The God Factory (The God Series Book 2)

Table of contents :
The God Factory
Introduction
The Mathematical Universe
Sexsomnia
The Heirs of Descartes
The Evolving Universe
Who designed the Designer?
Illuminism: Logos and Mythos
Infinity and Zero
The Illuminist Heroes of the Infinite
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
Plato’s Demiurge
Transcendence versus Immanence
Theosophy and Anthroposophy
Involution versus Evolution
Atlanteans?
Anthroposophy
Why does the Mathematical World seem Non-mathematical?
The Split between Theosophy and Anthroposophy
The Omega Man
The Self-Organising God
Solaris: Consciousness and the Unconscious
The Omega Point
The Creative Omega Point
Teilhard the Neoplatonist
Electrical or Mathematical?
Omega Humanity
Atoms: Dead or Alive?
The Mystical Union
The Within and Without of Things
The Subjective Universe
The Noosphere
Omega Resurrection?
The Gaia Hypothesis
The Internet
Alpha to Omega
Soul Energy
Negentropy
Dead Religions
Bergson – the Genius of Intuition
Élan vital
The Theorists of the Cosmic Organism

Citation preview

T

G

F

M P

H H

B

Copyright © Mike Hockney 2011 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.

“Mathematics possesses not only truth, but Supreme beauty – a beauty cold and austere, like that of a sculpture.” – Bertrand Russell “All finite things reveal infinitude.” – Theodore Roethke “Infinity is that dimension without end which the human mind cannot grasp.” – Anonymous “Infinity converts the possible into the inevitable.” – Norman Cousins “The infinite! No other question has ever so profoundly the spirit of man; no other idea has so fruitfully stimulated his intellect; yet no other concept stands in greater need of clarification than that of the infinite...” – David Hilbert

TABLE OF CONTENTS T G F Introduction The Mathematical Universe Sexsomnia The Heirs of Descartes The Evolving Universe Who designed the Designer? Illuminism: Logos and Mythos Infinity and Zero The Illuminist Heroes of the Infinite Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) Plato’s Demiurge Transcendence versus Immanence Theosophy and Anthroposophy Involution versus Evolution Atlanteans? Anthroposophy Why does the Mathematical World seem Non-mathematical? The Split between Theosophy and Anthroposophy The Omega Man The Self-Organising God Solaris: Consciousness and the Unconscious The Omega Point

The Creative Omega Point Teilhard the Neoplatonist Electrical or Mathematical? Omega Humanity Atoms: Dead or Alive? The Mystical Union The Within and Without of Things The Subjective Universe The Noosphere Omega Resurrection? The Gaia Hypothesis The Internet Alpha to Omega Soul Energy Negentropy Dead Religions Bergson – the Genius of Intuition Élan vital The Theorists of the Cosmic Organism

Introduction THIS IS ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the religion, politics and philosophy 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 and the author is a senior member, working under a pseudonym. The Illuminati’s religion is the most highly developed expression of Gnosticism and is called Illumination (alternatively, Illuminism). Dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment, it has many parallels with the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. It rejects the Abrahamic religions of faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, considering these the work of the “Demiurge”; an inferior, cruel and wicked deity who deludes himself that he is the True God, and who has inflicted endless horrors on humanity. If you wish to judge for yourself how deranged the Demiurge is, you need only read the Old Testament, the story of the Demiurge’s involvement with his “Chosen People”, the Hebrews. You may wonder why the “God of All” entered into an exclusive and partisan Covenant with a tribe in the Middle East several thousand years ago, why he promised them a land (Canaan) that belonged to others, and why he then actively participated with them in a genocidal war against the Canaanites. Even more bizarrely, according to Christian theology, he then despatched all of those Hebrews, whom he had supported so fanatically, to Limbo – the edge of Hell – when they died. They couldn’t go to Heaven because they were indelibly marked by the “Original Sin” of Adam and Eve. Only the atonement provided by the agonising death of God’s “son”, Jesus Christ, could wipe the slate clean and allow the Hebrews to be released from Limbo. But there was a catch. Only those who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour were eligible for Paradise. Of course, the Chosen People of “God” have almost entirely rejected Jesus Christ. Therefore, from the Christian perspective, nearly all of the Chosen People are now in hell proper. Don’t you find God’s behaviour distinctly odd? Indeed, unbelievable? Don’t alarm bells start ringing?

Doesn’t the behaviour of this God sound rather more like what would be expected of Satan? Remember that this same “God” ordered Abraham to perform human sacrifice on his own son, Isaac. Abraham, rather than rejecting this monstrous command, rather than denouncing the creature that gave it as evil incarnate, agreed to butcher his own flesh and blood to demonstrate how slavishly and mindlessly obedient he was – the prototype of all psychopathic, fanatical “believers”. Does God’s command to Abraham sound like something that would ever pass the lips of the True God? We pity you if you think it does because you are surely a creature of the Demiurge and one of the legions of the damned. If, however, you doubt the credentials of the Abrahamic God, you may be receptive to the message of the Illuminati and our future-oriented, rational, scientific, mathematical and dialectical religion of light – Illumination.

The Mathematical Universe WHEN PYTHAGORAS DECLARED THAT numbers were the arche – the fundamental stuff of the universe – he was announcing perhaps the greatest and most enigmatic insight in human history. There was no precedent for such a seemingly improbable assertion. Had humanity followed Pythagoras, we would now be gods. Instead, humanity chose to place its trust in people like Jesus Christ and the illiterate Mohammed and we have had to endure the religious Dark Ages of Abrahamism for 2,000 years, illuminated only by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. It’s simply impossible to separate numbers and mathematics from the fabric of existence. If you want to comprehend reality you must realize that mathematics doesn’t reflect reality; mathematics IS reality. Ontology, the study of existence, is ultimately the understanding that mathematics alone determines everything that can and cannot exist. Anything incompatible with mathematics is impossible. All the things in life that you think have nothing to do with mathematics – such as feelings and desires – are in fact nothing but mathematics. By the end of this book, we intend to have proved to you that mathematics is quite simply all there is. The great secret of the universe is that it is living mathematics. All that is real is mathematical and all that is mathematical is real. One number above all encapsulates the true nature of existence: ZERO. Scientific materialists do not believe that zero is a “thing”, an entity in the real universe. How could zero possibly have any reality, they say. It can’t be seen, it can’t be touched, it can’t be sensed, it can’t be detected – so it surely can’t be there. The philosophical position of materialism boils down to the simple assertion that zero is non-existent. Idealism, the opposite philosophical position, is, ultimately, the assertion that zero not only exists as a real entity but in fact entirely determines the rest of existence i.e. everything comes from zero (and zero of course is often called “nothing”). Big Bang theory is typically characterised as the universe exploding out of “nothing”. But scientific materialism doesn’t know what “nothing” is and can’t offer any definition of “nothing”. It therefore magics the universe into existence like a magician pulling a rabbit from an empty hat, except it is pulling an entire universe out of God knows what.

Big Bang theory in the hands of idealists rather than materialists becomes something radically different. The universe does indeed spring from nothing, but this nothing has a very precise definition: it is the mathematical zero. Nothing is not just one zero, it’s an infinite number of them. Just to be crystal clear: existence is reducible to an infinite number of zeros which are actual, real, indivisible, indestructible, immortal entities. Leibniz, one of the greatest Grand Masters of the Illuminati and perhaps the most intelligent man in human history, called them monads (“units”). He also gave them another name: SOULS. Do you see? To create a straight line (a one-dimensional entity), you must joint two points by the shortest possible path. But what is a “point”? It’s a “zerodimensional” entity, something devoid of dimensionality. To put it another way, a point – the basic unit of geometry from which all lines, curves, shapes and functions are constructed – is none other than ZERO. A point is not a hypothetical tool of abstract mathematics to help us understand reality. A point is a monad, a real entity in the real world. The only reason why mathematics perfectly models our world is that our world is MADE of mathematics. Specifically, the universe consists of an infinite number of points – zeros – all being joined up in a host of different ways determined by the inexorable, flawless, laws of mathematics. All one, two and three-dimensional entities originate in zerodimensional points. They couldn’t exist if dimensionless points didn’t exist to precede them. Mathematical points underlie, underpin and form the basic building blocks of everything. Mathematically, all points are described by the number zero. But zero is more than just a mathematical point, it’s a LIVING being: a soul. It’s not conscious of course, although it can potentially become so, but only when it’s attached to a complex organism such as a human body with an enormously sophisticated brain. We can’t see souls precisely because they’re zero, nothing, dimensionless, intangible. They are in the real world but not in the physical world of matter, yet matter is in fact nothing but particular arrangements of monads. In another book dedicated to the purpose – The God Game: How to Create the Universe – we will reveal the precise mathematics of this seemingly paradoxical situation which has utterly baffled the world’s greatest scientists and philosophers. Our essential point is that mathematics isn’t a theoretical abstraction that helps human minds to understand the laws of science. Rather,

mathematics is real and scientific laws are simply reflecting the mathematical structure of existence. Zeros, viewed objectively, are mathematical points. However, when viewed subjectively, they are MINDS – unconscious mental entities capable of evolving consciousness – and, in religious terms they are eternal, indivisible souls outside space and time that can never perish. Thus we see that Descartes’ classic mind-body dualism is resolved mathematically. Mind is the domain of dimensionless, extensionless, mathematical points (zeros) and matter is the domain of mathematical, physical, extended entities assembled from enormous collections of points linked mathematically. There is in fact no mind-matter dichotomy at all. There is simply mathematics that comes in two flavours: dimensional (matter) and dimensionless (mind). Carl Jung wrote: “[There are] sufficient reasons [for believing that] the psychic lies embedded in something that appears to be of a non-psychic nature.” He spoke of “a cosmic order independent of our choice and distinct from the world of phenomena.” He said, “The background of microphysics and depth-psychology is as much physical as psychic and therefore neither, but rather a third thing, a neutral nature which can at most be grasped in hints since in essence it is transcendental.” The neutral tertium quid (third thing) that Jung was desperately seeking to identify is of course mathematics. It is neither pure mind nor pure matter but gives rise to both and explains everything about how they interact. All interaction between minds and bodies is mediated mathematically and minds and bodies are, at root, mathematical entities. Mathematics is EVERYTHING. There is absolutely nothing else. The only reason why the universe is ordered and intelligible is that it is mathematical. A nonmathematical universe is an impossibility. Without mathematics, without the dimensionless points that constitute the building blocks of all mathematics, nothing could exist. All numbers are just different totals of dimensionless points. All shapes are simply organised collections of dimensionless points. All equations are simply ways of relating assemblies of dimensionless points. The mysterious “dark energy” that physicists are seeking is none other than the effect of the inexorable movement of dimensionless points. What is a black hole? – a dimensionless point (singularity). In a black hole, matter is crushed down to what it came from in the first place: dimensionless points. What was the

Big Bang singularity? – a dimensionless point made up of an infinity of dimensionless points (because any number of dimensionless points can occupy the same dimensionless point since there are no physical limitations given that a dimensionless point does not exist in the physical world: from the point of view of the physical world, the Singularity appears to be “nothing”!). There is only one possible candidate for explaining the entirety of existence: mathematics. Mathematics is the source of all absolute, Platonic knowledge. Mathematics perfectly unifies ontology (the study of existence) and epistemology (the study of knowledge). We have sure and certain knowledge of existence thanks to mathematics. Mathematics is the queen of the sciences and superior to science. Mathematics, unlike scientific materialism, acknowledges the reality of zero, hence of mind. Scientific materialism should be rebranded as “Mathematical Materialism” while Illuminism is “Mathematical Idealism.” We can demonstrate that Mathematical Materialism (science) is but a subset of Mathematical Idealism. Mathematical Materialism is incomplete because it ignores the two most important numbers: zero and infinity. Mathematical Idealism is complete because it includes these two numbers. Mathematics, not science, is true reality. Mathematics is the arche, as Pythagoras declared so brilliantly over 2,500 years ago! Mathematical truths are absolute and unimpeachable. Nothing else offers the certainty of mathematics. Mathematics is infallible and unarguable. Mathematics is either right or wrong. There is no mid-ground for opinion, debate, faith, wishful thinking or fantasy. Mathematics is the hammer of truth that smashes to pieces all falsehood. There is nowhere to hide with mathematics. It’s the ultimate bullshit detector. Why has no holy prophet ever been a mathematician? Why has the Abrahamist “God” never uttered a word of mathematics and never used a single mathematical equation? Because mathematics would ruthlessly and mercilessly expose all “holy” lies and false claims. Mathematics has the same icy logic as the Guillotine. It chops nonsense to pieces. It kills liars. It decapitates all deceivers. Any claims to truth not expressed in mathematics are total bullshit, quite literally meaningless and worthless. Mathematics is the sole language of the truth. Deep down, everyone knows that’s the case. Mathematics is the most feared subject of all because it couldn’t care less about people’s feelings, wishes and

delusions. Mathematics is the true language of the sacred. Equations are infallible Holy Writ. All progress ever made by the human race ultimately derives from mathematics. Not a single word of the Torah, Bible or Koran has ever advanced the human condition. They are books for the stupid, for the antimathematicians who want to live in caves. It’s no coincidence that illiterate, innumerate Mohammed had his “revelation” in a cave. Why doesn’t the Koran begin with the equation 0 + 1 = 1? Then we could take it seriously. Mathematical laws not scientific experiments offer us true knowledge. Science is always a feeble imitation of mathematics. Scientific experiments are certainly helpful and indeed vital, but they are not the essence of truth. Mathematics is the true gospel, the Voice of God, the Book of Life. There are only two shows in town: Mathematical Idealism (Illuminism) and Mathematical Materialism (Science). Everything else is absurd, preposterous, ridiculous, ludicrous, farcical and pure nonsense from beginning to end. The Abrahamist religions have ZERO truth content since they don’t mention mathematics once. They don’t feature a single mathematical equation. You simply couldn’t get further from the truth. Eastern religions have managed to intuitively grasp some mathematical truths, but they haven’t been able to express them meaningfully. They have remained trapped in nebulous mysticism. There is no mathematical clarity. Illuminism alone is the answer to EVERYTHING. All other systems of thought are rendered null and void by Illuminism. We offer the Grand Unified Theory of Everything, linking religion, science, mathematics, philosophy, psychology and even the so-called paranormal. The reason these are all brought together in one package is that they are all reflections of the same underlying reality: living mathematics. The universe is alive. It is an organism that is continually solving mathematical equations, first and foremost of which is the Equation of Consciousness. Mathematics – the universe – becomes free and undetermined at the point at which living equations become conscious of themselves. Jung said, “My life is a story of the self-realization of the unconscious.” We say that the universe’s life is the story of the self-realisation of unconscious mathematics. Another critical number that has been dismissed as “unreal” by professional mathematicians and physicists is one that features in endless

engineering and scientific equations (including those of quantum mechanics): the so-called “imaginary number”, i, the square root of -1. We assert that the reason this number appears everywhere is that it has ontological reality. In fact, it is the mathematical origin of the dimension of TIME. So, Mathematical Idealism and Mathematical Materialism can be differentiated in terms of three crucial numbers. Mathematical Materialism denies that zero, infinity and the imaginary number have any real existence. Mathematical Idealism, on the other hand, asserts that zero is the ontological basis of Mind, the imaginary number is the ontological basis of Time and infinity is the ontological capacity of each individual mind – i.e. each Mind has infinite capacity and can literally become God! As for all the numbers between zero and infinity, these are the ontological basis of Space and Matter. Thus we have mathematically defined space, time, mind, matter, soul and God. By bringing zero, infinity and the imaginary number from a theoretical, abstract domain into ontological reality, we have explained all of existence. There are no gaps. We have covered the range from zero to infinity in all possible directions. There is no room for anything else. Nothing can exist outwith Illuminism. It’s all-encompassing, absolutely complete and offers the only conceivable full explanation of everything. All you are required to do to become enlightened is to accept that mathematics, and nothing else, is reality. The universe is alive with the sound of music – audible mathematics, the Pythagorean Music of the Spheres that divine ears alone can hear. This is the Absolute Truth. All other prophets, revelations and religions, are refuted once and for all. God, not to put too fine a point on it, is a mathematician. And so are we all. We are all the answers to the most complex equation of all: the conscious soul. The universe is nothing but a celestial factory which takes raw material – unconscious souls – and processes them mathematically until all of their infinite potential has been converted into actuality and they have become nothing other than conscious GODS! We are living in the God Factory. This is the Gospel of the Illuminati. *****

Mathematical Idealism can make sense of many of the mysterious and enigmatic ideas of the world’s greatest thinkers. Let’s have a look at a few. Schopenhauer claimed that all individuals were embodiments of an underlying, eternally striving, blind Will outside space and time. We can now equate Schopenhauer’s Will to an infinite number of unconscious mental entities – monads, zeros – that exist collectively as a single dimensionless point. Each of these monads can, mathematically, become individuated in space and time while, and this is crucial, retaining a foot in the dimensionless domain. In other words, monads can bestride two domains simultaneously: the dimensionless and the dimensional. Via the dimensional domain, they are separate in space and time and, via the dimensionless channel, they are all interconnected outside space and time and can thus exchange information instantaneously without any of the limitations imposed by Einstein’s supposed cosmic speed limit: the speed of light. This accounts for the extraordinary phenomenon of quantum entanglement whereby two correlated particles infinitely far apart can instantaneously know each other’s quantum state. This would be impossible if Einstein were right. Jung’s concept of the Collective Unconscious can be characterised in exactly the same way as Schopenhauer’s Will and provides a perfect mechanism for explaining how all human beings can access a common set of psychic archetypes. Likewise, Hegel’s Geist, Nietzsche’s Will to Power and Kant’s noumenal world can all be described according to the concept of monads outside space and time, outside sensory experience. These monads constitute the inner, subjective character of things rather than the outer, objective, scientific outer view of reality. Existence is all about this interaction between the inner and outer, subjective and objective, mental and physical, forming a permanent feedback loop that propels the universe forward dialectically. Religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Theosophy and Anthroposophy can all be similarly analysed according to the monadic scheme of Mathematical Idealism (aka Monadology). Only Abrahamism and its offshoots are entirely incompatible with Monadology. Abrahamism contains not one particle of truth. It’s fundamentally anti-mathematical in its conception. Ironically, if you could examine Abrahamism from the outside, if you could analyze individual

beliefs of Abrahamists you would discover that, like everything else, they are mathematical signals. The world consists of mathematics and nothing besides. People’s beliefs, feelings, desires, joys and sorrows are, when viewed objectively, mathematical signals. However, people never get that external, objective view of their thoughts. They only get the inner, subjective experience. They are inside the mathematical signals, so to speak. If someone kicks you in the shin, you will feel pain, but someone else monitoring your brain will see some signal flaring up somewhere. He is seeing objectively what you are feeling subjectively. You are inside the signal, experiencing it, and he is outside the signal, studying it. The great illusion of life is that although there is nothing but mathematics and mathematical signals, we, as subjects, are within the ocean of mathematics as it relates to us and we experience it only in terms of subjective interpretations of mathematical signals. These interpretations are feelings, desires, intuitions and the constructed reality that we create on the basis of the data reaching our senses. We say “constructed reality” because we don’t ever see or experience true, unmediated reality. All data is always filtered through our brain-mind system and we can never experience anything in our lives that is external to that system. We are imprisoned by the brain-mind filter we apply to everything. For example, there is no such thing as colour in the objective world. We construct colour. Our brain-mind systems literally invent the subjective experience of colour. We do so because the fiction of colour is astoundingly useful. In other words, there is a creative component within us that can be applied to the mathematical signals reaching us. It makes perfect sense that this should be so: otherwise we would be androids rather than people. The difference between a man and a machine is that the former is a true instance of living, organically developed mathematics, while the latter is just an assembly of mathematical parts, devoid of organic development. The cells of our bodies are infinitely more sophisticated than computer chips. If you want to understand how mathematical the world is, just stand outside and look at the sky, rivers, mountains, snowflakes, raindrops, flowers, buildings, bees. If you concentrate hard, you will begin to see nothing but endless patterns all merging into one another. What is the weather? It’s just an enormous equation, obeying the mathematics of “chaos theory”, solving itself anew every day. Planets trace elliptical paths. Bees build hexagonal hives. Cicadas live underground for exactly 13 years before

emerging to mate to create the next generation. It’s all mathematics and nothing else. All of life is just variations of mathematical equations and patterns. Just as the physical body has evolved many different structures, so has the mind. The psychic components described by the likes of Freud and Jung are mathematical components that work together mathematically to make us the sophisticated and multi-faceted creatures we all are. If you could get a “God’s eye view” of the universe from outside it, all you would “see” is just an immense equation with infinite variables relentlessly unfolding in a bewildering dance of competing mathematical functions. We ourselves are self-contained and eternal nodes of the cosmic equation. We have our own solution to our own equation: to become God. ***** Here is reality in a nutshell: 1) In the beginning, an infinite number of zeros were all together in a single Genesis Point. This was the Cosmic Origin, the origin of all things, the mathematical dead centre of existence. The Genesis Point was dimensionless, extensionless, purely mental. In terms of material reality, it was “nothing”; completely undetectable. Just two numbers characterised the Genesis Point – zero and infinity. No other numbers existed. 2) In reality, the Pythagorean arche is just one number – zero – of which there are infinite instances. Zero is the fundamental unit of existence – the monad. There are infinite monads, which, mathematically, are dimensionless points. Thus it can truly be said that the universe came from nothing, or, to be more precise, from Zero. It came from an immaterial dimensionless point, containing an infinite number of dimensional points. In Kabbalah, the Aleph is defined as the point that contains all other points. This is the perfect definition of the Genesis Point. The Aleph is where everything begins. The cosmos starts and ends with zero. Zero is the boundary of what can be. 3) How do infinite zeros become a physical universe? They manage it mathematically, naturally. Existence is all about how infinite zeros are converted into all the numbers between zero and infinity. This conversion takes place in an astoundingly simple way. All of the zeros, the dimensionless points, emerge from the Genesis Point into a six-dimensional

universe consisting of three real and three “imaginary” dimensions (they’re not imaginary at all, of course; mathematically, they are actually just a ninety degree rotation of the real dimensions in a special direction outwith “real space”). The remarkable mathematical properties of the sixdimensional universe automatically create space and time – i.e. dimensionality – and hence the physical universe, in the event called the Big Bang. 4) But the story does not end there. The zeros emerge from the Genesis Point not in one vast burst, but in a controlled and relentless march. The physical universe keeps expanding under the pressure of this march of the zeros, and eventually the expansion becomes so extreme that the gravity (inter-particle attraction) created within the physical universe is overcome. All matter disintegrates into isolated atoms. As the march and the expansion goes on, even the forces that hold atoms together – electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces – are defeated, and matter disappears entirely from the universe, leaving only…ZEROS. 5) In other words, the universe comes from zero, creates infinite numbers between zero and infinity, and then returns them all to zero. The universe begins and ends with infinite zeros. 6) Pythagoras is gloriously vindicated. The evolution of the universe can be tracked purely according to the evolution of the number zero into all other numbers. But the arche isn’t all numbers, so much as one number – zero, the number of the monad. As we said, these Pythagorean zeros are not “mere” numbers. They are elemental minds; beings. They are monads. They are SOULS. They are ALIVE. Each monad has infinite potential, infinite mental capacity, infinite room for knowledge storage and memory. Each monad has one ambition: to convert maximum potential into maximum actualisation – to convert itself from a blank soul into GOD. Every other monad has exactly the same intent. Infinite monads want to become infinite Gods. The universe is nothing but a mathematical formula on a cosmic scale for creating Gods. The universe’s sole purpose is to manufacture Gods. It’s a vast cosmic production line that takes potential and converts it into actualisation.

At the end of the universe – the Omega Point – every monad has become God. The universe has attained the condition of the Absolute. It is perfect. It is fully actualised. There is no potential left to be converted. The universe began as infinite blank zeros, and ended as infinite full zeros. And then what happens? The God Universe enjoys its perfection as long as it can, but bliss is not eternal. The process of converting potential to actualisation is in fact the greatest bliss that can be attained. Bliss evaporates when all potential has been optimised. The God Universe then has only one option: Divine Suicide. And so the whole process begins again, and it can never end. This is an infinite system from which there is no escape. Existence can never cease. Zeros – monads, souls – can never be annihilated. They must choose how to handle eternal existence. That is the supreme question. What is the best way to live an eternal life? The universe has given its answer. Had any final, permanent state of the universe been possible and desirable, we would already have attained it since eternity has already preceded this moment. And eternity stretches before us too. The universe has decreed that the greatest pleasure, the maximum bliss, is to forever complete the cosmic journey from maximum potential to maximum actualisation: for “blank zero” to become all numbers between zero and infinity and be transformed into “full zero”. Completing this journey is the cosmic orgasm, and the universe has no interest other than attaining this cosmic orgasm an infinite number of times. Are we humans not driven in exactly the same way? We all want orgasm after orgasm, with the perfect, most attractive partners. Is that not what haunts our imagination, what we long for? Do we ever want it to stop? Do we want one perfect orgasm that will sate our desire for any further orgasms? No! We never want the orgasms to cease. We don’t want a final blissful state. The pursuit – forever – of more and better orgasms defines us. As above, so below. We are orgasm machines and God machines combined. And in fact becoming God is the greatest orgasm of all. We can’t get enough of it. And we keep repeating this orgasmic process for eternity. Can anyone imagine a better solution to living forever? We have surely found the optimal solution: infinite orgasms!

Sexsomnia

A MAN WAS CLEARED of rape because he suffered from sexsomnia – having sex while asleep. He had no recollection of what he did. He shouted out “horny bitch” while he was having sex in his sleep trance. His wife and a former girlfriend backed up his claims, saying that he had done the same to them. An expert stated: “Sexsomnia is instinctive behaviour. They are not conscious at the time.” Imagine having sex and speaking while actually being asleep! Anticipating both Jung’s Collective Unconscious and Julian Jaynes’s hypothesis of the bicameral mind (where the right hemisphere of the brain commands the left hemisphere via auditory hallucinations), Nietzsche said: “In our sleep and dreams we pass through the whole thought of earlier humanity. I mean, in the same way that man reasons in his dreams, he reasoned when in the waking state many thousands of years ago…The dream carries us back into earlier states of human culture, and affords us a means of understanding it better.” In other words, all human beings were in the past in a permanent dream state. Dream logic was reality logic. Dream actions were reality actions. We all shared a common earlier state of human culture that we can reach through dreams (hence Jung’s archetypes). Human beings are normally paralysed during dreams to stop them acting out their dreams in reality, but what if there was a time in the preconscious past when there was no paralysis mechanism? Dreams were ALWAYS carried out for real. The whole of life was a waking dream. P.D. Ouspensky said, “Sleep and the waking state are not two states that succeed one another…They may be called sleep and sleep plus waking state. This means that when we awake, sleep does not disappear, but to the state of sleep there is added the waking state, which muffles the voices of dreams and makes dream images invisible.” This is an extraordinary insight, consistent with the bicameral paradigm. We can imagine bicameral man as being in a constant dream state, believing that his dreams are real. Consciousness is the “awake state” superimposed over the sleeping, bicameral dream state. Hypnosis switches off the conscious state, activates the bicameral state and allows the voice of the hypnotist to take the place of the ancient hallucinated voice coming from the right hemisphere. Dream paralysis usually insulates us from the bicameral world, but if the paralysis doesn’t kick in, our bicameral, unconscious self can take over.

Equally, if we’re tired during the day and let our minds wander, our underlying bicameral state can reassert itself. In other words, there’s constant tension between consciousness and bicameralism. Stress and exhaustion can often trigger the underlying bicameral self.

The Heirs of Descartes DESCARTES WAS THE FOUNDER of modern philosophy. He famously divided the world into two independent substances: “extended” (matter) and “thinking” (mind), which was non-extended. Descartes’ problem was that he had created a dualist system and neither he nor any of his successors could plausibly explain how mind and matter, as different substances, could interact. How could either affect the other? What would the mechanism be? Idealist philosophers “solved” the problem by abolishing matter while materialist philosophers did the opposite and abolished mind. Scientific materialism – the main intellectual paradigm of the modern world – asserts that mind has no existence independently of matter i.e. it is purely a material phenomenon or epiphenomenon. When you die, your mind necessarily dies too. There is no afterlife, no soul and no God. Scientific materialism is pure, nihilistic atheism. The Illuminati are Descartes’ true heirs because we have successfully resolved the Cartesian problem of mind-matter dualism. In fact, the dualism is an illusion and in reality there is only a monism – one substance. That substance is Mathematics and it can exist in two forms: DIMENSIONLESS (unextended) Mind and DIMENSIONAL (extended) Matter. The basic unit of both existence and mathematics is the indivisible, dimensionless point – the zero, the monad, the soul. Given that the monad is both a mathematical entity and a mental entity performing mathematical operations, it gives us the opportunity to avoid referring to mathematics itself as a substance and instead talk of mathematical mind as the arche, the fundamental substance of existence. We will normally just refer to it as Mind, while always remembering that minds do nothing other than receive, interpret and generate mathematical signals. They have no other activity. Matter can thus be defined as dimensional mind. Mind and matter are fully compatible because it’s not substance that separates them (they are the same substance), but dimensionality, a function of mathematics. Mind exists in the domain of zero and infinity; matter exists in the domain of all numbers between zero and infinity. Mind and matter are indissolubly linked by mathematics and reflect nothing but mathematical activity. Mathematics provides the communication protocol between mind and matter that had eluded Descartes (who, ironically, was himself a brilliant mathematician as

well as philosopher). The implication is that a sufficiently powerful mind can control and transform matter. Alchemy, the ability to transmute base metal into gold, is, finally, mathematical! Descartes’ mistake was to see mind and matter as two separate substances when in fact they are two perspectives of the same substance. They are not different ontologically but in respect of their mathematical properties. Matter is mind subject to the dimensions of space and time. Mind itself is outside space and time, hence is immortal. Matter is mind subjected to a specific and systematic mathematical operation that makes mind “solid and localised” (in terms of our perception of it). Mind on the other hand is neither solid nor localised. Matter is finite mind. Mind is infinite matter. The whole of existence is nothing but an interplay between infinity and finitude. The mental domain is that of infinity and its inverse, zero. The matter domain is that of all finite numbers between zero and infinity. There is no scope for anything else. This model of reality caters for everything that can possibly be. Infinite mind SEEMS localised and finite in relation to our time-andspace-determined consciousness because it enters into a feedback loop with our material body and our senses which are immersed in finite space and time. Human bodies are material entities operating in space and time, linked to a mind (soul) outside space and time. For as long as the body lives, it forms a feedback system with the mind. Space-time information is sent to the mind, and the mind sends back its choices as to what it wants to do in the space-time domain. Space-time considerations thus dominate the mind’s activity even though it is not itself in space and time. Free will is possible only because the mind is not part of space-time causality. If it were, we would all be robots. Free will actually means that a monad – a soul – can originate its own mathematical signals, as well as receiving and interpreting signals coming from other monads. (In the final analysis, the only thing that happens in the universe is that all monads generate their own mathematical signals and also receive the signals of the other monads. This exchange of mathematical signals gets progressively more and more complex – via the dialectic – until the monads actually attain self-awareness and become independent, autonomous agents exhibiting free will. That is “life, the universe and everything in a nutshell.”) Scientific materialism is intellectually dishonest because no scientist seriously believes he lacks mind or free will, yet scientific materialism

denies both mind and free will. It asserts that mind is a form of matter, controlled by mechanistic, causal forces in which no such thing as free will is possible (since free will would contradict the laws of science which are never capricious). Scientific materialists are 100% wrong. Mind isn’t a form of matter; the reverse is true. Scientists will never accomplish a Grand Unified Theory of Everything because they have fallen at the first hurdle: they have denied the primacy of mind, of the numbers zero and infinity. Scientific materialists deny that zero and infinity have any “reality”. They say that if something is unextended (zero) then it does not exist. And they say that if infinity appears in a scientific equation, there must be something wrong with the equation because any infinite result would represent a fatal rupture of the fabric of space and time. They are wrong on both counts and, what’s worse, they already know it. Black holes, and the Big Bang Singularity in which the physical world originated, are both determined by the numbers zero and infinity, which scientists say have no reality. Light, too, is entirely determined by zero and infinity. Scientists persist with their failed theories because they are locked into a literally mindless paradigm. No one is allowed to challenge it. No professional scientist would retain his credibility or even his job if he openly challenged the establishment paradigm. Scientists aren’t, sadly, interested in the truth. Instead, they are obsessed with career progression, with churning out scientific papers to improve their status amongst their peers. M-theory, the final, fatal folly of scientific materialism is conceptually wrong in every way. But, as the most elaborate and complex theory in history, it will keep scientists in jobs producing papers on it almost indefinitely, which in a sense is its real point: it’s a job creation scheme for scientists with no integrity or interest in the real truth.

