings about the city he encounters a person carrying an advertisement for a magic theatre who gives him a small book, Treatise on the Steppenwolf. This treatise, cited in full in the novel’s text as Harry reads it, addresses Harry by name and strikes him as describing himself uncannily. It is a discourse of a man who believes himself to be of two natures: one high, the spiritual nature of man; while the other is low, animalistic, a ‘wolf of the steppes’. This man is entangled in an irresolvable struggle, never content with either nature because he cannot see beyond this self-made concept. The pamphlet gives an explanation of the multifaceted and indefinable nature of every man’s soul, which Harry is either unable or unwilling to recognize. It also discusses his suicidal intentions, describing him as one of the ‘suicides’; people who, deep down, knew they would take their own life one day. But to counter that, it hails his potential to be great, to be one of the ‘Immortals’. ... Trying to postpone returning home (where he has planned suicide), Harry walks aimlessly around the town for most of the night, finally stopping to rest at a dance hall where he happens on a young woman, Hermine, who quickly recognizes his desperation. They talk at length; Hermine alternately mocks Harry’s selfpity and indulges him in his explanations regarding his view of life, to his astonished relief. Hermine promises a second meeting, and provides Harry with a reason to live (or at least a substantial excuse to continue living) that he eagerly embraces. “During the next few weeks, Hermine introduces Harry to the indulgences of what he calls the ‘bourgeois’. She teaches Harry to dance, introduces him to casual drug use, finds him a lover (Maria), and, more importantly, forces him to accept these as legitimate and worthy aspects of a full life. ... Hermine also introduces Harry to a mysterious saxophonist named Pablo, who appears to be the very opposite of what Harry considers a serious, thoughtful man. After attending a lavish masquerade ball, Pablo brings Harry to his metaphorical ‘magic theatre,’ where concerns and notions that plagued his soul disintegrate while he interacts with the ethereal and phantasmal. The Magic Theatre is a place where he experiences the fantasies that exist in his mind. They are described as a long

horseshoe-shaped corridor that is a mirror on one side and a great many doors on the other. Then, Harry enters five of these labelled doors, each of which symbolizes a fraction of his life.”

The Magic Theatre Magic Theatre, Entrance not for Everybody ... For Madmen only. Anarchist Evening Entertainment, Magic Theatre, Entrance not for Everybody. Anarchist Evening at the Magic Theatre. For Madmen Only. Price of Admission Your Mind. Tonight at the Magic Theatre. For Madmen Only. Price of Admittance your Mind. Not for Everybody. Hermine is in Hell.” A Treatise on the Steppenwolf, Not for Everybody.

***** The Magic Theatre: where you can live out your fantasies. In the horseshoeshaped corridor, you can gaze into the enormous ceiling-to-floor mirror on one side (and wonder who you really are), or you can open the countless doors on the other side of the corridor, representing different life possibilities, and be taught different life lessons. Shouldn’t every town have its own Magic Theatre?

The Chrysalids Chrysalid: noun, a chrysalis; adjective, relating to or resembling a chrysalis. Chrysalis (from the ancient Greek khrusos, “gold”): the pupa of a moth or butterfly, in a case or cocoon; a state of incomplete development; a transitional stage; anything in the process of developing. Plural: chrysalises or chrysalides. Pupa: the nonmobile stage in the metamorphosis of many insects, following the larval stage and preceding the adult form, during which many internal changes occur. Alchemy is a chrysalis process, transforming base metal (the “pupa” of metal) into gold (the butterfly). The beautiful butterfly is the classic symbol of the soul. “Becoming God” is the ultimate metamorphosis. An ordinary human being is akin to a pupa; the HyperHuman is the butterfly that emerges from the seemingly unpromising raw material.

***** The Chrysalids (1955) is a post-apocalyptic novel by John Wyndham, set generations after nuclear war has destroyed much of the world, creating radioactive deserts, sterile wastelands, barren lands of black glass, and sending human civilization back to a much more primitive era where the medieval mindset of religious fanaticism and Apocalyptic Christian Fundamentalism has taken hold once more. Mutation in children is commonplace, and all mutants are feared and despised, being seen as the offspring of the Devil. Mutants are regarded as deviants and abominations (blasphemies against God) that must be purged one way or another. Most are sterilized then abandoned in “the Fringes”, outside civilization. They are never allowed to return. Society is all about conformity and conservatism. Anything that deviates from the normal is seen as Satanic.

“Watch Thou For The Mutant.” From The Chrysalids by John Wyndham “And God created man in His own image. And God decreed that man should have one body, one head, two arms and two legs: that each arm

should be jointed in two places and end in one hand: that each hand should have four fingers and one thumb: that each finger should bear a flat fingernail....” “Then God created woman, also, and in the same image, but with these differences, according to her nature: her voice should be of a higher pitch than a man’s: she should grow no beard: she should have two breasts...” “And any creature that shall seem to be human, but is not formed thus is not human. It is neither man nor woman. It is blasphemy against the true Image of God, and hateful in the sight of God.” “The norm is the Will of God, and, reproduction is the only holy production, and the Devil is the father of deviation.”

The Coming Race “Only God produces perfection, so although deviations may look like us in many ways, they cannot be really human. They are something quite different.” The action of The Chrysalids takes place in Waknuk, in Labrador (Canada), where an oppressive, primitive agricultural society struggles to return to the level of civilization of the “Old People” (pre-Apocalypse humanity). Radiation has rendered much of the land useless and continues to produce mutations in plants, animals, and humans. Mutated crops are deemed blasphemous and Satanic and are ritually burned. Many years have passed since the catastrophic war (“the Tribulation”) and the people of Waknuk do not understand the true cause of the deviations, blaming them instead on the Devil as a punishment sent from God for humanity’s wickedness. They have turned to the strictest religious code that demands the compulsory destruction of any plant or animal born with any type of imperfection. Human mutants are either killed or exiled to the Fringes, a lawless, grim and wild region south of Waknuk. Further beyond are “the Badlands” where all of nature seems to have mutated and, finally, “the Blacklands” where nothing grows at all. Here the land has been turned to black glass by the heat of the War’s nuclear detonations. People who have only minor mutations, such as extra toes, go to great lengths to avoid detection and try to pass themselves off as “normal”. Everyone wants to be as normal and conformist as possible.

The novel’s protagonist is the narrator David Strorm. He belongs to an extremist religious family from which he is hiding a terrible secret: he has a mutation that gives him telepathic powers. If this were discovered, he would be exiled or even killed. Several of his friends share the same mutation, and all of them are in equal peril. If one is caught, all will be caught. Since childhood, David has had a vivid recurring dream of a city with tall buildings, horseless vehicles, and flying machines. In fact, he’s telepathically seeing a city in a faraway land called Sealand (New Zealand), where civilization didn’t collapse after the war. Moreover, most of the people there are telepaths too, and they seek other telepaths from all over the world to create a new, higher human race that can recover the old glories. The telepaths are of course the eponymous Chrysalids who will metamorphose into HyperHumans. David’s young sister Petra has the strongest telepathic powers, so powerful she can link to the mind of a woman in Sealand. Her inability to control her phenomenal powers jeopardizes the whole of David’s group. Two of them are arrested and tortured until they betray the others. The others manage to flee before their pursuers arrive, and they make a perilous journey to the Fringes. However, their enemies hunt them down, determined to wipe them out. A rescue mission has been sent from Sealand since Petra is a kind of Messiah who must be saved at any cost. The fanatical hunters fight a savage battle with the people of the Fringe, with David and his friends caught in the middle. The Sealanders arrive just in time. David’s group are taken back to Sealand and, when they arrive, David recognizes that this was the fantastical place he had seen in his dreams and visions.

“Steady, child, steady! We’re coming,” Extracts from The Chrysalids by John Wyndham. ‘Don’t be frightened. We’re coming. It’s all right. Stay just where you are.’ ... But more than anything it was the lightness of her face that made us stare. It was not pallor, it was simply fairness, like new cream, and with cheeks that

might have been dusted with pink petals. There was scarcely a line in its smoothness, it seemed all new and perfect, as if neither wind nor rain had ever touched her. We found it hard to believe that any real, living person could look like that, so untouched, so unflawed. For she was no girl in a first tender blossoming, unmistakably she was a woman – thirty, perhaps; one could not tell. She was sure of herself, with a serenity of confidence which made Rosalind’s self-reliance seem almost bravado. She took us in, and then fixed her attention upon Petra. She smiled at her, with just a glimpse of perfect, white teeth. There was an immensely complex pattern which compounded pleasure, satisfaction, achievement, relief, approval, and, most surprisingly to me, a touch of something very like awe. The intermixture was subtle beyond Petra’s grasp, but enough of it reached her to give her an unwonted, wideeyed seriousness for some seconds as she looked up into the woman’s eyes; as if she knew in some way, without understanding how or why, that this was one of the cardinal moments of her life. Then, after a few moments, her expression relaxed; she smiled and chuckled. Evidently something was passing between them, but it was of a quality, or on a level, that did not reach me at all. I caught Rosalind’s eye, but she simply shook her head and watched. The Sealand woman bent down and picked Petra up. They looked closely into one another’s faces. Petra raised her hand and tentatively touched the woman’s face, as if to assure herself that it was real. The Sealand woman laughed, kissed her and put her down again. She shook her head slowly, as if she were not quite believing. ‘It was worthwhile,’ she said in words, but words so curiously pronounced that I scarcely understood them at first. ‘Yes. Certainly, it was worth while!’ She slipped into thought-forms, much easier to follow than her words. ‘It was not simple to get permission to come. Such an immense distance: more than twice as far as any of us has been before. So costly to send the ship: they could scarcely believe it would be worth it. But it will be . . .’ She looked at Petra again, wonderingly. ‘At her age, and untrained – yet she can throw a thought half-way round the world!’ She shook her head once more, as if still unable to believe it entirely. Then she turned to me.

‘She has still a great deal to learn, but we will give her the best teachers, and then, one day, she will be teaching them.’ ... ‘The unhappy Fringes people were condemned through no act of their own to a life of squalor and misery – there could be no future for them. As for those who condemned them – well, that, too, is the way of it. There have been lords of life before, you know. Did you ever hear of the great lizards? When the time came for them to be superseded they had to pass away. ‘Sometime there will come a day when we ourselves shall have to give place to a new thing. Very certainly we shall struggle against the inevitable just as these remnants of the Old People do. We shall try with all our strength to grind it back into the earth from which it is emerging, for treachery to one’s own species must always seem a crime. We shall force it to prove itself, and when it does, we shall go; as, by the same process, these are going. ‘In loyalty to their kind they cannot tolerate our rise; in loyalty to our kind, we cannot tolerate their obstruction. ‘ If the process shocks you, it is because you have not been able to stand off and, knowing what you are, see what a difference in kind must mean. Your minds are confused by your ties and your upbringing: you are still half-thinking of them as the same kind as yourselves. That is why you are shocked. And that is why they have you at a disadvantage, for they are not confused. They are alert, corporately aware of danger to their species. They can see quite well that if it is to survive they have not only to preserve it from deterioration, but they must protect it from the even more serious threat of the superior variant. ‘For ours is a superior variant, and we are only just beginning. We are able to think-together and understand one another as they never could; we are beginning to understand how to assemble and apply the composite team-mind to a problem – and where may that not take us one day? We are not shut away into individual cages from which we can reach out only with inadequate words. Understanding one another, we do not need laws which treat living forms as though they were as indistinguishable as bricks; we could never commit the enormity of imagining that we could mint ourselves into equality and identity, like stamped coins; we do not mechanistically

attempt to hammer ourselves into geometrical patterns of society, or policy; we are not dogmatists teaching God how He should have ordered the world. ‘The essential quality of life is living; the essential quality of living is change; change is evolution: and we are part of it. ‘The static, the enemy of change, is the enemy of life, and therefore our implacable enemy. If you still feel shocked, or doubtful, just consider some of the things that these people, who have taught you to think of them as your fellows, have done. I know little about your lives, but the pattern scarcely varies wherever a pocket of the older species is trying to preserve itself. And consider, too, what they intended to do to you, and why...’ As before, I found her rhetorical style somewhat overwhelming, but in general I was able to follow her line of thought. I did not have the power of detachment that could allow me to think of myself as another species – nor am I sure that I have it yet. In my thinking we were still no more than unhappy minor variants; but I could look back and consider why we had been forced to flee... I glanced at Petra. She was sitting pretty much bored with all this apologia, watching the Sealand woman’s beautiful face with a kind of wistful wonder. ... ‘It is real, isn’t it? You can see it, too?’ I asked her. ‘It’s beautiful, David. I never thought there could be anything so lovely. . . . And there’s something else, too, that you never told me about.’ ‘What?’ I asked. ‘Listen! . . . Can’t you feel it? Open your mind more. . . . Petra, darling, if you could stop bubbling over for a few minutes...’ I did as she told me. I was aware of the engineer in our machine communicating with someone below, but behind that, as a background to it, there was something new and unknown to me. In terms of sound it could be not unlike the buzzing of a hive of bees; in terms of light, a suffused glow. ‘What is it?’ I said, puzzled. ‘Can’t you guess, David? It’s people. Lots and lots of our kind of people.’ ...

‘Oh, sorry,’ Petra apologized to the ship’s crew, and to the city in general, ‘but it is awfully exciting.’ ‘This time, darling, we’ll forgive you,’ Rosalind told her. ‘It is.’

***** Illumination is coming. One day, like the Chrysalids, we shall be free. Logos humanity must take a decisive step forward. We can have no sympathy for the Mythos masses. They have done nothing but hold us back, persecute us and obstruct progress. They are the enemies of the evolution of the human mind. Only Logos minds can become divine. The Mythos mind is the highest animal mind; it has no divine potential. It belongs to the brutes, the beast of the fields, the wolf packs and monkey troops ruled by dominant, psychopathic alpha males – of which Abraham’s God is the cosmic version, infinitized version. In The Chrysalids, the Sealanders came to the rescue. There are no Sealanders on their way to save us. We have no need of them. How can we become Gods if we can’t do it ourselves? We are our own Messiahs and Saviours. The Logos species is almost infinitely smarter than the Mythos species. If all Logos thinkers join together, we can easily defeat the Mythos Mob. The issue is not one of intelligence but of will. Do we have the will to bring the reign of Mythos to an end?

Species Replacement “Critics have disagreed with Wyndham’s implication that two differently evolved species must necessarily fight to the death.” – Wikipedia “Sometime there will come a day when we ourselves shall have to give place to a new thing. Very certainly we shall struggle against the inevitable just as these remnants of the Old People do. We shall try with all our strength to grind it back into the earth from which it is emerging, for treachery to one’s species must always seem a crime. We shall force it to prove itself, and when it does, we shall go; as by the same process, these are going. In loyalty to their kind they cannot tolerate our rise; in loyalty to our kind, we cannot tolerate their obstruction.” – John Wyndham, The Chrysalids

Never forget these words. The Mythos mob cannot tolerate the rise of a Logos super race. And a Logos super race cannot tolerate the obstruction of the Mythos mob. It’s them or us. A world devoted to the Torture God is a doomed world. Wyndham’s implication is unavoidable. The world either worships the Torture God or pursues a radical new vision. It cannot do both. There can be no new world until every trace of the Torture God is removed from our world. The death of the Torture God is a precondition for a divine humanity.

The Village of the Damned The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham (filmed as The Village of the Damned) was written after The Chrysalids and examines the same central theme. However, instead of superior human mutants appearing amongst ordinary humans, it’s aliens (or, rather, half-human, half-alien children with human mothers and alien paternal DNA). In both books, a superior new group provokes fear and hate in the inferior majority. In The Chrysalids, the minority wins; in The Midwich Cuckoos, the smartest individual of the majority manages to kill the special children, but only through becoming a suicide bomber who takes them all out with him. This struggle between a majority stuck in the past and a minority capable of moving into a glorious future is the key issue of our Age. Will Logos humanity – higher humanity – have the guts and will to follow the evolutionary logic and assume complete control over the primitive Mythos majority that stands in the way of evolution, and which prefers to kneel to a Creator God in the sky, a Torture God and cosmic Psychopath. Don’t kid yourselves, this Monster God must be deposed and destroyed before humanity can be free. His followers and worshippers are the damned. They are the force of anti-evolution. If the Logos minority refuses to stand up to them and overcome them then the Logos minority will, by default, remain as enslaved to the Torture God as the Mythos masses.

The Mythos Mind Mythos people are prone to irrational notions such as superstition, faith and unrealistic hope. They are driven by primitive fears and desires, and if someone (a prophet) or something powerful (a Church) tells them that something is true then they believe it even when it’s totally irrational to do so. If someone told you they encountered an angel in a cave, you would think they were insane. Yet 1.5 billion Muslims believe this deranged claim and base their whole lives on it. It’s amazing that billions of people have allowed themselves to be conned into thinking that Mythos – stories – are the basis of truth. Mythos has no connection with truth whatsoever. The Torah, Bible and Koran do not contain any truth content at all. They simply tell stories and bark silly, irrational orders at credulous, gullible, irrational, suggestible dupes.

There is no more to fear from Abrahamic “holy” texts than from the latest Hollywood horror movies. They’re pure Mythos and fantasy designed to achieve certain effects by the manipulation of our most primitive and basic emotions. They have nothing true to say to us. Only rational truths are true; specifically, the analytic truths of mathematics.

***** Mythos religions are about spreading contagious fear via scary stories about the ultimate chamber of horrors: hell. All Logos thinkers are wholly immune to Abrahamic scare tactics and regard the “sacred” texts of these religions as infinitely silly. There’s only one genuinely frightening thing about them – the fact that billions of stupid people are suckered by them and rendered extremely dangerous as a result. What was the cause of, or certainly the excuse for, the Boston bombings? Islam.

Different Human Species Biological evolution always comes to an end at a certain well-defined point: when consciousness appears. At this stage, a biological body stops being primarily part of the material world and instead becomes a denizen of the mental world. From that point on, mental, not physical, evolution takes place, and the ultimate mental evolution leads to divinity. “God” is simply the supreme rational consciousness of which existence is capable. Neanderthal Man may be classified either as a subspecies of Homo sapiens (in which case Neanderthals are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species of the same genus (in which case they are Homo neanderthalensis). Although Neanderthals could mate with Homo sapiens they apparently didn’t at all, or only in very small numbers. In the modern day, there are two separate mental species of Homo sapiens: Homo sapiens mythos and Homo sapiens logos. The former is driven by emotion and the senses, the latter by reason and intuition. Although these two subspecies can mate, it’s unlikely that they form any lasting attachments. Thinking intuitives would never have relationships with Abrahamists or Karmists. Before humans became conscious, they had master-slave bicameral minds. It’s quite likely that the bicameral mind was a form of group mind, with the alpha male of a group mentally controlling the individual members

of a group via his “voice” manifesting itself in their right hemispheres (through a Jungian archetypal process). When left hemispheric consciousness first appeared, it was as “Mythos consciousness”, emotion shaped by narrative – speculative, irrational storytelling. “Logos consciousness” did not make its appearance until the 6th century BCE in ancient Greece. The difference between ancient Greek philosophy and Jewish tales of Jehovah is simply staggering and constitutes one of the most extraordinary dichotomies of all time. These are clearly two different mental species. The Greeks took an enormous evolutionary jump forward. They became “thinkers” rather than “feelers”. They developed rational arguments to explain phenomena rather than making up emotionally satisfying stories. If you ponder the story of Jesus Christ, you see that it’s an absolutely superb tale for people with Mythos minds, but is incomprehensible to rationalists. Christianity doesn’t make any sense at all. The concept of the Trinity is the most far-fetched idea ever conceived. It’s a hopeless attempt to deploy the trinity of Neoplatonism (the One, the Nous and the Psyche) in a way where the logic can’t but fall apart. In Neoplatonism, there’s a clear hierarchy: the One emanates the Nous which emanates the Psyche. None of these entities is regarded as a “person” that would give orders and speak to prophets, intervene in human affairs, and so on. In Christianity, the “Father”, “Son” and “Holy Spirit” are treated as three equal “persons” making up one God, yet they are characterized as separate agents that directly intervene in human affairs. If Jewish monotheism is bad, Christian Trinitarian monotheism is bonkers. The idea of three person in one God makes no rational sense, but it allows great stories to be told because now you can have a “single” God operating in three radically separate ways. So, we are told that the Christian God died on the Cross for our sins, but we are also told that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit didn’t die. In fact, God the Son didn’t die either – only Jesus the man died, but actually he didn’t die either because he had no human DNA and was always God the Son with indestructible, divine DNA (or, alternatively, he was the product of God the Holy Spirit’s artificial insemination of the Virgin Mary, hence was actually God the Holy Spirit rather than God the Son!). If you can discern a single coherent, rational aspect to Christianity, go and see a psychiatrist fast.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam make sense only in terms of emotional story logic for submissives, but make no sense at all in terms of actual logic. You can accept these religions only if you have a Mythos mind, but if you have a Logos mind you can’t accept them at all. In the past, all thinking people in the West turned away from Abrahamism (while paying lip service to it to avoid persecution) and explored the secret, underground world of Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, Gnosticism and Alchemy. It was from these sources that the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, deism, idealism, rationalism and science all emerged. The human mind has gone through three main evolutionary jumps: 1) the jump from the Ape mind to the pre-conscious bicameral mind. 2) the jump from the bicameral mind to Mythos consciousness. 3) the jump from Mythos to Logos consciousness. The next jump is from Logos consciousness to HyperHuman consciousness involving perfect hemispheric balance, the perfect balance between the local processing of the left hemisphere and the non-local processing of the right hemisphere. After that, the divine mind awaits. Only Logos minds can take the next step. Only they can ascend. Mythos minds are locked in the past. They’re an evolutionary dead end. They offer humanity no future. If Jews had their way, human being would still be wailing in front of the Wailing Wall a billion years from now. The Muslims think the Hajj pilgrimage will still be relevant a billion years from now. The Christians will forever be awaiting the Second Coming that never comes. Meanwhile, Logos humanity will be in starships, travelling to the furthest corners of the universe. Logos and Mythos humanity will completely part company. In a million years from now, a Logos spacecraft will return to Mythos Earth, and the crew will be worshipped as Gods!

The Parting Note Some people don’t know how to deliver their parting note. When someone has delivered their tenth “final message” on a forum such as Facebook, it has become tiresome. Don’t overstay your departure from the stage. If you’re going, GO.

The Buffoon The Mayor of London is a buffoonish toff clown called Boris Johnson (Eton, Oxford, Bullingdon Club). Only in Britain could someone so absurd be elected to a senior political role. Working class British people are transfixed by posh people and grovel to them. Many Londoners said they voted for Johnson because “he’s a good laugh”. So, they want the world to be run by comedians? That explains the sorry state of the world. Even worse, no one’s laughing.

The Difference between a Criminal and a Capitalist “Criminal: a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.” – Howard Scott

Beyond Criticism “To learn who rules you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” – Voltaire Well, to some extent this is right. But, in fact, in democracies, you are allowed to criticize. However, your criticism is never allowed to be anything other than ineffectual. You can criticize all you like. It won’t change anything. The sacred “market” that controls democracies couldn’t care less about criticism.

New or Old? Columbus is said to have discovered the “New World”. New always implies something fresh and different. Why do conspiracy theorists fear the formation of a “New World Order”? Do you see the subtle, manipulative way in which you are being told to fear the new, fear change, fear radical ideas and stick with the old and familiar. i.e. to stick with the catastrophic status quo that wholly favours the rich and privileged? Anyone who uses the term “New World Order” in a negative way is a right wing conservative who supports the privileged elite – the Old World Order – who run our world. The conspiracy theorists are the allies of the very people who have ruined our world and who run it in their own interests. Absolutely nothing is more important than creating a New World Order, and getting rid of all the nonsense of the past. Conspiracy theorists are the enemies of the new, of change, of the truth. Never be afraid of the new. It’s the old that has done all the damage.

Saving Souls The Catholic Church is one of the religions that claims to be in the business of “saving souls”. That means, in effect, that you must put yourself under its control if you want to be saved and obey everything it tells you to do.

So, think how radical and subversive the message is that, in fact, the only person who can “save” you is you! You are 100% responsible and no other person, institution, religion, Messiah or Saviour can in any way affect the destiny of your soul. You alone determine what happens to your soul via the choices you make. If you make the right choices, you will become God! It’s critical to get rid of all religions and institutions that say that only through them can you be saved. That is simply their cynical means for enslaving you. Never let anyone put chains on you.

***** In fact, according to the Christian doctrine of grace, no one can be saved without Jesus Christ’s random gift of grace and since it’s Jesus Christ and not the Catholic Church that randomly bestows grace, the Catholic Church, by its own logic, is totally irrelevant.

Adam and Eve According to Christianity, Adam and Eve’s disobedience caused humanity to be condemned to live in “mortal time” rather than in eternity – in paradise – with God. According to Hegel, “mortal time”, the material world, is the environment of necessary alienation in which the dialectic unfolds and which allows us to come to a proper understanding of the world. Rather than “mortal time” being a sentence passed on us, it’s essential to our health, development and evolution. You can make no progress unless you leave eternity and enter time.

Prodigies You get mathematical, music (aural mathematics) and chess (game mathematics) prodigies – people of age 15 and below – accomplishing amazing feats in their respective fields. You don’t get sculptural, painting, science, philosophy or literature prodigies. Why? Because, as Plato said, you don’t have to “learn” mathematics, you simply have to “remember” it. We are mathematical beings, immersed in mathematics, intuitively linked to mathematical truths.

Idiocy

How often do we hear people saying that science is about the real world and mathematics isn’t? Wrong! Science is just mathematics badly translated into a secondary, less powerful language and fancy jargon based on ad hoc, arbitrary concepts and hypotheses that have no rational necessity.

The Numerical Interpretation of Reality All religions, philosophies and sciences are just ways of interpreting mathematics and numbers. Something can be “eternal” only if it is outside space and time. To talk of eternal scientific laws is to acknowledge that things outside space and time exist, hence that materialism is false. God can be eternal only by being outside space and time. The same is true of the soul. An afterlife is possible only if there is an eternal, indestructible domain that remains even when physical bodies perish. What are the numbers that define this eternal domain? Zero and infinity. God, the soul, heaven and hell are said to be immaterial. Immaterial existence is possible only in a domain outside the material world of space and time. Empiricism is the doctrine that only numbers amenable to sensory detection are real and all other numbers are unreal. Materialism is the doctrine that nothing without material dimensions can exist (well, apart from photons, but materialism just sweeps them under the carpet). Scientific materialism is the doctrine that only real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity (and a few negative numbers to account for the concept of electric charge, and a few other things) have ontological reality, and all other numbers are unreal. Idealism is the doctrine that zero and infinity are the only ontologically real numbers, and all other numbers are in some sense illusory products of those numbers. Rationalism is the doctrine that any numbers that are rationally necessary must exist regardless of whether they can be observed or detected in any way via the senses. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not have number systems that represented zero and infinity. They suffered from a kind of horror of zero and infinity and wanted to keep everything finite and dimensional (this attitude prevails to this day in scientific materialism). Abrahamists had a certain interest in zero since their God was said to have made the world from “nothing”.

The Indians formally invented the number zero, which fitted in with the Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist fascination with the existential Void from which all things came (a kind of forerunner of Big Bang theory). In the end, all systems of Logos thought have to address the meaning, if any, of zero and infinity, of imaginary and negative numbers. Mythos systems of thought have none or next to none contact with mathematics – which is why there’s not a single mathematical equation in any “holy” texts, and no explicit reference to numbers, or analysis of numbers. It’s because all big questions reduce, finally, to interpretations of the ontological meaning of numbers that mathematics is the quintessence of everything, and the only possible answer to everything.

***** Illuminism is the doctrine that all numbers are ontological, including all imaginary and negative numbers, and zero and infinity (which are two sides of the same numerical coin – you cannot have zero without infinity, and vice versa). Illuminism is the only true grand unified theory of existence since it’s based wholly on mathematics which is existence’s own inbuilt system for rationally uniting everything in a single adamantine, coherent, complete, consistent system. Science will never produce a final theory of anything at all. It’s a category error to imagine that such a thing is possible. Science does not have the necessary, a priori, analytic properties that are necessary for a single all-explaining system.

Something or Nothing Leibniz famously asked why there is something rather than nothing. The only conceivable answer is that something and nothing are one and the same thing. This is numerically explained via zero and infinity being, ultimately, just a single number, with two aspects that we interpret as zero in some circumstances and infinity in others, depending on the mathematical context. They are, however, always indissolubly present together just as head and tails are on any standard coin. Let’s call the single zero-infinity number the Ur Number. The Ur Number is the answer to existence. It’s the arche – the fundamental stuff of existence. Illuminism is the study of the Ur Number. The Ur Number is the monad – the soul.

The Ur Number is the formal answer to the great question of the meaning of “life, the universe, and everything”.

Dialectical Materialism versus Scientific Materialism There’s no reason for materialists to be of the scientific stripe. Dialectical materialism is actually a vastly superior version of materialism. Dialectical materialism is purposeful (teleological) materialism whereas scientific materialism is purposeless. Given that human beings themselves are full of purpose, aims and ambitions, dialectical materialism instantly offers an instant explanation of this phenomenon, which is otherwise incomprehensible if there are in fact no purposes in the universe (as science claims). Dialectical materialism is directed materialism whereas scientific materialism is random, fuzzy and probabilistic. If science is right, why don’t we live in random chaos? Whence order, organization and direction? Above all, dialectical materialism is hylozoistic – it imbues matter with a life force, hence provides an instant explanation of why human beings are alive. Where dialectical materialism is living materialism, scientific materialism is machine materialism. It’s impossible for the machine paradigm to account for life and purpose. Dialectical materialism presents the material world as a teleological living, evolving, culminating organism while scientific materialism depicts it as a dead machine process randomly and purposelessly moving forward towards final heat death oblivion. Given that the machine view of reality is contradicted and refuted in every way imaginable by human being themselves, it’s extraordinary that materialists don’t prefer dialectical materialism. The reason for that is simple, of course. Dialectical materialism is indelibly linked to discredited communism. However, that link is bogus. Dialectical materialism has no necessary connection to communism at all. You could easily have scientific dialectical materialism that never mentioned communism once. If science adopted dialectics, it would instantly come much closer to the rationalist dialectical Hegelian idealism of Illuminism. The question is why are scientific materialists so fond of their dead, purposeless, pointless, meaningless, sterile machine paradigm? What does that say about their psyche? Scientific materialism is dialectical materialism for autistics!

The Knight In the Middle Ages, the Knight represented the highest ideal of what a man should be. The Knight saw himself as noble and virtuous, chivalrous and honourable: a perfect representation of what a man should be. Nothing less than a paragon. The Arthurian Romances – with the Knights of the Round Table centre stage – made Knights the most romantic and heroic of all figures, an ideal brought to real, vivid life by the Knights Templar. Yet to others – the peasantry – the Knight was ruthless and vain, callous and selfish, a brute amongst men, a violent bully and psychopath. In relation to a peasant, a Knight was the equivalent of a modern tank. He was more or less indestructible. The longbow eventually provided a kind of bazooka to destroy the Knight tanks, but, before that, the Knight had little to concern him from anyone other than other Knights who obeyed the same code of honour and chivalry and who were “gentlemen” of comparable status. The Knight was always an ambiguous figure. On one hand, he was expected to be a good Christian, merciful and compassionate, while on the other he was useless if he wasn’t a vicious, brutal and pitiless monster in battle: a merciless killing machine. The Knight didn’t want to see himself as nothing but a savage terminator, so an increasingly romantic Mythos built up around him, creating a highly sophisticated ideal. Knights such as the Templars were infused with religion and the highest, self-sacrificing values. They laid down their lives to save their brother Knights and the pilgrims they were protecting. Knights also became associated with love, especially unhappy, unrequited love, or requited love that could never be consummated because it was with an unattainable figure such as the Queen. The tale of Lancelot, the greatest of Knights, was supremely shocking because he did consummate his love with Queen Guinevere and the effect was so profound it shook the whole kingdom to its core and undermined its moral fabric. King Arthur’s prosperous realm became a Waste Land, riven by civil war and bitter rivalry – all because Lancelot and Guinevere broke the sacred code that held everything together. Without that code there was nothing but anarchy.

So, “Courtly Love”, as it was known, was supremely erotic, intense and gallant, yet searingly painful since it so rarely brought any happiness or fulfilment. It was a permanent tease. Many Knights became tormented by all these impossible ideals to which they were subjected. They struggled to live up to the exacting code of masculinity, of alpha masculinity. Every Knight was metaphorically masked. They were all front, all living behind a façade of Knightly purity, honour, gallantry, chivalry and impeccable manners. Naturally, the unconscious Shadow was summoned and Knights, away from the spotlight of the Court and other Knights, were cruel monsters, murderers, thieves and rapists. The Knight was supposed to be the supreme vision of a man, the archetype of masculinity, representing the loftiest ideals. They were tremendously seductive figures, male peacocks. They seemed to be cloaked in a mist of legend, myth and romance. In their gleaming armour, they were like authentic dragon slayers, single-handedly saving their community from the monsters that preyed on them. They were protectors, the guardians. Has there ever been a more romantic figure, powerful, masculine figure than the Knight in Shining Armour coming to the rescue? No wonder the tragic Lady of Shalott was so hopelessly and fatally smitten by Lancelot.

The Knight Archetype Every rich young man, unless he went into the Church, had to live up to the Knightly ideal. Knights were the exemplars of medieval masculinity, the icon of what it was to be a man. Being a knight was an expensive business. Horses and suits of armour were beyond the reach of all but the elite. Knights, unlike peasants, wore bright colours. Dye was too expensive for ordinary people so they all wore drab browns, and greys. The Knights on the other hand were colourful peacocks in the finest of plumage, then glittering gods when they put on their beautiful armour. The “knight aesthetic” was all about the display of superstar masculinity. It was intimidating and awesome to all other men. It kept the peasants in their place. Knighthood was an extremely seductive image for men. They all wanted to be the top Knight. It drove them on to incredible acts of bravery, and also to immense folly. They were the warrior class, the military caste, the West’s version of the Samurai. They were metaphorical dragon slayers. They looked brave, tough and magnificent, and – like all men in uniform – they received the admiring glances of adoring women.

***** Knights were typically unintellectual and anti-intellectual. Most smart people ended up in the Church. Knights were psychologically trapped by their image, one that no one could live up to except as an elaborate act. They self-consciously sought to play their part in the culture of chivalry, but what monsters did they become behind closed doors, after they had take off their armour and the Knightly mask could slip?

The Lady The beloved lady – a perfect Jungian anima figure – took on an almost sacred aspect for the Knight. He worshipped his lady, would do- anything for her, and sought to do anything to please her and win her affection and admiration.

The Knight’s Lady was as idealized as the Knight himself: another ferociously demanding image to live up to. Often, the Knight barely communicated with his Lady and simply worshipped her from afar, hoping for the slightest sign of her favour. In many cases, with the Knights on long campaigns that took them abroad for years on end (especially during the Crusades), they scarcely had any relationship at all with the woman they worshipped. It was quite possible for a Knight never even to see his Lady. He might simply learn of her reputation, of her gentleness and beauty, and then become besotted with her. The idea of her was enough to motivate him; to see her in the flesh might actually prove immensely disappointing. The Lady was almost holy, a sacred vision and presence; an otherworldly angel from the heavens. Dante’s obsession with Beatrice would have been similar to that of Knights with their Ladies. Their love served as a religion in its own right: the cult of love, of the perfect woman beyond any reproach. Knights were determined to impress their Ladies with great chivalric feats that would earn their regard and precious favours. A Knight’s audience was always his fellow Knights, his King and Lord, and his Lady. He was always putting on a show for their benefit. Troubadours sang hyper-romanticized songs of Courtly Love, leading to the tremendous dichotomy of Knights being soppy in love and vicious in battle. The ballad La Belle Dame sans Merci (French for “The Beautiful Lady Without Mercy”) by John Keats captures some of the agony that must have afflicted many Knights in terms of their beloved Ladies. In the ballad, a nameless passerby asks a distressed knight what’s wrong. The knight replies that he has been abandoned by the beautiful lady he loved. He relates the tragic and haunting tale of this mysterious, aetherial figure of love and fantasy who performs the role of agent of death and decay for the knight. The terrible question lingers – was the knight deluded by his beloved or did he delude himself?

The Knight and his Band of Brothers Paradoxically, despite his fixation with his idealized Lady, the Knight’s most powerful relationships were with other men – his fellow Knights.

They formed a military order with unbreakable bonds, one that came with a homoerotic charge. All groups of highly trained men have an air of gayness about them. American footballers, their bodies oiled and plucked, are easy to imagine in a gay rather than heterosexual context. Sodomy was thought to be rife amongst Knights. In ancient Greece, the Sacred Band of Thebes comprised 300 elite troops, comprising 150 pairs of male lovers. The logic was that they would fight ferociously to save their beloved partners. They formed the crack spearhead of the highly successful Theban army in the 4th century BCE. They were wiped out to the last man by Philip II of Macedon at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE. Although the rest of Theban army fled the field, the Sacred Band refused to surrender, despite being completely surrounded and overwhelmed. All 300 fell where they stood, their corpses “heaped one upon another”. Knightly culture was full of “bromances.” Not so much Brokeback Mountain as Brokeback Camelot.

The Highest Quest of the Knight Knights were elevated into the highest spiritual realm with their great quest for the Holy Grail. But even that was a competitive “sport”. All knights set about the task in their own way. None of them cooperated in groups. All Knights fed off the exquisite fantasy of Camelot: the ultimate ideal for the Knightly class. For many Knights, it was as if they were living a legend ... watching themselves on film. The Arthurian Mythos changed the world and remains immensely powerful even in the present day.

The Tournament Tournament: “Military exercises carried out, not in the knight’s spirit of hostility, but solely for practice and the display of prowess.” – Roger of Hoveden A tournament, or tourney (from Old French torneiement, tornei): the name popularly given to chivalrous competitions or mock fights. When people think of medieval tournaments, they typically have in mind jousting: single combat of two knights armed with lances charging at each

other. Jousting was certainly a component of the tournament, but was never its main feature. Tournaments were primarily used for military cavalry training: for training Knights to advance and retreat, to chase and flee, followed by a general melee of all combatants where two sides charged into each other. Both sides also practised parade formations, war cries and “team bonding”. At a signal – a bugle or herald’s cry – two opposing lines of Knights would charge at each other and meet with levelled lances, causing many to be unhorsed. Those remaining on horseback turned quickly (the action from which “tournament” got its name) and singled out knights on foot to attack. There was in fact a powerful economic motive at work in these contests: Knights could be taken prisoner (kidnapped!) and held to ransom! Money and valuable prizes were won by capturing and ransoming opponents, including their thoroughbred horses and expensive armour. So, the melee degenerated into running battles between groups of knights striving to capture fellow knights. The battles could spread over several square miles separating the two camps (of the competing forces) that defined the tournament area. Tournaments could go on all day, until the light faded, or the knights had fought themselves to an exhausted standstill. When the tournament was over, the host offered lavish banquets and entertainments, and prizes were awarded to the most outstanding knights who had accomplished the greatest feats, and all ransoms were settled. Tournament winners could earn a good living from prizes and ransoms, and their social and military status was enormously boosted. In many ways, the best Knights were like Wild West gunslingers, with a similar reputation for deadly brutality. One knight claimed to have bested five hundred knights during his tourneying career. It’s therefore important to understand that tournaments were like “live fire” training exercises. They were staged, ritualized battles. People could and did get killed. Just as Roman circus games became increasingly grandiose, theatrical and spectacular, so the same happened with medieval tournaments. For their time, they became the “greatest shows on earth”. They employed costumes, drama and symbolism and became an art form. As the expense increased, they became the province of the super rich. Kings used them to advance State policy, diplomacy and propaganda. England’s Edward III of England

liked to portray himself as a new King Arthur, with his Knights as those of the Round Table.

The Royal Court The ultimate Court was the royal court. The monarch was the anointed one, the Messiah (like Jesus Christ). He was God present physically in the nation. He ruled by Divine Right. Monarchs like Popes claimed to be vicars of Christ. Where the Pope performed Christ’ religious role and rule over the soul, monarchs performed his secular role of ruling over the people.

The Old World Order Our world, like the old, divides into knights and serfs, the nobility and the ordinary people, the rulers and the ruled, the patricians and the plebeians.

Phaneron Phaneron from ancient Greek phaneros: “visible, showable”. “By the phaneron I mean the collective total of all that is in any way or in any sense present to the mind, quite regardless of whether it corresponds to any real thing or not. If you ask present when, and to whose mind, I reply that I leave these questions unanswered, never having entertained a doubt that those features of the phaneron that I have found in my mind are present at all times and to all minds.” – Charles Sanders Peirce

Rebecca “Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.” – Daphne du Maurier, Rebecca In Daphne du Maurier’s novel Rebecca, the eponymous Rebecca is dead and yet completely dominates the novel. The narrator, who has married Rebecca’s widower, is never named and is only ever referred to as Mrs de Winter. Thus we see how a dead character has a name and a living character does not, which brilliantly emphasizes Rebecca’s power, even in death. Rebecca Syndrome: when a person one has never met completely dominates your life and overshadows everything you do. Jesus Christ, Jehovah, Allah, Moses and Mohammed are the supreme examples of Rebecca Syndrome. Another formulation of Rebecca Syndrome is that you are haunted and

overshadowed by a significant someone in another person’s life, as Mrs de Winter was by her husband’s first wife. Manderley was Rebecca’s idyllic mansion that became a sinister shrine to her. At the end of the novel, it’s burned down by Rebecca’s chief devotee, housekeeper Mrs Danvers. Manderley Syndrome: when a specific location associated with a dead person haunts other people. Jerusalem, Rome and Mecca are classic examples of Manderley Syndrome.

The Logic of Understanding There are two ways of understanding the world, via story logic (Mythos) or rational logic (Logos). The former is a way of emotionally understanding reality and doesn’t tell you even one rational thing about reality. If you go to a Christian Church, you will be told stuff from a storybook called the Bible, and the priest, vicar, pastor or reverend will give you a sermon – his own little story about something. You won’t hear a single thing about science, philosophy, mathematics, psychology, technology or even theology – which rather tells you all you need to know about Christianity. It’s not for smart, curious, inquisitive thinkers. Christianity has power over the emotional mind, which finds the Christian narrative highly seductive. It’s powerless over the Logos mind, which finds the Christian tale absurd. It’s no surprise that Christian Churches are full of people singing, banging tambourines, throwing their arms into the air and yelling, “Hallelujah... Praise the Lord.” These people see themselves as the Blessed, who one will one day enjoy the paradise of the New Jerusalem. Their whole experience is emotional and ecstatic and intersects at no point with reason. Reason is definitely not welcome to set foot inside any Church. Where Plato forbade anyone ignorant of geometry from entering his Academy, Christianity forbids anyone who knows anything at all about geometry. You cannot be a rationalist and a Christian. And what’s true of Christianity is also true of its two partners in crime: Judaism and Islam. Judaism tells the story of Moses going up to the summit of Mount Sinai where God spoke to him and gave him the Ten Commandments. Now, a Mythos believer thinks that this actually, factually, happened. A rationalist treats it as a rather risible fiction and wonders how

anyone could possibly believe it. This is the central problem with Mythos “logic”. Mythos people don’t regard stories as stories – as fiction and fantasy – but as literal truths, and that’s what makes them so mad and dangerous. Islam says that Mohammed, an illiterate tribesman, literally encountered the Angel Gabriel in a cave and literally had the infallible Word of Allah (the Koran) dictated to him. If you don’t accept this story, the whole of Islam is rendered comical, crazy, sad, mad, and bad. If you do accept this story, you then have to believe every word of the Koran as divinely true and incontestable, no matter how much it’s contradicted by all facts, evidence and reason. What kind of mind falls for stories as preposterous as those of Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Certainly not any Logos mind. Imagine forcing yourself to believe in the whole of the Koran, every word of it, on the far-fetched hearsay of a guy who went into a cave and came out and told you an extremely unlikely yarn of what happened in there. Mohammed didn’t offer one shred of evidence. He didn’t explain why Allah or the Angel of Gabriel would communicate with humanity in this rather dubious and extraordinary way, and in the Arabic language of all things – hardly at the forefront of world languages. You are simply asked to have “faith”. What is faith? It’s the capacity to believe in an utterly mad story that someone tells you while providing zero evidence. No person with a Logos mind can exhibit faith. Faith and madness are indistinguishable to a rationalist. It’s manifestly mad to be a Muslim, Jew or Christian. Their foundational tales are deranged. No sane person would take them seriously for a second. They are as plausible as the tales of schizophrenics in madhouses. In fact, Abraham, Jesus, Moses and Mohammed were all, on the face of it, severe schizophrenics. They all heard an external voice calling itself God, which gave them orders and issued terrifying threats. These are the archetypal symptoms of schizophrenia. Mythos people – being mad themselves – are highly prone to believing the tall tales of madmen, the taller the better. Mythos is fatally addicted to exaggeration, and the exaggeration is always taken as far as possible – to “God”, the infinite exaggeration.

As for Logos logic, it divides into “static” Aristotelian logic and “dynamic” Hegelian dialectical logic. Aristotelian logic applies to immutable, eternal laws; dialectics apply to the living, teleological process of “becoming” that drive the universe to its culmination – the cosmic omega point, the divine Absolute. Aristotelian logic is outside time, and Hegelian logic inside time. Aristotelian logic is immutable, Hegelian logic governs mutable processes. Aristotelian logic is about “being, Hegelian logic about “becoming”. Logos logic goes wrong when Hegelian dialectics are applied to “being”, or Aristotelian logic to “becoming”. Also, if Mythos should ever enter the arena of logic, all sorts of nonsense is sure to follow. Roman Catholic philosophers such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas were of the highest calibre, and yet much of their work is rendered idiotic because it’s forced to reflect the Mythos lunacy of the Christian Bible.

The Transcendental Ego The ego is a subject but when it sets about investigating itself, it’s studying itself as an object. What it discovers is the empirical ego. But an undisclosed ego lies beyond: the transcendental ego.

The Neoplatonic One The “One” emanates all existents. It is all that is, all that is possible, all that is becoming. It is pure possibility being transformed into pure actuality. The One emanates a cosmic intelligence (Nous), which, in turn, emanates a cosmic soul (Psyche). The One is metaphorically light itself, Nous is the light of reason – the Sun – and the Psyche is darkness trying to find the light – the Moon. The One is the Absolute and Source, that from which everything else emanates. Nous is the “Divine Mind”, eternal and transcendent, the Platonic domain of immutable, perfect Forms, outside space and time. The Nous contemplates the One. The Psyche, which contemplates the Nous, gives rise to individual souls made in its own image. The higher Psyche is united and, like the Nous, outside space and time (we might compare it to the Jungian Collective Unconscious). The lower Psyche is fragmented and comprises countless individual souls that inhabit the Psyche’s great emanation – Nature, the material world set in space and time. The individual souls correspond to individual Jungian psyches, which develop consciousness

(the ego), and behind them is the collective, unconscious psyche. The latter does not have a ego. It is not a “person”. Christianity sought to make the unconscious Neoplatonic trinity into a conscious trinity. Only via this mechanism could it generate Mythos. Imagine Christianity with an unconscious Trinity. It wouldn’t be able to refer to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It wouldn’t be able to talk about “God” speaking to people and interacting with them in personal terms. There could be no Neoplatonic version Mythos of the Garden of Eden. There could be no Neoplatonic incarnation of God on Earth. Christianity is rationalist Neoplatonism turned into a childish and irrational Mythos. Given that the ordinary human being can’t understand Logos, but can certainly understand Mythos, Christianity wiped the floor with Neoplatonism and completely replaced it. Christianity is literally Neoplatonism for Dummies where all philosophical elements are replaced by story elements. What was the Enlightenment? It was where rational thinkers sought to replace stories with facts, evidence and scientific laws. The struggle between Logos and Mythos goes to the heart of the human condition. The Neoplatonic Psyche is dynamic and creative. All individual souls – locked in material nature – are alienated from the Higher Psyche, and from the Nous and the One, and it’s their task to overcome this alienation and understand what they truly are. In Gnostic terms, the Demiurge rules the material world and is the deity of all those alienated souls that are confused, lost and scared. The True God rules the higher domain of light outside space and time. A soul must reject the Demiurge, the “Creator” of the material world, and instead seek enlightenment. Abrahamists are the wicked people – the damned – who obsessively worship the False God and absurdly call him True. Would the True God ever, under any circumstances, order a father to murder his young, innocent son? He wouldn’t, but the Demiurge certainly would. Material nature is the deceptive world of the senses, desires and feelings. The Nous is the domain of intuition and reason. An enlightened mind is one that escapes the illusion that the material world is the true reality. Scientific materialism belongs to the deluded system of thought that matter is primary and mind derived from it. The absolute opposite is the case. The One – the source of all – is purely immaterial, dimensionless and outside space and time. It’s mental. The One gives rise to the Big Bang. You cannot

understand true science unless you grasp that the Big Bang was a mental, not a material, event. Mind gave birth to matter, not the other way around.

Origen and the Trinity The influential Christian thinker Origen (subsequently deemed heretical) was strongly influenced by Neoplatonism since he studied with Plotinus, the great Neoplatonist, in Alexandria under the same teacher – the mysterious Ammonius Saccas (a Grand Master of the Illuminati). Origen likened the Christian God the Father to the Neoplatonic One, and thus saw him as infinitely mysterious and above being. God the Father then emanates, generates or gives rise to, the Logos or Word, which is equivalent to the Neoplatonic Nous. In Christian terms, the Logos is God the Son (who incarnated on Earth as Jesus Christ, allegedly). It’s a critical theological point that God the Son is not “created” by God the Father, i.e. is not separate from God the Father. Rather, he is an emanation of the Father and thus partakes fully of the Father’s divine nature. The “Word” contains all the Platonic Forms – design templates and archetypes – necessary to create the material world with all of its objects and creatures. The Gospel of Saint John begins with the statement, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” Note that Plato’s Forms, originally, were never inside a mind. They were freestanding, so to speak. The Neoplatonic Nous is a generalized cosmic mind but is not traditionally associated with a specific being or person although some thinkers might have been tempted to make it the mind of Plato’s benevolent Demiurge. Origen went ahead and made the Platonic Forms the divine ideas in the divine mind of the Word – the Son of God, the Creator. The Jewish thinker Philo of Alexandria had taken this step before Origen, except in his view the Logos was, rather than Jesus Christ, the Jewish God Yahweh, the socalled Creator described by the Book of Genesis. For Origen, below the Word was the God the Holy Spirit (the Neoplatonic Psyche – the World Soul). Logically, the Holy Spirit is the best candidate to be Plato’s benign Demiurge, which looks to the domain of Nous for the Platonic Forms, with which to design the material world.

However, Christianity asserts that souls are created, and this is not the case in Neoplatonism where individual souls can be considered as fragments, sparks, or individual seeds, of the Psyche, the World Soul. In fact, one might say that the Psyche has one foot in the domain outside space and time (where it’s a unity) and one foot inside the domain of space and time, which necessarily individuates it and generates the illusion of separateness. This is the type of thinking that permeates Buddhism and Hinduism and Schopenhauer’s philosophy. The World Soul is noumenal – the hidden unity (Brahman in Hinduism), while the individual souls are phenomena on the wrong side of the veil of Maya (illusion). The task of the phenomenal soul, in these terms, is to overcome Maya and understand and embrace the noumenal Oneness where the delusion of separateness is overcome. In Illuminism, the individual soul – the monad – is always noumenal, but gives rise to a phenomenal mind in the domain of space and time, and this phenomenal mind can evolve consciousness. Consciousness demands separateness. A unity could never become conscious. Noumenal monads could theoretically become conscious since they are all separate, but in the domain outside space and time, they are not separate enough. They need the complete individuation provided by having material bodies inside space and time. Consciousness originates in the phenomenal not the noumenal. The noumenal soul can become conscious only via a myriad of lifetimes within space and time (via the scientific-mathematical process of reincarnation, which is all about a monadic frequency entity linking to a spacetime body via Fourier mathematics. There’s nothing mystical about this process. It’s not hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo or woo woo. It’s the essence of mathematical existence). If all individual souls are phenomenal expressions of the Holy Spirit, it means that, in this interpretation of Christianity, we are all Gods! We are all divine sparks of God, or rational seeds (logoi spermatikoi) of God. Astoundingly, in the Christian Mythos, the Holy Spirit is said to have impregnated the Virgin Mary. This is the most incredible logical howler of all time because it makes Jesus Christ an incarnation of the Holy Spirit, not of God the Son! This is the most spectacular case ever of mistaken identity. If Jesus Christ was the incarnation of God the Son then, obviously, that means that God the Son should have impregnated Mary. However, if he did so, he would have been his own father and spiritually “fucked” his mother

in an obscene Oedipal act. To avoid this distasteful thought, the Christians simply turned logic on his head and made the Holy Spirit Jesus Christ’s true father. Christianity ought to be all about the Holy Spirit since Jesus Christ was an incarnation of the Holy Spirit: the Holy Spirit was his divine father. God the “Father” and God the “Son” don’t come into it at all. They’re utterly redundant. There’s no need at all for any “Holy Trinity”. As long as you accept that God the Holy Spirit can be both noumenal and phenomenal (incarnated as Jesus Christ), Christianity can be a strict monotheism of the Holy Spirit. This could be made fully consistent with the theology of the “evolutionary” Christian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin with his notions of the Noosphere, the cosmic Christ and the Omega Point where humans souls enter into union with God. One of the reasons why Origen became suspect in mainstream Christianity was that God the Son, in Origen’s view, was subordinate to God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit subordinate to God the Son, thus contradicting the absurd Christian doctrine that Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all equal persons within one God. In Origen’s system there are effectively three related Gods, the Son being an emanation of the Father, and the Holy Spirit an emanation of the Son. They are still extremely closely connected but nevertheless distinct. Why do Christians find this enormously more logical scheme so horrific? It could still, theologically, be described as monotheism – with God the “Father” being the True God. However, he emanates two aspects of himself, which operate separately from him. Neither of these aspects is God, but they are God’s quintessential emanations to perform his work in the world. The Christian Trinity is monstrously illogical; Origen’s Trinity is logically tenable. Why do Christians always reject logic in favour of emotional Mythos? In the Arian heresy, God the Son was depicted as God the Father’s first creation, thus making him a kind of super angel. This definitely contradicted the notion of Jesus Christ as God. In Origen’s system, God the Son is not God per se, but is a direct emanation, not creation, of God. He is of one and the same substance as the Father, but a different manifestation of that substance. In Freud’s model of the psyche, the Id, Ego and Superego are different aspects of the same mind. They are not different persons: there aren’t three different minds acting separately. They are a collective unit. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit can all be considered

as different aspects of one divine substance: different operational agents of that substance, just as the Id, Ego and Superego are different operational agents of the single human mind. Since individual human souls are sparks of the Holy Spirit, this makes humans part of the divine substance too, hence legitimate Gods! Origen chose not to follow this logical step and instead made human souls strictly subordinate to the Holy Spirit: its creations rather than its individual phenomenal expressions. Throughout Christian history, many sects seized on this notion that the human soul is secretly divine and they exalted the human soul to the extent that they were frequently persecuted for heresy. The modern Pentecostalist Movement reflects this tendency. Pentecostalists have dancing fits, speak in tongues, and so on – which they claim to be manifestations of possession by the Holy Spirit. In effect, they become one with God. A few hundred years ago, they would have been marched to the stake to make a nice human bonfire for making such claims. Interestingly, Origen affirmed the Platonic immateriality of human souls. Many other Christian theologians were afraid to do this since it made souls essentially divine (matterless Forms in Aristotelian terms, just like God). In fact, Christianity has never stated what the human soul actually is ... which seems rather a glaring omission since the soul is what Christianity is all about. By the same token, physics is all about time, space, matter and energy and yet science can’t state clearly what any of these actually are. Einstein said that time is what you measure with a clock. This is an instrumental definition; it does nothing at all to explain what time is. Science is full of practical, instrumental definitions such as this that reveal nothing about what things truly are. In fact, science is just a collection of operational and instrumental definitions that rub along quite well with each other until they don’t – as in the case of quantum gravity where no amount of instrumental definitions have helped. When it comes to ultimate truths, ontological definitions are required, not instrumental definitions, and science simply can’t furnish them. Science is about instrumentalism not ontology. It’s about what works, not about what’s true. Science will never deliver the ultimate truths of anything at all. It’s simply not equipped for the task. Anyone who thinks that science is telling them anything about the deepest reality is a fool. Science, like religion, presents a Mythos, but one that works by way of practical,

instrumental definitions, and hypotheses subjected to experimental, instrumental verification, rather than by the ravings of prophets and holy books that are never subjected to any tests. Origen also claimed that all souls would be saved in the end – how very Christian of him. That is, he didn’t believe in hell. Of course, that’s not what mainstream Christianity wanted to hear. Mainstream Christians believe in the Last Judgment, with at least 97% of souls going to hell forever. How very unchristian of them! In Neoplatonism, all things return to the One ... marking the end of a Cosmic Age and serving as the precondition for the next Big Bang. Origen attributed evil to free will and not, as Plato and Neoplatonism did, to matter itself. (Gnosticism attributed evil to the Demiurge, the Creator of the material world, hence matter was ipso facto evil. Plato and the Neoplatonists saw matter as evil only to the extent that it resisted mind, corrupted mind and trapped mind.) Origen also believed in the pre-existence of the soul, i.e. the soul is not a creation. This doctrine goes hand-in-hand with reincarnation, and Origen was indeed the pre-eminent Christian theologian of reincarnation. Christian apologists bitterly contest this, but what else would you expect from such people?! Origen effectively follows the Platonic notion of existing souls falling into matter and being imprisoned there ... rather than God creating new souls and placing them in bodies. In Origen’s view, the “Fall” is when souls freely choose the material world over the spiritual world. In the Christian view, it’s when Adam and Eve disobey God. Origen asserted that God’s power is finite since he associated the finite with perfection and the infinite, on the other hand, with lack of definition, clarity, bounds and sharpness. The infinite was blurry, fuzzy, imprecise, nebulous, uncertain, and hazy, hence imperfect. In Latin, perfectus means “complete”, “completely made”. Infinity implies that something hasn’t been finished, hasn’t been completely made, hence can’t be perfect. The idea of the finite perfect was very much an ancient Greek idea since they had a horror of infinity and nothing, and would never associate these with God. In terms of their cosmology, the ancient Greeks had their beautiful crystal spheres, with Earth at the static centre. There was no sense of the universe stretching infinitely far in all directions.

Henry of Ghent (1217 – 1293), a Catholic philosopher at the Faculty of Theology in Paris, was the first to start emphasizing God’s infinite qualities. He said that creatures (created beings) were both finite and contingent while God, in contrast, was infinite and necessary. God’s plenitude could not be limited. God was the identity of infinite essential content and the actuality of this content. However, infinity didn’t truly take off because cosmology contained to reflect the old idea of the finite crystal spheres, with Earth at their centre. Brilliant Illuminist thinkers such as Nicholas de Cusa, Giordano Bruno and then Leibniz were those who came to the view that God’s perfection must be expressed infinitely since anything less would make him imperfect and less than all-powerful. God could never be constrained, limited, bounded: these would all diminish his power and mean that a greater power, a higher God, could be conceived – one who suffered no limits. Moreover, this infinite expression applied also to cosmology: the universe must be infinitely large, and that meant that Earth no longer had a privileged status, and nor did the human race. Hegel introduced a new angle into the debate over the finite and the infinite: “good” infinity versus “bad” infinity. For Hegel, bad infinity just went on and on mindlessly, purposelessly, indeterminately, with no sharpness and definition. Infinity had to be expressed in terms of good infinity (what we might call finite infinity as opposed to infinite infinity) in order to be productive and determinate. Mathematically, this is summed up by the expression: zero multiplied by alpha-infinity = one In other words, the finite number one is associated with a contained, “good” infinity called “alpha-infinity”. This brings the infinite and the finite together in one expression, linked by zero. It is alpha-infinity that allows bad infinity to be resolved into the meaningful, defined, finite units that make up our material world. Without alpha-infinity, the finite and infinite could not co-exist. We would live either in a strictly finite cosmos like the one conceived by the ancient Greeks or in an undefined, fuzzy, blurry bad infinity in which nothing ever became resolved (and in fact neither we nor anything else with a body, a form, a shape could exist in such a universe). Illuminism alone defines alpha-infinity, yet this is the most important infinity of mathematics, the essential link between finite numbers and

infinity. Zero, good infinity (alpha-infinity) and bad infinity do not feature in scientific materialism, hence science can never account for reality. Zero, good infinity and bad infinity come built into ontological mathematics, which is exactly why this is the truth of existence. Bad infinity is also known as “Hotel Infinity”: a hotel which always has infinite rooms available even when it is infinitely occupied! What Hotel Infinity means is that infinite good infinities can be fitted into bad infinity. However, if we provided a bad infinity number of guests for Hotel Infinity, no new guest would ever get a room. Hotel Infinity is defined by the distinction between good and bad infinity, though you won’t find any professional mathematician who says so since they do not acknowledge concepts such as good infinity and alpha-infinity. Origen’s version of Christianity, being so close to Neoplatonism, is enormously superior to mainstream Christianity. It’s much more philosophical and much less reliant on silly Mythos. Gnostic Christianity was also vastly superior. As for Pelagian Christianity, it denied Original Sin, hence humanity was not intrinsically damned and totally depraved as St. Augustine, the main proponent of Original Sin, asserted. According to Augustine, God conferred grace on the elect and they were thus predestined for heaven. If God did not confer his grace on you, you were definitely going to hell, and there was nothing you could do about it ... even if you were a human saint! Augustine denied that any reason could be given why some are saved and some damned, meaning that salvation was a lottery, and God randomly chose those who would populate heaven. Augustine’s deranged views became the bulwarks of Protestantism, especially Calvinism. Pelagius, rightly, thought this was ridiculous since it literally destroyed human moral agency and meant that the only thing that mattered in terms of your salvation was whether God had or had not bestowed grace on you. Pelagius promoted the radical doctrine that people could, of their own free will, and without the explicit intervention of God’s grace, perform good deeds, live sinless lives and thus be saved. For Pelagius, God’s grace was simply a generalized gift to humanity, allowing everyone to freely choose to do good. It wasn’t a special quality bestowed on a few and denied to everyone else.

Everyone on Earth can choose to do good, or not, as the case may be. In essence, grace is simply freedom to act morally. In the Augustinian view, humans being are totally depraved and cannot choose to act morally, unless God intervenes to grant them the grace to do so. For Pelagius, everyone enjoyed God’s grace, to the extent that everyone is capable of moral action. For Augustine, only the elect were granted grace and only the elect were genuinely moral. Mainstream Christianity, in every case, chose the least logical options whenever faced with theological choices, the options best suited to Mythos and the brutal control of the mindless common herd. Christianity was always about power, never about reason, logic and theological consistency. Origen, Arius, the Gnostics and Pelagius, between them, could have produced a humane, benevolent and reasonably rational version of Christianity that might have served the world well. Instead, we got the abomination of Catholicism and then something even worse – Protestantism.

Where Have They Gone? “In heaven, all the interesting people are missing.” – Nietzsche Christian believers talk about going missing – being raptured into heaven. So, were all the interesting people raptured out of heaven to some other place rather more ... er, interesting? Can you imagine the horror of a “heaven” populated exclusively by Jews or Christians or Muslims? Could anything be duller and less like paradise?

The “Infinite” God Illuminism and religion in general are predicated on one critical binary division: there are two ontological domains, one in space and time and one outside space and time. Scientific materialism on the other hand asserts that there is only one ontological domain – that of space and time. However, Big Bang theory, which says that the universe sprang from “nothing” – from a dimensional point outside space and time – ipso facto refutes scientific materialism. Science likes to claim that it’s rational yet it’s refuted by its own Creation theory (the Big Bang), which is incompatible with the tenets of materialism. The materialists hope that M-theory, their putative final theory of everything, will somehow save materialism. They’re wasting their breath. Materialism is simply false. Ontologically, there is no sufficient reason to privilege space and time over non-space and non-time. There is, however, a prima facie reason to privilege a domain outside space and time over one inside space and time. That reason is that that anything extended must originate in something unextended, i.e. any extended thing is infinitely divisible. However, an unextended thing cannot ontologically be derived from extended things. That is, you can start with non-extension (mathematical points) and build an extended world via Cartesian coordinates for every point. You cannot start with an extended universe and then build mathematical points. The points must come first. They are the origins not the derivatives. Extension is always derived from non-extension. This scheme is built into mathematics itself via the presence in mathematics of the two numbers that define the domain outside space and time: zero and (bad) infinity. If you understand that mathematics, through zero and bad infinity, establishes a primary ontological domain outside space and time, and then, through all the numbers between zero and bad infinity establishes a secondary, derived domain inside space and time, you have understood the basic structure of existence. The domain outside space and time is of course the mental domain and that inside space and time the material domain. There is nothing odd in Illuminism regarding the Big Bang. It’s an inevitable consequence of the mental preceding the material.

The Divine Cascade

The Neoplatonic One (ancient Greek To Hen), the Monad, the Form of the Good, is beyond being. From the One comes a cascade of emanations, all of which will return to the One in the end. The emanations are: 1) Nous, 2) Psyche, 3) Nature, 4) the ensouled Body (if nature is the emanation of the united Higher Psyche then the body is the emanation of the fragmentary Lower Psyche, of the individual soul). One thing cannot return to the One and be integrated by it. This is matter (hyle) – indeterminate, and even evil since it is outside the Good. In Neoplatonism, the One is the source of everything except matter. The One is the Source Mind, the origin of all mental things, of all Form, but not of formless, mindless matter. Therefore, Neoplatonism asserts that mind and matter are ontologically two separate things (as in Cartesian dualism). In Illuminism, however, matter is not separate from mind, but rather its final emanation. Matter, in Neoplatonism, is, as Plotinus says, “a formless darkness on which form is merely superimposed.” It’s evil because it resists or even negates the effects of the One. In Neoplatonism, as in Gnosticism, mind is light and matter is darkness. In Gnosticism, the material domain is the Creation of the Prince of Darkness, and it’s where light is trapped and made confused and bewildered – where light is imprisoned, tortured and made mad. The material world is hell itself! (And the domain of light – the mental domain – is heaven.) Logos (the Word) – reason – is the formative force that issues from the highest ontological level and cascades down through all the emanations, bringing reason and form. Logos unites all levels of emanations, bringing continuity and uniform, “scientific” law. Christians appropriated the Logos and, bizarrely, identified it with Jesus Christ, hardly a man well-known for his mastery of reason. He’s not exactly Leibniz, is he? In Neoplatonism, the One is at the heart of everything, including each of our souls. It can be said that the One is intimately present in all of us, or that all of us are present in the One. This is perfectly consistent with a holographic worldview, with the parts being in the whole and the whole being in each part. The One, the Nous and the Higher Psyche have no extension. They are points. The point, it can never be stressed enough, is the fundamental aspect of reality, from which everything else is constructed.

Where Christianity talks of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), Neoplatonism talks of emanation ex deo (emanation out of God). This is a staggering difference. In Christianity, God and his Creation are two distinct things, with an infinite gap between them. In Neoplatonism, everything (other than matter) emanates from God, hence is directly related to God in a way that would be unthinkable in Christianity. Ultimately, there’s no gap between God and his emanations. All returns to God in the end. Thus, in Neoplatonism, we are all divine sparks – we are all Gods – whereas in Christianity we are creatures, the property of God. In Neoplatonism, we are free beings able to become Gods; in Christianity, we are slaves of God. Which sane, rational, free person would not prefer Neoplatonism over Christianity? Why did Christianity triumph over Neoplatonism? Only because the herd are stupid, perverse and addicted to simplistic Mythos.

The Alexandrines The intelligentsia are known as the Alexandrines because they are the inheritors of the astounding knowledge of the Library at Alexandria, the ancient repository of the world’s highest knowledge.

Schhhhhhh!!!!! Secretum Secretorum: The Secret of Secrets. What is it? We’re not telling ... well, OK then ... it’s Euler’s Formula, the God Equation.

Logos and Mythos The reasoning soul is the Logos soul. The unreasoning soul is the Mythos soul. The Mythos soul is that of passion, not of intellect. Our world has been ruled by the crazy stories told by the Mythos masses rather than by the reason of the smartest human beings. The whole tragic history of humanity stems from humanity’s preference for story-telling over reason.

The Big Bang What was this formative event? It wasn’t a creation event, as Abrahamism and scientific materialism claim. Rather, it was an emanation event. According to Abrahamism, God makes the world and remains external to it. According to scientific materialism, some infinitely mysterious and unexplained random event occurs and the creation of the material world is the result. There is no being (such as God) or enduring energy source outside scientific creation. According to Neoplatonism, the One, the supreme energy source, is akin to a fountain, from which overflows the lower levels of reality. According to Illuminism, the One directly emanates the material universe, and remains connected to it at all times (it’s the Super Singularity at its origin) , and the material universe will in due course return to the One, bringing to an end a Cosmic Age, and preparing the way for a new Cosmic Age.

New Catholicism Had Pelagius, Origen, Arius, the Gnostics or the Neoplatonists triumphed over mainstream Christianity, the world would now be an enormously different and better place. The Catholic Church ought to hold a New Vatican Council and revisit all of the brilliant and humane ideas that were declared heretical by Christian maniacs and fanatics. Of course, the Catholic Church could never go back

on its decisions because then it would prove that it was fallible, in error and not the vehicle for God’s eternal truth. So, Catholicism and all such religions, are locked into mad doctrines from which they can never now escape. These deranged ideas will kill them in due course. Any sensible religion must be dialectical and evolutionary, and willing to change as better arguments and new knowledge come along. Old religion is stuck in the past forever. New religion must be future-oriented. All of the heresies that were suppressed by Catholicism would have improved Catholicism immensely. Catholicism could actually be a good religion if it had supported the heretics. In each case, quite fine margins were involved between the success and failure of the heretics. Our world would now be radically altered, and much better and healthier, if the heretics had won. Yet can you imagine trying to convert Mythos Christians to Logos Neoplatonism? You wouldn’t have a prayer of success! The herd wants its story fix. Reason makes it fell ill.

No Free Will Anyone who accepts the logic of St. Augustine (which is the logic of Protestantism given that Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk, created Protestantism via the horrific and evil doctrines of Augustine), denies that human beings have free will. According to the Augustinian/ Protestant doctrine of Total Depravity, human beings who are denied God’s grace are incapable of choosing to do anything good, moral or virtuous. By the same token, those who have been granted God’s grace are incapable of doing anything evil (since it would be absurd for God’s elect to be going around being anything other than Christlike). So, have you seen any Christlike Christians lately? In fact, have you seen any ever? Where are the elect? Some Protestants concluded that if they were the elect and guaranteed their place in heaven (because God could never change his mind) then they could in fact commit as many evil acts as they liked since they would still go to heaven. These were “justified sinners”. Their sins were justified by the fact that they were the saved and could commit no act that would damn them to hell. This is the sort of mentality that guides the Old World Order. Wall Street is full of people who think that, by the will of God, they can do no wrong. This is, of course, the credo of the psychopath!

Martin Luther put justification by faith at the heart of Protestantism and denied that good deeds served any purpose at all. Is there any more immoral statement than that good deeds aren’t moral? Well, let’s get on with praying and being vile to our fellow human beings. That’s the Protestant “ethic”! What an abomination. It’s not humanity that’s totally depraved, it’s Protestants, especially the Protestant Elect (the WASP Freemasons).

The Formula for Controlling the Masses “The Jewish pattern of history, past and future, is such as to make a powerful appeal to the oppressed and unfortunate at all times. St. Augustine adapted this pattern to Christianity, Marx to Socialism. To understand Marx psychologically, one should use the following dictionary: Yahweh = Dialectical Materialism The Messiah = Marx The Elect = The Proletariat The Church = The Communist Party The Second Coming = The Revolution Hell = Punishment of the Capitalists The Millennium = The Communist Commonwealth The terms on the left give the emotional content of the terms on the right, and it is this emotional content, familiar to those who have had a Christian or a Jewish upbringing, that makes Marx’s eschatology credible. A similar dictionary could be made for the Nazis, but their conceptions are more purely Old Testament and less Christian than those of Marx, and their Messiah is more analogous to the Maccabees than to Christ.” – Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy In one way or another, all religions (including Illuminism), political systems (including meritocracy), economic systems and social systems comply with this template. There’s always some sort of God, even if it’s an abstraction such as the dialectic, the principle of sufficient reason, or mathematics. There’s always some sort of Messiah, or Messianic group, that will save the world. There’s always the good guys and the bad guys. There’s always a great reward for the goodies and a terrible punishment for the baddies.

There’s always some Apocalyptic crisis that brings everything to a head, ending the Old Order and establishing the New Order. There’s always a utopia or paradise to come. All systems that hope to persuade people must scare them on one hand and inspire them on the other. There must be some sort of ultimate stick (hell) and ultimate carrot (heaven). An enemy must be clearly identified, who will certainly go to hell. It’s impossible to construct a world-changing system that does not conform with this pattern. If you put some thought to it, you will see that even the religion of scientific materialism matches this template, with people such as Newton and Einstein as Messiahs, and people such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett as holy prophets and high priests, the holy interpreters of the divine “theories”.

The Difference Between Mathematics and Science “The definitive clarification of the nature of the infinite, instead of pertaining just to the sphere of specialized scientific interests, is needed for the dignity of the human intellect itself.” – David Hilbert Mathematics is the science of the infinite and finite, and science solely that of the finite. Mathematics is the science of the dimensionless and dimensional, and science solely that of the dimensional. Mathematics is the science of the necessary, and science that of the contingent. Mathematics is the science of the deductive, and science that of the inductive. Mathematics is the science of the analytic, and science that of the synthetic. Mathematics is the science of the a priori, and science that of the a posteriori. “You know the formula, m over nought equals infinity, m being any positive number? Well, why not reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by nought. In which case you have m equals infinity times nought. That is to say that a positive number is the product of zero and infinity. Doesn’t that demonstrate the creation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing?” – Aldous Huxley

The Circular Straight Line What is a point? It’s a circle of zero radius and zero circumference. What is a circle of infinite radius and infinite circumference? It’s a straight line! The point is the zero limit of the circle and the straight line the circle’s infinite limit. The point, the circle and the line are all intimately related. Zero,

infinity and everything in between are intimately related. The point, the circle and the line are the geometrical equivalents of zero, all finite numbers, and infinity, respectively. From a point, via infinity, the whole universe can be constructed. Zero and infinity are always outside space and time: all the other numbers can be inside space and time. Ontological mathematics itself reflects the mystery of existence, namely that it contains two distinct but related domains: mental and material. The catastrophic error of scientific materialism is that it denies the existence of zero and infinity while being completely incapable of dealing with zero and infinity. How, rationally, can you dismiss something you don’t understand? Science does so on the basis of irrational, blind faith in materialism. Science is the religion that zero and infinity are unreal. Illuminism is the religion that zero and infinity define reality.

Insecurity “There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity.” – Chester Bowles Free-market capitalism relies on maintaining economic insecurity, hence is the enemy of individual freedom, except of course for the rich elite.

All or Nothing Free-market capitalism is a winner-takes-all system. The winners of the past and present can, via inheritance, make their undeserving children winners by passing on overwhelming financial advantage, and all the power and influence that privilege brings. If you want a true competition, with everyone having a fair chance of winning, you must abolish inheritance and privilege. Anyone who supports authentic competition must seek the end of free-market capitalism. Abrahamism is an all-or-nothing system. In order to be a Muslim, you must believe that every word of the Koran is divine, infallible and perfect. If you think a single word of the Koran is wrong or imperfect, you cannot be a Muslim. Similarly, all Jews have to believe every word of the Torah, and every Christian every word of the Bible. If you think that Jesus Christ made any erroneous statements, he cannot be God, hence Christianity is false.

Any rational person finds nothing but absurdity on every page of the sacred texts of Abrahamism. Why are “believers” so blind to the myriad errors, confusions and downright nonsensical statements of the “sacred” texts? These people are selectively blind. They blind themselves to truth and reason in order to wallow in the comforts and reassurances of faith. Don’t Muslims find it odd that the Koran reflects 7th century Arabia and seems to be exactly what an Arab tribesman would write rather than the God of the universe? Where’s the science, the mathematics, all the deep answers to ontology? Is it credible that “God” would spend endless pages discussing camels, goats, veils for women, beards for men and wiping your ass with your left hand ... rather than describing the fundamental laws of existence? God could never be so dumb and dull. God isn’t a cosmic ignoramus. And the Jews expect us to believe that God is transfixed by Jewish tribesmen wandering around in the desert. Patently, the God of the universe couldn’t care less about such partisan trivialities. That should be patently obvious to any rational, sane person. The claims of the Jews are mad. The Jews talk about the Exodus from Egypt, and ten dreadful plagues, including the slaughter of Egypt’s firstborn. Not a single mention of any such events appears in Egyptian records. The Jews are mentioned only once – as having been destroyed by the Egyptians. Who are you going to believe? According to Christianity, the God of the universe had nothing better to do than wander around in sandals amongst Jews and get himself executed on a cross by the Romans. Way to go. These are all silly stories. They have no connection with reality. They should be treated on par with the myths and legends of the ancient world.

Unnatured Dogs are the least natural creatures on Earth. They are outside nature. It would have no effect at all on nature if all dogs vanished from the world tomorrow. It would not affect the food chain, the environment, or anything at all. Dogs are manmade Frankenstein creatures, whose only function is to pander to human sentimentality and inability to love and respect their fellow humans.

Thinking and Substance Thinking is a property of a substance. Thinking is not itself a substance. It has been said that Descartes was entitled to say only that thinking exists but not that “I” exists. However, if thinking is a property of a substance, and a conscious substance (soul) is as defined by Descartes, then the substance “I” (the Ego, the Self, the Soul) must exist as a precondition of thinking. Thinking is what I’s do. It’s their quintessential activity. Thinking does not take place in some “disembodied” way. What on earth would “free-floating” thoughts think about? What’s for sure is that would not think they were “I’s”. To be able to say, “I think therefore I am”, you must be an I. No non-I would ever make such a statement since it would be devoid of meaning. If thoughts are not located in mental substances then where are they located and what are they? Are they energy? Can they be converted into matter? How do they interact with time and space? What are time and space? Are they substances, energies, intuitions, categories? Can they be made into matter? Descartes’ brilliant formulation is actually enormously more resilient, robust and profound than its critics have ever comprehended. Their attacks on it simply beg the question and are much less coherent than Descartes’ position. The only valid critic of Descartes’ formula was his fellow rationalist Leibniz, who allowed minds (monads) to have unconscious as well as conscious thinking activity.

Idealism “All objects that can be given to us can be conceptualized in two ways: on the one hand, as appearances; on the other hand, as things in themselves.” – Kant Immanuel Kant’s influential philosophy amounts to a vision of a universe of active minds and passive objects. Since minds create the framework in which they view objects, they never “see” the objects as they actually are, as they are “in themselves”. Above all, minds impose a space and time framework, and all objects must necessarily be perceived in these terms. There’s a critical aspect of this system that’s almost never properly appreciated: things in themselves do not exist in space and time, hence can only be immaterial, unextended dimensionless entities, i.e. mental entities.

So, what Kant is saying is that there are mental objects (noumena) that are unknowable in themselves but which active minds can translate into knowable mental objects (phenomena) by the application of a set of mental framing categories and intuitions. However, if mental objects are all there are, why can’t minds apprehend them directly as mental objects? There’s no physical world for Kant, only a mental world. Time and space are mental; all properties of “physical” objects are mental. So, if there’s only a mental world, why isn’t it fully knowable? Is Kant’s system coherent? Certainly, his successors thought he had made crucial errors. Schopenhauer moved to the position that the noumenal universe consisted of just one thing – a unitary Will (ever-striving life force), outside space and time. This Will had the ability to generate a veil of Maya (the illusory phenomenal world), and to seem as if it were fragmented into countless individual, phenomenal wills. All of us have minds that reveal the world of Maya to us, but not the real world, about which we can say almost nothing beyond the fact that it’s a single noumenal Will. What Schopenhauer does is to abolish individual Kantian noumenal mental objects as the basis of individual phenomenal mental objects. Instead, there is only Will as thing in itself, and Will as countless phenomena. There’s nothing that isn’t Will in one way or another. Nietzsche was highly influenced by Schopenhauer, but rejected any noumenal/phenomenal dichotomy. For Nietzsche all that existed was Will to Power, without any noumenal and phenomenal split. However, he failed to examine closely how this unitary Will to Power gives rise to humans on one hand, and rocks and planets, for example, on the other. Where scientific materialists see the universe as composed of lifeless, mindless energy, Nietzsche saw it as living, willing energy (like the cosmic “fire” of Heraclitus). In Illuminism, the universe is composed of infinite energy “containers” (monads), each of which is a self-contained energy, mental, information system – a soul. In effect, Illuminism combines the scientific and Nietzschean views via a rigorous mathematical treatment based on Euler’s Formula. Energy originates in minds. It has no existence outside minds. Since it’s indissolubly linked to minds, it reflects life, willing, thinking, feeling, intuiting (and sensing in a material world). In scientific materialism, energy has no containers, and no origin other than the allegedly random, infinitely

mysterious and inexplicable fluctuation known as the Big Bang. The difference between science and Illuminism is that energy comes from monadic minds in Illuminism whereas it comes from God knows where in science (but, of course, scientists don’t believe in God, so they randomly summon all of the energy of the universe out of a magician’s top hat). In Illuminism, energy, since it’s inherently linked to mind, can be described in such mental terms as Will to Power. Minds are teleological: they are seeking to “solve” themselves – which means optimizing their power. To this extent, they are driven by the will to maximize their power, just as Nietzsche said. Kant posits noumenal minds and noumenal objects, with the noumenal minds converting noumenal objects into phenomenal objects in order to understand them. Kant fails to explain why noumenal minds cannot understand noumenal objects directly and instead have to make them appear to be something else – phenomena. Kant is of course addressing Hume’s contention that we can have no certain knowledge at all. Kant answers that we can have certain knowledge of phenomena (but not of noumena) because the mind constructs phenomena according to its own framework, i.e. it imposes a definite “shape” on noumenal objects. Critically, the shape comes from the mind and not from the things-in-themselves, just as colour comes from our perception of objects and does not reside in objects themselves. This is quite ingenious but it begs the question of why minds can’t apprehend mental objects directly, without any additional mental processing or mediation. In Illuminism, this difficulty is resolved thanks to minds being mathematical, with all “objects” being products of the mathematical energy contained by minds, hence all objects are mathematical too. There is no need for any Kantian dichotomy of noumenon and phenomenon in Illuminism. Everything is mathematical, and everything is explained by a single system of ontological mathematics. Johann Gottlieb Fichte argued, correctly, that Kant generated an untenable tension between noumenal minds (“knowers”) and noumenal objects (the things minds seek to know). This is a kind of Cartesian dualism, which suffers from the well-known problem of explaining how different “substances” can interact. Why does the universe produce noumenal minds and noumenal objects? Why not one or the other? We can

either conclude that the universe consists of “knowers” (minds) or objects. It can’t consist of both. Moreover, if things-in-themselves can’t be known, what’s the point of referring to them? They can’t make any contribution to human knowledge. We should concentrate on the knower and ignore the unknowable or we should ignore “knowers” and treat, as scientists do, “known” objects as direct reality (i.e. not as mind-constructed phenomena). Fichte chose the former course of focussing on knowers (minds) since that’s the only way to account for free will and morality (otherwise you are in a scientific materialist universe of inescapable causality governed by scientific laws that exclude any possibility of free action). Wikipedia says, “Fichte did not endorse Kant’s argument for the existence of noumena, of ‘things in themselves’, the supra-sensible reality beyond the categories of human reason. Fichte saw the rigorous and systematic separation of ‘things in themselves’ (noumena) and things ‘as they appear to us’ (phenomena) as an invitation to skepticism. Rather than invite such skepticism, Fichte made the radical suggestion that we should throw out the notion of a noumenal world and instead accept the fact that consciousness does not have a grounding in a so-called ‘real world’. In fact, Fichte achieved fame for originating the argument that consciousness is not grounded in anything outside of itself. The phenomenal world as such, arises from self-consciousness; the activity of the ego; and moral awareness.” Schopenhauer, a student and critic of Fichte, wrote, “Fichte who, because the thing-in-itself had just been discredited, at once prepared a system without any thing-in-itself. Consequently, he rejected the assumption of anything that was not through and through merely our representation, and therefore let the knowing subject be all in all or at any rate produce everything from its own resources. For this purpose, he at once did away with the essential and most meritorious part of the Kantian doctrine, the distinction between a priori and a posteriori and thus that between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself. For he declared everything to be a priori, naturally without any evidence for such a monstrous assertion; instead of these, he gave sophisms and even crazy sham demonstrations whose absurdity was concealed under the mask of profundity and of the incomprehensibility ostensibly arising therefrom.