Feedback Systems FEEDBACK LOOPS ARE THE essence of life. What is a feedback loop? In its simplest form involving two linked elements X and Y, X provides information to Y, which causes a change in Y, which sends information about the change back to X, which causes a change in X, to which it reacts and sends new information back to Y, and so on until the feedback loop

either reaches an omega point and can no longer change, or enters a chaotic state (like the weather) and goes on forever. A feedback loop that reaches a terminus is just another name for the dialectic. It’s also the basis of the scientific method and the driver of evolution. In short, it’s the core process that propels the universe onwards and upwards. Negative feedback loops accelerate towards disastrous outcomes – such as the financial Credit Crunch. Systems need to be based on positive feedback loops if they are to be healthy. Religions which proclaim Absolute Truth revealed by God are inherently hostile to positive feedback loops. The Muslims have refused to evolve intellectually because they know that new knowledge inevitably contradicts the Koran, and that’s unacceptable. Rather than ditch the Koran, Muslims have preferred to ditch intellectual advancement. Consequently, Islam is a backward culture that offers nothing to the intellectual progress of humanity. That’s what happens when cultures, groups and individuals reject positive feedback loops. They become anti-dialectical and start heading back towards the primordial slime. Islam is trapped in a negative feedback that will destroy it sooner or later, but not before it does enormous damage to the rest of us.

The Evolving Universe WHAT IS THE COSMIC JOURNEY? The cosmos starts as an infinity of blank souls – perfectly clean slates – in a single, dimensionless Genesis Point. The infinite monads start pouring out into a cosmos of their own creation: a six dimensional universe in which space, time and matter are born. This is all handled mathematically, the core language of communication of all souls, and the means by which mind and matter are linked. The souls in their dimensionless aspect (mind) create a feedback loop with souls in their dimensional aspect (sub-atomic particles of matter which form into atoms, which then come together to create molecules, rocks, metals and finally living organisms). Through the living organisms, souls come to finite consciousness, and through many reincarnations they come to infinite consciousness (gnosis) and attain the status of God – perfection, absolute actualisation. All the souls in the universe are at different stages on the cosmic journey. Eventually, all of them will attain gnosis and Godhood. When

every blank soul has been transformed into God, when the universe is God in every one of its parts, it has achieved its Omega Point. It can progress no further. It has become the ultimate, absolute Gestalt. The whole is the greater than the sum of parts, and when every part is God then what is the Whole? It is the God of Gods, the Final God, the Absolute God, the complete actualisation of all the potential of existence. And it is also the End. Why? Because the world must always be reborn. It is the God of Gods who commits Divine Suicide and brings a cosmic Age to its end. All actuality is returned to potential. All Gods become blank souls again, and the whole process begins again. Each cosmic journey will differ in its evolutionary details. There is no exact eternal recurrence. Yet the general pattern will be repeated: maximum potential being transformed into maximum actualisation by dialectical feedback loops between mind and matter. Is it not wondrous? Is it not the supreme cosmic vision of infinite perfection? There can be nothing more inspiring. There can be no greater rapture. The process itself is the ultimate bliss. It delivers the perfect orgasm over and over again, and nothing more can be asked of existence. The world is born in zero and dies in zero, yet zero has in the meantime gone from absolute potential to absolute actualisation, from a blank soul to God! That is the cosmic journey, and all of us are on it, but some of us are much closer to completing it than others. Some are on the verge of divinity and some of us – the Abrahamists, for example – are barely distinguishable from the primordial slime. The Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Taoism contain many of the right details. There’s no reason why all Easterners should not come across to Illuminism and find true Enlightenment. They are welcome to retain specific cultural aspects of their religions. We have no problem with that. We are not intolerant, extremist maniacs like the evil, Devil-worshipping Abrahamists.

The Cosmic March WHAT SYMBOLISES THE MARCH of the souls from the Genesis Point into the material world, and ever-expanding space? – the Pythagorean Tetraktys, one of the most sacred symbols of the Illuminati. The universe is in fact always God. It begins as God in his state of maximum potential and minimum actualisation and ends as God in the state

of minimum potential and maximum actualisation, and then it starts over… and it repeats the cycle forever. If we did but know it, we are all God and everything we see, hear, touch, smell and feel is God. All matter is God. All mind is God. There is nothing but God. God does not create the universe, God IS the universe. The universe is the vehicle that takes the hidden God (Deus Absconditus) to the revealed God (Deus Manifestus). The dialectic is the cosmic engine that converts potential into actuality, and keeps raising it higher and higher until it’s perfect, until it has reached its divine Omega Point. There’s no need for any Creator. The cosmos propels itself. It raises itself up through dialectical feedback loops. It makes itself conscious. It makes itself intelligent. It perfects itself. Abraxas, the God of Illuminism, was the first cosmic consciousness to attain gnosis – God Consciousness. But he is not a unique God. We can all join Abraxas. He leads us all forward. Abraxas is the synthesis of two opposing dialectic forces: good (altruism; consideration for others) and evil (selfishness; contempt for others). He is beyond good and evil and operates according to pure reason. In other words, he is a God of mathematical precision and logic. He always knows the right and best thing to do because he can solve all possible equations regarding any conceivable situation. He is all-powerful, allknowing and infallible, just as God is supposed to be. Mathematics guarantees that. He is not moral perfection (although he would never commit any immoral acts), but rather rational perfection, the perfection of mathematics. Lucifer is the cosmic principle of good, and Satan of evil. The dialectic necessarily creates all possible principles, which are then resolved in higher and higher syntheses. Good and evil are resolved only in the attainment of God consciousness. All individuals are attracted to the Satan Principle – “Me, me, me: look after No. 1 and screw over everyone else” – to some degree. Fortunately, many people find greater satisfaction from the Lucifer Principle – “Do as you would be done by; help others and they will help you.” The world is a constant battleground between the Satan and Lucifer principles. Those at the top of society are invariably Satanists. The extraordinarily disproportionate amount of wealth and power they have grabbed for themselves shows that personal enrichment and aggrandisement are their

only motivation. They care nothing for others. Such people should never be allowed anywhere near positions of power over society. They are the least fit to rule. Satan is, ultimately, a bad mathematician, someone who never grasped the Cosmic Equation. He is obsessed with the “One” – himself. Lucifer is a better mathematician, but still not perfect. He is obsessed with the “Many” as opposed to the One. Abraxas is the perfect mathematician who reconciles the One and the Many. Both are essential. Neither can be neglected. The supreme community, the ideal political state, is the one that maximises individual liberty within the context of the Collective. If some individuals are permitted too much liberty, others are enslaved (this is how capitalism operates). If all are forced to be equal, everyone is enslaved (this is how communism operates). The optimal solution is to provide equality of opportunity but not equality of outcomes. The most meritorious will take greatest advantage of equal opportunities and rise to the top, thus generating the best possible governments consisting of the demonstrably most talented individuals. This is the Meritocratic State. It applies 100% inheritance tax at death to ensure that privileged family dynasties never come into being. Maximum individual liberty within a rational State demands that all personal wealth be gifted voluntarily, or by law if needs be, to the Commonwealth when an individual dies. It is inherently anti-meritocratic for an individual to pass on his wealth to specific people rather than to the Commonwealth. No one on earth has the right to increase one person’s freedom and opportunity at the expense of another person’s freedom and opportunity. The system of privilege whereby rich parents pass on prosperity to their children is a direct attack on the opportunities and scope for freedom of those children who do not have rich parents. If seen for what it truly is, privilege is an act of violence and war against the non-privileged and ought to reap the appropriate response. There is simply no place at all for privilege in this world of ours. It is Meritocracy or War. Take your pick.

The Creative Future “When we got out of college we had to find a job. When our kids get out of college they will have to invent a job.” --Tom Friedman, New York Times

THERE ARE AROUND 7,000,000,000 people on this planet. What proportion of them are creative? We estimate that the total creative population of humanity is no more than 700,000. That’s just 0.01%. If we got to 1%, it would represent an enormous advance, a 100 fold increase in human creativity. Imagine a world with 50% creativity. What couldn’t humanity accomplish? We would achieve a “Singularity” – a tipping point, a critical mass that would launch the human race to divinity. The old, stupid religions and the privileged elite stand in our way. They are the ones who block evolution. They are denying humanity its divine destiny. It’s time to sweep them aside.

Karma, Schmarma ONE FAMOUS EASTERN CONCEPT is absolutely wrong and must be abandoned: karma. This is as ridiculous and wicked as the evil beliefs of the Abrahamists. The basic karmic proposition is that there is some sort of moral force (not God) that follows us around, individually monitoring all of our good deeds and bad and configuring our future lives on the basis of this moral accounting system. This is a ludicrous idea. We are free agents. We decide our futures, not karma. The most cursory glance at the world reveals that nearly all of the most successful and richest people in our world are disgusting, selfish, vain, narcissistic, greedy, evil, wicked, monstrous, stupid, sociopathic and psychopathic. If they are being “rewarded” by karma, God save us from karma. Karma is just another Satanic concept, a weapon used by the Demiurge and his archons to control stupid and superstitious people. Sooner or later, karma degenerates into the diabolical caste system which promotes the idea that some people are “untouchables” and must be given all the unclean jobs dealing with shit and rats. Only sick people are karmists. Karma is a scientifically preposterous idea. How could “good and evil” – or, more to the point, opinions of good and evil – possibly affect DNA (as must happen if a body is to be some kind of reflection of the previous sins or virtues of a soul)? It’s LAUGHABLE. Karma is so dumb it’s worthy of Abrahamism. It’s pure superstition and idiocy.

Evil people are at the top of society in every country because, manifestly, EVIL PAYS; EVIL IS REWARDED. Successful evil leads to even more evil, not less. It incurs no karmic penalty or inhibition. Any strong, dominant person could easily make weak, submissive people his slaves and exercise absolute power over them. That’s the real law of our cosmos – power, not karma. Karma is moralistic bullshit, the wishful thinking of slaves. There’s no cosmic force punishing the evil people of our world. If we wish them to be punished, it’s our responsibility, not karma’s. Karma is yet another stratagem of the weak to prevent them taking responsibility for their lives. Evil is combated only if WE ACT. To leave it to karma is cowardice, and it’s futile since there’s no such thing. Imagine a different version of karma based on reason versus irrationality rather than good versus evil. Instead of being rewarded for being good and punished for being evil, a soul is rewarded for being rational but punished for being irrational. So, good but stupid people would be regressing to more primitive states, and clever but evil people would be gaining more and more power and success. Look around you. Which model reflects reality – is it stupid or evil people who are punished; is it stupid or evil people who are going backwards and downwards? “Moral” karma is a lie and fraud. It panders to stupid people who imagine they are good. In truth, stupid people are much more likely to reincarnate as animals than clever but evil people. Evil doesn’t pull you down and punish you – stupidity does. Moral karma is a stupid idea for stupid people. “Rational” karma is a much more powerful concept – you are rewarded for being clever, knowledgeable and on the side of reason. Imagine how the world would be transformed if people were much keener on being smart than on being “good”? Look at the moronic Islamic hordes. They no doubt think of themselves as extremely good, but how many of them are extremely rational? None! Look at Islam – is it leading the world forwards or backwards? There’s almost nothing more important than redirecting people’s minds away from “good versus evil” and towards “cleverness versus stupidity.” Stupidity should be regarded as almost criminal; as a source of shame and disgrace, practically as a disease, and a highly infectious one at that. The world has had thousands of years of being preoccupied with good and evil. Has it led us to a “good” world? Manifestly, if “moral” karma were a real phenomenon, the world would now be a place of goodness and moral

tranquillity, wouldn’t it? Every year, the cosmos would get “better”. Yet the opposite is obviously true. The religious discourse of good and evil has failed and is fraudulent. Governments have been in bed with religion rather than with education. Smarter people have better outcomes than stupid people, so education should be the central axis of State policy, not pandering to ludicrous religious pressure groups that are continually undermining reason and knowledge in favour of unreason and faith. Moral karma, like Abrahamism, is a pernicious concept that has done untold damage. The Enlightenment was about reason, not good and evil. The Enlightenment still hasn’t triumphed. Unreason still dominates our world. The discourse of “good and evil” is inherently linked to stupidity because it’s stupid religions that promote this agenda and they do so in order to control people by terrifying them with visions of hell and promises of heaven. It’s the most effective conditioning strategy ever devised: Pavlov’s dogs in the human sphere. We have to get beyond good and evil via reason. Ask yourself a simple question – would people be more or less evil if they were highly educated and highly rational? Would our world be full of inequality if everyone were smart? Education, NOT RELIGION, is the answer to the issues of good and evil. Religion has been the primary source of evil since it has bred stupidity, irrationality, faith, superstition, extremism, fanaticism, intolerance, ghettoization, persecution and mania. If we want a morally better world we must destroy the greatest immoral force of all: MAINSTREAM RELIGION. We in the Illuminati wish the weak and cowardly to have no bolt-holes and no excuses. Your life is your responsibility, no one else’s. Karma is a fiction. At all times you have free will and free choice. As Sartre said, “You are condemned to be free.” That’s exactly how it is. YOU choose your life, not karma. You are free to be whatever you like. You are free to be EVIL, and that’s exactly what many people choose. Some of those people meet with disaster. Many prosper. If evil were consistently punished by the cosmos, and had been for eons, it would have vanished by now. The reality is the opposite. Evil is frequently rewarded. Why? Because material existence is the domain of the Demiurge.

Who designed the Designer?

ABRAHAMISTS CLAIM THAT THE most complex and perfect entity imaginable (God) has always existed. One day he decided to create something of lesser complexity and perfection: the universe. Existence immediately became imperfect, so the Abrahamist God should be called the God of Imperfection. Which, of course, is a fatal contradiction, hence the Abrahamist God does not exist. Scientific materialists claim that the laws of physics, chemistry and biology (culminating in Darwinian evolution by natural selection) are responsible for the complexity of the world. Atheists such as Richard Dawkins ridicule the notion that the universe is designed because it implies the existence of a designer more complex than his design and begs the question of how he came into existence – who designed him?! In other words, anyone who claims that the apparent design of the world implies a designer should be prepared to ask who designed the designer. If they don’t, they have simply stated that all problems should be resolved by appealing to a more complex version (called God) of the same conundrum. Thus the problem of the apparent design of the cosmos is “resolved” by appealing to something even more problematic – the existence of a cosmic designer. This amounts to not answering the question at all, but just creating the illusion of an answer in the catch-all concept of God. If evidence of design implies a designer then evidence of a designer implies a still higher designer, and so on in a system of infinite regress. What materialists such as Dawkins don’t realise is that they themselves have simply introduced a different version of the God problem. While Abrahamists appeal to “God”, Dawkins appeals to the “laws of science”. But, just as Abrahamists can’t account for the existence of an eternal God of infinite intelligence and power, nor can any scientific materialist account for the laws of science. Where did they come from? How did they come to be? Where are they stored? How does matter “know” how to obey the laws? How can scientific “laws” of matter give rise to life, mind and consciousness? (The implication is that there is something in the mathematical equations of material science that is actually describing life, mind and consciousness if we did but know it.) Did the laws of science exist prior to the Big Bang in order to direct it? If so, where were they? If not, how was the Big Bang controlled if there were no laws of science, and how did those laws come into being? Since scientific materialism is an ideology that denies the existence of mind and says that everything is

materially-based, then the laws of physics must somehow be materialistic – would any scientists like to explain how? Why are the laws of science exactly right for producing life, mind and consciousness? Any slight changes in the laws would make it impossible for life to exist. How come they are so finely tuned for life? Some scientists appeal to the abstraction of the “Multiverse”. They claim there’s an infinite number of universes, each with a random set of scientific laws directing them. All possible versions of the laws of science are said to exist. Such an argument is, of course, as desperate as the type that Abrahamists resort to concerning God. Where are these infinite different laws? How do they keep track of each other? Where are these infinite universes? Why aren’t these universes always colliding catastrophically with each other? How does a universe “choose” this over that set of laws, or how is the process managed by random allocation? What’s this mechanism of random generation of scientific laws? The only plausible explanation of the design in the world is to appeal to a two-stage design process. First: mind, the fundamental “stuff” of the universe, imbued with self-evolving capacity (capable of taking it from potential to actualisation), evolves to the condition where it has, in effect, created the laws of science and, second, it then uses these laws to initiate the Big Bang and create a physical universe. To be fair to Dawkins, his real argument is with the Abrahamist God, and we share his objections to such a God. However, his hostility to Jehovah usually spills over into hostility to all religious thinking, and that is profoundly unwise. God, in the final analysis, is mind, and mind, like matter, is governed by evolutionary processes. That’s all that Dawkins has to accept in order to become an Illuminist! He is an evolutionary materialist who claims that life, mind and consciousness evolve from matter, while the Illuminati are evolutionary idealists who assert that life and consciousness are already implicit in mind. Matter evolves from mind, and life and consciousness appear in the material world because they are already potentialities of mind. Dawkins and his ilk claim that inert, dead matter can create life. The Illuminati assert that the whole universe is alive, except much of life is so rudimentary – so primitively evolved – that it appears “dead”.

When you add complexity and organisation to primitive life, its inherent life becomes more and more apparent and is eventually unmistakable, even to materialists. In other words, everything in the universe exists on a spectrum of “aliveness” and only at the upper end of the spectrum is life as we know it apparent, yet it exists throughout the spectrum. According to materialism, there is an infinitely puzzling point – about which they are totally clueless – where collections of dead, lifeless, mindless atoms create life from death. Death and life are separated by an infinite mystery (almost religious in its connotations) of how matter is organised. For the Illuminati, “death” is not separated from life at all; “dead” atoms are actually “living” but are much lower down the life spectrum. Which scenario do you find more plausible? Your choice is simple. Either everything is living, or there is some quasi-religious cut-off of existence where death becomes life, and life becomes death. Trying to explain this cut-off would be as challenging as trying to explain the Abrahamist God.

Illuminism: Logos and Mythos PYTHAGOREANISM (ILLUMINISM) always had two tracks, and in effect two separate schools of thought, based on the inner circle of the Illuminati, the mathematikoi (“learners”), and the outer circle, the akousmatikoi (“listeners”). The mathematikoi were dedicated to Logos: reason, logic, mathematics, science and philosophy. The akousmatikoi took the Mythos approach of myth, legend, story, religion, ritual mystery, mysticism, esotericism and magic. There were periods in ancient times when the akousmatikoi assumed the dominant role (and Gnosticism, Hermeticism and late-Neoplatonism belonged to this tradition; the early Neoplatonism of Plotinus was in the other tradition). The mathematikoi have been firmly in charge of Illuminism since the time of Leibniz. The upshot is that Illuminism is the world’s only Logos religion – fully compatible with modern science, mathematics and philosophy – but has traditional, Mythos-based religious aspects from which the rituals of Illuminism are taken. Illuminism is the perfect synthesis of Logos and Mythos.

Infinity and Zero “With the introduction of…the infinitely small and infinitely large, mathematics, usually so strictly ethical, fell from grace…The virgin state of absolute validity and irrefutable proof of everything was gone forever; the realm of controversy was inaugurated, and we have reached the point where most people differentiate and integrate not because they understand what they are doing but from pure faith, because up to now it has always come out right.” -- Friedrich Engels “There was a problem with the scientific revolution: zero. Deep within the scientific world’s powerful new tool – calculus – was a paradox. The inventors of calculus, Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, created the most powerful mathematical method ever by dividing by zero and adding an infinite number of zeros together. Both acts were as illogical as adding 1 + 1 to get 3. Calculus, at its core, defied the logic of mathematics. Accepting it was a leap of faith. Scientists took that leap, for calculus is the language of nature. To understand that language completely, science had to conquer the infinite zeros.” -- Charles Seife Sadly, science never did conquer the “infinite zeros”. Neither scientists nor mathematicians (excepting Leibniz, of course) have every properly understood calculus. As Engels cynically noted, they turned it into an instrument of faith for doing calculations, without comprehending what zero truly meant. M-theorists have declared zero a non-existent in terms of reality and yet all of calculus is based on an infinity of zeros. How is it possible for science to revere calculus, the tool for dealing with the infinitely small, and then declare that the infinitely small doesn’t actually exist? If they were philosophers, they would know they had committed a catastrophic error; indeed a category error. But they’re not; they’re calculators and while their calculations work they don’t care what those calculations mean. Technically, their position is known as instrumentalism: propositions are not to be regarded as true or false but as effective or ineffective. Philosophers are interested in the truth, not in whether a calculation is effective or not. Scientists on the other hand are obsessed with effective calculations because these allow them to write scientific papers and

advance their careers. The idea that scientists care about the truth is a myth. What they care about is effective and efficient calculations. Tobias Danzig wrote: “When, after a thousand-year stupor, European thought shook off the effect of the sleeping powders so skilfully administered by the Christian Fathers, the problem of infinity was the first to be revived.” Christianity cost the West a millennium. And look at the damage Islam is doing to Muslim nations: they have become backward and thence dangerously frustrated and angry. Although the problem of infinity came back to the West, it didn’t go away. Scientific materialism is still confounded by infinity and zero.

Limited and Unlimited “The material cause and first element of things was the Infinite…and into that from which things take their rise they pass away once more, of necessity, for they make reparation and satisfaction to one another for their injustice according to the ordering of time.” -- Anaximander IF ILLUMINISM IS TO be boiled down to one central concept it is the interaction of the infinite and the finite. The whole of existence – of science, mathematics, philosophy and religion – is defined by how the infinite and finite relate to one another. There are two primary issues, of course: how the infinite is made finite, and how the finite becomes infinite. The infinite and the finite are continually flowing in and out of each other. Death converts the soul from finite mode to infinite mode, and birth returns it to finite mode. Scientific materialism is the belief-system that there is nothing but the finite: matter. Science will never achieve a grand unified theory of everything until it embraces the infinite. The religious domain is that of the infinite, and that’s why it has had such difficulties proving itself in the face of relentless attacks from materialism. In our everyday lives, we are surrounded by the finite. The finite is what we detect with our five senses. It’s the domain of common sense and practicality. It’s extremely difficult for the human mind to escape from the boundaries of the finite domain and soar into contemplation of the infinite beyond. Our consciousness is geared up for existence in a finite world, not an infinite one.

When we present the Logos core of Illuminism in The God Game: How to Create the Universe, it will revolve entirely around how the infinite and finite are indissolubly linked, how the scientific and religious domains are entirely compatible via mathematics and philosophy. Mathematics is the glue of existence. It holds everything together. Why? Because it accommodates zero, infinity and everything in between. Nothing exists outwith mathematics. The ancient Greeks, following the pre-Socratic philosopher Anaximander, were fascinated by the concept of the apeiron (boundless, unlimited) and the peiron (bounded, limited). Anaximander, a mathematician and philosopher a generation older than Pythagoras (in fact Pythagoras was a student of his for a time), declared that the arche – the ultimate substance of existence – was the apeiron, an infinite, indefinite, invisible, eternal, imperishable substance, imbued with eternal motion. If we call the apeiron energy then we have arrived at the first incarnation of modern science. Anaximander has a good claim to being the world’s first scientist, and first to glimpse the true nature of existence. Everything, said Anaximander, arises from the apeiron and everything returns to it. He believed that elements such as water, air, earth and fire must be finite manifestations of an infinite super-element in which they were all ultimately united (we might call this the first credible appearance of the scientific Grand Unified Theory of Everything). Each element was incapable of moving out of balance with the other elements (i.e. of committing an “injustice”) because any such attempt would be corrected by the apeiron. (This amounts to a statement concerning the conservation laws of science.) Without saying so explicitly, Anaximander virtually characterised apeiron as God. He was clear that the substance was “alive” in some sense, and filled all of space. He spoke of the motion of the apeiron causing pieces to break free to become the individual objects of the world, and he believed that in the future the motion would recombine all of the pieces to bring the infinite back to its original, unbroken unity. Here we see an early idea of energy or force, as distinct from matter, which acts on matter and shapes it into material objects, and propels them via its eternal motion. Anaximander was a brilliant thinker. He taught that the light of the moon actually came from the sun rather than the moon itself (which many

ancients thought was a night light). He declared that the earth was round (cylindrical, to be more exact, with a diameter three times its height – humanity lived on the flat top, which was surrounded by a circular oceanic mass) and that there were many earth-like worlds in the cosmos. He was the first person to produce a map, he invented the sundial and he even predicted an earthquake in Sparta, thus saving many lives. A follower of Apollo, god of light and reason, Anaximander founded a colony on the shores of the Black Sea and named it Apollonia. He advocated an early version of evolutionary theory, declaring that humans were originally covered in scales and a type of watery mud. A human being was a sort of aquatic creature that was incubated in the mouths of fish-like creatures, from which it eventually emerged, shed its scales and lived on land as an independent creature. The idea that humanity evolved from the sea and from fish is surely one of the most remarkable insights of all time. Modern thinking is that all life did indeed originate in the seas. Anaximander’s reasoning was that living creatures are “moist” hence must be associated with the moist element – water – (human beings are indeed predominantly composed of water). As the sun evaporated the water, land (the element of earth) appeared, and the moist living creatures became adapted for land living. Anaximander was certain that humanity must have evolved from different creatures for the simple reason that the infancy of human babies is so long compared with that of other animals that the original humans could never have survived in the “wild”: ergo they must have evolved over time to become what they are now where babies can be looked after by their parents for many years. This is impeccable logic. Anaximander might be called the Father of Evolution since he asserted that worlds and animals alike evolve, and are not made by a Creator such as Abraham’s God. So, over 2,500 years ago, we see the Evolution versus Creationism debate in its earliest form. The pagan Greeks were of course right and the Jews utterly wrong. It’s astounding that 2,500 years later, the Abrahamists haven’t gone away and actually dominate the world. So much for the advance of human reason! In truth, human reason has only ever been the province of a tiny intellectual class that has never constituted more than about 1% of the human race, yet virtually all of the glories and progress of humanity are their doing.

The Illuminati were as preoccupied 2,500 years ago as they are now with the limited and unlimited, the bounded and boundless, the finite and infinite. Unlike many ancient Greeks who had a horror of the concept of the infinite, the Pythagoreans were obsessed with it, but they struggled to find a technical means of describing it and it was effectively not until the late seventeenth century that the Illuminati achieved the mastery over the concept of infinity that allowed them to finalise the rational underpinnings of Illuminism. The credit went to Grand Master Leibniz, one of the greatest geniuses of all time, whose brilliance has never been fully acknowledged by the world at large. The reason for that is simple: he was unjustly overshadowed by the towering figure of Isaac Newton. But one day Leibniz will be recognised as the enormously greater figure. Leibniz invented calculus – the mathematics of infinitesimals – independently of Newton, was first to publish on the subject and it’s his notation that continues to be used to the present day. Unfortunately for Leibniz, it was generally considered that Newton was working on calculus slightly before him, even though Newton’s notation and treatment of the subject was horribly awkward and arguably held back British physics and mathematics for a century while Europe raced ahead with Leibniz’s much slicker version of calculus. The reality is that Leibniz was the true originator of calculus. He was fixated on infinity, both the infinitely large and infinitely small, for his whole adult life. Leibniz’s monads – the core of Illuminism – are where the infinitely large and infinitely small (zero) collide: infinite zeros (monads) provide the basis of existence. Newton became enormously more famous then Leibniz because of his equations of motion that dominated physics until the twentieth century, and which were even used to land man on the moon in 1969. Newton is one of the greatest champions of scientific materialism (even though he was secretly a religious fanatic and spent much more time on mystical hocus pocus, the occult and Biblical prophecy than he ever did on physics and mathematics – he thought he belonged to a select group chosen by God to uncover the Bible’s hidden messages for the benefit of humanity), while Leibniz is one of the greatest champions of idealism (the concept that the external world is mind-created in one way or another), rationalism (the concept that the world is based on rational principles that rational minds can

discern) and panpsychism (the concept that mind is everywhere and in all things). It’s Leibniz’s work that allows religion to be brought to the heart of mathematics, science and philosophy, and when this fact becomes widely known, Leibniz will come to be regarded as the greatest human being of all time. Newton will be a footnote to Leibniz rather than the other way around. Such is the importance of Leibniz to the Illuminati that the label “Pythagorean Illuminati” that we sometimes use to refer to ourselves could validly be replaced with “Leibnizian Illuminati”. Hegel also added vital insights to the consideration of the infinite and the finite and how they are dialectically connected. It is through the finite that the infinite expresses itself and through the finite (the limited, the bounded) that the notion of the limitless, boundless and infinite takes form. Neither can exist without the other. The Pythagoreans spoke of the unlimited being drawn in and limited by “the limit”. This, in essence, is the explanation of matter. It is the infinite “finitised”. We are led to the following definitions: 1) “energy” is immaterial, extensionless, dimensionless and associated with zero and infinity 2) “matter” is extended, dimensional, finite and associated with all the finite numbers between zero and infinity. Energy and matter are the infinite and the finite respectively and through their interaction the external world is brought into being. Descartes grasped the truth without realising it. When he said that thinking substance was unextended while matter was extended substance, he had covered all possibilities. What he didn’t work out was that if you call mind “energy” and then you say that matter is “bound, finitised” energy, you have reduced everything to a single substance – energy (mind) – that can belong either to the domain of zero and infinity or the finite domain of “greater than zero and less then infinity”. Cartesian dualism with its insoluble problem of how two different substances interact is abolished and replaced instead by the radically different concept of dimensional dualism of a single substance, energy (mind). Mind and matter can interact because they are NOT separate substances but the same substance in either dimensional or dimensionless forms, which are fully linked mathematically. Cartesian dualism is not an issue of substance but of the properties of a substance. Whereas two different

substances can never interact, one substance with two different but related properties certainly can. Mathematics provides the medium of translation of mind and matter (dimensionless and dimensional energy); it bridges them, furnishes the communications protocols between them, allows their transmutation from one into the other. Mathematics is thus THE PHILOSOPHER’S STONE that the alchemists sought. “Calculus” comes from the Latin word for “small stone”, and calculus, as the key to all science, can stake a better claim than anything else to being the authentic Philosopher’s Stone. The most famous equation in science, Einstein’s E = mc2, connects energy and mass, but we want to emphasize a critical point that is ALWAYS invisible to scientific materialists and which underlies why they have been unable to create a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Einstein’s equation, superficially, seems to be about finite numbers but, actually, it contains a disguised reference to infinity and zero. At the speed of light in a vacuum, all “objects” are immaterial and do not experience either space or time. All distances are ZERO and times passes INFINITELY slowly i.e. time has stopped. This is the domain of MIND, not matter. It is exactly the same domain as the one at the centre of a black hole, or at the Big Bang Singularity. As soon as any equation contains “c” (the speed of light), it is really telling us that the gap between the finite and the infinite is being bridged. This is a critical point. We can say that the universe is composed of limiting and limitless things, mediated by mathematics. In a very real sense, Pythagoras was right when he said that all things were numbers since numbers label every point from zero to infinity. Anything that cannot have a number associated with it cannot exist. The Pythagorean Illuminatus, Philolaus of Croton (Croton in Southern Italy was the first major base of operations for the Illuminati), is credited with being the first to deny that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Copernicus acknowledged that Philolaus’s cosmology showed the Earth revolving around a central fire (Hearth of the Universe). This Central Fire was analogous to what in the medieval world was called the Empyrean, the abode of the gods, except the medievals moved it from the centre of the universe to beyond the stars where it thus attained the status of “highest heaven”.

Aristarchos, another Illuminatus (from Samos, the same island as Pythagoras), refined Philolaus’s system and replaced the Central Fire with the Sun. Thus he was the originator of the heliocentric model of the solar system some 1,800 years before Copernicus. His astronomical ideas were ignored in favour of the geocentric theory of Aristotle and others, which reached its supreme expression in the system put forward by the ancient astronomer Ptolemy around 150 CE (his book on the subject was called “Almagest” – “The Greatest”). The Ptolemaic universe remained unchallenged until Copernicus had the sense to return to Aristarchos’s model. It’s astonishing that 1,800 years were lost. The blunder prospered because it was completely in line with Abrahamic views of Creation: no one was motivated to challenge it and eventually no one dared, thanks to the Inquisition. Humanity has lost countless productive years because of the retarded views of the Abrahamists. Imagine where we would be now if the astonishing discoveries of the ancient Greeks some 2,500 years ago had been relentlessly pursued ever since rather than being sidelined while the human race got on with religious slaughter and mania.

The Illuminist Heroes of the Infinite NICHOLAS OF CUSA (1401-64) was an influential Catholic humanist, mathematician, philosopher, theologian (rising to the position of Cardinal and papal legate), and a secret member of the Illuminati. He travelled widely and was tasked with reforming the corrupt practices of a number of monasteries. His suggested reforms were so radical that they were never implemented. Had they been, Catholicism might have been able to clean up its act sufficiently to prevent the rise of Protestantism, which was in many ways a backlash against the flagrant financial abuses of the Church and the low moral standards of priests, monks and even popes. Nicholas was a proponent of the philosophy of Neoplatonism (which could be made to look like Catholic orthodoxy by a sufficiently careful writer). He described the Universe as “maximum contractum” – the totality of finite things, flowing out from and returning to God (“maximum absolutum” – the absolute maximum), God being equated with the ineffable “One” of Neoplatonism. This remains the position of the Illuminati to the present day. The Maximum Absolutum is all about infinity, while the Maximum Contractum is all about the finite. Nicholas described Christ as a kind of interface between the maximum absolutum and maximum contractum, being part of both domains simultaneously. He was the first person since ancient times to present a nongeocentric view of the universe, though he was of course extremely careful concerning what he wrote for fear of attracting the attention of the Inquisition, and his main work was published posthumously when he was beyond its reach. Copernicus (1473-1543), the founder of modern astronomy, knew of Nicholas of Cusa’s ideas and it can be inferred that these spurred him to begin his momentous work on the heliocentric cosmos. (Nicholas did not in fact endorse Heliocentrism; his view was the ultra-modern one that no universal centre can be defined – nevertheless, by challenging geocentrism he provided scope for new cosmological models to be advanced.) Nicholas of Cusa’s central teaching was, in effect, the pantheistic one that the universe is God divided into small bits. Each bit is part of God, and

God is in each part. This is very similar to the Holographic Principle that the Whole is made up of all the parts, and each part contains the Whole. When all the pieces are put together, they are God as Totality. God, being infinite, can be divided into infinite finite bits. By expressing these views, Nicholas of Cusa is credited with being the first person to formally contemplate and propose that the universe was infinite (though his conclusions were theoretical rather than observational as in the later case of the English Illuminatus Thomas Digges who explicitly declared that there were infinite stars). Nicholas wrote that, this being the case, the universe could have neither a centre nor a circumference. The question of whether the universe has a centre has turned out to be one of the profoundest questions of all, and the position of the Illuminati since Leibniz is that it most certainly does – the Genesis Singularity. Nicholas’s position was that we are all part of God and hence we can all enjoy an immediate intuition of God, such as mystics claim to experience. Extending the idea, we ourselves can become God. We are part of the Whole, but each part contains the Whole, and if we are sufficiently prepared, we can grasp the Whole within us – and that means that we are God. Nicholas was recognised as one of the great geniuses and polymaths of the 15th century. Arguably, he was the true founder of the modern scientific age, particularly in astronomical and cosmological terms. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all read his works (the last referring to him as “divinely inspired”). Nicholas was a major influence on Giordano Bruno (whom we will look at next), and both men were an inspiration to Gottfried Leibniz, one of the greatest Illuminists of them all. These three men, two Germans and an Italian, form one of the golden triads of the Illuminati. All three men were obsessed with infinity and infinitesimals. Nicholas advanced an argument that the Maximum (“God”) cannot fail to exist and that nothing at all would exist if the Maximum did not exist. This is a central doctrine of Illuminism. He also declared that the absolutely Maximum and the absolutely Minimum coincide. This, again, is essential to Illuminist thinking. Nicholas argued that maximal and minimal motion are indistinguishable at infinity. He denied that in the created world, infinite motion is possible

and he equally denied that absolute rest is possible. He stated that everything in the universe is in motion, whether or not it appears to us to be. This last statement is consistent with the “zero-point” energy of modern physics. He challenged the idea that there were perfect circles in nature, and this opened the way for Kepler to work on the radical idea of elliptical planetary orbits. (In fact, the Illuminatus Hypatia had worked on elliptical orbits over a 1,000 years earlier.) Nicholas also denied the existence of the perfect cosmic spheres that ancients loved so much and around which they had based their cosmology. ***** Infinity has always been a preoccupation of the Illuminati. It was understood by the Illuminati long ago that the key to comprehending the universe was to relate zero and infinity – the “mystery” numbers – to all other numbers (the finite numbers), thus establishing a “complete” mathematics covering all possible bases (this is implicit in Pythagoras’s declaration that numbers are the arche). Although the task was apparent, the solution wasn’t – zero and infinity were extremely poorly understood –and it wasn’t until Leibniz that the jigsaw was finally completed. A mathematical genius – the inventor of calculus – Leibniz was the first philosopher to have the technical expertise in mathematics and full grasp of the advanced knowledge of zero and infinity to resolve the fundamental framework of existence.

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) “I can imagine an infinite number of worlds like the Earth, with a Garden of Eden on each one. In all these Gardens of Eden, half the Adams and Eves will not eat the fruit of knowledge, and half will. But half of infinity is infinity, so an infinite number of worlds will fall from grace and there will be an infinite number of crucifixions.” -- Giordano Bruno ONCE A CATHOLIC FRIAR of the Dominican Order, Bruno was a remarkable Italian philosopher, mathematician, astronomer and Illuminatus, who ended up being found guilty of heresy by the Roman Inquisition and burned at the stake. Hence he entered the pantheon of heroes not only of the Illuminati but also of scientists, atheists, philosophers and everyone opposed to Church authority. He is regarded as a martyr for freethinking and modern scientific ideas.

He enthusiastically championed the cause of Copernicus and his heliocentric cosmology, and developed the ideas of Nicholas of Cusa (who had tried to maintain the semblance of an orthodox Catholic stance) into a much more self-evident pantheistic system where God and the universe are essentially one. All things in the universe come from God and are unified in God. It was primarily for his pantheistic beliefs that he was found guilty of heresy. (His view of an infinite, pantheistic universe influenced Spinoza, who thus fell foul of the Jewish community of which he was part. Spinoza was accused of atheism and expelled for heresy.) The list of accusations against Bruno included: 1) Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers. 2) Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ’s divinity and Incarnation. 3) Holding erroneous opinions about Christ. 4) Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass. 5) Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity. 6) Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes. 7) Dealing in magic and divination. 8) Denying the Virginity of Mary. 9) Immoral Conduct. 10) Blasphemy. 11) Holding the Arian heresy that Christ was less than the Father (Bruno claimed that Jesus was merely an unusually skilful magician). 12) Holding that the Holy Spirit is the soul of the world. 13) Holding that the Devil will be saved.

14) Holding that there was no Creation and there will be no Last Judgment. All of the Illuminati held such views, of course. When Bruno was burned, it was with “his tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words”. (Some sort of contraption was fitted over his head, and his mouth jammed open with a wooden rod, preventing him from speaking.) His ashes were dumped into the Tiber and all his works were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum – the Catholic list of prohibited books. Like all Illuminists, Bruno was well-versed in Neoplatonism and Hermeticism. He was the first person to suggest that our sun was actually a star. This led him to infer that there must be planets orbiting these other stars and hence, since there are infinite stars, the universe must contain an infinite number of inhabited worlds populated by other intelligent beings. Such thoughts were astounding and unprecedented in the age in which he lived. Bruno said that the infinite universe was filled with a substance: “pure air” (aether or spiritus) that offered no resistance to the heavenly bodies which, contrary to prevailing opinion, weren’t fixed within spheres but moving under their own momentum. This notion of a universal aether wasn’t overthrown until the arrival of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. While the old cosmic view said that everything above the level of the moon – all stars, planets and moons – was made of aether, Bruno maintained that stars, planets and moons were in fact made from the four elements of earth, water, air and fire, just like the Earth, but in different proportions. He maintained that the same physical laws operated throughout the universe. Space and time, he said, were both infinite. The universe was eternal, so there was no scope for either the Creation or the Last Judgement. Bruno regarded the solar system – comprising a sun (star) orbited by planets – as the basic unit of the universe (he didn’t manage to conceive of galaxies, which didn’t come into the picture until William Herschel’s seminal work a couple of centuries later). He asserted, contrary to modern science, that all matter possesses mind and is intelligent. His ideas on infinite worlds were frequently ridiculed: he was way ahead of his time. His contribution to the birth of modern science remains controversial, but he was unquestionably one of the Founding

Fathers of the view of a cosmos requiring no Creator God. Eventually, he will be seen as more perceptive and correct than modern scientific materialists. He wrote works on how to improve memory and developed a quite prodigious memory himself, so astounding that he was accused of using magic and witchcraft. After leaving the Dominicans, Bruno travelled widely in Europe and became one of the most notable figures of his age. He conceived the universe as composed of infinite, uncaused, imperishable parts, to which he gave the name “monads”, which united to form bodies. Souls, he thought, were a special category of monads, which could control ordinary monads. This concept of monads was decisive in the work of Leibniz. Arguably, it is the most important doctrine of Illuminism. The whole mathematical edifice of Illuminism is constructed from foundations consisting entirely of monads. Leibniz was able to show mathematically how the entire universe is built from monads, and we will be revealing his monumental and breathtaking work in The God Game: How to Create the Universe. Quite simply, there is nothing more wondrous than how Leibniz started with a single mathematical unit – a monad – and from it described EVERYTHING. Leibniz took a monad and transformed it into God using nothing but mathematics. It’s thanks to his brilliant mathematics that the Illuminati can refute scientific materialism. Like Illuminism, scientific materialism is based on mathematics. The decisive difference is that scientific materialism declares that the smallest unit of existence is an unimaginably small onedimensional “string” of energy vibrating in an 11-dimensional space (three of regular space, one of time and seven spatial dimensions rolled up so small they are virtually invisible!). Illuminism, on the other hand, asserts the primacy of mind over matter and defines the smallest, indivisible unit of existence not as a material object at all, but as a mind – a monad. The physical universe is a result of monads operating in a sixdimensional universe of three real space dimensions and three imaginary space dimensions. It’s no exaggeration to say that the whole destiny of the human race depends on whether humanity will follow scientific materialism or Illuminism. The two positions clash head on mathematically and we will show in The God Game: How to Create the Universe that Leibniz, the

inventor of calculus, the main tool used by science, devised the supreme mathematical system that explains all of the features of the universe. Naturally, all other religions, especially the lunatic religions of faith and revelation, are excluded from this debate. Only Illuminism, thanks to mathematics, can rationally challenge and refute scientific materialism. In the final analysis, mathematics is the sole truth. Everything else, frankly, is bullshit, and the biggest bullshit of all is faith. Faith ought to be excised from the human condition. It serves no useful purpose at all and is frequently toxic and malignant. Only stupid people value faith. Rational people stick to reason and logic, facts and evidence.

Spinoza WHERE DESCARTES TAUGHT THAT the universe comprises two kinds of substance, mind and body, Spinoza declared that only one basic stuff constitutes the whole universe, and he called it God. Everything in the universe is God. All the apparently individual things belong to one great Whole. Contrary to Descartes’ doctrine that mind and body are, more or less, completely separate, Spinoza said that every object is both mind and body. A mind cannot exist without a body, nor a body without a mind. “God substance” – the basic stuff of the universe – is infinite, limitless, selfcaused, self-determined and immortal. The view wherein God is identified with everything is called pantheism. Spinoza argued that God has an infinite number of attributes but only two are apparent to human beings: body and mind. Moreover, these are entirely independent of each other, neither affecting the other in any way. However, a bodily event is simultaneously a mental event because there is only a single substance and an event happening to that substance is detected and interpreted by all of its different attributes or modes. The mental mode will have a reaction to the event, as will the body mode. This view is labelled “psycho-physical” parallelism – mind and body always act in parallel, never separately. So, the universe is invariably in perfect mind and body synchronisation. Although this gets rid of the Cartesian mind-body dualism, it doesn’t do anything at all for human free will.

Dan Brown

DAN BROWN’S BOOK Angels and Demons is concerned with the Giordano Bruno period of the Illuminati’s history. While Bruno, Dee, Digges and Nicholas of Cusa were all members of the Illuminati, Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and Spinoza were not (sadly, some towering figures have been missed by the Illuminati). Brown’s book was right to emphasise a scientific and philosophical clash between the Illuminati and Catholicism, culminating in Bruno’s shocking execution, but Brown completely missed the fact that the Illuminati were fundamentally a religious rival to Catholicism, not a group of bitter, secular scientists (as he portrays the Illuminati). Other prominent Illuminists of this time were:

Alchemists: Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim (1486 – 1535): A German magician, theologian, and alchemist. Agrippa is considered one of the founding fathers of occult philosophy and was known as the “Prince of Magicians.” He was a great scholar who studied law, medicine, science, philosophy and languages. He travelled widely but fell foul of the Church on several occasions. In one case, the Franciscans drove him out of town for encouraging the skeptical examination of religious texts. In another instance, he saved the life of a peasant woman accused of witchcraft by the Dominicans. Again, he was forced to leave town. The Faculty of Divinity in Paris burned one of his books in which he condemned the vanity of much of what was taught in universities. Just as many academics in the present day churn out worthless papers to make themselves look busy and important, so it was in Agrippa’s time. Montaigne, Descartes, and Goethe were all influenced by his skeptical approach to the “appearance of learning” (rather than actual learning) promoted by complacent, cynical institutions. Agrippa’s major work was called De Occulta (“Of the Occult”). In it, he promoted the value of studying other religions and he declared that no one should take up magic without first being well-versed in theology, physics and mathematics. He promoted an integrated view of all knowledge, saying that all subjects complemented and reinforced each other: a key Illuminist doctrine. He spoke of three domains: the elemental (material), celestial and intellectual. Each domain is controlled by a “superior”. Anticipating Kant’s

noumena versus phenomena, he spoke of the “occult virtues of things” as opposed to their immediately perceptible qualities, saying that they arose from the World Soul and the souls of planets (i.e. they were astrologically determined, so to speak). He devoted a great deal of time to numerology – the magic powers of numbers – and how they shaped “cosmic harmony”. He discussed the hierarchies of angels and demons, and was equally at home talking of the rites of the ancient Greek religion of Orphism (a major influence on Illuminism). His work inspired Giordano Bruno and John Dee. He was one of the models for Goethe’s Faust and was accompanied everywhere by a black dog, which was regarded by his enemies as his “familiar”. Agrippa declared: “Nothing is concealed from the wise and sensible, while the unworthy cannot learn the secrets.” He emphasized the law of resonance: “All things which are similar and therefore connected are drawn to each other’s power.” Unusually for his time, he had an extremely high opinion of women. In the Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex, he wrote that women were morally superior to men and understood religion better. There’s certainly a lot to be said for that view. Imagine if all popes, priests, pastors, imams, rabbis, gurus and prophets had been women rather than men. Who can doubt that the world would now be a vastly better place? All of the extremism, fanaticism, violence and hatred would have been avoided. Paracelsus (Theophrastus of Hohenheim: 1493-1541) was a Swiss “wonder worker” and alchemist. An expert on Neoplatonism, Hermeticism and all-things Pythagorean, he portrayed the cosmos as a single coherent organism pervaded by a unifying and life-giving spirit. The Whole, including humanity, was God. This view brought him into conflict with the Church, of course, which maintained that God was the Creator and necessarily separate and different from his Creation. Paracelsus is said to have been the first person to use the word “unconscious” in a publication and to speak of psychosomatic illness. He declared, “If the spirit suffers, the body suffers also.”; “Every part of the body contains the effective cause of its cure.” He is credited with being the founder of homeopathy and styled himself “The Christ of Medicine”.

He has been identified in some circles as the real person underlying the mythical alchemist Christian Rosenkreutz of Rosicrucian fame. All learned men and women in Europe became transfixed by the idea of a secret brotherhood of sages preparing to transform the intellectual landscape artistically, religiously, scientifically, politically and socially. Paracelsus’s motto was: Alterius non sit qui suus esse potest (“Let no man belong to another that can belong to himself.”). And isn’t that what it’s all about? – belonging to yourself rather than to others. Define yourself, create yourself, be yourself. Don’t let your parents or peers construct or control you. Don’t let ancient traditions determine who you are. Don’t believe the propaganda of corrupt States.

Mystics: Jakob Boehme (1575-1624): an uneducated German cobbler who became a famous mystic and theologian. Without the benefit of a formal education, he was necessarily self-taught, and in some cases that can be the best possible route for an innovative genius. They don’t have to follow any rigid curriculum or set of idea of pre-conceived ideas imposed by the establishment. Boehme said that the Fall was a necessary stage in the evolution of the universe and that it was necessary for humanity to go through hell before it could reach heaven. Many people ask us why humanity succumbed to the Satanic religions of Abrahamism. It’s simple. The “Satanic Age” reflects a primitive human mentality, and only as humanity evolves dialectically can it shake off the infantile, irrational superstitions of the past on which Satan feeds and flourishes. REASON, not crucifixes or silver bullets, is the greatest threat to the Devil and renders him powerless over us. But reason isn’t genetic. Reason is dialectical. The dialectic is driven by repeating cycles of antithesis, thesis and synthesis, at higher and higher levels. Satan is associated with all parts of the dialectic that are low, disgusting, primitive, selfish, wicked, greedy, irrational, will-driven, egotistic. God cannot come into being without overcoming everything that is low in him in order to find everything that is high. Satan is ESSENTIAL to evolution. He is the necessary dialectical precursor of God, the supreme cosmic antithesis that must be mastered. To stupid people at a low stage of dialectical evolution, Satan can seem to them the True God. They literally don’t know any better.

Satan is not the absurd guy with a tail and a pitchfork that you see in medieval engravings. He is an immensely seductive being – Mephistopheles rather than Lord of the Flies – who offers to grant people their greatest desires. It’s not at all surprising that people worship the Devil and think him God. It’s a natural stage in the unfolding of the dialectic. But those of us who have long since left behind us the childish ways of Abrahamic religions have raised the dialectic to a higher level, and the Satanists are now a backward, primitive group that holds back human progress. They must be defeated in order for humanity to accelerate towards the TRUE GOD. In relation to the Trinity, Boehme described God the Father as Fire, God the Son as Light and God the Holy Spirit as the principle of life. He wrote that it was necessary for humanity to depart from God (or the primal unity we might say) since it was essential for the original cosmic unity to undergo differentiation in order for opposites and conflict to come into being. (We see something similar in Jung’s concept of individuation where all psychic functions must be separated and differentiated in order to be understood, and only then can they be reassembled at a much higher and more productive level, much better able to achieve their goals because now they understand how they all fit together.) Satan’s rebellion was necessary, Adam and Eve’s disobedience was necessary, the existence of good and evil was necessary. All the ills of our existence were necessary in order for the cosmos to evolve to a new, higher state of harmony. Through overcoming these resistances, the cosmos would become much more perfect than the original and simplistic state of innocence. Above all, God himself would attain higher self-awareness. God’s understanding of himself grew via his interaction with the things of the world, including all the unsavoury elements. Free will is the essence of the cosmos. How could a cosmos of obedient automata ever allow dialectic progression and higher wisdom to be achieved? Free will, involving bad choices and stupidity, leads to a much smarter world because ways have to be found to overcome the sea of ignorance and selfdestructive choices. An American airforce saying is: “It takes a great enemy to make a great airplane.” In exactly the same way, it takes the greatest Devil to make the greatest God. God and the Devil are indissolubly linked dialectically. It would be insane to say that God exists but the Devil doesn’t. That’s the

same as saying that good exists but there’s no such thing as evil. Good is a relative term that only has meaning in relation to non-good. Similarly, God, as the highest repository of reason, wisdom, perfection, and operating in the interests of all, only makes sense in relation to stupidity, imperfection, irrationality, superstition and selfishness. It would NOT be ridiculous for a Christian to suggest that God became incarnate as Christ as a means to educate and perfect himself through living a SINFUL life (in similar fashion to the Illuminati’s “Sin for Salvation” doctrine in which “sinning” is a vital component of mental health and progression). Like many Illuminists who dared to make their work public, Boehme was accused of heresy and being a toxic influence. Lutheran pastor Gregorius Richter wrote: “There are as many blasphemies in this shoemaker’s book as there are lines; it smells of shoemaker’s pitch and filthy blacking. May this insufferable stench be far from us. The Arian poison was not so deadly as this shoemaker’s poison.” Even though, in the tradition of many Illuminists working in a Christian world, Boehme tried to couch his work in apparently orthodox Christian terms, any well-educated Christian could see right through them to his heterodox views. Religious controversy dogged him until his death. Boehme was heavily influenced by Neoplatonism and alchemy, and was well-informed about Kabbalah. In relation to the Illuminati, Boehme found Grand Master Paracelsus particularly important and inspirational. Boehme’s work had a profound bearing on Hegel’s work, especially Boehme’s radical assertion that God becomes conscious of himself through the objects of the universe. Boehme talked of a divine, blind craving giving rise to the universe, which proved to be full of contradictions and opposites. These were all eventually reconciled and united in a higher, conscious God (and Hegel said, of course, that this process of reconciling opposites took place via the dialectic). Rosicrucianism and Martinism were indebted to Boehme, and he was a major inspiration for German Romantic philosophy, particularly in the case of Schelling. Richard Bucke’s influential work on Cosmic Consciousness at the beginning of the twentieth century paid tribute to Boehme’s spiritual enlightenment and highlighted the central inference of Boehme’s writings

that there is ultimately no distinction between human beings and God i.e. we can all become God. John Milton was a keen student of Boehme’s work, and the great Illuminatus romantic artist William Blake found Boehme an inspirational figure. Schopenhauer admired him and Hegel declared: “[Boehme] was the first German philosopher.” As humble geniuses from modest backgrounds go, Boehme is amongst the very best and most significant.

Politics: Johannes Althusius (1557-1638): He was a German thinker who asserted that rulers were only legitimate while they served the interests of the people and if they violated this contract, it was right for them to be overthrown, executed and replaced. Adam Weishaupt was heavily influenced by Althusius. Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639): He was an Italian Dominican monk, persecuted by the Inquisition (he was imprisoned for a total of 27 years). His most famous work was the utopian City of the Sun where he described a State not unlike Plato’s Republic. Knowledge was the key to this society, and distinctions were made between people purely on the basis of their knowledge (i.e. this was a knowledge-based meritocracy). Priestphilosophers, contemptuous of material wealth and devoted to revealing the divine truths, ran the State. City of the Sun was a book greatly admired by Adam Weishaupt. ***** People such as Nicholas of Cusa, Bruno, Althusius, Campanella, Boehme, Agrippa and Paracelsus are mere footnotes in history, but they should in fact be regarded as towering figures in the progress of the dialectic of human knowledge. They made vital contributions within the Illuminati and paved the way for the ultra giants such as Goethe (via Paracelsus, Agrippa and Boehme), Weishaupt (via Althusius and Campanella), Leibniz (via Nicholas of Cusa and Bruno) and Hegel (via Paracelsus and Boehme).

Large and Small “Infinities and indivisibles transcend our finite understanding, the former on account of their magnitude, the latter because of their smallness. Imagine

what they are when combined.” -- Galileo THE WHOLE HISTORICAL MARCH of religion, science, philosophy and mathematics has always had just one destination: infinity/zero. In zero and infinity, everything is decided, all mysteries explained. What is quantum mechanics? – the science of the very small. What is relativity theory? – the science of the very large. What is the Grand Unified Theory of Everything? – the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity theory. Why haven’t they been successfully unified? Because both theories are wrong: neither knows how to handle zero and infinity correctly. M-theory, the last great hope of scientists to explain everything, will fail. Why? Because it’s based on the premise that zero does not exist, and if zero does not exist then the catastrophic equation “one divided by zero = infinity” does not exist either. The whole intellectual basis of M-theory is to avoid zero and infinity by positing tiny energy “strings” with non-zero size as the fundamental entities of existence. It’s rather amusing/depressing to realize that M-theory, despite attracting many of the finest brains of the human race, will definitely fail. It will fail because rather than confront zero and infinity, it has tried to define them out of existence. You can’t wish away reality simply to make your calculations easier, no matter how much the instrumentalists might wish you could! M-theory is nothing but instrumentalism turned into ideology. The infinitely large at one end of the scale of existence and the infinitely small (the infinitesimal) at the other, define the limits of existence, and also its origin. Materialism focuses on finite things we can grasp with our senses, and finite things are based on finite numbers. Materialism then makes the extraordinary assertion that only finite things exist and thereby fails to address the totality of reality. It’s no good being able to understand all the numbers between zero and infinity when, in fact, it’s zero and infinity that give rise to all the rest. The last great battles of science, mathematics, philosophy and religion will be fought nowhere else than on the field of zero and infinity. Once zero and infinity are accommodated, you can rest assured you have found the final answers to everything. There’s literally nowhere left to go. You’ve run out of numbers. Every last one has been accounted for. Here is ultimate wisdom. Mathematics describes everything that can exist. If a number can’t be attached to it then it cannot exist. The number that gets attached to the elementary unit of existence – the monad – is zero.

Zero is not “nothing”. It is something. It is a mind. It is a soul. It is an indestructible, immortal, immaterial living entity with infinite mental capacity: capacity sufficient to accommodate knowledge of the entire universe! The universe doesn’t come from nothing. It comes from ZERO. Existence has room for infinite zeroes, and each zero has infinity mental energy, and that energy can enter the dimensional universe and become finite, material things that we can detect with our senses. Space and time are the dimensional means by which zero and infinity are rendered finite. Materialism is all about the finite while idealism is all about the infinitely large and the infinitely small. The finite does not create zero and the infinite. The reverse is true. The finite is possible only because of the existence of zero and the infinite. Zero and infinity define the domain of dimensionless existence (mind) hence mind underlies and defines matter, not the other way around. Materialism is the doctrine that the material world exists wholly independently of minds. If there were no such things as minds, there would still be a material world. Idealism, on the other hand, is the doctrine that the material world is impossible without a prior world of mind. If there were no minds there would be no matter. A mental world could exist without any matter at all, but the reverse could never be the case. Materialism can be converted into the rather odd mathematical hypothesis that it’s possible for a consistent and complete set of numbers to exist that does not contain zero and infinity while idealism is the mathematical statement that zero and infinity can exist on their own without any other numbers and, additionally, that a consistent and complete set of numbers cannot exist without zero and infinity. Any system of mathematics that dispenses with zero and infinity is, of course, absurd, and yet that’s exactly what scientific materialism amounts to. It’s mathematically ridiculous. Leibniz was the originator of the most fundamental question of all – why is there something rather than nothing? He found it impossible to answer satisfactorily until he translated the question into mathematics. He equated “nothing” with zero and “something” with any number greater than zero. The question was then radically transformed. If zero has real existence – in particular if it corresponds to Descartes’ extensionless, thinking substance – then zero is “something” and there is in

fact no such thing as “nothing”. It’s just a different form of “something” – a type of something we can’t physically detect with our senses but that we can detect with our minds. In these terms, the original question can be answered simply. There is something rather than nothing because there is no such thing as nothing. “Nothing” corresponds to zero and zero is something. Absolute nothingness is an impossible state. If zero is something then all numbers correspond to something and mathematics defines the entirety of existence. If zero is something, there’s mathematically no scope at all for non-existence: there’s something rather than nothing because mathematics guarantees it. What would it mean if zero did not have real existence i.e. did not correspond with something real and was genuine non-existence: absolute nothingness? How could any other numbers exist if zero didn’t, given that zero is the origin of all the rest? Is it possible to have graphs, functions and coordinate axes that have the number zero in mathematical reality but not in actual reality? If zero exists mathematically but does not exist in reality, how can mathematics be used as a tool for describing reality? Mathematics can reflect reality only if ALL of mathematics does, and that means, above all, that zero must reflect reality in some way. Otherwise the assertion would be that reality miraculously corresponds with mathematics except in one place – zero, the ORIGIN, the singularity. Why should the most important point of all be left out? When we draw an x axis and y axis intersecting at zero, are we saying that all points defined by those two axes can correspond to something real bar (0,0), the origin? If all numbers above zero can correspond to something, why should zero alone be excluded? Why would nature prohibit a single number from having “reality”? Any number arbitrarily close to zero could correspond to something real, but zero itself would vanish from reality. How could that be? It would mean that “reality” would be meaningful as we approached infinitely close to zero but then would mysteriously blink out of existence at zero itself. And what if we look at the issue from the other perspective? If zero didn’t correspond to some kind of reality then it would mean that reality would literally pop into existence at any point arbitrarily close to zero but not zero itself. That has the most radical implications. If zero = “non existence” then if any object is shrunk down to zero, it vanishes from existence. Where does it go? What happens to it? Black hole singularities are physical entities where

precisely this process takes place. Are scientists seriously claiming that black hole singularities are actually non-existent? What happened to the mass and energy of the dead stars that gave birth to them? Where did they go? Even worse, the Big Bang Singularity, from which everything emerged, would have to be defined as NON-EXISTENCE, meaning that scientists are proclaiming that existence can literally pop out of absolute nothingness, out of non-existence. This is a fundamental contradiction of the First Law of Thermodynamics. It is IMPOSSIBLE for existence to become nonexistence or vice versa. Some scientists try to get round this by talking of a “free-lunch universe” where all universal properties exactly cancel out, leaving zero. Philosophically, this amounts to claiming that existence based on cancellation to zero is IDENTICAL to absolute non-existence, hence the two states can seamlessly flow in and out of each other without any contradiction of the First Law. (This, of course, is ridiculous. Non-existence and existence are incompatible in every way.) Non-Existence = Existence: that’s the mad logic you have to accept if you’re a scientific materialist. So, we can now boil down materialism and idealism to two bizarre assertions: 1) Materialism: Non-Existence = Existence. 2) Idealism: Nothing = Something. In the case of idealism, zero = “nothing” = mind = something. In the case of materialism, zero = non-existence = existence where all properties cancel to zero. Idealism asserts that “nothing”, meaning non-existence, is an impossible state because “nothing” will always in fact correspond to mind, characterised by the number zero. Materialism asserts that the only reality is zero = non-existence. “Existence” is possible only to the extent that it always cancels to zero i.e. to non-existence. So, idealism proclaims “nothing” an impossible state and materialism proclaims “something” (anything other than zero) an impossible state. If idealism is true, all numbers from zero to infinity have reality. If materialism is true, zero alone has reality (since everything must always cancel to zero) and zero = non-existence. Materialism proclaims that zero corresponds to non-existence and then says that only zero is possible. We exist ergo materialism is proved false. Idealism proclaims that zero corresponds to mind and therefore nonexistence is impossible. We exist ergo idealism is proved true.

This is the proof of the truth of idealism and falsehood of materialism. The whole issue revolves around the meaning of zero; whether or not it corresponds to something real – extensionless existence: MIND. If non-existence is what you get if you shrink down everything to zero, it means that everything that exists is founded, ultimately, on nothing at all, on nothingness. The universe would then be the shakiest edifice conceivable, literally built on foundations that don’t and can’t exist. According to scientific materialism, all dimensionless points – the bedrock of mathematics and space – correspond to non-existence. Such is its abhorrence of conceding that zero is something that it would rather declare the universe, and us, non-existent! Rather than associate zero with mind, scientific materialists associate it with non-existence. Rather than have the material world emerge from a mental substratum (as in idealism), materialists would prefer to say that matter arises literally from nothing at all, from non-existence. Such a claim is philosophically incoherent in every way. Existence is mathematical and once “nothing” is understood as zero then it’s apparent that the state of non-existence (absolute nothingness) is impossible because it would represent a state outwith mathematics, and no such state exists since existence is inherently mathematically defined. To put it another way, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is actually asking if mathematics defines all possible states. If it does then any non-mathematical state is impossible. There is only one theoretically possible non-mathematical “state”: absolute nothingness, the absence of everything, the absence of numbers, of mathematics itself. If such a state were possible, we wouldn’t be here. We are here, hence all states of existence are defined mathematically, and existence must be mathematically complete in the sense of accommodating all possible numbers. That means that zero must be “real” i.e. zero describes a definite state of existence. We might even conceive of “zero” as possessing an active will to generate all other numbers. Something exists BECAUSE “nothing” (zero) exists. Zero is the Genesis Point, the origin, the Singularity from which everything else flows. And it is PURE MIND. Pythagoras’s statement that all things are numbers was triumphantly vindicated by Leibniz. Existence is possible only because of mathematics and the numbers from which it is constructed.