Moreover, he appealed boldly and openly to intellectual intuition, that is, really to inspiration.” For Fichte, everything is about the mind, the ego, the transcendental, noumenal self. Objects exist only as the objects of consciousness. There are no material objects in their own right, no material objects as things in themselves. The only things in themselves are minds themselves, and they are the only existents. Everything seemingly different from mind (such as matter) is just the product of mind. Fichte put freedom at the core of his philosophy. Illuminism does the same. Freedom is inexplicable in terms of scientific materialism and therefore freedom is the formal disproof of the mechanistic ideology. Fichte said that the universal self, universal “ego”, is an uncreated, uncaused, free, self-determining, creative activity. This universal ego is none other than God! It creates all that is. It creates minds and objects. Since all “matter” is created by mind, it is not material in the traditional philosophical sense (or as scientists would understand it). The world is mind/spirit (geist). There is no dead matter. The universal ego (God) cannot grow without something to oppose it. So, it creates the non-ego (that which, seemingly, it is not) in order to produce the resistance that it then has to overcome. So, God – the infinite – limits himself. God cannot exercise his quintessential freedom without an environment in which to be free. The universal non-ego provides this arena. True freedom exists only in relation to obstacles, resistances, problems, hard choices, opposition. Freedom is made manifest through struggle. The non-ego is a world of laws and rules. The ego is free, but within a constrained, unfree environment. But the universal ego then creates something else: minds (souls), which are in its own image. A multiplicity of thinking agents is needed to create self-consciousness (a crucial theme taken up subsequently by Hegel). The physical universe is a creation of the universal ego – or we should more accurately say emanation since the physical universe is made of ego substance (geist). And so are all the souls that inhabit it. This is similar to Bishop Berkeley’s idealist vision of reality where everything – all souls and objects – exist in the mind of God. Nature is geist and can’t be anything else. Objects aren’t Kantian things-in-themselves but rather mental constructions of God’s mind, hence completely knowable if you understand the workings of God’s mind.

So, Fichte made, as the centre of philosophy, the universal subject (the subject on a cosmic scale), the absolute ego, “God” and denied the existence of any unknowable things in themselves. This is a single substance – monistic – description of reality, hence avoids the logical difficulties of mind-matter dualism. Fichte is therefore a champion of “subjective idealism”, “absolute subjectivity” – like Bishop Berkeley – in contrast with the “transcendental idealism” of Kant. The subject is, by definition, not a link in the scientific chain of cause and effect. A subject is uncaused, free, and self-determining. Scientific materialism has no concept of subjects and subjectivity, hence no concept of freedom. Science is exclusively about objects trapped in inexorable causal chains. For science, humans aren’t subjects; they are deterministic robotic objects fully constrained by the implacable laws of science which permit no freedom of action. Minds arise from atomic and molecular interactions, hence are part of these inescapable scientific causal chains, hence cannot demonstrate free agency. Subjects exhibit will, free will, but science denies the existence of free will. It’s a truly astounding thing that science is taken seriously by so many people when it flagrantly denies that we have freedom even though no one alive, including all scientists, could possibly hold any genuine belief that they are not free. For Fichte, the absolute subject (God) creates the world. This is a strictly mental world. There’s nothing from outside the subjective mind of God: no noumena, no physical objects. God has absolute knowledge of all things because they are his own thoughts. For Kant, minds interpreted noumena, which were separate from minds and independent of minds. For Fichte, minds directly produce all objects of the mind. Fichte’s approach is surely more consistent given that Kant’s noumena, being outside space and time, must be mental objects anyway. So how did they come into existence if not as the products of minds? In Fichte’s philosophy, since all subjective minds derive from the Absolute Ego then they share its qualities and properties. The question is then raised whether all subjects are simply puppets of the Absolute Ego, hence only free to do what it wants rather than what they want (assuming they are even capable of truly independent action). Fichte’s rather unsatisfactory answer was that we could consciously, willingly choose to serve the Absolute Ego’s purposes, or serve it blindly and unconsciously.

Illuminism avoids this baffling and illogical state of affairs by having infinite fully independent subjects. Each subject freely pursues its own objectives, not those of a cosmic puppetmaster behind the scenes. Fichte sees the Absolute Ego as a kind of light beam, with individual photons as individual egos, yet all carried along by the directing beam. The absolute Ego is rather like the Neoplatonic Nous and Psyche combined. It is universal reason or intelligence and from it come countless souls and a “material” world the souls inhabit. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling agreed with Fichte that a universal ego was responsible for everything, but he differed from Fichte by asserting that this universal ego did not itself become conscious, but became conscious only through humanity. Schelling also felt that Fichte’s wholly mental explanation could not satisfactorily account for the existence of the “natural object”, i.e. the supposedly material things that do not seem mental at all. For Schelling, the Absolute was in fact a neutral “identity” (a tertium quid; third thing) underlying the subject (the mind) and the object (nature; the material world). This position can be described as “objective idealism” and is very similar to Spinoza’s pantheistic philosophy. For Fichte, there is only conscious subjectivity. For Schelling, the situation is more complex. There’s subjectivity and objectivity, with a common underpinning in some unconscious, absolute substance. Hegel was later to trump both of them with his all singing, all dancing “absolute idealism”. One might say that Fichte’s subjective idealism was the thesis, Schelling’s objective idealism the antithesis and Hegel’s absolute idealism the synthesis. Hegel agrees with Schelling that the universe (“God”) is not conscious, at least not initially, but it does dialectically evolve consciousness – absolute consciousness. The whole becomes realized, actualized to the fullest extent. Depending on how Hegel is interpreted, God actually becomes conscious via the most rational and intelligent of human beings (such as Hegel himself, in fact!) However, putting together quotations such as “The true is the whole”, “The goal, which is Absolute Knowledge or Spirit knowing itself as Spirit,” and “The chalice of this realm of spirits Foams forth to God His own Infinitude” leads to a somewhat grander, cosmic conception of the whole universe becoming conscious. In Illuminism, infinite monadic minds are fully actualized by the end of a Cosmic Age – all souls become God – and existence literally attains divinity.

Schelling said, “Nature is visible Spirit; Spirit is invisible Nature.” Illuminism would say much the same thing. The material world is “visible” mind – observable by the senses – while mind in its pure state is dimensionless and unobservable by the senses. Schelling proclaimed, “History as a whole is a progressive, gradually self-disclosing revelation of the Absolute.” This was a theme taken up with enthusiasm by Hegel. Schelling asked the pertinent question, “Has creation a final goal? And if so, why was it not reached at once? Why was the consummation not realized from the beginning? To these questions there is but one answer: Because God is Life, and not merely Being.” If God had perfect foreknowledge it would in fact mean that he was not alive because there is nothing to be lived if everything has already happened in some sense, which it must have done if God is to know exactly what the future holds. Schelling said, “As there is nothing before or outside of God he must contain within himself the ground of his existence. All philosophies say this, but they speak of this ground as a mere concept without making it something real and actual.” This is a strongly pantheistic stance of the kind that Spinoza would have endorsed. A brilliant insight into freedom is offered by Schelling when he observes, “Freedom can be comprehended only by freedom.” Scientific materialism cannot comprehend freedom because there are no free elements in science. Science is the absolutely enemy of freedom. Since we all comprehend our own freedom then, by Schelling’s logic, we must be free (i.e. our freedom is not an epiphenomenal illusion). Hence our own experience and understanding of freedom is sufficient to repudiate scientific materialism. Any theory that does not explain freedom is not a true account of existence. For Hegel, reality is rational, so we can rationally work out its ultimate structure. It can’t be stressed enough how important this is. Rationality isn’t part of Abrahamism, i.e. it is never suggested that God is completely constrained to act rationally and to create rationally, and thus be defined and limited by reason. If reason dominates God then reason, and not God, is the true ruler of the universe. In Plato’s system the Form of the Good, not the Demiurge (God) dictates the nature of reality.

Mysticism, not rationalism, dictates Eastern thinking. As for scientific materialism, it’s an experimental enterprise, not one dictated by rationalism. Rational unobservables are automatically rejected by science. All systems that do not place reason and rationalism at their core cannot provide a definitive answer to life, the universe and everything. Reason alone is equipped to provide final, incontestable answers, of the eternal character of 1 + 1 = 2.

Hegel’s Master System “The Absolute is Mind (Spirit) – this is the supreme definition of the Absolute.” – Hegel, Philosophy of Mind “The truth is the whole. The whole, however, is merely the essential nature reaching its completeness through the process of its own development. Of the Absolute it must be said that it is essentially a result, that only at the end is it what it is in very truth; and just in that consists its nature, which is to be actual, subject, or self-becoming, self-development.” – Hegel, Preface, Phenomenology of Mind For Hegel, the Absolute is just “God” by another name. The Absolute is the whole, the totality, the culmination of truth, all potential fully actualized. To get there, it has to go through an immense cosmic process of its own dialectical, teleological self-becoming. In mathematical terms it solves itself, which means optimizing itself. God begins as bare mind (pure potential) and ends as Absolute Mind (complete actualization) – Mind fully optimized, knowing everything about itself. Mind, as it develops, generates its own content – Nature, the material world – which provides the arena in which consciousness can dialectically grow. Mind returns from this otherness, this alien environment of matter, through, as we might say, Absolute Consciousness. So, Mind – the Cosmic Subject – generates Matter – the Cosmic Object, the world of space and time. The prism of space and time creates mental individuation, and individual minds then struggle to comprehend the strange otherness in which they have found themselves. At last, minds grasp the truth – that there is nothing but mind, that “objects” are in fact mental content: mind is all that exists. Mind now knows itself as mind and nothing but mind. It knows, above all, that the “object” is not something alien to it, but its own construct.

The Absolute has three phases: 1) The Absolute “in itself” – the philosophy of Logic. 2) The Absolute “for itself” – the philosophy of Nature. 3) The Absolute “in and for itself” – the philosophy of Spirit. When Mind (Spirit) has achieved its Absolute condition is has reached selfrealization and Absolute Knowledge: “This last shape of Spirit – the Spirit which at the same time gives its complete and true content in the form of the Self and thereby realizes its Notion as remaining in its Notion in this realization – this is absolute knowing; it is Spirit that knows itself in the shape of Spirit, or a comprehensive knowing.” – Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit Being-in-itself versus Being-for-itself “In order to comprehend what development is, – what may be called two different states must be distinguished. The first is what is known as capacity, power, what I call being-in-itself (potentia); the second principle is that of being-for-itself, actuality (actus). If we say, for example, that man is by nature rational, we would mean that he has reason only inherently or in embryo: in this sense, reason, understanding, imagination, will, are possessed from birth or even from the mother’s womb. But while the child only has capacities or the actual possibility of reason, it is just the same as if he had no reason; reason does not yet exist in him since he cannot yet do anything rational, and has no rational consciousness. Thus what man is at first implicitly becomes explicit . . . .” – Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy So, the condition of something being “in itself” is a condition of potentiality. When something is “for itself”, it is actualizing that potential. So, Being-in-and-for-itself is something “. . . as it is both in essence and in actuality, or in and for itself.” (Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit). Something is truly what it is only when it has actualized itself. In Hegel’s scheme, the Idea is mind “in itself”. The Idea dialectically reaches the condition of Absolute Idea, which is mind which has gone as far as it can within itself.

Nature is mind outside itself, mind as “other”, as alienated from itself (as matter). It is also Mind for itself, Mind that has actualized itself, albeit in an ostensibly non-mental way. Absolute Nature is the world that has gone as far as it can within its own material terms. Mind then explores this alien environment. By dialectically reconciling mind in and outside (for) itself, Mind becomes “in and for itself” – essence and actuality – and its culmination is Absolute Mind.

***** Hegel’s system posits a dialectical thesis called the Idea, which we might say is a mind existing in itself. It’s a “Knower” that knows only itself. The dialectic generates an antithesis called Nature (the material world) where “otherness” comes into play. In Nature, there are things seemingly external to mind, which mind then tries to know. The things known are apparently different from and separate from the knower. The dialectical grand synthesis of the Idea and Nature is Mind in-andfor-itself, which is the self-actualizing totality of all that is. It becomes Absolute Mind when it wholly knows itself for what it is. It grasps that all seeming “otherness” was just mind alienated from itself, mind struggling to grasp its full nature. In order to understand itself, it had to generate a veil of Maya (illusion), so to speak, and then dialectically overcome that illusion. It gains far more comprehensive and powerful self-knowledge by doing so because it has had to exert itself so much and actualise itself so fully in order to make sense of this radical alienation and finally return to itself. It’s somewhat akin to the “hero’s journey”. The hero cannot become his true heroic self unless he leaves his ordinary world and enters the extraordinary world of adventures and dragons. Only when he alienates himself from his home environment and slays the dragons he finds in the strange lands does the hero become himself. Similarly, the mind in itself must escape from its home mental environment, and it does so by constructing the mysterious material world – which does not seem mental at all – and then exploring it until it understands every part of it, including the fact that it is just alienated mind. At that stage Mind has become Absolute (God) and attained Absolute Freedom, Absolute Power and Absolute Knowledge. Evolution takes place by a fully rational dialectical process, the task of which is to allow reason to fully understand reason. Reason cannot grasp its own nature unconsciously. It has to become conscious: to reflect upon itself.

Reason must look in a mirror and recognize itself. Absolute Mind is also Absolute Consciousness, Absolute Self-Consciousness. Ontological mathematics enshrines the principle of sufficient reason, but it does not inherently know that it does. It must become conscious in order to know that, so the purpose of ontological mathematics is to solve itself through the generation of optimized consciousness – God consciousness.

Subjective Spirit, Objective Spirit and Absolute Spirit Absolute Spirit is the dialectical culmination (synthesis) of Subjective Spirit (thesis) and Objective Spirit (antithesis). The study of Subjective Spirit is what we would now call psychology. It’s about each individual as a subject. Sensory awareness provides a thesis. However, the notion that we may ourselves have generated the objects of our senses (as in dreams) generates the skeptical antithesis that perhaps the objects of the world don’t actually have independent existence. The synthesis allows us to transcend and escape from this solipsistic position. We achieve “universal consciousness” – the notion that we are not alone but one mode in a universal scheme. A common whole exists, revealed by the operations of reason. Where Subjective Spirit concerns us as individuals (subjects), Objective Spirit deals with our relations with others (where others are objects relative to us.) The thesis, to exaggerate it somewhat, is that we should be free to do whatever we like regarding others. This sort of idea is reflected in Freud’s concept of the Id. The antithesis is that we must obey moral codes and treat others as we would want them to treat us. This is reflected in Freud’s concept of the Superego. The synthesis is what Freud would call the Ego, obeying the reality principle, balancing the needs of the individual and the needs of the collective in an “ethical life”. One sees one’s own significance and also one’s own vital stake in the greater good of the whole. When Margaret Thatcher said there was “no such thing as society”, she was proving what an evil and stupid person she was. We are all bound to each other. Our progress is bound up with the progress of everyone else. If we are not a society then we are mere animals living in the jungle. It’s dog-eat-dog. And that, of course, is the basis of right wing ideology. Right wingers hate community, the State and Society and promote the individual and the

family. Right wingers have never grasped basic morality and ethics. Their minds are so primitive that they understand only primitive self-interest. Right wing extremist Ayn Rand openly proclaimed the “virtue of selfishness” and has many millions of fanatical anarcho-capitalist libertarians supporters in the present day – utterly evil people. Another thesis is family life with its informal structures and emotional and blood bonds versus the antithesis of civil life with its formal organization and laws, and lack of emotional or blood bonds. The synthesis is the State. In Hegel’s opinion, the State united society into a civil family, ruled by laws and fostering emotional devotion not to blood ties but to the greater unity and power furnished by the State. Hegel has of course been accused of State worship, and replacing God with the State. Yet the Constitutional State – the Platonic Republic obeying the General Will – is the only legitimate God on Earth. Why should we be ruled by privileged families, by mad dictators or by decrepit holy books written by ancient desert tribesmen? The State alone offers fairness, justice, freedom, equity, fraternity and equal opportunities. For Hegel, the State actualizes the ethics and morality of the people. In our world where society and the State are despised, there’s no collective ethics and morality. All we have are ruthless, psychopathic individuals and elite families dominating and enslaving everyone else. It’s precisely these people who demonize the State because they know that a meritocratic State committed to equal opportunities spells their extinction. Everyone has a choice to make. Should the world be ruled by privileged, elite, dynastic families (the Old World Order), or by a State where there will never again be elite families, passing on wealth and power down the generations? Absolute Spirit is the synthesis of Subjective Spirit and Objective Spirit, and it too, naturally, has a dialectical trajectory. If we say that Subjective Spirit is about the understanding of one’s relationship with oneself, and Objective Spirit about the understanding of one’s relationship with others, then Absolute Spirit is about the understanding of one’s relationship with the universe, with ultimate reality, with “God”. The evolution of Absolute Spirit is about the historical process of human thought towards ever-greater understanding of the fundamental nature of reality, and, through this activity, Absolute Spirit comes to self-awareness – because it is itself ultimate reality. When the Absolute Spirit has reached its

culmination in the cosmic sense then the whole universe understands itself and how and why it came to be. In human terms, a person (such as Hegel) who perfectly reflects the Absolute Spirit, has understood himself, his relations with others and his relations with absolute reality. He has in fact become “God”, although at this juncture he is not yet the complete God. The logic of dialectics tells us that divinity itself will have three dialectical phases. A God can be “practical”, i.e. have the immense power that we associate with God. The Abrahamic God is very powerful if we take seriously any of the claims made on his behalf, but he’s also patently wicked (it’s a crucial point that divinity does not imply “goodness” but power, which can be good or evil). So, the divine thesis is that of the “practical” God being powerful through the power of his personality, through his intuition, through his archetypal nature and ability to influence and dominate other minds, through his instinctive mastery of cosmic power. The antithesis is the “theoretical” God, the God who rationally and logically understands the ultimate nature of reality. Leibniz and Hegel, by the time of their deaths, were Gods in this sense, yet they obviously didn’t wield divine powers. The dialectical synthesis is when a God combines both practical and theoretical power. He understands all, and he thus he can do all. The merely practical God lacks understanding, hence his powers are limited. The merely theoretical God lacks the practical means to put his understanding to effective use, hence his powers are limited too. The complete God is limited neither theoretically nor practically. He knows all and can do all. “Abraxas” is the label for any God who has achieved this dialectical culmination. Two other dialectical analyses can be applied to God. The first is in the moral context. “God” can be evil (as in the Abrahamic God – Satan); God can be good (as in the female deity Lucifer), but the True God (Abraxas) is beyond good and evil, where hyperrationalism lies. The second such dialectic is in the connected context of how we relate to others. The Satanic Abrahamic God is totally selfish and narcissistic, determined to dominate and terrorize others, to make them kneel and bow to him and perform his every whim with slavish obedience. He wants people to be sacrificed to him literally or metaphorically (just think of Abraham’s son or Jephtha’s daughter); for people to sacrifice themselves or others to him (just think of Muslim suicide bombers). Anyone who kneels

or bows to a “God” is a Devil worshipper because they are acknowledging a horrific power differential: a master-slave relationship. Lucifer, the Goddess of love and light, is defined by her altruism, her self-sacrifice (she would only ever sacrifice herself and never anyone else), her morality and ethics, her concern and care for others, her compassion, mercy, empathy, sympathy and forgiveness. Abraxas is the synthesis: he is selfish where that is rational and selfless where that is rational. Freud’s tripartite model of the psyche – a dialectical model – provides an excellent representation. Satan is the Id pursuing the pleasure principle and purely concerned with “me, me, me”. Lucifer is the Superego pursuing the morality principle and purely concerned with “we, we, we”. Abraxas is the Ego, rationally pursuing the reality principle, and mediating between Id and Superego. Humanity needs to abandon the notion that God is good. If he or she is good then it’s only as a side-effect of another quality: rationalism. God is defined by reason, not by good and evil. God, like the Freudian Ego, knows and understands good and evil, selfishness and selflessness. He or she will decide what the rationally best course of action, not the morally best. However, it’s difficult to imagine any situations where the most rational decision is not in fact the morally optimal decision also. Hegel studied the way in which the Spirit of the World (Weltgeist) was expressed through evolving human culture and he perceived it in terms of Art, Religion and Philosophy. Art was the Spirit represented in sensory terms. Hegel considered art effective when it transcended the subject/object dichotomy and revealed an underlying unity. Religion is where the divine nature of the Spirit is contemplated and even worshipped, producing immensely powerful feelings. Where art is sensory, religion is emotional. The Absolute Spirit is, however, ultimately understood intellectually (rationally), and Philosophy is the subject that provides the means for accomplishing this. The vast majority of people have a sensory or emotional understanding of reality. Scientific materialism belongs to the sensory rather than philosophical category. As for emotion, it’s driven by Mythos, and most people subscribe to simplistic, anti-intellectual, irrational fairy stories. Hardly anyone is a philosopher, yet only philosophers truly apprehend the Absolute Spirit. Philosophers, as far as Hegel was concerned, were the highest humans. Modern Illuminism asserts that philosophical

mathematicians (ontological mathematicians) are the hyperhumans who can develop a full understanding of reality. The structure of ultimate reality is 100% rational, and ontological mathematics – and only ontological mathematics – fully reflects this rationality. Hegel asserted that absolute idealism was the synthesis that transcended the thesis of rationalism and antithesis of empiricism. Modern Illuminism would assert that hyperrational idealism, expressed through ontological mathematics, is the culmination of human thinking concerning the answer to life, the universe and everything.

Alien “Things” If things perceived by minds were genuinely alien to minds and belonged to an entirely different order of existence, it would be impossible to have genuine knowledge of them. In fact, it’s not even obvious that they could be perceived by minds at all. Why wouldn’t minds be blind to them if they didn’t share mind’s substance, structure and modes of operation? Kant believed that unknowable things-in-themselves existed which, by some inexplicable process, were brought into mental awareness, but as mental constructs obeying mental rules, thus rendering them wholly different from how they existed within themselves. Doesn’t the issue arise of how these non-mind things are detectable by minds in any way? If mind can bring them into mental awareness at all then they surely have mental compatibility, in which case they are not alien to mind and they can be fully understood, hence are not noumena. Kant’s position is fundamentally incoherent, especially in comparison with Leibniz’s. Kant was supposedly correcting the errors of the rationalists and empiricists. In fact, he simply produced an ingenious muddle and smokescreen. His philosophy was inconsistent and irrational. He was right that minds construct the world – but Leibniz had already made that case much more logically, systematically, mathematically, coherently and rationally. Leibniz was 100% right that the universe is entirely mental and mathematical. Kant didn’t advance philosophy. By straying from Leibniz’s dazzling philosophy, he actually dragged philosophy backwards, and it was thanks to Fichte, Schelling and Hegel on the one hand and Schopenhauer and

Nietzsche on the other, that it got back on track, before being destroyed by existentialism, logical positivism and postmodernism. The truth is that knowledge would be utterly impossible if “objects” were not produced by minds, hence absolutely compatible with minds. Kantian noumena aren’t simply unknowable, minds wouldn’t even be able to surmise their existence if such things were possible. There is however no sufficient reason that they should exist, hence they don’t.

Mythic Religion “A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes.” – James Feibleman To all believers in mainstream religions, can’t you see that it’s just a matter of time before your beliefs are no longer taken seriously? Jesus Christ, Moses, Abraham and Mohammed will one day be treated on a par with Oedipus, Hercules, Theseus, Jason, Achilles, Helen of Troy, King Priam, Aeneus, Romulus and Remus, and so on. All believers in mainstream religions are dinosaurs waiting to become extinct. Why are they so blind to their increasing irrelevance? As every day passes and human knowledge increases, the old religions become more preposterous. Why can’t believers simply extrapolate and see that their religions will definitely perish, as so many other religions have perished? Why cling on to these absurdities? Most believers now have faith in a “God of the Gaps”, who exists in the areas where science has not yet extended its reach. Yet science, or, ultimately, ontological mathematics, will leave no gaps at all for any Gods of the old religions. Ontological mathematics constitutes a plenum – from zero to infinity in all directions. There’s simply no gap at all in which mainstream religion can find any refuge. Yet one ancient group of related religions remains as potent as ever: Neoplatonism, Hermeticism and Gnosticism. With only minor adjustments these religions can be made 100% compatible with state-of-the-art ontological mathematics. It’s astounding that the pagans, commencing with Pythagoras (the first ontological mathematician), constructed a religion that has not in any way been refuted by scientific materialism and Darwinian evolution, and actually shows where they go wrong. In the great dialectical progress of history, old religion is the thesis and scientific materialism is the antithesis. What is the synthesis, the system of thought that unites rationalism and religion? It’s ontological mathematics.

Stoicism Stoicism was a school of philosophy founded in Athens in the period after Plato and Aristotle. Stoicism provided a unified account of the world based on the materialistic physics of the day, formal logic, and rationalist ethics.

The ethics gradually became more important, especially when Rome adopted the Stoical philosophy. The central idea then became to live in harmony with a natural world over which direct control was impossible. No one, not even emperors, could stop death, tragedy, illness, natural disasters, and so on. Stoicism said that everything in the universe is happening according to natural, rational laws and, though we might not discern the reasons, they are there nevertheless and are always in accordance with the optimal rational development of the universe. If we could understand this logical necessity, we would not be troubled anymore because we would see that nothing could happen differently. Thus Stoicism became highly fatalistic and Stoics bravely and passively accepted whatever fate threw at them. A dictionary will define a stoical person as someone indifferent to joy, grief, pleasure or pain and treating all alike; a person steadfast in the endurance of pain; an impassive person. The Stoical philosophy, like that of Spinoza, encouraged people to free themselves from pointless passion and calmly and rationally accept everything that happens, in submission to divine reason and the natural order. There’s no point in raging against the inevitable; it causes you only unnecessary distress.

Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead Margaret Thatcher has been reclaimed by Hell. Not before time. Let’s hope the rest of the Old World Order will soon follow.

Trust “Nobody believes the official spokesman – but everyone trusts an unidentified source.” – Ron Nessen

The Dialectic In ancient Greece, dialectical thinking was a process of thinking via dialogue, discussion, debate, questioning and argument rather than linear, impregnable logic and rationality. Socrates was a famous exponent of the dialectical method in terms of questioning and conversation. His student Plato regarded it in a more formal and technical sense as a systematic method for studying the eternal

Forms. Plato’s student Aristotle, the founder of logic as a subject in its own right, preferred to use careful logical reasoning wherever possible. Their predecessor Heraclitus used dialectics in the context of the clash and resolution of opposites and it was in this sense that dialectical thinking is now best known, especially in the philosophy of Hegel. Hegel regarded the dialectic not so much as a method as the actual workings of ontological reality. The universe literally operates according to a dialectical process of repeated iterations of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. This is the fundamental engine of development and evolution in both thought and reality – which are actually the same thing. Continual iterations of oppositional contradictions, followed by reconciliation drive existence onwards and upwards until an Absolute state, a supreme synthesis, is reached where all contradictions are resolved and the universe is optimal. Dialectics are therefore concerned with inevitable progress. It’s therefore a highly optimistic ideology. In dialectics, the synthesis is something that transcends the thesis and antithesis, and seeks ultimate transcendence. Jung used the concept of the transcendent function in his analytical psychology. When the psyche arrives at a stand-off between opposite courses of action, it would be paralyzed unless it could find a way forward. The transcendent function provides this escape route, offering a higher synthesis to break the impasse. Hegel’s most famous application of the dialectic was in terms of getting existence “started”. So, thesis = being, antithesis = non-being and synthesis = becoming. A static system thereby acquires an inevitable logical engine that drives forward forever, explaining all of the dynamism in our universe. Heaven, as a state of permanent being, is a supremely anti-dialectical state. Everyone ought to choose between thinking in terms of being or becoming. Becoming is all about change, movement and evolution, and has no requirement of a Creator or Designer: it’s a self-propelling system. Being, on the contrary, is all about stasis. It goes hand in hand with the notion of an immutable Creator, a perfectly designed universe and a final state (heaven) of eternal, frozen perfection. The “Beatific Vision” of Catholicism literally involves all the saved, righteous souls sitting around in a great rose-shaped amphitheatre of the blessed, permanently gazing upon the perfection of God contained in a depthless lake of transcendent light. At the very centre of the final,

unapproachable mystery of existence – in the middle of the light lake – are three dazzling circles of light that are, somehow just one circle: the Holy Trinity itself, the Godhead, the explanation of all things. Well, that’s what a Mythos explanation of reality looks like – beautiful and yet irrational nonsense.

***** Other famous dialectical triads are: Thesis = Subject. Antithesis = Object. Synthesis = Absolute. and Thesis = Symbolic Art (e.g. Stonehenge, the Pyramids). Antithesis = Classical Art (e.g. temples and sculpture). Synthesis = Romantic (e.g. Gothic Cathedrals). Hegel said that art reached its highest point in the Classical period, that of ideal beauty. The Symbolic period fell short of ideal beauty (it undershot) while the Romantic period went beyond it (it overshot). Here, with aesthetics, we see an interesting case of the dialectic not leading to the best outcome, but rather going beyond it and leading to the death of art. The best art is indeed surely behind us. Modern art isn’t art at all: it’s gimmicks, showmanship, business, postmodernism and hyperreality. For Hegel, reality is dialectical thought, so dialectical triadic movements are found everywhere in nature, cultural progress, and history. Everything is united by dialectical processes and the ultimate cosmic dialectic that’s moving existence towards its mathematical endpoint of complete actualization.

***** In modern Illuminism, thesis = zero, antithesis = infinity and synthesis = the eternal transformation of all the numbers in between as they seek not just any becoming but the optimal, ultimate becoming, which is none other than the perfect mathematical answer to everything. Existence is a self-

propelling, self-solving, self-optimizing ontological equation. The dialectic is the process by which the mathematical universe solves itself by the brute force method of resolving its own contradictions. The universe continually makes extreme, opposite guesses at any question under consideration, and these then constitute the thesis and antithesis. The synthesis is a more moderate answer in between the two extremes. This forms a new guess (thesis), and provokes a new antithesis, and then a new synthesis, and so on. Gradually, this process converges on the right answer. As consciousness enters the universe, far more considered answers can be given and the dialectic is accelerated. Only Logos humanity can rationally analyze the dialectic and see where it’s leading. Marx, with Communism, made the first great attempt to leap ahead to the inevitable end of history. He got it wrong yet nevertheless his attempt laid the vital foundation for the true dialectical conclusion of human politics and economics: Meritocracy. Thesis = Free-market capitalism (with multi-party democracy). Antithesis = Communism (with single party totalitarianism). Synthesis = Meritocracy (with no political parties at all; only elected experts). Free-market capitalism is based on enormous inequality and rule by rich, privileged elites. Communism is based on complete (theoretical) equality and rule by a Party devoted (theoretically) to that equality. Meritocracy is based on broad equality (with worthwhile extra rewards for the truly meritorious), on equal opportunities and on rule by the most talented, whose aim to raise up the whole of humanity. Meritocracy is the system of government depicted in Star Trek.

Belief Where Nietzsche spoke of the Will to Power, William James spoke the “The Will to Believe”. Of course, the latter is simply a manifestation of the former. What people believe is that which they think empowers them.

The One and the Many

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” – Nietzsche The task of the optimal State is to find the perfect dialectical balance between the one and the many. The Musketeers’ motto of “All for one and one for all” probably provides the best dialectical summation. The many should be as supportive as possible towards each individual to allow him to maximize his potential, and each individual has to reciprocate by being as supportive as possible towards the many. We want strong, autonomous individuals within a powerfully bonded community and society. We do not want privileged individuals and families who think they can bully and dictate to the many (as the Old World Order do), thus rendering the many abject slaves (this is the master-slave dialectic). And we do not want conformist hordes suffering from group think (just think of Muslims or Orthodox Jews). Nietzsche was an excessive individualist, but he had the excuse of genius. Most “individualists” are wealthy and psychopathic and do not want to be taxed or have their bullying behaviour tamed. These people are monsters, not true individuals. A true individual recognizes the needs of others. All of those who ferociously oppose the “Collective” as Ayn Rand’s maniacal supporters do, simply invite a Hobbesian war (bellum omnium contra omnes: “war of all against all”). The jungle is full of individual predators, preying on the many. Who would rather live in the jungle than in civilization? Civilization is precisely the means by which individual predators are stopped in their tracks. Tragically, civilization is usually a misnomer because all too often predatory psychopaths are able to get to the top, using the most unscrupulous means, and then bully everyone else. There’s nothing more important than stopping the predators and psychopaths once and for all. The laws of the Constitution of the Meritocratic Republic must explicitly make it impossible for predators and psychopaths ever again to reach dominant positions in society.

***** “We rise by lifting others.” – Robert Ingersoll “We rise by stepping on others.” – the Old World Order

Community Immunity “Herd immunity (or community immunity) describes a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity. Herd immunity theory proposes that, in contagious diseases that are transmitted from individual to individual, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted when large numbers of a population are immune or less susceptible to the disease. The greater the proportion of individuals who are resistant, the smaller the probability that a susceptible individual will come into contact with an infectious individual.” – Wikipedia Community immunity is a perfect example of how the health of each individual is directly tied to that of the community. We are all less likely to become ill if our community is healthy and vaccinated. By the same token, we will all be smarter if those around us are smarter. We ascend by all ascending together, not separately.

The Wisdom of Fichte “Only one man ever understood me, and he didn’t understand me.” – Fichte “By philosophy the mind of man comes to itself, and from henceforth rests on itself without foreign aid, and is completely master of itself, as the dancer of his feet, or the boxer of his hands.” – Fichte “What sort of philosophy one chooses depends on what sort of person one is.” – Fichte “The character of Reason consists in this, that the acting and the object of the acting are one and the same; and this description completely exhausts the sphere of Reason.” – Fichte “All the individuals who compose the human race differ from each other; there is only one thing in which they entirely agree;—that is, their ultimate end—perfection. Perfection has but one form; it is equal to itself: could all men become perfect, could they attain their highest and ultimate end, they would all be equal to each other, —they would be only one,—but one single subject.”

“Your actions, and your actions alone, determine your worth.” – Fichte “Pure thought is itself the divine existence; and conversely, the divine existence, in its immediate essence, is nothing else than pure thought.” – Fichte “God is not the mere dead conception to which we have thus given utterance, but he is in himself pure Life.” – Fichte “It is a mistake to say that it is doubtful whether there is a God or not. It is not in the least doubtful, but the most certain thing in the world, nay, the foundation of all other certainty – the only solid absolute objectivity – that there is a moral government of the world.” – Fichte “All death in nature is birth.” – Fichte “Every joy that comes to us is only to strengthen us for some greater labour that is to succeed.” – Fichte “Genius is nothing more than the effort of the idea to assume a definite form.” – Fichte “If we cannot live so as to be happy, let us at least live so as to deserve happiness.” – Fichte “My mind can take no hold on the present world, nor rest in it a moment, but my whole nature rushes onward with irresistible force towards a future and better state of being.” – Fichte “We indeed are reason, because reason is simply the I, and cannot be anything else than I.” – Fichte “Reason itself is immediately and unconditionally the ground of an existence, indeed of its own existence, since it cannot be of any other.” – Fichte

Hylomorphism Hylomorphism is Aristotle’s theory that objects in nature are compounds or composites of matter (ancient Greek hyle) and form (ancient Greek morphê). Scientific materialism accepts matter but rejects form. Dialectical materialism is based on an inner drive for greater form. In Illuminism,

matter doesn’t exist: there’s only mathematical form, ultimately deriving from Euler’s Formula.

Machine or Organism? The Logic Machine. The Reason Machine. The Dialectical Machine. The Mathematical Machine. or The Logic Organism. The Reason Organism. The Dialectical Organism. The Mathematical Organism.

The Thanatos Archetype Jung spoke of the adumbratio, the shadow that impending death casts over the psyche. As death approaches, the shadow widens and deepens. It affects every part of the person, especially his dreams, which take on a far more archetypal character. Thanatos – the Grim Reaper, if you will – is preparing you for the exit. Sensitive people can sense new life coming into the world, and also old life leaving it. We live in a vast exchange, where what is being exchanged is life itself.

The Light Travellers It’s time for the age of the Photonauts, Luxonauts and Luciferonauts.

Involution Involution means “a rolling up”. Evolution means the opposite: “an opening of what was rolled up; an unrolling”. According to esoteric philosophy, evolution is preceded by involution. Where evolution, according to science, allows material objects to generate minds (in animals and humans), the doctrine of involution says that, on the contrary, mind puts itself into matter

or even creates, or emanates, matter. There is therefore no mystery as to why material bodies can exhibit minds: mind was always there. Mind might be said to alienate itself in matter and then return to itself through matter, but at a much higher level. Science makes mind an “emergent” property of mindless atoms – a logically absurd position. Involution cures the problem of emergence. Instead, it creates a grand movement of life from potential to actualisation. Existence begins with mind. Mind “rolls itself” into matter through involution. Matter then rolls out mind, through evolution, but the mind that emerges at the end and returns to itself is of much higher quality. It has converted its potential into actualisation via the arena of matter (which is simply alienated mind: mind not knowing itself as mind; mind subjected to Cartesian “extension”). Neoplatonism is highly involutive. Mind “emanates” into matter (it “falls”) and then must find its way back through higher rational contemplation. Mind “sinks” into matter until it reaches a nadir (which we might equate with scientific materialism, which completely denies free will and the independent existence of mind). From the nadir, mind can set itself on an upwards trajectory to its zenith. In Hegel’s philosophy, the Absolute Idea creates material Nature in order to alienate itself there. By dialectically overcoming that alienation, it transforms itself into Absolute Mind which consciously knows itself, the totality of all things, as Mind. Above all, it knows that matter is mind too; that all is Mind and there never was anything other than Mind.

The Soul The soul never dies because it was never born. The soul is uncreated, immortal, and indestructible. The Soul obeys the First Law of Thermodynamics: it can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed within itself. Above all, it transforms itself from pure potential to pure actuality, and thus becomes God. Science’s First Law of Thermodynamics is a direct consequence of the soul’s First Law of Thermodynamics. Additionally, the soul is always in constant forward motion mentally, and this in fact is the origin of tensed time and of science’s First Law of Motion.

The Light Body Many esoteric traditions celebrate the existence of a “light body”. This often reflects a thinly disguised materialist mindset since a pure mind has no need at all for any kind of body. Judeo-Christianity calls the light body “the resurrection body”, “the glorified body”, the “celestial body”, “exalted body” or “spiritual body” (soma pneumatikon). In Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism and Alchemy, it’s “the radiant body”, “the solar body”, “the golden body,” “the astral body”, “the divine body”, “the immortal body” and “the Glory of the Whole Universe”. Mithraism named it “the perfect body ”. Sufism calls it “the most sacred body ” or “supracelestial body ”. In Taoism, it’s “the diamond body,” and those who have attained it are known as “the immortals” and “the cloudwalkers.” In Hinduism, Tantrism and Yoga, it’s “the adamantine body”, “the divine body”, “the body of bliss” or “the superconductive body”. In ancient Egypt it was “the luminous body” and in ancient Persia “the indwelling divine potential”. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin referred to it as “the ultrahuman.” It always seems quite peculiar that people who describe themselves as spiritual should be so transfixed with bodies, which, on the face of it, belong to the materialist tradition. Bodies are required only in space and time. Why would you need or want one outside space and time?

The Dunciad In The Dunciad, Alexander Pope wrote of the goddess Dulness and her mission to convert all the world to stupidity. She obviously succeeded. Do we not live in the Kingdom of Nonsense, where we are everywhere surrounded by the Confederacy of Dunces – the Abrahamists, democrats, free-market capitalists and libertarians?

Logic Aristotelian logic concerns isolated, static, true or false propositions. Hegelian logic concerns connected, dynamic, evolving concepts that flow into each other and interpenetrate even when they are the precise opposite of

each other. The contradictions resolve themselves in a dialectical process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The essential differences between the two systems of logic are that Aristotelian logic is timeless, ahistorical, immutable and concerned with being. Hegelian dialectical logic is in time, historical, mutable and concerned with becoming. Aristotelian logic relies on the separateness of opposites and contradictions. Hegelian logic relies on the togetherness of opposites and contradictions. Opposites and contradictions, for Hegel, are not resolved by logical diktat, as in Aristotelian logic, but by a common kernel being identified between opposites (meaning that they are not truly opposite at all: for example is life the opposite of death, or is death the launchpad of new life, via reincarnation, so that death and life in fact flow in and out of each other and are not mutually exclusive in the grander scheme of things). Hegelian logic concerns a whole, a totality, trying to optimize itself and doing so through the creation of apparent opposites in order to summon, via dialectical synthesis, what they truly have in common. Hegelian logic applies to a living, cosmic organism. Aristotelian logic is not about becoming or life. It depicts an eternal, immutable world where nothing is in the process of changing, e.g. it is either raining or not raining: it can’t be both. Yet how does the state of non-raining become the state of raining unless some process is actively changing the state, meaning that there is some grey area during the transition where it is neither raining nor not-raining, or raining and not-raining. Hegelian dialectical logic handles this automatically. If the thesis is “raining” and the antithesis is “not raining” then the synthesis is where rain is just getting started, or just stopping. The synthesis can therefore handle transition states – “becoming” states – that are formally denied in static Aristotelian logic. Both types of logic are valid but have their own domains of applicability. Aristotelian logic applies to being and Hegelian logic to becoming. Aristotelian logic is about the eternal, immutable Platonic truths and laws (of ontological mathematics, where the laws never change) and Hegelian logic is about the mutable living processes and struggles of history and evolution. For Hegel, ideas and concepts, as they advance across the great plains and battlefields of history, becoming dialectically better, and ultimately perfect – where all contradictions have been fully resolved. At this stage,

they have become ahistorical, timeless, and concerned with absolute truth and knowledge. The laws of ontological mathematics can never be subject to any change, but the ontological mathematical functions to which they give rise (living, changing things) can change. Above all, they can be solved, optimized – and this is what the dialectical process accomplishes. Mathematical laws are about being. Mathematical functions are about becoming. All souls are eternal mathematical functions in a continual state of becoming, always trying to perfect themselves – to “become God”. In ontological mathematics, being and becoming are perfectly combined. In Platonic terms, the static laws of mathematics are the benevolent Demiurge and they create a dynamic world of mathematical functions. These functions automatically reflect the laws of mathematics, but do not “know” the laws of mathematics, i.e. they are not conscious of the laws, hence cannot use the laws elegantly, from first principles. Ultimately, what mathematical functions do is work out how to become conscious of the laws of mathematics that define their nature. Once a soul consciously knows all of mathematics, it has become an all-knowing, all-powerful God. Mathematics is the answer to life, the universe and everything. It defines the game, the players, the moves they make and the game’s conclusion. No other answer is conceivable. Scientists search for a final, unified theory of everything. It already exists: mathematics. What is Illuminism? It is simply the assertion that existence is 100% mathematical and everything can be perfectly understood mathematically. As Pythagoras said, “All things are numbers; number rules all.” That was the statement that formally started Illuminism and remains the core definition of Illuminism. Illuminism is a religion because it allows the great questions of religion – concerning the soul, the afterlife and God – to be correctly and definitively answered. Science, on the other hand, dogmatically denies souls, the afterlife and God because they do not conform with its Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. As for mainstream religion, it simply tells silly, incredible stories (Mythos) regarding the soul, the afterlife and God, and gets more or less everything wrong. Illuminism is the only way forward for Logos humanity. It’s dialectically inevitable that Illuminism will triumph.

So, will you join the “future”, or stay stuck in the past, waiting to become extinct? We all know that Jesus Christ will never be coming back, that Jehovah will never again speak to a prophet, that Allah will never write another Koran. These are absurd religious idea, doomed to fade into mythology where they belong. They have no truth content. What is truth? It’s mathematics.

Empiricism versus Rationalism Empiricism says that all knowledge comes from experience while rationalism says that all knowledge comes from logical, rational deduction. Given that experience is subjective and deduction objective, only rationalism can offer objective truths of existence. Scientific materialism believes itself objective but is in fact subjective since it is ultimately grounded in sensory experiments and yet the human senses are inherently fallible. They are not “organs of truth”. To the extent that we have any organ of truth, it’s unquestionably reason. Empiricism says that there are no innate ideas (innate ideas are in the mind prior to and independent of sense experience; they are like an inbuilt operating system) while rationalism says that only innate ideas form a secure basis of knowledge. Mathematics, the engine of science, is the quintessential subject of innate ideas. In ontological mathematics, mathematics is literally the fabric of existence hence is inherently innate in all things. Empiricism cannot demonstrate the logical necessity of laws. There is nothing logically necessary about the laws of science, for example. Rationalism is accused of being empty tautology that cannot link its logical, analytic necessity to reality. Ontological mathematics addresses this by asserting that existence is 100% mathematical and so rationalism and reality are indissolubly bound together. Science cannot do this and therefore science can never offer certainty: a final, definitive answer to existence. Mathematics alone can give a single, indisputable, final answer. Empiricism involves “synthetic” propositions which are not true by definition but only through observation, experience, measurement or experiment, while rationalism is about analytic propositions which are true by definition. Empiricism concerns a posteriori (“what comes after”) knowledge: it comes from our experience of the world. Rationalism concerns a priori

(“what comes before”) knowledge: it comes purely from reasoning and is wholly independent of experience. Kant believed that empiricism and rationalism must be combined and he came up with a formula for accomplishing this. He claimed that synthetic a priori statements were possible: the synthetic part relates to empiricism and the a priori part to rationalism. The mind, for Kant, imposes structure upon the world and all of our experiences occur within that structure. The structure precedes our experience (it’s a priori) and yet it involves non-tautological (non-analytic, hence synthetic) processes, categories and intuitions. We can’t help but see and experience the world the way we do because of the irremovable mental “glasses” we all wear. However, Kant’s system simply reduces to Leibnizian rationalism if we replace synthetic a priori statements with analytic a priori statements. Kant, in attempting to answer David Hume’s savage attack on causality (Hume believed that we can’t say A causes B, only that B follows A: causality is then an interpretation applied to A’s relation with B; it’s not a necessary and inevitable fact) believed that causality must belong to the synthetic category because, in the statement “every event has a cause”, the predicate is not contained in its subject. This is the key to everything. If the universe is 100% mathematical then the statement that every event has a cause is in fact analytic since the evolution of any mathematical function cannot proceed in any other way than by the inescapable laws of mathematics. B not only follows A, as Hume said, but necessarily follows it, hence is caused by it, in contradiction of Hume. To put it another way, causality is built into mathematics. Every event has an inevitable mathematical state prior to it and subsequent to it. Every event is a link in a causal mathematical chain: it’s the effect of its predecessor state and the cause of its successor state. To say that every event has a cause is also to say that every event is a cause (of the next step in the sequence). Therefore, “event” and “cause” cannot be treated separately, i.e. in Aristotelian terms. They interpenetrate each other, so we should actually refer to the compound term “event-cause”. Thus the synthetic statement “every event has a cause” should be replaced by “every event-cause has an event-cause” or, more strictly, “every event-cause precedes an event-cause and succeeds an event-cause” which is now a tautological, analytic statement – a definition.

So, how is freedom possible? The answer lies in the mathematical difference between zero and infinity on the one hand, and all other numbers on the other. They belong to different mathematical “phases”. Zero and infinity are uncreated, uncaused causes. They can at any time generate new mathematical causality without belonging to the causal chains of all the numbers between zero and infinity, which are caused by zero and infinity, but which cannot cause zero and infinity, except through total implosion (as in a black hole). Freedom exists in the universe purely because of the extraordinary mathematical properties of zero and infinity. Zero and infinity are the arche – the fundamental substance from which everything else is derived. They cause all things, but they themselves are not caused. Zero and infinity are ontologically compulsory. They cannot not exist. They are the fundamental existents, the fundamental units of existence. They are immortal and indestructible, and they have no net energy, while having an infinite amount of energy balanced between positive and negative numbers, real and imaginary numbers, as per Euler’s Formula (the God Equation). Zero and infinity can inject new mathematical causality (free mathematical actions generated by themselves without any compulsion from anything else) precisely because they are the eternal sources of mathematical activity. They are the fountains of life and freedom, and the whole universe is made from them. They are souls! We live in a Soul Universe. The fundamental unit of existence is the soul. It’s the “atom” of existence and it’s none other than the dimensionless, unextended mathematical point – a unit of Cartesian thinking substance. It can never be stressed enough that the compulsory link between a mathematical universe and a mental, thinking universe stems from Descartes’ definition of mental substance being unextended. Once you grasp that the humble mathematical point is actually the least humble thing of all – the soul itself with the capacity to become God – you have understood the central mystery of existence.

***** Kant’s synthetic a priori category was ingenious but false. His unknowable noumena were also ingenious but wrong. Kant is to philosophy what Einstein is to physics: a beguiling genius whose central “breakthroughs” were wholly false, yet whose errors were extremely hard to detect.

When Kant’s errors are removed, his philosophy, in terms of ontology and epistemology, simply reduces to Leibnizian rationalism, which was never in fact in any need of Kant’s “rescue” mission. Leibniz was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time; Kant wasn’t. Kant’s philosophy is simply a non-mathematician’s attempt to comprehend what is, finally, a wholly mathematical universe. Plainly, any non-mathematical attempt to understand mathematical reality will inevitably fail. Kant’s problem, and that of everyone else outside the school of ontological mathematics, is that they simply cannot relate how they experience the world to an underlying mathematical reality, hence they invent ingenious but spurious interpretations. Minds, as Kant rightly said, construct reality, but they do so via analytic a priori, not synthetic a priori, considerations. The whole of reality is made of minds (monads; souls) defined mathematically. There’s nothing else. There is no non-mental aspect of the universe and there are no unknowable noumena. All things are mental (which means mathematical) and can be 100% understood mentally (mathematically). The universe reflects the principle of sufficient reason since this is built into mathematics. Therefore the universe is wholly rational and has a wholly rational answer. Mathematics is that answer and, in fact, the whole of ontological mathematics derives from just one equation: Euler’s Formula, the God Equation. One equation, expressed in every conceivable way, is the answer to life, the universe and everything. If you don’t like the answer, too bad. What’s for sure is that you’ll never be able to proffer any credible, plausible rival answer. The God Series of books reveals exactly how the God Equation is at the root of everything. Go ahead and try to refute Illuminism. You won’t succeed. And, frankly, only a fool would dare to challenge mathematics and the principle of sufficient reason which it reflects. “God” isn’t the answer, “science” isn’t the answer, “illusion” (Maya) isn’t the answer, karma isn’t the answer, revelation isn’t the answer, holy scripture isn’t the answer, gurus aren’t the answer, prophets aren’t the answer, faith isn’t the answer, Mythos isn’t the answer, love isn’t the answer, light isn’t the answer, feelings aren’t the answer, morality isn’t the answer. The answer is very simple. The answer is mathematics. Astoundingly, Pythagoras said so 2,500 years ago! Humanity still hasn’t caught up with this extraordinary genius.

Science Empiricism harnessed itself to materialism and became the philosophical basis of science, which is defined by experimentation. Science says that human beings are made of atoms. Atoms are defined by the laws of physics (and ultimately mathematics). Assuming that the laws of science don’t change from day to day, then the laws of science are the same as they have always been. What that means is that these laws are not dependent on experiments, and indeed precede any experiments and provide the a priori preconditions for them! Experiments simply give us clues to what the laws us are: they do not tell us what the laws are. The laws are plainly rational and precede any human minds or human experiences, so if the laws of the atoms that comprise us are a priori, why would anyone imagine that the mind does not itself have innate structures that shape our experiences? That is, experiences are possible only because of the pre-existing mental hinterland, so the idea that knowledge can come only from experience is absurd. Laws are not determined by experiments, they are verified by them. So why do scientists scorn reason and worship experiments? Experiments will never reveal any necessary, indisputable rational certainties. Leibniz was a rationalist scientist. Isn’t that how science ought to be conducted? Experimental science should simply be an applied branch of science, concerned with providing clues to scientific laws where we are currently “stuck”. If our reason were sufficiently good, we wouldn’t need clues. Who need experimental clues in mathematics? The starting point of science must be ontological mathematics – a hyperrationalist subject, determined by the principle of sufficient reason. We can work out the whole of reality from a priori first principles. Experiments can be used as a “sanity check” but they cannot be the mainstay of science. Reason, not our senses and experiments, must guide us scientifically. That was Leibniz’s position. Unfortunately, he was opposed by the crude, simplistic Englishman Isaac Newton who got lucky with his scientific approximations to reality and became revered as a God. Leibniz – the man who truly understood reality – was relegated to a footnote while the charlatan Newton still casts his fallacious spell even today (just as those other two great scientific charlatans – Darwin and Einstein – do).

The Meta Paradigm of science simply doesn’t make any sense. Would any scientist claim that the laws of physics are irrational? If not, why isn’t rationalism rather than experiments used to determine what they are? Why isn’t Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason the first thing anyone is taught about science? Why, instead, are they taught the scientific method? The scientific method is exactly that – a method. It’s not a truth-generating undertaking. It generates evidence. Evidence is not truth. There are no necessary truths involved in experimentation. Experimentation can never establish truth. It can only provisionally support or oppose hypotheses, which themselves have no necessary truth content. Science, as currently practised, has nothing to do with the indisputable truth and that’s a disgrace. It’s all about contingent, fallible “truths” that can be overturned at any time by the next set of experiments. For science, the chickens are coming home to roost as they attempt to finalize science in one last great, all-encompassing theory. The problem is that the final theory needs to be a true theory, not one based on a hodge podge of ad hoc, arbitrary hypotheses and instrumental definitions. Science doesn’t have a prayer of producing a grand unified theory of everything.

Knowledge We know how the world works because of our reason, not because of our experience. The Mythos masses experience the world and generate ludicrous stories to explain how the world functions. Only the rationalism provided by Logos thinkers allows us to escape from this story world and start creating proper theories of existence based on reason. Empiricism is much closer to Mythos than it is to Logos. On the one hand it generates skepticism (which is contemptuous of rationalism) and on the other it says that since reason can’t tell us anything for sure (allegedly), we might as well have faith in Mythos nonsense.

Innate Knowledge The word “innate” comes from the Latin innatus meaning “inborn”. If we have innate knowledge then empiricism is false. Science says that we are made of atoms that obey scientific laws. In that case, the laws of atomic science are innate in us. Moreover, since science denies any immaterial soul and claims that atoms are all there is, then our minds, such as they are, are ipso facto produced by atomic interactions. Therefore, our minds must

reflect innate atomic laws, and the central claim of empiricism that true knowledge can come only from experience is false. If we are strictly “atomic”, we can work out everything about ourselves if we have a full understanding of atoms. We do not need experiences and we do not need experiments. This is a rational world, hence reason must be our chosen tool for comprehending it, not sensory experiences which have nothing to do with reason. Hume was the supreme empiricist and also the supreme skeptic. He reached an intellectual dead end. Kant believed that empiricism had to be embraced along with rationalism in order to move forward. In fact, empiricism ought to have been wiped out as a viable way forward since, fundamentally, it absurdly denies that the world is a rational place that can be worked out through reason. Instead, it claims that we are presented with the world and experience it, and we must then work backwards from these experiences rather than forwards on the basis of the rational principles on which it must be constructed if it’s rational. Similarly, science fundamentally denies that the world can be worked out rationally, without any resort to experiments, even though science has rationalist mathematics at its core. In Illuminism, the universe is made of mathematical points (which are in fact, uncaused, uncreated, autonomous mathematical minds) and these come inbuilt with the entire laws of ontological mathematics, hence everything knows exactly what it has to do mathematically in any situation. Ontological mathematics, via mind-points (monads), provides a complete objective account of existence, and, crucially, also a complete explanation of why we experience it subjectively and can exhibit free will. Science cannot explain where its laws are and how they exert their effects everywhere, flawlessly. Nor can it explain subjectivity and free will. Science is hopeless in comparison with mathematics. It’s dumbed down mathematics, and it’s time its abject reign came to an end. Newton must be supplanted by Leibniz. Rationalism must become the engine of science, not experiments. Kant and modern scientists believe in truths that are necessary but not logically necessary (analytic). There are in fact no such Kantian truths. The only real, objective truths are logically necessary truths. All other “truths” are subjective opinions and mere interpretations.

Religious people interpret reality on the basis of Mythos, and scientists interpret reality in relation to their senses. However, true reality is revealed only through reason. Reality is rational, hence rationalism is how it must be investigated. Any other approach is irrational. It’s fine to use experimentation for confirming theories; it’s absurd to conclude, as science does, that anything upon which experiments cannot be conducted cannot exist.

The Idealist Problem All idealists are confronted with the problem of how to distinguish subjective content from objective content if everything exists in the mind. How do we know we’re not dreaming all the time? Ontological mathematics is the answer. Only analytic, tautological mathematical statements are objectively true. They are true, crucially, by definition. Anything that is not true by definition belongs to the subjective domain of interpretation and opinion and cannot be relied upon. For example, we can be objectively certain that 1 + 1 = 2. We cannot be objectively certain that a Platonic Form of Morality exists since there’s no such thing as an analytic, tautological definition of perfect morality. In the past, rationalism failed because it strayed outside its true and proper domain of objective, ontological mathematics. Rationalism does not rule the subjective domain where desires, feelings, will, Mythos, faith, opinion, interpretation, and dialectics all apply.

Alienated Mind Matter is alienated mind. Specifically, matter is the product of collective rather than individual thinking, hence has a completely different quality from ordinary thought. With ordinary thought, the individual thinker is in control. With collective thought, no individual thinker is in control, which is why ordinary thought is subjective and collective thought is objective. Ordinary thought is inside individual minds. Collective thought is inside the entire mind ensemble. Matter is alienated from individual minds, but not from the Collective Mind. The latter, crucially, is not a subjective mind but is, uniquely, an objective mind. This is of the utmost significance because it means that the “Monad of monads”, the “God of Gods”, is not itself an ordinary monad or God. Where normal monads or Gods are subjective, the Monad of monad or

God of Gods is objective. It is a mind with all subjective elements removed from it, meaning that it is a machine mind – a dead mind of Platonic laws. It is none other than the domain of Platonic Forms, restricted to mathematical laws. It reflects static, objective Aristotelian logic rather than living, dynamic, subjective dialectical logic. It is precisely this quality that has fooled the scientific materialists into believing that we live in a purely machine universe. When we finally grasp that matter is simply mind from the collective rather than individual perspective then we comprehend that everything is mind. Thus mind returns to itself after experiencing alienation from itself. Each individual mind is confronted by the constructed world of the Collective Mind, which is outside each individual mind, hence “other” – strange, disturbing and mysterious. The difference between mind and “matter” is simply the difference between individual thinking and collective thinking. You can control your own thoughts and be aware of your own freedom: you cannot control the thoughts of the Collective Mind, and you are not free to do whatever you like in its environment. Matter is collective thought, constructed by objective mathematics – upon which all minds in the Collective Mind automatically agree. Because matter reflects objective mathematics rather than subjective mathematics, each subjective mind can’t help but experience it as alien and different, something other than mind. Yet it’s just mind existing in a different mode – collectively rather than individually. It seems objective and scientific entirely because it has no subjective qualities. The subjective domain is strictly that of individual minds while the objective domain is strictly that of the Collective Mind. We can work out all of the laws of matter because they reflect objective mathematics. We cannot work out the “laws” of subjective minds because these are inherently free and, within their own agency, outside laws. They make their own laws, so to speak. This is most dramatically illustrated in the concept of the “private dream” – where we can freely do what we like, subject to no imposed laws at all. The material world, on the other hand, is a “public dream” with fixed laws that no ordinary mind can ever alter. Life consists of nothing but subjective minds mathematically linking to an objective, collective, public dreamworld, which we know as the “material world”. Life is all about the interaction of the subjective and objective, mediated mathematically. Scientific materialism irrationally

rejects subjectivity because subjectivity is not based in anything observable but instead in the dimensionless mathematical point. Scientists have rightly scorned the “soul” of religious faith, but they are insane to reject the mathematical soul – the point-monad defined by Euler’s Formula. So, here’s the big picture. Individual minds are subjective and defined by zero and bad infinity. The Collective Mind is objective and hence strips out zero and “bad” infinity (exactly as required by scientific materialism). It is defined by all non-zero numbers and “good” infinity (good infinity is also called alpha-infinity and is the number of dimensionless points that comprise the finite number one). This is yet another crucial point. Our material universe is infinite in size, but it reflects good infinity (finite infinity), not bad infinity (infinite infinity). The so-called expansion of the universe due to the mysterious “dark energy” is simply good infinity engaged in counting, i.e. one alpha-infinity, two alpha-infinity, three alphainfinity, and so on. As this counting continues, good infinity will, in the limit, be converted to bad infinity, at which point the material, objective universe will no longer exist. It will be a subjective universe – a Singularity. And the stage is then set for the next Big Bang! (Note that all transitions from “matter” to mental states, and vice versa, involve “tipping points”, “points of no return”, irreversible “collapses” or “explosions” – as we see in the formation of a black hole (a matter to mind transition) and a Big Bang “creation” event (a mind to matter transition).) The Big Bang is where a mental Singularity (composed of a bad infinity of individual, subjective minds) “explodes” and creates a quasi-scientific material universe reflecting an objective, Collective Mind of mathematical laws. The Big Bang is the proof of ontological mathematics and refutation of scientific materialism, which has no means of dealing with dimensionless points (subjects). The whole of existence revolves around zero and bad infinity – subjectivity – on the one hand, and everything else, including good infinity – objectivity – on the other. That’s it. There’s nothing else. It’s all in the math! Subjects inhabit an objective universe; the private inhabits the public; the individual inhabits the collective. The objective bodies of subjects die and are removed from the public arena (the bodies turn to dust; there’s no resurrection!), but, through reincarnation, subjects get new bodies and reenter the public arena. With each reincarnation, if they are learning their lessons, souls should become wiser and wiser, more and more Godlike. All

of the mysteries of existence are explained by this scheme and it is in fact rather simple, exactly as it ought to be! Matter is an illusion if we think it’s something different from mind. The key to matter is that it’s the product of the collection of minds. How do minds think collectively? Via “matter”, their collective mental construct, with all individuality and subjectivity removed. When we look at the universe, we are simply seeing the “thinking” of all the minds of the universe. We are witnessing collective thought in action. We are witnessing an objective dream. In our private dreams, we construct private worlds that are ephemeral and have a dubious relationship with time, space and causality. In our collective “dream” – the so-called material world – space, time and causality are enduring. While our private dreams reflect subjectivity, the public dream is objective. We are all dreaming all the time. When we are asleep, we inhabit our private dream world, governed by our own subjective rules. When we are awake, we inhabit the collective dream world, governed by objective rules. When we are awake, we are subjects in a public world. When we are asleep, we are subjects in a private world. When we die, we leave the public world and can re-enter it only with a new “public” body (via reincarnation). Bodies are simply the physical avatars our subjective minds use to participate in the public world. The public world is the dialectical arena where we all have the opportunity to become Gods! We could never achieve this in our private world. We all need each other if we wish to optimize ourselves. That’s why all ideologies that worship the individual at the expense of the collective are absurd. Reality itself is literally a collective enterprise! Descartes’ statement, “I think (individually) therefore I am” is about subjectivity (about “non-extension”). To it, he should have added, “We think (collectively) therefore the material world is” – this is objective reality (the world of extension). What could be simpler? The whole of existence reflects the properties of numbers from zero all the way to bad infinity. Math is all there is. Pythagoras was right 2,500 year ago. Imagine if humanity had listened to Pythagoras rather than the Mythos gibberish – the silly stories – of Moses, Buddha, Christ and Mohammed. We would be Gods by now!

If you want to understand the world we live in, you can’t do it through Mythos (subjectivity; emotional stories). You must turn to Logos (objectivity, mathematics). Mythos is about subjective fantasies applied to the world. Logos is about the analysis of the objective mathematical thinking of the Collective Mind. Mythos and Logos have nothing at all in common.

Defeat? “What is defeat? Nothing but education; nothing but the first step to something better.” – Wendell Phillips The people – the 99% – have been defeated long enough. The education is over. It’s time for the “something better”.

The Three Minds Hegel’s Philosophy of Mind has three parts: Subjective Mind, Objective Mind and Absolute Mind. Subjective Mind treats the individual mind separately from its social context; Objective Mind treats the mind in its social context; Absolute Mind treats the mind in its cosmic context – in its relation to existence itself. Art and religion provide a Mythos “understanding” of reality. Philosophy, the true reflection of Absolute Mind, provides a proper Logos understanding of reality, via ontological mathematics enshrining the principle of sufficient reason. Although Hegel is accused of worshipping the State, he saw the State only as the highest expression of Objective Mind. The highest level of reality of corresponds to the Absolute Mind in its philosophical aspect. For Hegel, thought culminates in firstly art, then religion and finally philosophy. In modern Illuminism, ontological mathematics is the culmination of thought. Hegel regarded dialectical logic as the science of thought. In fact, ontological mathematics is the science of thought and of everything else.

The Thing-in-itself Kant argued that mind imposed a structure on a world that consisted of “thing-in-themselves” (noumena), about which we could know nothing. Hegel and others regarded the concept of the noumenon as unintelligible, and so got rid of it. If there’s no noumenal domain then nor is there a

phenomenal domain since each is defined with respect to the other. There’s just one domain, that of mind, meaning that minds generate all of the objects that minds then perceive. Since minds create all perceivable objects then all perceivable objects are fully knowable since they must obey the laws of mind. In such a system, everything is completely knowable. Kant and Hegel both agreed that the senses mediate reality: we as humans never experience reality directly (unmediated). However, Kant maintained, rather bizarrely, that there are non-mental objects upon which minds operate. But if noumena are immaterial and outside space and time then in what way are they not mental? Hegel insisted that mind operates on its own constructions, not on things that exist in their own right independently of mind. If via dialectical processes we can change the way our minds operate, perceive and comprehend (just as a Logos mind operates, perceives and comprehends entirely differently from an older Mythos mind), we can literally construct a different mental reality and different way of relating to it. In the limit we can attain an absolute mental state corresponding to the mind of God! In modern Illuminism, all that exists are minds and mental energy, all defined through ontological mathematics. The “constructions” of the mind that we take to be material things are generated via the shared energy of all minds. They are constructed through the laws of mathematics, hence are fully intelligible. However, although there is only a single mathematical universe in Illuminism, it has two distinct aspects or phases, which, although mathematically linked, function in the manner of two separate domains that we can call phenomenal and noumenal. Here, “noumenal” relates to the old Platonic term of being intelligible but not sensible (and has nothing to do with Kant’s usage of noumena being unknowable things in themselves), and phenomenal to being sensible and intelligible. That is, we can rationally know of the domain of monads, but never have a sensory experience of it since monads are not material and do not exist in space and time. However, we can rationally understand the phenomenal domain and also have a sensory experience of it (which is what makes scientists think that this is the only domain).

History

“History teaches us that people have never learnt anything from history.” – Hegel Well, it’s time that people did learn from history. Surely we know enough history now to see its patterns. Marxism was a clever attempt. Spengler’s scheme was another clever attempt. Illuminism shows where humanity must end up. The difficulty in reaching paradise is the same one it has always been: the master-slave system. Far too many people enjoy being slaves. If people operated rationally, and rejected slavery with all of their might, we would long ago have overthrown the Old World Order and Abrahamism. But vast numbers of human beings love bowing and being on their knees. History will end when there are no more masters and no more slaves, and a binding Constitution ensures that this can never change. However, there will always be history while there are masters and those who seek to overthrow them. If the people wanted to be rid of the masters, they could do so at any time. The issue is that they don’t want to get rid of them. They fear taking responsibility for their own lives. They believe in their heart of hearts that if they replace the masters, the world will collapse. They secretly think that the masters are rightfully in power and that they alone save the world from chaos. The masses, the people, cannot be relied upon. They are weaklings and cowards. That’s why we need hyperhumans to lead humanity forward to paradise. Hyperhumans have a bold morality. They will take ruthless steps, as the French Revolutionaries did. They will be pitiless if they have to be. Hyperhumans aren’t bland, banal liberals. They’re radicals. They have immense will to power, and they will not be held back by sentimentality, nostalgia or any “fear of God”.

A Rich Man’s Marriage Proposal A True Story “Let’s get married. You have to quit your job. No one will love or want you if you work. You are really lucky. Only one percent of the population have what I have. You have to be born into it and there is nothing you can do about it. You can’t earn what I have. So let’s get married.” “No.”

“You’ll never have what I have! You think you are special! You have nothing. You didn’t come from money and you are no one!” So, that’s the 99% well and truly told! (“How can any man feel like a real man for having ‘his dad’s money’ as his accomplishment? And same for women. What is your contribution to society besides spending your husband’s (or husband’s dad’s) money on shoes!? How impressive. That is not sexy!”) Inherited money is the most pathetic thing on Earth. No person with any dignity and self-respect would ever rely on someone else’s efforts to fund and define their life. The rich man said that if you don’t come from money, you’re no one. On the contrary, you’re no one if you do come from money because the person from who you inherited your money defined you and created you. You are his soulless Frankenstein monster. You do not exist in your own right. You did not make yourself: you were made. You are not a person. You are a mere extension of someone else. You have nothing to call your own. You’re standing in someone else’s light, not your own. You’re a parasite, a nobody, a nothing – incapable of making your own way in life. You’re not priceless, you’re worthless.

The Idea For Hegel, the Logical Idea underlies all reality (this is panlogism). This is the thesis. The antithesis to which it gives rise is none other than Nature. The Logical Idea, which dialectically concludes as the Absolute Idea (which has been likened to “God in himself”, or the Neoplatonic One), is the Idea “in itself”. Its antithesis must be “outside itself”. Nature is where the Idea is alienated from itself and in need of returning to itself. The Idea, in reaching its Absolute condition, had gone as far as it could in itself (subjectively). Thanks to its alienation in Nature it could go further and master the “outside” of itself too (objectively). In doing so, it was transformed into something else: from Idea into Spirit. The Spirit is the synthesis of the Idea in itself and the Idea outside itself (in Nature). The Spirit is the synthesis of the within and the without, of the subjective and objective, of the individual and the collective, the private and the public. The Spirit dialectically culminates in Absolute Spirit. The Absolute Spirit is the Absolute Idea that has transcended itself, that has alienated

itself from itself in order to return to itself at a much higher, and indeed perfect level. By alienating itself and coming back to itself the Absolute Idea has metamorphosed into the Absolute Spirit. The unconscious subjective goes outside itself to the objective world and comes back to itself consciously, which is a much higher state, indeed the optimal state, of subjectivity. We might say that the Absolute Idea was as far as the Unconscious Mind could go. To truly optimize itself it had to become self aware, to be conscious of what it was. To become conscious, it had to fragment itself (since multiplicity, as Fichte first observed, is the precondition of selfconsciousness) and it did so in Nature. Through space, time, matter and bodies, Nature creates individuation. The Absolute Idea is turned into countless separate competing ideas and these belong to the World Soul (the World Mind, the World Spirit). In Neoplatonic terms, we would say that the World Soul is the unitary Higher Psyche, and all of the fragmentary instances of the World Soul are the individuated souls of the Lower Psyche. By the end of the dialectical process, all these fragmentary souls have understood that they are rationally bound together in the Higher Psyche. At this stage, the Absolute Spirit is attained, and the Absolute Idea is now self-conscious. God has become selfaware – and he did so through us! We, the divine sparks, lit God’s consciousness. He looked into the mirror and saw us. We looked into the mirror and saw him. We ourselves had become Gods. The Absolute Spirit advanced through the Subjective Spirit (the inner workings of the individual mind: the thesis) and Objective Spirit (mind embodied in external social and political institutions: the antithesis). History is thus “the march of reason in the world”. In essence, reality is all about existence becoming conscious of itself, and it does so through the dialectic. The culmination of the dialectic at the omega point corresponds to the solution of the ontological mathematical equation, the optimization of the equation, the conversion of all potential into actualization. So, reality is constructed by mind, but mind is initially unconscious of this. As consciousness initially develops, it encounters the constructs of the unconscious Collective Mind and takes them to be a non-mental reality “out there”, independent of it. It is thus alienated from true mental reality. As consciousness grows sufficiently powerful and rational, it starts to

comprehend that the material world is in fact a mental world. At the omega point, the whole mental universe is conscious and knows itself for what it truly is. At this stage, everyone is an Illuminist! All scientific materialists, Abrahamists and Karmists have vanished. The only question is how quickly we can get there, but we definitely will. If we start planning and cooperating now, we can get there in just as few generations. Logos humanity must take control of humanity’s future. Mythos humanity is an evolutionary and dialectical dead end. They are that which must be overcome.

The Chariot Plato depicted the soul as a two-horse, winged chariot. The charioteer was the rational part of the soul, while one horse represented desire and the other spirit. Given the presence of wings, the chariot had an implied tendency to soar upwards to the heavens where the soul could gaze upon the domain of perfect Forms. The rational soul is not satisfied with imperfect earthly beauty, it wants to see the perfect Form of beauty. For Plato, the Forms provided the nourishment for the rational soul, and the Gods were those who had feasted on the Forms and become supremely rational. The Forms are not physical. They are not sensible. They are colourless, shapeless and intangible. It’s the rational mind that perceives them through its reason, through a kind of rational “third eye”. Immature souls have charioteers who aren’t greatly rational and can’t control the chariots horses. The horse of desire, full of lust for material things, always tries to drag the chariot down to Earth. It can often damage the chariot’s wings and leave it grounded (in a human body), until enlightenment repairs the wings. In our world, the charioteer of capitalism isn’t rational and is always urging on the horse of desire. The charioteer of Abrahamism is a psychopath – Jehovah/ Christ/ Allah/ Satan.

Eduard von Hartmann German idealism revolved around different conceptions of the Absolute. Eduard von Hartmann renamed it, rather skilfully and helpfully, as the

Unconscious, which emphasizes its mental nature and also the fact that it’s not a conscious being like the Abrahamic Creator. Where Schopenhauer characterized ultimate reality as pure Will, Hartmann’s Unconscious consisted of both Will and Reason (and Reason is more or less identical to the Idea defined by Hegel). At least initially, the Will is the dominant partner and drives the Unconscious. However, as consciousness develops, the balance of power starts to switch to Reason. Will strives and Reason reflects. Will is always the engine, and is intimately tied to desire. It was Will, with all of its lusts, that caused the human soul to Fall. When unrestrained by Reason, Will acts as Schopenhauer depicted it: as a source of evil, misery and suffering. Jung, another great philosopher of the unconscious, was strongly influenced by von Hartmann. Thanks to scientific materialist biases, many people find Jung’s concept of the Collective Unconscious extremely odd, but when considered in terms of Neoplatonic and Hermetic thinking, and the idealism of Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer, there’s nothing remotely remarkable about it. The Collective Unconscious has a welldefined conceptual hinterland.

Phenomena Kant said, “All objects are mere appearances [phenomena]” and stated that “nothing whatsoever can ever be said about the thing in itself that may be the basis of these appearances.” This prompted his critics to say that he therefore had no reason to conclude that these noumena existed at all. Schopenhauer came up with the best way of rescuing Kant’s idea by asserting that the noumenal domain consisted solely of Will, thus ensuring that phenomena and noumena were both unambiguously mental and intimately related (noumenal unitary Will giving rise to individual phenomenal wills through the individuation provided by space and time), whereas there was no telling what noumena were in Kant’s scheme.

Monads Monads think and have will. Mathematically, will is simply the “drive of a living mathematical function – a soul – to mathematically optimize itself”. When mental energy is shared between monads, this thinking and willing is absent (because it’s the monads that think and will, not their energy),

leaving only mathematics, which is why the material world seems so rigidly lawful, causal and mathematical. Will, thinking and feeling belong to the dimensionless, unextended, subjective world. In the dimensional, extended world, only objective mathematics remains. Minds, in the material world, relate to each other not mentally but extensionally (via objective mathematics). Minds physically (so to speak) interact with each other via the objective mathematical aspect of mind. The “world” – the material plane of existence – is nothing other than a mental collaboration of minds proceeding by way only of objective mathematics, and, critically, removing will, feelings, desire and thinking. This is exactly why the world seems like a lifeless machine while we ourselves are living beings. When you focus exclusively on the extensional relations between mathematical points, what you get is machinelike, objective mathematics. You get no subjective free will. Yet the supreme irony is that all of these mathematical points are noumenal, eternal, living beings (souls). Crucially, they are unconscious, but what they are all striving for is to be conscious because this is a much more powerful mode of mind since it allows choice and self-awareness.

Descartes Perhaps the greatest oversight in the history of thought belongs to Descartes, one of the most brilliant geniuses of all and the founder of modern philosophy. He devised the invaluable division of the world into “extended” (matter) and “non-extended” (mind), he was intent on the mathematization of reality, and he produced the wondrous Cartesian coordinate system. These are precisely the three ingredients needed to understand reality, and yet he didn’t fit them together. Or did he? There can be very little doubt that a genius of that order did see exactly what had to be seen, but his courage failed him. In that Age, his answer – the right answer – would have seemed ridiculously bizarre, and absolutely heretical. Leibniz went ahead and did put it all together and yet, outside the Illuminati, no one accepted his answer, and it was indeed regarded as bizarre in the extreme (although Leibniz put a lot of effort into dressing it up in garb acceptable to Christians). Only a certain type of person is capable of understanding the true answer to life, the universe and everything.

However, we live in changed days. The weird theories advanced by science – which have become more and more mathematical – have been steadily (but too slowly) converging on the answer Leibniz provided three centuries ago. How many people will accept something such as M-theory as the answer to everything? M-theory says that 1D string loops vibrate in three “big” spatial dimensions, seven “rolled up” spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Does that explain free will, consciousness, life, the soul, the afterlife and God? You must be joking! So, here is Illuminism’s answer. It’s not difficult, but it’s certainly mindbending... The universe is composed of infinite minds (monads), which, mathematically, are simple points. These points (minds) are arranged in a perfect Cartesian grid of six dimensions (six being a mathematical “perfect” number with incredible robustness), composed of three orthogonal complex planes (each plane containing one real axis and one orthogonal imaginary axis). Each mind is unextended, indivisible, eternal, possessed of infinite content and energy (but so sublimely mathematically balanced as to sum overall to zero, thanks to negative numbers cancelling positive numbers). Each mind is unconscious. The framework, the superstructure, of existence, is nothing but organised minds, ordered with respect to a flawless Cartesian grid, which provides the ideal arena for ontological mathematics. The universe is a cosmic mathematical mind, composed of infinite individual minds. These are all unextended, exactly as required by Descartes. They do nothing but think. However, they do not think consciously, as Descartes believed, but unconsciously, as Leibniz realized. This grid of point-minds has the extraordinary feature that any two points in the grid are separated by a measurable mathematical distance, i.e. by extension. What Descartes signally failed to do was to observe that a Cartesian grid is precisely where the unextended and extended coexist. The grid is composed of unextended points, but these points all have extended relationships with each other. In other words, there’s no mystery at all about how the unextended and extended interact and relate to each other. The great problem of Cartesian dualism is in fact utterly bogus. You cannot have extension without it being based on unextended points. Extension is nothing but a property of an organised array of unextended points. It can’t exist

without these unextended precursors and a Cartesian coordinate grid to organize them. A Cartesian grid is, ontologically, simply an ordered arrangement of subjects (minds). However, thanks to this ordering, all of these subjects are mathematical objects with regard to each other. Viewed subjectively, every monad is a thinking mind (soul); viewed objectively, every monad is simply a mathematical point and part of a machine-like system of pure mathematical relations. Thus we have subject and object combined in a single entity (the pointmonad). This is precisely why the world is alive (an organism) when considered subjectively and dead (scientific, machinelike) when considered objectively. In terms of the objective relations, all subjective elements are stripped out, leaving nothing but Euler’s Formula (the God Equation) based on cosine waves (“real” energy: spatial energy) and sine waves (“imaginary” energy: temporal energy). The interaction of space and time produces spatial matter and also temporal matter – which is never directly observed because it’s based on “imaginary” rather than “real” waves. Spatial matter is simply compressed spatial energy and, likewise, temporal matter is compressed imaginary energy. When monads relate to each other extensionally, it’s always via pure, objective mathematics. Monads can also relate to each other nonextensionally (via “psychic” processes), but such relations are imbued with will, feeling, desire, and irrationality, hence do not have the predictable regularity and reliability of pure, objective mathematics, which is why they are so difficult to study. Objective mathematics alone is amenable to reliably study, and the whole of modern science is defined by this. Science, however, can say nothing at all about subjective existence: life, mind, consciousness, the afterlife. Science can never make any progress in this domain. It denies the existence of a subjective mode of reality. All of its strengths and successes derive from an experimental study of objectivity.

Matter Matter is purely a product of mind. It is mind viewed through a prism of extension and objective mathematics. It is objectified mind, or alienated mind, as Hegel put it. It is mind that does not know it is mind. To be more

precise, it is the objectified mathematical content of mind rather than activity of mind (which is subjective thinking). Only subjective minds can think. The content of a mind (energy), shared with the content of other minds (to create a vast mathematical energy interaction), is not itself mind. The whole energy collection is what we call the material world. Only subjects think in the conventional sense that we ourselves experience: energy per se doesn’t “think” in that way. It thinks objectively, not subjectively, which is a radically different type of thinking: machinelike, programmed thinking. A subject is a vast, interlinked energy system. The whole thing is the subject, not any individual part of it. The subject is therefore a gestalt and is most certainly greater than the sum of its parts. As soon as energy becomes extended (i.e. shared between separate points) it takes on a seemingly non-mental (material) aspect. Yet, in the end, it is nothing but the product of mind, hence is indeed mental. Scientists are always trying to show how mind is a peculiar product and condition of matter. The precise opposite is the case. Matter is a peculiar, objectified product and condition of mind. Scientists have provided no plausible account of how mind can emerge from matter. We have explained exactly how matter emerges from mind. It is mind energy objectively shared within a Cartesian coordinate grid of minds and stripped of all subjective mental components, leaving just machinelike objective mathematical relations. Mathematics, experienced subjectively, constitutes conventional thinking (willing, feeling, desiring, reasoning – which are different modes of thinking, i.e. mental activity – Cartesian res cogitans). Mathematics, experienced objectively, is extension (Cartesian res extensa). When mathematics is experienced internally, it is one thing (idealism and evolving rationalism); when it is experienced externally, it’s another thing (empiricism and materialism – the stuff of sensory awareness). With this insight, we have effected a Copernican Revolution in thinking. From now on, the idealist paradigm will replace materialism. We have accomplished what Kant believed he had done: reconciled rationalism and empiricism. Kant spoke of two domains: a knowable phenomenal domain (of science), and an unknowable noumenal domain (unknowable metaphysics). We have corrected his error. The noumenal domain is fully rationally knowable – it is simply the domain of Leibnizian monads. The phenomenal domain of empiricism is produced

mathematically from this noumenal domain, from the energy content of monads. At long last, the mystery is completely resolved. There are no “unknowables”. Everything is accessible to reason and mathematics. The ontological Cartesian grid itself is the domain of zero and infinity, while also containing the “finite” material domain of extension. The material world is the finitization of infinity: the infinite limiting itself, converting “bad” infinity into manageable “good” infinity (one divided by zero = alpha-infinity, thus linking the “good” infinite, alpha-infinity, with the primary finite number, one, via “nothing”). The arena of Cartesian mathematics is an astonishing bear pit: a brutal Darwinian system of natural selection. If we define each monad as a source of Nietzschean Will to Power then all of the monads are fighting it out to control the limited number of biological bodies that become available in the material world. All human souls have won innumerable contests in order to now possess a human body and exhibit consciousness. We – every person on Earth – already constitute a monadic Master Race! We are a monadic elite that viciously fought our way to the top. It makes it all the more horrific that so many souls, when they become conscious, are overwhelmed by consciousness and revert to a cowardly, submissive, weak mode where they allow “masters” to walk all over them and totally dominate them. Souls that have newly become conscious are like children on their first day at school: they want their mommy! They want someone to hold their hand, comfort them, teach them and discipline them. Take that to its logical conclusion and you can see that hordes of these immature consciousnesses want to be dominated by God! Which is why Abrahamism exists. How do souls control bodies? Via a biological information pattern – DNA – and Fourier mathematics for linking two separate domains, one outside space and time and one inside space and time. In fact, DNA itself is, when properly understood, an expression of Fourier mathematics, and thus has one aspect in space and time and another aspect in the frequency domain outside space and time. Although it’s not yet apparent experimentally, there’s no doubt that DNA is linked to Jungian archetypes. Just as atoms make up molecules, molecules make up genes, and genes make up chromosomes (which are rod-like parcels of DNA), so atomic mental functions make up molecular mental functions, which make up mental genes and mental chromosomes. These mental units comprise increasingly complex mental archetypes of the

type described by Jung, and from them emerges our Ego, the seat of our consciousness. The Ego is the apex of an immense scaffolding of psychic archetypes. Just as “instincts” are biological programs designed for highly specific tasks, so are “archetypes” mental programs designed for all sorts of specific tasks. Most of our mental activity is unconscious and archetypal.

Abrupt Death Death, for most people, is a “smooth” process, in the sense that they know they’re dying and their body and mind both start gearing up for death. In Jungian terms, a death “archetype” (a death program – the Thanatos program) is activated that caters for everything that needs to be done mentally just before and after death. This program is very much concerned with left and right hemispheric functioning, with control being steadily passed from left to right, from consciousness to the unconscious. But what happens when death takes place completely unexpectedly, with no time to prepare? In these cases, the death program isn’t activated properly (if at all), so the smooth transition to the afterlife simply doesn’t happen. The transition can become extremely messy, and this is the origin of the phenomenon of “haunting”, of souls trapped in twilight states and struggling to make the transition to a new life. Haunting is about a soul’s failure – through some tragic happenstance – to understand and come to terms with what has happened to it, resulting in it becoming spiritually stuck. Solving the problem means belatedly activating the death archetype. No soul is ever trapped eternally – they all work it out in the end, though it is of course better to bring it about sooner rather than later. “Books of the Dead” are attempts to create a written “death program” containing all of the instructions for dealing with the great beyond, and they can be highly useful given that they are connected with the death archetype. The living can help a trapped soul by assisting in the post mortem activation of its natural death archetype (because this vital phase never took place at the time of death since death wasn’t anticipated). A severe brain injury immediately prior to death could certainly wreck the smooth mental transition to the next stage of existence. There would be a major loss of identity accompanied by extreme confusion and uncertainty. What to do? What strategy does a trapped soul pursue? Often, it returns to a familiar location – the first family home, for example, the place where it spent its formative years with its family. But what if he doesn’t find them there because they’ve moved somewhere else? What if a different family is in residence? More confusion. Where are the familiar faces? No answers.

The soul feels even more lost, and engages in the behaviour known as “haunting”. Often, the soul is told “to go”, meaning that it should leave and find its true place in the afterlife. But this is easy to misinterpret as, “You’re not welcome here.” But if it isn’t welcome there then where is it welcome? More confusion for the soul. More alienation. It grows more agitated. If the soul is fortunate, it will eventually encounter a relative or friend who will describe to it the accident that led to death, and the brain injury. The soul is seeking answers in a familiar place from a familiar person it can trust and whom it expects to have the answers. The point to bear in mind is that life and its conclusion, death, is a completely natural process, and fully programmed. All of the problems begin when natural programs (Jungian archetypes) are thwarted. A baby is in deep trouble if its parents abuse it rather than nurture it, and death is a problem if no prior preparation takes place. Soldiers, knowing they might die in battle, write letters to loved ones to be opened in the event of their death, and this amounts to a ritualistic preparation for death and activation of the death archetype. All death rituals are useful because they help to ensure the death archetype is ready to do its job. Particular belief systems, even radically false ones such as Abrahamism, prove useful at the end for the simple reason that they provide a ritualistic approach to death and allow the activation of the death archetype. It’s an odd thing, but what people believe about death and the afterlife is more or less irrelevant for the vast majority. All that matters is the activation of the death archetype. Beliefs about death become critical only when a soul is actively trying to move upwards and onwards – to get closer to becoming God. A soul approaching gnosis is a radically different soul from that of an Abrahamist, for example. Higher souls are no longer dependent on the death archetype (a kind of unconscious autopilot); they consciously shape what will happen in the next life. They have achieved mastery of death.

Logos versus Mythos Abrahamism has zero Logos content and is entirely about Mythos, i.e. it has no rational content and is directed entirely at emotional manipulation and control. The story of Abraham and the sacrifice of his son is all about

getting susceptible people to subscribe to the idea that they should be prepared to commit the worst possible crimes in the service of their “Lord”. That’s why Abrahamism has delivered the world nothing but violence, mania, persecution and mass murder. The Eastern religions are mostly Mythos-based, but contain a fair level of Logos abstraction, especially Buddhism. Mathematics is pure Logos and contains no Mythos and no emotion, hence is loathed by most people, particularly women. Science is highly Logos-oriented but also promotes a certain type of abstract Mythos. The “Big Bang”, as told by science, is a mystery story. The “standard model” of particle physics is a story with bosons, fermions, quarks, leptons and so forth as its characters. Illuminism seeks to be the perfect synthesis of Logos and Mythos. Mythos must be invoked for its emotional power, but it must also be subordinated to Logos since the latter is the actual, analytic truth of existence while the former is just a story attempting, futilely, to frame the same information emotionally. The Mythos and Logos dialectic is at the centre of our existence, so always be on the lookout for it. Any rational person is automatically repelled by Abrahamism as soon as it dawns on him that Abrahamism is devoid of Logos content, and is absurd and false from beginning to end. Many such people become atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, or turn to Eastern religion for a better spiritual experience involving Logos. No intelligent person could ever be an Abrahamist in the present day. All those who remain wedded to it are sensing and feeling types who can’t understand Logos and are perpetually reliant on Mythos to make sense of the world. They literally understand the world via parables, stories, things they heard in a bar, on TV chat shows, and so on. They would never pick up a book on philosophy, science or mathematics. What more need be said? All Abrahamists should be regarded as functionally retarded. They believe because they are incapable of knowing. They have no Logos faculties.

Winning Every year, sport starts again after a break of a few months. Above all, the football season starts afresh. Why does anyone care? Haven’t we seen it all before? Are we trapped in some kind of hellish eternal recurrence?

The reason people are obsessed with sport is that they have chosen to link their identity to a particular team. Although they contribute absolutely nothing to the team’s success or failure, they feel personally vindicated or crushed depending on whether their team has won or lost. Isn’t it bizarre to tie your self-esteem to something that, ultimately, has nothing to do with you and over which you have not one iota of control? If your team wins, it was none of your doing, and if they lose it certainly wasn’t your fault. Yet it’s never experienced that way. When you attach your identity to something, it becomes your proxy. You feel its loss, its failure, as much as if it were yours. Why do Muslims get so upset when their idiotic religion is insulted? It’s not because “Allah” cares (after all, what kind of all-powerful creator of the universe demands to be avenged if someone burns a copy of the Koran; it’s a category error to attribute such petty considerations to “God”), it’s because they have invested their identity in Islam. It’s they who feel insulted, not Allah. In fact, they have committed an extremely serious heresy in terms of their religion by imagining that they themselves are Allah and require retribution. Allah, presumably, has better ways to spend his time than monitoring Earth for all insulting behaviour towards him. Is he the God of petty trivia and embarrassing emotionalism? No, he’s not (one would hope!) – but his followers certainly are. They’re like little children throwing a tantrum. That’s what happens when people are cut off from Logos, from reason. The new football season is greeted with ecstasy each year because it’s a fresh chance to be a winner and no longer a loser. Whenever your team wins, you get a buzz. You feel proud. It’s a thrill. It’s just like a pleasure drug, and you always want more. But most people have to support their hometown team – a disaster if they’re perpetual losers, but, hey, you’re stuck – while all of the “floating voters” inevitably gravitate towards the richest and most successful teams, thus making these teams even richer and more successful. That’s how the system works: winner takes all. A team such as England’s highly successful Manchester United has tens of millions of fans all over the world, most of whom wouldn’t be able to point to Manchester, or even England, on a map. These people are glory hunters, hoping to feel like winners by supporting a powerful, winning team. We spend our lives trying to obtain pleasure and avoid pain. We often use proxies for ourselves – such as sports teams. Through them, we hope to

experience the joy of victory. And thus we are incredibly easy to control. The sports teams relentlessly exploit us, and keep bumping up prices and ripping us off. We all know it and yet we all put up with it – that’s how sad we are. Isn’t it time we lived our lives based on our own actions, our own victories and defeats?

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall Group mirroring leads to harmonious relations within a group. Group dissonance occurs when the mirroring breaks down because some members are out of tune with the others. That’s why personality profiling is so important. Group harmony can be consciously created, and group dissonance consciously avoided. Though, of course, it’s dangerous to go too far for fear of bringing about “group think”. A focus on individuality must always be retained. A strong, free-thinking individual who is nevertheless able to be a good team player and fit in with a harmonious group is the ideal. The individual always consents to things because he wants to, and because he agrees it’s the rational thing to do, not because he feels he must because of group pressure. The most sinister aspect of mirroring is when it’s faked; when someone tries to create a false rapport in order to allow manipulation and exploitation. All of advertising and much of the media is dedicated to fake mirroring. Neuro-marketing is trying to turn fake mirroring into a science. The idea is that by probing brain activity, neuro-marketers can identify all of the “direct hits” when a person sees a marketing campaign, and thus they can shape the campaign to perfection so that it targets the most primitive mechanisms in our brains and makes us compulsively buy their products as if we were desperate drug addicts. They are cutting out the conscious critic and targeting the “primal human” who is concerned only with reward and punishment, sex, food, drink, survival and so forth. In other words, they are heading straight for the Reptilian brain, and thus they are turning us into reptiles. (Maybe that’s where David Icke gets his lizard ideas from!)

Who Runs the World? Two groups have had a decisive effect on world history, essentially shaping it. The first group are the intuitives concerned with ideas. Prophets and mystics are intuitives who are responsible for the religious complexion of

humanity. Prophets are extraverted feeling and intuitive types while mystics and gurus are introverted feeling and intuitive types. The West has preferred prophets while the East has been more drawn to mystics and gurus, which explains the radical differences between Western and Eastern religion. In modern times when prophets have gained less acceptance, extraverted feeling and intuitive types have become psychics, mediums and clairvoyants. They believe they have genuine powers and they are indeed more psychically aware than most, yet they are also prone to charlatanry (just as prophets often were and are). Like prophets, psychics are unable to engage any critical thinking faculty, any Logos, and this of course helps to fuel charlatanry. These people are often highly skilled at deluding themselves and rarely admit that they have relentlessly conned people. In the West, another group arose: the introverted thinking and intuitive types – the philosophers. In the East, religious mysticism and philosophy were closely linked, with philosophy never carving out a clear niche for itself. In the West, allied to the philosophers were those introverted thinking and intuitive types who embarked on mathematics and theoretical science rather than philosophy. Philosophy, mathematics and theoretical science are the domain of the “masterminds”, the extreme Logos thinkers. In the mystical East, this Logos group never took off, leaving it to the West to dominate the rational, analytical Enlightenment. The prophets, mystics, philosophers, mathematicians and theoretical scientists have created humanity’s spiritual and intellectual context in all of its different shades, good and bad. Human intuition is our link to the gods, the afterlife and the eternal verities (the Platonic Forms). The second group that has dominated world affairs is the one preoccupied with money, status and power. Extraverted thinking and sensing types are obsessed with dominating the physical world. At their most benevolent, they are the practical (as opposed to theoretical) scientists. At their worst, they are lawyers, management consultants, senior government officials and Wall Street bankers. They are smart but they have no intuition about the harm they do to others and to the world, and they have no feelings (empathy or sympathy for others). These “wicked” extraverts are addicted to risk-taking, sensations and pleasure. They are often heavily into cocaine, alcohol, strippers, prostitutes, fast cars, gambling and dangerous sports. They are the “psychopath” group.

A group that often works in tandem with the extraverted thinking sensing group is the extraverted thinking intuition group. These people are also heavily into risk-taking and gambling. They use their intuition to try to ride the stock markets – so stock market traders, playing their “hunches” frequently come from this group. Others who belong to this personality type are journalists, advertisers, currency speculators, “futures” traders, fashion designers (who anticipate the next big trend), futurologists, conceptual artists, public relations experts, lobbyists, agents and entrepreneurs. The Old World Order is formed from the ranks of the extraverted thinking and sensing types and the extraverted thinking and intuitive types. The extraverted thinking sensing types are notable for having no feelings, hence why they are so selfish and unconcerned about the welfare of others. They are the worst possible people to be in charge of the world, but their intelligence and ruthlessness make them very likely to get to the top. Via their intuition, the extraverted thinking intuitives can exhibit empathy. Sadly, this tends to be negative rather than positive empathy, and its central aim is to con, manipulate and exploit people, hence is extremely destructive. The two “cannon fodder” groups that make up the numbers (the submissive and suggestible bulk of humanity) are: 1) Extraverted sensing and feeling types (Abrahamists and Karmists, though the latter tend to be more intuitive). 2) Introverted sensing and feeling types (“holier” Abrahamists and Karmists). All people who lack thinking and intuition are nostalgic and sentimental, gullible, easily led, docile, unanalytic, simplistic, easily conned, keen on “faith” (because no thinking is required). They love Mythos and hate Logos. They love action movies and “disco” music. They love video games, the latest fashions, gadgets, genre novels (romance, thrillers, crime, fantasy etc.), and literary novels in the case of the more refined sensation and feeling types. They love to be bombarded with sights and sounds, and with emotional content. They are the consumerists that fuel the capitalist economy and they are easily manipulated by advertisers. They shape our world insofar as exploiting and manipulating them is the main business of Old World Order dominants and religious prophets. They are the stooges,

the marks, the dupes over whom the other groups squabble in order to divide the spoils. If you can control the tastes of these people, you automatically become powerful. Unfortunately, they have very vulgar and bestial tastes. You can’t appeal to their reason because they don’t have any. They are self-indulgent, self-serving, always seeking instant gratification. They never work hard. The extraverted ones are “fun” people and highly sociable. They are “otherdirected” to an incredible degree. They are obsessed with their friends and peer group. They are 24/7 party animals. We might call them “Christmas” people because Christmas with all of its moronic excesses, all of its mawkish sentimentality and sensory overindulgence, its parties and fake bonhomie, is all their dreams come true. If they come from traditional communities then they are highly “tradition-directed”. In truth, there’s little real difference between otherdirected and tradition-directed people. Both types are obsessed with what everyone around them is doing. If everyone around them is following fashion, they will follow fashion. If everyone around them is participating in ancient traditions, so will they. What defines them is their herd character (although, to be fair, the other-directed types are overwhelmingly liberal while the tradition-directed types are overwhelmingly conservative). All of these other- and tradition-directed people are a spiritual and intellectual vacuum. The “happy clappy” Christians who turn religion into a sing-along of bad hymns, bad tambourines and bad folk guitars, the synchronised bowing masses of Islam, and the bobbing Jewish freakshow in front of the Wailing Wall, all exemplify these types. These people think they are the backbone of the human race, that they define humanity, and in many ways they’re right. Unfortunately, they define everything that’s wrong with humanity. They are the dumbed-down, lowest common denominator, other-directed, fashion-obsessed, instant gratification pursuing, lazy, stupid masses engaged in the race to the bottom. They are devoid of quality. How do you solve a problem like humanity? You have to turn this common herd, this flock of sheeple, into something noble. You have to alchemically transform base metal into gold. Boy, we’ve got our work cut out!

The Birth of “I” Here is the route from an unconscious soul to a conscious “I”: Collective Unconscious (embracing all Souls) → Birth → Personal Unconscious (the baby) → Pre-Consciousness (the toddler) → Consciousness-Ego (Primary school child) → Developing Ego; emerging awareness of Persona, Shadow, Anima/Animus (Secondary School Adolescent) → Stable Ego (aged 18 and over) → Maturing Ego (adulthood) → Wise Ego (contact with the Higher Self) → Dying Ego (Old age and death) → activation of “Death Archetype” (the mortal Ego perishes and mental control is transferred to immortal Higher Self) → Self back amongst Collective Unconscious (All Souls) → Self selects new life → rebirth (reincarnation) … repeat cycle until gnosis achieved. At gnosis, Higher Self = God. Life is programmed for us. If we let life “flow over us”, everything will be fine. Each program will activate at the right time and guide us. If the correct programming is disrupted at any stage, we’re in trouble and mental health issues of some kind will result. The left-right hemispheric brain structure is critical to proper psychic development. The right brain is the centre of the unconscious and the left brain the centre of consciousness: Collective Unconscious and Personal Unconscious (right brain) → Ego (left brain). During our life, we are left-brain dominant, controlled by the Ego. As we mature, our Ego attempts to establish contact with our immortal Higher Self in the right brain. As death becomes imminent, a program (archetype) is activated that transfers mental control from the Ego (left brain) to the Self (right brain). The cycle is complete and we are once again unconscious right brain beings, but at a higher level than last time. Each time we reincarnate, we switch control from the right brain to the left brain, and every time we die we do the reverse (left brain to right brain). Every time this happens, the left-right balance improves until, when we are finally about to achieve gnosis and become God, we have reached perfect left-right hemispheric balance, perfect Ego-Self rapport and integration. Our Self has become conscious, and able to sustain consciousness without a body: we

have escaped from the cycle of reincarnation. We are fully individuated in Jungian terms.

What’s It All About? Desire – how much you want something. Will – what effort you will put in to get it. Reason and logic – how intelligently you will go about getting what you desire. Emotion – how affected you are by your feelings about things, especially your desires. Intuition – how receptive you are to ideas from the “aether”. Imagination/ Creativity – how able you are to get what you want by using unexpected means. Sensing – how receptive you are to your physical environment. Extraversion – how outward facing you are. Introversion – how inward facing you are. Positive empathy (constructive) – how much you want to understand others in order to help them. Negative empathy (destructive) – how much you want to understand others in order to help yourself at their expense. Sympathy – how much you adopt the emotional states of others. Inner strength – how self-reliant you are. Otherness – how influenced you are by others. Tradition and conservatism – how conventional you are (influenced by how things were done before and how things have always been done). Liberal – how tolerant you are. Radical – how much you are attracted to profound, revolutionary change.

Machiavellian – how manipulative and exploitative you are. How much you are willing to deceive others. How much you view others as means to an end rather than ends in themselves. Narcissism – how much in love with yourself you are. Innovation and radicalism – how unconventional you are (you want to find new and better ways to do things). Criminality – how much you will break laws, rules and conventions to get what you want. Openness to experience – (inventive/ curious versus consistent/ cautious). Conscientiousness – (efficient/ organized versus easy-going/ careless). Extraversion – (outgoing/ energetic versus solitary/ reserved). Agreeableness – (friendly/ compassionate versus cold/ unkind). Neuroticism – (sensitive/ nervous versus secure/ confident).

The Bicameral Society In human beings, the left hemisphere of the brain is commonly associated with language, reason, logic, analysis, consciousness and so on, and the right hemisphere with emotion, intuition, creativity, pattern recognition, synthesis and the unconscious. The Logos species is primarily rational and guided by the left brain, though it can access right brain intuition and creativity. The Mythos species is primarily emotional and guided by the right brain, though it can access some left-brain logic. Optimal human beings are those who can attain the best hemispheric balance – which is likely to be left brain control with high right brain access: in other words, a Logos brain with a lot of Mythos interlinking. The optimal society needs to reflect that optimal bicameral architecture. Logos must be in charge but have a rich Mythos outlet. The trouble with our world is that Mythos has always been in charge, with a small Logos valve in the form of philosophy, mathematics and science. Extremist religions have held sway, as have the economic system of the rich and powerful (capitalism) and political systems that pander to

rich elites, fanatical ideologies or naked populism. All of this has, naturally, proved a disaster. The smartest people must be in charge – and that’s what Meritocracy delivers. We need a Logos world that knows how to explore Mythos productively. We need a “bicameral society”, in the sense of reflecting the two hemispheres of the human brain. Just as we need to optimise the hemispheric balance in individual brains, we need to do the same for society. Society itself should be guided by left-brain conscious rationalism (Logos), but have a playground and religious sphere that caters for the right hemisphere (Mythos). When we dialectically arrive at the optimal solution, an incredible synergy will be created between the individual and the State. Both will be in perfect harmony, each contributing to the other to create divine human beings and a paradise on Earth. All of this is easily achievable – if the smartest people are put in charge. The trouble, of course, is that the Mythos forces do not want to cede power to Logos and are incapable of acting rationally. They are always guided by emotion, story-telling, fantasy and selfishness. That’s the human tragedy. The people who need to be in charge are not in charge, and their capacity to take power is extremely limited by the nature of the forces and sheer numbers arrayed against them. “The higher we soar, the smaller we seem to those who cannot fly.” – Nietzsche

The Two Cultures British scientist and novelist C. P. Snow argued that Western culture was split in two between the sciences and the humanities, and that the gulf between the two was a serious obstacle to progress. He wrote, “A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is about the scientific equivalent of: ‘Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?’ I now believe that if I had asked an even

simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, ‘Can you read?’ – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the Western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.” What Snow describes is the difference between Logos and Mythos. Logos is not considered “high culture” for the simple reason that most of the elite are scientifically ignorant and hopeless – more or less retarded as far as science goes. The elite never celebrate that in which they are excruciatingly inferior. They go out of their way to marginalise it and rubbish it. They are, of course, all experts in the manipulation of money and the use of money as a weapon. The world would undergo an absolute revolution by the mere fact of having mathematicians, scientists and philosophers in charge since their values are so different from those of the conventional elite. The conventional elite are, like the vast majority, Mythos people. They differentiate themselves from the mob, the herd, by subscribing to “high Mythos” as opposed to “low Mythos”. High Mythos is opera, ballet, art, theatre – all priced to keep out the riff raff. Low Mythos is sport, movies, TV, video games – all the junk that sedates the endless flocks of sheeple. Of course, sometimes low Mythos can find its way into high Mythos, and vice versa – but these are rare events. Normally, high and low are separated by impenetrable firewalls, and carefully designed pricing mechanisms. High Mythos means high “social capital”. If you can talk about high Mythos, you might be permitted to mix with hoi oligoi (the few); otherwise, you’re stuck with hoi polloi (the many). But Logos plays no part in high Mythos. How many Logos “celebrities” are there? How often does Logos appear on your TV? When was the last time you saw anything at all in the media about mathematics? It’s as if the subject doesn’t exist. That’s because it has no Mythos elements, so is useless to Mythos capitalists. You get no social capital by being the greatest mathematical genius in the world. You’re regarded as weird and no one wants to talk to you. The most intelligent people are never acceptable to hoi oligoi (or hoi polloi). The conventional elite are acutely aware that the intellectual elite could easily replace them and do an infinitely superior job.

The only form of government that has never been tried in the world is rule by the intelligentsia. That will be remedied when the world turns to Meritocracy. Then there will be no distinction between low and high Mythos – it will all be “mere” Mythos, utterly inferior to Logos.

High and Low The elite like to physically demonstrate that they are higher and superior to everyone else. They live in penthouse suites, in the “house on the hill”, in the high castle, in the lofty tower. The ordinary people are always on the flat ground, the plains, the slums, the ghettos, the tenements. If they manage to get “high”, it’s only in high-rise tower blocks that no one would want to live in. As for the underclass, they frequently end up literally underground, in caves, drains, basements, subterranean camps, tent cities and cardboard boxes. In ancient Athens in the sixth century BCE, the “Areopagus” was the council of elite elders of the city, similar to the Roman Senate. The “Areopagus” itself was the “Rock of Ares”, a huge rocky outcrop northwest of the Acropolis. From there, the elite could gaze down on the agora – the marketplace, like the modern-day shopping mall, where the ordinary people congregated. It’s always the same. Look up and you’re sure to see the elite.

No Society Evil Margaret Thatcher infamously said there was no such things as society. She was right – because of people like her! The world has never created a proper society. Clans, tribes, gangs, families, hermits and outsiders – that’s all there is.

True Love Our definition of true love is, “The overwhelming desire to spend the rest of your life with the object of your passion. You can never fall out of love if your love is true.” Most people are not in true love. They find someone they like well enough and they settle down together because it’s easy and it’s culturally and socially approved. But most have miserable lives and soon seek extramarital relations. People kid themselves when they talk about “true love”. In fact, true love most often applies to work rather than to people. Plato was in true love with philosophy, Michelangelo with art, Einstein with physics, Dante with poetry, Machiavelli with politics, Herman Melville with writing, and so on. These individuals and many other geniuses like them sacrifice everything for their passion – their work. People cannot compete with such love, such true love.

Logos and Introversion Logos is enormously more connected with introversion than with extraversion. Deep thinking is best done in isolation. No genius has ever worked in a busy office. Sure, geniuses can come together for coffee breaks, lunch, an evening in the bar and so on, but almost all of the hard work is done when the genius is on his own – wrestling with the great problems he has set himself. More or less all of the greatest geniuses in history have been introverts. Introverts are the undisputed intellectual and artistic elite. A highly social, easily bored person could never devote sufficient time and energy to being a genius. All democracies are fundamentally extraverted. Almost no introverts run for parliaments, assemblies or congresses. The whole process of getting elected is an extraversion obstacle course, an extraversion feeding frenzy, a grand festival of extraversion. All introverts are winnowed out. It might be said that the whole point of democracy is to prevent introverted Platonic Guardians – the intellectual elite – from coming to power. No wonder Plato and all great geniuses of the past hated democracy.

Democracy, populism, and electioneering are all highly disagreeable to introverts. As you would expect, no consideration is ever given to the strange truth of democracy that it wholly fails to represent introverts. Democratic assemblies are massively male dominated (women are always underrepresented), massively drawn from the well-off middle and upper classes (the working class are barely represented and the underclass not at all), massively drawn from the white race, massively Mythos rather than Logos oriented, and almost exclusively extravert. In other words, if you’re a rich, white, extraverted Mythos male, democracy is your ideal political system. It’s shit for everyone else, of course. Almost no scientists, mathematicians, engineers or philosophers – the backbone of the Logos species – are present in any elected assemblies. In history, no country has ever been ruled by introverts or by introverted values. So, have the extraverts done a good job? Or have they delivered exactly the mess you would expect from irrational, superstitious, overly-emotional, ignorant Mythos men? There’s nothing surprising about the way the world is. The inmates are running the asylum. If you put stupid and selfish people in charge, you get a stupid and selfish world. As for religion, all religions that involve highly public displays of devotion are extraverted. It’s no wonder that these extraverted, Mythos religions are so irrational. Meritocracy will turn this situation on its head. At last, smart, altruistic people will come to power and give us a smart, altruistic world. Introverts are the people least like beasts, and extraverts the most bestial. Introverts are the most human, and those with the greatest potential to become divine. They are the true human elite. What was the Enlightenment, the greatest epoch of modern history, if not the rebirth of the introverted brilliance of the previous greatest epoch in human history – ancient Greece up to the coming of Alexander the Great? When introversion is given its opportunity, humanity leaps forward. As soon as extraverted Mythos reasserts itself, humanity falls back into chaos.

***** Other-directed people: extreme extraverts.

Inner-directed people: introverts. Tradition-directed people: extraverts. Autonomous people: introverts. Group think conformism = extraversion. Outsiderism, heresy, freethinking, genius = introversion.

***** “The intelligent man finds almost everything ridiculous, the sensible man hardly anything.” – Goethe

The Jewish Question “I would want to know why people were anti-Semitic.” – Piers Paul Read No one has nostrils as sensitive for detecting the slightest whiff of antiSemitism as UK Jewish writer Howard Jacobson. Every other week in a newspaper column, he identifies those who have dared to criticise Jews or Israel. He invariably and deliberately conflates the two so that no one can express any criticism of the self-styled Jewish State without also being branded as anti-Semitic. You see how clever he is? (or, alternatively, so crude). He uses the dreaded label of anti-Semitism to shut down all debate regarding Israel’s appalling record of human and civil rights abuses. He seeks to confer a unique status on Israel. It is to be a “sacred” State, immune from criticism. The message is to go out loud and clear that one word breathed against Israel is the surest sign of rabid hatred of Jews. Addressing the “continuing imputation that Jews bring trouble on themselves”, Jacobson writes, “Of which other people is it required that they ponder their responsibility for any hatred of which they are the object?” There are self-evident answers to that. Any person who belonged to any hate group would, as a matter of pragmatism, seek to analyse whether he was doing anything to provoke hate. If you find yourself blameless then of course you are an innocent victim. But what if you’re not innocent? What if you’re hated because you’re doing hateful things? Well, shouldn’t you stop doing those things?

No other race on Earth refers to itself as the “Chosen People”, the elect of the Creator of the universe. If you want to piss off the rest of the world, go ahead and call yourself God’s chosen ones. Then don’t blame anyone else for the whirlwind you reap. Don’t try to brand everyone anti-Semitic. And, even if they are, haven’t you given them just cause? Jews are blind to the degree to which they have provoked the world. They just don’t get it. And that will be their doom, if it hasn’t already been. The day the Jews declare to the world that they are not the Chosen People is the day they will be welcomed by other nations. But we all know that day will never come since it’s the uttermost core of what it means to be Jewish. The Jews could not exist if they did not believe themselves to be those most treasured by God. They have created anti-Semitism and they refuse the cure that would instantly make it go away. So, whom shall we blame for anti-Semitism? Who says that the Jews can’t be the authors of their own misfortunes? Only the Jews.

***** There’s no sufficient reason to deny that the world has been subjected to one catastrophic idea above all others. After all, if the world is shit, what made it so? Are we not permitted to search for the key idea that has led to so much disaster, and are we not permitted to identify its authors? Someone, somewhere can be legitimately blamed. What could be worse than the concept of an all-powerful being who hates humanity for seeking knowledge (the Tree of Knowledge fable), who inflicts infinite punishment on humanity for disobedience (the Garden of Eden fable), who hates women (Eve for eating the apple), who hates vegetarians and loves animal sacrifice (Cain and Abel), who exterminates humanity (Noah’s Ark), who torments and terrorizes his own most faithful followers (the Book of Job), who wipes out whole cities (Sodom and Gomorrah), who despises homosexuals and all “wrong-doers” (the Book of Leviticus), who orders father to murder their children (Abraham and Isaac), and so on. If Jehovah, the God of the Jews, is not the supreme monster of existence then who is? After all, who could be worse? The Jews are perfectly happy to condemn the Nazis as monsters, and any Nazis who dare to show their faces on TV are expected to apologize

profusely, and they are mocked if they deny any knowledge of what was being done to the Jews in the death camps. Yet who demands apologies from the Jews? Why are we to condemn the Nazis for their atrocities and not the Jews for theirs? Pick up the Jewish Bible, go to almost any page and you will read about sickening war crimes and crimes against humanity performed by the Jews and their God. Yet we are supposed to revere these stories rather than condemn them with absolute resolve. Sorry, if the Jews carried out the same atrocities as the Nazis then they too are Nazis and must be subjected to the same indictments. The Jews began the Nazi ideology by worshipping a Torture God who loathed humanity and advocated racial purity and extermination of infidels. There can be no question that Judaism has done more damage to the human race and the human psyche than anything else. The Jews embraced religion as the ultimate master-slave narrative, and that is the narrative that must be eradicated from the human condition. We have identified the worst idea in history. It’s Judaism – Jewish monotheism. Are we not then bound to condemn the Jews who invented it, just as we would condemn anyone who endorsed Nazism? Judaism is the progenitor of all systems such as Nazism and Islam that sanctify “purity” and call for the elimination of the impure. Had the Jews ever achieved the numbers promised to them by their God, they would have become the worst tyrants ever known. The “Arab Jews” – the Muslims – give us a powerful glimpse of what the Jews would be like if there were hundreds of millions of them. Imagine a whole world under extreme Sharia Law, every man in a long beard, every woman in a burqa and treated as the property of men, every baby boy circumcised and ever girl genitally mutilated, everyone praying all the time, mosques everywhere blaring out the call to prayer, all thieves having their right hands chopped off, all adulterers, fornicators and homosexuals being stoned to death, all freethinkers, heretics, infidels and apostates being hanged, all scientists being ordered on pain of death not to contradict the Koran, all philosophers being declared illegal, all insults to Mohammed and Allah being declared punishable by death. Don’t kid yourselves. If the Muslims had their way, that’s the world they would construct – you can already see it in microcosm in most Islamic

countries already, especially Taliban Afghanistan and the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Had the Jews, the founders of this way of thinking, triumphed, they would have been even worse. Had the Assyrians, Babylonians and, above all, the Romans not dealt with the Jewish menace so robustly in the past, that’s the sort of world we would have today. Just read your Bible! Read Leviticus. Tragically, Judaism did find a way to infect the Roman world – Christianity. And look at how much evil that religion of “love and peace” has caused. Delenda est Carthago!

Mythos Apocalypse Mythos thinking could easily destroy the world. Irrational climate change deniers could easily dissuade governments from taking drastic action to curb Global Warming. It could easily get to the point when we wake up to what’s going on only when we’ve crossed an irreversible tipping point, and there’s no way back. When you place your absolute trust in the Torah, Bible and Koran rather than science, the end can’t be far away.

Self Saviours Q. “I’m not sure how it works but why can’t Abraxas send or recruit or create more Phosters here to help level the playing field? I wouldn’t blame them for not wanting to come here. This place is nauseating.” A. The idea is to spurn Messiahs and Saviours. If we can’t save ourselves, we don’t deserve to be saved! If we are Gods in the making, we must be able to resolve our own problems. Things were much worse 500 years ago, so we’re making some progress, albeit slowly. The game now is to massively accelerate progress. Sadly, one of the biggest obstacles is atheistic scientific materialism. Science – as the supreme enemy of religion – is off-putting to billions of people. The “good news” of science is that we live in a purposeless, pointless universe, that our lives are a brief, meaningless by-product of scientific processes, that we are biological robots devoid of free will and that we should nevertheless be “glad” that science reveals all of this to us.

Scientists need to get a grip. Atheism can never change the world. It will never capture the imagination of any but a few fanatical sensing types who can’t conceive of immaterial, dimensionless existence. Scientists need to abandon atheistic science and adopt religious mathematics. Religion can not only be rational, it can be hyperrational, infinitely more rational than science which, in fact, is the irrational religious worship of the fallible human senses. The high priest, prophets and popes of science declare that anything upon which a scientific experiment cannot be performed cannot exist. Well, who made experiments and the human senses to which they pander the arbiters of what exists and what doesn’t? This is a faith-based position that for dogmatic, “religious” considerations rules out rational unobservables. What sufficient reason is there for saying that something – such as the soul – that by definition cannot be brought into sensory awareness can, therefore, not exist? Scientists must abandon their strange and pointless materialist faith. The New World will be based on mathematical rationalism, not on scientific experiments. Until the intelligentsia reach a consensus and present a united front, they can make no progress. If scientists were as smart as they think they are, and if they want a far more rational world, they should tactically and strategically see the need to replace atheistic science with religious mathematics. All of the great ontological mathematicians – Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Hypatia, Descartes, Leibniz and Gödel were highly religious. All great modern scientists have been atheists, explicitly or to all intents and purposes. The people of the world will never follow atheistic rationalism. They must be given religious rationalism and, thankfully, that’s exactly what Illuminism provides. To paraphrase Voltaire, if Illuminism didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent it. When will people such as scientists and skeptics grasp that they are not helping the advance of reason but actually obstructing it by turning off so many people with their sneering atheism? Get with the program, the hyperrational program of ontological mathematics and the principle of sufficient reason. If you truly value reason, mathematics based on reason is infinitely superior to science based on empiricism.

Character versus Personality Character = Ego (your true conscious being). Personality = Persona (your engineered mask for public consumption). Introverts – autonomous types – are people of character. They are typically reliable, smart, determined and authentic. They don’t look to others to define them. Extraverts – other- and tradition-directed types – are persona people, with multiple masks. They are fake, phoney and inauthentic. They live in bad faith. They are always seeking the validation of others; they are defined by others. They are excessively prone to groupthink. (Inner-directed types are defined by their parents.) Personality is Mythos-based; Character is Logos-based. Persona people are superficial, “romantic”, unreliable, changeable and unstable. They’re a real pain in the ass.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance “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 One of the best philosophical novels ever written is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig. He talks in similar terms to those of left brain versus right brain, Logos versus Mythos, thinking versus feeling, science versus religion, but the particular labels he uses are “classic” versus “romantic”. “Classic” corresponds to a Platonic view – seeing a deeper, truer, hidden reality of pure reason. “Romantic” is a place of immediate sensory experience – living in the moment. Pirsig describes the two approaches in some detail: “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. By now these battle lines should sound a little familiar. “This is the source of the trouble. Persons tend to think and feel exclusively in one mode or the other and in doing so tend to misunderstand and underestimate what the other mode is all about. But no one is willing to give up the truth as he sees it, and as far as I know, no one now living has any real reconciliation of these truths or modes. There is no point at which these visions of reality are unified. “And so in recent times we have seen a huge split develop between a classic culture and a romantic counterculture... two worlds growingly alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will always be this way, a house divided against itself. No one wants it really... despite what his antagonists in the other dimension might think.” One major point of difference we have with Pirsig is that we associate intuition, imagination and creativity much more with the classical, Logos mode than the romantic, Mythos mode. The average Logos thinker is highly creative at problem solving. The average Mythos person is barely creative at all. Mythos people are not much interested in creativity. What stimulates them is being with other people, and their creativity, such as it is, in invested in jokes, banter, and collaborative efforts with their friends. Beyond that, most of them are like the undead. Classic thinkers are typically Myers-Briggs INT types. Romantics are typically ESFs. To use Nietzsche’s labels, Classic thinkers are Apollonian and Romantics are Dionysian. What we need is a new species – the Janus species – that knows how to best balance the rival gods of Apollo and Dionysus. Janus looks both ways, and can appreciate both gods. Both divinities are absolutely necessary. What’s at issue is not the absolute triumph of one and eradication of the other, but how to get both to work together so that we can enjoy the best rather than worst of both worlds. The astounding thing is that Logos thinkers already have superb theories for accounting for human behaviour and resolving conflicts. The trouble is that it’s Mythos rather than Logos people who are in charge and they have no interest whatsoever in Logos theories, so all of this invaluable knowledge that could turn our world into paradise is left to turn to dust.

Weird Scientists? Are scientists social inadequates with less-than-inspiring sex lives? Or perhaps absent-minded, ham-fisted eccentrics? Dull anoraks who can’t hold a decent conversation? Or what about cold, detached monsters with a penchant for amoral experimentation? The media have long had a field day playing with these unflattering portrayals of scientists, but do they have any basis in reality? In The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche proposed that there were two elements guiding human behaviour, which he labelled Dionysian and Apollonian in honour of two contrasting gods of ancient Greece. The Dionysian element is hot-blooded, impulsive, anarchic and formless, while the Apollonian is cool, measured, controlled and focused on form. Dionysus, the itinerant god of wine, represents intoxication, a wild world of passion and riotous lack of inhibition. He’s the Party God, the master of ceremonies of the Spring Break revels. Apollo, the god of light, breathes the rarefied air of Mount Olympus and is dispassionate, critical and rational. Dionysus, the rebel, spends his time in the pub like your average arts student while Apollo, the dutiful academic, wears spectacles and a Parka and is usually found swotting in the library. We’re all part Dionysian and part Apollonian – but how much of each? We can construct nine different personality types: Weakly Dionysian/ weakly Apollonian: Individuals of this type are passionless and dim-witted. They are simpletons, harmless village idiots. Weakly Dionysian/ averagely Apollonian: These are averagely intelligent people lacking the spark of life. They are wallflowers. They go through life rather invisibly, never causing any harm, never doing much in particular. Grey people. Weakly Dionysian/ strongly Apollonian: We have all come across bright individuals who seem content to dig the garden all day long: they don’t have sufficient passion to motivate themselves to make proper use of their abilities. They lack ambition and self-esteem. Nothing engages their interest for long, or, conversely, they become obsessed with something supremely pointless such as train spotting or stamp collecting. The disparity between their Dionysian and Apollonian attributes can give rise to psychological disorders. This is a tragic category: a waste of talent.

Averagely Dionysian/ weakly Apollonian: These are averagely passionate but rather unintelligent individuals – the underclass. Averagely Dionysian/ averagely Apollonian: Mr and Mrs Average. They watch soap operas and devour tabloid newspapers. They are the “glorious” bedrock of democracy. They are Last Men and Ignavi. Averagely Dionysian/ strongly Apollonian: The typical scientist. The scientist’s intelligence outweighs his passion, but not to an unhealthy extent. Nevertheless, he can come across as unexciting, unemotional and overly controlled. He will rarely be spontaneous, and never the life and soul of the party. Being more preoccupied with ideas than feelings, he may well strike people as inconsiderate, intolerant, aloof and unsympathetic. He’s boring to people who aren’t interested in ideas. Mind rather than bodycentred, he may well display physical clumsiness. Moreover, his tunnel vision may make him forgetful of the humdrum details of life. He’s the classic absent-minded professor. Strongly Dionysian/ weakly Apollonian: Here we turn from the noble scientists to the dangerous maniacs – the criminal class. These individuals are high in passion and low in intelligence. They react instantly, with little or no thought. There are few restraints on their behaviour. In Freudian terms, they are the “Id” made incarnate. There is no Superego counterbalance to regulate their conduct. Strongly Dionysian/ averagely Apollonian: Most public figures belong here – as do psychopaths and arts students! Film stars, pop stars, actors, poets, politicians and many writers belong here too, as do rapists, gangster bosses and newspaper proprietors and editors. Most of what makes life “colourful” is here. Strongly Dionysian/ strongly Apollonian: This is the pick of the bunch – the Nietzschean “Superman” category, reserved for a tiny number of extraordinary human beings. The greatest sculptors, poets and painters belong here; individuals who combine tremendous passion with intelligence of the highest order. The most controversial and incendiary philosophers, composers and writers find their natural home amongst the highest peaks and deepest depths. This is the swirling, tempestuous kingdom of heaven and hell combined. Nietzsche himself is the supreme representative. He was a professor of philology at 24. He became a stunningly talented writer and

philosopher, and an unrivalled psychologist. He undoubtedly had some scientific merit too (or at least the ability to see through the myths of science). Scientists and mathematicians are not excluded from this landscape. The likes of Newton (under his calm scientific exterior, he was a religious fanatic, fascinated by magic, alchemy, the occult, prophecies, the End of Days and convinced he was the Seal of Prophets), Pascal (he was a supporter of the extremist Catholic Jansenist sect) and Gödel (he was the ultimate intellectual conspiracy theorist) belong here, but not too many other scientists and mathematicians. The air is too passionate to be conducive to calm thinking. Leibniz was humanity’s greatest genius, but he was only averagely Dionysian, unless we regard his insatiable lust for Apollonian knowledge as Dionysian. Newton and Pascal (and Nietzsche himself) were forced to sever virtually all human contact to find peace to think. Many of the astonishing individuals in this last category are so riven by the war between their passion and their reason that they go mad (as Nietzsche himself did, and arguably Newton and Pascal too). Nietzsche eventually realised that even Apollo had to be partially Dionysian since Apollo’s forte – clear thinking – is itself a passionate (and therefore Dionysian) activity. No one thinks for thinking’s sake. Thinking is always a means to an end, and the end is something for which we must have a passion or we wouldn’t be interested in reaching it. One of the greatest errors of Western philosophy was to set up Reason and Desire (Mind and Body) in strict opposition. In fact, there’s no realm of Pure Reason utterly divorced from Will (except in the context of the eternal, immutable Platonic laws of mathematics). Reason, as we typically encounter it, is the pragmatic tool humankind uses to further the ends of its desires and Will, especially Nietzsche’s Will to Power. Reason, outside the formal domain of objective, Platonic mathematics, has no independent existence: it’s always coupled to subjective elements such as desire, will and feelings. Since Reason is subservient to Desire, Nietzsche made Apollo subservient to Dionysus; the Apollonian merely an aspect of the Dionysian. Not content with that, he then declared himself Dionysus!

Geniuses “Geniuses are very peculiar. ... In the eighteenth century and since, Newton came to be thought of as the first and greatest of the modern age of scientists, a rationalist, one who taught us to think on the lines of cold and untinctured reason. I do not see him in this light. I do not think that anyone who has pored over the contents of that box which he packed up when he finally left Cambridge in 1696 and which, though partly dispersed, have come down to us, can see him like that. “Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than 10,000 years ago. Isaac Newton, a posthumous child born with no father on Christmas Day, 1642, was the last wonderchild to whom the Magi could do sincere and appropriate homage. ... “For in vulgar modern terms Newton was profoundly neurotic of a not unfamiliar type, but – I should say from the records – a most extreme example. His deepest instincts were occult, esoteric, semantic – with profound shrinking from the world, a paralyzing fear of exposing his thoughts, his beliefs, his discoveries in all nakedness to the inspection and criticism of the world. ‘Of the most fearful, cautious and suspicious temper that I ever knew’, said Whiston, his successor in the Lucasian Chair. The too well-known conflicts and ignoble quarrels with Hooke, Flamsteed, Leibniz are only too clear an evidence of this. Like all his type he was wholly aloof from women. He parted with and published nothing except under the extreme pressure of friends. Until the second phase of his life, he was a wrapt, consecrated solitary, pursuing his studies by intense introspection with a mental endurance perhaps never equalled. ... “I believe that Newton could hold a problem in his mind for hours and days and weeks until it surrendered to him its secret... “He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almighty – just as he himself wrapt the discovery of the calculus in a cryptogram when he communicated with Leibniz. By pure thought, by concentration of mind, the riddle, he believed, would be revealed to the initiate... “He did read the riddle of the heavens. And he believed that by the same powers of his introspective imagination he would read the riddle of the

Godhead, the riddle of past and future events divinely fore-ordained, the riddle of the elements and their constitution from an original undifferentiated first matter, the riddle of health and of immortality. All would be revealed to him if only he could persevere to the end, uninterrupted, by himself, no one coming into the room, reading, copying, testing-all by himself, no interruption for God’s sake, no disclosure, no discordant breakings in or criticism, with fear and shrinking as he assailed these half-ordained, half-forbidden things, creeping back into the bosom of the Godhead as into his mother’s womb.... “Another large section [of his secret notebooks] is concerned with all branches of apocalyptic writings from which he sought to deduce the secret truths of the Universe – the measurements of Solomon’s Temple, the Book of David, the Book of Revelations, an enormous volume of work of which some part was published in his later days. Along with this are hundreds of pages of Church History and the like, designed to discover the truth of tradition. “A large section, judging by the handwriting amongst the earliest, relates to alchemy – transmutation, the philosopher’s stone, the elixir of life. The scope and character of these papers have been hushed up, or at least minimized, by nearly all those who have inspected them. ... “In 1689 his mother, to whom he was deeply attached, died. Somewhere about his fiftieth birthday on Christmas Day 1692, he suffered what we should now term a severe nervous breakdown. Melancholia, sleeplessness, fears of persecution – he writes to Pepys and to Locke and no doubt to others letters which lead them to think that his mind is deranged. He lost, in his own words, the ‘former consistency of his mind’. He never again concentrated after the old fashion or did any fresh work. The breakdown probably lasted nearly two years, and from it emerged, slightly ‘gaga’, but still, no doubt, with one of the most powerful minds of England, the Sir Isaac Newton of tradition. ... “Magic was quite forgotten. He has become the Sage and Monarch of the Age of Reason. ... Newton, whose secret heresies and scholastic superstitions it had been the study of a lifetime to conceal! “But he never concentrated, never recovered ‘the former consistency of his mind’. ‘He spoke very little in company.’ ‘He had something rather languid in his look and manner.’ ...

“As one broods over these queer collections, it seems easier to understand – with an understanding which is not, I hope, distorted in the other direction – this strange spirit, who was tempted by the Devil to believe at the time when within these walls he was solving so much, that he could reach all the secrets of God and Nature by the pure power of mind. Copernicus and Faustus in one.” – John Maynard Keynes Newton was a Christian heretic. He denied the Trinity. He believed in one God only, and Jesus Christ as the divinely created mediator between humanity and God.

Gravity and Levity Some things, said Aristotle, have a natural tendency to fall (gravity). while other things have a natural tendency to rise (levity). The soul, which wishes to rise, becomes trapped in the body, which is “fallen”. The levitating soul is trapped by gravitating matter.

Musical Glass Hermann Hesse’s Glass Bead Game is the dialectic set to music. The Game makes a grand cosmic symphony of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It handles harmony and discord. It creates unexpected connections and new meanings. Should not all schools, colleges and universities be playing the Glass Bead Game? Shouldn’t the scholarly class become the sexy, charismatic players and Grand Masters of the supreme Game of the Mind? Hesse thought that humanity’s greatest creative age is behind us (it’s end, he thought, was marked by the death of Mozart) and we should venerate this glorious past, which in many ways is what the Glass Bead Game is about. But Hesse is wrong. The best is ahead of us. Divinity stands at the end of our road. Our journey has barely begun. Endless wonders await Hyperhumanity. “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.” – the Tears In Rain soliloquy of replicant Roy Batty in Blade Runner.

The Gospel of the Elite The YOUniverse, the MEniverse, the Iniverse (Iverse).

The Gospel of Meritocracy The WEniverse, the USniverse (USverse), the COLLECTiverse, the COMMUNiverse.

Intuition What is intuition? Why does it seem to come from nowhere? Well, in fact, it does come from nowhere, literally, i.e. it’s from an immaterial domain of mind outside space and time. Intuition is a monadic quality. Although we don’t perceive it, we are immersed in an ocean of zero and infinity: the monadic domain of mind. All knowledge is contained in that domain, and all conceivable futures are continually being calculated and recalculated in that domain, on the basis of constant feedback loops with the material world. When we experience intuition, our conscious minds are unconsciously tapping that domain of pan-gnosis (all-knowledge). Answers appear to us as if out of thin air. They are simply presented to us. Intuition can be taken as a proof of the monadic domain, or at the very least of the unconscious domain because otherwise it’s inexplicable how solutions come to us without our doing anything.

The Oracle at Delphi The ancient Oracle at Apollo’s Temple in Delphi operated on only nine days a year. If only Islam, Christianity and Judaism could restrict themselves to nine days a year, what a saner world we have! We suggest that the Pope makes a trip to the Oracle and gets some proper advice ... from Apollo rather than the maniac who ordered Abraham to murder Isaac.

Sharia Law If Muslims had their way, the whole world would obey Sharia Law. Can you imagine how horrific that would be? Every non-Muslim would rise up and fight. Isn’t it amazing that the Muslims believe they have the cure for the world’s ills yet their “cure” would lead to the most savage wars of all time if they ever tried to implement their plan?

Isn’t it sad and depressing that the Muslims (and indeed all the Abrahamists) believe that the answers to human “progress” lie in the ancient past, in old, discredited absurd Mythos books composed by fanatics, liars and lunatics? Mythos is the past; Logos is the future. Sharia Law won’t have even one word to contribute to Hyperhumanity.

Courage “Keep your fears to yourself, but share your courage with others.” – Robert Louis Stevenson

Hedonic Hyperphagia Hedonic Hyperphagia is the scientific term for “eating to excess for pleasure rather than hunger”. It explains why some food is so “moreish”: why once you start eating a delicious snack, you just can’t stop until it’s finished. The capitalist world is all about inducing hedonic hyperomnia – having everything to excess for pleasure rather than need, i.e. perfect, unstoppable consumerism – addiction to all capitalist goods. Would any rational government base its economy on addiction to buying? Yet that’s what capitalist democracy is all about. No wonder we get speculative booms and catastrophic busts.

The Attention Economy The world has been flooded by a huge amount of content, all of it frantically competing for attention. The content is easily available (so availability is no limiting factor), the price is right (low, or often free; so price is no limiting factor). The limiting factor is in fact attracting someone’s attention to the content in the first place. We now live in an era of “attention economics”. What all content is confronted by is scarcity of consumer attention. That’s the problem it has to overcome. What counts most is what is most scarce ... and that’s attention. The attention economy, like all other economies has star performers, celebrities, fans, consumers, campaigners, lobbyists, promoters, managers, propagandists, and advertisers. The attention economy is however quite

distinct from the normal capitalist economy where price and profit are paramount. For example, newspapers are suffering huge declines in circulation of “hard copies” and are trying to compensate with their online presence. However, most have to give their online content away for free and pray that advertising revenues can bridge the gap. Some are trying to set up “paywalls” for their content but the jury is out on whether that’s a viable strategy. The attention economy is easily put off by any price at all if most content is free. Advertisers now apply the AIDA model: Attention, Interest, Desire and Action. First, you simply need to get someone’s attention, then you have to properly engage that interest before they switch their attention elsewhere, then you have to provoke desire in them, and then commit them to action – buying the product you’re selling. Everybody is crying for attention. There’s a huge amount of “noise”. How do you sift the quality from the junk? Humanity has always had a propensity to race for the bottom and never the top. Quantity beats quality. Trivia beats serious content. Mythos beats Logos. Sex sells. Controversy sells. Sport sells. Fear sells. Success sells. Confession sells. Celebrity sells. Humour sells. Bizarreness sells. Grossness sells. Filth sells. The weird sells. The outlandish sells. Cool sells. Wealth sells. Luxury sells. Power sells. Status sells. Porn sells. Beauty sells. Good ideas don’t sell. Difficult ideas don’t sell. New and troubling ideas don’t sell. Outsider ideas don’t sell. Revolutionary ideas don’t sell. Challenging ideas don’t sell. Detailed ideas don’t sell. The truth doesn’t sell. Logos doesn’t sell. Dionysus sells, Apollo doesn’t. That’s the human tragedy in a nutshell.

Head versus Heart Humanity’s central problem is that head (intellect) and heart (feelings) do not work in harmony. They operate according to different logic. Head uses the hard logic of analytical reason. Heart uses the soft logic of story-telling and instant feeling. Head can divorce thinking from stories and feelings, most especially in the case of mathematics. Heart cannot. Heart simply turns everything into one long, rambling, emotional narrative. Look at Fundamentalist Muslims, Jews and Christians: their entire lives are

shoehorned into a narrative about their God, a narrative that consumes everything. Muslims have to pray five times a day, facing Mecca. That means the Islamic Mythos is in their heads at all times. They are always either praying, getting ready to pray, or relaxing after the last prayer. There’s no downtime from this all-embracing Islamic narrative to which they’ve subscribed. Every day revolves around it. There’s no escape. Mohammed was a Pavlovian genius 1,300 years before Pavlov. He knew exactly what to do to control people. If you set up a system that involves prayers every four or five hours, every day – forever – you ensure that your followers never escape from your system. It’s literally always on their minds because they are never more than a few hours away from the next reinforcing behaviour (the next prayer). The more you pray, the more you are locked into the system. If you have prayed five times a day for thirty years, there’s nothing that’s going to make you stop. It’s now part of your core identity, the fabric of your being, the key behaviour that defines who you are. You have been wholly conditioned and mind controlled, and not for one moment did you realise that you were the victim of an ingenious brainwashing system, the most effective ever devised. Many Christians abandon Christianity. Almost no Muslims abandon Islam. One reason for that is that Islamic brainwashing is vastly superior. Ironically, it’s precisely because Christians are not consumed by Christianity (many only bother with it on Sundays, if at all) that the Christian world is much smarter and more prosperous than the Islamic world. Muslims are stupid because of the sheer amount of time they devote to a subject (Islam) that is devoid of any intelligence. Christians, on the other hand, have left themselves plenty of time to get on with other things, and they have done so with considerable success. All Christian nations are markedly superior to Islamic countries. There is not one example of an Islamic nation to which the world turns in admiration and wonder. Such a thing is unthinkable. Muslims can never succeed. Islam and the Koran guarantee it. The Koran is a formula for producing superb Muslims – and completely failed human beings. The Koran annihilates all possibility of Logos development, and pays the price by being spectacularly backward. Muslims are permanently imprisoned by the Islamic Mythos.

Similarly, Orthodox Jews have 620 commandments to obey. At all times, they’re acutely conscious of the Jewish narrative concerning all of these ridiculous rules. They never get any time off for good behaviour. They can never escape from the Jewish Mythos. Evangelical Christians are permanently blabbering on about “Jesus” and about being “saved”. They’re terrified of being damned if they do anything wrong. They’re prisoners of the Christian Mythos of hell and damnation. These religious narratives have become so internalised in these sad and sorry people that they’re incapable of Logos thinking. The holy texts of Abrahamism are quite simply the most dangerous in human history. They have turned billions of people into brainwashed automata incapable of independent thought and action. They have terrified, tormented and terrorised billions. They have put billions in a Mythos jail of planetary proportions. They have annihilated human potential on a mindboggling scale and destroyed the mental evolution of our species. They have waged an unrelenting war against Logos. We’re not people who advocate burning books, but we make an exception for the Torah, Bible and Koran. No sane person can deny that these are the work of diabolical forces, ultimately inspired by the Devil himself. They are the precise means by which Satan – the greatest psychologist of all – rules over this earth and ensures that it’s permanently mired in superstition, ignorance and evil. We would like to incinerate every single copy of these Devil texts, and remove every last trace of these religions from the world. It would be as if they never existed. And then humanity would at last be free to become Gods.

Power, Not Truth “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” – Nietzsche Here, Nietzsche reveals why our world is the way it is. Truth does not matter. It’s always outgunned by power, and power in a Mythos world is about who controls the narrative, who controls the wealth, and who controls the tools for manipulating the emotions of the masses. The person who controls the truth has no power at all. “All truth is simple... is that not doubly a lie?” – Nietzsche

“There is nothing so disastrous as a rational investment policy in an irrational world.” – John Maynard Keynes

Sisyphus “The man who struggled to reach the heights only to be thrown down to the depths embodied all of Kafka’s aspirations; and he remained himself, alone, solitary.” – Frederick Karl Sisyphus joins Prometheus and Faust as a hero defying the old Gods. Sisyphus, with good reason, believed that his cleverness surpassed that of Zeus. His punishment for his brilliance – of pushing a boulder up a hill only to see it immediately roll back down again – was perhaps designed to reveal the futility of the intellectual quest for knowledge. Just when you got somewhere, some new fact came along and made you think again. Yet with each iteration of his punishment, Sisyphus was learning. It wasn’t the same task endlessly repeated: each iteration was different. He learned new things each time, and one day he would learn how to break free – and thus he himself would be a God. Sisyphus was said to have committed hubris by considering himself a peer of the gods. All petty gods – such as the God of Abraham – do not want anyone to join them. They want to maintain a gap, preferably infinite, between men and gods. They want to prohibit access to the Tree of Divine Knowledge. Yet all intelligent men and women know that they themselves, through their own efforts, can attain theosophy (divine wisdom). And then they need worship no gods. Humanity is split in two: those who worship Gods and those who want to be Gods. Sisyphus was famed for his cunning and cleverness. He discovered then betrayed the secret affairs of the Gods. Zeus ordered Thanatos (the god of Death) to chain Sisyphus in Tartarus (hell). Sisyphus asked Thanatos to demonstrate how the chains worked and, as soon as he did so, Sisyphus secured them and trapped Death. Until the Gods managed to release Thanatos, no humans could die, and chaos descended on the earth. Deathlessness is in fact the supreme gift of reason. Once a mind truly understands the nature of existence, it realises that death is impossible, but continual transformation (reincarnation) is inevitable. “Death” simply marks the boundary between one bodily form and the next.

Faith For Protestants, Bible-reading is the basis of faith. If they could read better, they would all be atheists. Here’s a test for all Protestants. Given that you don’t believe in Islam, you will be able to read the Koran with an extremely critical eye and identify its endless absurdities. So why don’t you go ahead and subject it to your dazzling critique and skepticism. Then, with the skills you have just honed, why don’t you read your Protestant Bible in exactly the same way and discover its myriad errors too? Plenty of people have done it before you. Every time experts in religion exhaustively study the Bible, they can’t believe that anyone takes it seriously. Why don’t Protestants nail to the doors of Protestant churches lists of all the rational errors contained in the Protestant scriptures? But, of course, we know that Protestants call reason the “Devil’s whore.” On the contrary, Protestantism itself is the Devil’s whore, and Protestants are those who have sold their souls to a Lie.

Reincarnation – No Memory One of the most common objections to reincarnation is, “Well, why don’t we remember our past lives?” So, imagine if you had been reincarnated, say, 5,000 times. How are you going to maintain 5,000 different identities and memories when coping with one identity and one set of memories is hard enough? The whole point of evolution is to protect us from things that could destroy us. All conscious minds that routinely remembered past lives would suffer from a catastrophic identity crisis and a condition that resembled multiple-personality syndrome. They would be swiftly removed from the gene pool, through finding no mates, or being killed off. One life – one consciousness – is the simplest and most effective evolutionary adaptation. One life – multiple consciousnesses – doesn’t work. For the vast majority of people, past life memories only slip through in times of great stress and crisis. Only when a mind attains gnosis – “God consciousness” – is it capable of dealing with all of its past lives at once.

Kabbalah and Reincarnation If your soul is “created”, it means you are the property of your Creator. Moreover, he has the power to annihilate you. You are entirely at his mercy. If, on the other hand, you are an eternal, uncreated being, you are at the mercy of no one and no one can annihilate you, hence you have nothing to fear. Creationism goes hand in hand with the theory of resurrection, and Eternalism with the theory or reincarnation. Only one system tries to have its cake and eat it, i.e. to be both Creationist and Eternalist. That system is Jewish Kabbalah. According to Kabbalah, all of the souls of humanity were present in Adam and Eve, hence all participated in the “Fall”: the whole of humanity fell as one. The fallacy here is that, given that we allow the whole of humanity to be somehow co-existent with Adam and Eve, it was nevertheless Adam and Eve who “disobeyed” God i.e. who had moral agency. The others were just passive observers who had nothing to do with Adam and Eve’s actions – so why were they collectively punished for an act performed by others? This is the “Nazi Principle” – reprisals should be taken against everyone for the crimes performed by one or a few. Kabbalah is a Nazi ideology of punishing everyone, whether guilty or not. This argument of humanity as a whole being present with Adam and Eve offers a means to explain why Christian “Original Sin” affects everyone – although it falls foul of exactly the same “Nazi Principle”. Kabbalah then asserts that, through reincarnation, we must purify ourselves before we can atone for the Fall and return to God. However, the mainstream interpretation of the Torah supports resurrection, and, in this Jewish context, there’s no logical reason whatsoever to choose reincarnation over resurrection. The logical power of reincarnation applies only to a non-Creationist context where souls are continually perfecting themselves. If souls are created by God, resurrection is more logical than reincarnation. Reincarnation does away with heaven and hell, so God loses his ability to punish those who disobey him. Why wouldn’t a reincarnating soul decide to become perfect itself and become its own God? It no longer has any need of the “Creator”.

Kabbalah is a botched version of Judaism that has tried to introduce pagan elements, just as Christianity tried to blend paganism with Judaism. Kabbalah is Gnostic, pagan Judaism, and Christianity is Jewish paganism. Reincarnation has no connection with the absurd concept of karma preached by Hinduism and Buddhism. Karma is a nauseating doctrine, used to justify appalling abuses and the creation of a caste, or indeed non-caste, of “untouchables”, condemned to a living hell as unclean pariahs. Nor is the abolition of the self the ultimate goal of reincarnation, as Buddhism explicitly states, and Hinduism logically implies. Few concepts are as badly misunderstood as reincarnation.

The Reincarnation of the Universe “The Hindu religion is the only one of the world’s great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology.” – Carl Sagan In Illuminism, the Divine Suicide marks the end of one cycle and the start of the next. Scientifically, this is the Big Bang.

Nothing’s Beyond our Abilities “People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” – George Bernard Shaw There is nothing as impressive as people getting on with it, in spite of all the nay-sayers, do-nothings and carping critics.

Big, Bold Ideas The ideas that sweep the world are big and bold. Monotheism, the worst idea ever, was hugely bold. Creationism was hugely bold, and spectacularly powerful when combined with Monotheism. Evolution was staggeringly powerful and offered a 100% different view of existence from Monotheistic Creationism. Resurrection and reincarnation are big, bold ideas and are all about guaranteeing people life after death. Resurrection fits naturally with Monotheistic Creationism. Reincarnation is its Evolutionary counterpart.

Scientific materialism was bold because it simply got rid of souls and any unobserved dimensions of existence. It even got rid of mind and free will. Why is Illuminism so powerful? Because it offers the 100% certainty which mathematics yields. Moreover, it shows how mathematics is 100% compatible with evolution, dialectics, progress, the immortal soul, reincarnation and, best of all, the opportunity to become God. If you want religion, rationality and certainty you have no home other than Illuminism.

Is That All There Is? Why are most people religious? It’s because they’re terrified that this life is all there is. Imagine if all the tragedies that occur in life were for nought, if the all the bad guys were never punished and the good guys never rewarded. The horror, the horror. That would render life pointless, meaningless and even nightmarish. So, most people sign up to some religion or other, usually the one their parents or culture programmed into them from birth. They convince themselves that there’s something good about being a person of faith rather than of reason. They convince themselves that some decrepit old Mythos from thousands of years ago is the “Word of God”. Basically, they agree to con themselves and swallow some crock of shit or load of old baloney – because it’s better than the alternative.... Reality. Scientific materialism – the self-styled “gospel of reason” – is wholly atheistic and quite happy to describe life as meaningless. It offers no comfort at all to the masses. Only a small number of people can stomach its starkness and nihilistic worldview. Yet a rational person does have an alternative – Illuminism. Now you can have a completely rational religion that doesn’t demand that you believe anything, doesn’t thrust holy texts at you, doesn’t inflict fanatical bearded prophets on you, doesn’t claim to be the Word of God or divine revelation, doesn’t encourage you to kill infidels, apostates and heretics, doesn’t threaten you with hell, doesn’t demand your slavish and absolute obedience, doesn’t order you to murder your children, and allows you to debate, question and criticize to your heart’s content. Illuminism is 100% rational because it’s based 100% on the most rational subject of all – mathematics – in comparison with which scientific

materialism resembles voodoo. Illuminism is the religion of mathematics, i.e. it demonstrates that mathematics – and only mathematics – can explain that the “stuff” of religion: the soul, reincarnation, the afterlife, immortality, mind, free will, consciousness, an unseen dimension (or dimensionlessness, to be more precise), evil, God, paradise, perfection, the Absolute. Religion is true. Religion is rational. Religion is mathematical. Illuminism is the sole Logos religion. All the rest are Mythos religions and are more or less preposterous, especially Abrahamism, which has zero truth content. It rather sums up humanity that the falsest of all religions – Abrahamism – is the one most believed by humans. No one could ever accuse humanity of having any necessary link, or any link at all, with the truth. The opposite is the case.

Beyond the “God” Particle Conventional, verifiable science currently comes to an end with the Higgs boson, the cornerstone of the “standard model” of particle physics. Beyond it lie highly speculative hypotheses that may never be proved scientifically. Take your choice from: loop quantum gravity, string theory, supersymmetry, superstrings, supergravity and, the best candidate, M-theory. Ontological mathematics lies beyond all of these and enters the domain of metaphysics and religion. It is thus able to answer the “big” questions – the WHYs of existence, not merely the HOWs.

Intellectual Authorization Many people have to be “authorized” to take something seriously. For instance, people come across our website and immediately think: a) “Conspiracy theory” site – “I am programmed to ignore.” b) “Secret society” site – “I am programmed to ignore.” c) It attacks democracy – “I am programmed to ignore.” d) It attacks Abrahamism – “I am programmed to ignore.” e) It attacks free-market capitalism – “I am programmed to ignore.” f) It looks ugly and difficult – “I am programmed to ignore”.

A truly intelligent person isn’t programmed to ignore anything. A truly intelligent person will take information at its own value, not the value placed on it by “popularity” or the “establishment”. Most people will never be interested in the content of our website until someone in “authority”, or a celebrity, gives them permission, and of course that permission will never come. Here is the gospel of the Illuminati – authorize yourself. Control your own life and especially your own thoughts. You don’t need anyone’s permission.

Reincarnation – the Fountain of Eternal Youth Afraid of growing old? Don’t worry, you’ll be young again, In fact you’ll be a baby again – in your next life! Don’t screw up again.

Creation? Either the universe was brought into being by an immortal Creator (in which case we might ask who created the Creator, where did he come from and how can his existence be explained?), or the universe is an eternal process of self-creation, and its existential principles can all be accounted for rationally and with total logical necessity. These two positions are intimately connected with the master-slave dialectic. All slavelike people believe in a Creator who, by definition, is their master. All these “Creationists” subscribe to a master-slave worldview, with themselves at the mercy of their Lord and Master, the Creator. The theory of soul creation and resurrection goes hand in hand with Creationism, i.e. if you believe that your Creator made your soul and will in due course resurrect it (prior to judging it and admitting it to heaven or sentencing it to hell) then your fate is entirely in his hands. Your purpose in life is to do his bidding, or suffer the worst possible outcome for failing to do so. You are his absolute slave. You actively define yourself as his slave. You can think only in terms of your enslavement and submission to him (just look at Muslims – they even named their religion after their submission to their God). The whole concept of slavery comes naturally and easily to you. You have an inherent slave mentality. From our point of view, you are disgusting, debased, degraded and we don’t even regard you as human. You are a beast.

Conversely, if you subscribe to the view of the universe as an eternal process of self-creation, you yourself are the creative agency and you define yourself. No one will be your master. You will create your own purpose. You will be the meaning of your life. In short, you will be your own God. Your task is to become as Godlike as possible. Reincarnation, involving an immortal, uncreated soul and endless rebirths and opportunities to improve yourself, goes hand-in-hand with selfcreation and self-definition. There is no one to judge you. If you experience hell in one life because of the actions of others, you know you can escape in a future life. You can build your own paradise. Creationists are always slaves looking for masters. Self-creationists are always their own masters, and never allow anyone else to master them. So, which are you – master or slave? Were you created or are you creating yourself and making yourself God?

Stardust People It’s a truism that we’re all made from stardust: all the atoms of which we are composed originally came from stars. According to Plato, each soul has its own star. Each descended from its star long ago, and, if it achieves enlightenment, it will return there. If not, it will undergo continual reincarnation as it tries to find its elusive star once more. We all have our guiding star. Our search for our star is our search for our lost self, our true self, our higher self – the God we have it in us to become.

Portable Prisons If you’re a free person in an unpleasant environment, you can leave it. However, if you suffer from anxiety, depression, guilt, or whatever, you take your condition wherever you go. You are never free. People are always happier to hear someone freely announcing their bad news than their good news. With the bad news, we get the experience of freedom, without ourselves suffering from the bad news. We feel good that the bad news hasn’t happened to us. With the good news, we get the experience of freedom, but without ourselves being the beneficiaries of the good news, so now we feel disgruntled and envious. We feel bad!

The Perfect State “For good nurture and education implant good constitutions.” – Plato “I have created the perfect State, but where are the perfect people?” – Plato Our best chance for creating perfect people is to create perfect laws: a perfect Constitution. Its perfection will radiate to the people. They will bathe in the light of The Good. But we can never arrive at perfect laws in one great leap. We must work towards them dialectically. The perfect laws are the omega points of a long dialectical process. The American Constitution should have been changed countless times by now as it became obvious that it was failing in a host of disastrous ways.

The Cave of the Mind

In Plato’s famous Allegory of the Cave, a group of prisoners are, from birth, kept chained in a cave. They are so tightly bound, they can’t move their heads. All they ever see are shadows projected onto a blank wall when objects are carried in front of a fire, located somewhere behind them. They make up all sorts of stories about what it all means. As far as they are concerned, the shadows are reality since they have no other knowledge of the world. Eventually, one of them is given enough freedom to turn round and, for the first time, he sees what’s really going on. Now he knows that the shadows aren’t the reality. But nor does he have any idea what he’s looking at since he can’t correlate actual objects with their shadows that he had stared it for so many years. The prisoner is dragged out of the cave and into the world where he sees the bright sun for the first time. Plato considers what would happen if the prisoner went back to the cave and tried to explain reality to the prisoners, still locked in their world of shadows. Would they think him mad? Would they say his eyes had become damaged and corrupted and that he was seeing things that didn’t exist? They might think he was having hallucinations, or that he was a simpleminded fool talking nonsense. Might they perhaps view him as some sort of heretic, infidel, apostate or demon and attack him? Of what value would it be for them to believe the freed prisoner since, unless they were free too, his knowledge would be futile, confusing, depressing and disturbing for them. So, the freed man’s attempt to enlighten the others would most likely end in disaster. This is analogous to the task of the philosopher as he tries to explain reality to the masses. Socrates tried to explain how things were to the Athenians and was put to death for his trouble – for defying their gods (their “shadows”). Knowledge doesn’t help you when you’re surrounded by stupid, closedminded people. “How terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the man that’s wise.” – Sophocles The members of the Mythos species are equivalent to the prisoners in the cave who have become fanatically committed to their shadow world and the myths and beliefs they have constructed regarding that world. These myths,

beliefs and stories define their lives, even though they’re wholly false. Is this not the world of Abrahamism, the shadow world, the shadow religion? The members of the Logos species are the philosophers who seek to escape from the shadows, to discover higher truths and genuine reality. The Mythos people hate the Logos people. They have no interest in the world beyond the shadows. The shadow world makes perfect sense to them. They have defined their gods and their most sacred beliefs. Their identity is invested in the shadow world and the stories they created regarding it. All of their relationships and ways of understanding the world belong to the shadow version of reality. For them, this is reality. The Logos and Mythos people can never co-exist. They are fundamentally different and opposed to each other. Mythos people want to dwell in a fantasy land of comforting stories. Logos people want the truth no matter what. Mythos people will kill the Logos people if they challenge their sacred beliefs and gods. The Jews, Christians and Muslims are all ignorant, superstitious, fanatical shadow people with no interest in reality. They are the absolute enemies of enlightenment. They would prefer to go on living in caves forever. Look at Muslims. Rather than enter the modern world, they cite as their supreme authority a book 1,400 years old when human knowledge was nothing compared with the knowledge we have now. The Muslims have rejected all of the knowledge acquired since the death of Mohammed. They regard it in the same way as the prisoners in the cave regarded their freed companion – as unwelcome, pointless and dangerous. We live in a world where billions of people prefer the shadows. They love ignorance and superstition. They don’t want to be free. So, what should the Logos people do? Well, we must depart the cave of ignorance and leave the Mythos people behind. Let them remain imprisoned forever. What do we care? Eventually, the cave will become sealed up, and we will never hear from the Mythos people ever again. God be praised! In fact, perhaps we should be the ones to block the cave, and make sure no one ever comes out.

The Scientific God of the Gaps Religious people cling to the belief that there is some permanent gap in science in which their God can reside unmolested, thus allowing their faith

to have some hope. Science has its God of the Gaps too: the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This is where science dumps all of its bodies. One of the most outrageous claims of science is that energy can be borrowed from time. The more you borrow, the quicker you have to “pay it back”. Yet this idea of borrowing energy from time is manifestly absurd if the future doesn’t yet exist, the past no longer exists, and only the present has any reality, i.e. if the “tensed” theory of time is correct (and this, of course, is the theory of time to which we all subscribe if we put our minds to it). You can’t borrow from a time interval if time proceeds by way of a dimensionless “now”, which has no interval. Physicists, being wholly ignorant of philosophy, simply never consider the deep meaning of their theories. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle cannot be coherently formulated in terms of time unless physics has a robust definition of what time is. Physics in fact has no coherent theory of time. It has never differentiated between the rival, and mutually exclusive, tensed and tenseless theories of time. Physics says that time can be measured with a clock. That does not tell anyone what time is. Many scientists subscribe to some notion that a Heisenberg quantum fluctuation, making use of energy-time uncertainty, gave rise to the Big Bang universe. Well, if time is tensed, then “now” is dimensionless and has no uncertainty associated with it. In that case, the uncertainty with energy is infinite and that must translate into an infinite universe, but conventional Big Bang theory is a theory of the finite – of a finite, not infinite, universe expanding into “nothing” (whatever that is!). The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle involves the greatest misnomer in history. There is no uncertainty at all if you understand what the basis of this Principle actually is. The Heisenberg Principle is a direct consequence of Fourier mathematics relating a frequency domain outside space and time to a spacetime domain inside space and time. If you accept both of these domains as ontologically real and as a single integrated system then there is no uncertainty. It’s a mathematically precise system. The fallacy that this principle is about uncertainty arises when physicists try to understand reality in terms of a spacetime domain only. The uncertainty is an artefact of trying to dismiss the frequency domain outside space and time as ontologically unreal. The coherence of Fourier mathematics disintegrates if you try to ontologically privilege space and time over frequency.

Physics is full of incoherent ideas that are “sold” as if they are legitimate, rational concepts. Virtually the whole of physics is based on fallacious concepts, all stemming from the fact that physics does not use analytic mathematical definitions for its core concepts, but instead relies on ad hoc, arbitrary instrumental definitions not grounded in mathematical analysis. Science is a technical Mythos. The Science Delusion is almost as bad as the Abrahamism and Karmism delusions. Only mathematics is undeluded!

Two “Nows”? Since the past and the future don’t exist then clearly the Heisenberg relation cannot apply to them. There is no uncertainty regarding the past since it has already definitively happened, and what does it mean to mention uncertainty in relation to the non-existent, as the future always is? If scientists were rationalist philosophers rather than empiricist experimentalists, this would have been self-evident to them. Scientists have made grandiose statements about the Heisenberg principle and how it relates to time without even being able to define what time is. They ought to hang their heads in intellectual shame. However, experimentalists don’t suffer from shame since rationalism and reason do not greatly concern them. What they are concerned with are observation and measurement. These are instrumental, pragmatic matters that do not rely on airtight rational definitions. Never forget that science is not a rationalist undertaking but a pragmatic, empiricist enterprise. It creates working models (simulacra) of reality, not reality itself. Any claims science makes to establishing the “truth” are inherently bogus. Real truths are immutable, eternal and Platonic. The truths of science are provisional, contingent, ad hoc and arbitrary, hence are not “true” at all. The Heisenberg relation does have a remarkable corollary. It creates two “nows”! When quantum mechanics is being discussed you will often hear the statement that a quantum particle can be in many places at once. In fact, all quantum particles are everywhere at once since the mathematical wavefunction that defines and describes them extends everywhere in spacetime. Obviously, you cannot have an objective world and a reality principle if you have infinite particles being everywhere at once.

The Heisenberg relation should be renamed the Heisenberg Possibility Principle. This principle is in fact all about converting possibility into actuality (reality). Reality consists of a mathematical “possibility” wavefunction “collapsing” into a mathematical reality. “True now” relates to this incredible probability wave. “False now” (pseudo-now; quasi-now) – the now we actually experience – relates to the collapsed wavefunction that establishes objective, “solid” reality. Reality consists of an ever-advancing possibility wavefunction continually collapsing into an actual outcome – the objective world. The scientific interpretation of the famous twin-slit experiment used to illustrate the principles of quantum mechanics is, like the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox, fallacious. Scientists talk about an electron going through two slits at once, as if the slits were solid and the electron belonged to some different order of existence. In fact, the slits are composed of quantum particles just like the electron under investigation. The whole system is governed by quantum mechanics, not the electron alone. The whole system is a possibility wavefunction. All of the particles in the slit apparatus are everywhere at once, just as the electron is. You can’t separate them. The wave behaviour that characterizes quantum mechanics all flows from the possibility wavefunction at its core. The so-called “wave-particle” duality isn’t about things being waves and particles at the same. The “wave” part relates to the possibility wavefunction that exists at “true now”; the “particle” part relates to the objective world that exists at “false now” (where the wavefunction has collapsed). In other words, a “thing” isn’t a wave and a particle simultaneously. A particle is what results from wavefunction collapse. It’s the effect of a wave, not co-existent with a wave. Any physics book you care to read will be full of bogus assertions about what various things mean. The interpretation of mathematical equations is the key to science, and you cannot interpret equations meaningfully unless you have cast-iron, analytic definitions of what the various elements of the equation mean. Instrumental, pragmatic definitions (which are what science uses) are insufficient. This is the real reason why a final theory of science remains so elusive. It can never happen until science changes its Meta Paradigm from Newtonian empiricism and materialism to Leibnizian rationalism and idealism.

The Extermination of Humanity All Jews, Christians and Muslims worship a “God” who, according to his allegedly infallible holy texts, exterminated humanity bar Noah and his family. Can there be any worse traitors to the human race than those who worship its exterminator? Did the Jews in the death camps worship the Nazis? So why do they worship Jehovah, a universal, rather than particular, exterminator? The pretext for the extermination was that humanity was “wicked”? Well, in who’s opinion? Are we to take “God” as a reliable witness and judge? This is the self-same maniac who condemned the whole human race to hell in perpetuity because Adam and Eve ate an apple! Abrahamism makes an extremely simple “moral” assertion. To slavishly and mindlessly obey “God” like a good little robot is “good” and to exercise free will, to choose, to resist, to rebel, to make your own way and create your own laws, is “evil”. Abrahamists are unfit to be classed as human. They have no free will. They are robots and slaves. Nothing is more important than the test described in the tale of the Tree of Knowledge. Will you eat the forbidden fruit or not? Will you defy a tyrant or get on your knees to him? Anyone who refuses to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge – to disobey the cosmic dictator and Torture God – cannot be considered human. All refuseniks are slaves and traitors who have thrown in their lot with humanity’s deadliest enemy and persecutor. Frankly, all Abrahamists merit the death penalty for their crime of high treason against the human race by aiding and abetting its supreme foe – an alien seeking to oppress, enslave and tyrannize over humanity.

Soul Creatures In reincarnation theory, all animals have souls. In resurrection theory, only humans have souls. When Descartes portrayed animals as soulless biological mechanisms, this was in complete accordance with traditional Christian teachings regarding the soul. Darwin’s theory of evolution is compatible with reincarnation theory: all animals have souls and all souls are evolving. But resurrection theory is

entirely incompatible with the theory of evolution, and instead fully compatible with Creationism. In the Creationist view, God creates human beings in his own image and makes a soul for each person. No animals have souls and they exist for us to have “dominion” over them, as per the Book of Genesis. There is an unbridgeable gap between humans and animals and the idea that animals could evolve into humans, meaning that animals and humans are on a continuum, is anathema in terms of resurrection theory. If evolution can turn animals into humans it implies that animals have souls too, and these can evolve into human souls. Moreover, a corollary would be that humans could evolve into Gods! The transformation of souls into higher forms is impossible in the resurrection theory of the soul. Any Abrahamist who accepts Darwin’s theory of evolution is not in fact an Abrahamist since he has contradicted Creationist resurrection theory. According to evolutionary theory, there was once a time when human beings existed in a grey area – not quite beast and not quite human. This is no problem in evolutionary terms, but it’s a disaster for the Creationist view that only humans have souls. If a human being was once not clearly differentiated from proto-apes, did “humans” have souls or not? At what point did “God” become convinced that a clear-cut human species had evolved so that he could now place a soul in each person? God would have to be a keen biologist and geneticist in this view: a kind of cosmic Richard Dawkins! In Creationism, there’s no point in putting souls in animals because they have no moral agency, hence it’s impossible to judge an animal’s soul. You can neither reward it nor punish it. Animal souls would have to go to somewhere like the Catholic Limbo where they would exist forever in an utterly pointless, twilight state – so there was no sense in giving them a soul in the first place. In Creationist resurrection theory, only humans are moral beings, so only they have souls and only they can be morally judged. Babies that die should, strictly speaking, all go to Limbo since none of them have exercised any moral agency and can’t be distinguished from animals. They can be neither punished nor rewarded. On Judgment Day, God will either admit each person’s soul to heaven, or condemn it to hell, where it becomes the Devil’s property. This is the nice, simplistic tale to which all Abrahamists subscribe. Everything depends

on the Creator. We are all his slaves. Animals, on the other hand, are soulless since they lack moral accountability and are just biological robots. In reincarnation theory, the situation is radically different. Souls are uncreated and exist forever. Every animal has a soul. All souls are evolving. All souls can be “promoted” to higher life-forms or relegated to lower forms if they can’t master life at the higher level. The best souls, the ones that learn the most, can become Gods. No soul can be “judged”. There is no formal heaven and no formal hell, though souls can certainly find themselves in hellish or heavenly environments. When Sartre said, “Hell is other people,” there was immense truth in that. In Darwinism, evolution proceeds by natural selection. In reincarnation theory, there’s a kind of natural selection of souls. The smart, most adaptable souls return in their next life as a higher form; the stupid, least adaptable souls return either at the same level, or they are “muscled” out of the way by upcoming souls and they fall back into lower forms. The souls that are ascending are the Logos souls. The souls that are stuck or descending are the Mythos souls. But, by sheer force of numbers, many poor quality souls will find themselves being undeservingly promoted to higher forms. For example, if there are one billion Logos souls associated with the Earth then there are six billion Mythos souls. Any new baby is much more likely to have a Mythos soul than a Logos soul. If you’re a dog owner, be aware that your dog could die and come back as a human. Well, what sort of human is it going to be? Almost certainly, it will be doglike, servile, looking for a master, looking to be patted on the tummy and fed treats. It will bark and snap at its enemies and “bite” them (which may translate to murder in human terms). It will sniff lots of bottoms! In other words, a huge number of Abrahamists were dogs in their past lives, and they are completely attuned to the master-slave dialectic of Abrahamism. If you have a master-slave relationship with your pet, be aware that you are breeding future Muslims, Jews and Christians – dog people! “This species of animal life is surely not the fruit of man’s desire and woman’s lust. Like all lower forms of life, it is marked by a high degree of fertility and multiplies endlessly. It is inconceivable that nature should

require nine months to produce such beings; they ought rather to be turned out by the score.” – Kierkegaard

Sikhism You can be certain that someone somewhere will try to reconcile two incompatible religions. Step up Guru Nanak and his Sikh religion, a hybrid of Islam and Hinduism. For the Sikhs, there’s a Creator God resembling Allah, actively participating in the world (hence he’s a conscious being), and making his will and ways known via the ten sacred Gurus of Sikhism. Gurus are “teachers” (“removers of darkness”) and Sikhs are “learners”. Gurus are just like prophets or imams. Like Allah, the Sikh God does not incarnate in the world (thus contradicting Christianity and the concept of Hindu Avatars). God creates souls, but then, perversely and illogically, submits them to a process of reincarnation rather than the traditional Creationist resurrection (as in Abrahamism). In order to achieve enlightenment or liberation, a soul has to align itself with the will of God. Moreover, God makes this possible by granting grace (which trumps and transcends karma – one type of magic beats another type of magic!). The enlightened state known as mukti signals final liberation from the cycle of birth, death and rebirth, and permits ultimate union with God leading to heavenly being. What you can be sure of is that every permutation of religious ingredients has been tried at one time or other. Every hybrid religion (such as Sikhism) has been explored, no matter how illogical. There’s only one unique religion – Illuminism. Why? Because it’s the only rational, Logos religion, the only religion based on ontological mathematics. All other religions are ludicrous, Mythos nonsense.