And thus Leibniz concluded that the fundamental unit of existence was the monad and that it’s number was zero and that all of existence originates from monads, of which there are an infinite number because if one monad can exist then there is no SUFFICIENT REASON (a primary logical tool deployed by Leibniz) why an infinite number cannot exist too. He next asked the question of how much mind a monad possessed. What was its capacity? Was a monad restricted to a single thought? Again, the principle of sufficient reason provided the answer. If a monad can consist of one thought, there is no sufficient reason why it cannot consist of infinite thoughts. It wouldn’t be restricted to, say, 15071 thoughts, would it? There would be no sufficient reason for the number of thoughts to be limited in any way. If there is no sufficient reason for a finite mind then it must be infinite. Thus Leibniz comprehended the truth of existence. The fundamental units of existence are extensionless, dimensionless points called monads and there are an infinite number of them. Moreover, each monad has infinite “thinking”, mental capacity. If we introduce the word energy then we can say that a monad’s mental energy is infinite. It was that dimensionless mind energy (the “zero-point energy”; the LIMITLESS energy of zero) that was converted into the DIMENSIONAL energy (the energy of finite numbers) of the Big Bang that created the material world. There you have the whole thing. Existence consists of infinite zeroes, each of infinity energy. Each zero is immortal, indestructible, indivisible and capable of acquiring infinite knowledge with its infinite mind. EVERY ZERO CAN BECOME GOD! Every zero starts as a blank mind and gradually populates its mind with experiences, knowledge, memories, which are all in truth just mathematical signals and patterns. When it has completed the job it has attained the state of maximum actualisation. It has reached its Omega Point and become God. Existence is the tale of how “zero” minds with infinite capacity become infinitely populated minds containing all the knowledge of the cosmos. Is there any idea more simple, more beautiful and more powerful? The universe did not come from nothing. It came from ZERO. Zero is mind, hence mind underpins matter, hence souls are real, the afterlife is real and God is real. Leibnizian mathematics PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD and life after death! Moreover, calculus is possible only because “physical

space” is actually an infinite mathematical space of infinite monads (zeroes). Calculus could not be performed if were not underpinned by monads. Leibniz was the genius who tied together mathematics, zero, calculus, the soul, the afterlife and God in one astounding mathematical formulation that no one on earth can refute. Insofar as there is an absolute truth of life, this is it. Leibniz did the job. He didn’t use faith, or revelation, or experiments. All he used were pure reason, pure logic and pure mathematics. Existence is nothing but the story of zero told by a self-generating cosmic mathematician. It’s impossible for existence to be anything other than this. We are all zeroes marching across the face of eternity and acquiring infinite knowledge on our journey, enough to make us God. We said right from the outset of our website that we could all become God and Leibniz’s mathematics proves it. In many ways, he himself became God in order to provide the answer. He saw the ultimate state of things and how it couldn’t possibly be any other way. Mathematics is not just the queen of the sciences, it’s also the queen of philosophy and religion. Why has science been so successful? – because it uses mathematics. Mathematics is the only guarantor and source of authentic knowledge. Without mathematics there would be literal nothingness – complete and absolute non-existence. Mathematics defines existence. Nothing else does. Existence cannot be grasped non-mathematically. Amongst the Illuminati, it is agreed that the task that Pythagoras first defined – of determining the mathematical truth of reality – was completed by Leibniz. Hegel then addressed the next task: the dialectical progression of mind as potential to ABSOLUTE MIND of total actualisation, and how that progression generated consciousness, and human institutions that reflect the evolution of the mind. As far as the 19th century Illuminati were concerned, all the essential problems of existence were resolved by the time of the death of Hegel, at least in terms of the Big Picture, if not all the fine detail. That remains the Illuminati’s view. Nevertheless, we have continued to refine and perfect all of the dialectical strands and take them ever closer to their omega points. The ideas of non-Illuminists such as Nietzsche have been embraced and pressed into service in the monumental Illuminist edifice of thought. We

assert that no one on earth understands existence with greater clarity that the Illuminati. Science waves the banner of materialism. Illuminism flies the idealism flag. Zero and infinity are the battlefield. EVERYTHING depends on the outcome. If materialism is correct, death is final. If idealism is correct, souls are immortal. Therefore there is no more important question. The fate of humanity, of life itself, depends on the outcome. Literally. No religion other than Illuminism has anything of true worth to contribute to this debate over the soul of humanity. Science and Illuminism are the only parties to the debate, the only parties worth listening to. Everything else is BULLSHIT. And the bullshit doesn’t get any bullier or shittier than that served up by Abrahamism, the dumbest of all dumb religions, a complete irrelevance in terms of the central question of existence. In the far distant future, humanity will classify belief in the Abrahamic God alongside belief in fairies, elves and goblins. That’s how ridiculous Abrahamism is. ***** It may sound extraordinary, but differential and integral calculus, which are founded on the infinitesimal, are ultimately nothing other than the mathematics of the soul. And through calculus, physicists have been able to describe the universe on the scale of the infinitely large. Calculus allows the infinitely small and infinitely large to be combined in the most fruitful way. Calculus is possible only because monads exist. Leibniz was the champion of both calculus and monads and that of course was no accident. Kurt Gödel, the great genius of the Incompleteness Theorem, believed that Leibniz had secretly solved all of the problems of existence. Well, the Illuminati wouldn’t disagree. Isn’t it a thing of wonder that calculus, the main tool of scientific materialism, is the silver bullet that kills materialism? Isn’t it a thing of wonder that the main tool of theology is, ultimately, calculus, and that virtually all theologians are therefore unqualified to speak since they know not one jot about calculus? The existence of God is purely a mathematical issue and can only be comprehended mathematically. Any book of “revelation” must be a

mathematics book to be taken seriously. Who would have thought it – mathematics, the most hated subject in the world, is the source of, well, EVERYTHING. What an irony. The answers to everything lie in the subject to which most human beings are allergic, the subject which truly terrifies them. Where better to bury the greatest secrets of existence? “All things are numbers,” said Pythagoras 2,500 years ago. The rest of the world is just catching up. What is unquestionably true is that if something can’t be labelled via numbers (coordinates, quantities, magnitude, volume, density etc) it can’t exist. Monads exist because the numbers zero and infinity apply to them, and, because of monads, all other numbers are possible. ***** The key to existence is zero. Does it correspond to something real or does it correspond to non-existence? This is the question that divides idealism and materialism, and which is essential to the possibility of life after death. If the number of the soul is zero and zero is a real thing then we can never die. If zero is non-existence, not only are we sure to die, but it becomes impossible to understand how we could ever have existed in the first place. If zero is non-existence, how could things that exist ever have emerged from the Big Bang Singularity (the cosmic Zero)? If zero is non-existence, are the centres of black holes non-existent? – i.e. is existence seeded with non-existence rather than being a continuous field of existence with no catastrophic discontinuities between existence and non-existence? Is it even possible for existence and non-existence to co-exist? Just as nature is said to abhor a vacuum, wouldn’t existence immediately flow into “places” of nonexistence like water going down a sink; alternatively, wouldn’t nonexistence swallow existence into oblivion? Aren’t existence and nonexistence like two different and incompatible substances? They can’t ever be found together. One excludes the other. You can have one or the other but never both. As soon as zero is understood as dimensionless mind, consistent with Descartes’ unextended thinking substance, then existence forms a continuous field from zero to infinity and non-existence becomes formally impossible. The materialist view that zero is non-existence leads to incoherent and untenable statements that there is a discontinuous field of

existence, and reality is underpinned by non-existence. Materialists adopt this view solely because they cannot grasp the concept of free-standing mind that can’t be physically detected with their senses. Rather than acknowledge independent mind, they would prefer to declare the nonsensical position that non-existence is the basis of reality. Mathematics shows humanity the truth. Ultimately, things can only be understood to the extent to which they can be turned into mathematical propositions. Who would have guessed that the endless debates between idealists and materialists could all be laid aside and replaced with a single question – does the number zero correspond to a fundamental aspect of reality (mind), or to non-existence? The consequences of both positions can then be analysed mathematically to see which leads to the most rational and consistent outcome. If zero is something, existence is a continuous field from zero to infinity and all numbers from zero to infinity form a complete system of mathematics with no gaps. If zero is nothing (non-existence), existence is a discontinuous field that excludes zero, and mathematics (in relation to reality) is an incomplete system in which zero does not exist and any appearance of zero in any equation signifies the presence of nonexistence. To divide any number by zero is to divide existence by nonexistence! But if zero corresponds to mind while all numbers greater than zero but less than infinity correspond to matter then dividing a finite number by zero corresponds to dividing matter by mind rather than existence by non-existence. Which sounds more plausible as a real process in the real world? To physicists, division by zero is abhorrent and M-theory is all about trying to stop it from ever happening. They haven’t realised that what they’re actually trying to do is create a mathematics in which the number zero (hence infinity too) is absent. A mathematical system without zero and infinity is incoherent and incomprehensible. In fact it’s ludicrous. What they ought to be doing is embracing the reality of zero and infinity and treating division by zero as the wondrous and fascinating interface between matter and mind. M-theory is not going to stop just because we say it’s absurd. Endless papers will be written about it by clever scientists trying to advance their careers. It’s the culmination of the materialist paradigm. It will take a wasted century before scientists realise it’s the road to nowhere. The Grand

Unified Theory of Everything can be completed only when the existence of zero (mind) is accepted as reality. One thing we can’t stress enough is that mathematics is not a mental exercise divorced from reality. Mathematics IS reality. Most people think of zero in terms of counting. For example, it’s possible to have two apples, but what about zero apples? This is the wrong way to think of mathematics in relation to reality. Instead, it should be considered in terms of a physical process. For example, what happens when you reduce matter to zero? Black holes provide the perfect example. Is the centre of a black hole nonexistence or mind? That is the supreme question. Matter has been reduced all the way down to zero, so what’s left – something or nothing? Has matter vanished from existence, or has it been transformed into mind? The idea that matter could disappear entirely (in blatant contradiction of the First Law of Thermodynamics) undermines all notions of the solidity of existence. It means that the supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies are holes of non-existence at the centre of existence. But if matter can’t disappear, but only be transformed (as in the First Law of Thermodynamics) then supermassive black holes must be considered as mental entities. Are they like divine minds guiding the galaxies, just as the ancients thought that deities steered the planets (or indeed that the planets were deities themselves with planetary souls)? This example demonstrates the difference between the materialist and idealist approaches. Everything depends on what happens when a non-zero entity is reduced to zero. Does it cease to exist, or is it converted to something else? – mind. Which version sounds more plausible and rational?

The Two Apples If I have two apples and I take two apples away I am left with no apples – zero. If I have two apples and throw them into a black hole and they are crushed down to zero, what do I have? Do I have no apples? Have I literally removed two apples from existence; annihilated them in blatant contradiction of the First Law of Thermodynamics? Or do I in fact have two transformed apples: “zero” apples (mind apples)? Do you see what has happened? In the first case where two apples are subtracted, zero is being used as nothing more than an arithmetical counting device. In the second case where the two apples have been physically

reduced to zero, zero is now a “thing” that exists within reality. Zero is a monad. It’s possible to start saying such things as: “I have two zeros (monads)”. In other words, zero is no longer simply a marker representing the outcome of total subtraction; it is now an entity that can itself be counted. It’s A REAL THING. Materialism denies that zero is ever a real thing. It also denies that infinity is ever a real thing in the world. It uses zero and infinity purely as numbers for counting, not for describing real things that exist in the real world. The Illuminati assert that zeros (monads) are the fundamental basis of reality, from which everything else is constructed, and that each monad has infinite capacity. Materialism denies the existence of infinite-capacity monads. It declares them impossible. It is therefore in the rather problematic position of openly admitting that the laws of materialistic physics “fall apart” at the centre of black holes (and by the same token at the Big Bang Singularity). They’re absolutely right – materialism does indeed fall apart at singularities. It is precisely at singularities that idealism is PROVED as the basis of existence. Materialism dies while idealism comes into its own. Singularities are PURE MIND, outside space and time. Singularities are the greatest problem facing physics because they stand as the definitive refutation of materialism. So, how have the physicists responded? By abandoning their disproven materialism? You must be joking. They have embarked on the mad Mtheory mission to try to “prove” that singularities can never happen (because if they can, materialism is thereby refuted). “M” ought to stand for “Materialism” because M-theory is the final attempt to save materialism from well-deserved extinction. What M-theorists are hoping to do is demonstrate that “zero” is excluded from reality. If you burrow down far enough, you will reach a material limit: a 1-dimensional string loop of energy vibrating in an 11dimensional space. So, in this view, mathematical space where zero can exist is separate from “real” space where zero can never exist. In the view of Illuminism, mathematical space IS real space. The two are identical – and that is the key to understanding reality. The Illuminist view is entirely consistent with calculus where the distance between two points can be reduced to zero. M-theory, although it is based on calculus, actually rejects calculus because it maintains that the distance between two points can

NEVER in reality be reduced to zero. If M-theorists were better mathematicians and philosophers, they would realise the futility and fallacy of what they are attempting to do. They are attacking mind and mathematics in order to save materialism. Why bother? Materialism is the doctrine that free will is an illusion. Does anyone anywhere seriously think that’s true? M-theory could be regarded as the greatest folly of all time – the attempt to disprove that human beings have free will! Free will is a function of dimensionless existence where it is not subject to the inexorable laws of scientific cause and effect that apply to dimensional existence. Free will is all about ZERO. Illuminism is on the side of zero, infinity, mathematics, calculus, mind, consciousness, life, free will, the afterlife, the soul and God. Scientific materialism is opposed to all of those. M-theory’s ultimate vision is of an 11-dimensional space uniformly filled with finite 1-dimensional loops of energy called “strings”. For some inexplicable reason, one of these “exploded”, was subject to an enormous “inflationary” process, and created the universe as we know it, which turns out to be a free lunch universe of zero energy because the “positive” energy of particles is exactly cancelled by the “negative” energy of gravity. So, the universe we inhabit is defined by zero even though materialism claims that zero does not exist! That’s materialism for you. Somehow, these lifeless, mindless, energy strings create “mind”, life and the illusion of free will – but M-theory does of course contain nothing at all to explain how this is possible. It will therefore be a rather disappointing Grand Unified Theory of Everything. In fact, it will be the Last Testament of Materialism.

The Impossibility of Finite Creation “Nature is an infinite sphere, whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.” -- Pascal THE ANCIENT GREEKS typically believed that a stationary Earth was fixed at the centre of a finite universe, with the cosmic boundary set by the crystal sphere of fixed stars, and this view was adopted, with a refinement or two, by Abrahamism. Copernicus, although placing the Sun rather than the Earth at the centre of the universe, continued to advocate spheres, circular orbits and a finite universe. That said, Copernicus located the

sphere of fixed stars so far away that the universe was now much vaster than anyone had ever previously suggested, and it was no longer much of a leap to consider that it might in fact be infinite. Although Copernicus didn’t take that step, his successor, Illuminatus Thomas Digges, certainly did. Illuminists Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno both held that the idea of a finite universe was absurd because an infinite, omnipotent God would never tolerate bounds. He needed an infinite canvas for his infinite power and knowledge. We might conclude that a finite universe was possible if God lavished infinite love on it, but we can rule that out thanks to the legions of damned (98.3% of humanity, apparently!) in Hell. “God” seems rather more inclined to infinite hate. Nicholas and Bruno were both obsessed with infinity – infinity of space and time and spiritual infinity as well as physical infinity. Only infinity could reflect the infinite God. Finitude was a contradiction in terms in relation to the infinite God. Bruno wrote: “The One Infinite is perfect; simply and of itself nothing can be greater or better than it. This is the one Whole everywhere, God, universal nature. Naught but the infinite can be a perfect image and reflection thereof, for the finite is imperfect; every sensible world is imperfect, wherefore evil and good, matter and form, light and darkness, sadness and joy unite, and all things are everywhere in change and motion. But all things come in infinity to the order of Unity, Truth and Goodness; whereby it is named universum.” Bruno regarded infinity in terms of freedom. A finite universe was like a prison. Infinity destroyed the walls of the prison and allowed endless possibilities. Enormous, wide spaces were opened up physically as well as for the imagination. Inexhaustible treasures were now available: the ultimate cosmic treasure hoard. Bruno wrote: “There is a single general space, a single vast immensity which we may freely call Void: in it are innumerable globes like this one on which we live and grow. This space we declare to be infinite.” Elsewhere, he said: “Thus is the excellence of God magnified and the greatness of his kingdom made manifest; he is glorified not in one, but in countless suns; not in a single earth, but in a thousand, I say, in an infinity of worlds.”

Many people find infinity disturbing, but what are they so worried about? The basic unit of the physical universe is a galaxy. A galaxy is made up of more than a hundred billion stars. Each star is potentially the centre of a solar system, being orbited by several planets, one of which might be suitable for the evolution of life. Our own solar system and galaxy is nothing other than a reflection of the pattern of the WHOLE UNIVERSE. There’s nothing out there that’s different. Infinity is just endless repetition of this pattern. If you know one element of the pattern you know the whole lot. By concentrating on our own world, we know how intelligent life on all worlds operates. Reason and logic are the same everywhere. All thinking beings think exactly as we do. They are all subject to the same psychological forces. They may have evolved radically different cultures from ours, but we would still recognise those cultures. Humanity itself could have developed differently. Across our website, we have illustrated key turning point in history where humanity might have gone down entirely different paths. Christianity might never have happened, nor Islam. Imagine a world without those pernicious religions. The Enlightenment might have swept away all monarchs and old religions. Although history could have been drastically different, it would still have been recognisable. We can all imagine much better human races than the one we have now; but we can also imagine more horrific human races. Imagine the whole world under Sharia Law or Judaism. Life wouldn’t be worth living. Don’t become obsessed with the possibilities of infinity. There’s nothing out there that’s new or alien. We have it all on our own doorstep. In fact we have it all within ourselves. We are made of stardust and we are a microcosm of the macrocosm. As above, so below. The answers to everything lie within ourselves. Look inwards, not outwards. YOU are the answer to your questions if you did but know it. Bruno wrote, “Open the door through which we may look into the limitless, unified firmament!” We are the door! You are the door!

Plato’s Demiurge PLATO IS RATHER VAGUE on the subject of the origins of things. In essence, he says that an immaterial, immutable domain of Perfect Forms

has existed eternally. He makes no attempt to explain how the Forms came into being. They just ARE. They are thus in the same territory as the Abrahamic God as being perfection that has always existed and did not evolve in any way. Next, for Plato, there is an eternal being called the Demiurge – the “public worker”, the cosmic architect – who might be said to be the living agent of the domain of Perfect Forms. It’s vital to realise that he himself does not embody the Perfect Forms. If he did, he would be the equivalent of the Abrahamic God. Only the Forms are perfect. The Demiurge is perfect only to the extent that he is guided by the Forms. If he deviated from the Forms in any way, he would not be perfect. This is a vital and invaluable distinction from the Abrahamic view. For Abrahamists, God is perfection and everything he does is therefore perfect. So, if he commits dreadful atrocities, those atrocities must ipso facto be morally perfect. If Plato’s Demiurge committed dreadful atrocities, he would be deemed wicked because he was deviating from the Form of moral perfection. In other words, in Abrahamism perfection is carried by God in himself whereas in Platonism perfection lies in free-standing Forms, and for “God” to be perfect he must act in accord with the Forms. The Platonic view, by creating the scope for God’s actions to be inconsistent with the Forms, allows God’s actions to be imperfect. This is impossible in Abrahamism. The horrendous problem for Abrahamists is that they are then committed to regarding ALL of God’s actions as perfect, even if they manifestly aren’t. Platonists, on the other hand, are in the position to condemn God’s actions if he does anything manifestly unGodlike and they can assert that he has fallen short of the standards of perfection. Platonism allows us to judge God according to absolute standards whereas Abrahamism denies us any such right. Abrahamism says that God IS the absolute standard so if God orders fathers to murder their children as he did with Abraham then that is absolutely good and right. Only insanity lies down the Abrahamic road. What it permits is for any dominant person, any prophet or king, to declare that God appeared to them and told them to do X, Y or Z. As long as people believe that God did indeed speak to these people then their conduct, no matter how sickening, will be defended and justified by the masses. This is the mechanism that has underpinned most of the worst savagery in human history. Jews, Christians and Muslims all think this way.

In the Platonic world, if someone said that God had appeared to him and ordered him to kill all infidels and that everyone was obliged to help him in this undertaking or suffer hellfire, the Platonists would simply point out that killing all infidels was entirely inconsistent with the Form of Moral Perfection since Moral Perfection does not consist of exterminating those who don’t share your opinions. So, Platonists are incapable of the deranged acts of Abrahamic fanatics and extremists. The idea that God himself is constrained by independent and absolute standards is an extremely healthy one, and allows a distinction to be drawn between God’s actual conduct and his ideal conduct. In Abrahamism, God’s actual and ideal conduct are deemed one and the same at all times and in all circumstances. The Abrahamic God is therefore made dangerously immune from criticism whereas the Platonic “God” is not. There is no more dangerous concept in the cosmos than that God can neither be criticised nor held to account. The person who created this evil ideology was none other than the Falsus Deus – the Devil. He is the one who declares that no one has the right to challenge his decisions, and anyone who does will go to Hell. There is no scope for reason, logic, debate or doubt in his system. It’s a system of absolute control and mindless obedience. This system is Abrahamism, and it’s genuinely the worst thing that ever happened to the human race. Humanity can make no further progress until Abrahamism is destroyed. The Platonic Demiurge is an eternal living being. He exists in the same immaterial domain as the Forms except whereas they are immutable cosmic archetypes that provide the absolute standards of existence, he is a dynamic, changing entity (as all life is). According to one account by Plato, the Demiurge creates souls by using a huge mixing bowl where he takes some of the substance of the domain of Perfect Forms and mixes it with the matter of the physical world. Soul substance is thus intermediate between perfection and imperfection. The Demiurge admits that it is “not entirely immortal and indissoluble”, but he himself undertakes to ensure that it remains immortal and indissoluble. There are thus two substances with which the Demiurge is able to work; soul substance and material substance. Just as matter is divided up into many pieces, so is soul substances divided up into innumerable individual souls.

Souls, prior to being put in bodies, inhabited the domain of the Perfect Forms and had access to the absolute knowledge provided by the Forms. However, these souls had wills and desires (originating in the imperfect substance mixed into souls) that were at odds with the domain of Perfect Forms, and these would prove the downfall of souls. The Demiurge himself, it seemed, had will and desire, above all to express himself creatively. Where souls were alive and essentially immaterial, matter was extended, solid and dead. It was a kind of formless, cosmic clay. Using the Perfect Forms as design templates, the Demiurge fashioned this cosmic clay into copies of the Forms. Of course they were mere simulacra because dead matter could not reflect the glory and immutability of the immaterial Forms. Into the material copies of the Forms, he placed souls. Without souls, the matter would rapidly have reverted to its formless mode of existence. The souls provided the connection with the domain of Forms. Even so, the souls were not perfect at this task, and matter was always striving to return to its original chaotic state, so sooner or later things died, decayed or degenerated. That was the nature of the material world. Souls came in all grades. Some were almost as noble and wise as the Demiurge and could be assigned cosmic tasks such as controlling the stars and planets and the laws of nature. Some were so primitive as barely to be souls at all and were fit at this stage only to be placed in rocks, metals and other inanimate objects. Higher souls were placed in living things such as plants. Still higher souls could be placed in animals, and the more advanced ones in human beings. The highest souls were those of the gods. The souls of human beings were eager to enter the material world – until they actually arrived there and all the wonders it seemed to promise proved illusory. The souls forgot nearly everything they knew of their prior existence, but retained the intuition that there was a vastly better place to which they could return. But how to get back? That was their existential problem. Souls are effectively in a material prison and will keep being reincarnated until they can find the key that lets them out. Plato’s conception of the Demiurge was essentially benevolent but Gnostics recognised that the Demiurge was the author of the miseries of the soul because he created the material world and allowed souls to be tempted by their lusts and desires into the hell of the physical domain. So, they saw

the Demiurge as malevolent and he became synonymous with the Abrahamic God – the “Creator” – and was regarded as Satan himself. To summarise: for Plato, there were two separate, eternal domains – one material and one immaterial. The former was dead, formless and chaotic while the latter was living and organised according to absolute standards of the Perfect Forms. The Perfect Forms were not alive per se. Rather, they were free-standing, perfect ideas that provided the laws of existence (a scientist might think of them as the laws of physics.) Souls inhabited the domain of the Perfect Forms and the higher the soul the more it could benefit from the absolute knowledge provided by the Forms. But many souls had not evolved higher capabilities. The highest soul, the Soul Controller, the Lord of Souls (we might call him God), was the Demiurge. His idea was that souls – if they had not yet achieved the understanding of the Forms that he himself had – would have to be given an alternative route to improving themselves. They would have to be motivated to learn, progress and appreciate the Forms. So he placed them in a giant, cosmic prison: the material world. The only way for the souls to escape was for them to laboriously use their reason to work out the true nature of things, and be solely guided by the absolute standards provided by the Forms. Intelligence and reason are all about accessing the Forms; opinion and faith are opposed to intelligence and reason and are concerned with changing, ephemeral things of no genuine value. Reason, intelligence and knowledge (gnosis) are the way out. There’s no other escape route. The Demiurge’s conduct might be regarded as “tough love” or as Satanic, depending on your viewpoint. He is thus an extraordinarily complex figure, a “God” capable of doing “evil” but for the “greater good”. This provides a much better explanation than anything else of how the “Creator” fashioned a world full of evil. Unlike the Abrahamist Creator God, the Demiurge never set out to achieve anything other than a kind of Hell. That said, he didn’t regard it as Hell. He saw it as a benevolent place serving the greatest of all functions: perfecting souls to make them fit for Heaven. They were to become perfect not MORALLY but RATIONALLY (and in Plato’s view rational perfection would inevitably generate moral perfection). Reason, not goodness or obedience, is the key to salvation. The Demiurge is, to this extent, completely different from the Abrahamic God who is concerned only with obedience and with the propaganda that he is

always on the side of the good. Reason, intelligence and knowledge are given virtually no role at all in the Bible. They are books of antiintellectualism. They are books for the stupid, and only stupid people read them and take them seriously in the 21st century. The Torah, Bible and Koran are offensively idiotic. They practically reek of low IQ. Plato’s system is enormously more sophisticated than that of Abrahamism, but it has many gaps. All such gaps are completely filled by Illuminism. Plato’s Demiurge did not create the world out of nothing. Rather he arranged pre-existing components: eternal matter and soul substance, and he used as his design guide the absolute standards of the Perfect Forms. The Platonic cosmos was alive since it was permeated by living souls of different degrees of awareness and knowledge. The Platonic cosmos can be considered an animal that is trying to evolve, through reason, to become worthy of the Perfect Forms. Aristotle’s central alteration to Plato’s scheme was to downplay souls and to remove Forms from a transcendent domain outside of things and instead place them IN things. The material world wasn’t a copy of another, higher world. Rather, it was the REAL world. Form and matter cannot be separated. Being imbued with form, Aristotle’s universe is still alive, but in a much more abstract sense than Plato’s universe. For Aristotle, form, apart from one divine element (creative reason), died with the body. The divine part came from God and returned to God. Personal immortality was impossible as far as Aristotle was concerned. For Plato, individual souls had individual reason. For Aristotle, the reason of God entered into the material world through divine sparks, and returned to God on death. Although it guided individuals, creative reason wasn’t part of individuals. It wasn’t of the same essence. It had an independent existence.

Transcendence versus Immanence Transcendent: having existence outside the created world; free from the limitations inherent in matter; beyond our experience of phenomena, although not beyond potential knowledge. Immanent: present everywhere; inherent; existing or operating within. MANY OF THE GREATEST philosophical and theological debates revolve around the concepts of transcendence and immanence. Is God

everywhere (immanent)? Does God exist outside our world (transcend it)? In other words, is he in or out of the world, in it or above it? Is he separate from it (it’s his Creation, but it’s not him) or is the substance of God also the substance of the universe (hence God is immanent by definition)? Historically, all manner of answers have been given to these questions. Some philosophers and theologians emphasize immanence and others transcendence. Some say both are somehow true, yet this seems hard to justify since the two terms seem somewhat contradictory. In terms of Forms, Plato belonged to the transcendent school and his pupil Aristotle to the immanent school. Mathematically, it is indeed possible for immanence and transcendence to operate simultaneously and it may be said that this is actually the definition of mind in relation to matter. Mind transcends matter and is also immanent in the material world. Matter, on the other hand, does not transcend mind and nor is it immanent in the mental domain. Scientific materialism has never grasped that the transcendence and immanence of mind is essential to the functioning of the material world. Mind can function without matter, but matter can’t function without mind. Strictly speaking, matter IS mind, but mind that exists dimensionally rather than dimensionlessly. Only the dimensionless domain can be immanent and transcendent. This is the domain that science has NEVER understood. It hasn’t even grasped what the question is. Einstein’s special theory of relativity demonstrated the existence of a transcendent and immanent domain outside space and time yet Einstein never once comprehended the truth of his own theory. He kept saying that nothing could go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (a completely materialistic argument) without realising that the speed of light in its own frame of reference experiences neither space nor time hence is everywhere at once, meaning that INFORMATION (mental data) can be communicated instantaneously. Physically mediated information transfer can’t exceed the PHYSICAL speed of light (as measured in the physical domain). Mentallymediated information transfer never encounters any such limit since it takes places in a channel outside the physical world of space and time. As for Plato and Aristotle, both were right and both wrong. The Platonic, transcendent domain of Forms can exist and yet also operate in the immanent manner required by Aristotle. Where they were both wrong was in saying that the Forms are IMMUTABLE. In fact, the Forms are

evolutionary. Forms start out imperfectly and evolve towards perfection. They establish a feedback loop with the material world. Changes in the physical world affect the Forms, which change in response and then feed back the new, updated state to the physical world, which then reacts, and so on, backwards and forwards. Thus the world is not STATIC, governed by unchanging Forms. It is DYNAMIC involving Forms that evolve according to dimensional/ dimensionless information feedback loops.