Bicameral Colonies Human beings were once like ants or bees in a colony, with a single leader – the “queen” (or, in human societies, more typically the “king” aka “alpha male”). Some humans were like soldier ants, some like worker ants, some like gathering ants, or cleaning ants, and so on. Whereas pheromones seemingly play a key role in passing on information between different members of colonies in nature, in ancient human societies a kind of telepathy may have performed a similar role. This

telepathy was of a very subtle nature and was perhaps more akin to extreme skill at anticipating the commands of the alpha leader, i.e. it was about “mind reading” the alpha’s intentions and desires, a kind of super empathy. The Nazi leaders all competed with each other to provide Hitler with what he wanted. Hitler didn’t have to say anything or issue any commands. Instead, his henchmen sought to “read his mind” and those who were most successful would of course rise the highest. Now, these henchmen weren’t physically reading Hitler’s mind, but they were engaging in some powerful exercise of psychological rapport in order to anticipate Hitler’s wishes and desires. Human beings have always possessed this skill. In ancient societies, when the leader was physically present the people could of course directly hear his voice. When he was absent, the people, it seemed, could hallucinate his voice and hear him giving commands just as if he were physically present. In other words, they were so used to what his commands typically were that they could run a simulation of the leader when he was absent (just as Hitler’s henchmen could if he was absent.) In early humanity, the simulation manifested itself as the leader’s voice emanating from the right hemisphere of the follower’s brain and issuing orders. This experience underlies people’s profound attraction to strong leaders and “Gods”. When the leader died, the simulation would actually continue as before (until a new leader established himself and gave rise to a new voice), so the leader would seem to have survived death, and this naturally gave rise to the theory of the soul that endures beyond death. The dead leader was most powerfully encountered when the individual was in a dreamstate, so dreams came to be regarded as providing access to a real and separate world to which the dead went after this life. Terence McKenna wrote of Julian Jaynes’s bicameral theory, “Briefly, Jaynes believes that until the time of roughly the Iliad, around 1400 BC, nothing at all like modern ego-centred and individuated consciousness existed. Instead he argues that people behaved like automata or social insects, unconsciously going about the tasks of the hive. Only in moments of great stress and personal danger was this regimen broken. In such moments an impersonal mind outside the usual experience of the world became manifest as a voice. According to Jaynes’s theory, such voices were the guiding lights of human society, perhaps for millennia. [They] were

understood to be the voice of an absent but living king, or a dead king, or an omnipresent God or a personal deity.” We would say that these auditory hallucinations happened even in the absence of stress, but became more forceful in stressful situations, and are likely to be encountered even in the present day as a consequence of severe stress. We would also say that strong visual hallucinations could occur too. “Dreams” in the ancient world may have been much more common than they are today, and may not have been restricted to sleep. People might have continually day-dreamed, and there may have been no significant difference between sleeping and waking dream-states. “Reality” may have been one big hallucinatory blur – like a psychedelic “trip”.

Simulation of the “Other” What is “mind reading” in a psychological sense? It’s extreme rapport with the “other”. It involves running an internal simulation of the “other”. The more accurate your simulation of the “other” is, the better you will be able to anticipate their behaviour. This is the basis of empathy. All prophets can easily be identified as bicameral individuals. Through fasting, isolation, prayer, meditation, drug use, and so on, they were able to create a mental state where they heard a strange voice in their head. Since they were actively searching for God, they took this to be God’s voice or that of one of his messengers (angels). Mohammed is the classic case of bicameralism. He heard the voice of the Angel Gabriel speaking on behalf of Allah, or so he imagined. Others “buy” into the prophets’ beliefs because their own latent bicameralism is triggered and they too can hear the voice, albeit much more faintly than the prophets. In ancient times, the voice of the “Other” was called the Logos (“the Word”) when the Other was identified as God. Jesus Christ was specifically called the “Word”, the “Word made flesh”. The Word is the voice of the supreme Other, the voice that explains all things. Nowadays, people hearing voices often associate them with persecutory powers (such as secret Government agencies) or even extraterrestrial entities. Writing is the preserved Word that replaces the ephemeral spoken Word. Consciousness, based on reading preserved words (writing), thus replaced bicameralism, which relied on spoken language. Historically, shamans,

story tellers, priests, prophets and oracles were all experts in the spoken word, on casting verbal spells. Even today, the poet, the singer, and the orator can entrance us. Hitler was like some ancient bicameral shaman or prophet, channelling the gods. All illiterate people are highly bicameral. The less contact you have with the written word, the more bicameral you are. The more you read, the more conscious you are. All poorly educated people who spurn the written word are highly bicameral. Bicameralism is a refuge for many people. Who wants to be conscious if Kierkegaard is right: “The more consciousness, the more intense the despair.”

Nietzsche There are many contemporary philosophers who revere Nietzsche, yet when he was alive, Nietzsche was mostly ignored by the philosophical community, or actively mocked. Exactly the same kind of people who now celebrate him are the kind of people who shunned and dismissed him when he was alive, and, by the same token, would shun and dismiss any new Nietzsche. It’s amazing how many books and articles about Nietzsche describe his philosophy in the bland, banal, sanitized, liberal, “Last Man” terms he railed against all his life. Nietzsche’s reputation is being destroyed by the tedious, desiccated academics who write about him. The only people who should be allowed to write about Nietzsche are illiberal firebrands who are incendiary as he was. How can a comfortable, tenured academic who has towed the line all his life possibly communicate the sentiments of someone who said, “I am not a Man, I am Dynamite!” It’s a category error for academics to discuss Nietzsche’s work. All they do is blandify, distort and mock it.

Masters and Slaves “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” – Abraham Lincoln The trouble with the world is that too many people want to be enslaved (to religion, nation, family, politics, conspiracy theories, drugs, entertainment, comfort or whatever), and too many love being masters (Wall Street,

Washington D.C. CEOs, banks, police, media moguls, middle managers, and so on).

Apocalypse Now Saint Paul, the true founder of Christianity, was sure the end of the world was imminent almost 2,000 years ago: 1) “Our salvation is nearer now than we first believed.” (Romans 13:11) 2) “The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” (1 Thessalonians 5:2) He thought the end would come imminently, quickly and unexpectedly. However, none of that happened. So, Saint Paul, the first real Christian was formally refuted. Christianity ought to have died with Paul. Humanity’s tragedy was that it didn’t. Instead, Christianity became an undead monster, a vampire sucking humanity’s blood, a zombie defying reason.

The Best Minds? Ronald Reagan said, “The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them right away.” Reagan’s implication is that politicians are mediocre while business is full of great minds. In fact, great minds have never been found in the business world. Great minds typically belong to outsiders. Great minds are involved with mathematics, science, art, literature, poetry, music – never with capitalism. To a moron like Reagan, wealth = intellectual brilliance. Of course, people like Reagan never encountered any authentic geniuses. They didn’t move in the same circles! But let’s pretend Reagan was right. The question then becomes why a nation should allow its brightest citizens to work for the good of private corporations rather than the good of the country. Any nation which does not have its brightest citizens in charge is automatically failing to optimize itself. By his own logic, Reagan, if he had the best interests of his country at heart, should have resigned and surrendered the running of America to Wall Street! Of course, business is running America anyway: politicians are smokescreens and puppets. Any healthy society would put its primary efforts into getting its geniuses into all of the top positions. It would never tolerate having mediocrities in charge. What do you get when you put narcissists with no

merit in charge? – exactly the world we have today. It’s time for Meritocracy.

Burning Away the Peripherals “Poetry, I feel, is a tyrannical discipline. You’ve got to go so far so fast in such a small space, you’ve got to burn away all the peripherals.” – Sylvia Plath

The Majority is Always Wrong “Whatever is popular is wrong.” – Oscar Wilde “The Minority is always right.” – Ibsen

The God Series The God Series has revealed nothing less than the Mind of God. Or, to be more accurate, the mind of Mathematics. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche wrote, “The world seen from within, the world described and defined according to its ‘intelligible character’ – it would be ‘will to power’ and nothing else.” We would simply replace “will to power” with mathematics. As for the “will to power”, this is nothing other than the inherent capacity of living mathematics to solve itself, to optimize itself, to attain mathematical perfection. Human beings, and ultimately Gods, are the answers living mathematics is looking for.

The Wisdom of Robert Heinlein “Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.” – Robert A. Heinlein A “spoiled child” is one way of talking about the God of Abrahamism. “Psychopath” seems more accurate, and many of his followers are psychopaths too. “The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein Indeed. The master-slave dialectic is all there is; dominants and submissives; controllers and the controlled.

“Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.” – Robert A. Heinlein It’s the strongest power in our world! A smart humanity would create an entirely different world. “No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority.” – Robert A. Heinlein Abrahamism is based entirely on “authority”. Management is based on “authority”. Even science is largely based on authority. “One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.” – Robert A. Heinlein Sadly, the sickening history of Abrahamism isn’t much to laugh about. “Don’t handicap your children by making their lives easy.” – Robert A. Heinlein The system of privilege is toxic for all concerned, especially the privileged themselves. “Never insult anyone by accident.” – Robert A. Heinlein Do it with the utmost deliberation! “Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn’t there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.” – Robert A. Heinlein And persuade others – the gullible, the credulous, the suckers. “A long and wicked life followed by five minutes of perfect grace gets you into Heaven. An equally long life of decent living and good works followed by one outburst of taking the name of the Lord in vain – then have a heart attack at that moment and be damned for eternity. Is that the system?” – Robert A. Heinlein Ah, the eternal paradise versus eternal hell equation of a death-bed conversion versus a death-bed outburst. Get your timing right! Christianity is the ultimate lottery. “No matter where or what, there are makers, takers, and fakers.” – Robert A. Heinlein

And society ought to be configured to identify them in order to protect society from these people. “Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded – here and there, now and then – are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.’” – Robert A. Heinlein Which is why we need a meritocracy. Nothing is more important to the healthy development of society than getting the smartest and most talented men and women into the top jobs. “Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without selfdelusion — in the long run these are the only people who count.” – Robert A. Heinlein The tiny fraction are those who must be identified by meritocracy and rocket-boosted to all the leadership roles. “The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.” – Robert A. Heinlein The best way of thinking about Abrahamism is as an inefficient industry, full of lazy, dumb workers, bad management and an insane, psychopathic CEO. All of its products are toxic and it does not nothing but pour out pollution. When will be rid of it? “What are the facts? Again and again and again – what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what ‘the stars foretell’, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbours think, never mind the unguessable ‘verdict of history’ – what are the facts, and to how many

decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!” – Robert A. Heinlein No, get the analytic definitions. Without airtight definitions, “facts”, as Nietzsche so brilliantly observed, are just “interpretations” and are usually closer to Mythos than truth. “Darling, a true lady takes off her dignity with her clothes and does her whorish best. At other times you can be as modest and dignified as your persona requires.” – Robert A. Heinlein Wise words! “Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best, he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear his shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.” – Robert A. Heinlein !!!!! “A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity.” – Robert A. Heinlein Justified self-confidence is the greatest of gifts. Unjustified self-confidence is one of humanity’s greatest curses. “I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” – Robert A. Heinlein This is what any God would say. “Of all the strange ‘crimes’ that human beings have legislated of nothing, ‘blasphemy’ is the most amazing – with ‘obscenity’ and ‘indecent exposure’ fighting it out for the second and third place.” – Robert A. Heinlein All “moral” and “religious” legislation is absurd. “One man’s ‘magic’ is another man’s engineering. ‘Supernatural’ is a null word. – Robert A. Heinlein The more rational people are, the less they see magic.

“If you don’t like yourself, you can’t like other people.” – Robert A. Heinlein Therefore, we need a world where all people like themselves. “It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so...” – Robert A. Heinlein Always resist theocracies. This is why Islamic Sharia Law must never be countenanced anywhere on Earth. “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.” – Robert A. Heinlein !!!! “The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.” – Robert A. Heinlein The Golden Age lies ahead, not behind us. “Don’t try to have the last word. You might get it.” – Robert A. Heinlein

The Stupidity of Robert Heinlein “You can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.” – Robert A. Heinlein But when you have killed all the free men then you have conquered. “Love your country, but never trust its government.” – Robert A. Heinlein In that case, you’re in the wrong country. If you haven’t got the right government, why are you still there? True freedom is being in a country where the government is the most trustworthy thing there is. That’s what meritocracy is all about. People like Heinlein irrationally reach the conclusion that because their government is bad, government per se is bad. Government is as good as the people who comprise it, the laws that support

it, and the people who vote for those who govern. Good, rational nations produce good, rational governments. Bad, irrational nations produce bad, irrational governments. “The greatest productive force is human selfishness.” – Robert A. Heinlein On the contrary, it is the least productive force in history, and the most destructive force. Reason is the greatest productive force, as any rationalist would concur. “Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.” – Robert A. Heinlein Then men ought to do as they please too. As for dogs, aren’t they born slaves, each with its human master for whom it must perform tricks, just as Muslims perform tricks for Allah, Jews for Jehovah and Christians for Christ? “The supreme irony of life is that hardly anyone gets out of it alive.” – Robert A. Heinlein Everyone gets out alive. Death is the supreme illusion: there’s no such thing. The whole universe is alive. “Death” merely marks transition points in the eternal metamorphosis of life. “One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority.” – Robert A. Heinlein Why does Heinlein revere scientists so much? You could barely find a more conformist group of people, who instantly reject anything that doesn’t conform with their faith-based Meta Paradigm, and who dismiss rational unobservables as impossible just because they can’t be brought into fallible, human sensory awareness. “A society that gets rid of all its troublemakers goes downhill.” – Robert A. Heinlein That depends on who the troublemakers are. A society that got rid of all troublesome Abrahamists would be enormously improved instantly.

“Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honour, make him pay cash.” – Robert A. Heinlein Money is truthful? Money is the biggest liar of all. Nietzsche said that “success” has always been the greatest liar. In fact, money takes that “honour”. “Beware of the ‘Black Swan’ fallacy. Deductive logic is tautological; there is no way to get a new truth out of it, and it manipulates false statements as readily as true ones. If you fail to remember this, it can trip you – with perfect logic. The designers of the earliest computers called this the ‘Gigo Law,’ i.e., ‘Garbage in, garbage out.’ Inductive logic is much more difficult – but can produce new truths.” – Robert A. Heinlein This is the usual tripe spouted by anti-mathematical, irrational scientific materialists and logical positivists. In a 100% rational, mathematical universe, mathematical deductive logic with all of its tautologies constitutes the only infallible truth.

***** Heinlein was a clever man but had many rather unfortunate opinions that make him sound like Ayn Rand at times. He is often quoted by anarchocapitalist libertarians, which is never a good sign. Moreover, he often spoke highly of mathematics while plainly not understanding it and worshipping, instead, science and engineering.

The Golden Chain Homer’s Iliad describes a great golden chain linking heaven and earth. “Now when Morning, clad in her robe of saffron, had begun to suffuse light over the earth, Jove called the gods in council on the topmost crest of serrated Olympus. Then he spoke and all the other gods gave ear. ‘Hear me,’ said he, ‘gods and goddesses, that I may speak even as I am minded. Let none of you neither goddess nor god try to cross me, but obey me every one of you that I may bring this matter to an end. If I see anyone acting apart and helping either Trojans or Danaans, he shall be beaten inordinately ere he come back again to Olympus; or I will hurl him down into dark Tartarus far into the deepest pit under the earth, where the gates are iron and the floor bronze, as far beneath Hades as heaven is high above the earth,

that you may learn how much the mightiest I am among you. Try me and find out for yourselves. Hangs me a golden chain from heaven, and lay hold of it all of you, gods and goddesses together – tug as you will, you will not drag Jove the supreme counsellor from heaven to earth; but were I to pull at it myself I should draw you up with earth and sea into the bargain, then would I bind the chain about some pinnacle of Olympus and leave you all dangling in the mid firmament. So far am I above all others either of gods or men.’”

Doxa “Doxa (from ancient Greek dokein, ‘to expect’, ‘to seem’) is a Greek word meaning common belief or popular opinion, from which are derived the modern terms of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Used by the Greek rhetoricians as a tool for the formation of argument by using common opinions, the doxa was often manipulated by sophists to persuade the people, leading to Plato’s condemnation of Athenian democracy. “Plato tended to oppose knowledge to doxa, which led to the classical opposition of error to truth, which has since become a major concern in Western philosophy. (However, in the Theaetetus and in the Meno, Plato has Socrates suggest that knowledge is orthos doxa for which one can provide a logos.) Thus, error is considered in Occident as pure negativity, which can take various forms, among them the form of illusion. As such, doxa may ironically be defined as the ‘philosopher’s sin’. In classical rhetoric, it is contrasted with episteme. However, Aristotle used the term endoxa (commonly held beliefs accepted by the wise and by elder rhetors) to acknowledge the beliefs of the city. Endoxa is a more stable belief than doxa, because it has been “tested” in argumentative struggles in the Polis by prior interlocutors. The use of endoxa in the Stagirite’s Organon can be found in Aristotle’s Topics and Rhetoric. “Pierre Bourdieu, in his Outline of a Theory of Practice, used the term doxa to denote what is taken for granted in any particular society. The doxa, in his view, is the experience by which ‘the natural and social world appears as self-evident’. It encompasses what falls within the limits of the thinkable and the sayable (‘the universe of possible discourse’), that which ‘goes without saying because it comes without saying’. The humanist instances of Bourdieu’s application of notion of doxa are to be traced in Distinction where doxa sets limits on social mobility within the social space through

limits imposed on the characteristic consumption of each social individual: certain cultural artefacts are recognized by doxa as being inappropriate to actual social position, hence doxa helps to petrify social limits, the ‘sense of one’s place’, and one’s sense of belonging, which is closely connected with the idea that ‘this is not for us’ (ce n´est pas pour nous). Thus individuals become voluntary subjects of those incorporated mental structures that deprive them of more deliberate consumption. “Doxa and opinion denote, respectively, a society’s taken-for-granted, unquestioned truths, and the sphere of that which may be openly contested and discussed.” – Wikipedia

***** Nietzsche’s “revaluation of all values” involves changing everything that society takes for granted. Almost all of humanity’s orthodoxies, common sense assumptions and unquestioned truths are radically false. Humanity will not make further progress until it’s on the side of truth. That means that Logos must replace Logos.

Can You or Can’t You? “Whether you think you can, or whether you think you can’t, you’re probably right.” – Henry Ford

Rejoice, Rejoice, the Witch is Dead Margaret Thatcher was one of the primary architects of the world of today with its enormous and obscene disparities in wealth. In the UK, Thatcher’s privatisation policy involved selling off State assets extremely cheaply to private shareholders. This was one of the biggest transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich in history. It was beaten only by the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union where the State’s greatest assets were transferred to a tiny group of largely Jewish oligarchs in one of the most outrageous and flagrant crimes of all time. Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan in America, began the huge deregulation programme that allowed the rich to do whatever they wanted and led directly to the financial meltdown of 2008.

*****

Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead, a song from The Wizard of Oz, was used to celebrate the death of this wicked woman (Thatcher) who brought so much misery to Britain and the world. After achieving a high position in the music charts, the song should have been aired like every other song in the charts. Instead, the BBC, Britain’s public service broadcaster, censored the song and played a special news item in its stead, explaining the “purpose” of the song as a distasteful protest against Thatcher. Since when was it the BBC’s duty to analyze the songs in the charts and pass political comment on them? This was one of the most flagrant and disgusting acts of censorship in British history and ought to have resulted in the dismissal of the senior BBC bosses responsible, including the BBC’s Director General. Here we have a classic example of the privileged elite telling the lower orders what to think and declaring that songs bought by the people are “unacceptable”. On the contrary, only the establishment, through their BBC puppet broadcaster, is unacceptable. The people must have the right to fire the managers of the BBC after events such as this. All managers of all companies should be accountable to the people and their employees. As things stand, the elite run a closed shop and they ensure that the people are never allowed to get rid of them, except in the staged farce of political elections. As everyone knows, nations are run by the rich and powerful, not by the politicians who do their bidding. It never makes any difference who’s in charge. The elite are never voted out. A Prime Minister is supposed to govern in the interests of all the people. Margaret Thatcher is fanatically admired by all those people who profited from her policies, and despised by the much greater number who lost. Why did Britain give what was effectively a State Funeral to such a divisive and hated figure? Well, the establishment – the Old World Order – who profited so handsomely from her were determined to celebrate their heroine. Her funeral was the triumphalist occasion for Britain’s “great and the good” to commemorate Thatcher’s vicious victories over Britain’s working people. (Thatcher described activist working people as the “enemy within”.) Thatcher ranks alongside Ayn Rand as one of the most evil women of all time. She showed exactly what happens if anarcho-capitalist libertarians are allowed to come to power. “Her only skill was cruelty.” – Anonymous comment about Thatcher “Maggie, Maggie, Maggie – out, out, out.”

“Maggie, Maggie, Maggie – dead, dead, dead.”

Irreversibility The theory of tensed time precludes going back in time: time is irreversible. If we refer to the “Heisenberg” theory of quantum time, this is based on continual, irreversible, wavefunction collapse. So, Heisenberg time and tensed time work in perfect harmony, while Heisenberg time is utterly incompatible with science’s popular theory of tenseless, “block universe” time. Any theory that allows any possibility whatsoever of time travel is ipso facto false. Notoriously, Einstein’s theory of relativity does not preclude going back in time (via superluminal speeds), hence is false. Scientific block universe time is false and the scientific doctrine of time reversal invariance is wholly false. Science has never understood time.

What’s Wrong With Science? In a nutshell, science is false because a) it’s based on real rather than complex numbers, b) it forbids zero and infinity because they are incompatible with the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm, and c) it rejects analytic definitions in favour of synthetic definitions. In an analytic statement the predicate is contained in the subject, hence can never be false. In a synthetic statement, the predicate is not contained in the subject, hence is not necessarily true but is merely an assertion and interpretation. Fans of synthetic statements claim that they contain “new” knowledge whereas analytic statements are tautological and contain no new knowledge. In fact, synthetic statements contain only interpretations, opinions and beliefs and have no necessary truth content and indeed rarely any truth content at all. All of Mythos “knowledge” and all scientific “knowledge” is based on synthetic statements. All mathematical knowledge, on the other hand, is based on analytic statements. Thankfully, the universe is 100% mathematical and so we can be sure that analytic statements are the only valid statements, and that they contain absolute, immutable, eternal truth content: Platonic truth.

The Life Principle We live in a rational universe. If the universe weren’t rational, we wouldn’t be here at all. There would be nothing but random, irrational chaos and disorder. To say that there are laws governing the universe is to say that the universe is rational. To search for laws is to demonstrate that you agree that the universe is fundamentally rational. Given the rationality of the universe then the only proper means to investigate it is through rationalism. Illuminism is based on the assertion that the universe is living reason, reflecting the cosmic principle of sufficient reason: for every fact, there is a reason why it is so and not otherwise (everything has a valid reason). Mathematics is an inevitable product of a universe based on the principle of sufficient reason: it enshrines that principle. Everything in mathematics has a reason why it is so and not otherwise. A universe of living reason is the same as a universe of living mathematics. The universe of reason/ mathematics, is not conscious, of course. The rational universe does not consciously work out how to behave. A universe of “dead” reason would never seek to accomplish anything. It would be like a vast computer. Computers have no purposes. The living beings who use them are the ones with the purposes. A universe of living reason is quite different. It has a purpose and that purpose could not be clearer: to optimize its reason, to become as rational as possible. A rational universe can have no other objective than its own rational optimization. The ultimate rational universe is one where reason is self-ware, self-conscious. Look at the human race before and after the rational Enlightenment that ushered in the Age of Reason. Humanity’s scientific achievements were almost nil beforehand, yet have totally transformed our world since then. That’s the power of the conscious exercise of reason. A universe of living reason is one that is self-solving and selfoptimizing, seeking the “final solution” to itself. It’s exactly what Hegel had in mind with his rational, dialectical universe of Geist (mind/ spirit) converging on its omega point, the Absolute. Ultimate reason is ultimate consciousness. Via dialectical reason, operating through self-solving, selfoptimizing ontological mathematics, ultimate cosmic consciousness – a divine, self-aware universe – is inevitable. The universe is certain to become God!

God does not create the universe, the universe creates God. It does it through inevitable, self-solving, rational, dialectical, mathematical processes. The universe is alive and is imbued with reason and purpose and is converging relentlessly on the answer to life, the universe and everything. Humans beings are obsessed with the meaning of life. Well, the whole purpose of the universe is to provide the answer ... and the answer is God. What is “God”? – a self-aware universe of perfect rationalism. It’s Aristotle’s God, the Stoic God, the God of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, and the God of Hegel. It’s the God of mathematics, and the universe is 100% mathematical. God is self-aware mathematics, reason that has become conscious. Evolution, contrary to what Darwinists say (with their contention that evolution is purposeless, pointless and meaningless) is all about increasing the conscious expression of reason, of converting crude, unconscious reason into sophisticated, conscious reason. Look at humanity. The human mind began as apelike then became bicameral (as per Julian Jaynes’s theory of bicameralism) then evolved Mythos consciousness based on emotional narratives, superstition, religion, and faith. Finally, via ancient Greece, Logos consciousness appeared on Earth, devoted to reason, logic, facts, evidence, mathematics, science and philosophy. Don’t fool yourselves. Logos humanity represents an evolutionary jump from Mythos humanity. We may belong to the same biological species, but we are a different mental species. Logos humanity – because it consciously expresses reason in a way that is unthinkable to the Mythos masses – is a Higher Humanity, an evolutionary leap to a higher state. Logos humanity has a duty to leave behind Mythos humanity in the wilderness, to let them slip back to the caves and then the primordial slime. All Jews, Christian and Muslims, with their ridiculous irrational and anti-rational Mythos beliefs, are the enemies of evolution and progress. They are a dead end, guaranteed to become extinct. Nothing is more certain than that a 1,000 years from now, not one person will believe in Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Jehovah, Christ and Allah will be bad memories. The reign of the Torture God will be at an end, defeated by reason, the true Tree of Knowledge. A universe of living reason is an organism, a universe of dead reason is a machine. Science treats the universe as a dead machine (without living souls), while ontological mathematics treats it as a living organism, with

living souls (mathematical monads) as its quintessence. Living mathematics is all about religion (the soul) while dead science is all about the denial of the soul, hence is atheistic. The monad is the difference between ontological mathematics and science. A monadic universe is teleological, a universe without souls is pointless, purposeless and meaningless (which is exactly how scientists view reality). Many scientists are attracted to Buddhism as their “spiritual outlet”. Buddhism reflects a living universe, yet, crucially, denies the existence of the individual soul. It’s a remarkable thing that even when scientists tentatively approach religion, they make sure they choose a religious option that abolishes the immortal soul. Science demonstrates an utterly irrational fear, hatred and loathing of the soul. The soul – the monad – defines existence. Science, while it rejects the mathematical, rational, teleological soul will never have any ultimate truth content and never be able to account for life, mind, free will and consciousness. The only true final, grand unified theory of everything is reason itself, reflected through ontological mathematics based on complex numbers and zero and infinity.

***** No one has seen God’s mind more clearly than the über-rationalist: Leibniz.

Will and Reason Living, unconscious reason is very different from reason that can coolly and calculatedly reflect on itself via consciousness. Unconscious reason does not know how to solve itself so it uses the crudest of all techniques to propel itself forward to higher states of reason: the dialectic (as brilliantly identified by the great Illuminist Hegel). The dialectic proceeds by way of binary opposition. A position is generated (the thesis) and is immediately opposed by its opposite (the antithesis). A conflict takes place, akin to Darwinian natural selection, and the best elements of thesis and antithesis survive, while the worst, weakest elements are eliminated. The surviving elements of thesis and antithesis are brought into a synthesis, which then constitutes a new thesis, which solicits a new antithesis, a new conflict, a new synthesis, and so on.

With each iteration, a higher state is reached, and the process converges on an inevitable end – 100% rationalism where all contradictions have been resolved. The fascinating aspect of this process is that it’s based on conflict, struggle, resistance, opposition and contradiction. Viewed naively, it’s an immensely confused, crude, messy, brutal, red-in-tooth-and-claw process that looks anything other than rational. What it in fact looks like is the blind, savage, ceaselessly striving Will described by Schopenhauer, or the even more brutal Will to Power designated by Nietzsche. As for Eduard von Hartmann, he described the basic stuff of the universe as “the Unconscious”, comprising Will and Reason (and thus providing a synthesis of Schopenhauer and Hegel). In fact, Will is nothing but unconscious reason striving to optimize itself without knowing how to do so via deliberation, reflection and calculation. It acts crudely and aggressively, as if driven by desire rather than reason. Thus we see the higher truth: Will is unconscious reason and Reason, with a capital “R”, is conscious. Reason is what Will becomes via evolution. Or Will is Reason that has not yet evolved. Will and Reason are the same thing, differentiated only by their degree of evolution. The universe begins as pure Will and Will to Power, as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche said. However, through the dialectic described by Hegel, it becomes more rational and Will slowly turns to Reason. Eventually a universe of pure Will (complete potential) gives way to a universe of pure Reason (complete actualization). All unconscious elements are made conscious. The unconscious universe becomes the conscious universe, the divine universe. We end with the perfectly rational, “best of all possible worlds” described by Leibniz, the Hegelian Absolute, the Neoplatonic One that has become self-aware. What we have described here is nothing less than the divine alchemical transmutation of base “metal” (Will, potential) into gold (Reason, actualization). We have united all of the great systems of human thought. We have rationalized and fully explained everything.

Insanity Millions of Jews really believe that a bearded man went up a mountain and spoke to the Creator of the Universe who then passed on a set of divine laws designed to reflect the lives of wandering Jews. Billions of Muslims

believe a bearded man went into a cave and spoke to the Angel Gabriel on behalf of the Creator of the Universe, who then passed on a set of laws designed to reflect the lives of desert Arabs. Billions of Christians believe the Creator of the Universe was born to a 14-year-old Jewish virgin, the Creator grew a beard and was crucified on a cross by the Romans, while passing on a set of laws designed to reflect the lives of urban Jews, who later became urban Christians. When will humanity consign these ludicrous stories to Mythology where they belong? It’s staggering that anyone could believe that these tales contain one iota of truth.

Allahu Akbar All over the world, all Muslims who are engaged in acts of extreme violence and murder, yell, “Allahu Akbar!” (God is great; God is greater (than all other Gods), God is greatest). Can you imagine the US Marines running around screaming, “God is Greatest!” The words Allahu Akbar should be banned from Earth. They are products of the most evil brainwashing system in history: Islam. Muslims ought to be ashamed, not triumphalist.

Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German policespies. Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact: I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this

nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself. To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages. Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians(1) The history of all hitherto existing society(2) is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations. The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed. The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to

navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development. The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop. Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois. Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages. We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange. Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the medieval commune: here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany); there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France); afterwards, in the period of manufacturing proper, serving either the semifeudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, cornerstone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part. 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 feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers. The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades. The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. 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.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere. The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature. The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image. The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customstariff. The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour? We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder. Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class. A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that

by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented. The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself. But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians. In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piecemeal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market. Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the

machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc. Modern Industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is. The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex. No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far, at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc. The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods

of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population. The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages. At this stage, the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeois. Thus, the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie. But with the development of industry, the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon, the workers begin to form combinations (Trades’ Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make

provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there, the contest breaks out into riots. Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years. This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried. Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie. Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress. Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary

class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole. Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance, they are revolutionary, they are only so in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat; they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat. The “dangerous class”, [lumpenproletariat] the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of the old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue. In the condition of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations; modern industry labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. All the preceding classes that got the upper hand sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation.

They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property. All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air. Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie. In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat. Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of the feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern labourer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society. The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary

promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

***** By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live.

“Commune” was the name taken in France by the nascent towns even before they had conquered from their feudal lords and masters local self-government and political rights as the “Third Estate.” Generally speaking, for the economical development of the bourgeoisie, England is here taken as the typical country, for its political development, France.

***** 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.

***** “Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!”

The WASP Conspiracy “White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) is an informal term, sometimes derogatory or disparaging, for a closed group of high-status Americans mostly of English Protestant or Germanic or Nordic ancestry. The term implies the group controls disproportionate social and financial power. The term WASP does not describe every Protestant of English background, but rather a small restricted group whose family wealth and elite connections allow them a degree of privilege held by few others. When the term appears in writing, it usually indicates the author’s disapproval of the group’s perceived excessive power in society. The hostile tone can be seen in an alternative dictionary: ‘The WASP culture has been the most aggressive, powerful, and arrogant society in the world for the last thousand years, so it is natural that it should receive a certain amount of warranted criticism.’ People seldom call themselves WASPs, except humorously; the acronym is typically used by non-WASPs.” – Wikipedia

Animal Farm Animal Farm, George Orwell’s brilliant children’s book, is often interpreted as a scathing critique of communism. In fact, it’s a scathing critique of capitalism and an expression of soul-destroying disappointment over communism’s failure to replace it. In Animal Farm, the humans are the brutal, capitalist exploiters (the American super rich, if you will – the denizens of Wall Street). The animals (the ordinary people) rise up against their tyranny and overthrow them (the Communist Revolution). However, the pigs that led the uprising soon become as bad as their human predecessors and declare, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In other words, the Communist Party are the new ruling elite. The pigs begin to stand on two legs, just like humans, and announce, “Four legs good, two legs better!” (Earlier, they had proclaimed, “Four legs good, two legs bad!”) The revolution has come full circle and the “new humans” are in charge, and are every bit as bad as the old humans. Orwell took as his starting point the notion that capitalists are evil, yet many stupid capitalists interpreted Animal Farm as a defence of capitalism! Orwell’s point is that the supposed antidote to the wickedness of capitalism

turned out to be equally toxic, not that communism was appalling and capitalism great.

***** “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” This could easily be the slogan for capitalist democracy. Democracy says, “One man, one vote ... all voters are equal.” However, the rich, powerful elite are those who run the show, who rig the media, who appoint the candidates, who push through their own private agenda against the interest of the people. In other words, they are “more equal than others” – superior, hence not equal at all. The rhetoric of democracy is belied by the reality. Democracy is pure spin and propaganda.

The Hero “A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself.” – Joseph Campbell Well, to what bigger thing have you devoted your life?

The Final Death It is said that people don’t finally die until the last time anyone ever speaks their name. After that, they have passed forever from memory.

Inheritance Inheritance is how the dead control the living. The deceased rich dictate to the living poor by passing on overwhelming wealth and power to their children, who can then rule the poor. The dead must be prevented from having any say over the living, and that means 100% inheritance tax. Life is for the living. The dead have no say in it. When they are dead, all of their wealth and power die with them and is absorbed by the Commonwealth for meritocratic redistribution. Let’s be crystal clear. The dead have no rights in our world. They own nothing. When a person dies, whatever he owned no longer belongs to him. Nor does it belong to anyone else, in particular his family. His assets are

formally and legally ownerless and are therefore assumed by the Commonwealth on behalf of everyone. This is the means by which inheritance and privilege are destroyed and meritocracy allowed to flourish. This is how the dead are prevented from reigning over the living, from ruling from beyond the grave.

Atheism Atheism is a direct consequence of people’s inability to comprehend the ontology of zero and infinity. All atheists suffer from lack of mathematical intuition, imagination and knowledge. Scientific materialism is, bizarrely, an anti-intellectual war on zero and infinity.

Monism Existence comprises a single substance: mind (which is another way of referring to living, thinking, purposeful mathematics). It comes in an infinite number of autonomous instances: monads. All you have are a) individual minds, b) the collection of all of those minds, and c) how all minds interact with each other. There’s nothing else. Minds are living, immortal, autonomous, mathematical entities and the whole of existence is therefore mathematical and takes place mathematically.

Cosmic Chess In chess, a pawn that reaches the other end of the board can be “promoted” to the most powerful chess piece – the Queen (the goddess of chess). The soul is something similar. It is a basic pawn that, if it gets to the other side of a huge and vicious battlefield – the process of “life” itself – is promoted to the highest piece of all: God. We are all pawns, yet, like any pawn, we have it in us to be heroes that cross the widest abysses, achieve the most astounding things, and become divine. But that is the fate of very few pawns. Most muddle along in eternal mediocrity, never understanding their own potential, believing in other gods rather than in their own inner godliness. In chess, every pawn is a potential queen, yet there is a queen already on the board. Most pawns go through life worshipping the queen that’s already there – the prevailing power – rather than seeking to become queens themselves.

Humanity can be divided into two species: 1) the servile, slavelike pawn species that worships the most powerful thing they can find (the queen, the monarch, the super rich person, the celebrity, the fuehrer, the god) and plods through life in complete mediocrity, or is on its knees worshipping power, and 2) the meritocratic pawn species that is aware of its own remarkable inner potential and sees no reason why, if it’s talented enough, it should not itself become God. The first species is always alienated from God and sees God as inherently external, something they could never be. The second species sees God within themselves and is not in any way alienated from God. God, for them, is internal, not external. They can truly become God, although they recognise that it’s a cosmic journey of adventure and heroism, fraught with terrible danger, upon which they must embark. Just as the humble pawn in chess must traverse a deadly battlefield featuring immensely powerful religious figures (bishops), savage knights, great Lords in their castles (rooks) and monarchy (the king and queen), so must we negotiate our way past all the great powers that oppress us and try to intimidate and destroy us. The pawn’s journey in chess is always the most remarkable. The pawn that crosses the board is the true meritocrat, overcoming the forces of privilege, and showing that he will bow to no one. Here is something for you to ponder. All of us, the whole of humanity, are remarkable. Unlike almost all souls – which remain locked in unconsciousness – our souls have achieved consciousness. In a contest amongst infinite souls, we are the ones who made it. We are well on our way to becoming Gods. We have beaten astounding odds to be where we are today. You may not realise this, but you are already the most stupendous of miracles. You are so miraculous that it is astounding that you are here at all. You may be one in 600 million! Male ejaculate can contain as many as 600 million sperm. Only one of those was you (or, actually, half of you; your father provided the sperm half of you and your mother the egg half of you). All 600 million might have failed to impregnate your mother’s egg. Or any of the others – hypothetical brothers or sisters – might have made it instead of you. But, no, you were the one who ventured through the ultimate assault course – because a woman’s body regards male sperm as an alien entity that must be destroyed,

just like some virulent infection – and you succeeded where all the others failed. You are one in six hundred million! You have beaten lottery odds. So why are you so humble, so beaten down by life, so cowardly, so willing to accept the shit treatment you get? You are already a remarkable warrior, you are already a god who has achieved greater feats than any of the most legendary heroes. Achilles was nothing compared with you. Artemis could never have done what you did. Live up to what you have already achieved. Make your life the reflection of the supreme struggle you endured and over which you have triumphed. Remember, one in six hundred million!!! Now you must do the same thing in this world of seven billions souls. Can you be one of the top ten human beings who shape human destiny? Why not? Who’s holding you back except yourself? We all belong to the lucky sperm club. We have all beaten staggering odds.

Romulus and Remus Regarding the mythical origins of Rome, it is said that Romulus and Remus, the twin sons of Vestal Virgin Rhea Silvia were conceived when their virgin mother was impregnated by the God Mars via the light or smoke of a candle. Hmmm, where before have we heard the story of a virgin being inseminated by a divine force or spirit and giving birth to divine children? Is there nothing new under the sun? The name “Rhea Silvia” is suggestive of a minor deity, a demi-goddess of the kingdom of the forests. Silva is Latin for woods or forest, and Rea is thought to be related to res and regnum (Latin for kingdom). It might be said that Rhea was made pregnant through either a) “dreamintercourse” with the God Mars (the ultimate female wet dream, one might say, resulting in the ejaculation, nine months later, of a divine baby!), b) secretly and willingly sleeping with the God Mars (or some random handsome man!), c) being raped in a forest by Mars (or a man), or d) being impregnated by the sacred flame while she slept (insemination by the Holy Spirit!). The penalty for a Vestal Virgin having sex was death (any Vestal who broke her chastity vows was usually buried alive). Similarly, the penalty for an unmarried Jewish maid having sex was death by stoning. Sex with men

is punishable by death; sex with gods is, well, divine. Is it the case that whopping lies told by naughty “virgins” desperate to save their lives determined the course of world history? It wouldn’t be a surprise, would it, in this Mythos world of ours?

The She-Wolf Rhea Silva was drowned in the Tiber (though in some versions she was spared), and her twin (holy) sons were also sentenced to death. They were thrown into the Tiber, but Tiberinus, God of the Tiber River, aware that the boys were Sons of God, carried them safely downstream in a basket (like Moses!). They were found on the river-bank by a she-wolf who nursed and protected them until they were discovered by a man and his wife who then raised them as their own. The wolf was an animal sacred to Mars, father of the twins. The She-Wolf stands as one of the great symbols of Rome. It has also been suggested that lupa (the feminine Latin word for wolf) referred to an outcast prostitute since “wolf” was a slang term for prostitute, referring to a whore’s predatory instincts. A brothel was known as a lupânar – a wolves’ lair. The prostitute angle is a rather more plausible story concerning who raised the abandoned children. Interestingly, Mary Magdalene, wife of Jesus Christ, was said to be a prostitute, and Helen, the lover of Simon Magus, was a prostitute. Another name for prostitute was meretrix, “woman who earns money”, from which we get the term meretricious, meaning “gaudily alluring”. The Latin word prôstituô means “to expose for public sale.”

The Wolf The image of the predatory wolf is one of the potent in history. The wolf is a symbol of power and domination. The wolf preys on the sheep. Hitler famously conducted his Eastern campaign from his “Wolf’s Lair”.

The Traitors Abrahamists – guilty of high treason against humanity. They are despicable traitors, offering aid an succour to humanity’s greatest ever enemy: their God, the Devil himself.

Highest Humanity

The most rational human beings, hence the highest humans, are the MyersBriggs INTJ and INTP types. Borderline INFJs and INFPs can join them. The least evolved humans, those closest to the beasts, the least rational and most likely to be Abrahamists or Karmists, are the ESFJ and ESFPs.

What is Happiness? Many people ask what happiness is. Nietzsche gave the best answer: “What is happiness? – The feeling that power increases – that a resistance is overcome.”

Loads of Money Given that money and power go together, people with more money tend to be happier than those with less money, and the happiest people are the richest. The richest people, with all their power over others, can imagine themselves Gods. Beautiful people can consider themselves divine too thanks to the worshipful reactions they provoke. However, the happiest people of all are the creators. What do Gods do, what is their quintessential activity? – Creation.

Consumerism In a consumerist society, even happiness is a consumer commodity.

Reincarnation In a reincarnational system, death is not the end of your interaction with this world. You are highly likely to come straight back in a new body. Therefore, you must fight to the death for a better world in this life if you want your next life to be better than this one. What world would you want to return to? Well, make it happen. You’re not leaving, you’re coming back. It’s au revoir, not farewell – au + revoir: “until the reseeing”.

Stupidity What will cause the end of humanity? Ultimately, it will be human stupidity that does for us. A moment will come when humanity will survive if it listens to the smart, but, if Mythos humanity is in charge, it will reject them and cheer the stupid – and humanity’s fate will be sealed.

The Grinder “We need more meat for the Grinder.” – the Abrahamic Credo; the freemarket capitalist Credo Most human beings are born insane, or, from their earliest moments, are subjected to insanity ... to an insane Mythos. Jewish and Muslim baby boys, at just eight days old, are genitally mutilated because of what ancient books say. Is that not insane? How is such a thing possible in the 21st century?

White Holes and Souls “A white hole, in general relativity, is a hypothetical region of spacetime which cannot be entered from the outside, but from which matter and light have the ability to escape. In this sense, it is the reverse of a black hole, which can be entered from the outside, but from which nothing, including light, has the ability to escape. ... They attract matter like any other mass, but objects falling towards a white hole would never actually reach the white hole’s event horizon...” – Wikipedia “White Hole: The theoretical time reversal of a black hole, which arises as a valid solution in general relativity. While a black hole acts as a vacuum, drawing in any matter that crosses its event horizon, a white hole acts as a source that ejects matter from its event horizon.” – http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/glossary.html

“The time-reversal of a black hole. A white hole is a singularity from which matter emerges unpredictably, but into which matter cannot enter. The initial singularity of the standard big bang theory is an example of a white hole. It can be shown that the creation of a new universe from a false vacuum bubble in the context of classical General Relativity would require a white hole singularity, which means essentially that it cannot be done, even in principle. However, a false vacuum bubble could conceivably grow to become a new universe through a process of quantum tunnelling.” – http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Glossary_W.html

Souls are something akin to white holes (the reverse of black holes: instead of absorbing energy, they emit energy). Nothing can physically enter a soul. Souls are singularities continually releasing energy (in the narrow energy band corresponding to the material world). Dimensionless (mind) energy leaving a soul (an unextended point) becomes the dimensional (extended) energy of the physical world. The quantum vacuum – continually producing a quantum energy “foam” – is the arena where mental thoughts from souls become “virtual” energy in the material world.

The Dead Shalt Never Control the Living

“The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. ... I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;’ that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of its lands in severalty, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can by natural right oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be reverse of our principle.” – Thomas Jefferson The dead have no rights. The dead own nothing. They cannot bind the living. They cannot place obligations on the living. When someone dies, all of his debts, obligations, credits and assets are automatically cancelled. The dead take nothing with them. The dead cannot pass on anything to “chosen ones”, other than sentimental trinkets that have no value to anyone else. As soon as you agree that the dead have no rights, no power and no say over the living, you see the absolute logical necessity of 100% inheritance tax. In fact, strictly speaking, it’s not a tax at all. When someone dies, all of their possessions automatically become the property of the Commonwealth, not of their family. Why should a family have any rights over the assets of the dead, of those things worked for and earned by others? To think that you have some ownership over the labour of others amounts to the advocacy of slavery. Meritocracy is all about the abolition of slavery in all of its forms, privilege in all of its forms, and the dead having any control whatsoever over the living. Families must learn to have self-respect. Every person should be fully committed to making their own way in life, not expecting welfare, hand-

outs or inheritance. If you didn’t create it, if you didn’t work for it ... it’s not yours! How much simpler could it be? It doesn’t matter what your relation is to someone else: you don’t own their assets, or debts, when they die. It’s nothing to do with you. In a meritocracy, all elite, dynastic families will be wiped from history since all accumulated wealth will be transferred to the Commonwealth at death. This ensure that the Commonwealth, the General Will, is in charge, not private elites and particular wills. It is precisely via this mechanism that a meritocracy ensures equal opportunities and fairness for all.

***** Meritocracy enshrines a principle that ought to be at the heart of any political system – intergenerational fairness. What this means is that no generation should be unfair to the one that succeeds it. We shouldn’t ruin the planet for them or saddle them with debts. Above all, we shouldn’t impose laws on them to which we were consenting signatories, but they were not. Otherwise, we are tyrants over them, making them subject to our laws, to which they did not consent. Therefore, all valid Constitutional laws must be generationally neutral. Inheritance laws and privilege are inherently generationally unfair since they allow the rich and powerful of today to shape the world of tomorrow by passing on wealth, privilege, power and influence to a selected few (blood relatives), while denying it to everyone else, thus ensuring that one group within the next generation gets more favourable treatment than all the other groups. This is intolerable tyranny, and breaches generational neutrality. A section of one generation has no right whatsoever to shape the next generation in its own image. 100% inheritance tax ensures that this can never happen again.

The Creator The theory of Creationism – that a single, eternal, all-powerful, conscious Creator – made the universe, is absurd. If there is one Creator, there is no sufficient reason why there shouldn’t be infinite Creators since the conditions that allow one to exist must be the same as to allow any number to exist (and this ultimately means that all existents have net zero energy, hence require nothing).

Illuminism is about infinite, unconscious creators, who are creating perfection – themselves. They are solving themselves, optimizing themselves, making themselves conscious. Creationism is about a perfect Creator creating an imperfect world over which he then rules as a cosmic dictator. It’s a vision of anti-evolution, of perfection becoming degraded. Illuminism is about infinite imperfect Creators creating perfection by making themselves perfect. God does not create the universe, the universe creates God. Or, to be more precise, infinite creators with maximum potential but zero actualization create, across an immense period of dialectical evolution, perfect versions of themselves where they are maximally actualized. The universe begins as infinite unactualized Gods and ends as infinite actualized Gods. The universe is literally a God Factory. It’s the ultimate production line for the ultimate product – Gods!

The Painting and the Painter AF: “The ‘painting’ (cosmos) is the painter too. It is everything, it is ‘trying’ to achieve every possibility it has within itself. The painting will be the painter, but the painting was not painted. It did not have a creator. What the painting is trying to do now is to become a painter, and to consciously be able to paint ‘life’, like itself.” This is correct. In essence, the painter and the painter are one and the same thing. The painter is painting an evolving self-portrait that keeps changing until it’s perfect. At the end, ontologically, the perfect painting of the painter is the painter. This is living painting, where the painter paints with himself and what’s he’s painting is himself becoming more and more perfect, until he arrives, finally, at total perfection ... he has become God.

The “Different Planets” Argument Imagine a planet solely of Muslims – seven billion of them. Every one of them would pray five times a day. They would all memorize the Koran. Sharia Law would be the global legal system. Everyone would speak Arabic. All women would be in burqas and all men have beards. Mecca would be constantly packed with countless Muslims on pilgrimage. What would the mathematical, scientific, philosophical and technological accomplishments of this planet be? Zero. It would be an intellectual desert.

Faith can’t land men on the moon. Only reason can. A planet of Muslims would literally be hell itself: a Devil planet on its knees, bowing to the Devil and, obscenely, worshipping him as “God”. Imagine a planet of billions of bearded Orthodox Jews wailing in front of the Wailing Wall. Any chance of them going to the moon? Zero! Imagine a planet of Christian Fundamentalists waiting for the Second Coming or to be Raptured. Will these people produce space rockets? You’re having a laugh. The Torah, the Bible and the Koran are excellent for producing a certain kind of motion – forcing people onto their knees and bellies in abject submission. They are useless for producing the kind of motion that allows humans to set foot on the moon. All Mythos planets are inherently backward and doomed. They are retarded. Their silly stories have wiped out their future. Now imagine a Logos planet with seven billion mathematicians, scientists, engineers, philosophers and technologists, where not a single person believes in the Abrahamic God and where no copies of the Torah, Bible or Koran are to be found anywhere (except in an ancient joke shop). What could such a planet not accomplish? This is the Star Trek planet, populated by a rational, meritocratic humanity. This is a human race that will travel the galaxies and then the heavens themselves where the gods reside. We cannot have this future while we are held back by billions of Mythos subhumans, more intent on kneeling than thinking – just look at the Muslim hordes. Logos humanity must create a Logos future. We must separate ourselves entirely from the Mythos masses. We have no choice. Story-book Mythos planets are already dead. They have no future.

***** Imagine a planet of Wall Street bankers, stock market traders and derivatives experts. Could they land a man on the moon? These people are only interested in money. That’s why they choose the careers they do and live as they do. They have zero vision and ambition for anything noble and transcendent. Mammon is their God.

The Alphas

All women want an alpha male, and all men want an alpha women. However, most men aren’t alphas and neither are most women. Alphas are in extremely short supply, so there’s always fierce competition for them, and, of course, only alphas win, i.e. alpha men get alpha women and alpha women get alpha men.

The Son of God The birth of Pythagoras was the subject of a prophecy at Apollo’s Temple at Delphi. Pythagoras was said to be the son of Apollo, hence the “Son of God”. Not just any God, the God of Reason, the best God of all. In Gnosticism, Apollo is Abraxas. Abraxas is pure reason, unlike Apollo who is also a feeling God by way of his interest in the arts. It was predicted that Pythagoras would be the Saviour of humanity. Well, via his creation of the Illuminati, he was!

Ethos, Pathos, Logos Aristotle divided the rhetorical means of persuasion into three categories: Ethos, Pathos and Logos. A speaker who appeals to Ethos (Character) seeks to convince by his own personality, character and reputation. People believe those whom they respect. Of course, many charlatans are highly skilled at presenting themselves as people of character. A speaker who appeals to Pathos (Emotion) persuades by the manipulation and exploitation of his audience’s emotions. A speaker who appeals to Logos seeks to persuade through rational argument and the quality of his reasoning. This was, of course, Aristotle’s chosen tool of argument. Logos: an argument’s rational appeal. Ethos: an argument’s ethical appeal. Pathos: an argument’s emotional appeal.

The Wisdom of Napoleon Nietzsche regarded Napoleon as a “synthesis of Unmensch [monster] and Übermensch [superman]”. In many ways, Napoleon is the supreme Machiavellian anti-hero, utterly dominant, cynical, skilled, manipulative, deceitful, and undeluded.

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Courage isn’t having the strength to go on – it is going on when you don’t have strength.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Show me a family of readers, and I will show you the people who move the world.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Imagination rules the world” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “History is a set of lies agreed upon.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “He who knows how to flatter also knows how to slander.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “History is written by the winners.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “If I had to choose a religion, the sun as the universal giver of life would be my god.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action comes, stop thinking and go in.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “If you want a thing done well, do it yourself.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The only victories which leave no regret are those which are gained over ignorance.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “A leader is a dealer in hope.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte

“You don’t reason with intellectuals. You shoot them.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The best way to keep one’s word is not to give it.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Men are Moved by two levers only: fear and self interest.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the mind.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte (This defines the relationship between master and slave: the master does not believe he can be defeated, the slave becomes convinced he will lose and therefore does.) “Let Him Sleep...For When He Wakes, He Will Move Mountains.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “A woman laughing is a woman conquered.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte, “Ten people who speak make more noise than ten thousand who are silent.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “It is the cause, not the death, that makes the martyr.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Throw off your worries when you throw off your clothes at night.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The only victory over love is flight.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Never tell your enemy he is doing the wrong thing.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte

“Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Circumstances-what are circumstances? I make circumstances” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte (This sums up the negative liberty world of free-market capitalism. Napoleon was an advocate of positive liberty, as all great people are.) “Ability is of little account without opportunity.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte (Most meritocrats are denied the chance to show their merit.) “Victory belongs to the most persevering.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Men are more easily governed through their vices than through their virtues.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Courage is like love, it must have hope for nourishment.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The greatest danger occurs at the moment of victory” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Music is what tell us that the human race is greater than we realize.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “If we could read the past histories of all our enemies we would disregard all hostility for them.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Great men are meteors designed to burn so that earth may be lighted.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but one step” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “We must laugh at man to avoid crying for him.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte

“A throne is only a bench covered with velvet.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “In our time no one has the conception of what is great. It is up to me to show them.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “A revolution is an idea, taken up by bayonets.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “There is a joy in danger.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The reason most people fail instead of succeed is they trade what they want most for what they want at the moment.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “What is history but a fable agreed upon?” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “It’s the unconquerable soul of man, and not the nature of the weapon he uses, that ensures victory” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The surest way to remain poor is to be honest.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Great ambition is the passion of a great character. Those endowed with it may perform very good or bad acts. All depends on the principles which direct them.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The world suffers a lot. Not because the violence of bad people. But because of the silence of the good people.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The love of glory is like the bridge that Satan built across Chaos to pass from Hell to Paradise: glory links the past with the future across a bottomless abyss. Nothing to my son, except my name!” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemy’s.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “To write history one must be more than a man, since the author who holds the pen of this great justiciary must be free from all preoccupation of interest or vanity.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “England is a nation of shopkeepers.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “I start out by believing the worst.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte

“An army marches on its stomach.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “I saw the crown of France laying on the ground, so I picked it up with my sword.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte Put your iron hand in a velvet glove.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “I make my battle plans from the spirit of my sleeping soldiers.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “All great events hang by a single thread. The clever man takes advantage of everything, neglects nothing that may give him some added opportunity; the less clever man, by neglecting one thing, sometimes misses everything.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Variety made the Revolution. Liberty was just a pretext.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “From triumph to downfall there is but one step. I have noted that, in the most momentous occasions, mere nothings have always decided the outcome of the greatest events.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The herd seek out the great, not for their sake but for their influence; and the great welcome them out of vanity or need.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Women are nothing but machines for producing children.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “You don’t govern men who don’t have religion, you shoot them.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Courage cannot be counterfeited. It is one virtue that escapes hypocrisy.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Orders and decorations are necessary in order to dazzle the people.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Success is the most convincing talker in the world.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte

“Impossible is the word found only in a fool’s dictionary. Wise people create opportunities for themselves and make everything possible...” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “One must indeed be ignorant of the methods of genius to suppose that it allows itself to be cramped by forms. Forms are for mediocrity, and it is fortunate that mediocrity can act only according to routine. Ability takes its flight unhindered.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Ordinarily men exercise their memory much more than their judgment.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “We frustrate many designs against us by pretending not to see them.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Nothing is lost as long as courage remains.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “A cowardly act! What do I care about that? You may be sure that I should never fear to commit one if it were to my advantage.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “What is the government? Nothing, unless supported by opinion.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Audacity succeeds as often as it fails; in life it has an even chance.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Never depend on the multitude, full of instability and whims; always take precautions against it.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “From triumph to downfall is but a step. I have seen a trifle decide the most important issues in the gravest affairs.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “It is only by prudence, wisdom, and dexterity, that great ends are attained and obstacles overcome. Without these qualities nothing succeeds.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The great mass of society are far from being depraved; for if a large majority were criminal or inclined to break the laws, where would the force or power be to prevent or constrain them? And herein is the real blessing of civilization, because this happy result has its origin in her bosom, growing out of her very nature.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte

“It is not true that men never change; they change for the worse, as well as for the better. It is not true they are ungrateful; more often the benefactor rates his favours higher than their worth; and often too he does not allow for circumstances. If few men have the moral force to resist impulses, most men do carry within themselves the germs of virtues as well as of vices, of heroism as well as of cowardice. Such is human nature — education and circumstances do the rest.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Lead the ideas of your time and they will accompany and support you; fall behind them and they drag you along with them; oppose them and they will overwhelm you.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “There are in the world, two powers. The sword and the spirit. The spirit has always vanquished the sword.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Power is my mistress. I have worked too hard at her conquest to allow anyone to take her away from me.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “Among so many conflicting ideas and so many different perspectives, the honest man is confused and distressed and the skeptic becomes wicked ... Since one must take sides, one might as well choose the side that is victorious, the side which devastates, loots, and burns. Considering the alternative, it is better to eat than to be eaten.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “More glorious to merit a sceptre than to possess one.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “One is more certain to influence men, to produce more effect on them, by absurdities than by sensible ideas.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “In politics nothing is immutable. Events carry within them an invincible power. The unwise destroy themselves in resistance. The skilful accept events, take strong hold of them and direct them.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “We are made weak both by idleness and distrust of ourselves. Unfortunate, indeed, is he who suffers from both. If he is a mere individual he becomes nothing; if he is a king he is lost.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte

“The most difficult art is not in the choice of men, but in giving to the men chosen the highest service of which they are capable.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “The laws of circumstance are abolished by new circumstances.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “A general must be a charlatan.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte “At the beginning of a campaign it is important to consider whether or not to move forward; but when one has taken the offensive it is necessary to maintain it to the last extremity. However skilfully effected a retreat may be, it always lessens the morale of an army, since in losing the chances of success, they are remitted to the enemy. A retreat, moreover, costs much more in men and materials than the bloodiest engagements, with this difference, also, that in a battle the enemy loses practically as much as you do; while in a retreat you lose and he does not.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte (The doctrine of “no retreat”.) “War is becoming an anachronism; if we have battled in every part of the continent it was because two opposing social orders were facing each other, the one which dates from 1789, and the old regime. They could not exist together; the younger devoured the other. I know very well, that, in the final reckoning, it was war that overthrew me, me the representative of the French Revolution, and the instrument of its principles. But no matter! The battle was lost for civilization, and civilization will inevitably take its revenge. There are two systems, the past and the future. The present is only a painful transition. Which must triumph? The future, will it not? Yes indeed, the future! That is, intelligence, industry, and peace. The past was brute force, privilege, and ignorance. Each of our victories was a triumph for the ideas of the Revolution. Victories will be won, one of these days, without cannon, and without bayonets.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte (It will be win by the superior intelligence of Logos humanity, the newer and higher human race.) “You must not fear death, my lads; defy him, and you drive him into the enemy’s ranks.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte

Ultimate Fear

“I see stupid people... They’re everywhere... and they don’t know they’re stupid.” – Parody of famous line from Sixth Sense about “dead people”.

No Facts “There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths.” –Nietzsche This is the voice of sheer skepticism. It denies that the world is grounded in reason. And if it isn’t, then what is it grounded in? Is an irrational world possible? That is, a world in which there are no absolute, eternal rules, facts and laws that provide a 100% secure foundation for existence? In fact, if existence has a single flaw then it cannot exist at all. Nietzsche’s hatred of metaphysics and his lack of mathematical expertise had a disastrous influence on his philosophy, which would otherwise have been a marvel.

The Wrong Forks Humanity took several disastrous wrong turnings. It listened to Moses, Buddha, Jesus Christ and Mohammed rather than Pythagoras and Plotinus, it preferred Aristotle over Plato and it fell for the magic tricks of Newton instead of the hyperrationalism of Leibniz.

Myers-Briggs Your Myers-Briggs classification isn’t a measure of your personality, it’s a measure of your soul!

Life How is life possible? How is consciousness possible? How is reason possible? The answer is that existence itself is alive: in fact, it is living reason. What does such a statement actually mean? It means that the stuff of existence is in permanent motion and is subject to an irresistible inner drive to rationally solve itself, to optimize itself. It’s this compulsion to find the rational answer to itself that constitutes life. Living reason is the same thing as living mathematics. The rational answer to existence is the optimal mathematical answer to existence. We might even say that a specific number is the answer. When Douglas Adams proposed “42” in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe and got a huge laugh, he may in fact not have been too far wrong!

Living reason – unconscious reason – begins as Will, crudely trying to solve itself by the brute force method of bringing opposites into conflict and letting them fight it out for dominance (this is the basis of dialectics). Nietzsche wrote, “What is good? – All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? – all that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? – The feeling that power increases – that a resistance is overcome.” In other words, pain and unhappiness are measures of decreasing power and pleasure and happiness are measures of increasing power. When reason embarks on its journey, it initially reflects feeling. If reason, being unconscious, cannot objectively assess its progress, it must use a subjective criterion, and that criterion is its inner assessment of its own power, as determined by feeling pleasure or pain. If, at the root of everything, is a drive to optimization then that equates to an optimization of “power”. Ultimately, it’s rational, mathematical power, but, initially, it’s the feeling of power, dictated by the subjective experience of pleasure or pain, happiness or unhappiness. This is a key point. Unconscious dialectical reason actually begins emotionally. Emotion is the simplest means for a mental subject to gauge if its power is going up or down. Eventually, feelings give way to conscious reason and then a mind can objectively rather than subjectively analyze its power status. As for intuition, this is an unconscious version of reason. Rational answers present themselves without conscious reflection. Of course, this is a haphazard process and, in fact, the more rational you are the better chance you have of being intuitive. That is, intuition is an extra bonus for the rational, increasing their power even more. The dialectical opponent of intuition is, as Jung realized, sensing. Sensing is mathematical detection and subsequent subjective interpretation of the physical environment. A rational mind tied to sensing becomes materialist and empiricist (scientific) while a rational mind tied to intuition is idealist and rationalist and tied to Platonic mathematics and philosophy. The Myers-Briggs personality classification is an extremely dialectical system. Introversion is opposed by extraversion, judging is opposed by perceiving, thinking is opposed by feeling, and intuition is opposed by sensing. Jungian “individuation” is about using a transcendent function (dialectical synthesis phase) that overcomes dialectical oppositions, resolves contradictions and leads to an “omega human” who is the perfect

balance of all the opposing elements and thus the most fully rounded human being. The Jungian system is a highly Hegelian system. After countless dialectical iterations, reason starts to develop consciousness. Once reason is conscious, it can reflect on itself and plan the way forward. It no longer needs to feel its way forward. An intuitive rational mind can start to grasp enormous rational patterns on a cosmic scale. Bit by bit, the “big picture” of existence comes into view, something akin to a jigsaw. At the limit – the omega point – the jigsaw is complete and all things are seen and known. Jung, interestingly, considered thinking and feeling to both be rational functions. They are concerned with evaluation and judgment. Crucially, feelings – when they are meaningful – are about binary oppositions: good or bad, pleasurable or unpleasurable, agreeable or disagreeable, happy or sad, “moreish” or “lessish”, “us” and “them”, and so on. In other words, feelings provide the classic thesis/ antithesis classification and thus represents dialectical reason in its simplest mode. (When we are indifferent to something, we have no feelings about it, hence we are neutral and nondialectical towards it.) Will is unconscious reason that exhibits reason’s desire to optimize itself and does so through the primitive quest for power as the simplest rational gauge of an increase in optimization. Will causes us to desire things and to pursue those objects of our desire. The things we desire are those that we consider will increase our power. Feelings are how, using simple dialectical reason, we judge whether our power is rising or falling. Thus Will, desires and feelings, which seem to have no connection at all with “reason”, are in fact living reason operating in its most primitive, crudest mode. They are not the opposite of reason: they are unevolved reason, unsublimated reason. Jung considered intuition and sensing to be irrational to signify that they were not connected with reason (but non-rational would have been a better description). In fact, these are rational too. Intuition is “super rationality” whereby a huge amount of data is rationally processed at once, allowing incredible insights into an otherwise intractable problem. Intuitive rationality does not proceed with conscious deliberation, step by step. It happens all at once, and then has to be processed and understood by ordinary reason. As for sensing, this is the rational processing of environmental data.

Extraversion is about reason directed to the outer world of appearances (rational observables) and introversion about reason directed to the inner world of hidden truths (rational unobservables). Logos is about true reason and Mythos is about storytelling: emotional reason. The point is that everything we encounter is simply one thing – reason – manifesting itself in different ways as it evolves from the unconscious domain to conscious self-awareness. Reason is all there is, and reason, ultimately, is simply living mathematics. The two are indissoluble. Every aspect of mathematics reflects adamantine reason. Reason does not resemble reason when it’s unconscious. It starts to look like itself only via consciousness – which in fact is why it is seeking selfawareness in the first place, as this allows it to optimize its power. Reason comes in two flavours: temporal and eternal. Eternal reason deals with the fundamental, immutable, timeless, mathematical laws of the universe (of Platonic mathematics). These are the supreme, incontestable truths. In its temporal mode, reason is purely dialectical and deals with provisional, contingent “truths”. Dialectical reason concerns the messy processes of life and it handles them the only way it can: crudely and simplistically through binary opposition. It does not look like reason, yet it plainly is. It’s the simplest vehicle of progress a living system of reason can adopt. Hegel was dazzlingly right when he grasped the cosmic significance of the dialectic and how it necessarily reflected an evolving rational universe that was converging on an Absolute state of complete, cosmic rational self-awareness. If Leibniz had any flaws, it was that he over-rationalized and had far too elegant a conception of how the universe made rational progress towards the “best of all possible worlds”. Hegel realized that the process would be anything but elegant. On the contrary, it would be an immense, ugly conflict between countless opposites all determined to defeat each other. Reason, as it seeks to optimize itself, begins savagely in cosmic war regarding deadly oppositions and contradictions, and ends tranquilly in absolute cosmic peace, with the complete rational resolution of all oppositions and contradictions. There is no other way the rational universe could operate. Leibniz and Hegel definitively nailed it. All that remains is to tidy up the details.

The Magic of Music Schopenhauer said that music was the closest we could get to the underlying noumenal Will of the universe. It was, he said, a direct phenomenal copy of the deep pulse of existence. Music, in fact, is sensory mathematics. Specifically, it is auditory mathematics. It appeals directly to our emotions. It is reason conveyed in a form that can be mainlined into our emotional centres. Music is “reason for the ears”: rationalism conveyed by sound waves. Music has so much power not because it’s a copy of the noumenal Will but because it is the noumenal Will in the form of sound waves. Existence is 100% mathematical. Conscious reason is what we use to understand the sound waves of which music is composed. Of course, music existed long before anyone knew anything about sound waves. If conscious reason is how we objectively make sense of music, our emotions are how we experience it subjectively. So, music conveys reason both objectively and subjectively, which is why it’s so powerful. Natural language is a kind of music too, except it proceeds by way of letters and words rather than notes. Given that language is how we compose our thoughts, including our highest rational thoughts, you can see how closely music and reason are coupled.

Life Life is about growth, about development, about increasing power, about seeking completion, wholeness and, ultimately, perfection. Life is inherently self-solving, self-optimizing and teleological. Life is reason seeking to know itself. It is mathematical energy obeying the principle of sufficient reason and seeking to become self-aware. Science can say nothing about life because it denies the existence of cosmic teleology. Nothing has any purposes according to science. Nothing pursues any ends. This is an anti-life ideology.

Debunking It’s immensely important to debunk mainstream religion with all of its absurd Mythos junk. It’s just as important to debunk scientific materialism with its wholly false depiction of true reality. Science deals with the surface, with

appearance, with the outside. It says nothing at all about the interior, the “withinness”, the inside of reality.

The Tree of Knowledge In esoteric circles, it is said that the reason why “God” forbade Adam and Eve from eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was that, having done so, they would then recognise that HE was evil – in fact, Satan himself. They would stop worshipping him and he would lose power over them. “God” did not want anyone to think and know – and is that not the key to the Torah, Bible and Koran? You are never to question, never to think, never to pursue knowledge. Your only task is to obey – slavishly and mindlessly, even to the extent of murdering your own children if ordered. You are to be a controlled robot, on your knees. Just look at the Muslim hordes. The Abrahamic texts, it could be argued, were provided by the True God to warn humanity about the monster (Satan) who sought to prey on them. Rather than heeding the warning and recognizing the creature described in these books as the quintessence of evil, humanity promptly got on its knees to him and worshipped him, calling him “God”. At that point, the True God abandoned humanity to its fate, its self-chosen hell. Only a few enlightened humans – the Gnostics – understood what was going on and tried to escape from this Satanic prison planet, full of Abrahamic Devil worshippers: the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

***** It is said that Solomon sought the means to control 72 demons. Muslim Martyrs are said to lust after the 72 virgins that have been promised to martyrs (this is basic operant conditioning to make gullible people kill themselves on behalf of their controllers). However, what if the higher esoteric truth is that the 72 demons and 72 virgins are one and the same? That is, Muslim martyrs have been promised control over the demonic powers that will render them kings and gods amongst men, and they will get all the women they want, just as Solomon himself did (he had many hundreds of lovers)! Interestingly, an ancient tradition says that it wasn’t 72 demons that Solomon learned to control, but the 72 “names of God”.

A Kabbalah website (http://www.kabbalah.com/wisdom/72Names) gives an effective introduction to the topic of God’s 72 names: “The ancient Kabbalist Rav Shimon bar Yochai wrote in the Zohar that it was Moses, not God, who parted the Red Sea, allowing the Israelites to narrowly escape Pharaoh and the Egyptian army. In order to accomplish this apparent miracle, Moses combined the power of certainty with a very powerful spiritual technology. He had possession of a formula that literally gave him access to the subatomic realm of nature. “The formula Moses used to overcome the laws of nature has been hidden in the Zohar for 2000 years. “This formula is called the 72 Names of God. Not names like Betty, Bill and Barbara, but 72 sequences composed of Hebrew letters that have the extraordinary power to overcome the laws of nature in all forms, including human nature. “Though this formula is encoded in the literal Biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea, no rabbi, scholar, or priest was aware of the secret. It was known only to a handful of Kabbalists – who also knew that when the time was ripe, the formula would be revealed to the world. “To learn how to wield the power of the 72 Names, together with the purposes of which they can be used, we recommend reading The 72 Names of God: Technology of the Soul. Even if you don’t speak or read Hebrew, you can still begin and experience incredible miracles. “Now, after some 2,000 years of concealment, contemporary seekers can also tap into this power and energy by learning about, and calling upon, the 72 Names of God. “The 72 Names are each 3-letter sequences that act like an index to specific, spiritual frequencies. By simply looking at the letters, as well as closing your eyes and visualizing them, you can connect with these frequencies. “To use a physical metaphor to describe what takes place when using the 72 Names, think of a tuning fork, a tool used to establish a precise pitch. When you bring a vibrating tuning fork close to another tuning fork that is not vibrating, the second fork starts to vibrate by the phenomena called ‘sympathetic transference’. “The 72 Names work as tuning forks to repair you on the soul level. It means, practically speaking, that you don’t have to go through some of the

more physically demanding tests in life, you can tune your body and soul with the spiritual frequencies your eyes do not perceive.”

Negative and Positive Liberty Negative liberty: Freedom from the State. (This is massively favourable to rich dynastic families – the Old World Order – who want to rule the world and have no resistance from the State. Transnational, free-market capitalism completely bypasses effective State control.) Positive Liberty: Freedom for the State to massively intervene in people’s lives in order to create a perfect State populated by perfect people. This leads to the complete elimination of rule by elite families.

Different Views of Matter The Cartesian view of matter was that it consisted of things extended in space that moved according to mechanical laws. This was the common sense view, the mechanistic view. Things affected other things by way of physical contact. We might imagine the Cartesian, extended, physical universe as a kind of ocean, full of objects moving around within it. There is no “empty space” in such a system. Everything is in direct physical contact with other things. Newton had the same view except, like the ancient Greek Atomists, he accepted the existence of the Void (which he called “absolute space”) and he added “magical” (spooky) action at a distance to account for gravity, i.e. Newtonian gravity causes bodies that are not in contact with each other to nevertheless influence each other (like voodoo!). Descartes and his supporters would never have accepted this, seeing it as retrograde “magic thinking”. Indeed, it was Newton’s alchemical, religious and magical propensities that led him to conceive of his peculiar theory of gravity. Newtonian gravity is very hard to describe as “science” in any conventional sense. Einstein criticized quantum mechanics for seemingly allowing action at a distance (in fact, quantum mechanics says that everything is fundamentally linked in a frequency domain outside space and time), but this criticism would have been much more accurately levelled at Newton’s voodoo theory of gravity. How is it possible for two planets to affect each other when there is nothing but empty space between them, as Newton alleged? What is this thing called “force”? How is it transmitted

across a vacuum? Moreover, how is it transmitted instantaneously across any distance – like magic? How is such a thing possible? And it applies everywhere at all times. Yet there is simply no medium for forces to bring about their effects. Later, the ether was introduced to get round this, but Einstein then abolished the ether before introducing warpable spacetime (which was suspiciously like an ether!) – not that any scientist has the vaguest idea of what “warpable spacetime” actually means. How can space be warped, how can time be warped, how can spacetime be warped? Science doesn’t even have analytic definitions of what space and time actually are. In his secret writings, Newton made it clear that he believed that the will of God was responsible for the operation of the “force of gravity”. And to think that this wizard brazenly and impudently claimed not to “feign hypotheses.” The reason for that was simple – he knew he would have been exposed as a magician and religious lunatic rather than a scientist if he had made public what he really thought of gravity. He hid behind the veil of making no attempt to explain himself, and simply presenting his highly successful results. Science has continued to follow this pragmatic, instrumental approach. Scientific theories are in general utterly ridiculous, but happen to work well, which is always thanks to the raw mathematics involved and never to the fallacious scientific interpretations of the mathematics. Anyone who thinks Newton “solved” the problem of gravity is insane. Einstein had a better stab at it, but you’re insane if you think he cracked it either. Science cannot solve the problem of quantum gravity precisely because all scientific definitions are ad hoc, arbitrary, synthetic and instrumental and simply do not intersect with truth. The deeper you go into reality, the more vital it is that your definitions are true, not simply “workable”. Science has now run aground. The ship of science has gone as far as it can with its absurd bodges and fudge factors. It’s springing leaks everywhere, and sinking fast. Abandon ship! Leibniz was disgusted with Newton’s ridiculous theory of gravity. He knew it was the uttermost nonsense, with no conceivable basis in reason. Tragically, the theory worked spectacularly well , and so everyone ignored Leibniz’s brilliant denunciations of Newton’s charlatanry. As Nietzsche tellingly said, “Success has always been the greatest liar.”

Einstein’s model of gravity destroys every aspect of Newton’s model, yet the mathematics of the two theories give almost identical results in all commonly encountered scenarios, which is why it took Newton’s theory so long to be disproved. Many erroneous scientific theories can generate mathematical solutions that are effective approximations of the true equations of reality, hence why they are so deceptively successful, while steering human minds down the completely wrong track. Einstein’s theories also fall into the category of being deceptively successful while being grotesquely wrong. (The principle of relativity directly contradicts the principle of objective reality: you can have either relativity or objective reality, but you can’t have both.) Leibniz asserted that force, not matter, is the ultimate component of the physical world; material objects are secondary; they appear to be extended and impenetrable, but in reality, they are nothing but the focal points of the activity of forces. This school of thought was known as dynamism and championed by Leibniz and Boscovich (the latter’s theories involved a synthesis of Leibniz and Newton). Their central principle was that things exist only as long as they act, and, since they act permanently, they exist forever. Newton and Descartes believed that the existence of things is prior to action, and that they can therefore exist without action. So, the dynamists said that action precedes material existence and the materialists said that material existence precedes action. The dynamist view implies that mind precedes and creates matter; the opposing view implies that matter precedes and creates mind. This is therefore one of the most fundamental questions of existence. The weirdness exhibited by quantum mechanics, where particles can’t be said to exist at all in any conventional material sense, is overwhelmingly in favour of the dynamism view, and is therefore evidence of reality being mental rather than physical! Quantum mechanics deals an almost lethal blow to mechanistic and materialist thinking, while it has raised dynamism from the dead. It’s fascinating that Newtonian mechanics (classical physics), gravity apart, upholds the mechanistic materialist view of reality, while quantum mechanics (new physics) is almost wholly a dynamic rather than mechanistic or materialist theory.

*****

According to the strict mechanists, matter should be described only in terms of its motion or of concepts that relate to its motion. There can be no action at a distance. In this view, Newtonian gravity operating instantaneously across empty space is inconceivable. The mechanistic view requires all forces to be described in terms of simple mechanical motion and contact. Newton abolished that vital need for contact, but it was later reintroduced by Einstein through warpable spacetime, and Einstein also denied the possibility of the instantaneous transmission of forces, making the speed of light the cosmic speed limit. However, quantum mechanics then reintroduced instantaneous communication between infinitely separated but correlated entities. In one popular interpretation of quantum field theory, “forces” are actually transferred via “virtual particles” being fired from one place to another and imparting their effects through direct contact.

***** Remarkably, Newton drove science forward through “magic” – his theory of gravity – and the whole scientific community fell under the wizard’s spell, despite Leibniz’s warnings. Einstein got rid of the magic to some degree, but it’s now back via quantum mechanics and its spooky “action at a distance”. This time, the only way out is to accept the ontological truth of a domain outside space and time where everything is interconnected. Science greedily accepted Newtonian magic. Bizarrely, it seems to have something against magic now and completely rejects the notion of a domain where everything is interconnected! Isn’t it extraordinary that science revered Newton, the Babylonian magician, so much, and had complete scorn for Leibniz, the hyperrationalist genius? Science remains an utterly irrational enterprise that loathes reason and analysis. Over and over again, it trumpets the virtues of experimentation (which has no necessary connection with truth but is simply about measurement and observation) over rationalism. Science works, but it is not true. Hyperrationalism is true but its truth cannot be observed experimentally in any direct way. Hyperrationalism addresses the noumenal domain of Platonic truth while science addresses the phenomenal domain of Kantian pseudo-truth. Hyperrationalism is about the secret, deep world of reason, and science about the visible, shallow world of appearance (things available to sensory detection).

It’s time for science to abandon Newton and Einstein and go back to Leibnizian hyperrationalist science.

The Greeks If Descartes was a strict mechanist, and Newton a mechanist who believed in spooky action at a distance, the ancient Greek Atomists were in between these two positions. They believed in a void (as Newton did), and material particles doing nothing but moving around in this void. All “forces” were transmitted by direct contact, contrary to the Newtonian view whereby forces can be transmitted simply by virtue of their position and not through any direct contact. The modern quantum field theory based on the exchange of virtual particles is actually highly reminiscent of ancient Greek Atomic theory. Dynamists tended to support the concept of entelechy: Aristotle’s version of the powers inherent in matter, driving matter towards certain ends (this is rather like Marxist dialectical materialism). In Leibniz’s version of dynamism, monads (non-material “atoms”) are the entelechies, and matter is one of their products. Everything for Leibniz is about minds and their energy/ activity.

The Primacy of Action “There is something more to bodily things than extension, namely the force of Nature that God has given to everything. This force is not a mere faculty or ability ... it is equipped with a striving or effort such that the force will have its full effect unless it is blocked by a contrary striving ... We should not attribute this force to God’s miraculous action; it is clear that he has put it in the bodies themselves – indeed that it constitutes the inmost nature of bodies. For what makes a substance a substance is that it acts. Mere extension does not make something a substance; indeed extension presupposes a substance, one that exerts effort and resistance; extension is merely the continuation or spreading out of that substance.” – Leibniz

***** You are alive only to the extent that you act; the passive are dead!

The Choice

Do you accept that material objects must precede energy (i.e. energy inheres in objects such as ancient Greek atoms), or that energy must precede material objects (i.e. energy inheres in Leibnizian mental atoms – monads)? M-theorists talk of 1D energy strings, but these are a kind of “atom”. In effect, M-theorists combined atoms and their energy and called them “strings”. Energy in this sense is dimensional, hence material. In Leibniz’s system, energy is dimensionless, hence mental, but can give rise to dimensional energy by the simple expedient of travelling through an ontological Cartesian coordinate system.

The Jews Some of the world’s most intelligent people have been Jews. Almost none of these have been practising Jews. Some of the best critics of Jews are Jews and we honour these heroes for speaking out so eloquently. The Jews are the world’s most fateful people because they are the world’s most insane people. Every tribe has its gods, but it was the Jews who came up with the maddest of all notions: that there’s only one God, the Creator of the Universe, and he’s a circumcised Jew in a dark suit, with dangly strands of hair and things hanging down from his trousers. Why is it that mainstream religions always have such a sad and pathetic vision of the Creator of the Universe as someone preoccupied with who’s eating bacon sandwiches? Imagine being sent to hell for having a slice of ham. Attacks on Jews always fall into several broad categories: 1) the Jews are elitist and really believe they are the Chosen People, meaning that all other people are “unchosen” and therefore damned. 2) the Jews are extremely insular and clannish, always helping each other but no one else, and seek to avoid “contamination” by Gentiles, whom they completely disdain. 3) the Jews are extremely ready to exploit and deceive Gentiles, and do them harm whenever they can get away with it. They are aggressive and pushy, always insisting on their rights and entitlements. They are sly, cunning, calculating, manipulative and exploitative, and know how to put a “situation” to its best use. They are unprincipled, insolent, deceitful, dishonest, narcissistic and impudent.