Theosophy and Anthroposophy THEOSOPHY IS ANCIENT GREEK for “god-wisdom” and is concerned with knowledge of divine things. It was a term used by Neoplatonists and later it was applied to the approach of Agrippa, Paracelsus and Boehme (i.e. it was a concept closely identified with the work and writings of the Illuminati and indeed Illuminism declares itself the ultimate theosophical system). Theosophy, ultimately, is nothing other than a recapitulation of the Illuminist concept of apotheosis; becoming God. After all, how can true “God-wisdom” be attained except through the attainment of divinity? Theosophy, finally, is about the removal of the distinctions between humanity and God. At the limit, the two concepts merge. There is no unbridgeable gap between Man and God. There is no duality. There is no inherent difference. God is simply Evolved Man. The mind of God reflects reason, logic and knowledge. The mind of an intelligent human being reflects reason, logic and knowledge. The difference is only one of degree. God is much more rational, logical and knowledgeable, but all of us can reach the same level. The laws of reason, logic and knowledge do not change from the human mind to the divine mind. The laws are fixed. The ability to grasp and apply them is the only thing that changes. We can all attain cosmic, divine consciousness. In 1875, the Russian Helena Blavatsky founded the “Theosophical Society”, which made the unwise claim that all religions have a portion of the truth. Anyone who says that Abrahamism has any contact at all with the truth is wrong. The Illuminati have little respect for Blavatsky’s theosophy because she destroys the whole concept of religious truth by saying that “truth” can be found in irrational, superstitious belief-systems. NO IT CAN’T. Blavatsky was a charlatan and an enemy of the truth. That’s not to say that there’s no profit to be had from reading Theosophical works, just as it’s not profitless to study Abrahamism. Interesting ideas and psychological insights can be found in all religions: understanding why people believe in nonsense is a vital task on the road to enlightenment. Blavatsky proclaimed that there is a “Spiritual Hierarchy” – a kind of benign council of higher spiritual beings – and all the different religions are attempts by these beings to help humanity evolve to greater perfection. If

that were true, we would have to conclude that they’re useless at their task, that they’re incapable of communicating clearly, and that they are the true instigators and authors of the wars and persecutions that have followed in the wake of most religions. So, if these are the enlightened ones to whose level we should be aspiring, we might as well do without them and go it alone. We don’t want any clowns offering us bad directions. Let’s not be in any doubt about this: Madame Blavatsky herself was the real Spiritual Hierarchy and she wasn’t worth listening to. Blavatsky’s aims were threefold: 1) To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or colour. 2) To promote the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy and Science. 3) To investigate the unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in man. In relation to 1), this is a naïve utopianism. Religion itself is one of the primary barriers to universal brotherhood. There can be no universal brotherhood until humanity has a universal, rational religion that has absolute respect for atheism, agnosticism and skepticism. 2) is laudable provided its aim is to CRITICALLY compare rival claimants to the truth to establish the real truth. It certainly shouldn’t be about treating all systems on a par. Some belief-systems must be abolished, not encouraged and allowed to spread like viruses. 3) This can be achieved only through reason, logic, truth and knowledge – not by pandering to crazy superstitions and anti-science of the kind promoted by most religions. Theosophists assert that the world is made of basic building blocks that are all evolving towards consciousness. That is something with which we agree. In Illuminism, the building blocks are monads: unconscious souls with an inherent drive to become conscious and perfect, and which operate scientifically as dimensionless points of energy capable of generating dimensional energy. Theosophists say that all human beings have immortal “Higher Selves”, but their Lower Selves are usually completely ignorant of this higher nature and capability. All physical, emotional, and lower mental components will

decompose and perish in due course – only the Higher Self endures. We concur with that. Theosophists say that the Higher Self (which they often call the Monad!) has passed through myriad forms of existence including mineral, plant and animal stages. After each animal existence, the Monad reincarnates, and each time it does so it learns a bit more of the cosmic puzzle. We agree with that view too. In the Theosophical view of reincarnation, regression to lower forms is impossible. We largely agree with that, although it’s more accurate to say that regression is unlikely rather than impossible. Any higher being could choose to return in a lower form, but what would be the point? They would only make such a choice if they had a very specific obsession i.e. to know what it’s like to fly like a bird. Theosophy teaches that there are higher spiritual beings than humans – the sort that in Illuminism would be called Phosters or Archons. It should be emphasized that in Illuminism rising up the spiritual scale isn’t associated with becoming morally better. You can just as easily become more evil. Satan wasn’t improved by mastering more and more power and control over the material world; quite the reverse. The more power you have, the more temptations confront you. Spiritual elevation is as likely to result in malevolence as benevolence. Theosophists teach that human beings should free themselves and be their own saviours. They stand opposed to the concept that you can be saved by others. We agree entirely. Christianity is an evil religion because it says that people are powerless to help and redeem themselves. It thus makes them the slaves of Jesus Christ, without whose assistance and bestowal of grace, they will burn in hell forever. This is an utterly unacceptable belief system. Theosophy teaches the karmic doctrine that what ye shall sow, so shall ye reap. They speak of all actions having mathematically connected consequences in the karmic sense. We regard this as unutterably silly. Mathematics has no connection at all with karma. Bluntly, karma is one of the silliest concepts ever devised. It’s a way for those who deny the existence of a morally perfect Creator to smuggle morality into the universe by claiming it is somehow ingrained and encoded in the fabric of the universe.

The truth is that good and evil are a dialectical pair and there is no guaranteed penalty for evil actions and no guaranteed reward for good conduct. In fact, the complete reverse is often the case as we see all around us every day: evil is frequently rewarded and good punished. The universe is highly Manichean – good and evil are perfectly matched. Abraxas, the True God, isn’t a deity of good and evil; rather, he is beyond good and evil. The sphere in which he operates is that of REASON. The ultimate rational being sees no need at all to commit acts of evil. What purpose would such acts serve for a being operating as a kind of cosmic super-computer? The culmination of the Hegelian dialectic is the Absolute Mind, and this Mind is absolutely rational. Imagine if the dialectic culminated with a Mind of absolute irrationality. What kind of chaotic hell would it be? Ask yourself this question – does the God of Abrahamism strike you as rational? Is his conduct rational? Are his demands of humanity rational? Are his punishments rational? Doesn’t he seem like the Omega Point of an irrational dialectic? If he is rational, GOD SAVE US! Irrationality is one of the keys to the concept of evil. Socrates and Plato regarded evil acts as the product of ignorance. Stupid people were evil because they didn’t know any better. Well-educated people like themselves could never, they thought, be evil. Unfortunately, evil is more than just ignorance. People can be highly rational in their pursuit of evil ends, but the key point is that when they have attained the power they crave, it is never exercised for rational ends but for sheer selfishness, self-indulgence and Narcissism. Where does the God of Abraham anywhere speak of science, mathematics, logic, reason, or philosophy? All he ever says is: “Obey me, worship me, glorify me – or perish!” What kind of rationality is that? Evil is ultimately about vanity: self-love taken to a pathological degree.

Involution versus Evolution THEOSOPHY TALKS OF AN “involution” of spirit into matter followed by an evolution of matter back into spirit. So, what does involution mean? Whereas evolution concerns the lower becoming the higher, following an ascending trajectory, and devolution concerns the higher becoming the lower, following a descending trajectory of degeneration (and we might say that evolution and devolution are a dialectical pair always in conflict), involution is where the higher determines or creates the lower. Involution

differs from devolution in that it is not a degenerative process. On the contrary, it is a stratagem by a higher entity to attain an even higher state by going outside itself (alienating itself) in order to come back to itself through an evolutionary learning process. It can be thought of as a “taking one step back to go two steps forward” technique. An undifferentiated Mind creates the physical world of time, space and matter (dimensionality) in order to create individuation and a competition for power, through which individual minds will evolve, and finally the physical world will be dispensed with and all the individual minds will come back together to form a Super Mind – the optimised mind of the cosmos. In many ways, this is Jung’s process of individuation written on a cosmic canvas. Involution is often described as the process by which the Divine manifests the cosmos. Evolution is then the process by which the cosmos rises to higher states, especially of consciousness, and the Divine itself attains higher states via that cosmic evolution. The Cosmic Involution is essentially the Big Bang, from which point Cosmic Evolution takes over. At the “end of time”, the evolved cosmos has actually become pure mind – the Absolute. The whole process is therefore: the Unconscious Absolute involutes to manifest a physical world which then evolves until all matter has been converted to conscious mind and the Unconscious Absolute is now the Conscious Absolute. In other words, the generation of Absolute Consciousness is the purpose of life and the cosmos. The process can be seen in the human life cycle. A fertilised egg is the individual’s Big Bang of Involution, and that egg then generates an unconscious baby. Consciousness evolves during the course of the individual’s life and if he could live forever, he would achieve cosmic consciousness and become a purely mental being. After the Cosmic Involution (the Creation, as we might call it), the Divine (which we might name the Absolute, Brahman, God etc) is both the One (the Creator) and the Many (that which was created). Each one of the Many comes from the One and can return to the One. In Hinduism, the cosmic soul is Brahman and the individual soul is Atman, and the task of Atman is to overcome the veil of Maya in which it is enmeshed and realise that, ultimately, Atman = Brahman and Brahman = Atman. Involution is how the One becomes Many (individuation), and Evolution is how the Many become One again. The Many are initially

separate, divided and ignorant, and their task is to realise the truth of things by overcoming their ignorance through knowledge (gnosis; enlightenment). Involution is the enabler and cause of “Creation” (the physical world appears out of mind, not out of nothing). The physical universe is the physicalisation/ materialisation of the unconscious mind of God, and through evolution God’s Mind becomes conscious. Involution is described as the process of self-limitation and densification (of making the infinite finite) of the Absolute. The Absolute as Subject turns itself into Object. In the case of human beings, Object then becomes conscious i.e. becomes Subject. Physicality is Objectivity and Mentality is Subjectivity. A human being is both a physical object and a subject. The subject only became possible thanks to the evolution of the object. As mind evolves, it discovers its true Source – the Absolute, of which it is one cell, one facet. We might say that evolution is triggered by involution. We might go further and describe evolution and involution as a dialectical pair, operating in a feedback loop i.e. mind is continually operating on matter through involution. The evolution of matter described by Darwin is accompanied by the involution of mind upon matter (a process completely invisible in the Darwinist scheme of things). It is this hidden involution that directs evolution and prevents it from being random. Evolution is in fact directed and teleological. Mind and matter are working together to optimise their interaction. But the paradigm of scientific materialism ignores the mental part of this process and replaces it with randomness. The defining issue of Darwinian Evolution is whether it’s purely materialistic and random, or mind driven and non-random (yet the latter may appear random because the mind driving the process starts off as completely unconscious, armed only with intuitive capacity to increase its power – just as an unconscious human baby intuitively knows how to get what it wants by screaming to get the attention of its parents and to manipulate them). Involution begins with mind being converted into matter. But although matter now exists, mind hasn’t vanished. Mind continues to operate on matter i.e. the involution isn’t switched off but works in tandem with the evolution and in fact directs evolution, the purpose being to turn matter into a form that generates or expresses more and more mind and, in particular, consciousness.

Contrary to the Christian concept of “Intelligent Design”, Evolution by Involution is really “Unconscious Design” – which means that it proceeds much faster than materialistic random mutation, but much slower than Intelligent Design. Eventually Unconscious Design becomes Intelligent Design – as we see with human beings mastering such things as genetic engineering. The Christian idea of Intelligent Design is just sophisticated Creationism because if there were a God – an Intelligent Designer – right from the beginning, he wouldn’t design evolution, would he? What would be the point? He would simply create and design the world as described in the Book of Genesis. But clearly he didn’t do any such thing.

Atlanteans? BLAVATSKY’S GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT was to model some of her thinking on Leibniz’s Monadology and it is this part of her thinking that is worthwhile. Wherever she deviates from it, she becomes silly. She refers to monads as spiritual atoms and says that the whole of apparently empty space is “dotted” with them to the exclusion of emptiness. This is entirely correct. What we call empty space is really a mathematical space of infinite monads, which are, mathematically, dimensionless points. Blavatsky spoke of human civilization developing through a cycle of seven stages. Initially, humans were pure spirit; in the second age, they were called Hyperboreans; Lemurians in the third and Atlanteans in the fourth. Atlantis was the lowest point of the cycle. We are now in the fifth age: the reawakening of humanity’s psychic gifts. We have two higher stages to come. According to Blavatsky, humanity is presently at the stage of the fifth root race – the Aryan race – which originated from the fourth root race (the Atlanteans), the Aryans being the reincarnation of the inhabitants of Atlantis. The Aryans are descended, allegedly, from the fifth sub-race of the Atlanteans – white-skinned Semites (!). Some Semitic peoples have, in Blavatsky’s opinion, become “degenerate in spirituality”. There’s all manner of similarly bizarre racial junk to be found in Blavatsky’s writings. Theosophy is jam-packed with such nonsense. It’s this type of talk that renders Theosophy silly and fantastical. In this view, humanity actually degenerated rather than evolved and Darwin was completely wrong.

The number seven is sacred to theosophists and they describe a human being as having seven bodies: gross (physical), astral, prana, kama, manas, Buddhi and Atman. Much of this view is cobbled together from Eastern religion (Buddhism and Hinduism). There’s no attempt at any scientific, mathematical or philosophical justification for this elaborate scheme of Russian Doll bodies, which supposedly exist on different planes of existence. Theosophy underlies much of New Age hippie junk. It’s religion for cannabis heads and ecstasy pill poppers.

Musical Armageddon THEOSOPHICAL MUSICIAN Alexander Scriabin devised a “quartal synthetic chord”, labelled his “mystic” chord. He planned to perform a multimedia work in the Himalayas that would trigger a benevolent Armageddon – described as “a grandiose religious synthesis of all arts which would herald the birth of a new world.” The piece, called Mysterium, was never performed due to Scriabin’s death in 1915. Did the world dodge a bullet?

Anthroposophy ANTHROPSOPHY IS ANCIENT GREEK for “Man Wisdom” as opposed to Theosophy’s “God Wisdom”, yet if God and Man are ultimately the same so are Theosophy and Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy concerns knowledge of the nature of man and is a direct offshoot of Theosophy, being founded by the Theosophist Rudolf Steiner (1861 – 1925). Steiner was a German speaker from the Austro-Hungarian Empire (he was born in modern-day Croatia). Anthroposophy is a spiritual philosophy postulating the existence of an objective, intellectually comprehensible spiritual world accessible to direct experience through inner contemplation (in the manner of ancient Neoplatonism). To access this spiritual world, it is necessary to develop a form of thinking that is independent of sensory experience. The senses are all about the physical world and nothing to do with the spiritual world. If you want to interact with the spiritual world, it must be through non-sensual thinking, so the best place for it is meditation where the senses are as quiescent as possible. Using modern thinking, we might say that the dominant left brain is preoccupied with the physical world, and it is the unconscious right brain that provides our link to the spiritual world. The grand ambition of Anthroposophy was to attain with its investigations of the spiritual world the precision and clarity of science’s investigations of the physical world, hence to be a “spiritual science”. Anthroposophical ideas have been applied to education (the internationally famous Steiner/Waldorf schools), biodynamic agriculture, medicine and the arts. The Anthroposophical Society has its international headquarters at the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland (Steiner was a devoted admirer of Goethe and wrote two books on him). Steiner developed a concept of free will based on inner experiences, especially those concerned with creativity. In many ways, creativity is the essence of freedom. How would you program a robot to develop creative behaviour? Creativity involves having thoughts no one has ever had before and which often have no obvious precedent. A Darwinist might describe evolution based on random mutation as creative, leading to unprecedented life-forms, and say that mental creativity is yet another type of randomness

applied to mind rather than matter. Yet creativity has to be RECOGNISED for what it is and then exploited to mine its worth. How would a random process recognise its own importance? It can’t. In the theory of natural selection, it doesn’t have to, and simply prospers and becomes dominant in its environment. Yet a creative innovation is instantly recognised as such by the mind. The question, at root, is whether apparently random mutations taking place in the evolutionary environment of materialism aren’t as random as they seem, and are “recognised” at some level by a primitive, unconscious mind then actively exploited. This would lead to radically faster evolution. Scientist Fred Hoyle stated: “The probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747.” If that’s right, it’s impossible that life, in the materialistic sense, could have originated anywhere at all, never mind the Earth. In which case, life exists because life has always existed – because the universe is inherently alive. The atoms of which human beings are made are alive, but they cannot express that life meaningfully. When they arrange themselves into human beings then their living qualities become manifest. To say that “life” emerges from atoms is really to say that the life already possessed by atoms is given the means to express itself meaningfully. Complex arrangements of atoms give rise to complex expressions of life. That is the law of life. Creativity’s key feature is that it can change behaviour, and even human history, in a radical way. It introduces new laws into the world. Imagine the laws of physics generating new laws as time goes on. Imagine the universe being completely different tomorrow because of some new law. That could be disastrous for the cosmos, but in the mental sphere the creation of new laws, ideas, and ways of doing things is the driver of all progress. The mind is inherently the sphere of the creative, the novel, the unexpected, and the unprecedented. Steiner split from the Theosophical Society because he thought it overly oriented towards an Eastern and especially Indian approach. Steiner wanted to have a more Christian and scientific emphasis. A parting of the ways was inevitable when the Theosophical Society presented the child Jiddu Krishnamurti as the reincarnated Christ. Steiner was outraged (and many years later Krishnamurti himself repudiated the claim), so Steiner created

Anthroposophy to allow him to develop Theosophical ideas in what he regarded as the most productive way. Steiner claimed to have direct experience of the Akashic Records, the supposed spiritual chronicle of the history, pre-history, and future of the world and humanity. He thought that general access to this incredible cosmic “library” of all the knowledge ever collected would lead to a transformation in humanity. He was strongly of opinion that a person’s moral development must precede the development of spiritual faculties, although it’s hard to see how morality has any connection at all with enhanced knowledge of the spiritual world. If black magicians are both immoral and powerful then clearly it wasn’t their “goodness” that secured their enhanced powers. Steiner was a typical moralist and far too attracted to Christianity, and this largely undermined his work. The Illuminati had a considerable interest in Steiner due to his admiration for Goethe, but decided against recruiting him. Anthroposophists promote a process of inner development based on achieving conscious control of imagination, inspiration and intuition. We certainly agree with this part of their programme. It was said that nonsensory or supersensory consciousness could be achieved. Of course, the immense danger with this approach is that it invites fantasy, delusion and wishful thinking – and a great deal of Anthroposophy is of that ilk. Sensory data gathered from the material world provides objective evidence, so science is able to compare theory with data and abandon any theories inconsistent with observations. How would Anthroposophy accomplish something similar in the “psychic sphere”? What objective facts could be appealed to? What restraints are there on flights of fancy that are completely unprovable? Steiner believed that the human capacity for rational thought would allow individuals to comprehend spiritual research on their own and be independent of the “authority” that bedevilled mainstream religions with their “sacred” and “infallible” texts. He contrasted the anthroposophical approach with, on the one hand, mysticism (which he considered deficient in clarity) and, on the other, science (which he considered limited to investigating the outer, material world and ignorant of the inner, mental world which it couldn’t meaningfully address). Sadly, Anthroposophy is no kind of substitute for

science and looks exactly like mysticism, and indeed mostly attracts the mystically minded. Psychologists, especially Jung, have created a much more fruitful “anthroposophy”. In fact what is psychology if not wisdom concerning humanity? What is now needed is correlating psychology with objective facts concerning the brain. If the secrets of the right hemisphere of the brain can be unlocked, what remarkable new vistas will be opened to humanity? Also needed is a “mathematics of the mind” – i.e. studying the mathematical underpinnings of all mental phenomena. Steiner said that human beings had four components: a physical body common to everything in the inorganic world; a life body (“etheric body”) common to all living creatures (including plants); sentience or consciousness (the “astral body”) common to all animals, and the ego, in which resides the faculty of self-awareness that human beings uniquely possess in our world. Anthroposophy asserts that humanity was originally highly intuitive and possessed of a clairvoyant perception of spiritual realities. Humanity has progressively evolved an increasing reliance on intellectual faculties, which have pushed the intuitive and clairvoyant experiences to one side and rendered them atavistic. The psychically gifted possess these old qualities that, in others, are suppressed. Over-intellectualisation, as in scientific materialism, has produced a sterile reliance on abstraction over contact with natural and spiritual realities. We have become estranged from our old selves that were much more naturally and spiritually oriented. The task is to combine abstraction and reason with imagination, and consciously achieve inspiration and intuitive insights. Note that this account is highly similar to Julian Jaynes’s bicameral paradigm. Humanity was highly intuitive and spiritual when the old bicameral mind dominated, receiving communications directly from the “gods”. As left-brain rationality evolved, the “gods” fell silent and the left brain became the internal voice that we identify as our “self”. We need to bring back some of the right-brain features without sacrificing the rational advances we made with the left brain. This is the great challenge facing humanity: to make ourselves both more rational and more intuitive/ spiritual, without creating disastrous conflicts. Anthroposophy, like Theosophy, embraces reincarnation and karma. It’s said that the individual’s karma dictates the choice of parents, physical

body, disposition and capacities that will provide the challenges and opportunities needed for further development. This is the typical karmic account and it is, of course, pure bullshit. As ever, it shows nauseating hostility towards reason. It’s astonishing that people who talk about “wisdom” so often have contempt for reason. Why don’t they ever say that we are all on a journey to become more rational and that “karma” is a force directed towards making us smarter rather than “nicer”? Why is it that so many people think being “good” is more important than being smart? Religions of so-called goodness have frequently proved the greatest obstacles to increased rationality. The Enlightenment was, in many ways, a war against infantile, superstitious, faith-based, naïve notions of goodness. In any case, “goodness” was never the real issue for most religions, but rather obedience and control. Those who obey their controllers are patted on the back and told they are good and will go to heaven; those who resist are called evil heretics and are burned at the stake. Karmic thinking is an insult to both reason and free choice. No soul is karmically directed into any body. All souls CHOOSE using their own FREE WILL. What could be more obvious, rational and natural? There’s no cosmic force pushing anyone, only their own personal inclinations. People choose their own path. Neither God nor karma contributes in any way. The universe isn’t fundamentally about good and evil; it’s fundamentally about reason and self-consciousness. The quicker the world wises up, the quicker we’ll reach divinity. The person who has most benefitted from the discourse of “good and evil” is Satan because good and evil, in practice, have been all about obedience or disobedience to “God” (Satan). Evil has been defined as disobedience to “rightful authorities” – which have invariably been Satanic authorities. Steiner said that Lucifer and Ahriman profoundly influenced humanity. Lucifer, the light spirit, “plays on human pride and offers the delusion of divinity”, but also inspires creativity and spirituality; Ahriman, the dark spirit, tempts humanity to “deny [their] link with divinity and to live entirely on the material plane”, but also promotes intellectuality and technology. Each person must find a healthy balance between these opposing influences, and the person they should turn to is the Cosmic Mediator, the “Representative of Humanity” – none other than JESUS CHRIST! He is a spiritual entity who stands between and harmonizes the two extremes represented by Lucifer and Ahriman.

The characterisation of Lucifer as being on the side of human pride and access to divinity, of creativity and spirituality, is all to the good. Ahriman being on the side of science, intellectuality and technology is also to the good. A combination of Lucifer and Ahriman sounds pretty damned fine – and no Jesus Christ is needed, thank you very much. Same old Redeemer/ Saviour bullshit. Steiner asserted that a real spiritual world exists, out of which the material world condensed and evolved. We could certainly agree with that if by “spiritual world” he meant an unconscious, unformed domain of the mind, but he doesn’t. He means a kind of fully fledged spiritual world of which the material world is an inferior copy, like Plato’s material world being an inadequate echo of the domain of Perfect Forms. Anthroposophy championed artistic expression and creativity, seeing it as a valuable bridge between spiritual and material reality. We would certainly go along with that aspect of Steiner’s thinking. We need an enormously more artistic and creative world. Artistry and creativity must become part of the DNA of society and the institutions of the State.

The Possibility of a Union of Science and Spirit STEINER BELIEVED IN THE possibility of a union of science and spirit, with the clarity of the scientific method being applied to spiritual experience. Just as Plato regarded the domain of Perfect Forms as providing absolute reality and standards of knowledge that could only be accessed through reason, so Steiner believed in an objectively existing spiritual world, of which our world is a kind of shadow, and which can be reached through intellectual and spiritual means. If science allows us knowledge of the objectively existing material world, spiritual science should allow us knowledge of an objective spiritual world, using similar techniques to those of conventional science. What Steiner, like Plato before him, disastrously failed to comprehend is that the mental and physical worlds aren’t separate worlds; one isn’t an inferior copy of the other. Rather, they are two interacting worlds, always influencing each other by way of matter-mind, mind-matter feedback loops. The so-called spiritual world can evolve only through its interaction with the physical world – that’s why the material world was needed in the first place. If a fully realised, objective spiritual world could exist independently, what possible reason would there be for having the material world? What

would be the sufficient reason for its existence? The material world would be redundant. If you wanted a lower world for some reason, it could be a lower spiritual world. Why does it have to be material and what is the relationship between matter and mind? Why is matter part of this picture at all? Someone such as Bishop Berkeley, the great champion of idealism, would have shot down Steiner in one second flat by rejecting any need at all for matter. Steiner identified mathematics (which attains certainty through rational, logical thinking, and thus through inner mental experience rather than empirical observation of external reality) as the basis of his epistemology of spiritual experience. We couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, Steiner then virtually ignored mathematics and indulged in speculation and mysticism. We entirely agree that mathematics is the basis of objective knowledge of reality. Mathematics is “rational science” rather than “empirical science” such as physics. One of the central questions of epistemology – the study and theory of knowledge, its nature and derivation, its scope and the reliability of claims to knowledge – is whether mathematics is superior to science. Scientific materialism promotes the claim that the testing, verification and falsification of theories is the only sure path to knowledge. If something cannot be tested scientifically, it is forever speculative. Since there are innumerable areas that can’t be tested scientifically, it makes for a very narrow, sterile view of the cosmos. Is the “testing” criterion appropriate? Illuminism, following Pythagoras, places mathematical knowledge above scientific knowledge. Mathematical truths – arrived at through pure thinking and completely independently of testing – are the foundations of knowledge. The picture presented by science is wrong precisely because it has philosophically preferred testing over pure mathematical reason. Only material things can be tested, so the immaterial world has been abolished by scientists. Scientists have reached the astounding conclusion that if something isn’t testable it doesn’t exist. Absence of evidence is taken as evidence of absence. This is a catastrophic doctrine and it underlies the scientific hostility to God, souls and the afterlife. These can’t be directly observed and tested ergo they don’t exist, or so scientific materialists claim. Of course, there were was a time when radio waves and microwaves were unobservable and untestable. It didn’t in any way affect their existence.

They were there all right – we just couldn’t detect them until we had the electromagnetism theory of James Clerk Maxwell to show us where to look. There are four approaches to gaining knowledge of ultimate reality: 1) Scientific materialism says that testing of scientific theories is the only way to be certain of anything. Scientific theories are right to the extent to which they reflect empirical evidence. Anything that cannot be tested experimentally is cast off to metaphysics or religion. 2) Metaphysics is literally what comes after physics – all the stuff we can’t put to the test. Metaphysics is the province of philosophy and nearly all metaphysical statements have been challenged on numerous grounds, meaning that no one takes metaphysics seriously as a source of objective knowledge. Scientists frequently sneer at philosophy, dismissing it as mere metaphysics. Of course, a huge amount of science is metaphysical. Cosmology is highly metaphysical, as are the various interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. The Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is entirely metaphysical (if not utter science fiction). M-theory is purely metaphysical. Metaphysics is, on the whole, highly speculative, highly fascinating, but unreliable. 3) Religion is an alternative type of metaphysics that lays claim to absolute truth by reference to some supposedly infallible authority i.e. a prophet, a holy man, a guru, a saint, a Messiah, a Holy Text, a divine revelation. Religion is based on faith. You simply have to believe without question what the allegedly divine source tells you. For any thinking, rational person this is no kind of answer. Theosophy and Anthroposophy are mixtures of religion, mysticism, fantasy, myth and metaphysics, with the occasional nod towards science. 4) Mathematics, according to the Illuminati, provides the supreme and unarguable truth of the universe. Mathematics is the queen of the sciences, and the sciences are its inferior subjects. This has truly radical consequences. Mathematics, unlike science, can be conducted purely mentally. Its truths are those of reason alone. A perfect mathematical universe could be constructed entirely in the

mind. If the truths of this domain are valid, the claims of scientific materialism are destroyed since empirical testing plays no part. Euclid’s books on geometry were thought to be unarguably true for over 2,000 years. When they were eventually challenged, they weren’t demonstrated to be false. Rather, their range of applicability was shown to be not as general had been believed. Bernard Riemann’s 19th century work on non-Euclidean curved spaces showed that there were domains where Euclid’s theorems didn’t work, but new theorems did. Riemann’s work, which had seemed to be mathematically fascinating but with no real-world applicability, ended up providing the mathematical basis of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Einstein’s special theory of relativity is underpinned by four-dimensional Minkowski space. Quantum mechanics is derived from “matrix mechanics” and “wave equations” – entirely mathematical constructs. Mathematical postulates, theorems and axioms can all be challenged rationally – i.e. they can be tested – but in the mental domain of reason, not the physical domain of matter. Leibniz’s monads – immaterial, dimensionless points with infinite energy capacity – are not in the physical world, hence cannot be subject to scientific tests. The question is one of whether the existence of monads can be demonstrated rationally (like a mathematical theorem), and whether their existence and properties predict features that of the material world that can be experimentally verified i.e. the existence of monads should be proved rationally and inferred scientifically. Monads must NOT be treated as metaphysical entities. Only the astounding power of mathematics saves them from this fate. The whole of the universe, mental and physical, can be constructed from nothing but monads. It cannot be stressed enough how crucial mathematics is. Without mathematics, there could be no order and organisation in the cosmos. In the absence of mathematics, there would be nothing but randomness and chaos. There would be no patterns, no laws, no relationships between things. In fact, it can legitimately be asked whether there could be anything at all. The power of mathematics is nowhere better demonstrated than in music. Music is nothing but audible mathematics based on mathematical waves, but look at the effect music has on us. How can mere waves reduce

us to tears? It’s because mathematical forms carry INFORMATION. In fact mathematical forms ARE information. All chaotic mathematical forms perish. The ones that survive are the stable, self-reinforcing ones. As music demonstrates, mathematics can express feelings and will. In other words, mathematics is not some dry exercise in pure logic. Emotion is itself mathematical. What is the soul? It is a MATHEMATICAL ENTITY. All of its features are mathematical. Its desires, its will, its feelings, its reasoning capacities are all mathematical. Schopenhauer said that music was a copy of the primordial will. He was wrong. Music IS the primordial will. In a very real sense, souls – and hence human beings – are musical instruments playing myriad tunes in the mental and physical domains. Here is wisdom. The journey from the unconscious to consciousness is exclusively a mathematical journey. Consciousness corresponds to particular mathematical patterns. If we knew enough mathematics, we could convert the entire physical world into mathematical patterns. Your unique mathematical pattern could be stored in a computer and you could be turned into a virtual reality version of yourself in cyberspace. You would be your own avatar. You could also be physically RESURRECTED. Mind and matter are both expressions of mathematical patterns. Our rational thoughts reflect mathematical patterns. Our feelings reflect a different type of mathematical pattern. Our will, our desires, love, happiness, laughter, hope, fear, anxiety, faith – all of these are mathematical patterns. If we were to see people of faith and atheists side by side under a “mathematiscope”, we would notice different wave patterns, reflecting distinct “reason” and “faith” patterns. The whole universe is, frankly, nothing but mathematics. Matter, mind, the unconscious, consciousness, feelings, desires, will – they are all mathematical. The universe is just the unfolding of the most wondrous equation of all: the Cosmic Equation. It converts simple mathematical patterns (potential) into the most complex imaginable (actualisation). What is evolution? – increasingly complex mathematical combinations. What, finally, is consciousness? It is nothing but self-aware mathematics. The key issue in constructing a rational universe is to identify the arche – the fundamental stuff of existence. We have described it in mathematical terms as a dimensionless point called a monad (a unit of existence). We have said that if one monad exists then so must an infinite number according to the Leibnizian principle of sufficient reason.

Each monad has infinite capacity – but in what regard? What is a monad made of? What does this dimensionless point comprise? Is it dimensionless energy? But what is dimensionless energy? In fact, an astonishing truth begins to unfold, one first perceived by Pythagoras. Numbers are the arche, or, to be more general, mathematics is the arche. Each monad has infinite mathematical capacity, and that capacity is actually what “energy” means. Energy is the never-ending performance of mathematical operations. That’s all that energy is. It’s impossible to define it in any other way. The first law of thermodynamics stating that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed, is in fact a statement about mathematics. Mathematical operations can be neither created nor destroyed – only transformed. All events that take place in the universe involve transformations of mathematical equations. That, ultimately, is all that ever happens: mathematical equations keep changing. There is not a single thing that can be conceived of that, if we had the benefit of a miraculous microscope that revealed the underlying reality, would not be seen to involve a change in a set of mathematical equations. We traditionally think of mathematics as a set of rules, operations, laws, axioms and equations, as a tool used by a mind. But in fact mathematics IS the mind. Mathematics is both the mind and its activity: no distinction can be drawn. What is our mind if not its activity? Mind is living mathematics. The universe is made of living mathematics. Only mathematical operations are ever happening in the universe. The greatest image ever presented of true reality is the screen from the movie The Matrix, showing code endlessly cascading down it – an endless river of data, a flow that can never cease. The code can transform itself, but that’s all. It can’t create brand new code out of nothing, and no code can ever disappear. The equations keep changing…for all eternity. The universe of becoming is a universe of dynamic equations that can never stop changing, like the code on the Matrix screen. In The Matrix, the operators looking at the screens could “see” what the code meant in terms of people and things. Their minds automatically translated the code into recognisable things; but that translation process was itself mathematical.

The cosmic journey, when seen in its barest, starkest form, is nothing but the unfolding of the simplest mathematical equation to the most complex. God is the answer to the cosmic equation. God is the equation that has become fully conscious of itself. At that moment, it has absolute understanding of everything. God is the supreme expression of the mathematical potential of existence. The cosmic equation of existence is a SELF-LEARNING equation. Its purpose is to make itself more complex, to evolve, to attain more power. What is death? – a reformulation of the equation; a termination of a certain part of the equation. When the cosmic equation has reached its omega point and become God, what does it do? – it resets everything to zero. It REBOOTS itself. We can think of the cosmic equation as being continually beset by defective, unproductive equations, like viruses. The cosmic dialectic is about maximising the equation, by overcoming all the sub-optimal equations. Satan is the supreme defective equation, obstructing the culmination of the cosmic equation. The universe can be conceived as an enormous SELFPROGRAMMING system, attempting to optimise itself. It makes innumerable blunders, generates all manner of defective equations and suboptimal solutions, but it learns from them all and corrects them all and keeps improving. It is driven by a dialectical process. It learns through reconciling contradictions in a higher synthesis that preserves the best of the thesis and antithesis and eliminates the worst of them. That is the guaranteed formula for improvement. Memories are mathematical and are stored and accessed mathematically. All diseases are glitches in equations. Death is an unrecoverable breakdown in our personal set of equations. The part of our equation that is determined by the material world is dissolved, necessitating a rebalancing of the equation in the mental domain. At a future point, our personal equation can again extend itself into the physical domain in the process that we call reincarnation. The underlying reality is of a continually changing equation. A writer who has been successful, but not nearly successful enough in terms of the quality and importance of his core idea, is Douglas R Hofstadter, author of Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. (He

has subsequently written another book called I am a Strange Loop in which he again advances his thesis that consciousness originates in a “strange loop”.) A strange loop is described in the following way: “The ‘Strange Loop’ phenomenon occurs whenever, by moving upwards (or downwards) through the levels of some hierarchical system, we unexpectedly find ourselves right back where we started.” Hofstadter continues: “Implicit in the concept of Strange Loops is infinity since what is a loop but a way of representing an endless process in a finite way?” We can consider a monad – with its infinite capacity – as the ultimate strange loop. Hofstadter writes, “In short, an ‘I’ comes about – in my view, at least – via a kind of vortex whereby patterns in a brain mirror the brain’s mirroring of the world, and eventually mirror themselves, whereupon the vortex of ‘I’ becomes a real, causal entity.” Hofstadter has never really succeeded in making his concept clear enough, and we can see with his definition of “I” that he is firmly in the materialistic world of brains rather than the mental world of minds. Despite that, he has unquestionably found in the abstract concept of a strange loop (an instrument of permanent SELF-REFERENCE as opposed to referencing other things) the key to the individual mind, consciousness and identity. We are who we are, and we are different from everyone else, because our personal strange loop of self-reference perpetually throws us back onto ourselves and makes it impossible for us ever to break out. We are locked inside an infinite loop from which there is no possibility of escape. If we could escape, it would mean our annihilation. The fact that we can’t escape means we are immortal. Strange loops can be neither created nor destroyed. They are eternal, and they can absorb infinite knowledge, experience and information, all of which is pulled into the vortex of self-reference. The key to understanding the universe as “living mathematics” is to appreciate that mathematics can be experienced from both the inside and the outside. A core example of this that everyone can comprehend is music. From the outside – if we looked on a computer screen at the waveforms that make up our piece of favourite music – we would see a flow of waves that would have little or no significance for us, and we would be unable to distinguish it from other songs displayed in the same way. Even the song we like least would resemble, on screen, the song we most love. But when we hear the waveforms, rather than seeing them, everything slots into place. Suddenly, we FEEL the music. When we are looking at the

screen, we are seeing the music from the outside: as an objective entity. When we hear it, we experience it from the inside. Only we can hear it in the particular way we do. We can NEVER know for sure that our experience is the same as someone else’s. We are locked inside our own strange loop. We simply assume that the strange loops of others are similar to our own and provide similar experiences, but it’s impossible for us to prove it. Consciousness is about being able to reflect on what we are experiencing rather than simply having the experience, as animals do. Animals can hear our music, but they do not have our experience of it and they are not reflecting on the experience and nor are they capable of recalling it at will. Mathematics, from the inside, is NOT mathematical – it is feeling, desire, reason, will. Mathematics conveys information, but the information is not received and experienced mathematically. It is experienced as mental activity; as thinking and feeling, as intuition, as desiring, as intellect, as will, as sensations. The INSIDE of mathematical information is what we call MIND and subjective experience. The objective world is mathematics detected externally. The subjective world is mathematics experienced internally. Objectivity is mathematics from the outside. Subjectivity is mathematics from the inside. What’s more, a subject can generate its own mathematical responses to the sea of external mathematics in which it is immersed, and this corresponds to FREE WILL. Our freedom lies in our ability to initiate mathematical equations; to be mathematical selfgenerators. We do not experience our free will as mathematics, of course. We experience it as our individual decisions. But if we were able to see those decisions from the OUTSIDE, we would see that they were nothing but mathematical waveforms conveying information. Our self-generated equations (our freely chosen decisions) affect the external world, and the external world of course affects us. We are in a permanent feedback loop with the ocean of mathematics around us. It affects us and we affect it. We are the intersection of two loops: our personal strange loop and our feedback loop with everything that is external to our strange loop. That is what existence is: the interaction of two loops, external and internal. To reiterate, although the universe is nothing but mathematics, when experienced from the INSIDE, it’s not mathematical at all. We would not

suspect for a moment that our passions, our tantrums, our irrational decisions, are mathematical – but that’s exactly what they are. Just as music conveys the highest emotions in a rigorous, precise mathematical form, so all our experiences (that we do not associate for a moment with mathematics) are conveyed with extreme mathematical precision, like musical notes. In a way, we can think of the whole universe as just an immense cosmic orchestra trying to play the perfect symphony, for which it needs to generate the ultimate composer – GOD. Mathematics is the answer to the cosmic mystery. There’s nothing else. It is mind and it is matter, and it is the means of communication between them. It is time and space. It is emotion. It is desire and will. It is reason. Science is nothing but applied mathematics, and many people have succumbed to scientific materialism because of its success. But the truth is that PURE mathematics is REALITY, and science is just a derivative of pure mathematics. Hegel conceived of the universe as an immense, rational dialectical evolution of Geist (mind/spirit) to Absolute Geist – where it attains perfect understanding of itself. Nietzsche conceived of the universe as the eternal expression of Will to Power. Hegel and Nietzsche are both right. Viewed from the outside, Hegel’s conception is correct. The universe is an immense mathematical equation working towards its own solution. Viewed from the inside, Nietzsche is right. We, trapped inside our mathematical equations, are obsessed with increasing in our power. Subconsciously, we are all aware that an increase in our personal power implies that our personal equation (part of the overall cosmic equation) is getting better and better. A decrease in power leads to fear and anxiety and we know our equation is struggling. Of course, the universal equation has a fundamental problem. There is no one overseeing it or guiding it. It is solving itself, but it doesn’t know what the exact method is. It is using the dialectic – the resolution of opposites – but that is a crude and inefficient method that, by definition, generates conflict. So, an increase in one person’s power often signals a decrease in someone else’s and eventually the weaker person will have to fight or become an abject slave. If he fights and wins, the previous master may discover that his personal equation has gone into a disastrous tailspin. Look at the monster Rupert Murdoch – one of the most powerful people in the world – now looking weak and pathetic and in danger of losing it all.

The “little people” fought back and bit the monster. We can all do the same. We can bring all the members of the Old World Order to their knees. There is nothing to fear. We just need to have confidence in our own equation. It may seem an outrageous proposition that we are living mathematics. It certainly doesn’t appear so, does it? Most people loathe mathematics and are useless at it. Yet watch them effortlessly catch a ball. How are they doing it? They are solving an immensely difficult dynamical equation without even thinking about it. Look at autistic savants – they can carry out prodigious calculations faster than computers. How is that to be understood as anything other than a manifestation of their inbuilt mathematical nature? They are literally living calculators. We all have this prowess, but it is not accessible to most of us since we are much more preoccupied with other things. Many of the greatest geniuses of mathematics, science and philosophy are more or less diagnosable as having suffered from high-functioning autism: Asperger’s Syndrome. There is a trade-off between Logos ability and Mythos ability (reason versus feeling). The more emotionally intelligent you are, the less autistic you are, but you may find yourself with little Logos talent. It seems rather telling that women are regarded as emotionally more intelligent than men, but nearly all of the greatest scientists, mathematicians and philosophers have been men, and autism is much more common in men than women. Autistic savants, overwhelmingly male, are often calculating geniuses but emotional retards. Few people manage to get anything like the right balance between Logos and Mythos. It has been said that the average woman is cleverer than the average man but that the cleverest men are much cleverer than the cleverest women. In other words, female intelligence belongs to quite a narrow distribution curve – most women are of similar intelligence, and the smartest are not much smarter than the average – while the distribution curve for men is very wide. Some men are almost like apes while others are practically gods. The average man is an irresponsible, aggressive, emotionally inarticulate idiot, easily outsmarted by the average woman. A women-only world would be much happier and tranquil, but lacking the geniuses who revolutionise the world. A man-only world would be a perpetual battleground, and sooner or later a genius would come along and build a Doomsday machine that would destroy the world. We almost reached that point in the Cuban Crisis of 1962.

We desperately need a greater female influence in the world, without sacrificing male genius.

Why does the Mathematical World seem Nonmathematical? SCHOPENHAUER’S MASTERWORK IS The World as Will and Representation. In this book, he declared that the universe, as it is in itself, is pure Will: a ceaseless, insatiable, blind striving, longing, desire, effort and urge to exist, to survive, to live. This Will is outside space and time and is unindividuated. It is the cosmic noumenon underlying all things. Following Kant, Schopenhauer then asserted that there is a phenomenal world of individuation, matter, space and time, cause and effect. This is the world of Representation where every “object” experienced as external to an individual mind is perceived as an idea, an image, a mental construct, a representation. Our own body is perceived as an external object. In this world, mind imposes an intelligible framework on the underlying Will; but it’s an utterly fabricated framework concealing the true nature of things. It’s like the Hindu Maya: a veil of illusion. Our mind gives us an inner experience of reality – the perspective provided by a subject rather than an object. This inner experience is as close as we can get to the noumenon, but it is NOT the noumenon since the mind experiences space and time, which belong to the phenomenal representation of the world. Nevertheless, our innermost atemporal and aspatial cravings and desires are welling up directly from the noumenal world. Schopenhauer’s work can be subtly adjusted to give us the true picture of things. Schopenhauer’s noumenal Will is in fact pure mathematics that we never perceive directly e.g. we hear sound; we don’t experience it as mathematical waveform combinations, which is what it actually is. Rather, we represent all of the mathematics outside ourselves in terms of objects and phenomena that we take as external reality (the material world) i.e. our senses convert mathematical signals into sensory data. Meanwhile, our own “inner mathematics” – the mathematics that we generate ourselves and that does not come from sources outside us – is represented in terms of feelings, desires, will, intuition and reason rather than different types of mathematical signals, which is what all of these things truly are. Our inner and outer experiences are thus both representations of the underlying

mathematical reality: our senses represent the external reality and our feelings, desires and thoughts the inner. We are thereby permanently shielded from direct experience of mathematics. Just as we experience music as non-mathematical sound even though it is pure mathematics, so we experience everything else as a “translation” of mathematics. Everything we see, hear, touch, smell, taste, feel and desire is a mathematical transformation of underlying mathematical waveforms. We ALWAYS get the INNER subjective experience of mathematics, not the outer objective form. For human beings, mathematics is always translated into things that don’t seem mathematical at all: images, smells, sounds, feelings etc. The main reason for this is that the cosmic mathematical equation has infinite variables (indeed each of us is a variable!) and it takes an infinitely large universe and scores of billions of years to solve it. The answer to life, the universe and everything is God. God is the cosmic equation that has become fully conscious of itself. Rather than solve an infinitely difficult equation, each of us translates our part of the cosmic equation into something familiar and intelligible to us – our own life, and all the familiar objects we experience and thoughts and feelings we have. Our senses and feelings are mathematical simplifiers. They localise the ocean of mathematics in which we are immersed and allow us to concentrate on only what is relevant to us. Otherwise we’d be overwhelmed by information. Evolution is about adapting to the environment, about effectiveness rather than truth or accuracy. Through natural selection, evolution has chosen the kinds of minds we actually have, although many others were possible. Autistic minds with enormous mathematical abilities could have been chosen, but they weren’t. Human minds could have been like the “minds” of computers – relentless calculating algorithms – but they’re not. The types of minds we have are those that prospered and proved most productive. They’re not the “best” – we could design better ones ourselves, based much more on reason rather than superstition – but they’re the ones that succeeded in a brutal testing environment where the law of the jungle literally applied. They are not minds devoted to truth or reason (as Nietzsche pointed out, there is no human organ designed for infallibly sifting truth from lies and delusion, and lies and delusions may in fact have enormous competitive advantages in many situations of natural selection);

they are minds preoccupied with feelings, desires, self-delusion, self-love, lies, irrationality, superstitions, fight, flight, fear, power. The cosmic equation didn’t know how to solve itself so it let natural selection, evolution and the dialectic decide how best to approach the task i.e. it let all of the different aspects of itself compete with each other, and it selected whatever aspects proved most successful. Why are human beings compulsive liars? – because lying has proved extremely effective. Autistics can’t lie, and nor can they fall in love. They have no theory of mind, hence they have no empathy with others. The most severe cases literally don’t know that different minds contain different information and different perspectives from theirs. You can lie to someone only if you know what they don’t know and you know that they don’t know it. An autistic person thinks everyone knows everything he knows, so the concept of lying is incomprehensible to him. An autistic person could be said to subscribe to a theory of “Collective Mind”: he thinks that all minds automatically share the same information. If we could somehow escape from ourselves and see the universe as it is in itself, in its true inner workings, what would we see? In fact, we would see nothing. Reality, as it really is, unfolds in complete darkness and silence. There are no visible objects, no tastes, no odours, no phenomena at all. It is just an equation with infinite variables changing at infinite speed, continually attempting to optimise itself, but not knowing how except through evolution via natural selection and the dialectic. It can only solve itself by becoming conscious of itself, but it can’t become conscious of itself until it has solved itself. It’s the ultimate Catch 22. So it staggers towards the answer in a way that often seems irrational, blind, random, pointless, purposeless and even insane – which is why it’s so easy for Darwinists to see little or no method but merely chance in the universe’s apparent madness. Yet there is always an unconscious intelligence at work in all things, an immense intuition guiding the cosmos towards higher states and ever closer to self-consciousness. Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” The reason it’s comprehensible and intelligible is simply that it’s mathematical and mathematics is completely comprehensible intelligible. If the universe weren’t mathematical, life would indeed be incomprehensible and unintelligible. In fact there would be no such thing as life. Life is impossible without mathematics since life is

about organisation, and mathematics, including logic, is the only conceivable instrument of organisation. Kant declared that there was an unknowable noumenal universe. This is utterly false. The so-called noumenal universe is merely the mathematical universe and it is entirely understandable mathematically. The true dichotomy that Kant was highlighting was not one of knowability but one of our experiential capability. Although we can in principle have complete rational understanding of the universe outside and beyond ourselves, and also within ourselves, we can never experience it anything other than subjectively. We can never attain an objective view of reality and see it from the perspective of a Creator God looking in on it. No one can see the universe from the outside. There is no vantage point external to the universe. Our experiences of the world are conveyed mathematically but never interpreted mathematically. Just as music gets interpreted audibly (in fact, we could experience music through the pressure the sound waves exert on the flesh of our hands if evolution had chosen that as a mechanism for detecting sound waves) and emotionally rather than in its raw mathematical form, so are all mathematical signals reaching us and emanating from us translated into non-mathematical phenomena. We live in nothing but a mathematical universe and the laws of science are all mathematical, yet explicit mathematics forms almost no part of our daily consciousness, which is filled instead with emotion, desire and will, interspersed with the occasional brief period of rational thinking. The view from inside mathematics – the inner experience of mathematics – simply isn’t mathematical at all. We are bombarded with mathematical information all the time and it is converted into the experience of pleasure or pain. The feeling of our power increasing is pleasurable and makes us feel strong, confident and assertive. The feeling of our power decreasing is painful and makes us feel fearful, anxious and depressed. It’s this subjective FEELING that is essential to the universe. If you received information and it made you feel nothing, you wouldn’t care whether the information was good or bad, positive or negative. You would be completely disinterested. If music didn’t make you feel something, you would be indifferent to all music. What, ultimately, is life? It is feeling, desire, will etc (which are in fact subjective experiences of mathematical information signals). If nothing was

ever felt, desired or willed, there could be no life. Imagine a world full of nothing but programmed machines. It would be a mechanical not a living world. Nothing would matter. The machines wouldn’t care if they broke down. The whole thing would grind to a halt and it would be meaningless from beginning to end (what we have described is essentially the scientific materialist view of the world). The mathematical universe is alive because its interior nature is that of feeling, desire and will. Schopenhauer’s Will of insatiable, blind, eternal striving is the right kind of concept for the innermost nature of existence, and Nietzsche’s Will to Power is even better. The Will to Power implies a permanent pursuit of greater power, an unquenchable desire for MORE POWER. (Why is God so fascinating to humanity if not for the reason that he represents ultimate power?) It also implies an ability to gauge whether power is increasing or decreasing and that’s where feelings – the ability to detect pleasure and pain – fit in. The cosmic Will to Power is clad in mathematics. We perceive mathematics as dead symbols and patterns on paper. In reality, mathematics is alive and imbued with Will. Its interior nature is Will and all the mathematical information it receives from the external world is interpreted in terms of Will. Living mathematics is the arche. Numbers in a real sense are alive. On the inside, they are Will to Power. Hegel said, “What is rational is real and what is real is rational.” That should be reformulated as: “What is mathematical is real and what is real is mathematical.” Rationality itself is just an aspect of mathematics. Anything that cannot be expressed mathematically cannot exist!

Steiner the Christian RUDOLF STEINER, ALTHOUGH SHOWING appreciation of all religions and cultures, nevertheless emphasized the importance of Western traditions, and, above all, of Christianity. He accorded Christ a crucial role in human evolution, contending that Christ had somehow been responsible for individuated consciousness. This is nonsense. People like Jesus Christ were bitter enemies of individuated consciousness. Christ was one of the holy gang that preached the message: “Follow me or perish in the fires of hell.” What has that got to do with individuated consciousness? Nothing at all. In fact, it’s the opposite.

The first individuated consciousness in terms of a well-known historical person is Socrates, and he is first thanks to the efforts of his pupil Plato, one of the greatest geniuses in history, who publicised his life in his writings. All of the pre-Socratic philosophers such as Pythagoras, Heraclitus and Empedocles were strongly individuated consciousnesses, of course, but little is known about them in publicly available documents, and 99.9% of people have never heard of them. Pythagoras’s name is known only because of his famous theorem about right-angled triangles. Beyond that, the average person is completely ignorant of one of the most important individuals in history, if not indeed the No.1. Pythagoras was killed by his enemies. Similarly, Socrates was put to death by his. Athens accused Socrates of disrespecting the gods and corrupting the city’s youth. He was executed because he was perceived as a troublemaker, asking awkward questions, making people doubt all the rubbish they had taught by the authorities. He would certainly have been stoned to death by the Jews if he had lived in Judah because he would have had nothing but contempt for Jehovah. Steiner stated that Christianity evolved out of earlier religions, that Christ manifests himself in all faiths, religions and cultures in one way or another, that each religion is valid and true for its time and cultural context, and that Christianity needs to be radically updated if it is to be relevant in the modern age. While we might agree with some of these observations, we reject any religion that celebrates in any way the historical personage of Jesus Christ, the evil son of the evil Archon Gabriel. The sooner Jesus Christ is obliterated in the human memory, or transformed into a symbolic being with no connection to the Jews, the better. Steiner claimed that Christ is a being who unifies all religions. Really? What history books was Steiner reading? Was he smoking too much weed? Jesus Christ is plausibly the most divisive figure of all time. More people have been killed in his name than in anyone else’s. He might as well be the God of Murderers. Not far behind him is that other “holy messenger” who attracts legions of homicidal maniacs – Mohammed. Think how much violence, suffering and death humanity would have been spared if Jesus Christ and Mohammed had never been born! Steiner argued that all religions could claim Christ (tell that to the Jews!), and that he was not the property of the religion named after him. He even made the preposterous suggestion that the Christ Being was the central

force in human evolution! He said that Christ was the Redeemer of humanity’s Fall from Paradise, and also the unique pivot and meaning of earth’s evolutionary processes and of human history. Steiner certainly wasn’t a conventional Christian, so it’s to understand why he was so fixated on him. In such cases, the person is often in denial. They want to be regular a Christian believer, but their rationality is too strong to allow them, so they invent a new Christ more acceptable to their reason. Strangely, Steiner believed that two different Jesus children were involved in the Incarnation of the Christ. One child was descended from Solomon, as per the genealogy provided in the Gospel of Matthew; the other from Nathan, according to the genealogy featured in the Gospel of Luke! The idea of two Jesuses is not in fact an unusual one. It has been suggested that Jesus had an identical twin and that the two were never seen together, making people think there was only one. One twin died and the other lived on, apparently resurrected. (The movie The Prestige is based on this same idea of identical twins who are never seen together.) Steiner claimed that the Second Coming would be a spiritual rather than physical event. Christ would manifest himself in non-physical form, and be increasingly evident to all spiritually attuned people. The event was scheduled to happen around 1933. Instead, the rise of Hitler began. Perhaps the two events were related! It was Steiner’s Christ-mania that made the Illuminati turn away from him in something approaching disgust, just as Nietzsche turned away from Wagner when he saw Parsifal with its offensive Christian sentiments.

The Split between Theosophy and Anthroposophy ANTHROPOSOPHY IS ESSENTIALLY AN offshoot or refinement of Theosophy, not a radical departure. It’s like Protestantism to Catholicism, a reform not a total rupture. Steiner’s worldview has in fact been called “German theosophy”. Anthroposophy could be regarded as Theosophy with a Western bias as opposed to the Eastern bias of Theosophy itself. Anthroposophy also has a Christian emphasis, absent from Theosophy.

In practice, the difference between anthroposophy and theosophy is significant. Anthroposophy focuses on practical matters such as education, health and agriculture while Theosophy is more concerned with theory, meditation and the inner search for light. Steiner, speaking of Theosophy, commented: “… Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism was soon recognized as the work of the spiritual dilettante, a compendium of old, badly understood esoteric bits and pieces. But it was less easy to find access to a phenomenon of the period such as Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine. For this work did at least reveal in many places that much of its content had its origins in real, powerful impulses from the spiritual world. The book expressed a large number of ancient truths which have been gained through egotistic clairvoyance in distant ages of mankind. People thus encountered in the outside world, not from within themselves, something which could be described as an uncovering of a tremendous wealth of wisdom which mankind at once possessed as something exceptionally illuminating. This was interspersed with unbelievable passages which never ceased to amaze, because the book is a sloppy and dilettantish piece of work as regards any sort of methodology, and includes superstitious nonsense and much more. In short, Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine is a peculiar book: the great truths side-by-side with terrible rubbish.” That last sentence could just as easily be applied to Steiner’s own books: some great stuff juxtaposed with the most incredible nonsense. Writing about the history of Theosophy, and how it became increasingly Easternised, Steiner said: “The Theosophical Society was first established in 1875 in New York by H.P. Blavatsky and H.S. Olcott, and had a decidedly Western nature. The publication Isis Unveiled, in which Blavatsky revealed the large number of esoteric truths, has just such a western character. But it has to be stated regarding this publication that it frequently presents the great truths of which it speaks in a distorted or even caricatured manner. It is similar to a visage of harmonious proportions appearing distorted in a convex mirror. The things which are said in Isis are true, but how they are said is a lopsided mirror-image of the truth. This is because the truths of themselves are inspired by the great initiates of the West, who also inspired Rosicrucian wisdom. A distortion arises because of the inappropriate way in which H.P.

Blavatsky’s soul has received these truths. The educated world should have seen in this fact alone the evidence for a higher source of inspiration of these truths. For no one who rendered them in such a distorted manner could have created these truths himself. Because of the Western initiators saw how little opportunity they had to allow the stream of spiritual wisdom to flow into mankind by this means, they decided to drop the matter in this form for the time being. But the door had been opened: Blavatsky’s soul had been prepared in such a manner that spiritual wisdom was able to flow into it. Eastern initiators were able to take hold of her. To begin with these Eastern initiators had the best of intentions. They saw how Anglo-American influences were steering mankind towards the terrible danger of a completely materialistic impregnation of thinking. They – these Eastern initiators – wanted to imprint their form of spiritual knowledge, which had been preserved through the ages, on the Western world. Under the influence of this stream the Theosophical Society took on its eastern character, and the same influence was the inspiration for Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism and Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine. But both of these again became distortions of the truth. Sinnett’s work distorts the high teachings of the initiators through an extraneous and inadequate philosophical intellectualism and Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine does the same because of her chaotic soul. “The result was that the initiators, the eastern ones as well, withdrew their influence in increasing measure from the official Theosophical Society and the latter became an area of all kinds of occult forces which distorted the great cause. There was a short phrase, when Annie Besant entered the stream of initiators through her pure and elevated mentality. But this phase came to an end when Annie Besant gave herself up to the influence of certain Indians who developed a grotesque intellectualism derived from certain philosophical teachings, German ones in particular, which they misinterpreted. This was the situation when I was faced with the necessity of joining the Theosophical Society.” Note that Steiner was no uncritical fan of Madame Blavatsky. He thought she had genuine gifts but that she was not in full control over her material. We on the other hand regard her as a charlatan pure and simple, and there is a great deal of the charlatan about Steiner himself. At the most charitable, one might say that both were self-deluded rather than cynically trying to delude and mislead others.

The Omega Man Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) ONE OF THE MOST interesting and far-sighted thinkers of the twentieth century was the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (“de Chardin” was an archaic reference to a French aristocratic title). He it was who conceived of two monumental concepts: the Omega Point and the Noosphere. Some people find Teilhard’s theories inspirational, while others, from both religious and scientific materialist backgrounds, regard them as an abomination. What made Teilhard so controversial was that he was intent on reconciling evolutionary theory with his Catholic faith and thus he incurred two sets of enemies: Christian orthodoxy and evolutionary biologists. As a Jesuit, Teilhard first ran into trouble with his Catholic superiors. As soon as he abandoned any attempt at a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, this collision with the Church authorities was inevitable. Although many practising Christians don’t seem to be aware of it, to disbelieve in Creationism and to deny the story of Adam and Eve is actually to abandon Christianity. The only point of Jesus Christ is that he allegedly came to save humanity from the stain of Original Sin, and Original Sin is tied to the specific act of disobedience of Adam and Eve. If Creation didn’t happen in the way Genesis says, and Adam and Eve weren’t real and didn’t disobey a direct order given to them explicitly by God then Christianity is false and a total lie. It’s IMPOSSIBLE for any Christian to support Darwin’s theory of Evolution (and the same is true for any Jew or Muslim). Imagine trying to defend Christianity in an evolutionary rather than Creationist world. In the evolutionary scenario, the Creationist God himself seems somewhat surplus to requirements. The Garden of Eden vanishes, so there was no Tree of Knowledge and no temptation by the Satanic serpent. Adam and Eve themselves disappear into the great chain of evolution. If they received no direct orders from God then they weren’t guilty of any mortal sin of disobedience. If they weren’t damned for blatant and specific disobedience to their God then what purpose was served by Jesus Christ? Evolution kills Jesus Christ. Many Christians understood that straight away, hence why they so fiercely opposed Darwinism. The Christians who try to have their cake and eat it by supporting evolution and Christianity are

pathetic. They have no intellectual integrity. They don’t know what they believe. Muslims and Jews know that the disobedience of Adam and Eve is indispensible to their faiths. If humanity didn’t disobey God, why were they cast out of Paradise? If Adam and Eve didn’t exist then, frankly, the existence of Jehovah/Allah himself is called into question. Teilhard’s evolutionary Christianity was a far cry from the Catholicism of St Augustine. Teilhard was unquestionably a heretic and the Church forbade him from spreading his teachings. Teilhard agreed to stay quiet and thus never provoked a formal break with the Church. Had he been more intellectually honest, he would never have remained a Catholic. His most important work, The Phenomenon of Man, had to be published posthumously. It sets forth a sweeping, teleological account of evolution based on the Christian Trinity, and especially Christ himself. Teilhard’s ideas, minus Christ, are in fact highly compatible with Illuminism and indeed the Illuminati adopted his term “Omega Point” (previously, Illuminism had referred to the Hegelian “Absolute”: both terms are now used interchangeably, the Absolute being attained at the Omega Point). The critical difference between Teilhard’s view and Illuminism is that Teilhard asserted that the Omega Point has ALWAYS existed. Therefore, the universe is not so much evolving towards the Omega Point through the universe’s own efforts and inner nature, but rather being drawn towards it by conscious design. Teilhard is thus revealed as the most cunning type of Creationist. What he is asserting is that God, rather than Creating Earth and humanity in a specific Creation Event, established a Creation PROCESS that would bring the Earth and humanity into being, and subsequently allow humanity to evolve to the stage where it could enter into union with God. He makes no attempt at all to explain why an all-powerful intelligence would choose to work in such a strange way. The whole concept of evolution implies a groping towards a currently unknown final answer (as in teleological evolution) or towards no definite answer at all (as in scientific materialism), whereas Creationism implies that the answer is already fully known in the shape of the Creator. To have a Creator who designs an evolutionary process in which his creations grope their way towards him is, frankly, a

contradiction in terms. What would be the point? It’s a desperate attempt to reconcile Creationism and Evolution but it makes no sense. Evolution, as we can see all around us, is full of blunders, mistakes, errors, flaws, imperfections, defects, wickedness, evil, immorality, selfishness, cruelty, horror, fear, terror. Why would a loving, forgiving, allpowerful, morally perfect God impose this on humanity? In this view, God is the author of evil, which is inconsistent with his claim to moral perfection. If the universe itself is God and is propelling itself towards selfrecognition of its own divinity and is doing so dialectically through the reconciliation of opposites in progressively higher syntheses then evil becomes an indispensible requirement of the process and its existence is neither a mystery nor a contradiction (as it surely is in a universe created by a perfect and all-powerful God). Teilhard should have ditched his bizarre formula that mixed and matched Creation and Evolution. What he was proposing was, on the one hand, the existence of a God OUTSIDE evolution and then, on the other, an evolutionary process bringing Creation to God. Evolution is thus not a core property of the cosmos (as it is in Illuminism), but a designed process that has no intrinsic necessity. God could more logically have designed Creation as in the Book of Genesis and simply told humanity what he expected of them. In Illuminism, there is no Creation in the sense of an eternal Creator who designs things, but rather the universe is engaged in SELFCREATION. It is creating God from itself using dialectical evolution based on feedback loops between the mental and physical aspects of itself. God is being turned from potential into actuality. Evolution is the intrinsic driver of this transformation. It’s not a design feature imposed by a divine intelligence but rather the CORE process of the universe; its living, beating heart.