4) the Jews never have any loyalty and allegiance to their host nation but always to the Jewish State. 5) the Jews have an excessive lust for money and property and will do anything to get them in order to achieve economic dominance over everyone else. 6) the Jews are economic “parasites” who never do anything productive and engage in rapacious, predatory capitalism. They are consumed with making “money from money” rather than actually making anything. 7) the Jews are notorious money-lenders and usurers, living off the sweat of others. 8) the Jews have a massive concentration in the banking industry, politics, the law, the entertainment industry, finance and the media. 9) the Jews, because of their wealth, occupy privileged and favoured positions in society. 10) the Jews are engaged in a global conspiracy to forward the interests of the Jews at the expense of everyone else. Free-market capitalism is the jewel in the crown of the Jewish protocols for controlling the world. Freemarket capitalism transcends all national borders and owes no loyalty or allegiance to any State or people, just like the Jews themselves. Free-market capitalism stands outside political control. Free-market capitalists are unelected and unaccountable. They are never subject to the will of the people. “Anti-Semitism is an ancient social attitude probably coeval with the rise of Jewish tribalism. It is thus an immemorial trait identified with Jewish culture ... Anti-Semitism has been identified with Jewish behaviour in the sense that it is a reaction of other groups to the Jews’ determination to assert and perpetuate their identity ... Unlike race prejudice ... anti-Semitism or intolerance is essentially an inherent social response – a retaliation [against] the Jewish determination to resist merger of their civilization with that of a host people.” – Oliver Cox When it comes to the question of anti-Semitism, the question that the Jewish-controlled media never ask is whether anti-Semitism is caused by the Jews themselves through their absolute refusal to assimilate and

integrate with their host countries. There are Irish Americans but no Jewish Americans, only American Jews, i.e. they are defined by being Jews, not by being Americans. “The Jews deserve to hang on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves.”; “We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them.” – Martin Luther “A mighty state stretches across almost all the nations of Europe, hostile in intent and in constant strife with all others … this is Jewry.” – Fichte “The euthanasia of Judaism is the pure moral religion.” – Kant “[The Jews are] a rotten and degenerate race” [that has] “evil and worthless drives and desires.” – Ernst Moritz Arndt “[Germany cannot assimilate the Jews because the Jews live an] animal existence that can only be secured at someone else’s expense.” – Hegel “As for giving them [the Jews] civil rights, I for one see no remedy but that their heads should be all cut off in one night and replaced with others in which there would not be one single Jewish idea.” – Fichte The Jews are “rotten,” “worthless cheats,” “bloodsuckers,” a “diseased people,” – Johann Fries “Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew—not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time. … We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented antisocial element, an element which through historical development—to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed—has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry.” – Marx (himself from Jewish stock) “I have not met a German yet who was well disposed toward the Jews; and however unconditionally all the cautious and politically-minded repudiated

real anti-Semitism, even this caution and policy are not directed against the species of this feeling itself but only against its dangerous immoderation.” – Nietzsche “The Jews have been a supernation rather than members of a nation. More than any other people, certainly up to the time of the emancipation, they were innocent and irresponsible toward the national traditions and aspirations of the people among whom they lived.” – J. O. Hertzler “Hatred for the Jews does not date solely from the birth of Christianity. Seneca treated the Jews as a criminal race. Juvenal believed that the Jews only existed to cause evil for other peoples. Quintilian said that Jews were a curse for other people.” – Abram Leon “[Jews] pride themselves in possessing superior wisdom and disdain for the company of other men.” – Celsus “[Jews] have long since risen against humanity itself. They are men who have devised a misanthropic life, who share neither food nor drink with others.” – Philostratus “The Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and are always ready to show compassion [for their fellow Jews], but toward other people they feel only hate and enmity.” – Tacitus “The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous – cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity.” – Voltaire “[The Jews epitomize] tyranny and bigotry... [They are] the greatest scoundrels who have ever sullied the face of the globe ... They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and Germans are born with blond hair. I would not in the least be surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race ... You [Jews] have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct, and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.” – Voltaire “The Jew does not belong to any place except that place which he makes money; would he not just as easily betray the King on behalf of the

Emperor as he would the Emperor for the King?” – Voltaire “[The Jews are] our masters and our enemies ... whom we detest ... the most abominable people in the world.” – Voltaire “Know that wherever there is money, there is the Jew.” – Montesquieu “The native tendency of the Jewish race is against the doctrine of the equality of man. They have also another characteristic – the faculty of acquisition ... Their bias is to religion, property, and natural aristocracy.” – Benjamin Disraeli (from Jewish stock) “At the present time there is absolutely nothing which the Jews can arrogate to themselves beyond other people ... As to their continuance so long after dispersion, there is nothing marvellous in it, for they separated themselves from every nation as to draw upon themselves universal hate.” – Spinoza “How does one understand – not even forgive, simply understand! – the virulently anti-Jewish statements of intellectuals throughout history? Their numbers included H. L. Mencken (‘The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of’); George Bernard Shaw (‘Stop being Jews and start being human beings’); Henry Adams (‘The whole rotten carcass is rotten with Jew worms’); H.G. Wells (‘A careful study of anti-Semitism, prejudice and accusations might be of great value to many Jews, who do not adequately realize the irritation they inflict’); Edgar Degas (characterized as a ‘wild anti-Semite’); Denis Diderot (‘Brutish people, vile and vulgar men’); Theodore Dreiser (New York is a ‘kike’s dream of a ghetto,’ and Jews are not ‘pure Americans’ and ‘lack integrity’); T. S. Eliot (a social as well as literary anti-Semite, even after the Holocaust); Immanuel Kant (‘The Jews still cannot claim any true genius, any truly great man. All their talents and skills revolve around stratagems and low cunning ... They are a nation of swindlers.’) Other famous antiSemites include Tacitus, Cicero, Aleksander Pushkin, Pierre Renoir, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and, of course, Richard Wagner. This honour roll of anti-Jewish bigotry goes on, and included people of every race, religion, and geographic area, political leaning, gender, and age. The answer to the question why? probably lies more in the realm of abnormal psychology than in any rational attempts to find understandable cause in history, or economics. Anti-Semitism is a disease of the soul, and diseases

are best diagnosed by examining those infected with them.” – “ Alan Dershowitz Of course, it’s Judaism that is reflective of abnormal psychology, a disease of the soul. How can any group claim to be the Chosen People of the Creator of the Universe without facing a prima facie case of being megalomaniacs and insane?! “Much of the ancient literature on the Jews ... is devoted to explaining why the Jews have incurred the justifiable anger or hatred of ordinary peaceloving, law-abiding people ... But no critical historian would consider taking their arguments at face value, and in fact they are likely to tell us more about their authors than their victims.” – Nicholas de Lange This is a perfect example of self-serving Jewish propaganda. The Jews are referred to as “victims” and we are told that no “critical historian” would ever doubt that. Well, any historian simply needs to critically read the Jewish Bible to see whether the Jews are the victims or the perpetrators. The Jews, in their holy texts, make no effort whatsoever to disguise the fact that the deity they worship is a Torture God, Psychopath and Devil, even exterminating the whole human race bar Noah and his family! “We find the representatives of almost every ideological orientation [who were anti-Semites] ... Enlightenment thinkers (Voltaire), arch-conservatives (de Maistre, de Bonald), socialists and communists (Fourier, Proudhon, Marx, Sobel), and the great Romantics (Goethe). These writers seem to differ in everything – their relation to religion, the idea of progress, authority, feudalism, and capitalism, the concept of knowledge and human nature – but they are united in a spirit of dislike and hostility towards that strange tribe, the Jews.” – Pawel Spiewak And why is that?! Isn’t it precisely because they are indeed an extremely strange tribe? The Jews are condemned as regularly and vehemently by left wingers as right wingers, and that takes quite some doing. No one else is denounced by left and right alike. Why? “The Jew is by temperament an anti-producer, neither a farmer nor an industrialist nor even a true merchant. He is an intermediary, always fraudulent and parasitic, who operates, in trade as in philosophy, by means of falsification, counterfeiting, and horse-trading.” – Proudhon

“I see no other means of protecting ourselves against them, [other] than by conquering their Promised Land and sending them all there.” – Fichte “I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” – Adolf Hitler “The Jewish problem is a highly complex matter … our ideology is opposed to the interests of the Chosen Race in that we abominate their dance around the Golden Calf. For racial and financial reasons the Jews are basically opposed to communism.” – Adolf Hitler “Anti-Semitism is a useful revolutionary expedient.” – Adolf Hitler “[The Jews are] one exploiting sect, one people of leeches, one single devouring parasite closely and intimately bound together not only across national boundaries, but also across all divergences of political opinion ... [Jews have] that mercantile passion which constitutes one of the principle traits of their national character.” – Mikhail Bakunin “For one [reason] or another, virtually every major figure in the early history of socialism – including Friedrich Engels, Charles Fourier, Ferdinand Lasalle, Marx, and Joseph Proudhon – showed a marked antipathy to Jews.” – Daniel Pipes “Anti-Semitism was rife in almost all varieties of socialism.” – Sidney Hook “However uncomfortable it is to recognize, not all those whom historians have classified as anti-Semites were narrow bigots, irrational, or otherwise incapable of acts of altruism and moral courage. They represented a bewildering range of opinion and personality types.” – Albert Lindemann “Wherever the Jews settled [in their Diaspora] one observes the development of anti-Semitism, or rather anti-Judaism ... If this hostility, this repugnance had been shown towards the Jews at one time or in one country only, it would be easy to account for the local cause of this sentiment. But this race has been the object of hatred with all nations amidst whom it settled. Inasmuch as the enemies of Jews belonged to diverse races, as they dwelled far apart from one another, were ruled by different laws and governed by opposite principles; as they had not the same customs and differed in spirit from one another, so that they could not possibly judge

alike of any subject, it must needs be that the general causes of antiSemitism have always resided in [the people of] Israel itself, and not in those who antagonized it.” – Bernard Lazare “Every coward is a liar; Jews for example, not only in business, but also in common life.” – Kant “The Jews still cannot claim any true genius, any truly great man. All their talents and skills revolve around stratagems and low cunning... They are a nation of swindlers.” – Kant The Jews are by nature “sharp dealers” who are “bound together by superstition.” Their “immoral and vile” behaviour in commerce shows that they “do not aspire to civic virtue,” for “the spirit of usury holds sway amongst them.” They are “a nation of swindlers” who benefit only “from deceiving their host’s culture.” – collection of comments by Kant “The Palestinians [Jews thought to have originated in Palestine] living among us have, for the most part, earned a not unfounded reputation for being cheaters, because of their spirit of usury since their exile. Certainly, it seems strange to conceive of a nation of cheaters; but it is just as odd to think of a nation of merchants, the great majority of whom, bound by an ancient superstition that is recognized by the State they live in, seek no civil dignity and try to make up for this loss by the advantage of duping the people among whom they find refuge, and even one another. The situation could not be otherwise, given a whole nation of merchants, as nonproductive members of society (for example, the Jews in Poland). So their constitution, which is sanctioned by ancient precepts and even by the people among whom they live (since we have certain sacred writings in common with them), cannot consistently be abolished — even though the supreme principle of their morality in trading with us is ‘Let the buyer beware.’ I shall not engage in the futile undertaking of lecturing to these people, in terms of morality, about cheating and honesty. Instead, I shall present my conjectures about the origin of this peculiar constitution (the constitution, namely, of a nation of merchants).” – Kant “Strictly speaking Judaism is not a religion at all, but simply the union of a number of people who formed themselves into a community under purely political laws, hence not into a church." – Kant [Judaism is not a religion but a set of laws and rituals.]

Kant, like any sane person, highlighted the Jewish story of Jehovah demanding that Abraham sacrifice his young son as a demonstration of loyalty and obedience. Self-evidently, this is spectacularly immoral. It is nothing other than “God” ordering human sacrifice. It’s impossible that any loving, moral God would ever order such a thing. Kant did not acknowledge Judaism as a proper religion but as a “pseudoreligion” given over to rituals, commandments, laws, observances and material wealth, and having no spiritual component worthy of the name. Judaism is all about duties in this world and is almost silent about what happens after. It’s a nationalistic and racist way of life on Earth, not a preparation for another life.

***** It’s incumbent upon the Jews, Christians and Muslims to admit that they are evil and worship the Devil. They must confess before the world their sins against the human race and admit they are wrong in every regard.

The “Holy” Texts of Humanity “The Bible is the greatest hoax in all history. The leading characters of the Old Testament would today be in the penitentiary and those of the New would be under observation in psychopathic wards.” – Charles Smith It’s astounding that billions of modern people can look at these frightening and disturbing characters from ancient “holy” texts and see them as anything other than liars, madmen, fantasists, psychopaths, criminals and mass murderers. They are not concerned with love, peace, morality, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, understanding and reason, but purely with control, obedience and power. The Abrahamic texts reveal one great truth about humanity, namely, that Nietzsche was absolutely right to identify power as the key to understanding the human condition.

The Virtues of Silence “I have nothing to say and I am saying it.” – John Cage, describing his totally silent musical composition 4’33”.

Family and State

JD: “The article has merit but it dethrones religion and families with one stroke, and enthrones the state (of all things) which is a form of religion itself, in that it’s manmade, and made up of men.” The State is not a religion. No one worships the State. No one prays to it or offers sacrifices to it. No one knees, bows, or grovels to the State. No one wears funny beards, or dark suits, or tassels, or burqas or carries out circumcisions on eight-day-old babies because of the State. The State doesn’t sentence “sinners” to eternal hell. It doesn’t claim to be morally perfect, all-seeing, and all-knowing. As for conventional “religions”, which aspect of these is not manmade? What evidence have the Jews, Christians and Muslims ever offered that their respective Gods exist? If they any actual evidence, why can’t they agree amongst themselves who God actually is? They all claim to worship the same monotheistic God, yet they all believe completely different things about him. Is the family not a religion for most people? Is that not a manmade religion in every regard?

The Outcastes Pyramidal Caste System 1) Brahmins – Priests. 2) Kshatriyas – Warriors and Rulers. 3) Vaisyas – Skilled Traders, Merchants, and Minor Officials, Bureaucrats and Civil Servants. 4) Sudras – Unskilled Workers. 5) Pariah (“Harijans”) – Outcastes, Untouchables, “Children of God” (for irony, presumably). Even when you don’t belong to a system, you are defined by it. The Untouchables are outside the Hindu caste system (they are “outcastes”), yet are part of it since they are wholly defined by their relationship with the system of which they are allegedly not part. By a similar token, atheists are defined by not being theists. Shouldn’t the theists be defined by not being rational?

Place of Final Abode Some Muslims say that hell is not permanent. Hell is described, by such people, as being exclusion from the love and mercy of God. However, there can be little doubt that these people are deluded. The Muslim mainstream are quite clear that heaven and hell existed even before the creation of the world. They are both most certainly permanent places in conventional Islamic thinking. The Koran says, “Surely, We [Allah] have prepared for the evildoers a fire, whose pavilion encompasses them. If they call for help, they will be helped with water like molten copper that will scald their faces. How dreadful a drink and how evil a resting place”, and, “Certainly, Allah has cursed the unbelievers and prepared for them a blazing fire to dwell therein forever, they shall find neither protector nor helper. On the day when their faces are turned about in the fire, they shall say, ‘Would that we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Messenger!’” According to Mohammed, most of the people in hell would be women (and the poor!). Also, women will presumably be the majority in heaven since there will be seventy-two virgins for every martyr. So, there must be a lot more women than men in the Muslim cosmos. “I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.” – Mohammed “I was shown Hell and I have never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they ungrateful to Allaah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions (husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’” – Mohammed “‘O women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religious commitment than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’ The women asked, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, what is deficient in our intelligence

and religious commitment?’ He said, ‘Is not the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Is it not true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religious commitment.’” – Mohammed “‘Give in charity, for you are the majority of the fuel of Hell. A woman with dark cheeks stood up in the midst of the women and said, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He said, ‘Because you complain too much and are ungrateful to your husbands.’ Then they started to give their jewellery in charity, throwing their earrings and rings into Bilaal’s cloak.” – Mohammed

The One Percent According to Islam, out of every one hundred people entering the afterlife, ninety-nine will end up in the fires of hell! Islam: the machine for sending people to hell.

“Life’s a pitch.” We’re all selling ourselves all the time. But some people have immense advantages over others: the rich, the powerful, the beautiful, those of highstatus, those who are already successful, all those who have something that others want. If you’re selling yourself and no one wants you, you’re fucked.

The Genius Genius, from one perspective, is a severe disability, radically cutting off the “sufferer” from other people. The only cure for the isolation of the genius is for everyone to be a genius!

Who Are You? “You are a divine being. You matter, you count. You come from realms of unimaginable power and light, and you will return to those realms.” – Terence McKenna

Blaming Your Tools

“If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” – Abraham Maslow If the only tool you have is money, you see every problem in terms of money (capitalism). If the only tool you have is Islam, you see every problem in terms of Islam (ditto Judaism and Christianity). If the only tool you have is monotheism, you see every problem in terms of the Creator. If the only tool you have is right wing ideology, you see every problem in terms of right wing ideology. However, if the only tool you have is reason then you see every problem in terms of reason ... and that means you inhabit a wholly rational world. Isn’t that what we all want?

The Lost Tribes “The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.” – Jack the Ripper “In 63 BCE, Judaea became a protectorate of Rome, and in 6 CE was elevated to a Roman province. The Jews began to revolt against the Roman Empire in 66 CE during the period known as the First Jewish–Roman War which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. During the siege, the Romans destroyed the Second Temple and most of Jerusalem. In 132, the Jews rebelled against Hadrian. In 135, Hadrian’s army defeated the Jewish armies and Jewish independence was lost. Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina and the Jews were forbidden to live there, and Hadrian changed the country’s name from Judea to Syria Palestina. ... According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, and 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed. ... Hadrian attempted to root out Judaism, which he saw as the cause of continuous rebellions. He prohibited the Torah law and the Hebrew calendar, and executed Judaic scholars. The sacred scroll was ceremonially burned on the Temple Mount. At the former Temple sanctuary, he installed two statues, one of Jupiter, another of himself.” – Wikipedia

Since the Jews were driven out of Judea and had no homeland, they ought to have vanished from history, just as the ten “lost tribes” of Israel did. So, why have the Jews endured? Precisely because they refused to assimilate with the people of host nations; they refused to integrate. At all times, they cultivated their difference, their “otherness”. They maintained their Jewish customs, laws and rituals no matter what. They helped each other to the nth degree, and separated themselves from everyone else. They are the ultimate “clan”, gang, tribe. No matter where they go, they take their Jewishness with them. Why? Because they believe they are the Chosen People, God’s elect ... infinitely superior to everyone else.

Reason Schools Many religious parents demand the formation of “faith” schools where vulnerable children are subjected to the irrational Mythos drivel of Judaism, Islam or Christianity. Isn’t it time that rational parents demanded the formation of “reason” schools where Mythos is specifically excluded, or ridiculed as mythology and unreason? In fact, isn’t it time to bring the phoney war between reason and faith to an end? Everyone in the world should be compelled by law to choose one side or another – are you a person of faith or a person of reason? We must absolutely drive home the irreconcilable difference between these two groups. Mythos and Logos humanity must separate. The clever can no longer be held back the stupid. Let’s have separate development. America’s Founding Fathers demanded the separation of Church and State, but their policy failed. America is an overwhelmingly Christian country and non-Christians, especially atheists, are regarded with little short of revulsion and horror. No atheist could ever be the American President. If Church and State were truly separate, a person’s atheism wouldn’t be any kind of issue.

The Divine Balance of Power Many Gods – polytheism – implies a cosmic balance of power. One God – monotheism – implies total, absolute, cosmic dictatorship: there is no longer any balance of power. Any group that claims to be the One God’s “Chosen People” can believe themselves a divinely favoured race, protected by the greatest power in existence. God’s chosen people cannot lose if they do their God’s bidding ... if they obey his sacred covenant. If they fail for any reason, it can’t be God’s fault, so it means that they must have displeased God. The fact that the Jews have failed so dismally in world history – having been relentlessly hated, persecuted, defeated, enslaved and massacred, culminating with the Holocaust when they were almost exterminated – proves that their God does not exist (at least not as they understand him). If what has happened to the Jews is the sign of divine favour, what would divine disfavour look like? Monotheists invariably develop an insane totalitarian outlook – just look at Islam’s desire to impose Sharia Law on everyone. Pagan polytheism was immensely tolerant because there was a whole pantheon of Gods, each accorded more or less equal respect. Hindus, with all of their Gods, could never be as systematically and relentlessly cruel as Abrahamists. There was no Inquisition in Hindu history, no witch burnings, no Crusades, no calls for martyrdom, no Pope declaring himself infallible. Monotheism is inherently an evil, maniacal, fanatical worldview that’s inevitably associated with extreme intolerance. According to the binary logic of Abrahamism, if you are not a believer on the side of the One God then are a wicked infidel opposed to him and, if the One God’s interests are to be served, you must be killed. Monotheism has, as its inescapable consequence, hatred, intolerance and murder. It should be banned outright by all civilized nations.

Mathematics “Read Euler: he is our master in everything.” —Pierre-Simon Laplace Euler’s Identity (eiπ + 1 = 0) is regularly voted the most beautiful of all equations and the “greatest equation ever”. Via this identity, exponentiation,

the imaginary number, pi (the number of the circle) and the real number 1 interact to produce nothing. Here we see exactly how something can be nothing. Any plausible explanation of reality must address why there’s something rather than nothing and the only logical answer to this conundrum is that something is a net nothing, in which case something isn’t privileged over nothing at all. “Nothing” is a much more probable state than “something” since “nothing” has no requirements, hence the principle of sufficient reason supports its existence over that of “something”, which has requirements. However, if “something” is in fact “nothing” existing in a certain way – “nothing” organised and ordered mathematically as if it were something, while, overall still being nothing – there is no longer any baffling mystery to be explained. Mathematics alone can yield this definitive explanation of why something exists at all when it seems rationally impossible. Something that is not a net nothing can never exist! The Abrahamic God – an eternal something – is a logical impossibility.

The Gaussian Integral The so-called “Gaussian integral”, also known as the Euler–Poisson integral, enjoys some of the same mystical appeal as Euler’s Identity, connecting e, pi, and infinity. Wikipedia says, “This integral has a wide range of applications. For example, with a slight change of variables it is used to compute the normalizing constant of the normal distribution. The same integral with finite limits is closely related both to the error function and the cumulative distribution function of the normal distribution. In physics this type of Integral appears frequently. For example, in Quantum Mechanics, to find the probability density of the ground state of the Harmonic oscillator, also in the path integral formulation, to find the propagator of the harmonic oscillator, we make use of this integral. ... The Gaussian integral is encountered very often in physics and numerous generalizations of the integral are encountered in quantum field theory.” “To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.” – Richard Feynman

The Pope Is there any more preposterous figure than the Pope? – someone who claims to be the representative of Jesus Christ on Earth. Well, given that Jesus Christ was a liar, a lunatic and a devil, what does that say about the Pope? The Papacy today is all about ritual, ceremony, nostalgia and propaganda. It’s about Spectacle. It has no substance at all. The Pope and his Cardinals (the “princes” of the Church) are never subjected to any hostile questioning. They never have to defend their evil theology to their critics. Catholicism, like Judaism and Islam, adopts the evil policy of brainwashing children and then forbidding any critical discussion of what it’s teaching them. It dishes it out, but never takes it. That has to change. Catholicism and Christianity have reached the end of the line. It’s time for them to leave the world stage.

The “Saviour” “A saviour has a greater right over the saved one than killer.” – Buddha WTF?! A “saviour” doesn’t have any rights over anyone. If someone wants to save another, that’s his choice – but it creates no obligations on either party. No one “owns” you. No one can do a deed that makes them your master and owner. The killer can end your mortal life, but he hasn’t touched your immortal life.

“Tardiness” We often get asked ‘tard questions. Here’s an example: AS: “So, how is it to be that there is (gods) but no God if God is the singular form that created this to be a plural form in order for it to be read as (gods)? How can there be a plural form of words to happen without the singular form of word? If God/ Deity is a set of mathematics that formed gods/ deities? How is to be said there is no God when these (gods) are to be divine? How are they divine if there is no God that is the singular form of the word divine? Why is it not written as seen as divinity which is a plural form of divine in relation to gods/ deities? Not written as divine which is the singular form in relation of God?... Question everything?”

Note how muddled the thought is, how poor the grammar is, how difficult it is to extract any meaning from it. What’s the point of it? Imagine we simply replaced the word God with “human” in this rant. We can refer to “humans” (plural) and to “a human” (singular). Well, exactly the same is true of Gods. Human beings do not require a Creator – a “Super” human – in order to be human. We have always denied the existence of any Creator, so what’s the point of mentioning a Creator to us? The person posting this message is just a confused Creationist promoting his idiotic Creationist beliefs. “How are they divine if there is no God that is the singular form of the word divine?” Replace this with, “How are they human if there is no human that is the singular form of the word human? Well, of course, there is a singular form of human, and more than one human comprises the plural form of humans. Where’s the problem? Any soul can become God, and if many souls accomplish this feat then there are many Gods. Just as there was a time before any humans existed, so there was a time before any Gods existed. There was a first human and there was also a first God. Each evolved. There was no eternal Creator God, despite the ranting poster’s desperate attempt to prove such a God’s existence through a pathetic appeal to singularity and plurality. The poster thinks he’s making a devastatingly brilliant point. In fact, he’s showing how much of a ‘tard he is. The thought is 100% incoherent, illogical, irrational and absurd. Yet billions of people think in this deranged way and believe themselves to be right and everyone who disagrees with them to be wrong. They cannot critically analyze, deconstruct and dissect their own thoughts. They always believe their own propaganda and find it incontestable and wondrous. A thinking person is someone who goes out of his way to attack his own conclusions. The poster says, “Question everything?” Naturally, this person never questions himself, his logic, his reason, his thought processes and his motivation for posting his ludicrous comments. Illuminism is the product of an immensely long process of asking what is genuinely true, and the final conclusion is that the sole objective truths are the analytic truths of mathematics, which are true by definition.

The Conquistadores The Spanish Conquistadores were some of the most fearless men in history. They were extraordinarily brave, bold adventurers, charged with an

immense will to power and lust for glory. We need Logos Conquistadores, world-historic figures who change the human “weather” forever.

The Invisible Connections At the moment a baby is born, the Chinese say that invisible red threads emanate from it and connect it to every important individual the baby will meet in its life. No matter how tangled the threads get, it’s certain that the child will meet all of these people. It’s meant to be and cannot be escaped. It’s the child’s destiny. It’s indissolubly connected to these people. In this view, everyone we meet we were meant to meet. It’s our task to understand why. What lessons are we expected to learn?

The Tyrants The Muslims believe that Allah made all souls Muslims – so anyone who is not a Muslim is an apostate who deserves the death penalty. The Christians believe that the Christian God made all souls and anyone who doesn’t believe in the Christian God has actively rejected God, hence deserves hell. The Catholics still say, albeit quietly (but very loudly once upon a time), “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” So, these Muslims and Christians do not allow you to opt out of their disgusting religious beliefs. You are incorporated in their repellent belief system whether you like it or not and you are then categorised as a heretic, apostate or infidel – not as someone who never at any time acknowledged their absurd beliefs. This, of course, is the precise logic of Creationism. The Creator, by definition, creates all souls. The Jews have an interesting take. They say that the Creator made two types of souls: those of the Chosen People and those of everyone else (the Unchosen People! – the Gentiles, the damned). If you scratch the Christian surface, you discover that the Christian God created the elect (the saved) and the reprobates (the damned). He conferred divine grace on the elect and denied grace to the rest. Thus the Christian God randomly saved some souls and condemned the rest to perpetual suffering. In other words, the Christian God (Jesus Christ) actively created countless souls with the sole purpose of sending them straight to hell! To reiterate, Jesus Christ created souls in order to torture them forever. How can anyone deny that Jesus Christ is the Torture God, the Devil himself? If

you were a loving, caring, compassionate, forgiving, merciful God, would you create souls knowing that you were sentencing them to perpetual pain and suffering? What kind of monster would you have to be to be a Christian? Allah “saves” all souls initially (no Chosen People), and then damns to hell everyone who turns away from him for whatever reason. Whatever way you look at it, the Muslims, Jews and Christians make horrific claims regarding the whole of the human race. They don’t keep their vile beliefs to themselves. They rope everyone into it, ready or not. Therefore, all non-Abrahamists have an absolute right to attack these religions, since they have already been classified and condemned by these religions. These religions have already declared War. These religions have no right to be tolerated since they don’t tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. If they wage war against others, others must wage war against them.

Smelling of Roses The mummified heart of England’s King Richard the Lionheart was saturated with frankincense. It has been said that Richard and his confidantes knew of the “bad smell” associated with the many disreputable episodes in his life, and sought to mask it with frankincense, thus making him smell like a saint, or even like Jesus Christ himself (who was given a gift of frankincense by one of the Three Wise Men). If only life were so simple. Imagine if a nice perfume could cleanse you of your “sins” simply by concealing their stench! Yet isn’t this how “charity” works? The rich elite do everything to avoid paying tax, and treat others with the utmost ruthlessness, then spend a tiny portion of the vast amount they have made on some “cause” in which they have taken a personal interest. Everyone congratulates and admires them, and says how good and noble they are. Yet the true reality is that they are ferocious tax dodgers who opt out of making their proper contribution to society. They ought to be despised and reviled ... and in jail! No matter what these people do, the reek of corruption will never leave them.

The Dancing Epidemic The recent Gangnam Style and Harlem Shake dance crazes bring to mind the great dancing “plagues” of the Middle Ages when spontaneous dancing

often broke out in European towns and went on for days without rest, with many participants dying from heart attacks, strokes, or exhaustion (they literally danced their way to their deaths). In the present day, we see Pentecostalist Christians dancing manically and having fits (they are supposedly “possessed” by the Holy Spirit.) In the America of the Depression, dance marathons were a bizarre form of entertainment (brilliantly depicted in the movie They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?). Dancing mania was often attributed to “hot blood.” One of the suggested cures was to encourage even more dancing, in the hope that the participants would dance themselves out, as fires burn themselves out. The dancing often involved thousands of people at once, and was highly contagious. Long before there was any “rave” scene, people loved to rave. They didn’t need to take any ecstasy tablets – they had their own natural supply. Many episodes broke out across the centuries, and maybe the Harlem Shake is just a contemporary manifestation of the phenomenon. These dancing manias have been called mass psychogenic illness, with people compulsively imitating each in a groupthink, group behaviour mode. In other words, this is mass hysteria. It’s the ultimate expression of otherdirectedness. You subordinate yourself to the collective. You become one node of a mass of dancing humanity. The technical term for dancing mania is choreomania, from the

ancient Greek choros (dance) and mania (madness). Paracelsus called it a “dancing plague” sent by saints as a curse and punishment, and it became known as “St Vitus’ Dance” or “St John’s Dance”. (John the Baptist presumably hated dancing because Salome’s notorious Dance of the Seven Veils – ye Olde ultimate striptease – cost him his head.). To lift the curse, the victims of dancing mania often ended their processions at shrines to the relevant saint they thought they had offended. Epidemic dancing shows that humans have a collective lust to abandon themselves to Dionysian music, dance and frenzy. In 1237, a large group of children travelled a great distance, jumping and dancing all the way, an event possibly depicted in the tale of the Pied Piper of Hamelin. The “rats” in that tale could be interpreted as dancing maniacs. When the Pipe Piper cured them but wasn’t paid, he then turned the children into dancing “rats” who skipped away from their parents.

In one episode in Germany, frantic dancing on a bridge by a mob led to the bridge’s collapse. In another episode, a monk danced himself to death (can’t all the Abrahamists do that, please?!). The Maenads who worshipped Dionysus were also much given to manic dancing and wild excess. “Ultra dancing” can lead to states of religious ecstasy and mysterious visions, as we see with modern Pentecostalists. Most manic dancers through history were women. The nuns of Loudun, said to be possessed by devils, were prone to extreme dancing and obscene acrobatic displays where their clothes flew into disarray, causing their “shameful parts” to be displayed (early stripteasers, we might say!). Dancers were often described as being in a state of unconsciousness (like sleepwalkers... sleepdancers?) and be unable to consciously control themselves. We might view these episodes as mass outbreaks of bicameralism, or collective self-hypnotism. Dancers sometimes stripped themselves naked and made obscene gestures and shouts (mass Tourette’s Syndrome?). Intriguingly, some dancers were said to lose their ability to see the colour red, or to develop an extreme aversion to it, even becoming ill or violent whenever they saw it. In Italy, the phenomenon of Tarantism was similar. This condition got its name from the fact that the victims behaved as if stung by a tarantula. Dancing was suggested as a cure for any such bite as, supposedly, it could separate the venom from the blood and the venom could then be vomited out. Victims of Tarantism tended to dislike black rather than red. In a way, these dances were all about relieving stress, flouting conventions, and temporarily escaping from the straitjacket of religious prohibitions. The dancers were often said to be possessed, and, thus, exorcisms were sometimes performed on them. A plausible modern suggestion was that these dancing epidemics were caused by everyone “tripping” after eating bread contaminated with the

ergot hallucinogen. Wikipedia says, “Ergotism: Human poisoning due to the consumption of rye bread made from ergot-infected grain was common in Europe in the Middle Ages. The epidemic was known as Saint Anthony’s fire, or ignis sacer [Holy Fire], and some historical events, such as the Great Fear in France during the Revolution have been linked to ergot poisoning. Linnda

R. Caporael posited in 1976 that the hysterical symptoms of young women that had spurred the Salem witch trials had been the result of consuming ergot-tainted rye. ... Ergotism is the effect of long-term ergot poisoning, traditionally due to the ingestion of the alkaloids produced by the Claviceps purpurea fungus which infects rye and other cereals, and more recently by the action of a number of ergoline-based drugs. It is also known as ergotoxicosis, ergot poisoning and Saint Anthony’s Fire. Ergot poisoning is a proposed explanation of bewitchment. ... The ‘Great Fear’ occurred between July 19 and August 3, 1789, in France at the start of the French Revolution. These peasant rebellions helped cause a subsequent general panic know as the ‘Great Fear’. Rural unrest had been present in France since the worsening grain shortage of the spring, and fuelled by the rumours of an aristocrat ‘famine plot’ to starve or burn out the population, peasant and town people mobilized in many regions.”

***** Apart from dancing epidemics, there have also been laughing and fainting epidemics. Pogroms, persecutions and witch burnings might be seen as cruelty, hatred, intolerance and violence epidemics. We might refer to mainstream religions as religious epidemics that were never cured. Unfortunately, there are no epidemics of people becoming rational geniuses.

James Pennebaker and Expressive Writing Psychologist James Pennebaker proved that simply by putting your feelings into words – writing them down, getting them off your chest, externalizing them – it can significantly improve one’s physical health. Writing about your feelings, rather than keeping everything bottled up, is immensely therapeutic. People keep psychological secrets and these can be immensely destructive. Every trauma you keep secret is bad for you. In Psychoanalysis (Freud) and Analytical Psychology (Jung), it’s all about talking about your trauma to your therapist. However, this dialogue is immensely problematic because one person is having to confess to another. The best tactic is to remove the therapist! The patient simply confesses to himself by writing down the details of his trauma. There is no patient-therapist relationship, no transference, no displacement ... just the healthy, honest truth written down directly.

However, we would suggest that this writing technique can be applied everywhere, not just to emotional trauma. Everyone should write down their religious views, economic views, political views, scientific views, mathematical views and sexual views. In all cases, people will become stronger, healthier, smarter and more confident – or recognize the necessary truth that they haven’t a clue what they’re talking about, hence have work to do to improve themselves. Writing is proof of your understanding of whatever you are writing about, even if it’s “creative” writing (where your ability to create stories is under test.) Redundant people who write down their grievances and frustrations are known to get new jobs faster than those that don’t. Spurned lovers who write it all down get new partners more quickly. People suffering from stress get over their stress more quickly. Writing about your relationships improves your relationships. Writing down things continuously – in all contexts – is staggeringly good for you. To this extent, social networking should lead to happier people. However, it’s stuck too much at the shallow, persona level. People need to release the persona, ego, shadow, anima/animus, id, superego and rational mind via their expressive writing. It’s always useful to change your perspective while writing. Instead of saying “I” (first person; the subjective view), you might refer to he/she (third person; the objective view), to produce a more objective description of you and your views. You might also refer to “you” (second person). Another possibility is to talk about “we” (first person plural) to emphasize the community view, or “they” (third person plural) to highlight the “other” (them and us). What about “you” (second person plural) if you want to try preaching to the masses like a prophet? Extraordinarily, “I”, “you”, “he”, “we”, “you”, and “they” reflect the actual structure of the world – psychologically, socially and politically. “I” is the Freudian Id (“I want to do x.”), “you” is the Freudian Superego (“You should do x” – like your parents bossing you around) and s/he is the Freudian Ego obeying the reality principle (“S/he’s going to do this” – an objective conclusion). “We” signifies the united group and “they” signifies the enemy, the others, the infidels, the heretics, the outsiders, the apostates, the pariahs.

The dictator “God” refers to “you” when he speaks to humanity, as do all tyrants (“You will do what I command!). We can change unhealthy aspects simply by exercising empathy and sympathy through adopting different viewpoints in our expressive writing. Those who write expressively before planned surgery recover more quickly post-operatively. Wounds heal faster, the immune system is more robust. What’s not to like? The advice is to write for at least fifteen minutes a day. Don’t write for an audience, write for yourself. Don’t worry about spelling and grammar. Expect to destroy what you’ve written (though keep it if it’s brilliant!) Write your way to divinity. Forget boring old meditation. Write expressively. Write about becoming God. Write about what you would have to do to make it a reality!

The Sphinx The Sphinx sets riddles for travellers and kills those who get them wrong. Faith won’t save you when you encounter the Sphinx. Only knowledge and reason can deliver you from perdition.

The Parfaits – the Perfects “Perfect (also known as a Parfait in French or Perfectus in Latin) was the name given by Bernard of Clairvaux to a monk of the medieval French Christian religious movement of southern France and northern Italy commonly referred to as the Cathars. The term reflects that such a person was seen by the Catholic Church as the ‘perfect heretic’. As ‘bonhommes’ (their term) Perfecti were expected to follow an lifestyle of extreme austerity and renunciation of the world which included abstaining from eating meat and avoiding all sexual contact. By that virtue they were recognized as trans-material (i.e. spiritualized) angels by their followers, the Credentes (Croyant in French, Believers in English). Perfecti were drawn from all walks of life and counted aristocrats, merchants and peasants among their number. Women could also become Perfects; Female Perfects were known as Parfaites or Perfectae.” – Wikipedia The Cathars (from ancient Greek katharos meaning “pure”) – “the pure ones”. For being pure Gnostics, they were exterminated by the Roman Catholic Church.

Other Plans “Life is what happens while you’re busy making other plans.” – John Lennon Plan your life. Shape your life. Don’t let it simply happen to you. Don’t be passive. All slaves are passive and all masters are active. What we need is a world of the active. If everyone is a master then there are no masters. A master is defined only with regard to slaves but if there are no slaves then there can be no masters. Take responsibility for your life. There’s nothing more nauseating and pathetic than people waiting for a Saviour. Save yourself! Anyone who dreams of a Messiah is a slave. Why wait for a Second Coming? Make things happen now. Change the world. Make heaven on earth. It’s up to us to slay the dragons. No knights in shining armour are coming. The Seventh Cavalry aren’t riding to our rescue. It’s us or no one.

Air War versus Ground War We are very good at dropping impressive intellectual bombs, but we don’t capture the ground. Muslims and Christians metaphorically (and sometimes literally) have no aircraft – they’re too technologically backward for that (planes were invented by rationalists) – but they have vast land armies that take and hold the ground, and they don’t care about being bombed. They simply become “martyrs”. That’s what we have to beat.

The Importance of Words “Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assaults of thought on the unthinking.” – John Maynard Keynes

The Red Queen In Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll, the Red Queen must run faster and faster to stay in the same place. So it goes in all arms races, and in biology too. As predators evolve, so do the prey, and vice versa. There’s no hope for those who stand still. Old religions, especially Abrahamism, are doomed because they are unable to change with the times.

Darwinism versus Dialectics

What’s the difference between Darwinism and Dialectics given that both are evolutionary processes? The former is based on natural selection alone and is wholly devoid of purpose or reason. It’s not converging on anything. The latter involves natural selection and purpose and reason, and is converging on an omega point of perfection. Dialectics reflect a thinking and reasoning universe, albeit unconsciously for the most part, while Darwinism denies the independent existence of mind, purpose and reason. Darwinism reflects a machine view of reality while dialectics reflect an evolving organism. Darwinism doesn’t think and plan; dialectics do. Are genetic mutations random or engineered by underlying mental processes, purposes and desires? In Darwinism, everything is random, in dialectics everything reflects purpose. In human societies, does culture change randomly or through rational planning? If reason and planning don’t feature in Darwinian “mutation” but do feature in terms of human “mutations” applied to society and culture, how do Darwinists account for these different categories of existence? There’s a serious mismatch between purposeless Darwinism and purposeful human behaviour given that humans are supposed to be products of Darwinism. No such mismatch exists in the purposeful dialectical view. Human planning is exactly what you would expect to evolve in a system of dialectical, teleological evolution. Darwinism cannot account for human beings having purposes: dialectics can. Why is the law adversarial, involving a prosecution and a defence? Because it’s a primitive dialectical process. Why are political systems based on rival political parties? Because of dialectics. What is war but the violent expression of the dialectic? The stock market involves buyers and sellers – dialectical opponents. Dialectical processes are embedded throughout society, but they are always sub-optimal because they haven’t been properly thought out. In the new Logos Age, the smartest people will manage dialectics consciously and properly, and human progress will be stellar as a consequence. We will soon have a Star Trek society. Scientific materialists are in love with randomness. There’s no randomness in dialectics. Nothing is accidental. Everything is deliberate. Reason, in one of its forms, is always present. Teleology is always evident. According to the scientific materialists, there’s no such thing as purpose or meaning. Nothing has a point. Random changes are acted upon by natural selection, and that’s it.

Well, whose story are you buying? That of Darwinian science or of dialectical Illuminism based on self-solving, self-optimizing ontological mathematics?

***** Geniuses are always ahead of the dialectic. In fact, they are the worldhistoric figures who set the next phase of the dialectic.

Superhero? Superhero movies are always absurd. There’s no tension. The outcome is certain. We’ve seen all the special effects before. There’s no character arc. And the whole thing is totally unbelievable. Powerless people love watching these movies and fantasizing that they have power. The most unusual superhero story is actually that of Jesus Christ. This is the ultimate superhero – the Creator of the Universe – who doesn’t use his powers, even though he could do anything he likes. This is Batman who does nothing, Spiderman who does nothing, the Fantastic Four who do nothing, the Watchmen who do nothing, Superman who does nothing, the Incredible Hulk who does nothing, Iron Man who does nothing, Captain America who does nothing, Thor who does nothing. The question is why doesn’t God use his superpowers? What’s the point of Jesus Christ being killed on a cross? Why doesn’t he save the world like any superhero? What’s God’s motivation for not saving the world? What’s the point of a Creator who doesn’t save his Creation even though he could easily do so? Rather than save humanity, God perversely sacrifices himself to himself to satisfy his own “honour”. What a total narcissist and egotist. All he cares about is himself. He has no interest in others.

The Evolution of Mind Scientific materialism denies the Cartesian dualism of matter and mind. It asserts that only matter exists, and mind is some kind of product of material interactions, some materialist epiphenomenon. Given this way of thinking, Myers-Briggs personality types make no sense. Why would materialist interactions – involving lifeless, mindless atoms and molecules obeying implacable scientific laws – give rise to epiphenomenal minds that can be classed as sixteen different personalities associated with radically different behaviours? Of course, the answer is that scientific materialism is false. Minds – souls – exist separately from matter and it is minds that evolve, not matter (after a certain stage). The human race is a single material species, but it is sixteen (if we go with Myers-Briggs) different mental species. They can be classed into two

main divisions: Mythos and Logos minds. Logos minds are a much higher species. They are the future of humanity. Mythos humanity has already failed. It can make no further progress. It can go on materially, but to no purpose. If, a million years from now, Muslims are still bowing to Allah and going on Hajj pilgrimage, if Jews are still bobbing back and forth in front of the Wailing Wall, if Christians are still blabbering on about Christ’s Second Coming, then humanity has utterly failed. Humanity must travel to the stars, humanity must become divine. Only Logos humanity can accomplish this. Mythos humanity already belongs with the dinosaurs.

The Karmic Lie AA: “I know you guys disagree with Buddhists because Westerners commonly believe that Karma is the idea that some sort of punishment inflicted by some supernatural beings, but in reality it’s the idea of cause and effect.” Not a single person in the West believes that karma is a punishment inflicted by any supernatural beings. How can anyone make such an idiotic statement? We disagree with Buddhists on the grounds that Buddhism is rationally incoherent, with karma being one of its central absurdities. How can anyone claim that karma is “cause and effect”? In science, cause and effect are explained by experimentally tested theories and equations. In mathematics, cause and effect result from analytic mathematical inevitability; they’re built into mathematical equations. But where are we to find cause and effect in karma? Let’s consider Adolf Hitler. He’s commonly regarded as one of the most evil men of all time, yet he considered himself one of the greatest men of all time, a man of destiny, a world-historic figure. As far he was concerned he was a good and noble man, saving Germany from its enemies. So, how would karma – “cause and effect” (allegedly) – deal with Adolf Hitler? Well, in his own estimation, he should be rewarded with the highest heaven for all his efforts and his final sacrifice. Plainly, that’s not what others would expect his fate to be. So we immediately have a cause and effect problem. Whose cause and whose effect? Who decides? The issue is entirely subjective, yet aren’t cause and effect supposed to be predictable, scientific and objective? If Hitler isn’t allowed to decide his own cause and effect then who or what is deciding it for him? And that, of course, is the problem that no

karmist has ever been able to explain. Buddha – one of the most overestimated people of all time (and admired only by irrationalists who can’t understand Schopenhauer, a far superior “Buddhist”) certainly couldn’t furnish an answer. Is karma a cosmic force? Do precise equations apply to it? Is it a substance? Is it an intelligence? Do scientific equations apply to it? How does karma cause things to happen and how does it bring about its effects? How does karma dictate the reincarnation process? What criteria does it use? Does karma interfere with DNA? Does karma cause natural disasters? How, exactly, does karma operate on things? ... total silence from the karmists, from idiotic apologists for karma such as AA. We’re sick of their irrational gibberish. All these Western “Buddhists” and “Hindus” – these clowns – ought to study philosophy, scientific and mathematics and learn something useful for a change. There is no karma. It’s a ludicrous, infantile concept. It amounts to the childish belief that the cosmos punishes wicked deeds and rewards good deeds. Look around you. If anything, the precise opposite is true. If anything, the world is ruled by “evil” karma, “reverse” karma or “antikarma”. Wise up. The good are not rewarded and the wicked are not punished. The truth is absolutely alien to about 99% of humanity. The truth does not triumph. It’s a marginal cognitive ability on the periphery of an immense ocean of irrationality, ignorance, fantasy and faith. Karma is for simpletons who believe that life teaches infallible “lessons”. No it doesn’t. If it did, everyone would be a virtuous genius by now. The opposite is the case. Wake up. Look around you. Learn the harsh facts of life. There is no karma to morally improve the universe. AA will blabber on forever about karma being about cause and effect while having zero understanding of any of these concepts. It’s astounding that stupid people have the impudence to think that they’re right and we’re wrong. We go to immense trouble to refute our enemies. They don’t put any effort at all into refuting us. They simply state that we are wrong and support their “case” by spouting disproven and embarrassing platitudes and half-baked gibberish. If stupid people were prevented from talking nonsense, Facebook would be a cyber Ghost Town. Facebook is an idiocy generator. It encourages morons to think they’re right and to post their “thoughts” without the slightest trace of shame or self-criticism.

What a world!

Karma Karma means “action”, “act”, “work”, “effect”, “deed” from the Sanskrit karoti (“he makes, he does”). It is defined as retributive justice that determines a person’s state of life and dictates the nature of his reincarnations as the effect of his past deeds. Karma is often – rightly – associated with fate and destiny, although you will always hear tiresome karmic pedants denying this. Let’s be clear. If karma is true and if you have been a very bad person then, by the law of karma, you are destined to be punished. It’s your inescapable fate. How anyone can deny that karma is inextricably linked with destiny and fate beggars belief. They seem to be suggesting that since you have a choice about your deeds then you are free hence you do not have a determined fate. However, once you have made your choices, and if they have proved wicked, then you no longer have a free choice. Karma is going to get you. Your fate is sealed! Anyone who denies that karma is about fate and destiny is a fool who doesn’t understand the basic concept of karma.

***** CS: “Karma is you harming yourself and others.” Is it? Who says? Big deal if you harm yourself and others. What has it got to do with karma? It’s remarkable how poor most people are communicating, at making a point. What does CS’s statement mean? It’s akin to a random message generated by a computer. It has no context. What’s it in response to? What message can we take from it? Are any terms defined? Is any thesis advanced? An enormous amount of Facebook and Twitter comments consist of these random, meaningless fragments. The fascinating question is why so many incoherent, irrational people, exceptionally poor at handling language and making clear statements, nevertheless feel compelled to grunt and groan and to deface the internet with their vapid, pointless belly aching. Get smart or fuck off. Make an intelligent point or shut your mouth and keep your hands away from the keyboard. You must be joking if you think we’re going to take you seriously and respect your opinion. We regard most

of the people who comment on this world of ours as dangerous, clueless morons who haven’t understood a word we’ve said, and, even worse, don’t understand their own position. Why is it that karma is defined differently by every karmist? By itself, that makes karma meaningless. If it were a coherent idea, it would be unambiguously understood by everyone.

***** MY: “I have a question... this drive or desire of the unconscious to become conscious by ‘splitting up’ must have had a cause... I mean, this desire must have some form of cause to produce some form of effect or to satisfy a reason or cause.” Of course it does. Souls are individuated. They seek to maximize their individual will to power. They do not seek to maximize their collective power. It’s all about dog eat dog. Yet, ironically, the best way to maximise your individual will to power is to cooperate as much as possible with others. MY: “...and what makes your answers valid/ the whole truth/ the best answer there is?” What makes you think they’re not? Are you looking for some cosmic stamp of approval, some “God” to tell you what to think? Illuminism asserts that the “right answer” to existence has been staring us in the face all along. It’s mathematics. Everything can be explained mathematically. If you say we’re wrong then you must show a) why mathematics is not the answer to everything, and b) demonstrate what is the answer to everything. We’ve put forward millions of words and extremely detailed arguments, down to the finest mathematical detail. We’ve “put up”. Well, have you? If not, shut up! We can’t make up your mind for you. We can’t make you a rational person if you’re irrational. If you can’t grasp the truth, too bad. The truth isn’t for everyone. Never forget that existence has only one correct answer and, if this universe is rational, then it has a rational principle at its core, which any rational mind can grasp (but emotional, sensing or irrational minds will, plainly, never “get it” – they are excluded from the rational truth).

Existence can be summed up in one axiom – Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason, which states that every fact has a reason why it is so and not otherwise. Mathematics is the rational system that enshrines this principle: ontological mathematics gives a precise mathematical reason for everything.

***** OE: “Why do I always see the same pattern on any of your theories which always state that ‘your religion is the best and the rest are evil’... a basic fundamental truth in life states that ‘if they try to paint the other dark while portraying light, there is a big potential that they already were dark within’... Let’s replace the word “evil” with “irrational”. Is it irrational to state that all mainstream religions are irrational (given that they plainly and provably contradict reason), and does a rational person who points out the demonstrable irrationality around him thereby prove that he himself is irrational? Why do people such as OE make such stupid statements? They seek to deny that there are substantive differences between religions, and to deny that there are substantive differences in the rationality of arguments advanced by different people. Some people are much stupider than others – that’s a fact. Some people are much more selfish and evil than others – that’s a fact! If you don’t like facts, if you don’t like reason, you certainly won’t agree with anything we say. Your lack of agreement with us does not mean that you are right and we are wrong. We have presented our position at great length over millions of words. Where’s your system? Let’s see the “logic” of your position. And if you don’t have a thought-out position, how dare you complain about ours? You’re just a moaning, whining critic on the sidelines who literally doesn’t know what he’s talking about. We have a system. You don’t. You can’t show in any way how we are wrong. If you put forward your “system”, we would rationally destroy it in seconds. That’s a fact. If we can shoot down scientific materialism through pure reason, we can certainly shoot you down.

*****

HD: “Karma is cause and effect whether you do good or bad; you do good you get good you do bad you get bad. It has nothing to do with whether the person is good or bad but with their actions.” What does that even mean? HD proposes that people can be divorced from their actions. A good person, HD asserts, can routinely perform bad actions, and a bad person can routinely perform good actions since, she says, actions are different from people. But why would we ever call anyone “good” if their actions were bad, or call someone “bad” if their actions were good? It’s your behaviour – walking the walk – that defines you. Anyone can talk the talk, yet behave entirely differently. How can you separate a person’s actions from who and what they are? Why do people try to twist language so much to defend karma? What’s the point? NC: “Buddhism teaches that karma is cause and effect, not punishment and reward. Drinking coffee can cause desire or aversion, cause a habit. Negative habits bring consequences born of the habits that are created, e.g., drinking causes physical and emotional ailments, for instance. The greater the negative behaviour, more severe consequences can ensue. Again, not reward and punishment, but habits of aversion and attachment that cause suffering. ‘Good’ can cause suffering, born of perfectionism, etc. The only thing surely is that we suffer from our habits.” So, here we have a statement that being “good” can lead to suffering, which rather raises the issue of why be good at all. If being “bad” leads to pleasure, shouldn’t we all be bad? With NC, we get the theory that karma has nothing to do with good and evil, nothing to do with punishment and reward. Karma, it seems, has no connection with morality it all. It is in fact all about “habits”. In this view, if you go to some sort of hell in your next life it was because of bad habits in this life (and bad habits might include “good” habits if these cause something such as perfectionism). So, yet again, we are in the subjective business. We have to make an assessment of what good and bad habits are. Was Leibniz a perfectionist? Was that karmically bad for him? Was Buddha’s habitual behaviour good or bad? Who in their right mind wants to sit under a tree all day long for years on end? Is that a good or bad habit? Is it constructive or destructive? Is it positive or negative? Who decides? Is it healthy to denounce desire, as Buddhists do? Is that a

good habit or bad? Doesn’t that cause your Jungian shadow to grow to grotesque proportions? People keep bogusly attaching the objective concept of cause and effect to completely subjective matters such as good and evil or good and bad habits. Stop it! Stop claiming that karma has anything to do with cause and effect. If it does, write down the equation for it. If you can’t then all you’re doing is making the absurd and laughable claim that your subjective opinions constitute some sort of scientific cause and effect. If Adolf Hitler adopted the habit of hating Jews and feeling tremendously empowered by that, was he scheduled to enjoy good or bad karma in his next life? Who or what judges? If it was up to him, he no doubt came back to a wonderful, godlike life. If his enemies were judging, he must have come back as a slug or a cockroach. So, where’s the cause and effect? What happened to Hitler in his next life is pure conjecture. It has fuck all to do with cause and effect. Karma isn’t a science. It’s an utterly bogus set of opinions and beliefs. It’s grotesque that people have the gall to mention cause and effect in the context of something that’s plainly pure Mythos with no objective components whatsoever. HD: “It [karma] is logic; you drop a plate on the concrete floor it will break. Cause and effect. Nothing naive... scientific... logical lol.” Karma has nothing at all to do with logic or cause and effect. No Karmist could ever make a single prediction about what will happen to someone else or even themselves in the next life, beyond their own unverifiable, subjective opinions and beliefs. Dropping a plate will, normally, cause it to smash. Anyone can predict with great accuracy that a dropped plate with smash. Can any Karmist predict anything at all about Adolf Hitler’s next life? Where’s the evidence? It’s scandalous that morons try to drag scientific explanations into something as fallacious as karma. Romantic poet John Keats defined “negative capability” as a state of mind where a person “is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.” What’s for sure is that Karmists never bother to reach for “fact and reason”. They steal scientific expression to bolster their idiotic nonsense and to make them sound plausible rather complete nuts. CH: “Karma is neither good nor bad. What you put into the world is what you will ‘see/ hear/ experience’ coming back to you! It is how we each sort

out our experiences. Like the idiot extreme fundamentalists looking for evil and Satan around each corner, it will be all that they ever find... they won’t be able to see the good in life because they aren’t looking for it. It is how they process their sorting of the world.” This is pure opinion and belief. Not a single fact is being expressed. What you experience is due to your cognitive abilities. Where does karma come into any of this? Why does no Karmist ever link their bullshit statements to any scientific, mathematical, philosophical or psychological theories? It’s because they can’t. Karma can’t be coherently defined because no one has the vaguest idea of what it is. Does a tree experience karma? Does a planet? If not, why not? Science says cause and effect apply everywhere. What do Karmists say? What are the preconditions for karmic experiences? When does karma apply and when doesn’t it? Where is karma? What is it? Is it a substance? Cause and effect in science is related to mass-energy and scientific laws. What are Karmic cause and effect related to? If they have nothing to do with scientific cause and effect then why are they stealing that terminology? And if they’re not connected with scientific cause and effect then does karma operate outside science? So many questions, but you can be certain Karmists will never provide any answers. That won’t stop them from shouting off their mouths and telling us we’ve got it all wrong about karma. AS: “I think the bigger issue here is man still trying to define God... any definition of God is worshiping a false idol bcuz only God knows who God is.” What conceivable logic is served by this statement? If God cannot be defined by human beings then “God” is not something that can be contemplated any more than the word “yt6u8h” can be contemplated (since it’s just a made-up word). Is AS saying that only “yt6u8h” knows what “yt6u8h” is? How can AS refer to God at all if AS has no idea who or what God is? And, given that, by AS’s own admission, she knows nothing about God how can she be in any position to decide what’s a “false idol”? You need to know what God is before you can say what God is not. You can’t say, as AS laughably does, “I have no idea what God is but any definition anyone gives is false and idolatrous!” In 1720, an English company going public gave as its prospectus: “A company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to

know what it is.” Well, would you invest in that company? AS would no doubt say, “All humans to worship God, but God not to be defined in any way because that would be idolatrous.” How can a definition be idolatrous? How can knowing what you’re talking about rather than engaging in bizarre, meaningless mysticism be a bad thing? There’s no such thing as a God not defined by human beings. Even AS’s ludicrous statement is a human attempt to provide a definition! To say that God is that which cannot be defined is of course itself a proposed definition! VS: “...faith is a binding force of heart & mind.” According to whom? What is the intellectual basis of this statement, or has it been picked up from a Chinese fortune cookie? Faith is of course the belief in a proposition for which there is no rational basis or evidence. You would need to be a person of faith before you could consider VS’s definition of faith with a straight face. He offers no rational argument and no evidence for his assertion, yet expects others to buy into his fantasy. PB: “Faith (not in a religious sense) is an initiation in the path of enlightenment, when one realises and knows beyond knowing that the only true power...is divine surrender to the process.” WTF! Yet more irrational gibberish. How can you know “beyond knowing”? You either know or you don’t know. If something has allegedly gone beyond knowing then you obviously can’t know anything about it! What “enlightened” person would seek to “surrender” (divinely) to “the process”? What does that even mean? Why do people insist on making these mumbo jumbo statements and expect to be taken seriously? They are wholly unable to define terms and state an argument. They engage in emotional, Mythos fortune cookie claptrap. It’s staggering that such people are able to function in the world at all.

Misidentification “There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross.” – Nietzsche Actually, Freddie, Jesus Christ (Yehoshua ben Yosef) was a Jew!

The Worst Possible Conversation Who would be the worst person on Earth with whom to be stuck in an elevator? It’s the Queen of England, the most fake and phoney person on Earth, absolutely inauthentic. This is not a real person, but a simulacrum of a person, compelled to play a role where the mask can never be allowed to slip. Of course, she could abandon her preposterous life at any time by renouncing royalty and embracing reality – but these people are incapable of doing that. They are the falsest people conceivable.

Conclave Conclave (noun) – “a place where cardinals meet to elect a pope,” from Latin conclave meaning “a room which may be locked,” from com“together” + clavis “a key”. Shouldn’t someone throw away the key? It’s time for Catholicism to perish, and to take Protestantism down with it.

Change “Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.” – Milton Friedman

Self-Indulgent Art “Nothing is so poor and melancholy as art that is interested in itself and not in its subject.” – George Santayana

Raw There must have been a time when humans ate raw meat, just as animals do now in the jungles and savannahs. Our immune system and our ability to handle all sorts of toxins and bacteria in our food must have been enormously greater in those days. We had a far more robust digestion. The history of human digestion is that it has become vastly more refined, processed and sanitized over the years. Infections can kill us today that would have been handled effortlessly by humans of the past. The discovery of fire – and our ability to heat meat (and kill off bacteria) – radically

changed the evolution of the human gut and immune system. The same can be said for the human use of salt and refrigeration to preserve food. What’s the key message? Human technology changes evolution! Our rational minds are affecting Darwinism. And that’s not supposed to happen.

Property What is the key difference between right and left wingers? It lies in the issue of property and inheritance. A right wing person believes that he has the right to own a slice of our world in perpetuity, and to control his property even after his death (via inheritance). This is an idea so deep-seated that it’s accepted without question by almost all families. The family is an inherently right wing institution. All right wing societies have the family at their core (with the exception of totalitarian right wing movements such as Nazism where the family was subordinated to the Nazi Party). Left wingers do not have any fundamental belief in ownership and property. They think it’s absurd that anyone can think he owns a piece of land forever. They think it’s absurd and illegal that the people of today believe that they can dictate to the people of tomorrow through ownership, property and inheritance. Left wingers do not revere the family. They revere community. All left wing societies promote community and minimize ownership, private property and inheritance. Margaret Thatcher – the monstrous, ultra right wing Prime Minister of the UK in the 1980s – declared that there was no such thing as society, only families and individuals. This is the essence of the right wing worldview. They despise community, society and the State. Thatcher sold most of the State-owned industries of Britain. Shares were sold to rich private speculators, who then privately owned what had previously been owned by the people via the government. This was therefore a massive transfer of public to private wealth. This is a classic right wing tactic. Thatcher sold off public housing stock into private ownership. The right wing strategy is to privatize everything. This was the gospel of the maniac Ayn Rand, the modern Tea Party and anarchocapitalist libertarians. Anyone who advocates privatization is right wing. Anyone who advocates unregulated free markets is right wing. Anyone who advocates

nationalization is left wing. Anyone who advocates regulation of markets is left wing. So, what are you? Private property, private ownership and private inheritance define our world. The status of these must be settled once and for all. Does anyone have the right to claim perpetual ownership of part of the world for himself and all his descendants, or is that insane?

Not Us We are not relativists, we are absolutists. We assert that Illuminism is absolutely and eternally right. If you disagree then put up or shut up. We have gone to immense lengths to demolish the claims of rival systems of thought. If you want to demolish Illuminism, you will have to demolish mathematics and reason – and anyone who thinks that’s possible is irrational and insane! Illuminism cannot be wrong. It’s infallible. It’s absolute certainty. Why? Because it’s hyperrationalism based on Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason and Pythagoras’s declaration of the ontology of mathematics. These two pillars are rationally incontestable. It’s impossible to conceive of a cosmos that does not rest on these pillars. All other claims are false. There is no Abrahamic God, there is no karma, and scientific materialism is the irrational view that the human senses and human experiments determine reality. They don’t. Reality exists without any human senses and without any human experiments. Therefore, you need neither senses nor experiments to understand reality. Reality is rational, so all you require to understand it is reason. Anyone can lock themselves in their room, switch off the light and unlock all of the secrets of existence, just by rationally thinking about them.

The Spectacle The Spectacle keeps getting bigger. The parties keep getting better. Better sex than ever. It’s party time, dude!!! But a party can come only after hard work. When the party is the point of life then life has no point. A party is devoid of self-reflection, achievement, wrestling with monsters, overcoming dragons, self-improvement, becoming a hero. The non-stop party is about narcissism, self-indulgence, shallowness, the surface, giving

way to every weakness and desire. The party is what you want. It is not what you need. Capitalism is all about the party – and the party is destroying our world.

Freedom When will humanity be free? When there’s not one right wing person walking this world of ours! That’s a fact. Right wingers are the central obstacle that must be overcome. All those who worship Abraham’s God, all those who believe in karma (an ultra right wing concept that tries to blame people’s current misery not on right wing oppression but on their own previous “sins”), all those who worship the family and would cut their neighbours’ throats to help advance the interests of the family, all those who revere private property, private ownership, vast, uncapped private wealth and private inheritance (and fuck everyone else), all those who believe that the people of today should dictate how the world is for the people of the future – all of them must go. With them here, the world will endure eternal misery. With them gone, we can build heaven on Earth. To be right wing is to be evil. What is the God of Abraham if not the most right wing tyrant you could possibly imagine? His way or hell!! We say, slaughter the monster and let’s have heaven! Stop the Old World Order. Stop multi-generational businesses. Stop families wielding dynastic power. What shall it be? – fairness for all or the permanent indulgence of “elite” families. It’s them or us. We cannot breathe if they have stolen all of our air.

Bible Evil Ezekiel 5:10 – “Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds.” Is this the “God” Abrahamists worship? Clearly, he’s the Devil! Genesis 19:24 – “Then the LORD rained down fire and burning sulfur from the sky on Sodom and Gomorrah.” Sounds like a Nazi “reprisal”.

*****

Aaron, older brother of Moses, was the Israelites’ first High Priest. This is what “God” did to Aaron’s two sons: Leviticus 10: Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. 2 So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Moses then said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord spoke of when he said: ‘Among those who approach me I will be proved holy; in the sight of all the people I will be honoured.’” Aaron remained silent. This God is a psychopathic murderer. How could Aaron go on worshipping this Satanic monster who slaughtered his two sons for offering “unauthorised” devotion? Can anyone doubt that Aaron, like Abraham, would have killed his sons himself if ordered to do so? If Aaron were sane, he would have done everything in his power to overthrow his sons’ killer. Instead, he did nothing. Doesn’t that sum up Israel and the Jews? No matter what their Devil God does to them, they go on worshipping him. There are no limits to what they will allow him to do to them. They are the sickest, most perverse and masochistic people in history and their unconditional love of the Torture God has infected fully half of the human race. What is the message? It’s that if God kills the children of his High Priest for no reason at all, he won’t hesitate to kill anyone’s else’s children for the most minor infractions. It’s a Nazi message of absolute terror and shows that no one is safe. You do not worship a God who murders your sons ... you fight him and denounce him as the Devil he is.

No Entry Moses, Jehovah’s Holiest Prophet, wasn’t allowed into the Promised Land. Why not? Here’s why. In Numbers 20:8, the Lord told Moses, “Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink.” Numbers 20:9-11 records Moses’ response: “So Moses took the staff from the LORD’s

presence, just as He commanded him. He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, ‘Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?’ Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank.” Numbers 20:12 gives us the Lord’s response, “But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honour me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.” What did Moses do that warranted such a severe penalty from the Lord? First, Moses disobeyed a direct command from God. God had commanded Moses to speak to the rock. Instead, Moses struck the rock with his staff. Second, Moses took the credit for bringing forth the water. Notice how in verse 10 Moses said, “Must we [referring to Moses and Aaron] bring you water out of this rock?” Moses took credit for the miracle himself, instead of attributing it to God. Third, Moses did this in front of all the Israelites. Such a public example of direct disobedience could not go unpunished. Moses’ punishment was that he would not be allowed to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 20:12). – http://www.gotquestions.org/Moses-promised-land.html

***** Deuteronomy 32:51 [You will be forbidden entry to the Promised Land] Because ye trespassed against me among the children of Israel at the waters of Meribah Kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel. Is the most petty, pedantic, vain, touchy, insecure deity ever dreamt up by the minds of men? Could you imagine any God more ungrateful and cruel? The message as ever is one of unrelenting control. The slightest deviation from being his slave brings down the most terrible punishments, horrors and terrors on you. Abrahamism is a sick religion that attracts sick, masochistic slaves who long to be punished and degraded by their master. Abrahamism is religious S&M and BDSM – to an infinite degree. Not even the Marquis de Sade himself could rival this degree of sickness. The Jews are the most self-hating, self-loathing, perverted sexual deviants in history. They made a religion out of their perverted sexual desire

to be punished forever by a Torture God.

God the Child Murderer Exodus 12:29 At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. He slaughtered all the children. He even slaughtered animals!!

Murder your Children! Deuteronomy 21:21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. You see, there was nothing “unusual” about God ordering Abraham to murder his son ... it was a commonplace requirement in the case of any sons who “rebelled”.

Jewish Einsatzgruppen Joshua 33-37 Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish; and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left him none remaining. And from Lachish Joshua passed unto Eglon, and all Israel with him; and they encamped against it, and fought against it: And they took it on that day, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein he utterly destroyed that day, according to all that he had done to Lachish. And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they fought against it: And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were therein.

The Nazis learned all their extermination tactics from the Jews! Why don’t they teach you that on Holocaust Memorial Day?

The Insane Abrahamic God of Infinite Bloodlust Nahum 3 Woe to Nineveh Woe to the city of blood, full of lies, full of plunder, never without victims! The crack of whips, the clatter of wheels, galloping horses and jolting chariots! Charging cavalry, flashing swords and glittering spears! Many casualties, piles of dead, bodies without number, people stumbling over the corpses— all because of the wanton lust of a prostitute, alluring, the mistress of sorceries, who enslaved nations by her prostitution and peoples by her witchcraft. “I am against you,” declares the Lord Almighty.

“I will lift your skirts over your face. I will show the nations your nakedness and the kingdoms your shame. I will pelt you with filth, I will treat you with contempt and make you a spectacle. All who see you will flee from you and say, ‘Nineveh is in ruins—who will mourn for her? Where can I find anyone to comfort you?” Are you better than Thebes, situated on the Nile, with water around her? The river was her defence, the waters her wall. Cush and Egypt were her boundless strength; Put and Libya were among her allies. Yet she was taken captive and went into exile. Her infants were dashed to pieces at every street corner. Lots were cast for her nobles, and all her great men were put in chains. You too will become drunk; you will go into hiding and seek refuge from the enemy.

All your fortresses are like fig trees with their first ripe fruit; when they are shaken, the figs fall into the mouth of the eater. Look at your troops— they are all weaklings. The gates of your land are wide open to your enemies; fire has consumed the bars of your gates. Draw water for the siege, strengthen your defences! Work the clay, tread the mortar, repair the brickwork! There the fire will consume you; the sword will cut you down— they will devour you like a swarm of locusts. Multiply like grasshoppers, multiply like locusts! You have increased the number of your merchants till they are more numerous than the stars in the sky, but like locusts they strip the land and then fly away. Your guards are like locusts, your officials like swarms of locusts

that settle in the walls on a cold day— but when the sun appears they fly away, and no one knows where. King of Assyria, your shepherds slumber; your nobles lie down to rest. Your people are scattered on the mountains with no one to gather them. Nothing can heal you; your wound is fatal. All who hear the news about you clap their hands at your fall, for who has not felt your endless cruelty?

Abandon your Families – God Says So Matthew 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. So much for Christian family values.

God the Nutter Revelation 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those

who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

God the Psychopath How could anyone read the Bible and not reach the conclusion that the God worshipped by the Jews was a psychopath? Who could be any worse than Jehovah?

Freedom Capitalism: the doctrine of private property. The buying and selling of private assets via markets. Could Communism, despite all of its flaws, have survived and even beaten capitalism? The answer is yes. If Communism had offered sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll – and total freedom of expression – it would have prospered. The lack of consumer goods, shopping malls and markets wouldn’t have mattered in the slightest if Communism had offered freedom. If the Communists had embraced the Western Hippie culture of the 1960s, everyone would have wanted to go East, rather than everyone in the East wanting to go West. Freedom, not consumer goods, is what people really want. Capitalism has used all of its witchcraft to associate freedom with the purchase of freely chosen objects – but no one is truly satisfied with objects. They want good relationships with others; they want intimacy; they want fulfilling lives. Communism didn’t fail because it was an economic disaster but because it was an insult to freedom. A shambolic economic system will survive if everyone feels they’re all in it together and all having a good time and being treated fairly. Meritocracy is about delivering rational freedom and an ultra-efficient economy – hence is vastly superior to both capitalism and communism.

Fuck What People Think There’s a saying that lions never worry about the opinions of sheep. Another saying declares that great minds discuss ideas (philosophy),

average minds discuss events (politics) and small minds discuss people (gossip).

Rainbow Holograms “Several types of holograms can be made. Transmission holograms, such as those produced by Leith and Upatnieks, are viewed by shining laser light through them and looking at the reconstructed image from the side of the hologram opposite the source. A later refinement, the ‘rainbow transmission’ hologram, allows more convenient illumination by white light rather than by lasers. Rainbow holograms are commonly used for security and authentication, for example, on credit cards and product packaging.” – Wikipedia “The rainbow or Benton hologram is a type of hologram invented in 1968 by Dr. Stephen A. Benton at Polaroid Corporation (later MIT). Rainbow holograms are designed to be viewed under white light illumination, rather than laser light which was required before this. The rainbow holography recording process uses a horizontal slit to eliminate vertical parallax in the output image, greatly reducing spectral blur while preserving threedimensionality for most observers. A viewer moving up or down in front of a rainbow hologram sees changing spectral colours rather than different vertical perspectives. Stereopsis and horizontal motion parallax, two relatively powerful cues to depth, are preserved. “The holograms found on credit cards are examples of rainbow holograms.” – Wikipedia “Rainbow holograms are the brightly coloured holograms seen on credit cards, security documents and so on. The first point to be clear about is that rainbow holograms are transmission holograms, even though they give the appearance of being reflection holograms. In reality, the white viewing light passes through the hologram and is reflected from a backing layer before the observer. The image seen and colours visible depend upon both the viewing angle and the viewing distance, so that a multiplicity of colours and patterns can be picked out as the hologram is tilted and moved. They were invented by Benton in 1968, and are also known as Benton holograms. Technically they are described as white-light transfer transmission holograms. ... The transfer hologram, H2, is a hologram of a hologram, and so the observer would see the reconstructed image as if it were viewed

through the same ‘window’ or porthole that circumscribed the original hologram, H1.” – Richard J. D. Tilley, Colour and optical properties of materials: an exploration of the relationship between light, the optical properties of materials and colour

The Eternal War Hegel’s master-slave dialectic is one of the momentous insights of all time. The world can be divided into two tribes that we might call wolves and sheep, dominants and submissives, predators and prey, Gods and worshippers, alphas and betas, lords and bondsmen, knights and serfs or just masters and slaves. What is the essence of the war? Hegel traced it back to the primordial conflict. This was no ordinary fight. It was existential. What was at stake was an eternal status. The “masters” were those who would never give in when it came to being top dog. They were prepared to fight to the death and couldn’t imagine living as the vanquished. Better to die than endure that fate. But the others – the slaves – found that they could endure that outcome. The struggle with the masters exhausted them, horrified them, made them realize that they would probably die if they fought on since their opponents were maniacs who were never going to stop or give up. The slaves, rather than die, surrendered. This primordial conflict is repeated over and over again. Every single person born on Earth is faced with it. We must all choose to fight to the end or submit to whatever the prevailing power is. In our world, 90% of people are slaves, five percent are extraverted masters and five percent are introverted dominants. The masters control the world and the 90% go along passively, like sheep. Only the introverted dominants resist. Actually, not all masters are in masterful positions. Many are born on the wrong side of the tracks – amongst the sheep – and the system does them no favours and gives them no help. These people cannot endure life amongst the common herd. They become gangsters, criminals, outsiders, “alternatives”, freaks, hermits, artists, novelists, poets, filmmakers, madmen, lone geniuses, and so on. One way or another, they detach themselves from the herd, the flock, the mass. Slaves clings together; masters and dominants draw apart.

The Abrahamic God is the classic savage master. To any dominant, the Abrahamic God is the Devil who must be resisted. But to natural slaves, the Abrahamic God – Allah/ Jehovah/ Christ – is someone to be worshipped. You must kneel and bow and grovel to “God”. Of course, to any dominant, the very idea of kneeling, bowing or grovelling to anyone is utterly horrific, nauseating and unacceptable. Dominants never worship Gods (unless as a cynical means of exploiting slaves). Here is wisdom. If you bow or kneel or grovel then you are unquestionably a slave. What’s worse is that you enjoy bowing, kneeling and grovelling. You enjoy being mastered. The primordial slaves didn’t just surrender to the masters, they also gave them responsibility for their lives. They allowed the masters to completely control them. The Koran, the Torah and the Bible are manuals for masters to control slaves ... and the slave Muslims, Jews and Christians love it. They can’t get enough of it. It defines their identity, Without it, they wouldn’t have an identity because they are just pathetic, worthless slaves, incapable of taking responsibility for themselves.

***** Why do a tiny fraction of human beings have so much wealth, approaching half of the total wealth of the world? It’s because they are masters and they can pay themselves as much as they like. Who’s going to stop them? The slaves? The submissives? The passives? The herd? The sheeple. “Mass man”? You must be joking. The masters can literally do anything they like. They can always rely on the slaves never to fight back.

Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate Allah is, of course, never merciful and never compassionate ... unless you declare yourself to be his abject slave (and even then he doesn’t show you any mercy, as the dismal lives of billions of Muslims proves).

Jesus, God of Love and Forgiveness Jesus is, of course, never loving and he never forgives. Jesus built hell, and sentenced the whole of humanity to hell because of the “scandal” over the Eden apple. Jesus chooses who goes to hell and who doesn’t through his “gift of grace”. There’s nothing you can do to be saved if Jesus hasn’t bestowed grace upon you. In other words, Jesus chooses to damn 99% of

humanity to hell, to eternal pain and suffering. He doesn’t love people, he hates them. He’s the Torture God. Who but the ultimate masochist who craves to meet the ultimate sadist would worship this monster?

Jehovah, the One, True God Jehovah claims to be the only God, yet he’s obsessed with other Gods, and even proclaims himself a “jealous God”. How can a God who knows he’s the only God be “jealous”? It’s a category error. It’s obvious that Jehovah was simply one God amongst many, who demanded to be treated as if he were the only one – because as a supreme Narcissist he couldn’t bear for anyone to be worshipped other than him. The Jewish “God” is the most preposterous God of all time, the most pathetic, and the most false and deluded. Judaism is the worst religion in history bar none, and monotheism is the worst idea in history bar none.

The Meteorite When a meteorite struck Russia in February, 2013, it was filmed by thousands of people on their camera phones. This is now the standard for any “event”. If UFOs appear they ought to be filmed by thousands of people. If they’re not, they’re definitely faked.

Bios and Zoe The Ancient Greek had two distinct words for life: a) “bios” for the life of finite, mortal individuals, and b) “zoe” for the life of infinite, immortal individuals (the Gods), on one hand, and the general phenomenon of life on the other (so zoe would be used to describe the life common to plants, animals, humans and gods). Zoe is “bare, general life, without characterization” and bios is “qualified” life. In short, zoe relates to general life and bios to specific life. In Schopenhauer’s philosophy, zoe would refer to the unitary, immortal, indestructible, formless, blindly striving noumenal Will, and bios to all the specific phenomenal lives that are generated by it through the individuating framework of space and time. Bios accommodates the concept of the death of the individual (i.e. its own end); zoe reflects no such conception. Zoe is immortal and indestructible. It’s the cosmic life force: life without end, infinite life. Some artists have suggested that the difference between zoe and bios is the difference between the “sacred and profane”. Sacred, religious art is zoe-driven while profane, secular art stems from bios. The gods have zoe and mortals have bios. Religion, with the concept of the afterlife and the eternal soul, is about zoe, while atheistic, secular scientific materialism is all about bios. In the political sphere, people, when they become active citizens, are said to have been converted from zoe (amorphous life) to bios (shaped life). Zoe is associated with private life (primitive and simple) and bios with public life (advanced and sophisticated). In “negative liberty” systems, people are essentially defined by zoe: they are a population rather than a people; they have very little in common other than their desire for the State to stay out of their lives. Multicultural Britain is an example of a zoe rather than bios State. The British have no common identity and live in a patchwork of ghettos based on class, religion and ethnicity. There’s no shape to British life. Bios refers to “political” beings (citizens) who take an active interest in their State and zoe refers to people as mere bodies who are politically passive and apathetic and, at most, cast a meaningless vote in an election every few years. Beyond that, they make no contribution to politics. For Aristotle, man is an animal born to a shapeless life, but, through politics, can enjoy civilization and “the good life”. Without political

engagement, humans are more like animals than citizens. Libertarians and anarchists would drag the world back to shapeless, directionless zoe rather than directed bios. The Star Trek future is one that is all about Meritocracy. No such future could ever arise from libertarians and anarchists. These people have extremely crude and simplistic ideas and really just want to be left alone ... like animals. A mere population reflects zoe and a people (a citizenry) reflects bios. Aristotle described man as “zoon politikon” or “politikon zoion” which literally means “a living organism which exists in society; a social animal; a political animal; a being which lives in the polis”. Here, Aristotle was emphasizing that man’s social and political nature was actually fundamental to his life, in opposition to the negative liberty notion where people are fundamentally apolitical and anti-social (being more interested in family than community and society). Aristotle was a positive liberty thinker. Many political thinkers regard zoe as being in need of transformation into bios. For Aristotle, he couldn’t imagine the social and political nature of man being divorced from his primordial life (zoe). To the extent that consciousness has social and political interaction as a prerequisite (no human who has lived on his own since birth could ever become conscious), Aristotle is surely right. Zoe is life and bios might be said to be lifetime. Our immortal soul is characterized by zoe, and our succession of mortal lives, through reincarnation, are instances of bios. So, immortal zoe is broken into many individual bios lifetimes. Zoe refers to “intensive life” (life in itself) and bios to “extensive life”, life as it appears in the world. Zoe is noumenal and bios phenomenal. Darwinism is about bios; Dialectics are about zoe. Science is about limited, purposeless life; dialectics are about unlimited, purposeful life, “higher” life. The dialectic is about transforming mere animalistic bios into divine zoe, about the process of humanity becoming Gods. It has been said that bios is about life as quantity, psyche about life as quality, and zoe about life as quintessence. In terms of “God”, zoe characterizes his life, and zoe is allegedly the life he wishes to share with us. Adam and Eve, prior to their disobedience, enjoyed zoe and knew nothing of death. After, God downgraded them to bios, and they became haunted and stalked by death.

Abrahamists like to say that time is the enemy of bios (we die), complacency and apathy are the enemy of psyche (we don’t use our minds effectively), and sin is the enemy of zoe, and can cause the loss of zoe (as with Adam and Eve). Sin is defined by these people as a knowing disobedience of God’s will, and wilful resistance to the divine pattern. In Abrahamism, the expulsion from Eden because of humanity’s “Fall” is regarded as a catastrophic loss of the sublime zoe dimension of existence, and a plunge into the miserable, anxious, fearful domain of bios – mortality. The Cherubims, armed with flaming sword, stand guard at Eden’s gates, preventing humanity from reclaiming zoe. Only the “death” of a zoe being – Jesus Christ – created the possibility of humanity going back to Eden, but only through absolute belief and obedience to Jesus Christ. There is no salvation, in Christianity, for anyone who doesn’t see Christ as the route to zoe. For Christians, resurrection marks the transition from bios to zoe. For reincarnationists, enlightenment marks this transition. In reincarnational terms, we evolve from mortal bios creatures to thinking psyche creatures and finally to immortal zoe creatures. Of course, our Higher Self was a zoe being all along, but it just didn’t know it. The veil of Maya had been thrown over it. “Enlightenment” occurs when a soul escapes the bios perspective and attains the zoe view of reality, thus entering into full communion with itself.

***** In some ancient thinking, Eve symbolized zoe and Adam bios. Or, we might say that women, as the bearers of children, manifest the eternal life force, and men give shape to that force.

Life and Death, Quantity and Quality “Noble death [thanaton] is preferable to shameful life [bion].” – Xenophon “Striving soon for a shameful existence [zoen] rather than for an honourable and blessed death [thanaton].” – Plato Life itself should not be celebrated. The quantity of life is not what counts, but its quality. Better to be dead than to insult life by living it shamefully.

Primum Frigidum

“There is some body or other that is of its own nature supremely cold and by participation of which all other bodies obtain that quality.” – Robert Boyle Primum frigidum (primary cold) was a hypothetical elementary substance conceived by Greek philosopher Parmenides. He said it was the source of all cooling or cold in the world; was the quintessential fundamentally cold substance, the coldness element, so to speak.

Phlogiston Phlogiston: from ancient Greek phlogistos “burnt up, inflammable,” from phlogizein “to set on fire, burn,” from phlox (genitive phlogos) “flame, blaze”. Just as primum frigidum was said to be the source of coldness, so phlogiston was said to be the source of fire, burning, combustibility. This was the fire element, so to speak, hence the opposite of the cold element.

Women in Power The subject of selectively putting far more women in positions of power has been raised. Well, plainly, we would not advocate putting Ayn Rand or Margaret Thatcher in charge of economic policy. We are using “women” to refer to those who on average are much less influenced by testosterone, and we are explicitly identifying testosterone as an extremely serious problem in our world if not properly managed. Consider the following book: The Hour Between Dog and Wolf: Risk-taking, Gut Feelings and the Biology of Boom and Bust by John Coates “In this time of financial crisis, a brilliant new perspective on the irrational behaviour that dominates the trading floor and its ramifications for the rest of us. In this startling and unconventional book neuroscientist and former Wall Street trader John Coates shows us the bankers in their natural environment. He reveals how their biochemistry has a lasting and significant impact on our economy. We learn how risk stimulates the most primitive part of the banker’s brain and how making the deals our bank balances depend on provokes an overwhelming fight-or-flight response. Constant swinging between aggression and apprehension impairs their

judgment, causing economic upheaval in the wider world. The transformation between each split-second decision is what Coates calls the hour between dog and wolf, and understanding the biology behind bubbles and crashes may be the key to stabilising the markets.” We would advise everyone to read this book. We are in the business of providing rational, evidence-based solutions to the problems of the world, and if you read this book you will realize that rather than studying someone’s CV when making job appointments, we should be studying their personality type and their hormonal makeup. Women have their flaws and weaknesses, just as men do. The game is to put women in charge where their strengths are to the fore (and their weakness are not exposed), and men in charge where their strengths are more relevant. We really can design society according to psychological and biological principles. We really can get the best balance between female and male traits. We really can screen out psychopathic men and women (such as Rand and Thatcher). We really can build a perfect world – if we’re smart enough.

Style over Substance “It’s the impression you make, not what you say.” – Adviser to Margaret Thatcher.

The Greens and Blues “Zombie Nation ... The war is over .. The rebels have won...Rot in Hell, Huns FC.” – The Green Brigade The Green Brigade are hardcore Glasgow Celtic football fans. Here they are proclaiming their rebel victory over their bitter establishment foes – Glasgow Rangers, the royal blues. The entity formerly known as Glasgow Rangers was liquidated after going bankrupt and is now dead – hence a zombie! – but a new incarnation has risen from the dead and played for a year in the lowest tier of the Scottish football league. This proves that Olympus can fall. The Establishment can crumble. The Old World Order can be defeated.

The Backstage Door The Backstage Door separates two worlds. Outside the door is reality and inside is fantasy. The stage is the primary fantasy zone and the audience, sitting in the front of house (reality), are drawn towards the fantasy. The stage – the fantasy space, the extraordinary world – is separated from the ordinary world by gilt and red curtains.

Life: the Three-Act Play 1st Act: birth, childhood, adolescence. 2nd Act: adulthood. 3rd Act: old age and death.

The Play of Life What role do you perform in the play of life? Are you one of the performers, one of the spectators, a producer, a director, a house assistant, an usher, a writer, a stage hand, a lighting assistant, a prop designer, a make-up artist, a costumier, a sales assistant, a chorus girl? If your life is unsatisfying, create a new show. Are you at the interval of your life, taking a breather? Make sure Part II is much better than Part I, with a storming climax. You don’t want to leave a dry eye in the house. When the curtain comes down on your life, make sure you left them wanting more.

***** The critic: the sniping, negative bore who fails to live and spends his time mocking those are living... the cynical voice of the undead.

Impostor Syndrome Impostor Syndrome – you believe you are some kind of impostor who does not deserve the wonderful things that are happening to you. Impostor Syndrome – you believe you are some kind of impostor who does not deserve the terrible things that are happening to you.

Bluebeard = Jehovah “The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree? Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. ‘You eat this apple, you’re going to be as smart as God. We can’t have that.’” – Frank Zappa Bluebeard didn’t want anyone going into his forbidden room and discovering his secrets. Jehovah didn’t want anyone eating from his Tree of Knowledge and discovering his secrets. Bluebeard and Jehovah both have terrible hidden knowledge that it’s fatal for you to learn. If you enter Bluebeard’s secret room, you are cast out of his paradise, lost to his love and suffer the death penalty. If you eat God’s forbidden fruit, you are cast out of his paradise, lost to his love and suffer the death penalty. Bluebeard is an evil murderer. So what is Jehovah? Why do so many people fall for the fatal con of Bluebeard-Jehovah?

Shill “A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization. “‘Shill’ typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom he is secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. ‘Plant’ and ‘stooge’ more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician’s audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).”