The Self-Organising God CERTAIN FACTS ABOUT THE universe tell us everything we need to know about it. We know that thinking exists. Often, that seems like the only sure fact, but there’s another one – ORGANISATION EXISTS. Any thought, to be meaningful, must reflect organisation of some kind. Thought as incoherent, random, chaotic “noise” wouldn’t constitute thought, would

it? Thought must be meaningful. Even if a cunning Cartesian demon were trying to deceive us, all of his deceits would be based on ORGANISATION, not chaos. Pure chaos wouldn’t be recognised as any kind of deceit since it has no meaning. And there is of course another sure fact: only a living creature can think. A Cartesian Deceiver must be alive in order to execute a strategy of deceit, and we must be alive to be deceived. Moreover, the Demon’s mind must be different from ours; otherwise he would be engaged in some utterly bizarre, pointless and deranged self-deceit. Even to practise such a deceit would be equivalent to establishing two separate minds: one to deceive and one to be deceived. Moreover, minds are subjects, not physical objects. On top of that, the organised thinking of a subjective mind capable of reflecting on both itself and whether or not it’s being deceived constitutes consciousness. And one of the things it is conscious of is the idea of an external world of things: the material world. Such a world may not actually exist, but the idea of it certainly does in order for it to be contemplated. So, we now actually have SEVEN unquestionable cosmic facts: 1) Thinking mind exists. 2) More than one mind exists. 3) Life exists. 4) Organisation exists. 5) Subjects exist. 6) Consciousness exists. 7) The idea of an external material world exists (implying that an actual material world exists since where and why does the idea exist if not as a reflection of a reality?). Any valid definition of the arche must reflect these certain facts of existence. So, the arche is 1) ALIVE 2) MENTAL (rather than physical) 3) MULTIPLE (rather than singular) 4) ORGANISATION is essential to it 5) SUBJECTIVE, 6) Capable of becoming CONSCIOUS 7) Aware of an external world as an idea or a physical reality. The arche is a living mental substance that has more than one “node” and is capable of exhibiting organisation. In many ways, the last of these is the most important. Life without organisation is meaningless. Thinking

without organisation is meaningless. Nodes of mind without organisation are meaningless. Everything must be rooted in organisation. It’s the ground of all. And one thing only provides cosmic organisation – MATHEMATICS. The arche must either come with mathematics inbuilt, or the ability to become mathematical i.e. to learn mathematics. Or perhaps the best way to express it is that the mind inherently performs simple mathematical operations – such as generating sine and cosine waves – and it has the capacity to perform these operations in more and more complex ways e.g. combining waves of different frequency, wavelength, amplitude and phase. Just by combining different waves you can in fact construct almost any useful function. In other words, from just one incredibly simple pattern, you have the ability to generate almost any pattern you can think of, no matter how complex. (And bear in mind that quantum mechanics, the basis of science’s understanding of the atomic and subatomic world that underlies all things, is rooted in wave analysis: “The wavefunction is a mathematical quantity, obtained by solving Schrödinger’s equation, that contains all the possible information we can obtain about a quantum system.” – Jim AlKhalili.) We assert that mind IS actually mathematics. All of the activity of mind is, at core, mathematical. A living mathematical subject is a mind. A mind that is not mathematical cannot exist. What a mind does is generate mathematical activity. It then gets better and better at it and the mathematics becomes more and more complex. The mind itself can be blissfully unaware that it’s performing mathematics, just as it’s unaware that music is nothing but combinations of waves varying in frequency, amplitude and phase. At root, the arche is a living mathematical process of self-organisation. Since there is no sufficient reason for it to have a finite number of nodes then it must have an infinite number: dimensionless monads. Since there is no sufficient reason for the process to have any limit, it means that the selforganising substance will go on organising itself into more and more complex forms until it is CONSCIOUS of itself and has the free will to decide what to do next i.e. an unstoppable process of living selforganisation will always culminate in consciousness, free will and, ultimately GOD. God is the inevitable summit of an uncontrolled process of self-organisation. Self-organisation is a mathematical operation, hence God

is the ultimate product of mathematical evolution. He is the perfect mathematical function. Imagine the “beginning” where existence consisted of nothing but a blank mental substance with some intrinsic quality that made the emergence of a universe from that substance utterly inevitable. The best description of that intrinsic quality is probably Nietzsche’s Will to Power and in mathematical terms this might be nothing more than the ability to inexorably generate increasingly complex patterns of sine and cosine waves, and a few other mathematical functions besides. Increasing complexity and capability = increasing power. Imagine a blind, insatiable, unquenchable, unstoppable striving for power. What is the first thing such a Will would have to achieve? – organisation. Before it could do anything meaningful to enhance its power, it would have to get organised. To get organised means to know and apply mathematics. So, the first action of the Will to Power is to transform itself into living mathematics, driving itself forward mathematically. Why is it that science is nothing but applied mathematics? Why is science driven by “laws”? “Living mathematics” – a self-organising system – will, in the first instance, resemble nothing but a vast scientific machine applying relentless laws (and it is this model on which scientific materialists have become fixated). But because this system is actually alive, it will eventually organise matter into a medium for expressing meaningful life (initially in microbes and plants), and then it will increase the complexity of this life until it creates entities that can move of their own accord (animal life). Next, it will create consciousness and then keep increasing this until it generates ALL-CONSCIOUSNESS: God. When it is God, the Will to Power is fully conscious of itself and able to do whatever it chooses i.e. an unconscious, self-organising system of living mathematics can stop only when it can transfer control to its own conscious personalisation – God. Is that not a picture of the evolving universe completely compatible with all known facts and rational principles? Is it not in fact the only possible solution? There are only three possible explanations for the universe we see around us: 1) it is self-organising and pulled itself up by its own bootstraps: it is a living, teleological process trying to achieve maximum organisation, 2) It was designed by a pre-existent being of perfect organisation and

perfect organising capacity, or which made use of perfect organising principles such as the Perfect Forms of Plato (but the question is immediately posed of how such a miraculous and improbable being came into existence in the first place), 3) there is “stuff” in the universe that randomly and purposelessly organises itself – this is the nihilistic claim of scientific materialists who do not have a single clue about how mind, life and consciousness come into existence from dead, inert matter and have not the vaguest idea where mathematics comes from, or the laws of science, where they are stored and how they interact with and control matter, yet they claim they are the ones with the greatest true understanding and knowledge of the universe. We reiterate that there is only one plausible way to understand our existence: as a manifestation of a living, mental (initially unconscious), self-organising Will, founded on mathematics and evolving dialectically towards consciousness of itself, at which point its power is explicitly maximised. Schopenhauer spoke of the mind as being our gateway to the inner nature of existence. Mind doesn’t quite give us direct access to the noumenal Will because our mental activity is framed by the phenomenal concepts of space and time, but mind certainly gives us an interior, subjective experience of the world. Our own mental processes take us as close to the Will to Power and its mania for self-organisation as it’s possible to get. When we are listening to music we are almost at one with the primordial Will. Music is a perfect example of an elaborate mathematical construction whose effect on us is emotional (apparently non-mathematical) rather than mathematical. Think of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder – a mania for organising things. Everything must be in its precise place. Where does that peculiar habit originate if not in some primal aspect of the cosmos? OCD reflects an obsession with organisation. Consider the Jews with over 600 rules to obey, to organise and control every aspect of their lives. Consider the Muslims with their prayers five times a day every day of their lives, controlling the flow of their lives in every way. Are these not a type of obsessive compulsion? Look at autism and its high-functioning aspect, Asperger’s Syndrome. Autistics are often preternaturally mathematical. Savants can be amazing calculating machines. Many Asperger’s “sufferers” belong to the ranks of the greatest mathematicians, logicians, scientists and philosophers.

Many autistics are obsessed with control, order, routines, schedules, plans, rituals. A suggestion has been made that eating disorders – which afflict mostly women – are actually the female version of autism, a predominantly male condition. The pathological, self-destructive control of food intake is a form of extreme ritual, organisation, planning and self-control. How on earth could scientific materialism explain these extraordinary disorders as the mere shuffling of inert atoms? However, they make perfect sense in terms of being pathological expressions of an intrinsic feature of existence itself – a desire to organise and control the world mathematically. One way or another, mathematics and self-organisation are oozing out everywhere. Even the force that is said to oppose organisation – entropy – can actually be understood as an extreme ordering principle. If the cosmic Heat Death predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics resulted in a completely uniform distribution of inert atoms throughout the universe, who could deny that it would in fact look like complete ORDER rather than the disorder with which entropy is conventionally associated?

Solaris: Consciousness and the Unconscious STANISLAW LEM FROM POLAND was one of the greatest science fiction writers of all time was. One of his books – Solaris – was made into a famous film by Tarkovsky (and a new version was directed by Steven Soderbergh). This film arguably provides the most vivid depiction of the interaction between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, between consciousness (left brain) and the unconscious (right brain). The story involves a group of research scientists in an orbiting space station who are conducting a survey of the mysterious oceanic surface of the planet Solaris, but it seems that the planet is sentient and is in turn studying the scientists, examining their innermost thoughts. It can manifest in human form, on the space station itself, the scientists’ guiltiest secrets and most intense personal issues, forcing the scientists to physically confront their demons. One of them is confronted by his wife who committed suicide back on Earth, an event that utterly traumatised him. But killing the disturbing human simulacra doesn’t get rid of them; they always return just as before. In the baffling Mind Ocean of Solaris we have the perfect representation of the unconscious. The conscious scientists probing its

nature never get very far apart from creating an elaborate nomenclature that doesn’t actually explain anything. Meanwhile, the unconscious haunts and torments them. It brings their deepest fears to life, everything they have repressed and evaded. All attempts at communicating on a mutually agreeable level come to nought. The ocean’s intelligence experiences and expresses physical phenomena in ways difficult for the researchers’ limited earth science to explain. The alien mind of Solaris is so greatly different from the human mind of (objective) consciousness that attempts at inter-species communications are a dismal failure. Incomprehension is total. Solaris is a planetary generator of human dreams and nightmares, all the more potent because it can bring them to life. The mysterious, sentient ocean that covers the entire planet is not unlike a prototype of Teilhard’s noosphere. Solaris has no people with individual minds; its whole surface is a collective sentience, presumably capable of evolving consciousness in due course.

The Omega Point TEILHARD DESCRIBED THE Omega Point as a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which the universe is evolving. It exists ahead and above the universe, and is pulling it along and upwards. It’s a higher pole of supreme consciousness and is both the source of the initial energy of the universe and the ultimate point of convergence of the universe. Teilhard claimed that the Omega Point must possess the following five attributes: 1) It already exists. Only in this way, supposedly, can the rise of the universe towards higher states of consciousness be explained. The idea is that the Omega Point is a cosmic attractor, drawing the universe ever upwards and closer. Teilhard fails to consider the possibility that the universe can pull itself up by its own dialectical bootstraps and he also fails to address how the Omega Point got there in the first place. 2) It is personal. It an intellectual being, not an abstraction or archetype. Teilhard maintained that the increasing complexity of matter has not only led to higher forms of consciousness, but also

to more personalization (human beings providing the supreme example). And humans are of course made in the image of God, the highest cosmic person. Teilhard stressed that when the universe becomes One, individual humans will not be suppressed, but rather super-personalized: their personality will be infinitely enhanced and optimised. We agree with Teilhard that maximum consciousness reflects maximum personalisation, and we assert that the Super Person that each of us becomes is GOD! 3) It is transcendent. Teilhard uses the circular logic that the Omega Point cannot be result of the universe’s ascent of consciousness because it is the Omega Point that is pulling the universe towards higher consciousness. It is therefore outside the universe and it attracts the universe towards it. The Omega Point can certainly be considered transcendent but it is absurd to say it is outside the universe. Nothing is. 4) It is autonomous. It is outside space and time. Yes, we would agree with that. When the Omega Point is reached it will be a mental phenomenon in the dimensionless domain. 5) It is irreversible i.e. it can and must be reached, and there is no turning back. It is impossible that the Omega Point won’t be attained, and when it is it cannot be undone. We certainly concur with the dialectical inevitability of the attainment of the Omega Point. Anything not forbidden is compulsory. It is not forbidden for the universe to reach its Omega Point, hence it definitely will. Teilhard argued that the universe is constantly developing towards higher levels of material complexity, hence consciousness. He named this the Law of Complexity/Consciousness. It asserts that there is an inherent drive in matter to arrange itself in more complex groupings such that it exhibits higher and higher levels of consciousness. The more complex the arrangement of the matter, the more conscious it is. The universe’s true aim is to generate higher and higher states of consciousness, and it does so by arranging itself into more materially complex structures. According to this view, humanity is the culmination of material evolution on Earth. We are the point at which matter becomes conscious of itself. The purpose of evolution is to cause that to happen.

Humanity is no longer evolving physically. Now it’s our consciousness that’s evolving, and it will do so in increasingly complex ways. The universe can move in only one direction – increasing complexity and consciousness – because it is being pulled upwards, in Teilhard’s view, by a supreme point of complexity and consciousness. This transcendent Omega Point, existing independently of the evolving universe, actually causes the universe to grow in complexity and consciousness. For Teilhard, it is the Christian Logos – Christ – who draws all things into himself. Teilhard said, “Everything That Rises Must Converge.” We are rising, we are converging, and the Omega Point is our final destination. Teilhard has other names for the Omega Point: the Cosmic Apex, the Super Soul, the Hyper Personal, and the Evolutionary All.

The Creative Omega Point HOW CAN HUMANITY bridge the gap to divinity? One thing’s for sure – it can’t be accomplished by a stupid, servile, superstitious people on their knees worshipping the Devil. Creativity and reason are the tools we will use to build a bridge of rainbows to heaven. Once the creativity and intelligence of the human race reach a certain “critical mass”, a chain reaction will be triggered, leading to an explosive rise in human power. A cosmic tipping point will be passed. Runaway positive feedback loops will be generated that in no more than one generation will transform humanity beyond recognition. Imagine seven billion creative geniuses all working together at the highest level of performance. Is there anything they could not achieve? The law of accelerating returns will generate a creative Singularity and on the other side of that singularity is God. If we start now, the job could be done in fifty years or less!

Teilhard the Neoplatonist TEILHARD’S EVOLUTIONARY THEORY has many similarities to Neoplatonism. Implicit in Teilhard’s scheme is the “One” (or God the Father as he would call him). The One is the ineffable source of the Logos (Jesus Christ, the Omega Point). In Neoplatonism, the Logos was often interpreted as the mediating force between the three Hypostases (the One, the Nous (Mind/Spirit), and

the Psyche (Soul)). In Christian terms, we could equate the One to God the Father, Nous to God the Son and Psyche to the Holy Spirit. The Neoplatonic Psyche, sometimes called the “World Soul”, has a fascinating dual nature. It’s immaterial, like the Nous, and is in fact the Nous’s image and emanation. It’s a lower, inferior copy of the Nous and stands between the Nous and the phenomenal world. While the Nous is indivisible, the World Soul is split in two. Part of it – its higher part – remains in contact with the Nous, while the lower part can fragment into innumerable sparks (individual souls) and enter the corporeal world. The individual souls have a choice of raising themselves up to their higher aspect and enjoying the domain of the infinite or turning aside from the intellect, wallowing in the sensual and losing themselves in the finite. The dual nature of the Psyche is thus fundamental to how the universe evolves. We might regard the Omega Point as the Nous, drawing the Higher Psyche towards it, which in turn draws together all of the individual souls. The Higher Psyche represents a collective mind that we could equate with Teilhard’s collective consciousness that he calls the Noosphere (the “noo” in noosphere is in fact derived from “nous”). So, Teilhard’s evolutionary system is really just a modern restatement of Neoplatonism. Individual minds are growing in consciousness and will eventually form a Super Mind (Higher Psyche) that will then converge on the Omega Point (Nous), and the whole thing can then contemplate the source of all – the “One”. We might say that the Super Mind (Psyche) at last merges with that from which it emanated in the first place: the Omega Point (Nous).

Evolution “Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforth if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow....The consciousness of each of us is evolution looking at itself and reflecting upon itself.” -- Teilhard WE AGREE WITH TEILHARD. All theories must bow to evolution. It’s a shame that he didn’t take his own advice. By postulating an Omega Point external to evolution he destroyed his own assertion. He had a fine mind,

but, sadly, it was infected by Christianity, forcing him into irrational conclusions and untenable positions. ***** In Teilhard’s view, humanity is no longer evolving genetically in any significant way. Rather, human evolution is all about the mind and spirit, and these are evolving towards Christ, the Omega Point. Putting it another way, evolution in the physical sphere has stopped and now takes place only in the immaterial realm of consciousness. Teilhard argued that from the geosphere (the nonliving layer of the earth), the biosphere (the life-layer) had evolved and it had then created a third, uniquely human layer – the Noosphere, the realm of reflective thought, comprising consciousness alone. The Noosphere may be said metaphorically to cover the Earth rather like the atmosphere. The Noosphere has the same characteristics as the Omega Point, but at a much lower level. However, as it keeps evolving, it will eventually resemble the Omega Point so closely that it will merge with it i.e. humanity will enter into full union with Christ. In fact, the Omega Point already shares the Noosphere with human minds, but the contact between them is only at a superficial level at this stage. There’s a long way to go before a “chemical wedding” is possible.

Electrical or Mathematical? “What is real? How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you can feel; what you can taste; what you can smell and see; then real is simply electrical signals being interpreted by your brain.” -- Morpheus, The Matrix AND WHAT IS AN electrical signal at root? – just a mathematical signal, as all signals are. It’s a species of mathematics, not an independent phenomenon. What is real? Mathematics is real. Our minds are interpreters of mathematical signals. All signals are mathematical. The subjective interpretation of mathematical signals constitutes our experience of reality, our interior view of things. We ourselves generate mathematical signals, and that’s how we have a causal effect in the world. “Free will” is our set of internally generated mathematical signals that are uncaused by anything external to us. They are free because they originate with us and from

nowhere else, although they are of course influenced (but not caused) by information coming to us from the external world.

Omega Humanity WE HAVE ALWAYS EMPHASIZED the individualistic nature of gnosis since, at any one time, few people are sufficiently enlightened to have any chance of achieving gnosis. But what would happen if an enormous number of people were brought to the verge of gnosis thanks to an enlightened State that had worked relentlessly to bring about this collective mental Singularity? Could humanity attain Collective Gnosis? This would be the equivalent of Teilhard’s merging of the noosphere with the Omega Point. In Illuminism, it would be described as the collective attainment of the Omega Point rather than union with Teilhard’s pre-existing Omega Point. For the Illuminati, the Omega Point is the culmination of the dialectic, not something that precedes and directs the dialectic. Teilhard’s view is tantamount to having a Creator God, which is exactly why Teilhard, a Jesuit, promoted his particular idea of an eternal Omega Point. Teilhard cheated. He ought to have called his Omega Point the Alpha Point since it starts creation and then directs it. A true Omega Point is the end of a process, not its beginning. Had Teilhard used the term Alpha Point, it would have become clear that he was really a Creationist rather than an Evolutionist. Subconsciously, he was deceiving himself. He wanted to have a worldview consistent with evolution, while retaining traditional Christian Creationism. What he ought to have said is that the noosphere reaches an end-state – its Omega Point – and at that critical juncture it enters into union with the Alpha Point that began the whole process. Alpha and Omega come together in a perfect union. The end joins the beginning in eternal circular perfection. In Illuminism, the Alpha Point, the beginning of a cyclic Age, is the point of maximum potential. The Omega Point, the end of the cycle, is the point of maximum actualisation of the original potential. The Omega Point then resets itself to zero, thus becoming the Alpha Point that starts a new cycle. The human beings lucky enough to exist at a point of hypothetical Collective Gnosis are called Omega Humanity by the Illuminati. Omega Humanity need not represent the whole human race, but only a sizeable proportion of it, enough to create a tipping point. Through Omega

Humanity, the whole of humanity could be brought to gnosis in one seismic chain reaction. At that moment the human race would be collectively transformed into Gods. There are two enormous obstacles in the way of Omega Humanity: 1) mainstream religion – the gospels of lies, fear, superstition, slavery and stupidity, Abrahamism in particular, and 2) the privileged elites of the Old World Order, the senior captains of Mammon. Humanity can never achieve its potential until there are no more people on their knees to the Devil or Mammon.

Atoms: Dead or Alive? ROCKS ARE MADE OF “dead” atoms. Living entities are made of “dead” atoms. Thinking, conscious beings (humans) are made of “dead” atoms. So says scientific materialism. Ergo, life, mind and consciousness are simply particular arrangements of dead atoms. The secret of life and consciousness lies in the specific organisation of death. In order for humanity to create artificial conscious life, all that scientists need to do is work out the necessary arrangements of dead atoms. After all, are not humans beings simply food and drink brought to life? Your father’s sperm was made from food and drink; your mother’s egg was made from food and drink; the fertilised egg was made from food and drink; the fertilised egg grew thanks to the food and drink consumed by your mother – and out you popped nine months later: food and drink converted into a living consciousness! Miraculous, huh? Of course, it’s much easier to accept an alternative scheme. Life does NOT emerge from digested food and drink. Rather, life and mind are omnipresent in the universe – in its very fabric – but they are unconscious and what they are always trying to do is steer matter into arrangements that express life and mind more and more fully. Mind and matter are locked together in a feedback loop. Evolution converts low-level life (atoms) into higher level life (plants), higher again (animals) and highest of all in our world (conscious humans). There is no arrangement of death into life. Rather there is a progressive expression of life from low to high. There is no such thing as true death. When a human dies, a particular arrangement of atoms can no longer sustain itself and reverts back to dust. But the life of the person hasn’t actually died. It simply can’t express itself through that particular body any longer, and it has to find a new body via reincarnation.

Evolution might be said to follow the following progression: Unconscious Mind => Matter (atoms) => Life (plants) => Pre-Conscious Thought (animals) => Conscious Thought (humans) => Hyper Conscious Thought (Gods). Teilhard said that Evolution was the result of “directed chance”. This is an apt description. An unconscious, teleological mental process tries, no matter how crudely, to organise matter into more complex arrangements, better able to manifest mind. It uses intuitive guesses, we might say, rather than trying any old thing. Scientific materialism on the other hand asserts that Evolution is the result of undirected chance i.e. complete randomness. The question is how can directed chance be scientifically distinguished from undirected chance? This is the central difficulty of attempting to reform Darwinism. There is no obvious experiment that can be performed to show materialistic scientists that directed chance rather than undirected chance is controlling Darwinian evolution.

The Mystical Union TEILHARD BELIEVED THAT human evolution would eventually arrive at an Omega Point of Collective Consciousness that would merge with God-Omega, the original cosmic Omega Point that, from the dawn of humanity, was drawing human consciousness towards it. The human layer of consciousness (the noosphere) surrounding the Earth would keep evolving until eventually it became an existent in its own right, a consciousness of the species itself – a Super Consciousness separate from any physical bodies. It would detach itself from this planet, from space and time, and it would soar into the pure mental domain where it would inevitably encounter God-Omega, and the two cosmic consciousnesses would touch, merge and become as one. The terminus of evolution is a final creative synthesis of humanity with God, on the level of transcendent consciousness. In Augustinian terms, the City of Man and the City of God are at last turned into a single City of Divine Humanity. It’s an incredibly powerful vision, infinitely more inspiring than Darwinist nihilism. For Teilhard, God-Omega starts evolution as a Creation event, and evolution ends when the Creation is able to consciously embrace its Creator. In terms of Neoplatonism, it’s the equivalent of the Psyche merging with the Nous. In terms of the Christian Trinity, it’s the equivalent of the unconscious Holy Spirit being converted into matter – into the physical world – by Jesus Christ, then evolving consciousness via humanity before evolving a Super Consciousness to become the true Holy Spirit, at which point it can merge with the Christ Consciousness and then both can unite with the “One” – God the Father, bringing the Trinity into true Unity. For Teilhard, it’s the goal of evolution to become conscious of itself and then for consciousness to keep evolving until it’s indistinguishable from God, the instigator of evolution in the first place. Teilhard saw the noosphere as a “super-soul above our souls” (like the Higher Psyche of Neoplatonism). He conceived of a “gigantic psychobiological operation” of cosmic evolution advancing towards a “megasynthesis” of all the thinking elements of the Earth, creating a mental realm of superhuman consciousness of a transcendent nature: a “pure conscious energy.”

The Within and Without of Things TO UNDERSTAND REALITY, it’s essential to perceive that everything has a double aspect: a “within” and a “without”. We can equally refer to this as subject and object. From the outside, all subjects are objects. To a subject, all other things are objects. A subject is only a subject in relation to itself; otherwise it is an object. The subject has, naturally, a subjective experience of reality; it experiences the “within” of reality rather than the “without”. All of us are subjects. Our minds have the inside track on things. Yet we see everyone and everything else as objects (and that’s how they see us). Even our own bodies are objects to us. Scientific materialism is the view that all things are objects to which relentless, inescapable laws of cause and effect apply, meaning that free will is impossible. It’s actually astoundingly easy to see why scientific materialism is false: subjectivity serves no purpose whatever in the material world of scientific determinism, and yet we are all subjects and we have subjective, inner experiences. Imagine a material world where there were no subjects, only objects. Free will would be impossible; everything would implacably obey cause and effect and there would be no inner experience of the universe. It would simply be a cosmic pool game with balls endlessly slamming into each other …forever. Utterly pointless, devoid of meaning, without any conceivable purpose, permanently mindless and unconscious, a cosmic waste of time. There is only one reason why existence is meaningful – subjects are real things. All meaning in life resides in the “within”. Subjectivity is meaning. Free will is possible only because a subject is outside the chain of cause and effect that applies inexorably to objects. Free will means that behaviour can be generated from within the subject i.e. it is an independent source of causality that has nothing to do with objective cause and effect. There are four types of cause and effect: 1) Objective cause has objective effect (the “world” acts on the “world”). 2) Objective cause has subjective effect (the “world” acts on “me”).

3) Subjective cause has subjective effect (I act on myself e.g. one thought causes another). 4) Subjective cause has objective effect (I act on the world e.g. I move my arm; I speak). According to scientific materialism, only objective causes and objective effects are possible. Subjects generating causes from within themselves is impossible according to scientific materialism, yet all day every day each one of us knows that we can generate our own behaviour without any external compulsion or necessity. If you choose to raise your arm this very instant, is it because you are compelled to do so by some inescapable causal chain or because you are exercising your uncompelled free will? OUR FREE WILL IS THE PROOF THAT SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM IS FALSE. Free will proves that subjects exist. Free will proves the primacy of the domain of mind. The universe is trying at all times to increase the degree of free will i.e. to maximise SUBJECTIVITY. As evolution begins, the universe is very much like the one envisaged by scientific materialists – massively objective, obeying the scientific laws of cause and effect. All subjectivity is unconscious at this stage. The universe has no obvious interiority or withinness. As evolution progresses, subjectivity unconsciously and rather blindly steers the objective world into more and more complex configurations that allow the increasing expression of subjectivity. “Life” is the stage at which subjectivity begins to assume control of objectivity. Consciousness is the point at which subjectivity is dominant, and super consciousness (gnosis) is the point at which subjectivity has gained total control of the objective world i.e. the subject has become God. We can think of energy in two ways: as objective or subjective, as without or within. Teilhard called the former “tangential” energy and the latter “radial” energy. The first is “scientific”, the second mental. It’s the latter that ultimately drives everything. Teilhard said that tangential energy “links an element with all others of the same order” while radial energy draws the world towards “ever greater complexity and centricity,” which for Teilhard means spiritual perfection. It is radial energy that drives the Cosmic Law of Complexity-Consciousness.

Teilhard wrote: “If the universe, regarded sidereally, is in the process of spatial expansion (from the infinitesimal to the immense), in the same way and still more clearly it presents itself to us, physico-chemically, as in the process of organic involution upon itself (from the extremely simple to the extremely complex)...and, moreover, this particular involution of complexity is experimentally bound up with a correlative increase in interiorization, that is to say in the psyche or consciousness.” For Teilhard, involution and evolution interact in a feedback loop: involution creates more complexity that allows enhanced evolution that permits more involution, and so on. ***** It can’t be stressed enough that we inhabit a universe containing two types of causality – external and internal. Causes can relate to the outer or the inner universe. A mind has two choices, not one, in relation to causality. It can choose to react to external causes or to generate its own causes via subjective free will. Free will, it should be noted, is something that exists only in relation to subjects. Without subjects there could be no free will. Yet, in the final analysis, everything is a subject – a monad, a soul. Although we seem to inhabit an overwhelmingly objective universe, there is in truth no such as objectivity. The universe is purely subjective but mostly unconscious, and unconscious subjectivity is really what we mean by “objectivity”. An unconscious subject acts as though it’s a mindless object being governed by scientific cause and effect. All things are caused. If things do not have an outer cause then they have an inner cause. Free will has nothing to do with being outside a chain of cause and effect. Rather, free will means that causes can originate within ourselves, driven ultimately by the uncompelled desires unique to each of us. We cause our own conduct: it isn’t caused for us by external events. We aren’t machines that experience the illusion that we are free (as scientific materialists would have us believe); we really are free agents who can generate causes of our actions from within ourselves according to our own natures, characters, personalities and desires. When we think about causality deeply enough, we stumble upon the real truth, and it’s an astonishing one because it’s the absolute reverse of the view of scientific materialism. Instead of everything being trapped in an objective world of inexorable cause and effect that renders free will illusory,

everything is in fact operating according to SUBJECTIVE cause and effect and it is the deterministic behaviour of the external world that actually represents a kind of illusion. Free will – the ability to generate actions from within – is the defining feature of existence. So why is the illusion of scientific materialism so powerful? It’s because the subjective mind is, at the start of the evolutionary process, completely unconscious, and ruled by deterministic mathematics, the principle of rigid organisation. The type of causality that rudimentary, unconscious, subjective minds generate looks like nothing other than inflexible, regimented mathematics, which, in turn, looks exactly like the laws of scientific materialism. It’s only when subjective minds evolve sufficiently and start having subjective experiences that there is any possibility that they can start generating individual actions that are nothing to do with scientific laws. The objective world should in fact be regarded as the UNCONSCIOUS subjective world. The unconscious world, lacking any sense of SELF, cannot act other than in the manner of scientific materialism – and scientists have therefore taken this to be the true world. It’s only when subjective minds attain consciousness that they have the capacity to act nonscientifically. The underlying subjective reality of the world is masked by unconsciousness and only becomes apparent when consciousness evolves. But once consciousness appears in the universe, the balance of power rapidly transfers from unconsciousness (objective scientific materialism) to consciousness (subjectivity). In the final analysis, there is nothing but subjectivity and the objective world vanishes like a will o’ the wisp. What this means is that the objective, material world that we all take so much for granted is actually the mathematics of unconscious subjective minds. Leibniz said that existence comprised an infinite number of dimensionless points: monads. These are nothing other than souls; subjective minds that can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed. What does the transformation consist of? – the transition from unconsciousness to consciousness. The “objective” universe is the unconscious universe, and the subjective universe is the conscious universe. A sufficiently powerful mind can transform objective reality at will, just like Neo in The Matrix. What was alchemy really all about? – the ability to use the mind to alter physical reality. Anything at all could be achieved by the supreme alchemical mind. Turning base metal into gold was the proof

of the requisite power, but hardly the point of true alchemy, which was all about becoming God. Very few people ever became alchemists in the true meaning of the term. It was the equivalent of attaining the Holy Grail (gnosis). The objective world is the domain of death and mortality. The subjective world is the immortal world. “Death” is never anything other than a failure of a subjective mind to exert complete conscious control of itself. Death is the disintegration of the objective self, but like all objective things, it is a kind of illusion. Yet objectivity is utterly real insofar as it is the essential stepping stone to the rise of conscious subjectivity. Scientific debates about free will have never considered that there is an inside to the universe. Scientists simply discount the possibility of actions being freely generated from within. Scientific materialism is the creed that objects create illusory subjects while, in truth, subjects create illusory objects. Scientific materialism is 100% wrong. It has inverted reality. One of the most ingenious attempts to reconcile scientific knowledge with philosophy was Immanuel Kant’s. Kant argued that the world is comprehensible and intelligible only because our minds make it so. It’s as if we put on special organisational spectacles. While we’re looking through them, we can’t help but see organisation wherever we turn our gaze, and nor can we ever remove these spectacles. Kant named the world organised by the mind the “phenomenal world”. But if you could remove your mind spectacles, what would you see? Clearly, your mind-spectacles have either invented an entirely fictitious reality, or they really are looking at something. Kant said that the world they were trained on was the “noumenal” world, the world as it is in itself, as it really is. However, according to Kant, we have no way of ever knowing this noumenal world because we can never see it without our special mind-spectacles that insist on converting noumena into intelligible phenomena. Kant thought he had brought about a Copernican revolution of the mind with his philosophy. The scientific world was the phenomenal world, and the world of all the mysteries – such as God, the soul, the afterlife and free will – belonged to the noumenal universe, but we could never gain any certain knowledge of this domain, and, Kant thought, we ought to avoid pointless speculation.