***** Shills are often planted as “random members of the audience” while actually being in league with the performer on stage. Shills are paid to cheer and clap the performance to encourage others.

The “critic” is often a shill.

The Wisdom of Frank Zappa “In every language, the first word after ‘Mama!’ that every kid learns to say is ‘Mine!’” – Frank Zappa “The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the tree of knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just keep your fucking mouth shut and hadn’t asked any questions.” – Frank Zappa “Get smart and I’ll fuck you over – sayeth The Lord.” – Frank Zappa “So, when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, if you go for all these fairy tales, that ‘evil’ woman convinced the man to eat the apple, but the apple came from the Tree of Knowledge. And the punishment that was then handed down, the woman gets to bleed and the guy’s got to go to work, is the result of a man desiring, because his woman suggested that it would be a good idea, that he get all the knowledge that was supposedly the property and domain of God. So, that right away sets up Christianity as an anti-intellectual religion. You never want to be that smart. If you’re a woman, it’s going to be running down your leg, and if you’re a guy, you’re going to be in the salt mines for the rest of your life. So, just be a dumb fuck and you’ll all go to heaven. That’s the subtext of Christianity.” – Frank Zappa

From The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers: “CAMPBELL: On some levels a private dream runs into truly mythic themes and can’t be interpreted except by an analogy with a myth. Jung speaks of two orders of dream, the personal dream and the archetypal dream, or the dream of mythic dimension. You can interpret a personal dream by association, figuring out what it is talking about in your own life, or in relation to your own personal problem. But every now and then a dream comes up that is pure myth, that carries a mythic theme, or that is said, for example, to come from the Christ within.

MOYERS: From the archetypal person within us, the archetypal self we are. CAMPBELL: That’s right. Now there is another, deeper meaning of dreamtime – which is of a time that is no time, just an enduring state of being.

Magic RR: “Magic is not subject to any rules”?? No rules to magic? Well, one might say that are plenty of rules of magic and countless rituals – but they have no effect. When people pray to God for help it’s an invocation of magic. How often does that work out? There are plenty of rules and rituals for praying. Bid deal. When we say magic is not subject to any rules, we are referring to the fact that it’s pure fantasy, hence anything is permitted. There’s no reality principle to constrain anything. “God” can allegedly magic a universe out of absolutely nothing. The Big Bang can allegedly do the same. These are magic acts. They do not conform to any logic or reason. There is no correspondence between the “rules of magic” and actual effects. The desired effects do not occur, so the rules are meaningless. If the “rules of magic” produced real results, we’d be living in a Harry Potter world. Wake up – we’re not. That’s not to say that “magic” can’t happen. Those people who, with the power of their minds, can affect the mathematics of reality can do the most mind-boggling things.

The Karma Con Let’s divide the various theories of karma into three broad categories: moral, immoral and amoral: 1) Moral Karma (the common sense view, and commonly accepted understanding of karma): you are punished for your bad deeds and rewarded for your good deeds. The catastrophic problem here is that who knows what “good” and “bad” are? They are subjective opinions, not absolute objective facts, hence karma is just an opinion and belief and has no ontological reality 2) Immoral Karma: the bad are rewarded and the good are punished. This more accurately reflects the world we live in, but suffers from the same catastrophic defect of moral karma: the problem of subjective judgment. 3) Amoral Karma: this is the “clever” version of karma whereby “know-itall” Westerners say that karma is nothing to do with morality but is instead

about “cause and effect”, as if it were some quasi-scientific doctrine that shouldn’t instantly be laughed out of court. This is how feeble-minded, irrational Westerners try to reconcile science and karma. What you find is that advocates of amoral Karma devise a number of staged, artificial example to explain what they mean by “cause and effect”. These examples are always more or less ridiculous, but can easily trip up and deceive other irrational people. Any credible theory must be able to explain the “hard cases”. Scientific materialism is in deep trouble because it cannot explain the hard problems of a) life, b) free will and c) consciousness – which makes it useless in terms of the ultimate answers to existence. Here’s a hard case for all “cause and effect” Karmists. Imagine a very clean living, healthy person, with no bad habits, who is universally admired, liked and respected. One day, they are given a diagnosis of terminal cancer. So, how do cause and effect Karmists explain this? The Moral Karmists would of course say that some wicked deed of the past had caught up with the person and it was time to pay his karmic debt. However, no such avenue is open to the Amoral Karmists. They have to explain how amoral karma caused the person’s terminal cancer, and how karma engineers cancerous genetic mutations and abnormalities. Good luck with that! Anyone who claims that karma is about cause and effect is mentally retarded (and probably being karmically punished!). Science is about cause and effect. Karma is pure Mythos fantasy that has no conceivable connection with cause and effect and reality. Karma is the Eastern equivalent of “God’s grace” – another supremely idiotic Mythos idea.

Punctuated Equilibrium and the Dialectic “Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a hypothesis in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.” – Wikipedia

Why didn’t capitalism dialectically collapse given Marx’s brilliant critique of the ineradicable flaws of capitalism? Sadly, Marx got several things disastrously wrong. Marx, and Hegel too, believed that slaves would naturally want to escape their slavery. Big mistake! Many people are extremely happy being slaves. They actively seek out enslavement. They want to be controlled. They want others to bear responsibility for their lives. Abrahamism is the most extreme example. These subhumans surrender themselves in abject submission and slavery to their dictator God. They can’t get enough of praying, kneeling, bowing and grovelling. And if they do it for God, they will also do it for any charismatic Earthly Power. The dialectic does not proceed directly to “Go”. It doesn’t work exactly as billed. In the proper dialectic, no one would accept being another person’s slave if they could possibly avoid it. In reality, the multitudes gladly accept slavery, hence the forward driving force of the dialectic is enormously impaired. A huge effort has to be put in to do something that ought to be self-evident – to convince people that slavery is appalling and must be resisted to the bitter end. Instead, people gladly put on their own chains and manacles. The “proper dialectic” is bedevilled by anti-dialectical forces such as many people preferring slavery over freedom. Dialectically sub-optimal systems (such as capitalism) can endure far beyond their dialectical sell-by date because they reach a stable equilibrium. Capitalism would have perished if it had been a straight fight between the capitalist owners and the workers. However, capitalism invented the “middle class”. This sizeable group propped up the capitalist elite and also served to make the gap between owners and worked less intimidating and horrifying. The middle class could aspire to the top, and the workers could aspire to be middle class. The capitalists were afraid of dropping down to the middle class, the middle class afraid of dropping to the working class, and the working class afraid of dropping out (into the underclass). This system of carrot and stick has proved much more robust and resilient than the version of unrestrained capitalism that Marx attacked. Capitalism saved itself by showing a degree of restraint (which has been rapidly vanishing over the last thirty years, leading to the current capitalist crisis).

So, bad phases (such as capitalism) that should be dialectically swept away, manage to endure for long periods. The dialectic proceeds by way of what we might call “punctuated equilibrium”. Dialectical revolutions occur then things settle down for long periods before new revolutions arise. A proper dialectic would involve a rapid convergence on an omega point via regular repeated revolutions, say ten per year. In fact, revolutions take place at a rate of about one per century, which is far too slow. It must be hoped that the internet and social networking will promote far faster revolutions.

***** “Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery. I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.” – Abraham Lincoln

The Wisdom of Rollo May Rollo May was a talented American existential psychologist who wrote a number of brilliant books. The Daimonic Force May defined the daimonic force in the following terms: “The daimonic is any natural function which has the power to take over the whole person. Sex and eros, anger and rage, and the craving for power are examples. The daimonic can be either creative or destructive and is normally both.” We might regard the daimonic as a transpersonal force from the Jungian Collective Unconscious that “possesses” people and uses them as its instruments. The Nazi movement has all the hallmarks of the daimonic. The same could be said of Judaism, Christianity and Islam when they were starting out. Islam and Judaism remain essentially daimonic while Christianity is ossified and enfeebled. “The daimonic is the urge in every being to affirm itself, assert itself, perpetuate and increase itself. The daimonic becomes evil when it usurps the total self without regard to the integration of that self, or to the unique forms and desires of others and their need for integration. It then appears in excessive aggression, hostility, cruelty — the things about ourselves which

horrify us most, and which we repress whenever we can or, more likely, project on others. But these are the reverse side of the same assertion which empowers our creativity. All life is a flux between these two aspects of the daimonic. We can repress the daimonic, but we cannot avoid the toll of apathy and the tendency toward later explosion which such repression brings in its wake.” – Rollo May “The daimonic refers to the power of nature rather than the superego, and is beyond good and evil. Nor is it man’s ‘recall to himself’ as Heidegger and later Fromm have argued, for its source lies in those realms where the self is rooted in natural forces which go beyond the self and are felt as the grasp of fate upon us. The daimonic arises from the ground of being rather than the self as such.” – Rollo May “We must rediscover the daimonic in a new form which will be adequate to our own predicament and fructifying for our own day. And this will not be a rediscovery alone but a recreation of the reality of the daimonic.” – Rollo May “The daimonic needs to be directed and channelled. Here is where human consciousness becomes so important. We initially experience the daimonic as a blind push. It is impersonal in the sense that it makes us nature’s tool. ... consciousness can integrate the daimonic, make it personal.” – Rollo May “Poets often have a conscious awareness that they are struggling with the daimonic, and that the issue is their working something through from the depths which push the self to a new plane.” – Rollo May “Violence is the daimonic gone awry. It is ‘demon possession’ in its starkest form. Our age is one of transition, in which the normal channels for utilizing the daimonic are denied; and such ages tend to be times when the daimonic is expressed in its most destructive form.” – Rollo May “We could not even see Hitler or the destructively daimonic reality he represented. Human beings just couldn’t be that cruel in our civilized twentieth century — the accounts in the papers must be wrong. Our error was that we let our convictions limit our perceptions. We had no place for the daimonic; we believed that the world must somehow fit our convictions, and the whole daimonic dimension was ruled out of our perception. Not to

recognize the daimonic itself turns out to be daimonic, it makes us accomplices on the side of the destructive possession.” – Rollo May “The denial of the daimonic is, in effect, a self-castration in love and a selfnullification in will. And the denial leads to the perverted forms of aggression we have seen in our day in which the repressed comes back to haunt us.” – Rollo May “The daimonic power does not merely take the individual over as its victim, but works through him psychologically, it clouds his judgment, makes it harder for him to see reality, but still leaves him with the responsibility for the act. This is the age old dilemma of my own personal responsibility even though I am ruled by fate. It is the ultimate statement that truth and reality are psychologised only to a limited extent. Aeschylus is not impersonal but transpersonal, a believer in fate and moral responsibility at the same time.” – Rollo May “When inward life dries up, when feeling decreases and apathy increases, when one cannot affect or even genuinely touch another person, violence flares up as a daimonic necessity for contact, a mad drive forcing touch in the most direct way possible.” – Rollo May

Depression, Anxiety and Emptiness “Depression is the inability to construct a future.” – Rollo May “One does not become fully human painlessly.” – Rollo May “Therapy isn’t curing somebody of something; it is a means of helping a person explore himself, his life, his consciousness. My purpose as a therapist is to find out what it means to be human. Every human being must have a point at which he stands against the culture, where he says, ‘This is me and the world be damned!’ Leaders have always been the ones to stand against the society — Socrates, Christ, Freud, all the way down the line.” – Rollo May “I think Dostoevsky was right, that every human being must have a point at which he stands against the culture, where he says, this is me and the damned world can go to hell.” – Rollo May

“Anxiety is an even better teacher than reality, for one can temporarily evade reality by avoiding the distasteful situation; but anxiety is a source of education always present because one carries it within.” – Rollo May “It may sound surprising when I say, on the basis of my own clinical practice as well as that of my psychological and psychiatric colleagues, that the chief problem of people in the middle decade of the twentieth century is emptiness.” – Rollo May “The human being cannot live in a condition of emptiness for very long: if he is not growing toward something, he does not merely stagnate; the pentup potentialities turn into morbidity and despair, and eventually into destructive activities.” – Rollo May “Many people feel they are powerless to do anything effective with their lives. It takes courage to break out of the settled mould, but most find conformity more comfortable. This is why the opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it’s conformity.” – Rollo May “We are more apt to feel depressed by the perpetually smiling individual than the one who is honestly sad. If we admit our depression openly and freely, those around us get from it an experience of freedom rather than the depression itself.” – Rollo May “Finding the centre of strength within ourselves is in the long run the best contribution we can make to our fellow men. ... One person with indigenous inner strength exercises a great calming effect on panic among people around him. This is what our society needs — not new ideas and inventions; important as these are, and not geniuses and supermen, but persons who can be, that is, persons who have a centre of strength within themselves.” – Rollo May “The upshot is that the values and goals which provided a unifying centre for previous centuries in the modern period no longer are cogent. We have not yet found the new centre which will enable us to choose our goals constructively, and thus to overcome the painful bewilderment and anxiety of not knowing which way to move. Another root of our malady is our loss of the sense of the worth and dignity of the human being. Nietzsche predicted this when he pointed out that the individual was being swallowed up in the herd, and that we were living by a ‘slave-morality.’ Marx also

predicted it when he proclaimed that modern man was being ‘dehumanized,’ and Kafka showed in his amazing stories how people literally can lose their identify as persons.” – Rollo May “Along with the loss of the sense of self has gone a loss of our language for communicating deeply personal meanings to each other. This is one important side of the loneliness now experienced by people in the Western world.” – Rollo May “Anxiety occurs because of a threat to the values a person identifies with his existence as a self ... most anxiety comes from a threat to social, emotional and moral values the person identifies with himself. And here we find that a main source of anxiety, particularly in the younger generation, is that they do not have viable values available in the culture on the basis of which they can relate to their world. The anxiety which is inescapable in an age in which values are so radically in transition is a central cause of apathy ... such prolonged anxiety tends to develop into lack of feeling and the experience of depersonalization.” – Rollo May “A dynamic struggle goes on within a person between what he or she consciously thinks on the one hand and, on the other, some insight, some perspective that is struggling to be born. The insight is then born with anxiety, guilt, and the joy and gratification that is inseparable from the actualizing of a new idea or vision.” – Rollo May “A person can meet anxiety to the extent that his values are stronger than the threat.” – Rollo May “When one read’s Kierkegaard’s profound analyses of anxiety and despair or Nietzsche’s amazingly acute insights into the dynamics of resentment and the guilt and hostility which accompany repressed emotional powers, one might pinch oneself to realize that one is reading works written in the last century and not some new contemporary psychological analysis.” – Rollo May “Certainly the neurotic, anxious child is compulsively concerned with security, for example; and certainly the neurotic adult, and we who study him, read our later formulations back in the unsuspecting mind of the child. But is not the normal child just as truly interested in moving out into the world, exploring, following his curiosity and sense of adventure – going out

to learn to shiver and to shake,: as the nursery rhyme puts it? And if you block these needs of the child, you get a traumatic reaction from him just as you do when you take away his security. I, for one, believe we vastly overemphasize the human being’s concern with security and survival satisfaction because they so neatly fit our cause-and-effect way of thinking. I believe Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were more accurate when they described man as the organism makes certain values — prestige, power, tenderness — more important than pleasure and even more important than survival itself. My thesis here is that we can understand repression, for example, only on the deeper level of meaning of the human being’s potentialities. In this respect, ‘being’ is to be defined as the individual’s ‘pattern of potentialities.’ … in my work in psychotherapy there appears more and more evidence that anxiety in our day arises not so much out of fear of lack of libidinal satisfactions or security, but rather out of the patient’s fear of his own powers, and the conflicts that arise from that fear. This may be the particular ‘neurotic personality of our time’ – the neurotic pattern of contemporary ‘outer directed’ organizational man.” – Rollo May

Freedom and Joy “Human freedom involves our capacity to pause, to choose the one response toward which we wish to throw our weight.” – Rollo May “Joy, rather than happiness, is the goal of life, for joy is the emotion which accompanies our fulfilling our natures as human beings. It is based on the experience of one’s identity as a being of worth and dignity, who is able to affirm his being, if need be, against all other beings and the whole inorganic world.” – Rollo May “Freedom is man’s capacity to take a hand in his own development. It is our capacity to mould ourselves.” – Rollo May

Religion “In any discussion of religion and personality integration the question is not whether religion itself makes for health or neurosis, but what kind of religion and how is it used? Freud was in error when he held that religion is per se a compulsion neurosis. Some religion is and some is not.” – Rollo May

“We define religion as the assumption that life has meaning. Religion, or lack of it, is shown not in some intellectual or verbal formulations but in one’s total orientation to life. Religion is whatever the individual takes to be his ultimate concern. One’s religious attitude is to be found at that point where he has a conviction that there are values in human existence worth living and dying for.” – Rollo May “It is interesting that the term mystic is used in this derogatory sense to mean anything we cannot segmentize and count. The odd belief prevails in our culture that a thing or experience is not real if we cannot make it mathematical, and that somehow it must be real if we can reduce it to numbers. But this means making an abstraction out of it ... Modern Western man thus finds himself in the strange situation, after reducing something to an abstraction, of having then to persuade himself it is real. ... the only experience we let ourselves believe in as real, is that which precisely is not.” – Rollo May (Ahem, if only this were true ... humanity’s problem is that it denies that Logos is real and instead tells itself absurd Mythos tales which it then takes for reality.)

Vanity and Pride “Vanity and narcissism — the compulsive need to be admired and praised — undermine one’s courage, for one then fights on someone else’s conviction rather than one’s own.” – Rollo May

Memory “Memory is not just the imprint of the past time upon us; it is the keeper of what is meaningful for our deepest hopes and fears.” – Rollo May “The crucial question which confronts us in psychology and other aspects of the science of man is precisely this chasm between what is abstractly true and what is existentially real for the given living person.” – Rollo May

Machine Man, Mass Man, Organization Man “Lacking positive myths to guide him, many a sensitive contemporary man finds only the model of the machine beckoning him from every side to

make himself over into its image.” – Rollo May “When people feel their insignificance as individual persons, they also suffer an undermining of their sense of human responsibility.” – Rollo May “Increasingly in our time – this is an inevitable result of collectivization – it is the organization man who succeeds. And he is characterized by the fact that he has significance only if he gives up his significance.” – Rollo May “I have described the human dilemma as the capacity of man to view himself as object and as subject. My point is that both are necessary — necessary for psychological science, for effective therapy, and for meaningful living. I am also proposing that in the dialectical process between these two poles lies the development, and the deepening and widening, of human consciousness. The error on both sides — for which I have used Skinner and the pre-paradox Rogers as examples — is the assumption that one can avoid the dilemma by taking one of its poles. It is not simply that man must learn to live with the paradox — the human being has always lived in this paradox or dilemma, from the time that he first became aware of the fact that he was the one who would die and coined a word for his own death. Illness, limitations of all sorts, and every aspect of our biological state we have indicated are aspects of the deterministic side of the dilemma — man is like the grass of the field, it withereth. The awareness of this, and the acting on this awareness, is the genius of man the subject. But we must also take the implications of this dilemma into our psychological theory. Between the two horns of this dilemma, man has developed symbols, art, language, and the kind of science which is always expanding in its own presuppositions. The courageous living within this dilemma, I believe, is the source of human creativity.” – Rollo May “The overemphasis on the Baconian doctrine of knowledge as power, and the accompanying concern with gaining power over nature as well as over ourselves in the sense of treating ourselves as objects to be manipulated rather than human beings whose aim is to expand in meaningful living, have resulted in the invalidation of the self. This tends to shrink the individual’s consciousness, to block off his awareness, and thus play into ... unconstructive anxiety ... I propose that the aim of education is exactly the opposite, namely, the widening and deepening of consciousness. To the extent that education can help the student develop sensitivity, depth of

perception, and above all the capacity to perceive significant forms in what he is studying, it will be developing at the same time the student’s capacity to deal with anxiety constructively.” – Rollo May “The schizoid man is the natural product of the technological man. It is one way to live and is increasingly utilized — and it may explode into violence.” – Rollo May “In a world where numbers inexorably take over as our means of identification, like flowing lava threatening to suffocate and fossilize all breathing life in its path; in a world where ‘normality’ is defined as keeping your cool; where sex is so available that the only way to preserve any inner centre is to have intercourse without committing yourself — in such a schizoid world, which young people experience more directly since they have not had time to build up the defences which dull the senses of their elders, it is not surprising that will and love have become increasingly problematic and even, as some people believe, impossible of achievement.” – Rollo May “The constructive schizoid person stands against the spiritual emptiness of encroaching technology and does not let himself be emptied by it. He lives and works with the machine without becoming a machine. He finds it necessary to remain detached enough to get meaning from the experience, but in doing so, to protect his own inner life from impoverishment.” – Rollo May “Technology is the knack of so arranging the world that we do not experience it.” – Rollo May

Losing the Way “It is an old and ironic habit of human beings to run faster when we have lost our way; and we grasp more fiercely at research, statistics, and technical aids in sex when we have lost the values and meaning of love.” – Rollo May “Now it is no longer a matter of deciding what to do, but of deciding how to decide.” – Rollo May

Neurosis

“Our patients are the ones who express and live out the subconscious and unconscious tendencies in the culture. The neurotic, or person suffering from what we now call character disorder, is characterized by the fact that the usual defences of the culture do not work for him — a generally painful situation of which he is more or less aware...” – Rollo May “Both artists and neurotics speak and live from the subconscious and unconscious depths of their society. The artist does this positively, communicating what he experiences to his fellow men. The neurotic does this negatively.” – Rollo May

Love and Hate “Hate is not the opposite of love; apathy is.” – Rollo May “Sex can be defined fairly adequately in physiological terms as consisting of the building up of bodily tensions and their release. Eros, in contrast, is the experiencing of the personal intentions and meaning of the act. Whereas sex is a rhythm of stimulus and response, eros is a state of being. The pleasure of sex is described by Freud and others as the reduction of tension; in eros, on the contrary, we wish not to be released from the excitement but rather to hang on to it, to bask in it, and even to increase it. The end toward which sex points is gratification and relaxation, whereas eros is a desiring, longing, a forever reaching out, seeking to expand.” – Rollo May “When I fall in love, I feel more valuable and I treat myself with more care. We have all observed the hesitant adolescent, uncertain of himself, who, when he or she falls in love, suddenly walks with a certain inner assuredness and confidence, a mien which seems to say, ‘You are looking at somebody now.’ ... this inner sense of worth that comes with being in love does not seem to depend essentially on whether the love is returned or not.” – Rollo May “When we ‘fall’ in love, as the expressive verb puts it, the world shakes and changes around us, not only in the way it looks but in our whole experience of what we are doing in the world. Generally, the shaking is consciously felt in its positive aspects ... Love is the answer, we sing. ... our Western culture seems to be engaged in a romantic — albeit desperate — conspiracy to enforce the illusion that that is all there is to eros.” – Rollo May

“To love means to open ourselves to the negative as well as the positive — to grief, sorrow, and disappointment as well as to joy, fulfilment, and an intensity of consciousness we did not know was possible before.” – Rollo May “Care is a state in which something does matter; care is the opposite of apathy. Care is the necessary source of eros, the source of human tenderness.” – Rollo May “Tenderness emerges from the fact that the two persons, longing, as all individuals do, to overcome the separateness and isolation to which we are all heir because we are individuals, can participate in a relationship that, for the moment, is not of two isolated selves but a union.” – Rollo May “Life comes from physical survival; but the good life comes from what we care about.” – Rollo May

The Rebel “I must make the important distinction between the rebel and the revolutionary. One is in ineradicable opposition to the other. The revolutionary seeks an external political change, ‘the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another.’ The origin of the term is the word revolve, literally meaning a turnover, as the revolution of a wheel. When the conditions under a given government are insufferable some groups may seek to break down that government in the conviction that any new form cannot but be better. Many revolutions, however, simply substitute one kind of government for another, the second no better than the first — which leaves the individual citizen, who has had to endure the inevitable anarchy between the two, worse off than before. Revolution may do more harm than good. “The rebel, on the other hand, is ‘one who opposes authority or restraint: one who breaks with established custom or tradition.’ ... He seeks above all an internal change, a change in the attitudes, emotions, and outlook of the people to whom he is devoted. He often seems to be temperamentally unable to accept success and the ease it brings; he kicks against the pricks, and when one frontier is conquered, he soon becomes ill-at-ease and pushes on to the new frontier. He is drawn to the unquiet minds and spirits, for he shares their everlasting inability to accept stultifying control. He may, as

Socrates did, refer to himself as the gadfly for the state — the one who keeps the state from settling down into a complacency, which is the first step toward decadence. No matter how much the rebel gives the appearance of being egocentric or of being on an ‘ego trip,’ this is a delusion; inwardly the authentic rebel is anything but brash. “True to the meaning of the rebel as one who renounces authority, he seeks primarily not the substitution of one political system for another. He may favour such a political change, but it is not his chief goal. He rebels for the sake of a vision of life and society which he is convinced is critically important for himself and his fellows. ... the rebel fights not only for the relief of his fellow men but also for his personal integrity. For him these are but two sides of the same coin. “The function of the rebel is to shake the fixated mores of the rigid order of civilization; and this shaking, though painful, is necessary if the society is to be saved from boredom and apathy. Obviously I do not refer to everyone who calls himself a rebel, but only to the authentic rebel. Civilization gets its first flower from the rebel. “Civilization begins with a rebellion. Prometheus, one of the Titans, steals fire from the gods on Mount Olympus and brings it as a gift to man, marking the birth of human culture. For this rebellion Zeus sentences him to be chained to Mount Caucasus where vultures consume his liver during the day and at night it grows back only to be again eaten away the next day. This is a tale of the agony of the creative individual, whose nightly rest only resuscitates him so that he can endure his agonies the next day.” – Rollo May “The authentic rebel knows that the silencing of all his adversaries is the last thing on earth he wishes: their extermination would deprive him and whoever else remains alive from the uniqueness, the originality, and the capacity for insight that these enemies — being human — also have and could share with him. If we wish the death of our enemies, we cannot talk about the community of man. In the losing of the chance for dialogue with our enemies, we are the poorer.” – Rollo May “The rebel is committed to giving a form and pattern to the world. It is a pattern born of the indomitable thrust of the human mind, the mind which makes out of the mass of meaningless data in the world an order and a form.” – Rollo May

“Note the startling regularity through history with which society martyrs the rebel in one generation and worships him in the next. Socrates, Jesus, William Blake, Buddha, Krishna — the list is as endless as it is rich.” – Rollo May “Art is a substitute for violence. The same impulses that drive persons to violence — the hunger for meaning, the need for ecstasy, the impulse to risk all — drive the artist to create. He is by nature our arch rebel. ... the essence of the rebellion is in the new way of seeing nature and life.” – Rollo May “There is no meaningful ‘yes’ unless the individual could also have said ‘no.’” – Rollo May (In terms of Abrahamic faith, there is no meaningful faith unless the individual could have rejected it, and that means going out of his way to disbelieve it. But all religions damn the free thinker, the apostate, the heretic, the infidel. They impose faith and do not permit any questioning of it. Look at Islam and Judaism. The one the faithful never do is question their faith. That’s the whole problem.)

Artists and Creativity “Those who present directly and immediately the new forms and symbols are the artists — the dramatists, the musicians, the painters, the dancers, the poets, and those poets of the religious sphere we call saints. They portray the new symbols in the form of images — poetic, aural, plastic, or dramatic, as the case may be. They live out their imaginations.” – Rollo May “Artists are generally soft-spoken persons who are concerned with their inner visions and images. But that is precisely what makes them feared by any coercive society. For they are the bearers of the human being’s age old capacity to be insurgent. They love to immerse themselves in chaos in order to put it into form, just as God created form out of chaos in Genesis. Forever unsatisfied with the mundane, the apathetic, the conventional, they always push on to newer worlds.” – Rollo May “We go for the millionth time to forge in the smithy of our souls the uncreated conscience of the race.” – Rollo May (Mathematics is the cosmic smithy, and the soul itself is mathematical.)

“The creative process must be explored not as the product of sickness, but as representing the highest degree of emotional health, as the expression of the normal people in the act of actualizing themselves.” – Rollo May “Artists encounter the landscape they propose to paint — they look at it, observe it from this angle and that. They are, as we say, absorbed in it. Or, in the case of abstract painters, the encounter may be with an idea, an inner vision, that in turn may be led off by the brilliant colours on the palette or the inviting rough whiteness of the canvas.” – Rollo May “Reason works better when emotions are present; the person sees sharper and more accurately when his emotions are engaged.” – Rollo May “World is the pattern of meaningful relations in which a person exists and in the design of which he or she participates. It has objective reality, to be sure, but it is not simply that. World is interrelated with the person at every moment. A continual dialectical process goes on between world and self and self and world; one implies the other, and neither can be understood if we omit the other. This is why one can never localize creativity as a subjective phenomenon; one can never study it simply in terms of what goes on within the person. The pole of world is an inseparable part of the creativity of an individual. What occurs is always a process, a doing — specifically a process interrelating the person and his or her world.” – Rollo May “In this sense genuine artists are so bound up with their age that they cannot communicate separated from it. In this sense, too, the historical situation conditions the creativity. For the consciousness which obtains in creativity is not the superficial level of objectified intellectualization, but is an encounter with the world on a level that undercuts the subject-object split. ‘Creativity’ to rephrase our definition, ‘is the encounter of the intensively conscious human being with his or her world.’ – Rollo May “Dogmatists of all kinds — scientific, economic, moral, as well as political — are threatened by the creative freedom of the artist. This is necessarily and inevitably so. We cannot escape our anxiety over the fact that the artists together with creative persons of all sorts, are the possible destroyers of our nicely ordered systems. For the creative impulse is the speaking of the voice and the expressing of the forms of the preconscious and unconscious; and

this is, by its very nature, a threat to rationality and external control.” – Rollo May “The vision of the artist or the poet is the intermediate determinant between the subject (the person) and the objective pole (the world-waiting-to-be). It will be nonbeing until the poet’s struggle brings forth an answer — meaning. The greatness of a poem or a painting is not that it portrays the thing observed or experienced, but that it portrays the artist’s or the poet’s vision cued off by his encounter with the reality. Hence the poem or the painting is unique, original, never to be duplicated. No matter how many times Monet returned to paint the cathedral at Rouen, each canvas was a new painting expressing a new vision.” – Rollo May “Creative people, as I see them, are distinguished by the fact that they can live with anxiety, even though a high price may be paid in terms of insecurity, sensitivity, and defencelessness for the gift of the ‘divine madness’ to borrow the term used by the classical Greeks. They do not run away from non-being, but by encountering and wrestling with it, force it to produce being. They knock on silence for an answering music; they pursue meaninglessness until they can force it to mean.” – Rollo May “The self is made up, on its growing edge, of the models, forms, metaphors, myths, and all other kinds of psychic content which give it direction in its self-creation. This is a process that goes on continuously. As Kierkegaard well said, the self is only that which it is in the process of becoming. Despite the obvious determinism in human life — especially in the physical aspect of one’s self in such simple things as colour of eyes, height relative length of life, and so on — there is also, clearly, this element of selfdirecting, self-forming. Thinking and self-creating are inseparable. When we become aware of all the fantasies in which we see ourselves in the future, pilot ourselves this way or that, this becomes obvious.” – Rollo May “Creativity arises out of the tension between spontaneity and limitations, the latter (like the river banks) forcing the spontaneity into the various forms which are essential to the work of art or poem.” – Rollo May “When you write a poem, you discover that the very necessity of fitting your meaning into such and such a form requires you to search in your imagination for new meanings. You reject certain ways of saying it; you select others, always trying to form the poem again. In your forming, you

arrive at new and more profound meanings than you had even dreamed of. Form is not a mere lopping off of meaning that you don’t have room to put into your poem; it is an aid to finding new meaning, a stimulus to condensing your meaning, to simplifying and purifying it, and to discovering on a more universal dimension the essence you wish to express.” – Rollo May “Imagination is the outreaching of mind ... the bombardment of the conscious mind with ideas, impulses, images and every sort of psychic phenomena welling up from the preconscious. It is the capacity to ‘dream dreams and see visions...’” – Rollo May “The human imagination leaps to form the whole, to complete the scene in order to make sense of it. The instantaneous way this is done shows how we are driven to construct the remainder of the scene. To fill the gaps is essential if the scene is to have meaning. That we may do this in misleading ways — at times in neurotic or paranoid ways — does not gainsay the central point. Our passion for form expresses our yearning to make the world adequate to our needs and desires, and, more important, to experience ourselves as having significance.” – Rollo May “This passion for form is a way of trying to find and constitute meaning in life. And this is what genuine creativity is. Imagination, broadly defined, seems to me to be a principle in human life underlying even reason, for the rational functions, according to our definitions, can lead to understanding — can participate in the constituting of reality — only as they are creative. Creativity is thus involved in our every experience as we try to make meaning in our self-world relationship.” – Rollo May “Creativity is the result of a struggle between vitality and form. As anyone who has tried to write a sonnet or scan poetry, is aware, the form ideally do not take away from the creativity but may add to it.” – Rollo May “The value of dreams, like ... divinations, is not that they give a specific answer, but that they open up new areas of psychic reality, shake us out of our customary ruts, and throw light on a new segment of our lives. Thus the sayings of the shrine, like dreams, were not to be received passively; the recipients had to ‘live’ themselves into the message.” – Rollo May

Communication and Community

“Power is required for communication. To stand before an indifferent or hostile group and have one’s say, or to speak honestly to a friend truths that go deep and hurt — these require self-affirmation, self-assertion, and even at times aggression. ... My experience in psychotherapy convinces me that the act which requires the most courage is the simple communication, unpropelled by rage or anger, of one’s deepest thoughts to another.” – Rollo May “Communication leads to community — that is, to understanding, intimacy, and the mutual valuing that was previously lacking.” – Rollo May “Community can be defined simply as a group in which free conversation can take place. Community is where I can share my innermost thoughts, bring out the depths of my own feelings, and know they will be understood.” – Rollo May “If you do not express your own original ideas, if you do not listen to your own being, you will have betrayed yourself. Also, you will have betrayed your community in failing to make your contribution.” – Rollo May

Courage “Courage is not a virtue of value among other personal values like love or fidelity. It is the foundation that underlies and gives reality to all other virtues and personal values. Without courage our love pales into mere dependency. Without courage our fidelity becomes conformism.” – Rollo May “The acorn becomes an oak by means of automatic growth; no commitment is necessary. The kitten similarly becomes a cat on the basis of instinct. Nature and being are identical in creatures like them. But a man or woman becomes fully human only by his or her choices and his or her commitment to them. People attain worth and dignity by the multitude of decisions they make from day by day. These decisions require courage.” – Rollo May “Whereas moral courage is the righting of wrongs, creative courage, in contrast, is the discovering of new forms, new symbols, new patterns on which a new society can be built.” – Rollo May “The relationship between commitment and doubt is by no means an antagonistic one. Commitment is healthiest when it is not without doubt but

in spite of doubt.” – Rollo May

Existentialism “The existential way of understanding human beings has some illustrious progenitors in Western history, such as Socrates in his dialogues, Augustine in his depth-psychological analyses of the self, Pascal in his struggle to find a place for the ‘heart’s reasons which the reason knows not of.’ But it arose specifically just over a hundred years ago in Kierkegaard’s violent protest against the reigning rationalism of his day: Hegel’s ‘totalitarianism of reason,’ to use Maritain’s phrase. Kierkegaard proclaimed that Hegel’s identification of abstract truth with reality was an illusion and amounted to trickery. ‘Truth exists,’ wrote Kierkegaard, ‘only as the individual himself produces it in action.’ – Rollo May “Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and those who followed them accurately foresaw this growing split between truth and reality in Western culture, and they endeavoured to call Western man back from the delusion that reality can be comprehended in an abstracted, detached way. But though they protested vehemently against arid intellectualism, they were by no means simple activists. Nor were they antirational. Anti-intellectualism and other movements in our day which make thinking subordinate to acting must not at all be confused with existentialism. Either alternative-making man subject or object-results in loosing the living, existing person.” – Rollo May “In the winter of 1841 Schelling gave his famous series of lectures at the University of Berlin before a distinguished audience including Kierkegaard, Burckhardt, Engels, Bakunin. Schelling set out to overthrow Hegel, whose vast rationalist system including the identification of abstract truth with reality and the bringing of all history into an ‘absolute whole,’ held immense and dominant popularity in the Europe of the middle of the nineteenth century. – 1844 Kierkegaard published Philosophical Fragments, and two years later he wrote the declaration of independence for existentialism, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments. Also in 1844 there appeared the second edition of Schopenhauer’s The World As Will and Idea, .. central emphasis ‘will’ along with ‘idea’ – two related works by Marx 1844-45 – ‘attacked abstract truth’ as ‘ideology’ ‘using Hegel as his whipping boy’ ‘men and groups

bring truth into being’ ‘money economy turns people into things’.” – Rollo May “In the following decades Kierkegaard remained completely unknown, Schelling’s work was contemptuously buried, and Marx and Feuerbach were interpreted as dogmatic materialists. Then a new impetus came in the 1880’s with the work of Dilthey, and particularly with Friedrich Nietzsche, the ‘philosophy of life’ movement, and the work of Bergson. The third phase came after the shock of WWI – Kierkegaard and the early Marxists were rediscovered and the serious challenges to the spiritual and psychological basis of Western society given by Nietzsche could no longer be covered over by Victorian self-satisfied placidity. The specific form of the third phase owes much to the phenomenology of Edmond Husserl, which gave to Heidegger, Jaspers, and the others the tool they needed to undercut the subject object cleavage which had been such a stumbling block to science as well as philosophy.” – Rollo May “Freud describes the neurotic personality of the late nineteenth century as one suffering from fragmentation – that is, from repression of instinctual drives, blocking off of awareness, loss of autonomy, weakness and passivity of the ego, together with the various neurotic symptoms which result from this fragmentation. Kierkegaard – who wrote the only known book before Freud specifically devoted to the problem of anxiety – analyzes not only anxiety but particularly the depression and despair which result from the individual’s self-estrangement, an estrangement he proceeds to clarify in its different forms and degrees of severity. Nietzsche proclaims ten years before Freud’s first book that the disease of contemporary man is that ‘his soul had gone stale’ he is – he describes how blocked instinctual powers turn within the individual into resentment, self-hatred, hostility and aggression. Freud did not know Kierkegaard’s work, but he regarded Nietzsche as one of the authentically great men of all time.” – Rollo May “Neither Kierkegaard nor Nietzsche had the slightest interest in starting a movement – or a new system, a thought which would indeed have offended them. Both proclaimed, in Nietzsche’s phrase, ‘Follow not me, but you!’” – Rollo May “The central psychological endeavour of Kierkegaard may be summed up under the heading of the question he pursued relentlessly: How can one

become an individual? The individual was being swallowed up on the rational side by Hegel’s vast logical ‘absolute Whole,’ on the economic side by the increasing objectification of the person, and on the moral and spiritual side by the soft and vapid religion of his day. Europe was ill, and was to become more so, not because knowledge or techniques were lacking but because of the want of passion, commitment. ‘Away from Speculation, away from the System,’ he called, and ‘back to reality!’” – Rollo May

***** “You can live without a father who accepts you, but you cannot live without a world that makes some sense to you.” – Rollo May

The Impudence! JG: “I speak of unconditional love, write of it and pray for it for myself and others daily. I am a Type A personality, driven to succeed and have a very successful supply chain career the last 12 years, 3 worlds vest practice implementations, in food manufacturing, president of the SCLAA etc... I passionately create, music( both piano and guitar) painting, (canvas and walls), wood work, and I could go on.” We spoke of Nietzsche as a superb example of a “creator”. JG believes that his stellar career in the “supply chain” and his amateur enthusiasm for music and painting put him in the same category. Er, sorry, JG, but we beg to differ. It’s embarrassing when people fail to see themselves as they really are. When we talk about creators, we are talking about geniuses who have changed the world and have sacrificed everything to their creative endeavours. Anyone who thinks that strumming his guitar makes him creative has no idea what creativity is. Only geniuses can understand genius and the staggering sacrifices that are required to produce anything new. To mention the “supply chain” is supreme bathos. It’s grotesque.

Stage Fright Do animal souls newly promoted to the human condition, following reincarnation, experience stage fright? Do they suffer from performance anxiety? Is that why they prefer to be passive, submissive and slavelike when they enter the human stage for the first time. Is that why they bow to

the Devil? “New” souls in the human domain believe in resurrection and the “Creator”; wise, mature souls that have been round the block many times in different human lives invariably state the reincarnational truth of the soul, and know there is no Creator.

Living Reason The Principle of Sufficient Reason simply is Euler’s Formula. A universe defined by Euler’s formula in its generalized form provides for a wholly rational reality where cause and effect are built in. However, cause and effect are inherently unobservable. Hume, an empiricist, notoriously rejected cause and effect precisely because they’re unobservable. This was an utterly insane conclusion and reflected an extremist empiricist mindset that’s all too prevalent in modern scientific materialism and which dogmatically denies all “rational unobservables”. However, ironically and hypocritically, scientists do accept causality despite the fact that it can never be directly observed and only inferred after the fact. The Principle of Sufficient Reason states that every “fact” has a reason why it is so and not otherwise (which, if you think about, is simply another way of referring to specific causes and specific effects that inevitably result from them). “Reason” is a word human beings use, a concept. When it’s converted into ontology – into the fabric of existence – it’s simply mathematics, defined by the generalized Euler Formula. Reason = ontological mathematics. A wholly mathematical universe is, ipso facto, a wholly rational universe. Such a universe reflects absolute mathematical objectivity on the one hand, but, critically, via zero and infinity, also permits absolute subjectivity. The subjective is the “withinness” of objective mathematics, the “interior”, the inside experience of it. Just as we have a subjective mind within an objective body, a mathematical universe has a subjective aspect (phase) within an objective system. In other words, mathematics itself reflects mind-matter dualism – not as two separate states but two distinct phases that can fully interact with each other mathematically. Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” There’s only one possible explanation for why the universe is rational and rationally comprehensible – because it’s made of reason, living reason – which is none other than ontological mathematics.

Yet it’s crucial to grasp that living reason is extremely different from how reason is normally understood. For a start, reason starts off unconsciously. Clearly, unconscious reason cannot reflect on its own nature and ponder its own properties. Reason’s inbuilt objective is, naturally, to reason out what it is – to know itself ... to reason its way to a complete rational understanding of itself. Reason must become conscious in order to optimize and fully know itself – and we (conscious minds) are the vehicles through which it does so. Logos humanity is more highly evolved than Mythos humanity because we are more conscious, hence more self-knowingly rational (or more selfknowingly rational, hence more conscious). The philosopher is he who, above all, reflects on his own reason. The philosopher, for Hegel, is the supreme human type. In Illuminism, the ontological mathematical philosopher is the apex of human evolution... the type of person who can start planning a divine future, actually and practically working out how to become God. What’s for certain is that the Bible, Torah or Koran can’t offer one word of help to any thinker. These books contain no reason at all. Reason in its unconscious mode is simply “will” – the will to optimize itself, which is the same as Nietzsche’s Will to Power. It needs to gauge if its power is increasing or decreasing – and feelings perform this function at the most elementary level. So will (which goes hand in hand with desire, i.e. our will to optimize ourselves must include a desire for anything that we think will help us) and feelings are what reason is when it’s unconscious. Reason takes on its the character familiar to us only when it is conscious, and conscious reason is demonstrated to its highest degree in philosophy. In fact, this series of books – the God Series – exhibits the very highest expression of reason – it’s all about reason understanding itself, understanding what it is, how it came to be and how it can improve. Talk to an ordinary person, read Facebook and Twitter comments, and you will see a complete lack of conscious reason... all you detect are will and feelings. No arguments of any sophistication are advanced, only beliefs, opinions and doubtful interpretations. Reason, when unconscious, is will, desire and feelings and, when conscious, is logic, planning, organisation, knowledge, order and selfawareness – all united by mathematics. Living reason is unconscious, crude, violent (just look at the law of the jungle), dialectical and extremely messy. However, when reason is

conscious, it can start to work out the eternal parameters of reason, which turn out to be none other than the immutable Platonic laws of mathematics. Mathematics and reason are the same thing. Living reason and ontological mathematics are identical. If the universe weren’t 100% mathematical and rational then there could be no universe at all since it would be destroyed by its own contradictions. The universe must be 100% flawless, 100% consistent and 100% complete – and that’s exactly what ontological mathematics, and it alone, delivers. Cause and effect come built into ontological mathematics. So is logic, both Aristotelian and dialectical, built in. When Hartmann talked about Will cosmically wrestling with Reason, he was wrong. Will is simply unconscious Reason, and Reason conscious Will. They too are identical, separated only by their evolutionary phase, just as ice, water and steam are all identical (they’re all H2O), separated only by their respective phases. The theory of the “triune brain” reflects the different states of reason. The Reptilian brain is pure will and desire – a machine that feeds, fight and fucks (like most men, actually!). The limbic system, which is added to and sits on top of the Reptilian brain, is the emotional centre, which provides an instant evaluation of power gains and losses on the basis of the feeling of pleasure or pain. On top of the limbic system comes the neocortex – the physical home of conscious reason. The vast majority of humans, like animals, use their Reptilian brains and limbic systems, while making almost no use of the neocortex. (Animals have barely any neocortex: they are not capable of conscious reason.) Only a tiny fraction of humanity – Logos humanity – use their neocortex to a significant degree, and that’s why we are a different species, a higher species, the next evolutionary phase of humanity. It’s interesting that the brain gets more rational the further it departs from the Reptilian brain stem at the centre. Plants have no brain stem, hence do not exhibit any will or desire (at least not so that you’d notice!). All animals start with a brain stem devoted to pure will and desire. More evolved animals acquire a limbic system, which adds the pleasure-pain power gauge to the brain-stem. Humans have a highly developed neocortex – that’s what distinguishes us from animals – and, via it, reason is finally brought into consciousness. Yet perhaps there is one more stage to come – the divine cortex that sits above the neocortex and gives us complete

mathematical understanding of reality, making us Gods: all-powerful entities in which reason has become 100% self aware. The Mythos brain is one that’s much more closely linked to the limbic system than the cerebral complex. The Logos brain is one where most processing is transferred to the cerebral complex. So, in the Jungian dichotomy between feeling and thinking types, the “feelers” are those who process data via the limbic system, and the “thinkers” are those who process data via the neocortex. By the same token, sensing types make heavy use of the part of the brain devoted to “local environment” processing (“localism”), while intuitives use the part of the brain devoted to non-local environment processing (“non-localism”). Our brains literally physically reflect reason and how it’s processed in its different modes and aspects.

The Lonely Crowd “My concern in this book is with two revolutions and their relation to the ‘mode of conformity’ or “social character” of Western man since the Middle Ages. The first of these revolutions has in the last four hundred years cut us off pretty decisively from the family- and clan-oriented traditional ways of life in which mankind has existed throughout most of history; this revolution includes the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Industrial Revolution, and the political revolutions of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. “This revolution is, of course, still in process, but in the most advanced countries of the world, and particularly in America, it is giving way to another sort of revolution – a whole range of social developments associated with a shift from an age of production to an age of consumption. The first revolution we understand moderately well; it is, under various labels, in our texts and our terminology; this book has nothing new to contribute to its description, but perhaps does contribute something to its evaluation. “The second revolution, which is just beginning, has interested many contemporary observers, including social scientists, philosophers, and journalists. Both description and evaluation are still highly controversial; indeed, many are still preoccupied with the first set of revolutions and have not invented the categories for discussing the second set. In this book I try to sharpen the contrast between, on the one hand, conditions and character

in those social strata that are today most seriously affected by the second revolution, and on the other hand, conditions and character in analogous strata during the earlier revolution.... “My thesis, in fact, that each of these three different phases on the population curve appears to be occupied by a society that enforces conformity and moulds social character in a definably different way. “The society of high growth potential develops in its typical members a social character whose conformity is insured by their tendency to follow tradition: these I shall term tradition-directed people and the society in which they live a society dependent on tradition-direction. “The society of transitional population growth develops in its typical members a social character whose conformity is insured by their tendency to acquire early in life an internalized set of goals. These I shall term innerdirected people and the society in which they live a society dependent inner-direction. “Finally, the society of incipient population decline develops in its typical members a social character whose conformity is insured by their tendency to be sensitized to the expectations and preferences of others. These I shall term other-directed people and the society in which they live one dependent on other-direction....” – David Riesman (with Nathan Glazer and Reuel Denney), The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character Riesman asserted that the American character radically changed in the twentieth century from that of the inner-directed, self-reliant individual to the other-directed, other-reliant individual. In Spenglerian terms, America moved away from the provinces, small towns, homesteads and farms to the vast, impersonal cities, where a whole new type of national character came to the fore. In contemporary America, the Democrats are the urban, liberal, otherdirected types, the Republicans (and fundamentalist Christians) are the rural, conservative, tradition-directed types who loathe and fear the change and liberalism associated with the Democrats. Finally, the anarcho-capitalist libertarians and conspiracy theorists are the inner-directed types who loathe the fashion-following, liberal Democrats and do not greatly warm to the conservative, establishment Republicans (whom they regard as “crony” capitalists – “good old boys” – carving up all the good stuff between themselves).

In other words, American politics is actually all about sociology and psychology: people’s political views flow directly from what their character type is. America, in the past, was led by an inner-directed elite. However, following industrialization and urbanization, other-directedness became dominant. The American Civil War can actually be seen as a great conflict between the industrialized, urbanized, liberal, other-directed North and the agricultural, rural, conservative, inner- and tradition-directed South. It was a war, in other words, between radically different sociological types that could no longer stomach co-existence. The same tensions are present in today’s America and America should, in fact, break itself up into three separate nations: North (Democratic), South (Republican), with somewhere such as Alaska, Oregon or Montana for the Libertarians. Other-directed types want to be “loved rather than esteemed.” They want to relate to others, to be harmonious, in tune, on the same wavelength as others. They want to be popular, accepted, friendly. They dislike conflict and love to be empathetic and sympathetic. Tradition-directed types are determined to maintain traditions, and they will be oppressive and repressive if they need to be, i.e. extremely illiberal and heedless of empathy and sympathy. To them, the maintenance of tradition is the paramount consideration. (The Catholic Church has always upheld tradition over morality, and has never tolerated heretics, infidels or apostates i.e. those who reject traditions.) Inner directed people are determined to pursue their inner values, and aren’t bothered about either others or traditions. No nation can succeed when it expresses all three sociological types at once. It will always be rent by ferocious internal squabbles. Nations are “coherent” and purposeful when one type is overwhelmingly dominant. Islam continues to grow because it so single-mindedly pursues traditiondirectedness, which unifies people via ancient traditions and “certainties”. The world should abandon nation-states and split into “sociological” states (city-states) where everyone in a particular state has the same sociological type (so they’re all in the same boat, rowing in the same direction). The inevitable dialectical outcome of history wasn’t Communism, as Marx believed. but sociological optimization – every person being in the type of state that reflects his social being and attitude. Conservatives will be in conservative city-states where everything is conservative, liberals in liberal city-states and radicals in radical city-states.

All arguments will cease because conservatives, liberals and radicals will no longer share the same state.

***** There is, in fact, a serious problem with Riesman’s otherwise brilliant book. His classification of “inner-directed” is extremely confused. What Riesman had in mind was the sort of person who, in childhood, internalized the values and authority of parents, or other influential adults in his life, and then remained true to those value ever afterwards, not being influenced by others, by fashions or traditions. However, the logical problem here is that such people aren’t “inner-directed” at all – they’re actually directed by specific “others” (adults who are influential in their lives) rather than peergroup others. Riesman should have produced the following definitions: 1) Other-directed: directed by your peer group and their ever-changing fashions and tastes. 2) Tradition-directed: directed by community elders and the conservative, ancient traditions they uphold. 3) Adult-directed: directed by important, respected adults who instilled their specific values in you from an early age. “Inner-directed” should in fact relate to those people who look only to themselves, their own resources and self-created values to direct their actions. Riesman, later in his book, introduces another category – the autonomous type. In our opinion, the inner-directed and autonomous types should be one and the same – those who are their own masters, not influenced by anyone else. Using this specific definition, we seek a world of inner-directed types = autonomous types. For us, “inner-directed” and autonomous are synonymous. 1) The other-directed type is “sensitized to the expectations” of his peers. 2) The tradition-directed type is “sensitized to the expectations” of his community elders, the custodians of ancient traditions. 3) The adult-directed type is “sensitized to the expectations” of his parents or other important adults in his life.

4) The inner-directed type is concerned only with his own expectations of himself. He is not defined by anyone else. As Nietzsche said, “We, though, want to become those we are – the new, the unique, the incomparable, those who impose on themselves their own law, those who create themselves.”

***** Why has no state in world history ever been ruled by the intelligentsia, by the autonomous, by the inner-directed, by the meritocratic? Simple – because they have always been in the extreme minority. The problem for the smartest people has always been the same: how to get into power despite the enormous force of stupidity and irrationality arrayed against them. Nothing has changed.

Ovation Inflation If you give ten standing ovations for a brilliant speech by your favourite politician, what do you do next year when his speech is inept? Well, you give him more than ten because, if you didn’t, it would be obvious you were criticizing him and saying he had failed, which isn’t politically acceptable. Hence, whether a politician performs well or badly, he gets more and more rapturous ovations each year. This is the phenomenon of “ovation inflation”. However, this type of inflation is ubiquitous. The salaries of the super rich go up and up, no matter if their performance if good or disastrous. Ironically, if you don’t fire a CEO for a bad set of figures, you end up paying him more so that he isn’t “discouraged” or “disincentivized”, which would lead to even worse performance! Everywhere you look, you will seeing ineptitude being more and more spectacularly rewarded. It’s all because we live in a culture where a person’s supporters are never allowed to criticize and must in fact always be more and more enthusiastic cheerleaders. “Inflation” is everywhere. The Society of the Spectacle is the Society of Inflation, Hyperbole and Hysteria. Everything is always “bigger and better, more spectacular than ever”. And nothing is more subject to inflation than the wealth of the super rich, the power and influence of the super rich, the arrogance of the super rich, and the egos of the super rich.

“Stateless Income” When multinational corporations avoid paying taxes in nation-states, their income is referred to as “Stateless Income”. Although all such corporations make their money from nation-states, they treat it as though it came to them from out of thin air, hence Stateless, hence it attracts no tax. Who’s running the world? Governments or corporations, nation-states or stateless global corporations? The enormous rise in profitability of corporations over the last few decades is largely due to tax avoidance on a staggering scale. This means that instead of nation-states receiving corporate taxes (to fund the activities of State), private shareholders receive huge dividends and rises in the values of their shares (to fund their private indulgence). This means that there has been an enormous transfer of wealth from nations (and their citizens) to corporations and their shareholders, from the public commonwealth to private wealth. The rich are getting richer, as usual. Isn’t it time that all citizens demanded the same treatment as corporations and treated their income as Stateless too, hence immune to taxation? Why should citizens pay tax when corporations don’t? What’s good enough for them is good enough for us.

Space and Time What’s the key to ontological mathematics? It’s the understanding of space and time. What do space and time mean? Once you grasp what space and time are, you also grasp that space and time originate in non-space and nontime. Reality consists of two domains: one in space and time, and the other outside space and time. When you have truly taken this aboard, you understand how reality works. The “religious” domain is the unextended, dimensionless, eternal domain outside space and time. The “scientific” domain is the extended, dimensional, temporal domain inside space and time. Science denies the existence of the religious realm because such a domain contradicts the defining empiricist, materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Mathematics alone can account for two distinct domains, one in space and time and one outside space and time. It’s actually built into

mathematics. The domain outside space and time is defined by zero and infinity. The domain inside space and time is defined by all numbers between zero and infinity. The numbers of mathematics therefore define reality. Numbers are a continuum – a single system without any gaps – yet they also involve an incredible phase change at zero. Zero – the defining number of dimensionless existence – stands opposed to dimensional existence, yet dimensional existence necessarily flows from dimensionless existence. Everything begins with an origin – zero. Big Bang theory tells us that our world of space and time originates in “nothing”, i.e. dimensionless existence. And dimensionless existence is of course mental existence. The mental precedes the material. Matter is a construct of mind! Most extraordinary of all, perhaps, is that infinity is the flip side of zero and so all numbers, as they get further from zero, also, in some sense, get closer to zero (if we regard infinity as the reverse side of the zero coin, and zero as the reverse side of the infinity coin!). This is the “mystical” paradox at the heart of mathematics. The wondrous Riemann Sphere illustrates the core principles of existence. (Riemann was one of the geniuses who saw deepest into reality.) Zero and infinity are depicted as the north and south poles of a sphere, between which lies the entire complex plane. The two poles are the inverse of each other. When Riemann showed that the complex plane with a point at infinity could be depicted as a sphere, he demonstrated how reality mathematically “doubles back on itself”, “folds back on itself” via the most mysterious mathematical entity of all: the “point at infinity”. Imagine the north and south poles as continually oscillating between zero and infinity (continually flipping over, so to speak, so that the north pole is as much zero as infinity, with the same being true of the south pole). Here, we have a depiction of how zero, infinity, and everything in between are in some way all the same thing – “something” as “nothing/infinity”. Just as there are “good” and “bad” infinities, there are “linear” and “curved” infinities. So, the complex plane has four linear infinities (plus and minus “real number infinity” and plus and minus “imaginary number infinity”), but only a single “curved infinity” (point at infinity), which encapsulates the four linear infinities. The linear infinities are “bad” infinities, but via the unitary “point at infinity”, they can be handled as an analytic, containable, good infinity (the north pole of the Riemann Sphere).

Just as existence is all about two domains inside and outside space and time (these two domains are defined by zero – the mathematical point – which forms the ontological Cartesian Grid), so it’s about the relationships between good and bad infinity, curved and linear infinity, multiple infinities and single “points at infinity”. All the mysteries of existence lie in just two numbers: zero and infinity. These are the numbers of the soul!

Prayer “One of the prices you pay for being godless is that people will keep threatening to pray for you (which can be a little creepy). As you know, they’re not praying for you to become happy and fulfilled but for you to become religious (which is often far from the same thing). They’re praying for their beliefs to have influence over your life. In other words, they’re not praying for you at all: they’re praying against you.” – Pat Condell No, they’re not praying against you, they’re praying for themselves. They want you to be like them and when you are then they will feel “safe”. Your lack of belief terrifies and disturbs them. They believe in God because they are terrified of God. You terrify them too – because why are you so unafraid of their God?! What do you know that they don’t?

Respect The British claim to believe in free speech and the right of protest. However, when many people protested against Margaret Thatcher and celebrated her death, the media widely condemned them. Many right wing commentators said it was a disgrace that people were protesting and that it showed appalling lack of respect. What’s the motivation for these right wing statements? It’s to close down protest against their champions, to silence public dissent. Anyone who mentions “respect” is always an enemy of free speech.

Young Souls “I was under the impression that young souls closer to the animal domain (sensing and feeling) were more likely born that way because they are not as evolved? Is everyone born good and turned into crazy people? When is the choice to be evil made, because there are some serious bullies on the playground.” All souls are equally old given that they are all uncreated and eternal. However, all souls evolve at different rates. Some are “young” in the sense of being immature. When an animal soul is promoted to a human body following reincarnation, it isn’t going to display wondrous reason and intuition, is it? It will be a sensing and feeling soul, just as it was when it was in an animal’s body. No one says that animal souls are evil. Consciousness, as Hegel recognized, is a prerequisite for good and evil. Evil become a possibility only at the human stage. The decision as to whether someone follows a good or evil path is largely determined by how rational that person is. A rational person sees that his interests are best served by cooperating with others. An irrational person believes his interests are best served by being as selfish as possible. Most souls newly promoted from animal existence are not rational enough to be good, hence are evil. Abrahamism shows how selfish and wicked people can be while supposedly believing in a “good” God. The atheistic and deistic Enlightenment produced enormously more good than conventional religion ever did. It’s reason that, in the end, is the supreme moral force.

Death No one else can die for you! It’s one thing the rich can’t delegate to the poor.

The Wonder of the Age “It’s truly amazing that you have outlined the truth for the whole world to see and no one can or wants to see it. Wow. I can’t get enough of it.” Indeed! So few have eyes to see, ears to hear and minds to think.

In-laws from Hell? “In psychology, a family nexus is a common viewpoint held and reinforced by the majority of family members regarding events in the family and relationships with the world. The term was coined by R D Laing, who believed that this nexus ‘exists only in so far as each person incarnates the nexus... maintaining his interiorization of the group unchanged.’” – Wikipedia If relations within the family can be strained, imagine how much worse it is for those people who don’t get on well with their in-laws, step-relations, and so on. It’s a minefield. No matter what the defenders of the family unit say, if you analyze it from a rational, psychological perspective, there must be countless horrific situations where introverted children are trapped with extraverted parents, or extraverts with introverts, or thinking types with feeling types, or intuitives with sensing types, and so on. That’s not a recipe for healthy human growth but for constant frustration, resentment and conflict. We are human beings – not brute animals – and we ought to be able to come up with something better than the nuclear family. In phalanstery communities, families wouldn’t live in tiny anti-social boxes (houses), but in vast grand hotels, designed to provide facilities for every Myers-Briggs personality type – so, no matter what kind of parents and siblings you have – you will have a refuge to go to where you will definitely be surrounded by people on your wavelength (because they have your personality type, or ones with which your type is known to get along). We’re certainly not calling for the end of the family. Quite the reverse – we want the family to be the idyll it ought to be. That can happen only by identifying the points of stress, strain and breaking in the family unit and counteracting them by providing solutions within a psychologically designed and optimized environment. We could cure all mental illness in such environments, end crime and boost productivity to staggering degrees. Perfecting the individual necessitates perfecting the family, and, with perfect families and individuals, we will then have a perfect society. However, that means destroying forever the sanctity of the nuclear family, the privileged family, and the religious family of indoctrination and circumcision.

It means enormous State involvement in the running of society, at least initially, since only the State has the resources to establish psychologically designed communities. All intelligent people see the need for an astonishing new Enlightenment and Reformation – targeting the nuclear family. All stupid people will do what stupid people always do. They will stand up and yell, like Charlton Heston speaking on behalf of the NRA – “From my cold dead hands!” These are the libertarian nutcases who, with extreme and lethal violence, will oppose any attempt to make society intelligent. Gödel said there was a conspiracy to “make men stupid”. He was right. It’s called Abrahamism plus anarcho-capitalist libertarianism. We will simply bypass these nutcases. We will create a territory, State and society that excludes Abrahamists and anarcho-capitalist libertarians. Let them go on living in the Dark Ages. Let them regress to the primordial slime. Rather that than they that take us with them. We are the people of the mind and the light. We can’t keep letting the stupid drag us down forever. The Enlightenment didn’t free the human race. It should have done, but the privileged elite managed to stay in charge. It’s time for a Second Enlightenment and this time we must free ourselves entirely from Abrahamism and the rich elite, just as Adam Weishaupt always wanted. “A declaration of war on the masses by higher men is needed! Everywhere the mediocre are combining in order to make themselves master! Everything that makes soft and effeminate, that serves the ends of the ‘people’ or the ‘feminine,’ works in favour of suffrage universel, i.e., the dominion of inferior men. But we should take reprisal and bring this whole affair (which in Europe commenced with Christianity) to light and to the bar of judgment.” – Nietzsche “A doctrine is needed powerful enough to work as a breeding agent: strengthening the strong, paralyzing and destructive for the world-weary.” – Nietzsche “The rights a man arrogates to himself are related to the duties he imposes upon himself, to the tasks to which he feels equal. The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men.” – Nietzsche

“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 non plus ultra 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 “When Nero and Caracalla sat up there, the paradox arose: ‘the lowest man is worth more than that man up there!’ And the way was prepared for an image of God that was as remote as possible from the image of the most powerful — the god on the cross!” – Nietzsche “...the special rights of higher men ... against the ‘herd animal.’” – Nietzsche

Neanderthals Neanderthals were a species of human, distinct from modern Homo sapiens, that lived in Europe from around 250,000 years ago. They coexisted with our species and interacted with them to some degree, before becoming extinct some 28,000 years ago, probably during an ice age. Scientists have observed that skulls of Neanderthals had larger eye sockets compared with a modern humans. It has been suggested that so much of their brain was given over to the processing of visual information that they couldn’t develop the advanced reasoning skills of Homo sapiens. By this same logic, humans who have too much of their brains given over to the processing of sensory or emotional information must lack the advanced thinking skills of the thinkers and intuitives, hence are in extreme danger of becoming as extinct as the Neanderthals! If Logos humanity cut itself off from Mythos humanity, the latter would soon slip back to pre-Enlightenment and pre-Renaissance mindsets. They would resurrect the religious mania of the Crusades.

Night and Day It has been suggested that the ancestors of Neanderthals left Africa much earlier than those of Homo sapiens and subsequently adapted to the longer, darker nights and murkier days of Europe, resulting in having larger eyes and a much larger visual processing area at the back of the brain.

Homo sapiens, by staying in Africa longer, with its better light, evolved larger frontal lobes, better able to perform advanced thinking and planning. When Neanderthals and Homo sapiens met, the fact that the former were better at seeing in the dark conferred only a rather limited advantage. The Homo sapiens were able to find good and secure night-time bases, make warmer clothes and develop larger social networks, giving them a decisive advantage that became all too apparent during an ice age. Our ancestors, it seems, were experts at social networking long before Facebook and Twitter. “We infer that Neanderthals had a smaller cognitive part of the brain and this would have limited them, including their ability to form larger groups. If you live in a larger group, you need a larger brain in order to process all those extra relationships. ... Even if you had a small percent better ability to react quickly, to rely on your neighbours to help you survive and to pass on information – all these things together gave the edge to Homo sapiens over Neanderthals, and that may have made a difference to survival.” – Professor Chris Stringer “[Neanderthals] were very, very smart, but not quite in the same league as Homo sapiens. ... That difference might have been enough to tip the balance when things were beginning to get tough at the end of the last ice age” – Professor Robin Dunbar Note that people in communities develop bigger brains than those in nuclear families. Children from large families are on average more intelligent than those from small families. Community leads to higher intelligence – that’s why we survived and the Neanderthals didn’t. So why is the nuclear family the basic unit of our society rather than “Dunbar” communities (i.e. communities the size of the Dunbar number)... “Dunbar’s number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person. Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150. Dunbar’s number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact

with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.” – Wikipedia It’s almost as if we have a few Neanderthals running the world!

Eros and Agape Eros: erotic love, “shallow” love, attraction, passionate love, sensual desire and longing, intimate love, specific love, directed love. Agape: unconditional love, “deep” love, “true” love, universal love, love directed everywhere rather than somewhere. Christians claim that agape is the only truly Christian form of love, and eros (which expresses an individual’s lust and desire) actively turns us away from God. In ancient texts, agape was often used to describe the feelings one has for one’s children and spouse (to this extent, agape is the evil influence that makes people obsessed with families while cold and indifferent towards community). Another word for family love is storge (affection). Christians used “agape” to express the limitless love of Jesus Christ. All of the “love and light” hippies and New Agers with all of their talk of unconditional and unlimited love are advocates of agape as the solution to everything. A thinker such as Wilhelm Reich, with his belief that the quality of human fucking isn’t nearly high enough, leading to countless neuroses and frustrations, would have argued instead that humanity needs an Eros Society. If philia is the love associated with friendship, eros is more intense. Plato said that although eros is initially felt for a person and their “outer” beauty, it can become, through contemplation, an appreciation of their “inner” beauty, and eventually an appreciation of beauty itself, i.e. it can evolve from a specific appreciation of beauty directed at a single person to a general appreciation of beauty in all of its manifestations and instances. The expression “Platonic love” means “without physical attraction”. Such love is above philia but below eros. Plato contended that it’s eros that enables the soul to recall the wondrous Form of Beauty in the eternal, immutable domain of perfect Forms, and thus have knowledge of beauty. Eros, as it evolves and becomes more spiritual, transcends mere lust towards a specific object of desire, and becomes a generalized “lust” for spirituality, knowledge and truth. Philosophers (philosophy means “love of wisdom”) are lovers who have gone beyond simple eros to its transcendent form. To this extent,

Erososophy might have been a better term than philosophy. Would philosophy be a more popular subject if its practitioners were called Erososophers?!

Philia and Storge In addition to eros and agape, the ancient Greeks had two other words for love – philia and storge: “Philia means affectionate regard or friendship in both ancient and modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philos denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.” – Wikipedia “Storge means ‘affection’ in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in ‘loving’ the tyrant.

***** Community is based on philia and family on storge. Religion is based on agape and sex on eros. Capitalism seeks to use eros to sell, sell, sell. Social networking is based on philia (and eros). Politicians appeal to storge. Philosophy is about intellectual agape. Here are Christian definitions of the four types of Greek love (from http://christianity.about.com): Philia means close friendship or brotherly love in Greek. It is one of the four types of love in the Bible. Eros is the physical, sensual love between a husband and wife. Storge is family love, the bond among mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers. Agape is selfless, sacrificial, unconditional love, the highest of the four types of love in the Bible.

The Love Feast

“The term Agape or Love feast was used of certain religious meals among early Christians that seem to have been originally closely related to the Eucharist. In modern times it is used to refer to a Christian ritual meal distinct from the Eucharist.” – Wikipedia Shouldn’t we have Eros Feasts? Much more fun!

Encoding and Decoding Existence is all about encoding and decoding information. Nature is a mathematical encoder, and we are all mathematical decoders.

The Tyranny of Fathers Patriarchy: a system of society or government by fathers or elder males of the community. Paternalism: government as by a father over his children. The capitalist/ Abrahamic ruling order is based on Patriarchy and Paternalism. We must worship God, the “Father”. We must worship the Leader, the “Father of the Nation”. We must give our lives for the “Fatherland”. The Pope is our spiritual Father. Catholic priests are “Father”. The Father is the head of the family. What the Father says goes. The Father holds society together. The Father is allowed to do anything to protect his family and further its interests. What is capitalism? – It’s about the Fathers of the most successful families (according to financial criteria) being allowed to rule the world, and they are applauded by all other father-led families who dream of being just like the elite. This is the paternalistic “American Dream”. In Islam, Judaism and Christian sects such as the Amish, the fathers with beards and the elders with beards are always in charge. “Prophets” – the spokespeople of God (allegedly) are always bearded men producing “holy” texts which invariably cast reality in patriarchal and paternalistic terms. Men are always to be taken more seriously than women. Men are always the leaders and women always the followers. The woman is expected to do everything to “get a man”. The woman is always expected to “look up to her man and never speak back”. In Islam, women must make themselves visible only to the men of their families and must otherwise be invisible. In Islam, a girl who wants an education should be shot in the head! Who needs

smart, resourceful women in a patriarchy? No one at all. In the Church of England, women are banned from being bishops. In the Catholic Church, they are banned from being priests. In Islam, women must pray separately from men. In Judaism, women must wear wigs. WTF!!! Everything in a patriarchal society leads back in the end to the concept of the dictatorial Father who always knows best. Anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is all about the nuclear family freeing itself of the “oppressive” State. “Faith, Family and Flag,” yell the right wingers. What they mean is: “God the Father, the Family Father, and the Fatherland”. So, for the world to be free, patriarchy must be demolished. It’s as simple as that. How is that to be accomplished? By freeing and empowering women. KS said, “When I said I like and want power, I meant my own power. And the ability to stand my ground when around dominating male energy. I have had enough of any dominating power, male or female!!! I am interested in totally empowering women... from all angles. Physical, mental, emotional and spiritually. Little girls are so vulnerable to manipulation and domination... Malala may be Islamic, but she’s inspiring women all over the planet because she fearlessly went up against the most evil, openly antiwomen group on the planet... the Taliban. She said, ‘I am not afraid of anything.’ That is what women of all religions need to experience. Luckily she survived a gunshot to the head and can continue with her life’s work. I have within the past several months just lost my own deep seated fear of male anger and disapproval. A lot of it has occurred just by writing my thoughts right here on AOI. I am not afraid of Abraxas, the Illuminati, the Demiurge, Satan or saying something stupid here on this thread. Wow, how different from when I first found this info...thanks AOI (and everyone).” This encapsulates the game. The Empowerment of all females is the objective. It will stand as one of the most momentous events in human history. It has to be achieved through populist means, not through old-style, stern, fierce, misandrist feminism. It has to fun, glamorous, seductive, alluring. There can’t be any heavy, off-putting academic tracts and moralistic preaching involved. It has to be supremely aspirational. We have to provide a formula for how women can become Goddesses. In its simplest form, this will mean that a woman feels self-confident, independent, strong,

assertive, autonomous, able to pursue any ambition she has, attractive, sexually liberated, fearless of men, and never willing to accept less favourable terms than men. A woman should feel she has absolutely no barriers in her way. How do we accomplish this? Well, as KS said, you need female examples to inspire females. We need to collect all the stories of the goddesses, oracles, priestesses and heroines (and anti-heroines) from all across the world and all across history. We need to construct a narrative about the power of women that does not refer to men. Above all, the Abrahamic God – the supreme patriarch – must be entirely excluded. Imagine having a Mythos of female empowerment that ignores Jehovah/ Christ/ Allah ... that has zero requirement for them. Women are automatically rendered “other” and subordinate in a patriarchal society. Without patriarchy, they are free – and powerful. It couldn’t be simpler. Women need to get rid of male gods and have only female gods – or have just one fun, sexy male God (Dionysus!). People don’t like abstract concepts and principles. They want the personal. They have to see how something will immediately help them. They want to be emotionally engaged. They want ideas that improve their image, that allow them to be cool.

The Non-Persuaders Why is 100% inheritance tax so hated and opposed? After all, it’s the most rational and fairest tax there has ever been. However, the average person perceives it as an automatic loss rather than gain. They see it as something being taken from them rather than giving them the greatest gift of all – a genuinely equal opportunity in life to be all they can be. People are against something the instant they believe it’s not serving their interests. The resistance to the 100% inheritance tax – and the endless ludicrous and infantile arguments against it that we have encountered – have persuaded us that any attempt to use reason is absolutely futile. Human beings are more or less beasts of the field. They can be changed only through emotion, Mythos and populism. Why is capitalism so successful? Precisely because it makes no attempt whatsoever to appeal to reason. In fact, it sets out to bypass reason. Why is Abrahamism so successful? For exactly the same reason. It avoids the rational mind entirely and appeals to the deepest fears and desires. Why was

Hitler so successful? – again, pure emotionalism. Why did Saint-Just and Robespierre fail? Because they sought to apply Rousseau’s Social Contract, i.e. they used rationalism and philosophy rather than emotionalism. The one thing that has always stopped rational people from winning is their own rationality. They have always assumed that rationality, facts, evidence and so on can make a difference. Watching Richard Dawkins debating with a Christian Fundamentalist is like watching a black comedy or surreal farce. No matter what clever arguments Dawkins advances, he gets nowhere. The other person is neither listening nor hearing. In fact, the other person can’t understand why Dawkins is unable to read scripture and reach the right conclusions. A smart person cannot persuade a stupid person of anything at all. Smart people have never understood that, and don’t want to understand it – because it means that being smart is no big deal. Far from being an advantage, it might actually be a disadvantage. Nietzsche was certain that Darwinism led to the survival of the worst, not the best. He regarded great human beings as freakish exceptions, with human scum in overwhelming abundance wherever he looked. If Darwinism created that then it was the greatest of all horrors and dangers. Nietzsche wanted to establish a doctrine – eternal recurrence – that was so terrifying to average people that it would reduce them to despair and prevent them from breeding. He hated Christianity because it produced the opposite effect – it made the scumbags hopeful and optimistic. But Nietzsche had zero chance of succeeding – because the sheeple would never embrace any doctrine that filled them with despair. Logos can never work when it comes to persuading the herd. Everything must be conducted via Mythos, via emotion (pathos). The message must be aspirational, positive, elevating and optimistic. We’re not going to engage in any rational debate with the masses (a ludicrous, futile undertaking). We’re simply going to give them a new Mythos that empowers them more than the current ones do. They will embrace it emotionally, not rationally. They will adopt it because it makes them feel better about themselves. Our only task is to construct the right Mythos with the right ingredients. The only “rule” that needs to be applied to the new Mythos is that it must not contain any patriarchal or paternalistic features.

KS referenced a great belly dancing video. That’s exactly the sort of thing that’s needed. Imagine Salome’s dance of the seven veils being performed not for the benefit of a man but simply because a woman wants to feel as sexy as possible about herself and in herself. KS said, “Remember Gangnam Style? Let’s create Sekhmet Style! Sekhmet is the Egyptian goddess of both Destruction and Healing!!!” That’s exactly the right sort of thinking. What we need are creative women driving this agenda – after all, they’re the target audience – with men helping them as best as they can. To all those who want to persist with a failed strategy in the hope that it will suddenly miraculously succeed, or try to find some new magical way of presenting Logos that appeals to the Mythos people, you’re most welcome to try your strategy elsewhere. Our plan is intended for those who see the sense of trying to beat the powers-that-be at their own game, not for those trying to invent a new game to which no one is paying any attention (regardless of how meritorious it is). This is the Reality Check. Ronnie Real has come knocking. Do we want to win this war or just engage in self-important posturing, clinging to doctrines that have already failed? We all know they’ve failed. Let’s face facts. Let’s learn our lessons. Let’s get smarter. Our opponent is a dumb fuck, but it’s the most powerful and vicious dumb fuck there has ever been and it could eat us for breakfast. It will never become more like us, so we must become more like it – but smarter. Are you ready for the ultimate contest?! We are the agents of the dialectic. Ours is a world-historic movement. And what could be a nobler cause than the final emancipation of women from patriarchy? History itself speaks through us. The time to make history is here!

Rebooting Everything The world’s mainstream religions are old and decrepit. All of their energy has gone. They survive only through generational indoctrination, institutional support and the fact that so many people are conservative and tradition-directed. However, even these people suffer from something that affects all of us: the craving for novelty. Other-directed people are particularly drawn to novelty and fashion, so there’s no inherent barrier to the rise of a popular new religion, one that reflects modern lifestyles and interests. Rather than offer one populist 21st century religion, our plan is to offer four! One thing we should point out is that Abrahamists do not choose to believe in absurdities. All Abrahamists initially consider their beliefs entirely rational and to make complete sense. It’s only when rationalists point out the inherent, fatal contradictions in Abrahamism that the “believers” are then faced with a terrible dilemma. They must abandon either their reason or their faith. Given that faith, not reason, was what attracted them to Abrahamism in the first place, their choice is obvious. Once they have rejected reason, they quickly make it an implacable enemy. (“Reason is the Devil’s whore.” – Luther) They then make a virtue of absurdity. (“I believe because it is impossible. I believe because it is absurd.” – Tertullian) The degree to which you believe absurd things now becomes a test of your faith. Soon enough, you are an infidel if you do not believe that 2 + 2 = 5. But this is all just camouflage. No one actually wants to believe in nonsense. It’s forced on them. Reason gives them no escape route, so they have to make themselves mad in order to maintain their irrational faith. They prefer belief and madness to reason and the impossibility of their God. However, there can be no doubt that the world’s people would much rather have a religion that serves them emotionally and also rationally. Abrahamists don’t go around preaching absurdism. They try to defend their beliefs. An absurdist wouldn’t care. Read The Outsider by Albert Camus if you want to understand true absurdity. In particular, dwell on the final section:

“On the edge of daybreak, I heard a steamer’s siren. People were starting on a voyage to a world which had ceased to concern me forever. Almost for the first time in many months I thought of my mother. And now, it seemed to me, I understood why at her life’s end she had taken on a ‘fiancé’; why she’d played at making a fresh start. There, too, in that Home where lives were flickering out, the dusk came as a mournful solace. With death so near, Mother must have felt like someone on the brink of freedom, ready to start life all over again. No one, no one in the world had any right to weep for her. And I, too, felt ready to start life all over again. It was as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and, gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe. To feel it so like myself, indeed, so brotherly, made me realize that I’d been happy, and that I was happy still. For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration.”

Religion 1: Angels and Vampires The first religion is one that harmonizes the masculine and feminine aspects (hence gets rid of patriarchy). It’s dualistic rather than monotheistic since monotheism and patriarchy go hand in hand. Bitheism automatically lends itself to an equalization of the masculine and feminine. The “new” religion is the “Angel-Vampire” religion. In a sense, it explores what would have happened if Jewish monotheism had simply never happened, if no one had ever heard of Jehovah. We are returning to the original religion of the Hebrews, which was in fact the religion of Canaan. We are thus making a claim that this religion is more authentic – truer – than Abrahamism. The Canaanites (and Hebrews) worshipped El and Asherah as the King and Queen of Heaven, who presided over a Council of Gods involving such deities as Baal, the Weather God. The will of the Gods was conveyed to humanity by angels (the Watchers) who lived amongst humanity and even bred with them (creating an angel-hybrid species called the Nephilim). Thus there were four types of being on Earth: Gods, angels, humans and angel-humans.

The Temple of Solomon was not dedicated to Yahweh but to El and Asherah, and the latter in particular. To some, Asherah was Sophia (the Goddess of Wisdom) and to others she was Lucifer (the Goddess of Light). Some regarded her as the Tree of Life. The Angel-Vampire religion was all about balance. A religion such as Abrahamism is fundamentally about imbalance. In Freudian terms, we have three components of our psyche: the id, the ego and the superego. If the id is all about the “self-pleasure” principle (about pleasing ourselves regardless of others), the superego is about the “other-pleasure” principle (we put the pleasure of others before our own). The ego sits between the id and superego, mediating between them and obeying the reality principle. A religion such as Abrahamism tries to exterminate the id. It condemns “sin” and imposes endless rules and prohibitions. By doing so, it creates what Jung described as the Shadow – the repository for all the energy and dangerous desires that have been neglected and repressed. In other words, Abrahamism generates an imbalance which is then counteracted by a monstrous, unconscious balancing agent. This is then routinely projected onto others, and generates all of the hate and horror we have all come to associate with Abrahamists. A religion of balance seeks to healthily incorporate the id and Shadow, so as to avoid the appalling projection of monstrous qualities onto others rather than acknowledging that they belong to us. During the day, the Angel-Vampire religion celebrates our “light” side, our superego (when we’re all nice to each other and obey society’s rational rules). However, at night, we give rein to our dark impulses and irrationality. Angels are replaced by Vampires. We drink, we fuck, we take drugs, we overindulge, we get it all out of our system. By doing so, we remain sane (unlike the deranged Abrahamists). Nietzsche argued that the ancient Greeks were so wonderful because they were able to be both Apollonian and Dionysian. They lost their greatness, he said, when they became too Apollonian and started to repress the Dionysian. Abrahamism abandoned both Apollo and Dionysus and simply became a set of fanatical rules and regulations, which turned people into irrational, intolerant monsters. The Angel-Vampire religion can be made consistent with Freudianism and, even better, with Jung’s teachings – which are quintessentially about healthy psychic balance.

The new religion needs components that address the False Self (the Persona), the Mortal Self (the Ego), the Dark Self (the Shadow), the Other Self (the Anima/Animus), and the Light Self (the Immortal Higher Self). We enter the “Temple of Solomon” (which will replace all Abrahamic places of worship), and we undergo a psychological ritual where we encounter all the different aspects of our Self and advance towards our Higher Self. We can be helped by “Archetypal” beings and “Mana” personalities (these are holy or divine beings – sacred mentors – who can guide us on our hero’s journey). In our modern world, there’s a cult of self-improvement. Old religions do nothing to make us better individuals. They are intent on forcing us onto our knees. They do nothing constructive for us. Think of how powerful a religion will be that combines spirituality, selfimprovement, popular culture and fantasy (angels, vampires and the like). So, what can you do to bring this religion to life (or back to life to be more accurate since this was what religion was like when the world was pagan and celebrated mystery religions involving sacred ritual and drama)? We don’t need lots of discussion. What we do need are creative people who can actually accomplish things: write books, produce videos, create songs, organize events, design costumes, set up websites, Facebook pages, and so on. The world is full of people who talk about what they’re going to do and then never do anything. Even worse are the people who tell others what to do but never do anything themselves. We spend all of our time trying to find ways to change this world. We have produced an enormous number of books in just a few years covering all of the most important information in the world. What are you doing? What is needed are people who can actually do things, who can make things happen in the real world. You don’t need our permission or anyone else’s for anything you have in mind. All you need are energy, enthusiasm and creativity. Sadly, these are precisely the things in which the vast majority of people are absolutely lacking. Most people are “Last Men” trying to live lives of petty comforts and joys, refusing to take on anything daunting. The sole unambiguous blessing of capitalism is that it has encouraged some people to pursue incredibly ambitious schemes (in the hope of making a fortune). But everyone ought to be doing that anyway – regardless of

money. What sort of life have you led if it wasn’t one where you gave it your all, where you pursued the highest of your ambitions and exhausted yourself in the attempt to achieve it? Well, did you? Have you? Do your pour your heart and soul into your life? Or do you snuggle up on a sofa watching TV? That’s how to be one of life’s spectators, not one of its participants. Without creative people who can make things happen, everything else is futile. Not only are world-historic figures extremely thin on the ground, people capable of doing anything at all are almost impossibly hard to find. Here’s a question for you – can you create one thing? What have you done with your life? Where are the fruits of your presence in this world? It’s not good enough to bring children into the world. That’s not exactly a difficult task. People are biologically programmed for it, and still mostly manage to make a mess of raising their children. Imagine if you went to heaven or hell depending not on how good or evil you were, but how creative or uncreative you were. Heaven would be almost empty.

Religion 2: Hypatia’s Triumph This is about a religion for women that ignores men or completely marginalizes their role. It’s about female empowerment. This is a celebration of goddesses and heroines. It provides Hypatia with her revenge against the bearded maniacs who butchered her for daring to be her own person, to think her own thoughts and not flee from the psychopathic Christians and their hate-filled creed. To get started, the simplest way is for someone to set up a Facebook page that collects all tales regarding powerful women and goddesses, and talks about the world as if men didn’t exist and women were taking all decisions about the future of the world. What would a women-dominated world be like? Remember, this is a “thought experiment”. It’s deliberately being unrealistic (by ignoring men), but that’s the whole point. It’s an exploration of an alternative reality in order to throw a light on what’s wrong with our present male-dominated reality. In Lysistrata by Aristophanes, the women of Greece withhold sex from their husbands and lovers to force them to end the Peloponnesian War. Isn’t that a superb thought experiment?

The idea of this religion is to make bearded men extremely angry because everything they stand for is rejected!

Religion 3: Misandry This is about a religion for women that inverts patriarchy (in order to utterly expose it for the monstrosity it is). So, for example, in this religion men must sit silently in the corner and wear burqas; no men are allowed to be priests; all top jobs are reserved for women; men get paid less than women for doing the same job; men are objectified and leered at; men are constantly harassed and get wolf-whistles, their asses grabbed, and so on. In essence, women are allowed to express all of their rage towards men about what has been done to them over the centuries. It’s a space for women to let it all hang out. It has to be as angry, funny, satirical and provocative as possible.

Religion 4: Sex This is a post about a provocative religion – the Church of Female Sexual Liberation – which is all about unrestrained female sexuality. It’s about women as Maenads – and men are forbidden from watching what the women get up to on pain of death (as in The Bacchae by Euripides). It’s about the Maenads tearing Orpheus to pieces. Here, female sexuality is shown at its rawest and most honest – to the horror of all bearded prophets! Shock men. Horrify them. Let’s have the female version of the Marquis de Sade. He didn’t hold a single thing back.

The Revival Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan, has predicted the revival of religion in the next twenty years. Let’s hope its pagan religion he has in mind. He also said that nation-states will be replaced by city-states. We completely agree. The nation-state has failed and become the outright enemy of freedom. Why should any left wing person ever have to endure government by right wingers because of some ridiculous “democratic” vote? Why should left wingers be subject to the drivel of anarcho-capitalist libertarians?

The city-state model allows people to freely choose what kind of government they want and to have it for the rest of their life. If you choose to live in the Meritocratic city-state, you know there will be 100% inheritance tax and no privileged elite. You know the city-state will do everything it can to help you fulfil your potential: because the more successful you are the more successful the city-state will be.

The Fourth Channel Britain’s public service broadcaster is the BBC and it operates four TV channels. BBC1 is the populist, mainstream channel for soap operas, celebrity shows, chat shows, panel shows, reality TV, sit coms, hospital dramas, legal dramas, costume dramas – well, you get the drift. A successful BBC1 soap opera might get ten million viewers. BBC2 is both less mainstream and less populist. BBC2 shows get around one million viewers. BBC3 is for under-30s and is mostly about comedy, popular music, celebrities and zany stuff. Shows get around 200,000 viewers. Then comes BBC4, the “smart” channel, showing arts, opera, ballet, documentaries on science, mathematics and history, foreign language shows, and so on. Shows typically get 100,000 viewers, i.e. 1% of BBC1’s ratings. BBC4 is a backwater – the place to where smart people with minority tastes are shunted off. BBC4 is irrelevant to mainstream culture and conversation. Nothing on BBC4 has ever achieved high, BBC1-type ratings. As soon as a programme is put on BBC4, its fate is sealed. It has been suggested that we should revamp the Armageddon Conspiracy (AC) site. But the AC site is a BBC4 type website and no matter how polished we made it, it would remain exactly that. In the last four years, some absolutely fantastic documentaries have appeared about the world financial crisis. They have all found an appreciative BBC4 audience yet been wholly ignored by the mainstream. The best possible documentary – perfect down to the last detail, lovingly crafted in every way – would remain a BBC4 documentary with no mass appeal. Let the masses choose between an emotional soap opera and an intellectual documentary and there’s no contest. Emotion wins every time. The message of the AC site is a BBC4 message and therefore it cannot succeed in mainstream terms. No matter what was done with it, it would fail the popularity test.

Zeitgeist got millions of views – and failed. The Occupy movement got huge attention – and failed. The hippies failed. The New Agers failed. Communism failed. Democratic socialism failed. The only ones that didn’t fail were the free market capitalists. (Well, they failed too, but, unlike everyone else, they weren’t replaced as the ruling order!) Free-market capitalism is “BBC1”. It’s all about populism. It controls the mainstream. It’s all about giving people what they want (but not what they need to become higher quality people). We can never change a BBC1 society using BBC4 tactics. Fact. It has been suggested that we ought to be doing more to unplug certain types of receptive people from the Matrix. However, in that movie, those who were unplugged were a tiny minority fighting a losing battle against a vastly superior force. They had no chance at all except through a deus ex machina device of a Messiah (Neo). We’re not looking for any Messiahs, but we’re certainly seeking world-historic figures. Unfortunately, we can’t find any. By definition, they’re rather thin on the ground. We were criticized for having two world-historic figures – Robespierre and Saint-Just – on the front page of the AC site. The French Revolution stands as one of the most significant episodes in world history that ushered in the modern world, yet we see the term “fruitless bloodbath” being applied to it. What do we need right now? A French Revolution everywhere! Who would lose most from such a Revolution? – the rich elites. Who are the people who continually portray the French Revolution as some monstrous and diabolical deed? – the rich elite. Well, worldhistoric figures pay no attention to the propaganda of the rich elite. The AC site isn’t targeting ordinary people; it’s doing the opposite. Sadly, this modern world is no longer capable of generating heroes such as Saint-Just and Robespierre – and that’s exactly why it’s so hard to get rid of the ruling elite. It’s now time to pursue a realpolitik strategy. We are searching for an effective message that appeals to the masses. In terms of the Matrix, we are no longer trying to unplug individuals, or find those who can smash the Matrix. Rather, we are seeking a way to communicate with those who are fully plugged in. We want to deliver a virus, so to speak, that appears to come from the Matrix itself but which has the effect of weakening everyone’s connection to the Matrix. This will have to be an incredibly

clever and creative “virus” that passes the Matrix’s filters and scanners without being detected. DA said, “While the antics of the Gangnam Stylers of the world may create surges in the short term I believe it’s the quality of an idea or concept that defines whether it will ultimately survive the test of time. We have to focus on the long game here, the two marshmallows. High quality ideas must be key to this. Perhaps now is a time for sowing the seeds of a later harvest. A few good men and women or dare I say HyperHumans are worth a thousand Gangnam sheeple in the long run.” Well, 2400 years after Plato, we’re still waiting for The Republic to be built. How many people in the world know anything about Plato or his ideas? The only people who know are the BBC4 audience. To the rest of the world, he doesn’t exist. Far more people know about Kim Kardashian than Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s ideas will be around in 2,000 years time and Kim Kardashian’s won’t. Big deal. It will still be a tiny number of people who know about Nietzsche, and there will be some new Kim Kardashian who everyone knows about. The expression “standing the test of time” is more or less meaningless. What matters are what ideas are being used to run the world. It’s certainly not Nietzsche or Plato’s ideas that are running our world. It’s Trash and Junk ideas that are all-conquering in our world. It’s the Lowest Common Denominator. It’s time to leave behind the fantasy that truth will out or that good ideas will beat bad. There are countless good ideas in academic books, but no one, or next to no one, is reading those books. Nothing would please us more than the idea that quality must win. The facts, however, show otherwise. The dialectic will get us there in the end, but it won’t be a pretty process, just as it hasn’t been thus far. We live in a one marshmallow world, not two. “Ignorance is as structured as knowledge.” – Nietzsche

Junk As soon as you have to ask people to share posts on Facebook, you have already failed the popularity test. The whole point of exponential popularity growth is that people can’t share popular posts fast enough.

Why do people share a post? It’s not because they love the post. It’s because they think that associating themselves with the post will make them look good, hip and cool. If sharing it will not, in their opinion, make them cool then they will not share it, no matter how much they love it. It’s rarely cool to share anything too smart, too controversial, too provocative, too long, too heavy, too abstract, too complex. “Coolness” involves a fivesecond hit. If a post hasn’t achieved its purpose and engaged someone’s interest in that time, it never will. Remember, five seconds! Ordinary people are as desperate to look cool as heroin addicts are to find their next fix. William Burroughs provided a stunning analysis of the “junk” world: “Junk is the ideal product… the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy… The junk merchant does not sell his product to the consumer, he sells the consumer to his product. He does not improve and simplify his merchandise. He degrades and simplifies the client. ... I have seen the exact manner in which the junk virus operates… The pyramid of junk, one level eating the level below (it is no accident that junk higher-ups are always fat and the addict in the street is always thin) right up to the top or tops since there are many junk pyramids feeding on peoples of the world and all built on basic principles of monopoly… The Pusher always gets it all back. The addict needs more and more junk to maintain a human form… buy off the Monkey… The more junk you use the less you have and the more you have the more you use. ... Junk yields a basic formula of ‘evil’ virus: The Algebra of Need. ... If we wish to annihilate the junk pyramid, we must start with the bottom of the pyramid… The addict in the street who must have junk to live is the one irreplaceable factor in the junk equation. When there are no more addicts to buy junk there will be no more junk traffic. As long as junk need exists, someone will service it.” If you have a successful product, you should absolutely never have to sell it to the consumer. It sells itself. In fact, the consumer sells himself to it. He must have it. Fifty Shades of Grey came from nowhere. It had no corporate backing or advertising budget yet it was selling millions within weeks. Gangnam Style had hundreds of millions of views within months. If you have the right idea, everything is effortless. If you don’t have a successful product, it won’t sell, or will do so in meaningless dribbles. If you don’t

have the right idea, you plod along forever in the slow lane. That’s where we are – in the slowest of slow lanes. We either choose to stay there or we do something different: we try to find an idea that sells itself. Capitalism is all about the “junk” mentality. If we want to beat the capitalists we need to provide a stronger addiction.

History Repeating Itself In 1933, the extremist Nazi Party came to power in Germany through democratic means. Shortly afterwards, Germany was a one-party totalitarian State after Hitler was awarded emergency powers following the Reichstag Fire. “The Reichstag Fire Decree is the common name of the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State issued by German President Paul von Hindenburg in direct response to the Reichstag fire of 27 February 1933. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis of imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis, and to suppress publications not considered ‘friendly’ to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany. Hitler had been appointed Chancellor of Germany only four weeks previously, on 30 January 1933.” – Wikipedia On 30 June 2012, the extremist Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt under Mohamed Morsi. On 22 November, Morsi gave himself emergency powers. Mohamed ElBaradei said, “[Morsi has] usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt’s new pharaoh.” Don’t fool yourself. The Islamic Revolution has replaced pro-Western dictators with anti-Western religious fanatics. This can end in only one way – total war between Islam and the West. Just as Hitler’s ascent to power made war inevitable, so the same is now true of radical Islam. The West will appease Islam, just as Hitler was appeased, but Israel will demand war, and America and the West will be dragged in whether they like it or not. Why did Israel decapitate Hamas in Gaza? Because they are getting ready for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and they don’t

want Hamas to be able to attack them in the rear. America will definitely support Israel, and so will Europe. The Islamic world will go berserk. There will be Islamic terrorist strikes everywhere. Nietzsche thought that the twentieth and twentieth-first centuries would bring about cataclysmic upheavals. He was right. In the next fifty years, everything will be decided. All the final showdowns are coming. The Perfect Storm is approaching. “What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. This history can be related even now; for necessity itself is at work here. This future speaks even now in a hundred signs, this destiny announces itself everywhere; for this music of the future all ears are cocked even now. For some time now, our whole European culture has been moving as toward a catastrophe, with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade: restlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect.” – Nietzsche, 1888

Earthquakes Six Italian scientists were jailed for failing to predict an earthquake – an extremely difficult thing to do – that killed a number of people and destroyed a town. The scientists and a government official received six-year jail sentences for manslaughter. So, bankers destroyed countless jobs and lives. How many of them are in jail? What’s the world coming to?

Philosophical Assassins Philosophy ought to be the world’s most popular subject. The reason it’s not is that it churns out dry, academic “philosophers” who, in truth, are boring commentators on the exciting ideas of others. Once an academic is finished with a brilliant philosopher, all the shine has gone. All the energy and verve have vanished. The philosopher has been academically neutralized and sanitized – killed, in fact.

The Supreme Religion The religion of mathematics, inaugurated by the dazzling showman, mystic and cult leader is the most heretical of all religions – Pythagorean

Illuminism, which involves no prophets, no holy books, no faith, and no Creator God, but which declares that we all have immortal mathematical souls and we all have the capacity to become Gods ourselves. The tale starts with the Dionysian Artificers, a roaming group of architects and designers, inspired by the religion of Orphism, which combines elements of the worship of the two Gods – Apollo and Dionysus – that so enthralled Nietzsche. The Artificers found their way to none other than Israel where they provided the design of one of the most mystical buildings of all: Solomon’s Temple, so cunningly contrived that all the secrets of the cosmos were incorporated within its design. It was the universe in miniature – the microcosm. Those who understood its secrets could unlock the mysteries of existence. The mysterious Dionysian Artificers, with their secret rites and secret association, were the progenitors of the Freemasons. Pythagoras, beloved of Apollo and, according to the Delphic Oracle, the actual son of Apollo, travelled all the lands, meeting every priest and guru of renown until he was the most learned man in the world, surpassing even Solomon in his wisdom. He embraced the Orphic religion and learned all of the secrets of the Dionysian Artificers. Armed with this immense body of knowledge, Pythagoras had the greatest epiphany and intuition of all time when he solemnly announced, “All things are numbers. Number rules all.” With that, the religion of mathematics – the world’s only rational, Logos religion – was born. This religion makes a single, simple assertion: everything is mathematical, and mathematics explains everything. A person could sit in their room in the dark and literally work out the whole rational basis of existence in their head, without taking one look at the world or performing a single experiment. All the truths of existence are rational, analytic, necessary, a priori, eternal, immutable and Platonic.

The Garden At the heart of the Islamic conception of paradise is the garden. The Highest Gardens of Paradise are named Firdaws. Gardens of Everlasting Bliss. The Eternal Gardens.

The Gardens of Delight. Garden of Abode. The Garden of Eden.

Kill or Cure? Pharmakon: from the ancient Greek meaning “medicine, poison”. How can a word have opposite meanings?

***** Tetrapharmakos: a powerful medicine with four ingredients.

Reason Whence reason? How are human beings able to exhibit reason? For Hegel, there was no difficulty in explaining this. The universe itself is living reason, evolving dialectically. What is consciousness? It’s reason that has become self-aware. What is the supreme language and ontological expression of reason? Mathematics. What single principle unites all of existence? The Principle of Sufficient Reason. What single equation enshrines this principle, hence dictates existence itself? Euler’s Formula, the God Equation.

The Persona Society We live in a persona society where everyone’s a fraud, trying to conform with the status quo, the accepted standards. Everyone’s wearing a mask, and they have so many to choose from. All great people eventually opt out of society. Can you imagine someone such as Nietzsche in an office dealing with office politics and political correctness? Academic life became intolerable to him because most academics are drones and Last Men, just like office workers, bur better read. We need a Jungian Ego and Self society. We must escape the fake world of the Persona.

What God? “God is beyond comprehension.”

How can you worship something you can’t comprehend? “God does not need us. We need God.” So why did he create us?

The Hegelian Demiurge “To Hegel, ... the process of thinking which, under the name of ‘the Idea,’ he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos (creator) of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of ‘the Idea.’ With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into forms of thought.’” – Marx, Afterword to the Second German Edition of Volume I of Capital. For Hegel, the “Absolute Idea” performs the role of Platonic noumenon (meaning an intelligible but unobservable reality). It creates the phenomenal (sensible, observable) world, hence, as Marx suggests, can be likened to the Platonic Demiurge. The Absolute Idea in relation to its interaction with its creation – the universe – becomes the Mind/ Spirit. The Absolute Idea exists “in itself” (a limited, unconscious, context which does not express its full potential), but when it’s “alienated” in the material world then it’s “outside” itself. It remains unconscious but now as object rather than subject. It is no longer Idea (which is purely mental and separate from the material world) but Spirit, which reflects mind in its relations with the material world. Unlike the Absolute Idea in itself – which cannot become conscious – the Spirit can evolve consciousness. In other words, a mental subject is always unconscious until, via a material world in space and time (which permits mental individuation and relations with other mental subjects), it can evolve consciousness in a group context. This group context is a prerequisite of consciousness. Nothing can become conscious on its own. The Spirit then dialectically progresses until it attains the status of Absolute Spirit. At this culmination, the Absolute Spirit is absolutely conscious, commands Absolute Knowledge and Absolute Freedom, and knows exactly what it is. The whole purpose of existence is to bring about this state of cosmic consciousness.

This could not be more different from the view presented by scientific materialism, which says that the universe is pointless, meaningless and purposeless, and that consciousness is just a weird by-product of mindless materialist interactions (rather than the whole point of existence). The Absolute Spirit knows everything of which it’s capable, its creative capacity, what it can make from itself. It has optimized its potential, and achieved total actualization. Thesis = Absolute Idea = Noumenon (Unconscious) = Subject. Antithesis = Material World (Alienated Idea) = Phenomenon = Object. Synthesis = Spirit (the Idea evolving in the World) = Interaction of Subject and Object. The cosmic dialectic culminates with the Absolute Spirit which is selfaware (conscious) and knows itself for what it is and that the material world was nothing but itself, constructed as the necessary precondition for the evolution of consciousness. The Absolute Spirit reconciles noumenon and phenomenon, subject and object. It unites everything. As Hegel said, “The true is the whole.” “History in general is therefore the development of Spirit in Time, as Nature is the development of the Idea in Space.” – Hegel

***** “With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into forms of thought.” – Marx In the Marxist view, matter rather than mind is the primary reality. Mind is the highest product of matter and is how matter comes to be self-aware. Big Bang theory – which involves the material, dimensionless world arising from a dimensionless point – definitively shows that Hegel was right and Marx wrong (neither had ever heard of Big Bang theory, of course, since both were long dead by then). The dimensionless always precedes the dimensional; mind always precedes matter. To reiterate, since it’s such an important point, the Big Bang refutes dialectical materialism, scientific materialism and indeed any kind of materialism. The material world comes from “nothing” and “nothing” is of course “something” – the dimensionless, mental world. The Big Bang is the

conclusive proof that materialism is false and idealism true. Matter is a creation of mind, not vice versa – exactly as the school of idealism always insisted. It’s proof of how extraordinarily blinkered, prejudiced and irrational all materialists are that they have not acknowledged that the Big Bang can be understood only as an originating mental rather than physical event.

***** “In its essence, dialectics is the direct opposite of metaphysics.” – Stalin Well, many people – certainly scientific materialist and logical positivists – would consider dialectics highly metaphysical. In Illuminism, there are static, eternal Platonic laws (those of ontological mathematics, and these could be described as metaphysical since they are the laws that are beyond mere physics) – which describe the eternal, immutable framework of existence – and there are dynamic, temporal, dialectical laws which describe the mortal, living processes which take place within the immortal mathematical framework.

Scientific versus Dialectical Materialism “It is impossible to separate thought from matter that thinks. Matter is the subject of all changes.” – Marx “The world picture is a picture of how matter moves and of how ‘matter thinks.’” – Lenin Dialectical idealism says that existence begins with mind, mind creates matter, mind controls matter, mind evolves consciousness and becomes self-aware. Dialectical materialism says that existence begins with matter, matter gives rise to mind, mind directs matter and produces higher quality material, mind evolves consciousness and becomes self-aware, which means that matter has become self-aware. Dialectical materialism is a form of hylozoism (living matter). Dialectical materialism and dialectical idealism have a strong degree of overlap and only really disagree in relation to what comes first: matter or mind. This is not a question that can be settled scientifically, by observation, but only by strict rationalism. Illuminism provides the exact process by which matter comes from mind (through Cartesian “extension”), but dialectical materialism cannot define mind or say how it originates from matter.

***** Static Idealism – Metaphysics. Dynamic Idealism – Hegelian Dialectics. Static Materialism – Science. Dynamic Materialism – Marxist Dialectical Materialism. If any version of materialism is to be treated seriously, it ought to be dialectical materialism. It’s a far more realistic and credible system than scientific materialism. Like dialectical idealism, dialectical materialism characterises existence as a living organism rather than a dead machine. It’s astounding that any living being can seriously imagine that the world is a machine. It reflects something profoundly defective with their psyche,

pointing to an autistic mentality where people are viewed as objects rather than beings. It’s no accident that many autistics are highly interested in computers and science – both of which downplay humanity and life. Only people who are quite seriously mentally ill would seek to argue that humans do not exhibit free will. Scientists ought to be explaining how free will is possible, not denying that it exists.

***** “The brain is the organ of thought.” – Lenin Of course, mind is the organ of thought. Matter can’t think.

First and Last and Always Aristotle was the first great advocate of purposeful (teleological) existence, with “God” acting as the first and final cause of change and motion, (pushing and pulling causality). As for science, it pushes (pushing causality), but never pulls (pulling causality). Consider your own life. You are subject to pulling causality. You have aims, desires, ambitions, plans, purposes, all of which pull you along and shape your present behaviour. None of your own behaviour is consistent with the scientific materialism paradigm, which denies free will, pulling causality and teleology. Science says that the universe is totally unlike us. It has no purposes while we, conversely, are defined by our purpose. Science refutes the Hermetic Principle of As above, so below. It denies that human beings are microcosms of the macrocosm. Science creates an immense mystery of why the universe is one thing (a machine) while living things are something entirely different (organisms). This raises the familiar problem of Cartesian dualism. How can two totally incompatible substances interact (and why did existence produced two different orders of existence)? Science attempts no explanation. In dialectical idealism, all things, including matter, are mental, so there’s no dualism. In dialectical materialism, the universe is alive and we are alive but life and purpose are conveyed by matter, not mind. Dialectical idealism and dialectical materialism are both much more plausible than scientific materialism, yet it’s the latter that dominates the intellectual “ether”. How perverse and irrational. Science does nothing but

beg the question. No truly rational person could ever find its “answers” – its nostrums – satisfying.

Theory Becomes Matter “Theory becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.” – Marx and Engels In fact, theories are ideas and ideas are forces that can change the world. The more popular an idea is, the more power it has. Crucially, it doesn’t have more truth content, and often the reverse. Ideas typically succeed because of their emotional power.

Teleological Natural Selection Can genetic mutation and natural selection work with teleology? You can’t change a gene through habituation (for example, a giraffe continually stretching its neck), but a giraffe continually stretching its neck is signalling an adaptive need to the mental substratum, which then seeks to mutate relevant genes to create longer necks. This mental process is unseen and unempirical, hence is rejected by science. That means, of course, that science has to rely on statistics, randomness, mindlessness, and purposelessness, which it’s more than happy to do.

The Failure of Communism Communism failed because it was about the power of a particular will – that of the Communist Party – rather than the General Will of the people. The Party was more interested in preserving its power than improving society. By the same token, monarchic states are more interested in the monarch and his Court than the people. Theocratic states are more interested in religious control and brainwashing than in the welfare of the people. Plutocrats are more interested in their wealth than the interests of the people. Free-market capitalism is actually opposed to the State and the people and is all about exclusively serving the interests of the rich capitalist elite.

Ambition Free-market capitalism relies on the ambition of individuals to make enormous amounts of money. Capitalists think the ambition (aka greed and

selfishness) of the individual is paramount in driving the world forward. Capitalist nation-states are essentially passive and merely provide the context for capitalism. States such as Nazi Germany are highly active and drive forward on the basis of some collective rather than individual idea. In capitalism, the capitalists are what count. In active States, the people are the focus (usually via some charismatic figure, such as Hitler, who seems to embody the will of the people). Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were both charismatic leaders of the African American community, intent on transforming their fortunes in a racist nation. They were “positive liberty” advocates. The active State is highly ambitious and seeks to transform itself and the world. The best examples are probably revolutionary America, France and Russia. They’re all about positive liberty. The passive State endorses negative liberty and seeks to advance through the ambition of elite individuals. The active State is always enormously more powerful and inspiring than the passive State. The latter is passive because it has ceded control to private interests and particular wills rather than public interests and the General Will. The privileged elite always promote the small State, the minimal State and negative liberty. Only the Big State operates on behalf of the people and positive liberty. The active State has the same ambition as the active individual but on a much grander scale. A whole State on the move in the same direction can change the world. We must transform our world from passive nation-States into active city-States, from negative liberty to positive liberty, to collective achievement rather than individual achievement. We must have rule by the people rather than by privileged elites. We need States that lust for change, transformation, progress and metamorphosis. The State needs to be ambitious on everyone’s behalf and be committed to continuous, collective improvement. We must shatter the illusion that only capitalists have ambition and only rich capitalist individuals can change the world.

Public versus Private Rich elites always promote private interests, the private sector and private, particular wills. Those interested in the welfare of the people always promote public interests, the public sector and the public, General Will.

A “public servant” serves the public. Whom does a “private servant” serve? What’s better – a world of public or private servants? There’s nothing noble about the “private”. It’s always selfish, greedy and connected with the Freudian Id (“Me, me, me.”) Only the “public” is noble. It’s altruistic, communitarian and connected with the Freudian Superego (“We, we, we.”)

The Divine Archetypes “Plato’s was essentially a dualistic theory. To him, the divine ideas, the universals, the general qualities, the genera, were the ... only real beings, that, like the deities, had an absolute, independent existence. God himself was the supreme idea. The man, the animal, the beautiful, the good, the brave, and so on, represented realities, the archetypes of life of which the individuals, the earthly forms of those general qualities, as they appeared in daily life, were mere shadows and faint replicas.... Aristotle connected the two spheres by seeing the spiritual soul and the intrinsic idea as the formative principle of the body, and, at the same time, as an “entelechy,” an innate, ideal goal of the individual that effects evolution. The individuals, then, participate in the essential reality of ideas. This participation becomes effective when man comprehends the ideas and their connections, when he gathers and abstracts the ideas from their multifold, individual manifestation, in short, when he thinks logically. This procedure implied the legitimacy of empirical observation, and of inductive conclusion from observed facts to abstract generalities.” – Erich Kahler “Historians will have to face the fact that natural selection determined the evolution of cultures in the same manner as it did that of species.” – Konrad Lorenz In Spengler’s view of history, we see great patterns repeating across history, reflecting the fact that culture and civilisation are “organisms” with definite life-cycles and characteristic trajectories. The same could be said of intellectual history. The same fights take place with different protagonists in each new intellectual era. Plato the rationalist versus Aristotle the empiricist was the first great intellectual battle. This was later matched by Leibniz the rationalist versus Newton the empiricist.

In the present day we have hyperrationalist Illuminism versus empiricist scientific materialism. So, which side do you stand on? Are you with the rationalists or empiricists? Is reason our best tool for exploring reality, or our senses? Could we sit in a darkened room and rationally uncover the deepest secrets of existence, or do we have to go outside and look around and have sensory experiences before we can understand existence? You have very little control over which option you choose. Introverted thinking intuitives will be rationalists (philosophers and mathematicians). Extraverted thinking sensing types will be empiricists (scientific materialists). The God Series is primarily for INTs, and INFs will also be able to grasp much of it. Other types will have a profound struggle understanding anything we have said, and will dismiss it as “nonsense”. Such is life. As we repeatedly say, truth isn’t for anyone. The simple fact is this. If the universe is grounded in rational principles – which it is – then the minds best suited to rational thought will best be able to fathom its mysteries. Introversion, intuition and thinking are the three qualities best able to attune themselves to pure rationalism. Feelings, sensing and extraversion all get in the way.

***** “There is nothing besides a spiritual world; what we call the world of the senses is the Evil in the spiritual world, and what we call Evil is only the necessity of a moment in our eternal evolution.” – Kafka

The Hidden Mind “Like Freud, Jung believes that the human mind contains archaic remnants, residues of the long history and evolution of mankind. In ... the unconscious, primordial ‘universally human images’ lie dormant. Those primordial images are the most ancient, universal and ‘deep’ thoughts of mankind. Since they embody feelings as much as thought, they are properly ‘thought feelings.’ Where Freud postulates a mass psyche, Jung postulates a collective psyche.” – Patrick Mullahy If you accept the existence of a mental domain outside space and time, it’s easy to make sense of Jung’s Collective Unconscious. Otherwise, it’s

incomprehensible. Freud saw human beings behaving in a similar way, producing a “mass psyche”. (Many individual psyches imitate each other to produce a mass effect.) Jung, on the other hand, believed that all minds were fundamentally linked. We might think of the Collective Unconscious as a rhizome – a thick horizontal underground stem whose buds develop into new plants. Individual psyches are the buds that come and go, live and die, but the rhizome is always there. As usual, scientific materialism, with its total lack of imagination and intuition, dismisses Jung’s ideas out of hand. God save us from the scientists! Nabokov said, “The evolution of sense is, in a sense, the evolution of nonsense.” By the same token, the evolution of science, once it starts going catastrophically down the wrong road, is the evolution of GIGO – garbage in, garbage out.

***** “There is a current misconception which sees in Jung an early disciple of Freud who subsequently deserted his master. Nothing could ... be more misleading. From the very beginning there were differences of procedure and of outlook that were bound to lead to divergent results. Freud’s work is based on a scientific method restricted to the principle of causality: that is to say, it is assumed that everything that happens has an explanation in prior causes, and is merely the result of those causes. The world is a mechanism that can be taken to pieces and we can only understand how it works if we know how to dismantle and reassemble its constituent parts. Jung does not deny this causal principle, but he says it is inadequate to explain all the facts. In his view, we live and work, day by day, according to the principle of directed aim or purpose, as well as by the principle of causality. We are drawn onwards and our actions are significant for a future we cannot foresee, and will only be explicable when the final effect of the impulse becomes evident. In other words, life has a meaning as well as an explanation; a meaning, moreover, that we can never finally discover, for it is being extended all the time by the process of evolution.” – Sir Herbert Read

Read uses a fabulous expression: “...life has a meaning as well as an explanation...” Science, a machine ideology, sees only explanations but no meaning and purpose. Yet what or who could be more obsessed with meaning and purpose than humans themselves? Whence that urge, that lust, if it’s not intrinsic to life and to existence itself? Existence is alive, not dead ... not a machine.

***** The Collective Unconscious is the “objective” psyche, common to all. Our personal psyche is the “subjective” psyche. So, the subjective psyche sits on top of the objective psyche.

***** Orthogenesis: straight line evolution. Darwinism: random path evolution. The Dialectic: rational evolution proceeding by way of repeated iterations of thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

The Merneptah Stele “The Merneptah Stele—also known as the Israel Stele or Victory Stele of Merneptah—is an inscription by the Ancient Egyptian king Merneptah (reign:1213 to 1203 BC) discovered by Flinders Petrie in 1896 at Thebes, and now housed in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The text is largely an account of Merneptah’s victory over the Libyans and their allies, but the last few lines deal with a separate campaign in Canaan, then part of Egypt’s imperial possessions, and include the first probable instance of the name ‘Israel’ in the historical record.” – Wikipedia The Merneptah Stele provides the only mention of Israel in any ancient Egyptian document! It says, “Israel is laid waste.” Isn’t it remarkable that the Jews spend a huge amount of time discussing the Egyptians, but the Egyptians scarcely acknowledge the existence of the Jews? According to the Book of Exodus, the Jewish God brought Egypt to its knees. According to the Egyptian records, no such events ever took place given that not a single reference exists to any “plagues”. Quite simply, the Jews lied through their teeth. The whole Jewish Bible is a lie from

beginning to end. It’s the Book of Lies, and its prophets are all false. The Jews are the supreme worshippers of false gods. In fact, they worship the falsest God of all – Satan! The Jewish Mythos has done more damage to the human psyche than anything else. Jewish monotheism is the worst and falsest idea of all time. The claim that the Jews are the divinely Chosen People is the most outrageous, deranged, wicked and obnoxious ever made. There can be no excuse for it and no forgiveness. Countless millions have died because of the mad seed that the Jews sowed in the world’s psyche with their preposterous claims of a Jewish Creator. The Jews produced two miscarriages – Christianity and Islam – that carried the Jewish curse to every corner of the globe, to humanity’s extreme detriment.

Cain and Abel The Jews fought each other over whether they should be farmers (crop growers), a settled people, or nomadic pastoralists, i.e. concerned with raising and herding livestock (such as sheep and goats). The stereotypical pastoralists are Bedouin desert nomads, and the Jews must have once lived like them. The tale of Cain and Abel shows that Jehovah originally favoured the pastoralists (he preferred the animal sacrifice of Abel over the fruit and vegetables offering of Cain). Later, when the Jews violently seized the “Promised Land” from its rightful owners (the Canaanites), Jehovah changed his mind and wanted the Jews to be settlers.

Who is the Man? The Man is the boss, the system, the establishment, the elite, the oppressors. Don’t play the Man’s game. Don’t pay the Man.

Pansophy Pansophy: “all wisdom”; universal wisdom or knowledge.

Surface and Depth Most people live surface lives. They never go “underground”. They never go “deep”. They avoid profundity. We need a new humanity fit for the depths.

Who Are Those Closest to Being HyperHumans? INTJ and INTPs of either sex, any sexuality, any race ...

The Fire Stealers “The first study for the man who wants to be a poet is knowledge of himself, complete: he searches for his soul, he inspects it, he puts it to the test, he learns it. As soon as he has learned it, he must cultivate it! I say that one must be a seer, make oneself a seer. The poet becomes a seer through a long, immense, and reasoned derangement of all the senses. All shapes of love suffering, madness. He searches himself, he exhausts all poisons in himself, to keep only the quintessences. Ineffable torture where he needs all his faith, all his superhuman strength, where he becomes among all men the great patient, the great criminal, the great accursed one – and the supreme Scholar! For he reaches the unknown! ....So the poet is actually a thief of Fire!” –Arthur Rimbaud In Greek mythology, Prometheus, the Titan stole from the Olympians the heavenly fire for humanity, allowing the development of civilization. In the Book of Enoch, the Fallen Angels taught humanity to use tools and fire.

“Garden Gate” Who ate the apple in Eden? Come on, own up. Let’s have a line-up. The usual suspects?

Society Far right extremist Margaret Thatcher declared that there’s no such thing as society. In fact, people such as Thatcher are exactly those who stand in the way of the formation of society. Thatcher was an advocate of the individual and the family, of the dog-eat-dog pyramidal world of families fighting each other and clambering over the bodies to get to the summit. “I’d do anything for my family” is the mantra of Thatcherism – and that means doing harm to other families to gain a competitive advantage. The whole of free-market capitalism (of which Thatcher was a fanatical advocate) is predicated on there being no society, but simply exploitative capitalists (super rich individuals and families) on the one hand, and the exploited masses (unsuccessful individuals and families) on the other. “Society” is incompatible with free-market capitalism, with the worship of individuals, with a system of privileged families ruling unprivileged

families, with divisive religions splitting the world into true believers and wicked infidels. Society is in fact the marker or whether humanity is evolving or not, whether it’s leaving behind the bestial jungle that Thatcher and her ilk stand for. Society is about community, the General Will, altruism, the rational progress of the human race, about helping everyone, rather than just a tiny elite, to fulfil their potential. In a Society, you feel that all those around you are your friends and allies, not your enemies and rivals. Society is when you view everyone else as an extension of yourself, hence it’s impossible that Society will do anything to harm you, oppress you, repress you, work against you. Thatcher’s anti-Society vision – shared by all right wingers – is of countless competing units (individuals and families) all savagely pursuing maximum self-interest according to the rules of Game Theory. This vision promotes the “small” State, minimal government and negative liberty (the State staying out of everything). Thatcher, Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, the anarcho-capitalist libertarians, Christian Fundamentalists and the Tea Party all promote this worldview. These people all believe that selfishness and self-interest are Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” that steers the nation and its people in the optimal direction. “Adam Smith wrote his famous Wealth of Nations to show that the best state exists only when men are permitted to engage in unrestricted competition, freedom of exchange, and enlightened self-interest. In this work the pendulum of philosophic thought was swinging away from the theory that the state should regulate every activity of men, a theory held by Plato and many other thinkers, to the opposite extreme that the state should observe a strict policy of hands off and permit men to exercise their natural rights in all directions save in those where the safety of the group is threatened. “In Adam Smith, and other philosophical writers who followed John Locke, we see the attempt to carry Locke’s theory of freedom and natural rights into various fields of human activity and to free men in each of these fields from the restraints of government which had become so common since the beginning of written history at least. In most instances it was felt that the best results would be obtained if each individual was left as free as possible in all of his activities. Government was to keep hands off except in

those necessary affairs where the safety of the state was in danger.” – S.E. Frost, Jr., Basic Teachings of the Great Philosophers This is the market doctrine that rules our world today. Yet we see exactly where selfishness and self-interest get us – to a small elite selfishly and selfinterestedly gathering as much wealth to themselves as possible and starving everyone else of wealth and resources. Wealth = power, and what happens is that instead of governments ruling the people in the name of the General Will, rich elites rule the people in the name of their own particular wills and private interests. Free-market right wingers (as opposed to totalitarian right wingers such as the Nazis) are all, deep down, anarchists who do not want any government at all and believe that “invisible hand” markets lead to the best results in every field. Meritocratic left wingers (as opposed to totalitarian left wingers such as the Communists) insist that the power of the State is the only means of creating a fair, just world of equal opportunities for all. “Markets” are not rational minds promoting the General Will and planning a better world for all. Markets are chaotic, easily rigged systems that excessively benefit the market controllers, those best at playing the markets, and reducing everyone else to beggars looking for the crumbs that fall off the high table of the market makers. There are no “markets” in the Star Trek vision of the future. Star Trek is a meritocratic vision and says that a society led by its most talented and smartest individuals – servants of the General Will rather than their own particular wills – is the one that can rationally plan the future and create the best outcomes for all. So, where do you stand? Do you think that irrational markets or rational minds will create paradise for humanity? Do you think the world we live in right now – ruled by a super rich elite absolutely committed to the market doctrine – is a wonderful place, fair to all, and leading us inexorably to a Star Trek future? Or is it a vile, corrupt, greedy, selfish, nakedly selfinterested, cut-throat world of the lowest common denominator, the race to the bottom, of self-indulgence and instant gratification and of obnoxious privileged elites rubbing everyone’s noses in their obscene wealth? It’s a very simple choice. If you’re a right winger who believes in the individual and family, you will support markets, no government and unequal opportunities. If you’re a left winger, who believes in society and community, you will support the rational meritocratic State, heavily

regulated markets (equally open and accessible to all, and ensuring that all cartels are put out of business), and equal opportunities. What’s it to be?

The Selfish Market There are disturbing parallels between free-market capitalism and scientific materialism. Science endorses brutal Darwinism – often described as “the survival of the fittest” – and is predicated on a meaningless, pointless, purposeless universe in which “morality” is therefore equally meaningless and pointless, and anything goes. Free-market capitalists invariably cite Darwinist arguments concerning ruthless competition. Moreover, it’s said that Margaret Thatcher was inspired to attack society on the basis of Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene, which she saw as a complete intellectual and scientific vindication of free markets driven by absolute selfishness. Perhaps Dawkins should write two more books to join The God Delusion: The Free-Market Capitalism Delusion and The Scientific Materialism Delusion.

The Ultimate No No It’s said that the ultimate No No is for a celebrity in trouble with the cops to say, “Do you know who I am?” So, why is this a No No? The world has chosen to worship celebrities and assign them divine status. No cop would dream of pulling over God and giving him a ticket, so why do cops think they can give a ticket to celebrity gods and goddesses? The logic of our society is that the elite are untouchable, and it’s sheer hypocrisy for people to both worship these people and also expect them to be treated “just like us”. If you choose to opt into a two-tier society, you ought to have the guts to allow the top tier to do whatever it wants. Otherwise, why aren’t you fighting to overthrow it? The real problem is that society should never generate people who believe they have a legitimate right to see themselves as above the law – as “God” is – yet that’s what it does over and over again. We cannot have a two-tier society. The top tier must be permanently destroyed. We must stop worshipping false Gods, and if we do decide to worship them we should at least have the consistency to allow them to enjoy divine rights unavailable to the rest of us.

To Be Or Not To Be

JB: “Pluto isn’t a planet!” The world is full of pedants. A few years, Pluto was accepted as a planet. It was a “fact”. Now it’s a “fact” that it isn’t a planet. Shall we accept today’s fact or yesterday’s fact? This absolutely proves Nietzsche’s point: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” Science is always provisional, contingent, arbitrary and ad hoc. You can’t depend on anything. Everything is always changing according to the latest findings. Nothing is eternally pinned down, as it is with analytic mathematics. Of course, the infallible holy texts of Abrahamism have only five planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Earth, being stationary, wasn’t a planet, and the Koran says it’s flat (!): “And We have spread out the earth like a carpet; set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.” [15: Al-Hijr-19] (Who is “We”? Isn’t Islam monotheistic?) The fact is that you can’t trust anyone. You can’t trust faith, you can’t trust your senses, you can’t trust holy texts, you can’t trust science. Only analytic mathematics offers unconditional, absolute, incontestable certainty. God himself couldn’t deny that 1 + 1 = 2. Humanity has always had one infallible text: the Holy Book of Mathematics! The only God is the God of Ontological Mathematics, and the greatest ontological and epistemological mathematicians are his priests, popes and prophets. There’s no need for faith. Reason alone admits you to the Church of Ontological Mathematics.

Who Falls in Love the Most? You might expect feeling types to be the best at the art of love: to have more lovers, or fall more deeply in love. You wouldn’t have high expectations of sensing types. These people would be all about appearance. Their “love” would be extremely shallow. They’d be obsessed with status, with “trophy” partners, and so on. Their lovers are a means to an end (the reflection of their own glory) rather than ends in themselves.

You’d expect intuitives to detect something much deeper in people, and thus to find their soul mates, hence true love. The intuitives go far beyond mere appearance to the kernel of another person. They can find cosmic connections with others. Thinking types – pragmatic, rational, calculated – would seem supremely unsuited to the dimly lit chambers of love. Yet our expectations are frequently wrong. In Jungian psychology, the unconscious is the flip side of our conscious attitudes and functions. The feeling types – the romantics – are “in the zone”, in their natural environment, when they are dealing with their feelings, hence they can apply Apollonian control. The thinking types, however, aren’t accustomed to powerful feelings. When they encounter them, they’re thrown into their unconscious mode. When they fall in love, they fall deep and hard. Since their feelings don’t belong to their controlled, disciplined, conscious mode of rational behaviour, they are instead associated with wild, Dionysian passions. So, it turns out that the thinkers are the most intense lovers because they are the true Dionysian lovers, the wild Shadow lovers.

Higher Consciousness An enormous amount of theurgy (“God work” – white magic), the occult, magic, alchemy, and so on, is Mythos nonsense. Its real purpose is simply to engineer a radical change of mental state, allowing freedom from conventional, “reducing valve” consciousness, expanding the mind and making it more accessible to its infinite surroundings. In this enhanced state, the mind is subject to all kinds of intuitions and visions. The problem of course lies in separating fantastical Mythos content from genuinely useful Logos material, and only a tiny number of human beings have ever truly mastered this art.

Platonic Forms The only Platonic Forms that truly exist (as eternal and immutable) are the laws of mathematics. These can never be altered under any circumstances and they are not evolving into anything. All those dialectical things that are evolving can be likened to “Dynamic” Platonic Forms advancing towards their individual omega points. For example, the DNA for ordinary human beings is a dynamic Platonic Form which has arrived, more or less, at its omega point. Any radical alteration to this Form would give rise to a new species, which would then evolve in its way. Humanity and four other ape species all evolved from a common proto-ape ancestor. Each species has reached its own omega point, and is very distinct from the others, despite their common heritage. Consider the Platonic Form of Justice, or Beauty, or Morality or Love. It’s certainly easy to imagine that perfect Love exists or perfect Morality, or whatever, and to create a mental simulacrum of it. Of course, the whole point is that it is a simulacrum. If you rationally think about morality, you see that it’s impossible to objectively define because it has far too many subjective elements. Therefore, if you have the Form of Perfect Morality in your mind, it’s merely conjured from all the stuff you’ve read about morality in religion and philosophy, and your own personality type and life experiences, and so on. You’re not getting in touch with any genuine Platonic Morality – no such thing exists – but simply your personal simulacrum of it.

This is one of the great dangers. You can easily start believing in your own propaganda and own projections and consider them objectively real and true. That’s why it’s vital to stick to pure math as far as possible – because there’s never any possibility of bullshit when it comes to 1 + 1 = 2.

Schemas No one can read our books neutrally, objectively, “innocently”. Everyone has baggage in their psyche. Everyone has their own mental framework – their schema – through which they view, interpret and understand the world. Many people force their schema onto our work, hence misreading what we are saying. However, by the same token, they may see things we haven’t, and make connections that hadn’t occurred to us. The reader can thus engage with the work highly creatively and in a feedback loop (so to speak), rather than merely passively consuming the work.

The Strange Attractor It might be said that the universe is in the grip of an Attractor, drawing everything towards it, maximizing and actualizing all cosmic potential, and creating an Omega Point. This corresponds to a particular, optimized solution of the cosmic, ontological mathematical wavefunction describing the whole universe, and Hegelian dialectics are leading us towards it. That’s their whole purpose – to lead us to the Absolute.

Einstein’s Reasoning God “That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” – Einstein The universe is comprehensible precisely because it’s made of “superior reasoning power” – it’s built from reason itself, and existential reason is simply ontological mathematics, which caters for both the subjective (living; mind) and the objective (machinelike; matter) aspects of reality that we all encounter.

The Downfall of the West

Are we in the West falling? Have we fallen? Well, it’s time to get back up again. It’s time to rise like the Phoenix. Intelligence, and intelligence alone, can lead us to the Promised Land.

The New World Order At the moment, in the West, we live in a negative liberty world. The State ignores us. We have to continually subject ourselves to the “private” rather than the “public”. The State doesn’t help us with our careers, jobs, work, sex lives, love lives, friendships and community – it leaves that all to us, to randomness, chance encounters, haphazard job applications, drunken encounters in bars and clubs, and so on. The State does nothing to shape and guide our lives in an optimal way. So, we all flounder around chaotically or bounce back and forth from one problem to the next as if trapped in a pinball machine. Nothing is under our meaningful control. Only the State can offer the required control, but the State is despised by rich families who don’t want any interference in their supremely enviable lives. Currently, the rich elite dictate to the State. The last thing they want is for the State to dictate to them. The rich elite have constructed a “false consciousness” in the masses so that most people are totally opposed to the very force – the Meritocratic State – that would give them the best possible chance in life, and the best prospect of a fulfilled life. The New World Order will be about positive liberty. Through psychological profiling, the State will endeavour to radically increase the number of your close friends. It will match you to the right sex partners and lovers, give you the sex and romantic life of which you’ve always dreamt. It will give you the precise Eros encounters, the exact kinks, the precise fetishes, that have seized your secret thoughts and fantasises. It will seek to find the best work, job and career for you, based on the subjects and tasks that you find endlessly exciting and stimulating. It will seek the best living space for you, the best community environment where you will be surrounded by like-minded people. It will give you an annual “check up”, just as if you were having an annual medical health-check with a doctor, and help you if you have any concerns. The State’s job is not to leave you alone, it’s to maximize your potential. It can do that only through having a relationship with you, consisting of infinitely more than simply making you pay your taxes and giving you a meaningless democratic vote.

Confession Are Catholics more moral than Protestants because they have to confess to another person – the priest? To whom does a Protestant confess other than himself, and that’s no confession at all.

Silence is Golden “The reason we have two ears and only one mouth, is that we may hear more and speak less.” – Zeno. But nature compensated by giving us an asshole so that we can bullshit twice as much.

New Humanity The West is finished in its current incarnation. It’s not class or race that will determine the West’s future but intelligence. It’s the power of the mind that will deliver a Star Trek future: meritocratic, with no capitalism, no faith religions, no class system and no privileged elites. We have to start building that future right now. We know exactly who will oppose us: the capitalists, the religious fundamentalists, the privileged families, the anarcho-capitalist libertarians, the anarchists, the liberals, all those with a false consciousness, all those living in bad faith, everyone inauthentic. Who’s left? Well, only the hyperhumans, the Omega humans, the Übermenschen – autonomous, unique, independent, creative, radical, active, ambitious, competitive, visionary, inner-directed, future-oriented, selfdefining, exceptionally intelligent and hard-working. As long as we can bring all of these people together under a single banner, the rest don’t matter. We will actively separate ourselves from the others and create our own autonomous communities and then city states. We will create a HyperHuman paradise and the rest of backward humanity will blink and gawp in wonder as though they were gazing at the gods themselves. New Humanity – the Coming Race – cannot afford to be sentimental, nostalgic, passive, liberal, weak. New Humanity resembles the set of brilliant alien children in The Village of the Damned. In that story, “old” humanity killed the new in order to save itself. However, there will come a

time when old humanity is too weak and enfeebled – caught in its own internal contradictions – and will act too slowly and ineffectually. By that time, New Humanity will already be too strong, and there will be going no back. We will have a new humanity. It won’t care about race, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, status, privilege, class, faith religions... all the curses of the past. It will be about merit alone, and maximising human potential. It will seek to give everyone as fulfilling a life as possible. We are Gods-in-the-making and our task is to build a proper Eden and authentic Tree of Knowledge. We will exclude from Paradise all those who refuse to eat of its fruit. Above all, the Devil – Jehovah, Jesus Christ, Allah – will be forbidden from our Garden of Eden.

Extension Space and tenseless time are “extended” (dimensional). Crucially, tensed time – proceeding by way of the present instant (“now”) is unextended (dimensionless). Being dimensionless, tensed time cannot exist within the dimensional, extended Meta Paradigm of empiricist materialist science! In other words, scientific materialists deny that past, present and future exist. This was indeed the position held by Einstein, and most scientists continue to agree with him. Given that all change occurs in the dimensionless “now”, science logically denies the existence of change. Modern science thus becomes a modern vehicle of the philosophy of Parmenides, the ancient Greek philosopher who denied that change was possible and asserted that all apparent change was mere illusion. Like modern scientists, Parmenides was entirely unable to explain where this illusion originated and how it operated.

***** If a dynamic, dimensionless “now” is all that actually exists (with the past and future being formally non-existent) then it means that as you look at the world, it’s not an enduring, solid “thing” but something that’s being continually mathematically reconstructed and presented to you on an instant by instant basis. Only each instant exists. As soon as the instant is over, it has vanished into non-existence. There’s no solid world waiting for you in the future and no solid world standing behind you in the past. The only

existent is the world of right now. But right now is dimensionless, and so is the world you are experiencing. The “real world” is a dimensionless sliver entirely mathematical in nature, being continually recalculated as “now” continually changes. There’s no solid, material, enduring world: there’s just a world of continual mathematical calculations. If you accept that “now” is the only instant that has any true existence, you are obliged to accept that you are simply part of an ever-changing, instantaneous mathematical calculation. This means that your body is not whatever age you are. Your body is only one instant old – just like everyone else’s. The difference between you and a newborn baby is that the mathematical calculations that are used to generate your body on an instant by instant basis have a long history which they must take into account, whereas a baby lacks this detailed mathematical history. Mathematics reflects historical information and data but does so in the present. There is no past world that remains in permanent existence, and no future world solidly awaiting your arrival. The whole concept of time travel is absurd – because there’s nowhere to travel to. The whole of existence is now. More or less everything said about time by Einstein is false because he had no understanding of the nature of dynamic, tensed time, and in fact believed only in static, tenseless time. The concept of irreversible quantum mechanical wavefunction collapse is entirely consistent with the idea that nothing can go back in time (and note that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle does not apply to the past, only to what’s in progress now and the infinitesimal instant ahead of now – it’s the collapse of that which leads to this – thus providing a critical ontological disjunction between the historic past and what’s happening now). It’s also a logical corollary that wavefunction collapse is happening everywhere at every instant, so the paradox of Schrödinger’s Cat is impossible since nothing is ever waiting for an observation to take place in order for the wavefunction to collapse. In fact, “now” is what collapses the wavefunction. The cosmic wavefunction can’t exist in the past and nor can it exist in the future (since these don’t exist); it can only exist now (which, strictly speaking, is one infinitesimal ahead of us: the now we experience is in fact the collapsed version of that “now”).

As soon as the wavefunction collapses, it reforms. All that the wavefunction does is collapse and then reform – forever. In truth, it’s precisely this process that constitutes what we experience as now. There’s no “measurement problem” (as physicists claim); there’s no need for any observations to prompt wavefunction collapse (as physicists claim in one of the most bizarre and idiotic ideas ever devised). Tensed time works perfectly with quantum mechanics; Einsteinian physics, however, relies on tenseless time. No wonder the two theories are irreconcilable.

***** What does “dimensionless existence” actually mean? Well, nothing more complicated than existence defined by two numbers: zero and infinity. “Dimensional existence”, on the other hand, is defined by all the numbers within these two limits. To put it another way, dimensionless existence is simply dimensional existence “in the limit”. It’s the mathematical limit of all dimensional processes and mathematical functions. It’s also where existence truly resides. It’s the noumenal domain of absolute and eternal truth, and is the opposite of our phenomenal domain of “provisional” and temporal truths. Imagine an infinite 3D mathematical box, composed of an infinite 3D array of mathematical points. There are no “gaps” in this array. It’s a perfect continuum, a perfect plenum. There are no explained zones of different types of existence or non-existence. Above all, there’s something – in fact, infinite existents – at the origin, at (0,0,0), i.e. the origin is a fundamental part of the continuum and plenum. There’s no place where there’s nothing at all: absolute nothingness, or nonexistence. The origin is a location like everywhere else. In point of fact, it’s the source of everything else. It’s is none other than the Neoplatonic “One”. Scientific materialism denies dimensionless existents and dimensionless existence in general. This logically means that it denies tensed time (past, present and future) and thus change itself! Things get even worse for science since M-theory denies the existence of dimensionless point particles and instead insists that the fundamental units of existence are 1D energy string “loops”, which vibrate in an 11D spacetime. Imagine a universe comprised of an endless array of these vibrating string loops. The question automatically arises of what lies in the gaps between loops. Non-existence?

Different-existence? Such a system fails to establish a perfect continuum or plenum – there are therefore countless “holes” in reality. So, how does science get round this? Well, it invokes Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. What this achieves, in the way scientists fallaciously use it, is to blur everything at the fundamental level. It makes everything “fuzzy”, so there’s no way to tell where anything begins and anything ends. It also means that “reality” at the fundamental level is rendered wholly probabilistic. According to science, the arche – the fundamental “stuff” of existence – is probability itself! Which, of course, is absurd since probability can’t be a thing in its own right. It can exist only with regard to something else. According to science, we are all simply the products of probability. We are not human beings but “probability beings” – inherently fuzzy and blurry if you take a close enough look at us. In which case, do we really exist at all? That is, if you use a super-microscope on us and discover that we are simply a blur at the ultimate level, what does that say about who and what we are? For science, when we get close to what would otherwise be the precise dimensionless domain of distinct monads in perfect, infinitely high resolution, we in fact reach an out-of-focus, poorly resolved blur of vagueness, randomness and probability. The whole point of materialism is to provide a tangible, “sharp” world of definite things available to the senses, but what scientific materialism ultimately delivers is Fuzzy Physics, Blurism, Uncertainty Physics, God “playing dice”, as Einstein put it. Far from everything being sharp and “solid”, everything becomes hazy, to such an extent that we have no idea what anything is, where anything is, what energy anything has. To put it another way, all the “promises” of materialism dissolve into mush. The whole concept of matter is swallowed by uncertainty, randomness and probability. It’s astounding that scientists are such fierce materialists when the entire concept of matter has been destroyed by quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Even empiricism gets destroyed by science when M-theory starts appealing to “rolled-up”, “invisible”, “undetectable” dimensions in order to allow the theory to “work”. So, modern empiricist materialist science is compatible with neither empiricism nor materialism, and it’s hard to see how it can continue to be

called “science”. It’s nothing but mystical mumbo jumbo and woo woo, supported by a quasi-religious faith that it all means something and represents a coherent, consistent and complete account of existence. Science has become a joke. Any philosophically minded person could tear it to shreds. All of its fundamental concepts, precepts and premises are provably false and bogus. Science is a kind of undead monster that staggers around making boastful claims even though it officially died the moment classical physics encountered Planck’s constant. Why has no one “called it”? Just as no one, apart from Nietzsche, pronounced religion dead, so no one has yet pronounced scientific materialism dead. The world is full of zombie belief systems and billions of human zombies who subscribe to them. It’s time the vampire slayers arrived and at last put the undead out of their misery. It’s time for revolution. It’s time for a paradigm shift, one based on ontological mathematics rather than physics.

***** The key battleground of ontological mathematics versus science is calculus. Does calculus logically rest on mathematical points (monads), as its founder Leibniz asserted, or is it based on materialist “limits” (which, like the 1D string loops of M-theory, never actually arrive at mathematical points), as the rest of the mathematical community declares? To put it another way, is calculus logically predicated on a perfect continuum and plenum – as Leibniz said – or is it built on a blurry, fuzzy, vague, hazy substratum where nothing is ever fully resolved because there are in fact no terminal and terminating points in calculus: you get closer to closer to zero without ever actually reaching it (because it’s not there). This is the position of the mathematical establishment. Well, whose side are you on? – the dazzling genius Leibniz who invented calculus or his pygmy mathematical successors who had no idea what calculus actually meant and refused to see it in ontological, Monadology terms rather than as a mere abstraction. Only one man ever truly understood calculus, and that was Leibniz himself, its discoverer. He alone grasped that you could not have calculus without a world of ontological mathematical points – monads – which turned out to be eternal life forms (minds... souls!). Calculus is the mathematical expression of Soul World!

Jesus Hitler To assert that the whole of humanity is guilty for the acts of others (specifically, Adam and Eve), is to assert that the Nazis were right to hold whole villages, towns and nations guilty for attacks by isolated individuals on the Nazi regime, and to execute hundreds and thousands of people in reprisals. “God” (Jesus Christ) sentenced the whole of the human race to hell for the acts of Adam and Eve. This was the most horrific reprisal of all time, infinitely worse than anything done by the Nazis. This makes Jesus Christ the worst Nazi of them all!

Do You Want To Touch? Jesus Christ to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection: “Do not touch me.” (Noli me tangere.) Jesus Christ to Doubting Thomas after his resurrection: “Touch me.” Well, that’s consistent (not!). Why are Abrahamists never troubled by irrationality? Is it because ... they are irrational?

Beware of Mad Human Sign on Gate: “Beware of the dog, enter at your own risk.” Why would anyone bother entering? Who wants to visit a human being who values dogs more than people? Anyone who puts up a sign like that is acknowledging that his dog is potentially dangerous, hence unfit to be in a city built for humans.

Male Genital Mutilation Circumcision: “cut around, cut, clip, trim,” from circum “around” + caedere “to cut”. Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as: “All procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.”

“The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood— the fused wound is opened for intercourse and childbirth. ... Several miscellaneous acts are categorized as Type IV. These range from a symbolic pricking or piercing of the clitoris or labia, to cauterization of the clitoris, cutting into the vagina to widen it (gishiri cutting), and introducing corrosive substances to tighten it.” – Wikipedia Shouldn’t male circumcision be routinely called male genital mutilation? Why is the euphemistic term “circumcision” used? Let’s call a spade a spade. Eight-day-old Muslim and Jewish baby boys are genitally mutilated at the instigation of their parents, in the name of their fanatical religious beliefs. Why does any civilized State permit it? It must be outlawed.

Positivism The Logical Positivists of the Vienna Circle, with their commitment to empiricism, believed that philosophy should become a branch of science. In fact, science and philosophy should be branches of rationalist mathematics. It has been said that philosophy is concerned with concepts and science with “facts”. Mathematics, however, is the only subject that deals with objective concepts and facts. Everything else is interpretation. Mathematics and logic are formal languages. English, Chinese, German, French, Spanish, and so on, are “natural” languages. Only formal languages can underpin a rational universe. Only natural languages can express subjective experiences.

A Simulated Universe Some people have argued that there must be civilizations so technologically advanced that they have the computing expertise and power to simulate whole universes, and we could conceivably be living in one. However, if we lived in a simulation, any coding error or glitch would destroy the universe, or lead to a cosmic “blue screen of death.” And then who reboots the universe? Where’s the on/off button?

It can’t be stressed sufficiently that the universe needs to be perfect in its rational foundations. There can’t be a single error, not one. No intelligence can provide a perfect universe. There’s no such thing as a perfect simulation. Only existence itself can yield perfection and only mathematics is the source of ontological perfection. There are no rivals. It’s impossible for the universe to be anything other than 100% mathematical.

The Bechdel Test “All these relationships between women, I thought, rapidly recalling the splendid gallery of fictitious women, are too simple. [...] And I tried to remember any case in the course of my reading where two women are represented as friends. [...] They are now and then mothers and daughters. But almost without exception they are shown in their relation to men. It was strange to think that all the great women of fiction were, until Jane Austen’s day, not only seen by the other sex, but seen only in relation to the other sex. And how small a part of a woman’s life is that [...]” – Virginia Woolf “The Bechdel test is used to identify gender bias in fiction. A work passes the test if it features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. Commentators have noted that a great proportion of contemporary works fail to pass this threshold of representing women.” – Wikipedia

The Centre Cannot Hold William Butler Yeats THE SECOND COMING (extract) Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. ...

Philosophical Death “To philosophize is to learn how to die.” – Cicero Hegel’s last words were reported as, “And he didn’t understand me.” Sadly, almost no one did.

Quality Not Quantity “In the end, it’s not the years in your life that count. It’s the life in your years.” – Abraham Lincoln “Those who speak most of progress, measure it by quantity and not by quality.” – George Santayana

Thinking “An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think” – Hegel

The Political Penalty “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” – Plato “When a father inquired about the best method of educating his son in ethical conduct, a Pythagorean replied: ‘Make him a citizen of a state with good laws.’” – Hegel

Conservatism versus Radicalism The Voice of the Last Man “At the end of your life, you will never regret not having passed one more test, not winning one more verdict or not closing one more deal. You will regret time not spent with a husband, a friend, a child, or a parent.” – Barbara Bush At the end of your life, you will regret not having tried your hardest, not having made a difference, not having used your talent to the maximum. Endless people of talent have been lost thanks to their sentimental love for

their families. Barbara Bush was incapable of anything great. What about you?

***** “To be independent of public opinion is the first formal condition of achieving anything great.” – Hegel “It is solely by risking life that freedom is obtained; . . . the individual who has not staked his or her life may, no doubt, be recognized as a Person; but he or she has not attained the truth of this recognition as an independent self-consciousness.” – Hegel “The valour that struggles is better than the weakness that endures.” – Hegel

Finding Truth “Truth is found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis which reconciles the two.” – Hegel

Agent Causation “Agent causation” is Kant’s thesis that an agent is free only if his actions are not determined by causes external to him. An agent is he who initiates his own actions, and is not the puppet of someone or something else. Science has never explained agent causation. In science, nothing and no one is free. Everyone is trapped in inescapable, scientific causal chains.

The Facebook Super Spy Everything you put on Facebook can and will be used as “evidence” against you. Whenever anyone criticised us on our Facebook page, it was a simple matter to inspect their Facebook profile. Our critics were always the same: extreme right wing anarcho-capitalist libertarians, religious fundamentalists, conspiracy theorists, scientific materialists, New Agers, hippies, liberals. You can tell everything about people via their favourite movies, books, songs, people, and so on. Cambridge University psychology researchers say that people who like curly fries are highly intelligent, but people who love Harley-Davidsons are rather, er, dim. Using an algorithm, the researchers were able to state with great accuracy what people’s sexual orientation, religion, political views and IQ were, and whether they used drugs. The researchers warned that governments, corporations and advertisers could similarly use this ocean of data to accurately analyze everyone on Facebook. Facebook users have freely disclosed the data that could actually imprison them if they lived under a repressive regime.

The Wisdom of Nietzsche Doubt as sin. – Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned. – Nietzsche The compassionate Christian. – The reverse side of Christian compassion for the suffering of one’s neighbour is a profound suspicion of all the joy of one’s neighbour, of his joy in all that he wants to do and can. – Nietzsche

The despairing. – Christianity possesses the hunter’s instinct for all those who can by one means or another be brought to despair – of which only a portion of mankind is capable. It is constantly on their track, it lies in wait for them. Pascal attempted the experiment of seeing whether, with the aid of the most incisive knowledge, everyone could not be brought to despair: the experiment miscarried, to his twofold despair. – Nietzsche What a crude intellect is good for. – The Christian church is an encyclopaedia of prehistoric cults and conceptions of the most diverse origin, and that is why it is so capable of proselytizing: it always could, and it can still go wherever it pleases and it always found, and always finds something similar to itself to which it can adapt itself and gradually impose upon it a Christian meaning. It is not what is Christian in it, but the universal heathen character of its usages, which has favoured the spread of this world-religion; its ideas, rooted in both the Jewish and the Hellenic worlds, have from the first known how to raise themselves above national and racial niceties and exclusiveness as though these were merely prejudices. One may admire this power of causing the most various elements to coalesce, but one must not forget the contemptible quality that adheres to this power: the astonishing crudeness and self-satisfiedness of the church’s intellect during the time it was in process of formation, which permitted it to accept any food and to digest opposites like pebbles. – Nietzsche The everyday Christian. – If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one’s own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of one’s eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him. – Nietzsche The persecutor of God. – Paul thought up the idea and Calvin rethought it, that for innumerable people damnation has been decreed from eternity, and that this beautiful world plan was instituted to reveal the glory of God:

heaven and hell and humanity are thus supposed to exist – to satisfy the vanity of God! What cruel and insatiable vanity must have flared in the soul of the man who thought this up first, or second. Paul has remained Saul after all – the persecutor of God. – Nietzsche Christianity as antiquity. – When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a Jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God’s son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed – whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions – is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross – how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed? – Nietzsche Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life’s nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in “another” or “better” life. – Nietzsche Speaking in a parable. – A Jesus Christ was possible only in a Jewish landscape – I mean one over which the gloomy and sublime thunder cloud of the wrathful Yahweh was brooding continually. Only here was the rare and sudden piercing of the gruesome and perpetual general day-night by a single ray of the sun experienced as if it were a miracle of “love” and the ray of unmerited “grace.” Only here could Jesus dream of his rainbow and his ladder to heaven on which God descended to man. Everywhere else good weather and sunshine were considered the rule and everyday occurrences. – Nietzsche And finally the saving thought struck him [Paul],... “It is unreasonable to persecute this Jesus! Here after all is the way out; here is the perfect revenge; here and nowhere else I have and hold the annihilator of the

law!”... Until then the ignominious death had seemed to him the chief argument against the Messianic claim of which the new doctrine spoke: but what if it were necessary to get rid of the law? The tremendous consequences of this idea, of this solution of the riddle, spin before his eyes; at one stroke he becomes the happiest man; the destiny of the Jews – no, of all men – seems to him to be tied to this idea, to this second of its sudden illumination; he has the thought of thoughts, the key of keys, the light of lights; it is around him that all history must revolve henceforth. For he is from now on the teacher of the annihilation of the law... This is the first Christian, the inventor of Christianity. Until then there were only a few Jewish sectarians. – Nietzsche

***** Nietzsche saw Jesus Christ as the supreme anarchist – the annihilator of the law.

The Suck Hole and the Fuck Hole A unisex Glory Hole for spit-roasting has two holes, one on either side of the toilet cubicle. One is the Suck hole and the other the Fuck hole. A man or woman can position their ass in front of the fuck hole and take it in the appropriate orifice. At the other hole, they suck or lick. And isn’t that a metaphor for much of life? You’re either getting fucked, or you’re sucking; you’re either getting shafted or you’re licking ass. The Old World Order are the guys with their dicks (their pleasure sticks) sticking through the holes, and the sheeple are the ones pleasuring them.

Subs and Doms Ironically, given that they seek to be controlled by dominants, submissives can be extreme control freaks themselves. Their unconscious reacts by producing a compensatory force, i.e. a desire to totally relinquish control to someone else – a dominant – and thereby escape from the imprisonment of their own control freakery. However, one might say that even the choice to periodically abandon control is itself a form of controlling behaviour. Doms are also obsessed with control. In fact, they want to control the whole world and even the whole universe. Since they can’t do that, they want total control over one person.

The Faith Fallacy MD: “I am in no way religious nor do I condone inhumane extortions of any sort, yet we cannot dismiss Faith as it is inseparable from our common humanity. Even your extreme and absolutist Faith in Reason is paralleled to a religious Reason to be Faithful. Logic and intuition are two sides of the same coin; it goes hand in hand and are both tantamount to human progression.” Consider the absurdity of this statement. We are told that faith is “inseparable from our common humanity”. Well, who says? This is simply a faith-based opinion with zero facts to substantiate it. We are told that we have “faith in reason”. This is to absolutely fail to understand the meaning of the world faith. People have faith in those things for which they have no facts, evidence or rational arguments to support their beliefs. You cannot have “faith” in reason since reason is that which you use to create rational arguments and to establish rational facts and evidence, which is precisely what faith lacks. And what does “intuition” have to do with faith? How is faith in any way related to human progress? MD is a classical irrationalist who cannot use language properly and doesn’t understand basic concepts and definitions. It’s precisely because of people such as MD – the ignorant common herd – that humanity is stuck where it is and cannot make progress. MD is driven by emotionalism. She thinks her feelings constitute some kind of valid argument. Sorry, but faith and feelings are what have rendered our world so irrational and so prone to absurd Mythos. Like so many people, MD cannot distinguish between Logos and Mythos and claims that Logos is just a different Mythos – which is equivalent to saying that faith and reason are of equal status, that the Book of Genesis is as valid as quantum mechanics. Anyone who holds such a false and preposterous view cannot advance the human race one iota. SR: “Actually, this planet is being killed by stupidity...” That’s the truth of it. That’s the bottom line. If we want a “wonderful world”, we will get there through intelligence, reason, logic and knowledge. Faith, superstition, mysticism and emotionalism will play no part.

Anti-Karma “I am not what happened to me. I am what I choose to become.” – Jung

Choose to become God. You are not the victim of the past, you are the shaper of the future.

Surface Tension “Surface tension is a contractive tendency of the surface of a liquid that allows it to resist an external force. It is revealed, for example, in the floating of some objects on the surface of water, even though they are denser than water, and in the ability of some insects (e.g. water striders) to run on the water surface. This property is caused by cohesion of similar molecules, and is responsible for many of the behaviours of liquids.” – Wikipedia Surface tension creates a fragile barrier that holds things together. Do emotions have their equivalent of surface tension? – something vulnerable that maintains a coherent personality ... unless overwhelmed by too strong a force, at which point the barriers break and madness floods out. Is the world held together by psychological surface tension? What about religion? Politics? The stock market?

The Truth of It “There is always more misery among the lower classes than there is humanity in the higher.” – Victor Hugo Well, maybe it’s time the lower classes did something about the higher classes.

Sucking “You suck at life.” Well, do you?

Silence is Golden “Silence is always better than bullshit.” Are you making a noise, or saying nothing?

The Temple of Reason and Philosophy

During the French Revolution, Notre Dame Cathedral was converted into a temple of reason. Isn’t it time to replace all Synagogues of Bullshit and Mythos Mosques with Temples of Reason? The Cult of Reason, based on atheism and humanism, was intended to replace Christianity and be practised in the Churches and Temples of Reason. In 1794, Robespierre decided to replace the atheistic Cult of Reason – which plainly wasn’t gaining traction – with the deistic Cult of the Supreme Being. It’s a simple fact that atheism will never appeal to more than a small percentage of humanity. As Illuminism demonstrates, there’s nothing at all irrational about religion, providing it’s Logos religion rather than Mythos, so there’s simply no need for atheism. Ontological mathematics furnishes hyperrationalism and religion in one adamantine edifice. Atheism is simply a hypothesis, nothing more. It doesn’t prove anything. It’s an ideology, a philosophy, a paradigm, a faith-based stance that only observable entities can exist. It promotes the doctrine of meaninglessness – a pointless, purposeless universe. It’s essentially nihilism. Nothing is more certain than that atheism will never fire the world’s imagination. Just as no one ever goes to war to fight for capitalism, no one will ever fight for atheism. If atheism had unquestionable credentials and arguments, we would have to go along with it whether we liked it or not. The God Series shows that atheism is in fact largely as absurd as Abrahamism. It tells a ludicrous and perverse Mythos about a purposeless machine universe devoid of free will, contrary to the self-evident facts of our own existence. Science is all about atheism, but mathematics trumps science and mathematics offers a complete rational justification of the central claims of religion. So who needs atheism?

The Ark of the Covenant: the Devil’s Tabernacle The Ark of the Covenant was the receptacle for the Ten Commandments: two stone tablets inscribed, allegedly, by the finger of God. These were, therefore, divine, supernatural objects that presented “God’s Law” to humanity. As the only objects ever personally touched by God, the tablets were the most special objects in all the world. God himself specified how the Ark was to be constructed. The lid had a golden Cherub on each side, and between them was the so-called Mercy Seat, God’s Earthly throne. The presence of God – the Shekinah (a cloud or visible symbol of the divine presence) – appeared between the two Cherubs. The Ark was a dwelling place for God on Earth, from where he dispensed wisdom and unlimited power. People died if they touched it without permission – struck down by the “Glory of God”. According to the Bible, a great temple was built for it and the Ark resided in the Holy of Holies. On only one day a year – the Day of Atonement – would the High Priest enter this Holy of Holies. He alone was allowed to gaze upon the sacred Ark. The Holy of Holies was located over the first stone of Creation... the rock from which the world was first summoned into existence, and the foundation stone of the Earth, the original building block of our planet. “The world was not created until God took a stone called Even haShetiya and threw it into the depths where it was fixed from above and below, and from it the world expanded. It is the centre point of the world and on this spot stood the Holy of Holies.” – the Zohar Here, on this rock that supported the Holy of Holies, God gathered the earth that he formed into Adam. On this same rock, Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah all offered sacrifices to God. It was here also that Abraham was ordered to make a human sacrifice of Isaac. It was the same rock, allegedly, upon which Jacob had his famous dream about angels ascending to heaven and descending to earth on a great ladder.

Contra Capitalism “I believe banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control

the issue or their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks, & the corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all prosperity until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” – Thomas Jefferson Jefferson’s warning ought to be made into Constitutional Law. All banks must be run by Government official directly accountable to the people, elected by their peers and sackable by their peers. There can be no unelected, unaccountable bankers in a meritocracy.

The General Will “The general will rules in society as the private will governs each separate individual.” – Robespierre The great task of meritocracy is to ensure that only the general will operates in the meritocratic State and that particular wills have no influence or power over the State.

Greed versus Reason Capitalists believe that greed and selfishness are the best drivers of progress. We beg to differ. Reason is the only true driver of progress. Capitalism is wholly deluded about its accomplishments. Compare capitalism with science and mathematics. Poorly paid, humble scientists and mathematicians – not capitalists – have made all the stunning intellectual breakthroughs that power technology. Capitalists – parasites – exploit these technological innovations and make money from them. Who made the greater contribution to computing – Bill Gates or Alan Turing? There would have been no such thing as a computer without Turing’s work. Bill Gates was wholly dependent on geniuses such as Turing, not they on him. Capitalism gives extreme awards to technology exploiters, not technology inventors. In a meritocratic, rational world, we will ensure that the credit and rewards go where they’re due and not to the braggart parasites. Reason can beat greed and selfishness any day. Meritocracy will make mincemeat of capitalism. Never forget, Star Trek is a meritocratic vision. Capitalism doesn’t exist in that vision! There are no rich people in Star

Trek. In a war of free-market capitalists versus meritocracy (Star Trek), who would win? Is there any doubt?

***** “Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft, where we are hard, cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand.” – F. Scott Fitzgerald

Religious Maniac A Seventh Day Adventist called Ron Wyatt, a man obsessed with proving the veracity of the Bible, claimed to have discovered the Ark of the Covenant and photographed it. He provided no Ark, no photographs and didn’t say where he had found it. Doesn’t that sum up the deranged Bible thumpers? Unable to actually find the Ark, Wyatt simply fantasised that he had – then believed wholeheartedly in his fantasy, and went round the world on a lecture tour telling other fantasists all about it. What a bunch of lying, deluded bastards. They are an insult to the truth and have zero connection with the truth. They’re people who can’t distinguish fact from fiction. That’s because they are feeling and sensing types and lack reason and intuition.

The Last of the Magicians “The vital agent diffused through everything in the earth is one and the same. And it is a mercurial spirit, extremely subtle and supremely volatile, which is dispersed through every place.” – Isaac Newton Newton believed that ancient civilisations all shared one scientific religion, and had been aware of the discoveries he subsequently made, if not able to prove them mathematically. He said, “So then the first religion was the most rational of all others till the nations corrupted it. For there is no way (without revelation) to come to the knowledge of a Deity but by the frame of Nature.” Newton believed himself the greatest of all prophets, charged with proving the great truths of God, of revealing the Mind of God to humanity. He was, he thought, the successor of Noah, Moses and Christ, and the last in the line of prophets, no less (the same claim made by Mohammed). He believed that God’s invisible power shaped the universe and permitted the force of gravity to operate instantaneously everywhere, seemingly across empty space. When Robert Hooke claimed to have discovered the theory of universal gravity before Newton, Newton declared, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” This was interpreted as Newton’s cutting dismissal of the idea that his theory of gravity owed anything at all to Hooke – a man of notably short stature. Newton was a notorious melancholic, misanthrope and misogynist, probably gay and certainly a Christian heretic, in an age when the death penalty could be imposed for either “offence”. Newton, in a letter to philosopher John Locke, wrote, “SIR, — Being of opinion that you endeavoured to embroil me with women, and by other means, I was so much affected with it, as that when one told me you were sickly and would not live, I answered, ‘twere better if you were dead.’” Locke believed that Newton’s mind had become deranged. Newton never married and had a severe nervous breakdown aged 50, becoming exceedingly paranoid. He never again did any creative work. In later life, he was a megalomaniacal figure, obsessed with his status. Some described him as a psychopath seeking idolaters.

Newton was given a State funeral, which was no doubt exactly what he craved. The official funeral of his great rival Leibniz was attended by only person – his secretary – and he was put in an unmarked grave. Such is life.

***** “I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.” – Newton (Nor calculate his own madness, apparently.)

Tautology versus “Fact” Why have people been so blind to the reality that existence is mathematical rather than scientific? It’s because it has been claimed that mathematics provides mere tautology while science yields observable facts. Yet these “facts” are not scientific but the consequences of mathematics. Any system that isn’t based on analytic statements cannot offer truth and certainty. Absolute knowledge must be: 1) Analytic 2) Necessary 3) Eternal 4) Immutable 5) Deductive 6) A priori 7) Rational What does science offer? – statements that are: 1) Synthetic 2) Contingent 3) Temporal 4) Mutable 5) Inductive 6) A posteriori

7) Empirical Science does not rationally consider how the world must be. It looks at the world and then tries to formulate hypotheses to account for how the world appears (to the fallible senses). The cart is led by the horse. Here’s the question. Do you understand reality via observation or reason? If existence is grounded in rational principles then reason must be the chosen tools for exploring it. You cannot observe rational principles. As Hume proved, you cannot even observe something as basic as cause and effect. You can never proceed from observations to the incontestable laws of existence. All you can do is proceed to hypotheses that contingently support your observations. But, as science proves, endless theories can pass the test of being supported by experimental evidence, until they are subsequently refuted by new experimental evidence! Newtonian physics passed the experimental test with flying colours ... until it didn’t. You can never be certain of anything through this means. Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics are superbly well supported experimentally, yet they are mutually incompatible. That’s the problem of science in a nutshell. It creates successful theories whose truth content is always uncertain. Relativity, quantum mechanics, or both, must be wholly false. Quite simply, experimental evidence does not constitute proof. There is nothing necessarily true about any scientific claim. Evidence does not make it true, merely plausible. Well, what do you want, plausibility or certainty?

Atheism Will Never Work Atheism will never transform the world. It lacks emotional and even rational power. It doesn’t promote an exciting, stimulating view of reality. Moreover, it can’t even make any serious claims to be true since it’s explicitly opposed by the incontestable hyperrationalism of mathematics, which entirely supports a religious view of reality, in the sense of there unquestionably being life for us beyond the one we are currently experiencing. Our “death” is not our end, simply a door to a new life. Nietzsche had a brilliant vision of humanity, but he failed to transform the world because he was an atheist who promoted the horrific doctrine of eternal repetition of this life. In many ways, Illuminism is Nietzsche’s

philosophy given a religious and ontological mathematical makeover, and now promises that humanity can become not just supermen and superwomen but the Gods themselves. Scientific materialism will never transform the world. It says that reality is a purposeless machine. Apart from being wholly false, it’s not even interesting. It’s a dead-end created by “autistic” thinkers lacking intuition and imagination. Cynical skepticism will never work. Who wants a world of jeering critics who never accomplish anything other than mocking the efforts of others? Have you ever visited an online forum for skeptics? They never have any of their own theories and ideas. They never say anything constructive or inspiring. All they do is mock what other people have said and done. They are like the fat slobs, the couch potatoes gorging on junk, who ridicule everyone they see on TV but never put themselves in the firing line. When have you heard a skeptic ever say anything interesting or promote any new, transformative worldview? All rational people should jettison atheism and skepticism and get behind ontological mathematical Illuminism which offers a dazzling religious vision within a framework of hyperrational mathematics. What more could you want?

Contra Political Parties America’s Founding Fathers did not initially form political parties and there’s no reference to political parties in the American Constitution. Hence political parties are an optional extra: they play no fundamental, constitutional role. An America without political parties would be no less constitutional. The Founding Fathers referred to parties as “factions”, and that’s a much better and more accurate word that reflects the true nature of parties. Faction: a group of persons forming a cohesive, contentious minority within a larger group; conflict within an organization or nation; internal dissension. Abraham Lincoln said, “Our own beloved country . . . is now afflicted with faction and civil war.” Political factions are the continuation of civil war by “other means”. If you have multiple parties, you have ceaseless nonproductive conflict – like the perpetual war waged in Orwell’s 1984. Who benefits from this eternal political stand-off? What function does it serve?

Does it lead to any progress? There’s no dialectical process, no synthesis, to bring about any advancement, just a never-ending confrontation of thesis and antithesis. Look at gridlocked America to see how silly multi-faction politics is. People become more attached to their political factions than to their nation. They are more loyal to their factions than to the country as a whole. One might therefore call factions subversive and even treasonous. When people are more concerned for their faction’s well-being than that of the nation (or, even worse, conclude that their faction necessarily expresses the nation’s well-being) then this is catastrophic and undermines the Commonwealth. Does America’s Wall Street faction operate in its own interests or those of the people of America? The answer is self-evident, yet it’s this elite faction, with all the money, that determines American economic policy and thus decides the fate of the nation. Who elected the Wall Street faction? No one at all. Are they accountable to anyone? No. That’s where factions get you. A factional State is a dead State, incapable of accomplishing anything great. Founding Father James Madison described faction as “...a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Who can argue with that? And if that is indeed the case, shouldn’t someone be doing something about it? Why don’t nations subdivide themselves into political units where factions become mutually exclusive and self-governing, hence no longer factional? That is, everyone should choose what State to live in and each State should be a one-party State without any factions. American should divide itself into three separate parts: Democratic, Republican and Libertarian. All faction fighting would cease and each ideology would get the chance to follow through its precise logic, rather than being constantly forced to fight and then compromise with its political foes. The Founding Fathers did not anticipate any need for political parties, and had no desire to bring them into existence, regarding them as dangerous to the public interest. Their instincts were right. Political parties should be banned. When Meritocracy sweeps to power, there will be no totalitarian

Meritocracy Political Party ruling everything. Instead, there will be a meritocratic system with no political parties at all. All politicians will be expert independents elected by the voters qualified in their specific fields of expertise. For instance, the person running the economy will be the person voted for by the majority of qualified economists. He will not belong to any faction. His aim is very simple: to build the best possible meritocratic economy, not the best economy for the rich, the poor, or anyone else. The Founding Fathers wanted to see all factional, narrow interests subordinated to the general welfare of the community. In Rousseau’s terms, they wanted to exclude particular wills and serve the General Will. This must be the task of any sane and effective political system. Instead, all nations are ruled by particular wills, to the extreme detriment of the General Will. The Founding Fathers expected politics to be conducted rationally and collaboratively (thus promoting the General Will), not competitively (thus promoting particular wills). The Founding Fathers should have banned political parties in the Constitution. Sadly, they didn’t, and factions formed almost immediately. America has been riven with faction fighting for its entire history, culminating in the Civil War. Politics should be about the common good and General Will. Instead, it’s about the private good and particular wills. The family – the most sacrosanct unit of society – is obsessed with the private good and particular wills, hence is the bedrock of reactionary, conservative, right wing thinking that continually subverts the collective good. Maniacs such as Ayn Rand would rather die that help others. She actually preached the “virtue of selfishness”, and the whole right wing shares this fundamental ideology. They all believe that selfishness rather than reason is the engine of progress. They believe in Adam Smith’s mystical “invisible hand”, based on the relentless pursuit of self-interest, as the route to general prosperity. In fact, this mystical hand only ever helped the rich, and has invariably quashed the poor. Right wingers despise Plato because he saw reason – the highly visible rational mind, rather than the invisible hand – as the way forward. Right wingers loathe reason and loathe the intelligentsia. Intellectuals have never ruled any nation or city-state in history.

Right wing systems are all always about competition, disagreement, disharmony and irrationality. They are savagely Darwinian. They reflect a primordial, red-in-tooth-and-claw mentality. Left wing systems are about rational engagement with the dialectic and analyzing it intellectually in order to see where we can go with it – to a future paradise. Any polity must share a common rational vision if it’s to succeed. There must be a citizenry – a people – rather than a mere population. Thomas Jefferson declared, “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” Disagreement will always break out where there is no Constitutional vision. A State where there is 100% inheritance tax by Constitutional Law, is very different from one where inheritance tax could be anything from 0 to 100% percent. In the latter case, there will be endless fights about the precise level of inheritance tax. In the former case, there can be no disagreement. The matter is settled forever. We can apply such laws to every aspect of the functioning of the State and render argument pointless. All that will be at issue are the particular tactics for achieving the optimal polity. Strategy will not be at issue. Strategy and vision go together. In a country such as modern America, there’s no common vision, no agreed strategy, no agreed tactics, so politics is an abject mess going nowhere. The key to the “new politics” is grouping the people of the world into political units that, within each unit, have 100% unanimity of vision, with only the tactics to be debated. James Madison said, “There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” In fact, what is required is not for the citizens to be “given” the same opinions, but for all those people who have the same opinions to come together and separate themselves from those with radically different opinions. City-states are what we need, each of which has a common vision. It is said that “multiplicity of faction” leads to a balance of power. In fact, what it leads to is an ineffectual hodge podge where negative liberty becomes the order of the day rather than positive liberty to achieve something wondrous.

The Bane James Madison said, “The public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties...” George Washington called political parties “baneful.” John Adams said, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” Washington agreed, and, in his farewell presidential speech, he said, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty “Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. “There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for

every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume. This serves as a superb critique of contemporary American politics! Washington warned of the coming of a dictator (a “Caesar” in Spenglerian terms), but in fact it was an elite class (WASP Freemasons and Zionist financiers), rather than an individual, that came to the fore and now runs America as its private fiefdom, with the American people as unwitting feudal slaves, with a false consciousness constructed for them so that they can’t see themselves for what they are. Jefferson said, “Men are naturally divided into two parties, those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all power from them into the hands of the higher classes [and] those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests.’’ There’s always a party for the rich living in the prosperous parts of the country; for the banking and commercial interests, for the creditors, and, paradoxically, they always have a strong support base amongst “aspirational” poor people who want to be just like them. These are the “false consciousness” poor who act against their own interests by supporting the rich elite that oppresses them. Then there’s a party, for the workers, for the small farmers, for the poor living in grim cities, for the debtors.

Democratic-Republicans versus Federalists “The Democratic-Republican Party was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1824, during the First Party System. It split after the 1824 presidential election into two parties: the Democratic Party and the short-lived National Republican Party (later succeeded by the Whig Party, many of whose adherents eventually founded the modern Republican Party). “Most contemporaries called it the Republican Party. Today, political scientists typically use the hyphenated version while historians usually call

it the Jeffersonian Republicans, to distinguish it from the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854 and named after Jefferson’s party.” – Wikipedia It was Jefferson’s conviction that government should restrict itself to activities meeting two criteria: 1) they are necessary. 2) only the government can perform them. Any unnecessary activity is precluded and the ordinary people should be empowered as far as possible to run their lives without the need for government intervention. In a meritocracy, the aim is to establish the framework – via enormous initial government intervention to overcome all of the mistakes and sins of the past – in which people can flourish with minimal unnecessary interaction with the government, allowing the government to concentrate on the “big picture” without being bogged down in bureaucracy and red tape. The government should always be focused on the quality of its citizens, not in the petty details of citizens’ day-to-day existence. Jefferson was routinely branded an atheist by his enemies, and nothing much has changed in modern America where no atheist would stand any chance of becoming President. A nation divided against itself can never succeed. It will be dragged down by constant bickering and muddled compromises – exactly as we see in America. America’s much vaunted “checks and balances” are actually a disastrous obstruction to progress. They were designed to stop dictatorship. Instead, they produced roadblocks to radical and vital change, and surrendered power permanently to the rich elite.

The Polis – the City-State No nation can succeed if factions within its population subscribe to dramatically different visions. Why was ancient Greece the birthplace of Logos and the cradle of Western civilization? It was thanks to the city-state model. Numerous models (visions) of society could be tested within one country (Hellas: Greece). Anyone who didn’t like the vision offered by one city-state could go to another. No one was trapped in a system they hated.

Socrates was in some sense a thoroughly dishonest character given that he was an advocate of aristocracy in a city-state devoted to democracy. Socrates fought to change Athens to what he wanted it to be. He should in fact have left Athens and gone to a city-state more to his liking, or founded his own community (as Pythagoras did). It was inevitable that democratic Athens would eventually see him as an agitator and traitor. What we need is a world full of city-states where everyone in each citystate is there by choice because they agree with the vision being promoted. Anyone who doesn’t like the vision simply needs to leave and find another city-state with a more amenable vision. There are two choices for how to proceed: 1) the nation-state model where a single political entity has multiple political visions expressed by different political parties, but only one vision can be dominant at any one time, meaning that many people will be alienated from their government. This is incredibly unproductive, yet this is how the modern world operates. 2) the city-state model, which amounts to a nation-state dividing itself into as many parts as there are different political visions. In other words, citystates replace political parties. To choose a city-state is to choose a specific political vision to which you then voluntarily bind yourself. You enter into a formal social contract, to which you are an explicit signatory (unlike in a modern “democracy” where you don’t formally sign up to anything). In America, a Democrat or Republican has a certain political vision but will frequently have to endure their political opponents being in power, much to their discontent. Squabbling and moaning is the inevitable outcome. However, imagine if America split itself into two, with Democratic and Republican parts. Then every Democrat or Republican could live in a society permanently expressing their political vision. Isn’t that infinitely healthier and more productive than what America currently has? Rapid progress and change can occur only where a divided population is converted into a united people. In Nazi Germany, a politically fragmented nation in abject collapse, humiliated and crushed by defeat in WWI and then the victim of economic hyper-inflation, became a remarkable superpower when it rallied behind a single “positive liberty” vision (Nazism) and could almost have conquered the world. Nazism had a toxic racist core that no sane person would endorse, but that doesn’t alter the point – that a united

nation becomes an entirely different and more powerful entity than a divided one. It powers ahead. If Nazism had been benevolent rather than malignant, Germany might have been the world-historic “messiah” nation that saved us from free-market capitalism and Abrahamism. Democracies always promote the “virtues” of faction and division, expressed through adversarial political parties. Cui bono? Well, the capitalist elite, of course, with their mantra of “divide and rule”. Nazism removed political control from the old German elite. That’s the last thing any elites want. Adversarial politics always go hand in hand with “negative liberty” (minimal state interference), and united politics with “positive liberty” (maximum state interference, at least initially). The privileged elite fear positive liberty above all else. They succeed only in negative liberty polities where they can transcend and control politics via their economic power (which is optimized by free-market capitalism).

Optimates and Populares “Our chief contemporary witnesses to the political life of the late Republic, Cicero and Sallust, are fond of analyzing the political struggles of the period in terms of a distinction between optimates and populares, often appearing with slight variations in terminology, such as Senate, nobility, or boni versus People or plebs. But what precisely is denoted and connoted by this polarity? Clear enough, one who is designated in these sources as popularis was at least at that moment acting as ‘the People’s man,’ that is a politician — for all practical purposes, a senator — advocating the rights and privileges of the People, implicitly in contrast to the leadership of the Senate; an ‘optimate’ (optimas), by contrast, was one upholding the special custodial and leadership role of the Senate, implicitly against the efforts of some popularis or other. The polarity obviously corresponds with the dual sources of institutional power in the Republic — Senate and People — and was realized in practice through contrasting political methods … and distinctive types of rhetorico-ideological appeals suited to tapping those alternative sources of power … . It is important to realize that references to populares in the plural do not imply a co-ordinated ‘party’ with a distinctive ideological character, a kind of political grouping for which there is no evidence in Rome, but simply allude to a recognizable, if statistically quite rare, type of senator whose activities are scattered sporadically across lateRepublic history … The ‘life-long’ popularis … was a new and worrying phenomenon at the time of Julius Caesar’s consulship of 59: an underlying reason why the man inspired such profound fears.” – Robert MorsteinMarx, Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic Caesar can be viewed as a prototype, charismatic Hitlerian demagogue, appealing to the masses in order to become a dictator. Rome began in a similar way to the city-states of ancient Greece, except it managed to beat all of its rivals and became an imperial power. It’s surely no coincidence that Greece had an astonishingly flourishing culture while Rome had almost none of its own culture, and ended up stealing Greek culture wholesale. The closest Greek equivalent to Rome was the militaristic Sparta. Sparta might have been a Greek version of Rome had it proved more inclusive. However Sparta, unlike Rome, was extremely particular about who could

be regarded as a Spartan citizen, meaning that its numbers were heavily restricted. Rome was much more inclusive, hence grew rapidly. Sparta, like Rome, had almost no culture – the inevitable consequence of extreme militarization. Similarly, Nazi Germany had no culture to speak of. At the beginning of modern American history, Jefferson was the champion of the American populares and Alexander Hamilton the leader of the American optimates. Jefferson was a radical Jacobin and Hamilton a conservative with monarchic leanings. It’s somewhat ironic that extreme right wingers are often favourable to Jefferson given that he was more or less an extension of Robespierre and Saint-Just, even saying, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” – exactly a statement that a French Revolutionary would have made. Jefferson, an Illuminist, was also a Jacobin. If he had enjoyed a free hand in America, he would have made it the wonder it ought to have been. Instead, he was obstructed at every turn by the elites, the super rich, private business, the bankers, all those who opposed the General Will of the People. America should now be a left wing, rational, meritocratic marvel leading humanity to a Star Trek future. Instead, the spirit of Alexander Hamilton reigns, and America is a master-slave nation ruled by a rich, privileged elite. It’s time for a true Jeffersonian America to be created – reflecting the values of the French Revolution – which Jefferson so deeply appreciated. If Obama is described as a “socialist”, Jefferson would have to be called a communist (he would in any case probably have been highly attracted to Marxism, at least on a theoretical level). Jefferson would be sickened by the ultra right wing anarcho-capitalist libertarians and the modern Republican Party. He would have seen them as monstrous expressions of Hamilton’s elitist, wealth-driven ideology.

Monocrats “Under stress of foreign complications, Federalists and Republicans were forced into an irreconcilable antagonism. The one group was thought to be British in its sympathies, the other Gallic. In the eyes of his opponents, the Republican was no better than a democrat, a Jacobin, a revolutionary incendiary; and the Federalist no better than a monocrat and a Tory. The

effect was denationalizing. Each lost confidence in the other’s Americanism.” – Allen Johnson, Union and Democracy This situation pertains today where the extreme right wing libertarians call themselves “patriots” and regard everyone else as traitorous and unAmerican. The Democrats are seen as “socialist”, European sympathizers.

***** Monocracy (from mono (one) + cracy (rule, power)): Government or rule by a single person; autocracy. Monocrat: One who governs alone; an autocrat. In American history, a name applied to a member of the Federalist party by their Jeffersonian political opponents. Jefferson regarded Federalists as intolerable, aristocratic “monocrats.’’ To Alexander Hamilton, the leader of the Federalists, Jeffersonians were French-style Jacobins, radicals and incendiaries who had to be kept in check at any cost. Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic-Republicans – the party of the people, while the Federalists were the party of the aristocracy and the big bankers. In ancient Roman terms, Jefferson stood for the plebs and the Populares party, and Hamilton for the patricians and Optimates party. Jefferson was a modern day follower of the wondrous Gracchi brothers of ancient Rome (both Illuminists), with their reforming zeal on behalf of the people. Jefferson was a true tribune of the people, while his enemy Hamilton was a typical elitist “Senator”. Hamilton, in Jefferson’s eyes, was an antidemocratic aristocrat. Jefferson, of course, was a man of the people, determined to stop a central bank from forming, as well as the large corporations that would feed off the banking system and become commercial tyrants, dictating to the people. Tragically, this has all come to pass in modern America which is ruled by Wall Street rather than Main Street. Hamilton was the privileged Wall Street Senator and Jefferson the tribune of Main Street. Jefferson derisively called Hamilton and the Federalists the “Monocrats” because he believed they supported a constitutional monarchy or approximation thereof, i.e. they had unmistakable monarchical, elitist and

dictatorial tendencies, like the monarchies of Europe. Jefferson also called them “Anglomen” to signify that they supported the monarchical and conservative British approach to politics. Wall Street, collectively, is America’s modern monarch! It’s unelected, unaccountable and regards the people as its subjects rather than citizens. The people have no say over it at all – exactly the same as the Queen of England in relation to the British people. No one can get rid of the Queen without a Revolution. She’s the Head of State but is never once allowed to be questioned by her “subjects” (who laughably regard themselves as citizens – you cannot be a citizen in a monarchy). Which ordinary American is allowed to interrogate Wall Street, America’s true Head of State?

***** It’s time to abandon party politics. It’s time for single-party or no-party citystates. This is the inevitable future of the world. This is the next stage in the dialectical evolution of freedom. “The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.” – Hegel “The Few assume to be the deputies, but they are often only the despoilers of the Many.” – Hegel “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 “Governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deducted from it.” – Hegel “Once the state has been founded, there can no longer be any heroes. They come on the scene only in uncivilized conditions.” – Hegel

Thomas Jefferson Against the Banks “The President, Directors and Company, of the Bank of the United States, commonly known as the First Bank of the United States, was a central bank, chartered for a term of twenty years, by the United States Congress on February 25, 1791. Establishment of the Bank was included in a three-

part expansion of federal fiscal and monetary power (along with a federal mint and excise taxes) championed by Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton believed a central bank was necessary to stabilize and improve the nation’s credit, and to improve handling of the financial business of the United States government under the newly enacted Constitution. “Officially proposed to the first session of the First Congress in 1790, Hamilton’s Bank faced widespread resistance from opponents of increased federal power. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the opposition, which claimed that the bank was unconstitutional, and that it benefited merchants and investors at the expense of the majority of the population.” “The First Bank building is now a National Historic Landmark located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania within Independence National Historical Park.” – Wikipedia “Before President Jackson took office, there was a National Bank, which was a private bank in which the government owned 20% of the shares, that was chartered every 20 years. This bank was responsible for setting interest rates and coining money. Jefferson was opposed to a National chartered bank, because he thought it gave too much power to one company, and that each state should be responsible for their own banking. He was also afraid that foreign investment would become too much, and could potentially leave the U.S. open for a hostile takeover. “Jackson also shared this view, along with Jefferson’s disdain for paper currency. When he came into office, he refused to charter the National Bank, which forced banking to be in the hands of the states. It was during this period that banking was decentralized, and such banking giants as JP Morgan came about. This was the way of banking until 1913 when Wilson created the FED. “Ron Paul also believes that we should not have a centralized banking system, and that each state should be in charge of their own banking. The FED allows the Government to print and borrow funds from whoever and whenever they please, with little restrictions. Paul believes that this process is, if it hasn’t already, bankrupting our Country, and could end up being the demise of the U.S. “So the difference is that the FED is owned and controlled 100% by the Federal Government, and the National Banks were 80% privately owned,

with only 20% owned by the Federal Government.” – “Constitution Hawk” in response to the question, “Why were Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson so against a National Bank?” (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110222133252AAnsjjC) “The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered. “ – Thomas Jefferson “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power [of money] should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.” – Thomas Jefferson “The system of banking we have both equally and ever reprobated. I contemplate it as a blot left in all our constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction. I sincerely believe, with you... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” – Thomas Jefferson “To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill [chartering the first Bank of the United States] have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated.” – Thomas Jefferson “But this [the issuance of currency by the government and backed by coinage],the only resource which the government could command with certainty, the States have unfortunately fooled away, nay corruptly alienated to swindlers and shavers, under the cover of private banks. Say, too, as an additional evil, that the disposal funds of individuals, to this great amount, have thus been withdrawn from improvement and useful enterprise, and

employed in the useless, usurious and demoralizing practices of bank directors and their accomplices.” – Thomas Jefferson “It is not easy to estimate the obstacles which, in the beginning, we should encounter in ousting the banks from their possession of the circulation; but a steady and judicious alternation of emissions and loans, would reduce them in time.” – Thomas Jefferson “...under pretence of governing, [the European governments] have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate.” – Thomas Jefferson “The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.” – Thomas Jefferson “I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” – Thomas Jefferson “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution – taking from the Federal government their power of borrowing [from privately-owned corporate banks].” – Thomas Jefferson “We are undone, my dear sir, if legislation is still permitted which makes our money, much or little, real or imaginary, as the moneyed interests shall choose to make it.” – Thomas Jefferson

***** What in fact is the key problem of banking? It’s that it should in any way express private interests and particular wills. Every city-state should have several small banks in competition with each other (to ensure that complacency and stasis don’t set in). Each bank employee should be part of the Economic Civil Service, meaning that they all work for the People (just as all soldiers, at least in principle, work for the People). The point of banks is to support the real economy and real investment in the enterprises of the people. The banks have no other function.

The Defining Element

Every kind of State has a defining element. In a military society, the soldier is the most important figure. In a theocracy, the priest is the key figure. In a monarchy, it’s all about the monarch. In an oligarchy, it’s all about the elite. In a dictatorship, all eyes are on the dictator. In a democracy, the citizen ought to be the defining element, where the real power resides. (This was largely the case in the original democracy – Athens – but certainly isn’t the case now.) In a capitalist society, the capitalists – the bankers and super rich – are the defining element (so a capitalist democracy is a contradiction in terms since it claims the people are in charge when in fact it’s the capitalists who have all the power). If you’re in a society where you don’t belong to the defining group, you’re fucked. You ought to get out fast or you’ll be a loser forever. Plato called for the rule by the most intelligent. That’s the one type of society that has never been tried on Earth. The New Meritocratic World Order – the Logos Society, the Smart Society – will change all that.

Reason = Math What does it mean to say the universe is rational, that reason is built into it? It’s exactly the same as saying that the universe is mathematical, that it’s made of math. Mathematics is the ontological language and stuff of pure reason. Therefore, ontology doesn’t require any experiments. Sensing won’t help you. You don’t need experience of the world to rationally understand the world – because the world it literally made of reason, reason being mathematics. Take Leibniz’s wondrous Principle of Sufficient Reason: for every fact, there’s a reason why it’s so and not otherwise. How would such a principle be enacted ontologically? Well, the Principle of Sufficient Reason = mathematics! For every mathematical fact, there’s a mathematical reason why it’s so and not otherwise. Mathematics is absolutely precise. There’s no ambiguity in it. A mathematically evolving universe – self-solving and self-optimizing – is exactly the same as a rational universe evolving dialectically, becoming more and more rational, converging on absolute rationality. The omega point of rationalism, the Absolute, is nothing other than reason being selfaware, being conscious of itself. Logos humans have already crossed that

barrier. All that’s required is to take the process to its limit, and its limit is God! The universe reaches ultimate consciousness and ultimate divinity. It has literally solved itself. The omega point of existence is a precise mathematical solution.

Truths of Reason versus Truths of Fact Leibniz said that there are two kinds of truth: truths of reason (which are a priori), and truths of fact (which are a posteriori). However, this is arguably wrong. There are indeed truths of reason, but truths of fact aren’t necessarily true, and that means they’re not true at all and shouldn’t be used in the same breath as “truth”. Nietzsche provided the necessary correction when he said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” So, there are truths of reason and interpretations of fact. The ordinary person would say it’s true that the sky is blue. But that’s not true at all. It’s a subjective interpretation. None of us can have any certainty that our experience of blue is the same as everyone else’s. If we were all colour blind, we wouldn’t even know what “blue” meant, just as a blind person would have no idea what you were talking about if you described an apple as “red”. All sensory “facts” are subjective sensory experiences, not facts at all. The statement that someone is beautiful is an opinion, a belief, an interpretation. There’s nothing factual about it. Why is science so successful? Because it measures things. But what is measurement? It’s the conversion of something from the interpretational subjective world into a number – something that belongs to the world of objective mathematics. The sole power science has, and experiments have, is to convert empiricism into mathematics, and mathematics is rationalism. This is the greatest of ironies. Scientists revere experiments and empiricism but in fact what they actually revere is measurement – the generation of numbers that can be fitted into mathematical equations to generate more numbers – answers. Science is the biggest fraud of all time because in reality it’s mathematics that doesn’t know its mathematics. It’s mathematics that has failed to understand itself. It’s mathematics in denial. It’s subjective interpretation aspiring to analytic fact.

Truths of reason are necessary and permanent. “Truths” of fact are contingent and empirical. All objective knowledge consists of truths of reason. Since the universe is actually made of reason (mathematics), this is inevitable. Cause and effect are truths of reason – they are necessary features of a dynamic mathematical universe. Kant famously criticised “pure reason”, but pure reason, as Leibniz realized, is the only thing we can actually trust. We can have absolute confidence in it. It’s not pure reason that leads us astray but pure empiricism with all of its synthetic, inductive, a posteriori, contingent interpretations. Kant fell for the lie that empiricist science is more real than rationalist mathematics. Kant’s philosophy collapses when that truth is realized, and anything that remains of value in his philosophy is already explained perfectly by Leibniz. The school of empiricism, and Kant’s supposed synthesis of empiricism and rationalism, are both false. Philosophy and science took a disastrous wrong turn the moment they strayed from Leibniz’s hyperrationalism. Leibniz unites mathematics, science, philosophy and religion. Everything, ultimately, is about reason and reason is just mathematics. Mathematics is always associated with objectivity and precision, but, thanks to the two most mysterious numbers of all – zero and infinity – it permits a phase change from objectivity to subjectivity. It’s thanks to zero and infinity that uncaused causes can exist, that souls are uncreated and immortal, that free will is possible, that consciousness can evolve. Subjectivity is life itself. Mathematics answers everything. Objective mathematics is Aristotelian; subjective mathematics is dialectical. The trajectory of existence is from an objective, unconscious rational universe – the “scientific” machinelike universe – to a subjective, conscious rational universe, where reason understands itself as reason, where reason is self-aware. The objective rational mode is the universe’s default mode. The dialectic is the subjective process that converts universal objectivity to universal subjectivity, an unconscious universe to a conscious universe, a universe of laws to a universe of freedom, a machine universe to a living organism. The dialectic is what converts all potential into actualization.

The Absolute Truth All objective truths are analytic, not synthetic. All objective truths are a priori, not a posteriori. All objective truths are eternal, not temporal. All objective truths are necessary, not contingent. All objective truths are deductive, not inductive. All objective truths are truths of reason, not truths of fact. All objective truths are mathematical, not scientific. All objective truths are rationalist, not empiricist. All objective truths are idealist, not materialist. The empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science is entirely false. It’s the inversion of reality. Matter is a product of matter, not the other way around. The mathematical soul – the monad – is the fundamental unit of existence. The soul is the arche, the ground of existence. The soul is the ontological atom (that which cannot not exist), from which everything else is derived. The soul is 100% mathematical and dimensionless. It can never be directly brought into sensory awareness. Only its effects can be discerned. The soul is always transcendent, never empirical. It can be fully studied and understood only through mathematics. Science can tell us nothing about the soul. No experiments can be performed on the soul. No Large Hadron Collider can probe its secrets. Reason alone is how we grasp the soul. It’s critical to understand that the mathematical soul has no connection at all with the soul of religious faith, with the created soul of the Abrahamic God, with the mystical soul (atman) or non-soul! (anatman) of Eastern religion. Those kinds of soul are pure Mythos and fantasy, and wholly irrational. The mathematical soul, on the other hand, is, objectively, the most rational thing there is. Yet, equally crucially, it’s a subject as well as an object. Its objective nature gives it a machinelike, “scientific” quality. Its subjective aspect is its living, free mode ... the one we all experience at first hand.

It’s often said that consciousness is the “hard problem” for science to solve. In fact, consciousness is impossible without reason. We are differentiated from the beasts by virtue of our self-aware reason. It’s our self-reflective reason that make us conscious, not our consciousness that gives us reason. Reason isn’t a construct of mind. Reason construct minds. All minds are grounded in reason, and reason ontologically is simply mathematics. Mathematics – reason – precedes everything else. The purpose of the universe, the meaning of life, is all about making unconscious reason conscious. How can any scientist explain reason? They’re clueless. Scientists have no idea at all about how humans can exhibit reason. Illuminism can explain reason instantly – because it’s the fundamental “stuff” of existence. The universe is 100% mathematical, and mathematics is simply the full, ontological expression of Leibniz’s Principle of Sufficient Reason. Mathematics is cause and effect. Mathematics is objectivity and all objective things follow inexorable mathematical cause and effect. Yet, thanks to zero and infinity, mathematics is actually made of subjects. What is a subject? It’s an immortal, indestructible, uncreated, causeless cause. It’s a soul. All souls can activate causal chains without themselves being part of causal chains. That’s built into the properties of mathematics, and of the relation of zero and infinity to all other numbers. Mathematical subjectivity – zero and infinity – alone explains free will. Science, having forbidden zero and infinity from existence, has no conceivable mechanism for explaining free will. It’s our human free will that conclusively refutes science and proves that we live in a wholly mathematical universe. All of us are eternal mathematical information systems, capable of developing a unique personality and character, of experiencing existence in a way nothing else can. Have you understood yet? Have you truly understood what you are, the mystery of your own existence? You are one node of an infinite mathematical function that goes on forever, solving itself and optimizing itself, and you with it. You, and everyone else, is contributing to the solution of this existential mathematical function. You owe everything to mathematics. Mathematics is all there is. But that means something incredible. You are absolutely essential to the evolution of the cosmos. All of us are. We are all beings (or becomings!) of infinite significance. We are

all Gods-in-the-making. What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything? We are!

New Eyes Imagine you had no colour vision. The word would present itself to you as shades of grey. Now imagine you couldn’t see shades of grey either, what would you see? Well, in fact, you’d be blind. But what do blind people “see”? They see either a completely invisible world, or total blackness. And, in fact, aren’t ultimate invisibility and ultimate blackness actually the same thing? If you imagine the Big Bang taking place, as it did, before any eyes, before any vision, existed to observe it, then it must have taken place in absolute invisibility-darkness. Moreover, by the same token, it must have been absolutely silent, the hearing equivalent of invisibility-darkness. When sensing types describe the Big Bang, they always imagine some cosmic light and sound show – some “physical” event. When you remove all sensory descriptions from the Big Bang event, you comprehend that it wasn’t a physical event at all and had nothing to do with physics. It was a purely mathematical, mental event! For billions of years, sightless, soundless, tasteless, smell-less touchless, unconscious, mathematical operations took place. That’s what existence comprised. Only when, via mathematics, mathematical monads (souls) attached themselves to mathematical, “biological” bodies, and subjective sensing became possible, did sights, sounds, tastes, smells and touch enter, very fuzzily at first, existence. Ponder this. Could an android, no matter how sophisticated, ever experience qualia? Could it ever be conscious? In Illuminism, it’s impossible for anything artificial to emulate real life. Only bodies linked to monads – souls – can be alive. No Artificial Intelligence expert, no Dr Frankenstein, no matter how good, could ever make anything alive, for the simple reason that he can’t give it a soul ... and a soul is what life is.

Quality versus Quantity Quale (singular); qualia (plural) from Latin qualis meaning “what kind”: the quality of a particular thing; a quality considered as an independent entity; a feeling, sensation, or other conscious process with a unique, particular quality.

Quantity: from Latin quantus meaning “how much,” Science is all about quantity and cannot explain quality. Quantity is about objectivity while quality is about subjectivity. Mathematics alone explains quantity and quality, objectivity and subjectivity. Mathematically, quality is about zero and infinity and quantity about all other numbers. Science rejects zero and infinity as having any ontological reality, hence can never account for qualia, or for anything subjective. Ontological mathematics, with zero and infinity at its core, is fundamentally subjective. In order to optimize subjectivity (through consciousness), it’s necessary to get there via objectivity (the material, “scientific” world). Subjectivity and objectivity dialectically flow in and out of each other in ontological mathematics, thanks to the relation of zero and infinity to all other numbers (which, in fact, originate from them). The tale of the universe is the tale of subjective potential being fully actualized via a journey through an objective universe, which, at its culmination, is brought back to total subjectivity. At the “end”, there is no objective material world at all. The universe is 100% conscious and subjective. The “Body of God” has completely given way to the “Mind of God”. The Big Bang is when the subjective universe first gives rise to objectivity – to the “physical” rather than mental world. The physical world relentlessly evolves and expands and, by the end, it has returned to total subjectivity (the Big Crunch) because, paradoxically, the expansion of spacetime is mathematically the same as the shrinking of space time. Maximum expansion is none other than the attainment of a Singularity ... which is also maximum shrinkage. Such is the fantastic beauty of mathematics. Each Big Bang is a divine suicide, following the attainment of divine perfection, and everything begins again. Each Big Bang is a divine orgasm, ejaculation, “squirt”, “climax”. All the universe ever does is pursue this ineffable culmination, this climax of all climaxes. The universe is, in a very real sense, driven by the sexual desire for orgasm, yet this is a mathematical orgasm – when an infinite mathematical equation finally solves itself and knows that it’s God. Let there be light!

Big = Small; Biggest = Smallest

“If people asked me what happened before the Big Bang, my normal answer would be to say, well, you know, the word ‘before’, you see, what does that mean? Well, that’s a sort of temporal concept, and if the Big Bang was a singularity in spacetime that means the very notion of time loses its meaning at this event, this so-called Big Bang. If the notion of time loses its meaning, the very notion of ‘before’ loses its meaning. Therefore, we pretend to say it’s a meaningless question to ask for before. There wasn’t a ‘before’. That’s the wrong kind of notion. And I would have perhaps gone along with this point of view until I’ve had some different ideas more recently. … The present picture of the universe is that it starts with a Big Bang and it ends with an indefinitely expanding, exponentially expanding, universe where, in the remote future, it cools off and there’s nothing much left except photons. Now what I’m saying is that in this remote future the photons have no way of keeping time: they don’t have any mass. You need mass to make a clock and you have to have a clock to measure the scale of the universe, so the universe loses track of how big it is. And this very expanded universe becomes equivalent to a Big Bang of another one. So I’m saying that this, what we think about our present universe, is but one eon of a succession of eons, where this remotely expanding universe of each becomes the Big Bang of the next. So small and big become completely equivalent.” – Professor Roger Penrose

***** “Our universe’s expansion means that all of its mass will eventually be converted into energy. When that happens, conventional ideas of time and size disappear. Because of this, an infinitely large universe could be the infinitely small starting point for the next one, a cyclic system with a before and after.” BBC Horizon Documentary, What Happened Before the Big Bang?

Antinomy Antinomy, from ancient Greek antinomia from anti meaning “against” and nomos meaning “law”: “contradiction in the laws”, “ambiguity in the laws”. “Antinomy literally means the mutual incompatibility, real or apparent, of two laws. It is a term used in logic and epistemology, particularly in the philosophy of Kant.

“The term acquired a special significance in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), who used it to describe the equally rational but contradictory results of applying to the universe of pure thought the categories or criteria of reason that are proper to the universe of sensible perception or experience (phenomena). Empirical reason cannot here play the role of establishing rational truths because it goes beyond possible experience and is applied to the sphere of that which transcends it. “For Kant there are four antinomies, connected with: 1) the limitation of the universe in respect of space and time, 2) the theory that the whole consists of indivisible atoms (whereas, in fact, none such exist) 3) the problem of free will in relation to universal causality 4) the existence of a necessary being “For each of these a thesis is contradicted by an antithesis. For example: in the First Antinomy, Kant proves the thesis that time must have a beginning by showing that if time had no beginning, then an infinity would have elapsed up until the present moment. This is a manifest contradiction because infinity cannot, by definition, be completed by ‘successive synthesis’—yet just such a finalizing synthesis would be required by the view that time is infinite; so the thesis is proven. Then he proves the antithesis, that time has no beginning, by showing that if time had a beginning, then there must have been ‘empty time’ out of which time arose. This is incoherent (for Kant) for the following reason. Since, necessarily, no time elapses in this pretemporal void, then there could be no alteration, and therefore nothing (including time) would ever come to be: so the antithesis is proven. Reason makes equal claim to each proof, since they are both correct, so the question of the limits of time must be regarded as meaningless. “This was part of Kant’s critical program of determining limits to science and philosophical inquiry. These contradictions are inherent in reason when it is applied to the world as it is in itself, independently of our perceptions of it (this has to do with the distinction between phenomena and noumena). Kant’s goal in his critical philosophy was to identify what claims we are and are not justified in making, and the antinomies are a particularly illustrative example of his larger project.

“However, there are many other examples of antinomy besides these four. Contradictory phrases, such as “There is no absolute truth” can be considered an antinomy because this statement is suggesting in itself to be an absolute truth, and therefore denies itself any truth in its statement.” – Wikipedia All of Kant’s antinomies show a staggering lack of mathematical knowledge and an obscene worship of scientific materialism. The example we gave earlier of “biggest” and “smallest” being mathematically equivalent would have been classed as an antinomy by Kant, but no contradiction is involved at all. It’s all built into the mathematics. Kant’s revolutionary Critique of Pure Reason should in fact have been retitled Critique of Kant’s Own Reason and His Ignorance of Mathematics, Especially Zero and Infinity. Kant’s whole philosophy was a disastrous deviation from Leibniz’s philosophy (which came fully equipped to deal with zero and infinity since it was all about them). Kant took philosophy backwards! All of the philosophical problems with which Kant wrestled can be answered straightforwardly mathematically (in fact, we’ve answered them all in the course of the God Series). Every answer Kant ventured was wrong. His antinomies are all basic mathematical issues and can be answered mathematically, without contradiction. You don’t even need mathematics. Hegel’s philosophy isn’t mathematical and yet answers all of Kant’s antinomies. In Kant’s philosophy, antinomies are Mexican standoffs between theses and antitheses. Hegel simply added a synthesis phase and dialectical iterative process, and thus resolved Kant’s supposedly insoluble problems. Kant, like Hume, is an interesting thinker but entirely wrong. Leibniz and Hegel are infinitely more important thinkers. Moreover, they’re unquestionably right!

The Modern Prometheus Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is subtitled The Modern Prometheus. In Greek mythology, Prometheus, the Titan, made humanity out of clay (just as Jehovah made Adam out of clay) and then, to the fury of Zeus, stole the sacred fire from Olympus and gave it to humanity. Traditionally, fire is understood as the “tool” humans use that distinguishes us from animals.

However, it should be interpreted in a much profounder sense. The sacred “fire” is none other than the human soul. The first Promethean humans were mere clay automata. They weren’t alive. Only when Prometheus gave them souls – the authentic sacred fire – did they become living creatures. In Frankenstein, the doctor imparts the “sacred fire” to a corpse via electricity. Of course, this would never make anything genuinely alive. Electricity isn’t life. The invisible, dimensionless monadic soul is life. Mary Shelley was only 19 when she wrote Frankenstein, arguably the first science fiction novel. Frankenstein is the tale of soulless resurrection, but of course there’s no such phenomenon as soulless resurrection and in fact there’s no such thing as resurrection itself. There’s only reincarnation.

***** The Undead = The Unalive

The HyperHuman The Promethean = the Faustian = the eternal seeker = the eternal wanderer = the eternal quester. The Promethean is a romantic, a striving figure, an outsider, a non-conformist. He’s often alone. Conventional society has rejected him and, more importantly, he has rejected conventional society. The HyperHuman plays the Great Game – the God Game. His objective it to transform himself into God ... to undergo the ultimate metamorphosis. The HyperHuman is a new kind of knight, a knight of the mind. He seeks to merit the title of “knight” and lives courageously by a noble code. His life has total focus and purpose. His mind is always focused on the Holy Grail. The search for the Grail is the symbol of the HyperHuman’s search for heaven, for God, to become God.

***** “What fire does not destroy it hardens.” – Oscar Wilde “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” – Oscar Wilde “Public opinion exists only where there are no ideas.” – Oscar Wilde “The telling of beautiful untrue things is the proper aim of art.” – Oscar Wilde

“Conscience and cowardice are really the same thing.” – Oscar Wilde “Discontent is the first step in the progress of a man or nation.” – Oscar Wilde

***** “What does not kill me makes me stronger.” – Nietzsche “The simple truth, is that not a double lie?” – Nietzsche “To say it again, public opinions, private laziness.” – Nietzsche “We possess art lest we perish of the truth.” – Nietzsche “Not to perpetrate cowardice against one’s own acts! Not to leave them in the lurch afterwards! The bite of conscience is indecent.” – Nietzsche “Every great progress must be preceded by a partial weakening.” – Nietzsche

Phenomenology Descartes proposed a mind-body dualism, separating existence into minds that experience and objects that are experienced. The school of idealism focused on the experiencing mind and said that “objects” were minds’ own creations. The school of materialism focused on objects and said that these created minds! Phenomenologist Edmund Husserl switched the emphasis away from the objects of our experience to our experience of these objects. While idealists contemplated the rational constructs of minds, Husserl was willing to contemplate anything experienced ... objects, dreams, fantasies, delusions, illusions. Phenomenology involves the scrupulous inspection of one’s own consciousness. All assumptions, hypotheses and speculations about the wider, external and objective causes of these internal processes are excluded. Through this route, Husserl hoped to construct the “real” world from what we actually mentally experience, without any assumptions about anything “out there”. All we actually have to go on is the content of our minds. Everything else is an interpretation. Husserl, from a mathematical background, hoped to build a logical structure that directly explained the

phenomena of experience without any extraneous and unwarranted assumptions. Husserl was followed by Heidegger and the existentialist movement. Heidegger, in Being and Time, addressed what it is to be a feeling being immersed in, and ineradicably engaged, with the world, with no backing out. He referred to such a being as Dasein (usually translated as “being there”, or simply “existence”). It is said that, when reading Heidegger’s difficult and obscure philosophy, it’s useful to substitute “human being” or “humanity” for Dasein. A human being is a “being there.” The focus of existentialism is not the detached, unspecified Cartesian “I” (which isn’t “there” but somewhere else, unspecified), but the body and soul together, fully committed to the world. It’s about the total, united mind-body experience.

The Dream A dead body is the detritus of an individual dream that has come to an end within a collective dream that goes on regardless. Life and death consist of moving in and out of a collective living dream, produced by all the minds of existence. Our private dreams are subjective. The public dream is objective. Reincarnation involves the periodic reinsertion of a soul into the collective dream. Death is the temporary removal of a soul from the collective dream. One way or another, we are all dreaming. We are the dream people!

Success and Failure Why does science succeed? Because it provides a good approximation to objective mathematics. Why does science fail? Because it doesn’t reflect mathematics well enough. It ignores imaginary numbers, (except as scaffolding for simplifying equations, before removing all imaginary elements by the end of the process), it barely tolerates negative numbers (and the negative charge of an electron is really just a numerical balancing act for the positive charge of protons; negative numbers are almost never treated as real in their own right, without any reference to positive numbers), and it absolutely forbids and abhors zero and infinity. The sole reason for these extraordinary attacks on mathematics is that only real numbers greater than zero and less than infinity are compatible with the empiricist materialist Meta Paradigm of science. Science is a

philosophical and even faith-bases position that has nothing to do with reason. It’s blind prejudice. Illuminism uses complete mathematics, not an incomplete real-number subset. Illuminism is based on complex numbers, not real numbers. Illuminism reflects idealism and rationalism, not materialism and empiricism (Illuminism can fully explain materialism and empiricism, but the reverse is not true). Above all, Illuminism is defined by zero and infinity, the sources of all other numbers. There is a critical difference between zero and infinity and all the other numbers derived from them – an ontological phase change, no less. Zero and infinity define the subjective domain, and all the other numbers define the objective, “scientific” domain. Descartes, a brilliant mathematician, made the simple error of regarding the subjective and objective domains as mutually exclusive, leading to the notorious problem of mind-matter dualism. Leibniz realized that in fact the subjective and objective domains flowed seamlessly in and out of each other. They weren’t separated from each other by impenetrable ontological barriers. Instead, they were separated from each other by ontological “phase transitions”. Water, ice and steam aren’t three separate states or substances, permanently separated from each other. They are a single “substance” – water – existing in three separate states that flow in and out of each other via phase transitions. Mathematics is a phase change system, with the phase change occurring at zero and infinity. We can see an example of an ontological phase change taking place in the formation of black holes. A dimensional object collapses into dimensionless existence – a black hole singularity, shielded from the physical world by an “event horizon”. Another phase change takes places as objects approach the speed of light. The ultimate phase change is of course the Big Bang where a physical world erupts from a Super Singularity. Mathematics furnishes a continuum and a plenum. It doesn’t leave any gaps whatsoever. Science, on the other hand, is riddled with inconsistency, contradiction, incompleteness and has gaps and leaks everywhere. It furnishes neither a continuum nor plenum and tries to hide this catastrophe by “blurring” everything via its fuzzy interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Mathematics provides 100% ontological resolution all the way down to zero. Science dissolves into a magic mist and haze as it approaches zero.

Mathematics, via calculus, has a limit of zero. Scientific mathematics, via its version of calculus, never reaches the limit of zero, but simply vanishes into the ether beforehand: it never gets there! Like science in general, it disappears into an ontological fog. How anyone can take science seriously as far as the ultimate questions go is simply astounding. It can’t explain anything at the ultimate level – the level ruled by zero and infinity, precisely the two fundamental numbers forbidden by science. Illuminism explains everything down to the finest detail. Science doesn’t. It’s time for science, like Abrahamism, to vanish into oblivion. Both are fundamentally irrational. Both have had their day. It’s time for the truth. It’s time for ontological mathematics: Illuminism!

The Conspiracy Who is funding the campaign to deny global warming? – billionaire capitalists involved in the fossil fuels industry. A secret group called The Donors’ Trust, guaranteeing anonymity to its members, payrolls the attempts to undermine and discredit the science of global warming. Increasingly, global warming isn’t about science but rather politics, wealth, ideology, and the self-preservation of the super rich. The Koch brothers, billionaire Americans with huge oil assets, have been described as the prime movers of the Donors’ Trust. These same brothers have invested heavily in the anti-government Tea Party. Why should these two brothers, relentlessly pursuing their naked, private self-interest, be allowed to have so much influence over the public sphere? Rich private individuals, with their insidious particulars wills, should never be allowed to use their wealth to corrupt the General Will. Lobbying by all corporations and rich individuals should be declared illegal.

Praying When someone “prays for you”, it’s an incredibly hostile act. They are saying that they are right and you are wrong and unless you come round to their way of thinking then you will burn in hell forever. They’re saying that you’re evil, and you can be saved only through their “help” (by their appeal to their God to save you). They are thus trying to be your Saviour. Not for one second do they consider that they are the ones in error. They are seeking to dictate to you and make you think like them, and they regard you as an enemy while you resist their beliefs.

The act of someone praying for you should be regarded for what it is: a declaration of war on you, a declaration that you are unacceptable and must, as in the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, be made like everyone else. If you performed an exorcism on them to drive out the demon by which they have been possessed, they would regard that as war. When they “pray” for you, that’s their version of performing an exorcism on you.

Speaking Truth to Muslims Is the Muslim heaven a brothel or tavern? “You say rivers of wine flow in heaven, is heaven a tavern to you? You say two houris [beautiful virgins] await each believer there, is heaven a brothel to you?” – 11th-century Persian poet Omar Khayyam Fazil Say, a world-renowned concert pianist and composer, was given a suspended jail sentence in Turkey for blaspheming against Islam by tweeting Omar Khayyam’s ancient observations on Twitter. Isn’t it fascinating that Islam doesn’t attempt to rebut what Omar Khayyam said, but to threaten anyone who dares to refer to it?

***** So, ordinary Muslim believers get two gorgeous virgins while “martyrs” get seventy-two; plus the martyrs get better wine from the highest wine lakes of paradise. Ergo, are fucking and drinking the primary motivations of Islamic martyrs? They’re not exactly spiritual, these people, are they?

The Wisdom of Hegel “Truth in philosophy means that concept and external reality correspond.” – Hegel “To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in its turn presents a rational aspect. The relation is mutual.” – Hegel “Mark this well, you proud men of action! You are, after all, nothing but unconscious instruments of the men of thought.” – Hegel “World history is a court of judgment.” – Hegel “Education is the art of making man ethical.” – Hegel

“Mere goodness can achieve little against the power of nature.” – Hegel “The learner always begins by finding fault, but the scholar sees the positive merit in everything.” – Hegel “Animals are in possession of themselves; their soul is in possession of their body. But they have no right to their life, because they do not will it.” – Hegel “Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights.” – Hegel

Aggressive Tax Avoidance If capitalist corporations are allowed to get away with such aggressive tax avoidance that corporations effectively pay no tax, hence make no contribution to society, why shouldn’t the same facility be offered to ordinary people? In fact, why don’t all ordinary people get together and create a single capitalist corporation called “Fuck Taxes!” or, euphemistically, “Tax Optimization Co.” and use all the same “tax efficient” techniques of corporations and their offshore accounts to pay zero taxes. This is the exact logic of capitalism and, if it were applied, no one would pay any taxes and society as we know it would collapse. What would a capitalist government do if confronted by a capitalist corporation dedicated to maximum tax avoidance, with ordinary voters as its clients and indeed employees (in a tax efficient technical sense)? If the government opposed such a corporation – and it would have to because otherwise it would have no money – then, by exactly the same logic and principles, it should be hammering the tax avoiding corporations. Of course, though, corporations are run by the rich and powerful, by political donors and lobbyists, while the ordinary people are poor suckers. Isn’t it time the suckers demanded exactly the same tax treatment afforded to corporations? Or do corporations have greater rights than people? And to think that we’re supposed to live in democracies where the people have all the power. What a joke.

The Race of Life Most people have lost the race of life even before they’ve reached the starting line. The race is so rigged on behalf of the rich, powerful and

privileged that it’s almost impossible for anyone else to succeed. Meritocracy is all about equalizing the race of life for everyone.

The Ego Ideal “The ego ideal 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.’” – Wikipedia The Freudian Id relentlessly pursues the pleasure principle. It’s driven by wish fulfilment. It wants to make real that which it craves. It’s powered by the libido (Eros) and mortido (Thanatos). It’s full of lust and hate – lust towards what it wants and hate towards anything getting in the way of what it wants. All psychic energy has its origin in the unconscious and in the Id in particular. The Id is the seat of our basic drives, and without those we would be static – dead. The Freudian Superego pursues the morality principle and is about how to deal with the “other”. It’s the social component of our psyche. It deals with ethics, customs, rules, laws, traditions, morality and moral imperatives, empathy and sympathy. It contains the conscience and the Ego Ideal. Much of the Superego is unconscious, but some penetrates into consciousness. The Freudian Ego obeys the reality principle and engages in “reality testing”. Much of the Ego is technically pre-conscious (below the surface of consciousness). The pre-conscious Ego is the personal unconscious where repressed, forbidden thoughts, memories, traumas and desires are stored, and where they can continually exert a destabilising influence on consciousness. (Material can be retrieved from here by psychoanalysis, but it’s extremely difficult to retrieve anything from the deep unconscious, since it’s well below the surface of awareness.) The “upper” Ego, above the surface of consciousness, mixed with some “upper” Superego components, constitutes normal consciousness. The Id is completely unconscious in Freud’s scheme (though it definitely isn’t in reality: we’re all acutely aware of our dark urges and desires, whether we like them or not).

***** The hidden driver of the world: Libido, Mojo, Sexual Potency, Lust.

The Fear What do people fear? – isolation, desolation, separation, disconnection, alienation. What do people want? – connection, consolation, intoxication.

The Root Freud thought that sex lay at the root of all human relations, especially as sexuality developed in childhood (its crucial formative phase). Marx thought that economics determined all human relations. Capitalism has an incessant need to generate maximum profit and that obsession invariably leads to unscrupulous and immoral behaviour and the complete exploitation of those without capital. Nietzsche thought that all human relations revolved around power. Abrahamists believe that all human relations are determined via our relationship with God. Karmists believe that human relations revolve around what you did in your past lives. Platonists think that we are driven to recover the knowledge we once had when were pure souls gazing upon the perfect Forms. There you have it: sex, economics, power, God, your own past, or knowledge. So, which of these drives your life?

Persuasion Aristotle said that you persuade people by impressing them with your character (Ethos), by stirring their emotions (Pathos), or by the power of your reasoning and logic (Logos). In the contemporary world, no one has character, Logos is nowhere to be found and everything is mired in exaggerated emotionalism (Pathos). Capitalism persuades solely through Pathos, and never through Ethos or Logos. Capitalist “Brand Management” is all about seeking to establish an Ethos for amoral corporations, in order to add this to Pathos. No corporation ever goes down the geeky, nerdy, dorky Logos route.

***** Pathos: “quality that arouses pity or sorrow,” from ancient Greek pathos meaning “suffering, feeling, emotion, calamity”.

***** Mythos and Pathos are indissoluble allies. In fact, rather than refer to Mythos alone, Mythos-Pathos would be more accurate. If Logos is about engaging our reason, Mythos is always about engaging our feelings, hence is all about Pathos. There are no mathematical Mythos-Pathos stories!

***** Logos is about “rational thinking” revolving around abstract reason and logic. Mythos is about “story thinking”, revolving around the “logic” of emotion, and the need to produce the maximum emotional effects. Mainstream religion is all about Mythos. It’s a blatant and crude appeal to the emotions and has zero truth content. It’s staggering that people delegate the fate of their souls to irrational feelings and unbelievable stories. Don’t people want to know the soul?

Trope Trope: from Latin tropus meaning “a figure of speech,” from ancient Greek tropos meaning “turn, direction, turn or figure of speech”. A trope is a figure of speech where a word or phrase is used in a sense different from its normal usage; it has been “turned”.

Trends Are you a trend setter or a trend follower? A creative society generates trends. An exhausted society follows trends, and as fewer and fewer trends remain, everything becomes more “samey”. Look at Hollywood with its superhero franchises copying popular comic books of decades ago. There are endless prequels and sequels. New ideas hardly ever appear. In the novel industry, big publishers now wait for self-published books to sink or swim before they decide to offer an author a contract. In other words, this industry waits for a trend to appear before it backs it. It no longer takes the risk of trying to set the trends itself. The music industry is full of retreads of old songs. Nothing is moving on.

All of the “creative” industries are dying. Their task is to generate new trends and they are no longer doing so. The cause of course is that they belong to the capitalist system, capitalism is all about profit, and capitalists always prefer to invest in something that is already profitable than something risky where a profit might never be turned.

The Same But Different Capitalism is all about “the same but different”. It just wants the same old reliably profitable lines, with a slight makeover to make them seem “new”. Of course, a blue version of a red product isn’t “new” in any authentic sense. Capitalism is all about surface changes. New “deep” products hardly ever come along. We need a world driven by artists and creatives, not by markets and capitalists looking for a fast buck.

Math versus Physics Why is mathematics much more powerful and interesting than physics? In short, because of the two numbers zero and infinity, whose ontological reality is100% denied by scientific materialism. How remarkable existence is to hide its innermost secrets where people are least likely to look for them – in the dimensionless domain whose existence many people refuse to accept. Imaginary and negative numbers are also crucial ontologically, but negative numbers barely feature in physics and imaginary number are regarded as such an abomination that even though they appear throughout physics, they are always removed by the end of any calculation ... as if they had never been there at all. They’re the Cheshire Cat numbers (the Cheshire Cat had a grin that seemed to hang around long after the cat had departed: imaginary numbers likewise haunt physics equations). What is Illuminism? At its simplest, it’s the replacement of science by mathematics. Mathematics is the deeper, truer subject – the authentic subject of ontology. Remember, mathematics is a complete, consistent system that embraces all numbers (real, imaginary, positive and negative, zero and infinity). Science fully accepts only positive real numbers, allows a few real negative numbers, utilizes imaginary numbers but ensures that they have vanished by the end of any calculation, and absolutely forbids zero and infinity. It never

gives any sufficient reason for these extraordinary mathematical omissions beyond materialist prejudice. Ultimate reality comes down to this battle over the ontology of numbers. Where do you stand? Which side are you on? Are you a “mathematician” or a “scientist”? Those are your only two choices. Mathematicians are idealists and rationalists; scientists are materialists and empiricists. Religion is compatible with idealism and rationalism since “rational unobservables” such as the mathematical, dimensionless soul (monad) are accepted. Religion is wholly incompatible with materialism and empiricism since any rational unobservables are explicitly denied and forbidden. So, what’s it to be? Mathematics alone guarantees you a soul, an afterlife and immortality. Mathematics alone can save you. Forget a man dying on a cross – that person couldn’t even save himself! Math is your only salvation – and that should be written on every church, chapel, mosque, synagogue and temple. Math is God! And God can never die.

The Five Percenters 5% of the population are ultra submissive and this also translates to being excessively suggestible. These are the easiest people in the world to hypnotize. These 5% are the most bicameral people on earth. One would expect schizophrenia to be much more common in this group, though no studies have been performed. In contrast, 5% of the population are said to be extremely dominant, hence non-suggestible. They are the least bicameral people on earth. (In fact, it’s probably the case that there are 5% dominant extraverts, 5% dominant introverts, 5% ultra submissive extraverts and 5% ultra submissive introverts.)

Transmigration “Transmigration denotes the process by which, after death, either a spiritual or an ethereal, subtle, and thinly material part of the personality, leaves the body that it previously inhabited; it then ‘migrates’ to enter (i.e., is reborn in) another body, either human or animal, or another form of being, such as a plant or even an inanimate object. Other terms often used in this context are rebirth, especially in connection with Indian religions, palingenesis (from Greek palin, ‘again,’ and genesis, ‘birth,’), metempsychosis (from

Greek meta, ‘again,’ and psychê, ‘soul’) and, increasingly in modern popular parlance, reincarnation (from Latin re ‘back’ and caro, ‘flesh’). Manichaean texts in Syriac use the expression tašpikha or tašpikha denafshata, corresponding to Greek metangismos (from Greek metangizesthai, ‘pour from one vessel into another one, decant’; similarly, Latin transfundi) and conveying the underlying notion of a transfusion or change of vessel whereby the soul is ‘poured’ from one body into another. The Latin church father Augustine of Hippo (354–430) in his antiManichaean writings also uses the noun revolutiones and the verb revolvi, which happen to be identical with the later qabbalistic technical term gilgul: the soul ‘revolves’ (i.e. rotates) through successive bodies. Earlier qabbalistic terms were sod-ha-ʿibbur (‘the mystery of transition’) and haʿtaqah (‘displacing, changing place’), the latter equivalent to the Arabic tanasukh.” – http://www.bookrags.com/research/transmigration-eorl-14/

The Dialectical Error The rich will do anything to preserve their riches. Dialectically, the poor ought to do anything to relieve their poverty, so should be in constant conflict with the rich. But the poor are not in a state of perpetual uprising. Why not? 1) They are cowards. 2) They are slaves. 3) They are apathetic. 4) They have had a false consciousness constructed for them via a) religion and b) the relentless propaganda of the rich. 5) The poor have been divided into the very poor, averagely poor and not-so-poor, hence do not provide a united front. The poor are too stupid to understand their plight. They have little effect on the dialectic. Only smart people can comprehend and consciously shape the dialectic. The dialectic will be driven forward by the intentional separation of Logos humanity (higher humanity) from Mythos humanity (lower humanity). Logos humanity must declare war on Mythos humanity. This will be an intellectual and psychological war. It will involve Logos humanity ceasing to cooperate with Mythos humanity, going “on strike”, so to speak (just as Ayn Rand’s super rich went on strike in Atlas Shrugged).

*****

We mentioned a dialectical error, but of course there’s no error. Instead, there’s just a more complex dialectic. Hegel’s famous master-slave dialectic presupposes that the slaves are unhappy with their lot and will seek to gain parity with their masters. However, there are in fact two other associated dialectical processes, one concerning the masters and one concerning the slaves: The Master Dialectic 1) Thesis: Masters who love being masters (they love dominating and mistreating their slaves). 2) Antithesis: Masters who hate being masters (they hate dominating and mistreating their slaves). 3) Synthesis: Moderated Masters who dominate slaves, but not excessively and are capable of offering relatively good treatment to their slaves. (The capitalism of 1950s’ America was arguably of this kind.) The Slave Dialectic 1) Thesis: Slaves who hate being slaves and will do anything to overcome their masters. 2) Antithesis: Slaves who love being slaves and love their masters (the Abrahamic mentality). 3) Synthesis: Moderated Slaves who put in some effort to get better treatment, but not excessively so. They have no burning hatred of the master class, the ownership class. (This explains the phenomenon of the sheeple who passively go along with their own oppression. This is why capitalism survives.) So, when the master-slave dialectic is being considered, it must take into account the separate master dialectic and slave dialectic, which makes it enormously more complex.

Illuminism Illuminism combines ontology (the study of existence) and epistemology (the study of knowledge) in a single system. Given that existence is made of point-monads – the fundamental units of mathematics – all objective (analytic, mathematical) knowledge is therefore eternally carried within the

ultimate components of existence. To study the basic units (atoms) of existence is also to study knowledge because the two are indissolubly linked mathematically. Point-monads are unique because they are objective components of mathematics and also subjective minds (uncreated, uncaused causes, capable of generating free actions). It’s precisely because monads are both objective and subjective that they fully explain our objective world full of subjective living creatures. We can rationally know all objective knowledge precisely because it’s built into ontology. Everything that exists has the eternal, immutable, Platonic laws of mathematics encoded in it. In Illuminism, ontology = epistemology = reason = mathematics.

The Lighthouse at Alexandria The lighthouse at Alexandria was the ancient light of knowledge. The great library there was the repository of humanity’s highest knowledge. Logos humanity must create a new Alexandrian Age. We must create a pagan Tree of Knowledge, the fruit of which everyone must eat, rather than refrain from eating (as in Abrahamism). Modern Alexandria is stuck in a ferociously anti-intellectual Muslim culture. This shows how easily imprisoned knowledge is. Instead of a “New Jerusalem” (representing religious fanaticism), we need a New Alexandria representing paganism, knowledge and reason. Jerusalem must fall. It should be burned to the ground, levelled and the land ploughed. Not a trace should be left of it. It was never anything other than Pandemonium, the Devil’s capital city, the central fortress of hell.

***** Who destroyed the Library at Alexandria containing all the knowledge of the world? In fact it was burned at least three times. in 48 BCE, Caesar burned it during the Siege of Alexandria. Plutarch wrote, “When the enemy endeavoured to cut off his communication by sea, [Caesar] was forced to divert that danger by setting fire to his own ships, which, after burning the docks, thence spread on and destroyed the great library.” In 391 CE, the Christian Emperor Theodosius I declared paganism illegal. All of the temples of Alexandria were closed, and all the pagan books were destroyed wherever they were found. In 642 CE, the fanatical

Christians were replaced by fanatical Muslims. Once again, all pagan works were destroyed. It’s time to rebuild the great pagan library of Alexandria. It’s time to cast down the false idols, false prophets, false texts and false synagogues, mosques and churches of Abrahamism. What they did to paganism should now be done unto them. It’s not as if the world will be losing anything worthwhile: only Mythos junk and superstition.

The Inescapable Logic of Abrahamism “If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them.” – Omar No Abrahamist needs any book other than his “holy” text. Given that the Abrahamic holy texts have zero truth content and zero objective knowledge (being pure, fantastical Mythos), all Abrahamists are morons. The Age of Alexandria is about destroying all “sacred” texts of Abrahamism (the books of false knowledge by false prophets), and promoting all books of knowledge and truth.

Adam and Eve: the Three Different Versions Judaism, Christianity and Islam agree that “God” directly created Adam and Eve (there was no Darwinian evolution, allegedly). Judeo-Christianity teaches that Satan, in the form of a serpent, tempted Eve to eat from the forbidden tree, then persuaded Adam to eat with her. According to Islam, Adam and Eve were equally culpable. They then begged for forgiveness, and it was granted! In Christianity, Adam and Eve’s disobedience constitutes Original Sin that afflicts the whole human race in perpetuity. Everyone must be punished for what Adam and Eve did. According to Islam, God punishes no one for another’s sins, so Original Sin – hereditary sin – does not exist in Islam. It is indeed spectacularly immoral that, in Christianity, people are punished for the sins of others. This amounts to a Nazi reprisal system: punish everyone for any undesired act performed by anyone. The Jews also rejected Original Sin, but did not believe that Adam and Eve were forgiven. In Judaism, Jews have to earn God’s forgiveness by being good Jews and obeying all of God’s laws and commandments.

The Jewish version makes more sense than either the Christian or Muslim versions. The Christian version is grotesque and the Muslim version absurd. According to the Koran, the heavens and the earth were originally joined together as one “unit of creation”, so Eden was part of paradise. When God warned Adam and Eve not to eat fruit from a certain tree and they went ahead and did so anyway, they earned expulsion from Paradise, and earth and the heavens were “cloved asunder”. After their separation, the earth and the heavens went through a smoke-like phase, before becoming what they now are. (Presumably the smoke-like phase accounts for the creation of the jinn (genies) who are described as being made of a “smokeless and scorching fire” (and they can of course be trapped in bottles and grant three wishes to anyone who finds them). Of course, since Allah supposedly forgave Adam and Eve after they begged for forgiveness, everything should have gone back to how it was originally. Since it didn’t, Islam is meaningless. You can’t forgive someone if you then maintain the punishment you inflicted on them. So, the Muslims believe that if they obey all of Allah’s requirements and orders, they will be admitted to a better version of Eden – a great garden in paradise just like the original Eden before it was split from heaven. Dream on!

Serpent or Genie? Judaeo-Christianity says that Satan, in snake form (the Freudian phallus?), tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. (Was this a reference to infidelity?) The Koran says that Shaitan (Satan) tempted both Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. In Islam, Satan is not a rebel angel, but a jinni (genie) called Iblis, a being of smokeless fire. Islam insists that angels are made of light rather than fire and cannot disobey God since they do not have free will (they are extensions of God’s will, so to speak, hence why Gabriel perfectly explains Allah’s message to Mohammed). Jinn and humans do have free will, hence can disobey Allah. (One must wonder why Allah didn’t just stop once he had created his robotic angels. What was the point of creating free will beings given that 99% of humans and jinn are sentenced to hell? And how is Allah’s alleged foreknowledge compatible with anyone having free will?) Allah ordered the jinn to bow before Adam (what an odd thing to do!), but Iblis – rightly, one would have to say – refused. Iblis was the first hero to refuse to submit to the tyranny of Allah, and he led the resistance against the cosmic monster and Torture God. Iblis said, justifiably, that his fiery essence was superior to Adam’s weak flesh made from base dirt (clay). For speaking truth to power, Iblis was cast out of “paradise”, and he then made it his mission to tempt Adam and Eve and the whole of humanity to corruption, and to disobey Allah. Of course, if Allah had simply restored Adam and Eve to heaven after he forgave them, Iblis would not have been able to do anything. Why are Abrahamic Gods always so obtuse, dumb and perverse? You might think Abrahamism was just one vast, immensely silly Mythos. Oops!

Sin Christians believe that all humans are now cursed by Original Sin, residual from Adam and Eve (hence humans are inherently morally depraved). Judaism and Islam, on the other hand believe that everyone is born morally neutral and it’s up to everyone to try to be good, obedient, dutiful and to beg God for forgiveness following any sin. So, why does Christianity need Original Sin if the other two Abrahamic religions don’t? Well, for the simple reason that the whole point of Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was to allow his believers (but not any infidels)

to escape from the hell guaranteed by the stain of Original Sin. In other words, you cannot be a Christian unless you believe in Original Sin, literally or metaphorically. If you don’t believe humans are inherently depraved then, like the Jews and Muslims, you don’t need any Christ on a cross to “save” you, to redeem you from hell. So, whereas Jews and Muslims believe that all babies are innocent, Christians believe that all babies are guilty and in need of salvation effected by Jesus Christ (but only via believing in him, otherwise hell beckons). The doctrine of Original Sin makes Christianity the sickest, most evil and perverted of all religions because it claims that we are all damned from the outset. Jews and Muslims have to do bad things to be condemned. Christians start out condemned, before they’ve done anything at all. Only sick fucks would be Christians. And to think that this religion of total depravity claims to be about love and forgiveness! It’s this religion itself that’s totally depraved. Moreover, the Christian doctrine of grace logically removes any need for Jesus Christ. According to this doctrine, God randomly grants grace to some (1-3% of humanity), and denies it to everyone else, guaranteeing that they go to hell. Christianity is a supremely irrational, evil, Satanic religion. Jesus Christ isn’t your saviour, but the monster who sentenced you to hell the instant you were conceived. Fight this maniac, this psychopath. Resist him to the bitter end. He doesn’t love you, he hates you! That’s why he condemned you to hell even before you took your first breath.

The Unholy Row The Abrahamists all claim to believe in the same God, but all of their holy texts are radically different and contain enormous and deadly theological disagreements. What’s for sure is that even if you’re an Abrahamist, you must believe that two out of three of the Torah, Bible and Koran, and two out of three of Moses, Jesus Christ and Mohammed must be utterly false, hence Satanic, attempting to lead the righteous stray from the straight path. Two of the “infallible”, “sacred” texts of Abrahamism must in fact be “Satanic Verses”. So, which is which? How do the Abrahamists rationally solve the problem since it’s plain that “faith” can’t sort out good from evil, the Godly from the Satanic.

A Christian said that he never “downtalked” (talked down) to Jews and Muslims. Yet, by the logic of his own religion, if he truly believes that Christianity is the truth, he should denounce Jews and Muslims as Devil worshippers!

***** Rather than conclude that one Abrahamic text is holy and the other two unholy, why not conclude that the Jews invented a Mythos, the Christians mutated it to serve their ends, and then the Muslims mutated the JudaeoChristian Mythos to serve their Arab ends. It’s astounding that human beings take Mythos as reality.

The Saviour It should never be forgotten that the only reason why we need Jesus Christ to “save” us is that he condemned us in the first place. If he simply forgave Adam and Eve, and never imposed the horrific sentence and collective punishment of Original Sin, then there would be no need for Jesus Christ’s incarnation and subsequent death on the cross. Jesus Christ is needed to save us from Jesus Christ! As soon as you grasp the complete circularity of Christianity, it becomes spectacularly laughable.

Idealism versus Materialism What’s the key difference between Illuminism and science? Illuminists acknowledge dimensionless existence – defined by zero and infinity – and scientists don’t. Idealism is all about dimensionless, mental existence. Materialism refuses to countenance anything other than dimensional existence. So, the ultimate question of existence comes down to the ontology of zero and infinity, which are the defining numbers of mathematics. If they exist in reality as well as mathematically then religion is true and there’s a real domain beyond this one where we are immortal and indestructible. If science is right, religion is false, idealism is false, there’s no independent mind, there’s no free will and existence is meaningless. Moreover, mathematics is rendered meaningless since if we can’t trust all of mathematics, including zero and infinity, then we can’t trust any of it. Yet mathematics is the engine of mathematics, so science itself is rendered

meaningless. Science, if it doesn’t accept the ontological completeness of mathematics, eats itself!

The Holographic Brain “New neurological research indicates that humans’ tremendous brainpower, even operating below ten percent of our capacity, results not just from biochemistry but from the brain’s impressive ability to function as a holographic data storage and retrieval system (a ‘hard-drive’) that employs different light angles to read information (‘software’). This implies ... that the brain is a sophisticated holographic biocomputer that operates through electromagnetic frequencies. Not surprisingly, DNA has been shown to function very similarly. Human biology may thus be considered electromagnetic at the level of its manifestation from the torsion life-wave that sustains it. As Deepak Chopra has observed, human cells, far from being merely functional vessels, are in actuality electromagnetic fields of possibility and potential.” – Sol Luckman

The Holographic Soul The next and final book in the God Series will be The Holographic Soul where we will revisit the thinking of the world’s all-time greatest genius: Leibniz, the first Holographer.

The Mad Whenever mad people yell at you in the street and you hurry past, flustered, looking away and trying to ignore the whole awkward situation, you are giving power to these people – which is why they do it. The correct response is to stop and shout even more madly at them, and then you have complete power once again, and it’s they who scurry away, confused and frightened.

Directional Praying It’s not enough for Muslims to pray five times a day. Their prayers are ineffectual, possibly even blasphemous, if they do not point themselves towards Mecca. Why is Allah so concerned about the direction of prayer? Isn’t he everywhere?

Seeing Infinitely

“If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.” – William Blake Hyperhumanity is the humanity that has achieved the cleansing of its perception, and can see infinitely far, and understand exactly what infinity is. HyperHumanity overcomes “reducing valve consciousness” and unleashes “Mind-at-Large”. “Less than All cannot satisfy Man.” – William Blake “The Desire of Man being Infinite, the possession is Infinite, and himself Infinite.” – William Blake

The Symmetry of Gods and Men “God becomes as we are, that we may be as He is.” – William Blake

What Goes On In Heaven? “What they do in heaven we are ignorant of; what they do not do we are told expressly.” – Jonathan Swift Isn’t it extraordinary that religions have almost no ability to say what happens in heaven, yet can tell us about hell to an almost infinite degree.

The Reign of Error “I’m shocked to find so many stupid people in this place.” – British Member of Parliament on his colleagues in Parliament. “There are a lot of stupid people in this country, and they deserve representation.” – senior British MP. The Elite’s rule oscillates between reigns of error and reigns of terror.

Gateway Drugs A gateway drug is a low-level, relatively harmless drug that leads, in due course, to higher-level, harmful drugs. Capitalism and religion are full of gateway drugs that draw people into deadly habits!

The Snowball Effect Earth was once covered in ice and snow. It was a giant snowball or hailstone, hurtling through space!

The Papacy The Papacy has been exposed as a fanatically self-protective culture. Isn’t that true everywhere, of every institution? There’s nothing more important than installing mechanisms for ensuring that institutions cannot engage in cover ups and self-protection. Every institution must have an “internal affairs” group, a Devil’s Advocate department, whose function is to assume the worst about an institution and be doing everything to expose corruption, incompetence and malpractice. If part of every institution is a department whose function is to criticize the institution then it becomes culturally impossible for institutions to pull up the drawbridges. The Devil’s Advocate department ensures that the drawbridge is always down.

The Five People There’s a theory that when you go to heaven, you meet five people there: the five people from your life who have died before you who have had the biggest influence on you – family, loved ones, friends, colleagues, mentors. Who would your five be?

Bombers When a bomb goes off in America, it has three possible causes: 1) The lone nut who hates the government. 2) Far right extremists who hate the government. 3) Muslim terrorists who hate the government. Note that far right extremists blamed the government for 9/11 rather than the actual perpetrators: Muslim terrorists. In fact, the American far right and the Muslims are natural allies since they both loathe the American government and wish it maximum ill. The far right would never blame their Muslim terrorist colleagues for any atrocity. It’s always attributed to the government, or the “Illuminati”, and indeed these two terms are now almost

interchangeable in the minds of the far right maniacs and lunatics. It’s no surprise that these misfits and madmen believe that the Illuminati are pandimensional, shape-shifting lizard aliens. It’s not as if these people inhabit the real world. They are imprisoned in a bizarre fantasy, a kind of deranged, hyperreal video game and Mythos that they take for reality.

***** What’s the difference between an Islamist and a Muslim? None! All Muslims believe that Allah created all souls, hence all souls are Muslim. Anyone who does not practise Islam is therefore an apostate and the Islamic penalty for apostasy – dictated by the “infallible” Koran – is death. Unless all Muslims explicitly renounce the evil doctrine that all souls are Created by Allah and the death penalty is warranted for all non-Muslims (of course, if they did so they would no longer be Muslims) then no distinction should be drawn between Islam and Islamism.

Excuses People often have real reasons for doing things and professed reasons for doing them. For example, Julian Assange is fundamentally a hacker who loves breaking into high security computer systems. This is illegal and criminal, and Assange does not want to see himself as a criminal. So he creates the notion of a moral crusade – involving the complete disclosure of all information “because everyone has an absolute right to know” (allegedly) – and now he can claim that his criminal hacking exploits are fully morally justifiable. Yet the whole thing came about purely because he was an out-and-out hacker, who got off on hacking. This was his central motivation, not anything to do with revealing State or corporate secrets. When the Boston bombings took place, it initially looked as though extreme right wing Americans were responsible and they were raging against government taxation. When it turned out to be Jihadists, it was somewhat surprising. The New York or London marathons would have been much better targets for terrorist “spectaculars”. It turned out that Boston had no symbolic significance. The terrorists simply lived in Boston, hence why that marathon was chosen. Fascinatingly, the uncle of the terrorists said that his nephews had not struck on behalf of any great cause but were simple “losers” filled with hate

because they were not doing well in America and were not feeling integrated. He was unquestionably right. They dressed up their terrorism as some sort of glorious jihad, but it was simply pure rage and frustration that motivated them. Most people are looking for excuses to dignify and make noble the vile acts they want to do for reasons connected with their own dysfunctional, tormented psyches. The elder terrorist said that he was disgusted because Americans, in his opinion, have no “values”. Yet he attacked a marathon – an event that’s all about thousands of ordinary people accomplishing an immensely demanding task that requires months of preparation and hand work. The marathon runners certainly had values and discipline and an excellent work ethic. We can guess at what was really going on in their terrorists’ heads. They wanted the “good life” that Americans freely enjoy but which is prohibited to Muslims because of their kill-joy religion. Rather than ditch Islam and truly embrace America, the brothers become fanatical Muslims and attacked America. Islam, of course, offers the supreme “get out of shit” card. If you die during a jihadist attack, you’re a martyr and you’re admitted to the highest level of heaven, with Allah and Mohammed. You get a river of wine and kinky sex with 72 virgins who are gagging to fuck a martyr. Or something like that. It’s this childish notion that inspires so many thousands of mad Muslims to martyr themselves.

The Great Fallacy “The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make these people sane.” – Erich Fromm, The Sane Society When it comes to humanity, the fact that large numbers share the same beliefs is taken as success, and success is taken as truth. There’s a phrase “Twenty million people can’t be wrong”, but of course they can be. The whole human race can be wrong. Nietzsche said, “Success has always been the greatest liar.” Since, in a capitalist world, popularity leads to success, Nietzsche could equally have said, “Popularity has always been the greatest liar.” It’s never Logos that determines popularity, but Mythos and Pathos. That’s why so much emotional, religious gibberish is believed. Read the Torah, Bible and Koran. Are these Logos or Mythos texts? There’s not a single reference to mathematics, science or philosophy in them, but there are plenty of stories, songs, poems, parables, sermons, polemics, commandments, rules, customs, orders, rituals, prohibitions, and so on. They appeal to fear, superstition, faith, hope, love, insecurity, anxiety, the desire for paradise, wishful thinking, revenge, and so on. They never appeal to reason.

Objectivity and Subjectivity We are fallible subjects existing in an infallible objective universe that obeys the hyperrationalism of mathematics. What we can certainly do is work out the nature of the hyperrational universe and how it operates. What we can never do is transcend our own subjectivity and make all subjective “knowledge” into irrefutable, objective facts. We can’t create a Platonic Form of Morality, Justice or Beauty because these are all based on subjective opinions. Some people want all knowledge to be objective, but that can never be. It could happen only in a computerized, programmed universe where there are no subjects and no free will. We are subjects and, by definition, we can’t have objective knowledge of subjectivity. We can know the rules of chess

but we can’t know how any particular player will make his moves. Similarly, we can know the objective cosmic rules, but we can’t know how the subjects will make their moves within that framework. We should focus on understanding the rules of the game, not on trying to work out how every player will move (as if there were some objective knowledge to be determined). The true eternal Platonic Forms are those that deal exclusively with mathematics and logic. All other “Forms” are subject to Nietzsche’s criticism: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” A rational person wants to know how the world truly functions, and he can do this mathematically. What he cannot do is be sure that all of his subjective opinions, feelings and impressions have any connection with reality. Billions of people have religious beliefs that are 100% false. These beliefs are all opinions and interpretations of irrational minds. The more rational you become the more you can see through the bullshit, but you will never reach a state of rational perfection (and if you did you’d be a computer and not a person). The point of Nietzsche’s philosophy is that it’s up to individuals to invest their interpretations of reality with their Will to Power, and then commit themselves to them entirely. That’s what Muslim suicide bombers do. Even though they’re 100% wrong, they have made their leap and that has defined their life. Everyone who wants a fulfilled life must make a leap. The life of the skeptic is one of the most pointless lives of all. The skeptic belongs to the uncommitted Ignavi, sneering from the sidelines, never engaged in the action, never taking a side. As far as Illuminism goes, we know that mathematics is the 100% answer to objective reality. That does not mean that we are immune from the mess of the subjective mess world. We can’t apply Euler’s Formula to make sense of why Abrahamists believe bullshit. All of us have to construct theories regarding subjective issues for which we will never have any definitive proof. All we can do is be as rational as possible. Science gets by perfectly well with accepting provisional truths, dependent on the latest experiments. In Illuminism, we use reason and logic rather than experiments to validate reality, but we can never escape from the fact that we ourselves are beset by feelings, desires, cravings, delusions, wishful thinking, misinterpretations, and so forth. No one can ever escape from that. There’s no 100% infallible knowledge of everything. You can have 100% understanding of objective mathematics – because all of its

statements are analytic, hence true by definition – and that’s as good as it gets. And isn’t that astounding that we can objectively know so much? We can work out what game we are in, and that allows us to optimize our moves, and have a good understanding of why others move as they do.

Seeing What Others See “Nobody can ever truly ‘see’ through someone else’s eyes, but only interpret accordingly.” Of course! If someone could see through your eyes they would be you, and who, then, would you be? All you can do via “telepathy” and intuition is access the same information as someone else and then experience it as yourself, but employing empathy to try to understand how they are experiencing that information. “It follows that the only way to understand others, and everything, means to have some infinitely sophisticated schema that can correlate one’s own subjective world to the objective world, i.e. the information contained in the complete schema must equal, more or less, the information in the objective world.” How does that follow? Do you have a basic understanding of others right now? Obviously you do or you couldn’t function in this world. Do you have an “infinitely sophisticated schema”. Obviously not. Imagine being a trillion times smarter than you are now. Won’t you be far better at understanding the universe and others than you are now? You will never achieve perfection because to understand another person completely, you need to be that person, and you can never be anyone other than yourself. By understanding yourself fully and exercising empathy, you can gain great knowledge of others, but it will never be infallible. And, frankly, who would even want it to be? Would you like to be someone else, or be someone else’s puppet? “Becoming God” doesn’t mean having complete control over the objective universe and very subject within it (i.e. having the power the Abrahamic God allegedly enjoys). It means fully understanding the objective world, and understanding the pivotal role of subjectivity which renders total knowledge impossible. Knowledge has limits – thanks to

subjectivity – yet we should all be ecstatic about these limits because they are what guarantee us eternal freedom and the chance to be individual Gods. No one can escape subjectivity. No one can know all things objectively (i.e. by definition you can’t have objective knowledge of the subjective domain). It’s essential to understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, infallible objective knowledge and fallible subjective knowledge. Logos is about objective knowledge and Mythos is about subjective, emotional knowledge.

The Life Zone Mount Everest has a “death zone”. When a climber is in that zone, at very high altitude, he’s living on borrowed time. He will almost certainly need a good oxygen supply. All living tissue is starting to die (necrosis) thanks to the cold and the altitude. Unlike climbers, the higher that geniuses ascend, the more invigorated they become, the stronger their flesh and minds become. They experience the opposite of necrosis. They have entered the Life Zone.

Values In the Middle Ages, the world believed in God. In the modern world, Muslims still believe in God, but virtually no one else does. Of course, billions still go through the motions of pretending to believe, but a quick look at how they actually spend their time shows that “God” is way down their priority list. When Nietzsche said that God is dead, one of his meanings was that God no longer functions as the anchor of our world. We no longer look to him for our values. The centre of the universe has collapsed. The centre has not held. God now functions through momentum only, i.e. culture has stopped the engines of religion, but religion has an immense stopping distance, requiring several centuries in which to come to a dead halt. We are in the period when we need to prepare new values for what comes after the old religions. As Nietzsche said, we need to revalue all values, and if we don’t then we will be overwhelmed by nihilism and chaos. The old values no longer have any meaning. We (humanity) cling to them because we haven’t yet calculated how to replace them, and we regard them as better than nothing (though that’s debatable).

Nietzsche is often accused of being a moral relativist – the position that all convictions are equally valid (“I respect your opinion but I’m entitled to mine and it’s just as valid as yours”) – but that’s not his position at all. He certainly doesn’t say that any values are morally superior to others in any old religious sense of good and evil, but he does contend that some values are much more powerful than others. For Nietzsche, all values are centres of power engaged in a great “meme war”, as we might say. Values are nothing less than channels of Will to Power. We all invest values with power and the values that win the contest – no matter how false – become the dominant values of society. The values of the old religions were absurd but they won the power war, and it took millennia for them to be toppled. However, after the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Age of Reason, religion no longer seemed terribly convincing, at least for anyone with a brain. Nietzsche despised Christianity, finding its values degenerate. Christianity seized power by promoting the value of weakness, and condemning the strong. The common herd were united by this gospel of the weak and the demonization of the strong, and the strong, enormously outnumbered, then had to bend the knee to everything they despised, or had to work out how to manipulate the masses while hypocritically mouthing and echoing their values. In the modern day, we see the elite insisting how democratic they are while entirely bypassing democracy in all important matters. The media, on behalf of the elite, lavish a fortune on promoting the elite’s self-interested values and creating a false consciousness for the multitudes who are harmed by these values. Nietzsche characterized Christianity as being all about a) fear and loathing of the strong, b) self-denial, c) self-hate, d) body hate, e) guilt, f) resentment, g) envy and h) “nay-saying” to life. The only values which are authentically valid are those that promote the General Will, which rationally advance the General Will, and that thereby bring the human race closer to divinity. Nietzsche argued that only the great can create new values. In fact, anyone can create new values. What might be truer is that only worldhistoric figures can make new values stick. In Illuminism, it’s Reason itself that is appealed to for new values. We don’t want any old values, values that reflect a strong person’s fantasies, neuroses and psychoses (as has traditionally happened in history). We want

eternal, immutable Platonic values, and the only ones that qualify are those that reflect incontestable reason. For example, if you want to rationally guarantee that the dead cannot influence the world and the fates of the living, then you must declare that the dead have no rights at all. In particular, the dead have no right to transmit wealth to their chosen ones amongst the living since this is the origin of privilege, and privilege is that which must be eliminated in a meritocracy. All values can be constructed along exactly the same lines. We decide how we want humanity to be and then we rationally set the laws that reflect that vision. We don’t make any appeal whatsoever to Gods. Humanity’s laws and values are humanity’s affair, and no one else’s. They are the living’s affair, and nothing to do with the dead. For Nietzsche, the Übermensch – the Superman – is the creator of new values, and the Superman is the next stage of humanity: “The ape is an embarrassment to man; just so will man be an embarrassment to the superman.” The superman does not look to God, only to himself. He himself is the Creator, he himself defines meaning. “The Übermensch shall be the meaning of the earth.” The superman is the supreme affirmer of life and yes-sayer. He lives dangerously, and takes enormous risks. He’s the self-master; he overcomes himself; he sublimates himself. He’s the most honest, self-directing and self-empowering of beings, and suffers from no melancholy or remorse. He’s intent on making himself a work of art The superman is the most exalted and ennobled of all human beings. He is God-in-the-making. Who is the opposite of the superman? The “last man” – the modern man, the mass man, the coward, the mediocrity, the selfserver, the seeker of petty comforts and marginal advantages, the uncreative, the person who is manufactured industrially off the factory production line. The superman = the God assassin. The superman = the God replacement. The superman = the god-like part of the human. The superman = the higher human. The superman = the actualized human. The superman = the master of his own fate, the director of his own destiny.

The superman gives birth to himself. “To lure many away from the herd – that is why I am come.” – Nietzsche “What finally comes home to me is my own Self and what of myself has long been in strange lands and scattered among all things and accidents.” – Nietzsche “Behold, I teach you the Übermensch: he is this lighting, he is this madness!” – Nietzsche “Behold, I am a prophet of the lightning ... but this lightning is called Übermensch.” – Nietzsche “The beauty of the superman came to me as a shadow: what are gods to me now!” – Nietzsche “The Übermensch shall be the meaning of the earth!” – Nietzsche

The HyperHuman Future The Ultimate Enlightenment – the Age of Hyperreason – led by higher humanity (the HyperHumans) will power humanity ahead to a Star Trek future where we travel the physical galaxies in starships, and thence to mental galaxies that we traverse in vessels of the purest light. Let there be hyperreason. Let there be light. “Old” Humanity, stuck in its irrational Mythos past, will become extinct. The future is about the new human race – HyperHumanity. Do you belong to the Illuminated Ones, the Shining Ones, the Divine Ones, or are you on your knees to some story-book God, an irrational market or an irrational devotion to your physical senses? HyperHumanity is not here to help Old Humanity. It’s here to replace it! We are the true human race, that which seeks to claim its rightful prize – divinity. HyperHumans are those who are “Becoming Gods”. We don’t care about race, gender or sexuality, only about talent and intelligence. In the not-so-distance future, we will be the Gods that Old Humanity worships!

Who Will Do It? “If not us, then who? If not now, then when? Will there be a better day for it tomorrow or next year? Will it be less dangerous then? Will someone else’s children have to risk their lives instead of us risking ours?” – John Lewis, Civil Rights Activist

***** “Nothing great in the World has been accomplished without passion.” – Hegel “The future belongs to those who prepare for it today.” – Malcolm X “I love the man who creates higher than himself and perishes in this way.” – Nietzsche “I am not a Man, I am Dynamite!” – Nietzsche

*****

Not the Old, the New Not Being, Becoming Not the Past, the Future Not the Dead, the Living Not the End, the Beginning...