Kant’s system is called transcendental idealism. The objects of our experience – phenomena – are mind-constructed and do not have an existence outside our thoughts except as unintelligible noumena whose true nature we can never apprehend. Transcendentalism is the view that the world of experience depends on the activities of reason. Our minds transcend noumenal reality. It didn’t occur to Kant that the noumenon was Mind-in-Itself i.e. the whole universe is really mind. Mind creates the phenomenal world and the noumenal world upon which the phenomenal world is projected is also mind (in itself). Although Kant didn’t take the step of labelling the noumenon mind, his successors certainly did. Fichte, Schelling and Hegel all pronounced that noumenal reality was mental and as such was inherently intelligible to minds. They all rejected Kant’s claim that the noumenal universe was unknowable. Schopenhauer regarded himself as Kant’s true successor, yet he too turned the noumenon into a mental entity. He declared that the noumenon was insatiable, eternally striving Will. Moreover, it was a single Will because, existing as it did outside space and time, it was completely unindividuated. Space and time, Schopenhauer argued, create individuation and without them nothing is separate. This noumenal Will somehow gives rise to the “illusion” of space and time and thereby generates innumerable individuated minds that then perceive the phenomenal world of space and time, cause and effect. But each mind also enjoys an interior experience of the Will – via its own yearnings, strivings, desires, longings, which all reflect the underlying unitary Will. The German Idealism of the Enlightenment has been rubbished by scientific materialism, yet there is no question that the Germans were right in asserting the primacy of the mind, and science wrong in proclaiming materialism as the true reality. The titanic clash between these two worldviews has, in the present day, been overwhelmingly won by scientific materialism. The reason for that is that Idealism wasn’t able to challenge science mathematically. Idealism seemed like a lot of ingenious but ultimately ridiculous metaphysical speculation, as unverifiable and unknowable as Kant’s noumenon itself. Yet, since the days of Leibniz, Illuminism has been fully armed with the mathematics to expose all of the errors of scientific materialism. The

Illuminati, as a secret society, chose to keep mathematical idealism as a treasured secret for the initiated only, but now the time has come to put the scientists in their place. In The God Game: How to Create the Universe, we will show exactly how mental reality gives rise to physical reality via mathematics. Space and time, cause and effect are mathematical constructs. Matter is simply dimensional mind. Mathematics can be generated, understood and applied only by minds. It is an inherently mental activity. The universe is imbued with mathematics to such an extent that it can fairly be called living mathematics. There’s a long-standing philosophical debate as to whether mathematics is a symbolic description of reality or reality itself. If it’s the former then its ability to give us incredibly accurate and useable knowledge of the world is uncanny. How can a construction, a description, so accurately map reality without BEING reality? And if mathematics isn’t reality and yet looks exactly like it then what could reality be if it’s NOT mathematical? There is simply nothing that has all the features and properties of mathematics and yet is NOT mathematics. Therefore mathematics IS reality. There’s no other candidate. Living mathematics is the arche. The universe is a gargantuan equation solving itself, and it can arrive at the answer only by converting unconscious subjectivity into apparent objectivity which then evolves into conscious subjectivity which can at last answer the cosmic equation. In The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, an enormous supercomputer is designed to answer the ultimate question of “life, the universe and everything”. After eons, it gives the seemingly absurd answer “42”, yet Adams had intuited the real workings of the universe. The universe itself is the supercomputer and it gives the answer to life, the universe and everything only when it has become maximally selfconscious. Then it realises that IT is the answer. The purpose of the universe was to create it: the conscious universe. The universe is “selfcreating meaning”, and it attains maximum meaning when it has gone as far as it can possibly go: when it has become God. Unlike Adams’ supercomputer, the universe doesn’t need to be asked what the ultimate answer is. Its entire purpose from the outset was to generate that answer. The universe is a purpose machine, a meaning machine, a life machine, an organisation machine, a mathematics machine,

a consciousness machine. Above all, it is an ANSWER MACHINE, and it provides the ultimate answer to the ultimate question via itself – by becoming God. And “God” is in fact the answer. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is one of the greatest achievements of the human mind. Sadly, no one, not even Gödel, really understood the full significance of his Theorem. What he actually proved was the truth of idealism over materialism, the disproof of scientific materialism and the certain existence of Free Will. Formally, he showed that any system complex enough to be used as a foundation for arithmetic will be incomplete or, if it is complete, then it will be incoherent. In technical language, the First Incompleteness Theorem states that in any formal system S of arithmetic, there will be a sentence P of the language of S such that if S is consistent, neither P nor its negation can be proved in S. This means that a recognisable truth may be unprovable i.e. provability is a weaker concept than truth. This has been interpreted as a statement of the superiority of men over machines. A machine would have no mechanism beyond its programming (the equivalent of a system S of arithmetic) to recognise an unprovable truth. It could only go so far and no further. Some truths would stare at the machine mind and the machine mind would stare back and be utterly clueless as to whether those truths were indeed true. We, who could see their truth, would thus have a decisive advantage over machines. (It should be pointed out that this is a topic of heated debate in philosophical circles, and is by no means clear cut.) The origin of Gödel’s theorem lies in self-reference. Consider the statement: “This statement cannot be proved.” Such statements must either be true or false. If the statement is true then, as it says, it cannot be proved, demonstrating that statements can indeed be true without being provably true and hence are beyond a machine’s programmed ability to establish their truth. If the statement is false then that means it COULD be proved and statements that can be proved are ipso facto true statements, so this is a blatant contradiction and therefore the statement must be true i.e. it’s a true statement that cannot be proved. If there were no such thing as self-reference, everything could be proved and the whole universe would be a vast programmed machine, like a computer. There would be no such thing as free will and the universe would be exactly as depicted by scientific materialism. It would be a world of

objectivism only. The spanner in the works of scientific materialism is selfreference, which is all about the subject. Only a subject can refer to itself. Only a subject can recognise unprovable truths. It applies its own transcendent criteria. To put it another way, the only way to get a machine to recognise unprovable truths is to make it a subject, not a programmed object. But, crucially, subjects can be horrifically wrong in ways that perfectly programmed machines could never be. Falsehood is a much greater problem for subjects than truth. Abrahamists would say that the “truths” of faith cannot be proved: we would say the truths of Abrahamism are pure bullshit and have no relationship at all with truth. A machine would be incapable of expressing an opinion on the matter and wouldn’t get involved. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, if understood for what it truly is, is a statement that subjectivity cannot be incorporated within a strict framework of objectivity. Despite all of its impressive and intimidating logic, Gödel’s theorem turns out to be supremely human and has saved humanity from being mere machines.

The Subjective Universe THE UNIVERSE CONSISTS of an infinite number of subjects (monads) and is, to this extent, an entirely subjective universe. Yet each subject is only a subject in relation to itself and regards all other subjects as objects, and is itself regarded as an object by all other subjects. So, to that extent, the universe is actually objective. And it is this dual nature of existence – subjective and objective simultaneously – that gives the universe its extraordinary character where idealists and scientific materialists can both convincingly argue that they are correct even though their views seem diametrically opposed. The debate about the universe can be reduced to two alternatives in terms of causality: A => B => C => D => E => F => G => H => Or A => B => C => D (Free Choice) => ? The first alternative is the schema of scientific materialism and objectivism. It affords no opportunity for anything to disrupt an

unbreakable chain of cause and effect. There is no free will in this system. Atoms can’t suddenly decide to do their own thing. There are no free subjects that can alter inexorable causal chains. All things are predictable objects. Human beings are just assemblies of objective atoms, hence are themselves parts of an objective causal chain where free will is impossible. It seems bizarre that the central intellectual paradigm of the human race asserts that the free will that we all know ourselves to have and that we don’t doubt for an instant is a total illusion, but there you have it. The second alternative is the schema of idealism and subjectivism. All subjects are potentially conscious and when they achieve consciousness they can then choose to perform actions outwith the causal chain of science. They can do irrational things, mad things, emotional things, random things – all of which would be impossible in a chain of causal laws affording no scope for whimsical, capricious behaviour. Imagine if all atoms were capricious – it would be impossible for any scientific laws to exist. Free choice is anathema to scientific materialism and destroys the whole paradigm. Our way of reconciling the two alternatives is to assert that when subjects operate unconsciously they resemble scientific objects obeying causal laws. When they attain consciousness they become sources of actions outwith the normal causal chain. Human beings are INFORMED by external causality but not DETERMINED by it. We can choose to respond to external stimuli in all manner of ways dependent on our own personal characters. We can formulate alternative courses of action and chose one rather than the others. No atoms, no scientific objects, can choose what they are going to do. Only conscious subjects can. But within all scientific objects is an inherent drive to increase complexity in the pursuit of consciousness. Darwinian evolution is not completely random, as Darwinists maintain. It reflects a natural tendency to evolve towards more conscious forms.

The Noosphere THE NOOSPHERE CAN BE thought of as a domain where subjects come together collectively to increase their consciousness. Teilhard said of humankind collectively: “[It is in a] state of continuous additive growth, in numbers and interconnections.” It is becoming more “tightly concentrated upon itself.” He wanted humanity to construct a “sphere of mutually reinforced consciousness, the seat, support and instrument of super-vision and superideas.” In other words, we should be actively engaged in building the noosphere in all our actions. We should always be promoting collaboration, information exchange, increased knowledge and connectivity. Teilhard remarked: “In every past generation true seekers, those by vocation or profession, are to be found, but in the past they were no more than a handful of individuals, generally isolated, and of a type that was virtually abnormal. But today...in fields embracing every aspect of physical matter, life and thought, the research workers are to be numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and they no longer work in isolation but in teams endowed with penetrative powers. Research...is in the process of becoming a major, indeed the principal, function of humanity.” Humanity, if it turned to its meritocratic experts rather than mad priests and prophets would become more cerebral, more capable of building the infrastructure to accelerate the development of the noosphere, which Teilhard characterised as a “stupendous thinking machine.” He believed that, via the noosphere, humanity would “find its soul.” Is that not a wondrous concept and a right and fitting ambition for the human race? Isn’t humanity’s soul what it has unquestionably LOST? Where is the soul in capitalism, in materialism, in “our way or Hell” Abrahamism? We must get our soul back if we are to rise to the stars and beyond.

Omega Resurrection? TEILHARD DIDN’T SPEAK of death and resurrection in his evolutionary noosphere converging towards the Omega Point. He avoided these topics because they would of course have embroiled him in manifest heresy since his views certainly wouldn’t be compatible with Catholic orthodoxy. It’s a

great mystery why Teilhard didn’t free himself of Catholicism and create a new, benevolent Christianity. He might have started a revolution. Using his ideas, we will attempt to say what his attitude would have been regarding death and resurrection. As a Christian, he was of course hostile to reincarnation. Therefore death, for Teilhard, could not result in a soul returning in another body. Nor could it involve a soul going to heaven because the union between God and man takes places via the evolution of the whole species. Nor could the soul go to hell since this is not a feature of the sort of evolutionary system envisaged by Teilhard. (Hell and Satan would have to be imagined as an alternative Omega Point to which humanity could be attracted rather than the Christian Omega Point – this would be a Manichean dualism of good and evil.) So, we must imagine that upon the death of a human being their soul goes into stasis within the noosphere, or alternatively continues to evolve and to assist the evolution of the noosphere. It no longer has a bodily outlet but it can be sustained by the noosphere itself. At the end of time, when the human Omega Point merges with the divine Omega Point, superpersonalisation takes place according to Teilhard, so the soul will reach its maximum development and won’t be at any disadvantage to other souls that may never have experienced death prior to the Divine Union of Omega Points. We might refer to this super-personalisation as the “resurrection of the dead”. We think our scheme does justice to Teilhard’s ideas, and that this model of resurrection is infinitely superior to the Christian idea. In our Teilhardian version, the soul survives death but rather than being reincarnated or despatched to heaven or hell, it remains within the noosphere, where it is nurtured and where it can influence the progress of the noosphere’s evolution.

The Gaia Hypothesis ONE THING THAT Teilhard didn’t discuss but logically should have done is the mind of the biosphere. The biosphere, in his theory, creates consciousness via humanity, but should not the biosphere have “preconsciousness” in order to generate consciousness? If Teilhard had pursued this line of thought, he would have arrived at the Gaia hypothesis before James Lovelock. For Lovelock, Earth’s global ecosystem is a super-organism that can continually recalibrate itself to

maintain homeostasis of the biosphere, implying a kind of planetary intelligence.

The Internet IS THE INTERNET – a global computer system linking every part of the world – a physical manifestation of the incipient noosphere? It has many nodes but the whole system is ONE. A company like Google can see, via the data its search engine records, a reflection of the global human mind and what it’s interested in. This information could actually be used to estimate a global IQ. A world obsessed with celebrity culture, pets, jokes, porn, video games, reality TV, soap operas, fashions and all manner of dumb-ass ideas would have a very low IQ. A world where everyone was researching philosophy, mathematics, science, psychology, Illuminism etc would have an extremely high IQ. Guess what world we live in – the Land of the Retards! Cyberspace has been described as the hard-wiring of the collective consciousness. Facebook, bringing together hundreds of millions of people from all over the world, is a kind of Mass Mind. Marshall McLuhan’s concept of the Global Village is a reflection of how all human minds can converge and seem more and more like one. All over the world, people wear jeans. Once upon a time, no one wore jeans, and then it was just Americans and now it’s practically everyone. Similar trends are happening everywhere. Hollywood movies are shown everywhere. Coca Cola is everywhere. There’s a huge tendency for humanity’s tastes to converge, as if in truth there is really only a single mind at play rather than billions of authentically individual minds. The world increasingly seems to be covered with the incandescent glow of a single consciousness. The tendency of tradition- and other-directed minds is to arrive at mass conformity. Look at Muslims – they are like the Borg from Star Trek. Look at the legions of Americans determined not to stand out from the crowd. They are terrified of social ostracism, so they will do whatever it takes to conform with their peer group. The only “value” they have is that of not being outcasts. This terror of being cast adrift drives them relentlessly towards losing their individuality and simply reflecting whatever the current fashions happen to be.

The Cosmic Process

THE UNIVERSE IS A PROCESS, a system of becoming, a self-organising organism, an unconscious mind seeking consciousness. The universe is continually giving birth to itself in higher forms as it ascends a great ladder of actualisation, culminating in the God Point – the end of the line, the summit of existence. Because existence is a perpetual birthing process we can call it a genesis. The term “cosmogenesis”, first used by Madame Blavatsky, is defined as the origin and development of the cosmos. Anthropogenesis is the origin and development of humanity, biogenesis the origin and development of the biosphere, and noogenesis, the origin and development of the noosphere (the domain of thought) culminating in the Omega Point. Teilhard described five stages of genesis: 1) geogenesis (the beginning and development of Earth). 2) biogenesis (the beginning and development of life). 3) anthropogenesis (the beginning and development of humanity). 4) noogenesis (the emergence and development of thought). 5) Christogenesis (the emergence and development of the “total Christ”, or the pleroma (Omega Point). It is a dynamic movement bringing about the final unity of all things in Christ.) Implicit in Teilhard’s scheme is the hypothesis that Christ made himself incarnate on Earth in order to give a divine boost to noogenesis, in the expectation that it would in due course converge upon him. On Earth, noogenesis began with the reflective thoughts of the first selfconscious human beings. This was such a radical departure from the limited mental activity of the animal world that it represented a new phase of evolution. While the animal world plods along more or less exactly as it has always done, look at the staggering progress of humanity, particularly the “highest” humans (i.e. smartest and most creative). A stupid human being is not so different from an ape; an Einstein on the other hand is like a God. Imagine seven billions Einsteins all working together on the greatest problems. Can anyone seriously believe that the cosmos could resist this collective mind of humanity? It would slice through all problems. Every

obstacle would be overcome. We would stand on the summit of the Earth and survey endless conquests and prospects. Noogenesis has been described by Wikipedia as “the continual increase in thought and consciousness brought about by the increased socialization of mankind on earth.” Is “socialization” the right word? Facebook is a massively successful social networking site but could anyone claim that Facebook is part of the noosphere if the noosphere is about enhanced consciousness and self-reflection? A great deal of Facebook activity seems little different from the social grooming in which packs of chimpanzees engage. Would Facebookers take us to the Omega Point…or to the latest Lady Gaga message on Twitter announcing her new video? Perhaps we need to speak of an alternative sphere – the SOCIOSPHERE – which is other-directed and driven by emotional content. This sphere actually thwarts the progress of the inner-directed and autonomous noosphere. And there is yet another sphere – the RELIGIOSPHERE – for tradition-directed people. This too is holding back the noosphere. We need to surmount the elements of the human condition that are putting the brakes on the progress of the true noosphere. Noogenesis constitutes a form of orthogenesis: the teleological, progressive, linear evolution of the universe towards an ultimate goal. (Orthogenesis is dismissed amongst evolutionary biologists, and certainly it would need to be radically recast to be scientifically plausible. In particular, any linear aspect would need to be removed since the evidence in the fossil record fails to support linear progress. That does not exclude a more roundabout teleological system.) ***** There is a significant conceptual difference between the terms “cosmology” and “cosmogenesis”. The former term denotes the study of the cosmos and represents the scientific materialist view of the development of the cosmos; it denies any suggestion that the cosmos can be treated as a creature being “born” and then growing and developing. The latter term is much better for suggesting that the cosmos is an evolving organism. *****

Teilhard used the term “hominisation” to describe the process of humanity becoming “more” truly human – turning its potentialities into actualities, realising more and more of its possibilities. Ultra-hominisation denotes humanity approaching its Godlike full potential. That is the process that the Illuminati wish to accelerate. ***** The noosphere is a particularly powerful concept. One can poetically imagine it as a transparent sphere or bubble of crystal-clear thought, slowly detaching itself from the bodies of the human beings in which it originated and, eventually, detaching itself from the Earth and soaring off into space where it will eventually encounter the Empyrean and enter into a majestic union of the celestial spheres. We can imagine the noosphere as a creature in its own right, a Super Being, full of creativity and the highest intelligence. Anyone who communes directly with this Sphere of Thought becomes a genius. If it could break open and shower us with creative rain, with raindrops of genius, of pure, concentrated thought, our desert of the mind would become a cosmic oasis. The noosphere can transform the universe. In some sense it is the detached Mind of the Universe, floating through space on the most epic odyssey of all – the search for God. All the while, its inner suspicion grows that it is itself becoming God. One of the most important aspects of the concept of the noosphere is that it indicates the absolute necessity of working together if we are to build a bridge to heaven, like the Viking rainbow bridge Bifrost linking Earth and Asgard. Global collaboration is imperative. There are people in this world absolutely opposed to a high-functioning human race. The Abrahamists can control only stupid, superstitious people on their knees, mumbling to God with futile prayers. Therefore, the Abrahamist controllers do everything in their power to stop people from becoming intelligent and thus autonomous. Similarly, the privileged elites have no interest in a smart human race since they would lose their privileged position if they were surrounded by meritocrats who loathed privilege in every form. So the elite want to hold humanity back. They and the Abrahamists are an unholy alliance trying to

dumb down the world to suit their own selfish plans and ambitions. They are the enemies of humanity and their Day of Reckoning will surely come. The future progress of humanity is dependent on a meritocratic, highly educated, cooperative humanity, dedicated to mutual advancement.

Alpha to Omega IN TEILHARD’S THINKING, basic matter defines the Alpha stage of evolution while pure mind – the Omega Point – is the terminus of evolution. In many ways, Teilhard’s scheme is reminiscent of the Aristotelian chain of being stretching up from pure formless matter at the bottom to matterless form at the top. Teilhard’s system might be said to involve a force that is intent on converting all formless matter into matterless form until there is nothing left in the universe but pure form, which we can name God (or Christ as Teilhard would prefer).

Personalisation TEILHARD WAS INSISTENT on the supreme importance of personality. He believed that an ascending universe was also an increasingly personalised universe. That, of course, is consistent with an increasingly conscious universe. Consciousness and personality walk hand in hand. Personality has to be distinguished from individuality. We could envisage a world of loners – extreme individuals like American Survivalists – but would we consider personality to be much in evidence in such a world? Or might we conclude that a world of extreme individualism was a kind of autistic world, without any personality at all? (After all, “autism” – from ancient Greek autos – “self” – is all about being locked into oneself.) Personality, if properly understood, is a social phenomenon. “Persona” originally meant the mask of an actor, and it only makes sense to wear a mask if others are present. The people with the most advanced personalities are those who have a great understanding of themselves and others, hence of psychology. Personality is something that develops as a result of our interaction with others. If each of us was brought up on a desert island with no contact with others, would we be anything like our current selves? We agree with Teilhard’s ideas on personality and personalisation. Many people have a tendency to shy away from the concept of evil becoming personalised in a being – the cosmic Satan. They like to treat evil

as some sort of metaphor or impersonal, abstract archetype. But how could something as utterly personal as evil not be personified? Are tsunamis evil, or hurricanes, or earthquakes? Is energy evil? Surely not. If we don’t regard evil as a personal attribute then what on earth do we mean by “evil”? How can evil be impersonal? To talk of evil is to talk of a PERSON doing evil and having a malignant will towards others. It has no other meaning. Nature is never evil. Evil, like good, did not enter the universe until consciousness did. Evil is a choice that a person makes. Without a person, there is no evil. But why shouldn’t evil, like everything else, have an omega point, a maximum expression? Remember: anything not forbidden is compulsory. If a maximum personalisation of evil is not forbidden then it must inevitably happen. The maximum personalisation is Satan. However, we should point out that we don’t in fact subscribe to the bipolarity of “good and evil” at all: the authentic phenomena are “altruism and selfishness”. ALL acts of evil are acts of selfishness. All good people think of others. All evil people think only of themselves. The reason why our world doesn’t like to define good and evil in those terms is that all of the richest, most powerful and privileged people would then be classed as evil, purely out for themselves and fuck everyone else! They are all of Satan’s party. Teilhard talked of the advanced stages of evolution leading to hyperpersonalisation, and again we agree this. More evolved beings are more personalised. If you accept the existence of higher beings (and why would humanity represent the best that evolution can possibly produce?) then unless you conveniently and implausibly conclude that all higher beings are good, you must conclude that there are higher beings who are evil, and why should there not be one worse than all the others, and indeed the prototype for all the others – Satan? It’s remarkable how many people are willing to believe in God but not in Satan, yet you can’t have one without the other. Each is dialectically inevitable and each is the hyper-personalisation of dialectical cosmic forces. Also, many people have a tendency to treat the idea of an evolving cosmos as a nebulous type of pantheism with nebulous souls merging with a nebulous, impersonal cosmic Oneness – a kind of evolutionary Buddhism. Scientific materialism has been responsible for this trend. It has made any sort of personalisation of cosmic forces seem absurd. Scientific materialism struggles even with the concept of human personality and, in effect, denies its existence, asserting that we are just machines in an inexorable chain of

scientific cause and effect, and we have no free will. So, if scientists with a personality don’t believe in the existence of their own personality, they certainly won’t be searching for it anywhere else, will they? The end of the universe, in the dominant scientific view, consists of a mindless, pointless Heat Death. The universe literally freezes over for all eternity. Evolution, which is purposeless and directionless in scientific thinking, leads nowhere and simples fizzles out, crushed by intergalactic forces and entropy. So, you have two choices – evolution leading to higher states of consciousness and personalisation (exactly as life on Earth has demonstrated), or evolution that randomly assembles machines that seem conscious and then gradually dispenses with them as the universe expands and entropy brings increasing disorder. The scientists rightly point out that all suns will run out of fuel, so life on all planets will surely perish. Unless evolution has produced life-forms no longer dependent on the physical world then science must be right. The fate of all life in the universe depends on whether there is an escape route from materialism. Only idealism provides a lifeboat. Are you coming onboard?

Original Sin TEILHARD MAINTAINED THAT we are all becoming Christ. There is no Original Sin in his theology, hence no need for Redemption. Christ “saves” us not by erasing Original Sin, but by drawing us towards divinity and union with him. Evolutionary forces are transporting everyone to Godhood; faith in the literal death and resurrection of Christ has no influence on any of this. To the extent that Original Sin exists at all in Teilhard’s thinking, it’s only as a reflection of humanity’s awareness of its own imperfection. Evolution translates sin (imperfection) into goodness (perfection) at the Omega Point.

Origins “To push anything back into the past is equivalent to reducing it to its simplest elements. Traced as far as possible in the direction of their origins,

the last fibres of the human aggregate are lost to view and are merged in our eyes with the very stuff of the universe.” -- Teilhard IT’S ALWAYS WORTH remembering that the stuff of which we are made came from somewhere. If we originated in “nothing” it must have been a remarkable kind of nothing. Was our universe born in a materialistic quantum fluctuation that, in the most unlikely event in all of history, got “inflated” into the inconceivably gargantuan expanse we inhabit? But if an infinite number of quantum fluctuations are taking place all the time, why aren’t universes inflating all the time, and smashing existing universes to smithereens? Why isn’t the universe just one perpetual explosion? Or was “nothing” in fact dimensionless mind? Were we born from a mental process rather than a random materialistic fluctuation?

The Great Being EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST J.B.S. HALDANE pondered that if billions of cells in our brain can produce consciousness, what might billions of conscious people produce if they acted in concert and formed a “Great Being”? Would they not have a super-consciousness, the consciousness of God? Haldane wrote: “We do not find obvious evidence of life or mind in socalled inert matter, and we naturally study them most easily where they are most completely manifested; but if the scientific point of view is correct, we shall ultimately find them, at least in rudimentary forms, all through the universe.”

Soul Energy “Without the slightest doubt there is something through which material and spiritual energy hold together and are complementary. In the last analysis, somehow or other, there must be a single energy operating in the world. And the first idea that occurs to us is that the ‘soul’ must be as it were a focal point of transformation at which, from all the points of nature, the forces of bodies converge, to become interiorised and sublimated in beauty and truth.” -- Teilhard IN THE LEIBNIZIAN scheme of an infinite number of monads (souls) constituting the arche that underlies all things, everything does indeed find

its ultimate focus in the soul domain. “We shall assume that, essentially, all energy is psychic in nature; but add that in each particular element this fundamental energy is divided into two distinct components: a tangential energy which links the element with all others of the same order (that is to say, of the same complexity and the same centricity) as itself in the universe; and a radial energy which draws it towards ever greater complexity and centricity – in other words forwards.” - Teilhard Although we might quibble with Teilhard over his technical terms and whether they are compatible with modern science, he is surely correct that there is a process working towards increased complexity, and that this must be essentially a mental process. Teilhard calls radial energy “spiritual” and says it represents the “inner lining” of increasing chemical complexity. This idea of the within of things is the key to the whole of Teilhard’s thinking. It is, by its nature, not amenable to conventional scientific study. According to Teilhard, true evolution is about the growth of the within, and the without provides the vehicle for that growth. Scientific materialism, insisting that the cosmos has no “within”, is blind to what is actually happening in the universe, but it will get the biggest shock of its life when it is forced to understand dark energy – the source of the expansion of the universe – as MENTAL energy. Our own minds are the “within” of our bodies. The “within” is our sole reality! Where are our thoughts? What are they? What are they made of? What generates them? How do they control bodies? Scientists haven’t a clue, yet they pronounce mind an elaborate illusion. How can they dismiss something of which they have no understanding? “How can life respect determinism on the without and yet act in freedom within?” -- Teilhard That is the fundamental question of life. Science, recognising only the without, has no means of addressing the greatest questions of existence. It’s always on the outside and it’s never looking in. “From a purely positivist point of view man is the most mysterious and disconcerting of all the objects met with by science. In fact we may as well admit that science has not yet found a place for him in its representation of

the universe…science, in its present-day reconstructions of the world, neglects an essential factor, or rather, an entire dimension of the universe.” - Teilhard In Descartes’ philosophy there are two substances: “extended thing” and “thinking thing”. Since Descartes denied that animals could think, they were therefore manifestations of extension alone i.e. they were biological automata. That, in essence, is how scientific materialism thinks of human beings. We are exotic automata and nothing more. It can’t be stressed enough that existence has TWO aspects: one is dimensional and the other is dimensionless. The former – the domain of space and time – is the scientific world. It’s all about INDIVIDUATION, about separate things, and it reflects entropy – which we might call the drive towards complete separation of all individual things. The scientific view of the fate of the universe is that it will end up as a dead place, depleted of all useful energy, and with all atoms on their own and being driven further and further apart by expanding space. This view would be unquestionably correct if the scientific paradigm were correct. Thankfully, it could scarcely be more wrong. Science has missed an entire aspect of existence. It has enjoyed astounding success at describing the limited, unconscious sphere of seemingly inert existence on which it performs experiments. Yet is has failed utterly to explain life, mind, free will and consciousness i.e. all the truly important things. It’s amazing that science is treated with such reverence when it has provided no answers at all to any of the big questions. Such “answers” as it does give actually proclaim mind, free will and consciousness to be illusions since there is no room for them in a cosmos of inescapable scientific laws. Just as Descartes reduced animals to machines – thereby raising the issue of whether they could actually be called alive at all, but merely superior mechanisms that could propel themselves – so science has an implicit understanding of life that it is nothing more than a special kind of automation, and not really life at all. If a lifeless machine is entirely subject to cause and effect with no possibility of acting of its own accord, and a human being is regarded in exactly the same light, what is the difference between the two except that human beings are more elaborate mechanisms with a larger repertoire of behaviour (but all of it nevertheless entirely deterministic)?

In truth, life, mind, free will and consciousness all belong to the domain that science rejects: the dimensionless realm that’s not in the material world at all. That domain is ultimately all about convergence. There is no space and time to individuate things, so there can be no entropy driving things apart. This is the domain that counterbalances entropy. It is intent on bringing things together, making them more complex, organising them and optimising them for the expression of life, mind, free will and consciousness. The central problem for the dimensionless domain is that it is initially UNCONSCIOUS. Consciousness (or self-consciousness to be more precise), requires, as so brilliantly demonstrated by Hegel, OTHERNESS i.e. separation, individuation and rival self-consciousnesses. In other words, the mental domain can optimise itself ONLY through the dimensional world, which is why it creates it in the first place. There is nothing at all accidental about the way the universe is configured. It is compelled to operate this way. The dimensionless domain, inherently unindividuated, has to find a way to generate individuation so that it can become conscious. It does it through the physical domain. The ultimate product, once the material world has served its purpose, is a mental domain that is both individuated and absolutely convergent. As Teilhard observed, it has become hyperpersonalised, but what this means is that it has become the perfect synthesis of the One and the Many. It’s a mental hologram: each part is in the Whole, and the Whole is in each part. It is optimized. It has attained the Omega Point of existence. Teilhard said, “Far from being mutually exclusive, the Universal and Personal (that is to say, the ‘centred’) grow in the same direction and culminate simultaneously in each other. It is therefore a mistake to look for the extension of our being or of the noosphere in the Impersonal. The Future-Universal could not be anything else but the Hyper-Personal – at the Omega Point…In any domain – whether it be the cells of a body, the members of society or the elements of a spiritual synthesis – union differentiates. In every organised whole, the parts perfect themselves and fulfil themselves.” Teilhard then delivers a decisive rebuttal of Buddhism: “Through neglect of this universal rule many a system of pantheism has led us astray to the cult of a great All in which individuals were supposed to be merged

like a drop in the ocean or a dissolving grain of sand…No, following the confluent orbits of their centres, the grains of consciousness do not tend to lose their outlines and blend, but, on the contrary, to accentuate the depth and incommunicability of their egos. The more ‘other’ they become in conjunction, the more they find themselves as ‘self’. How could it be otherwise since they are steeped in Omega? Could a centre dissolve? Or rather, would not its particular way of dissolving be to supercentralise itself?” Teilhard talks of the “immiscibility of consciousness” and this is a crucial concept. Every “soul” can only be itself. It can be informed by other souls, but it can never BE another soul. Its consciousness remains uniquely its own. That’s why it’s possible to talk of everyone becoming God. Each soul that accomplishes its journey to its personal Omega Point is God in the fullest sense, and yet remains a SELF, no matter how many other Gods it finds around it. Each of us is a UNIQUE CONSCIOUSNESS. Teilhard wrote: “By its structure Omega, in its ultimate principle, can only be a distinct Centre radiating at the core of a system of centres; a grouping in which personalisation of the All and personalisations of the elements reach their maximum, simultaneously and without submerging under the influence of a supremely autonomous focus of union.” Is that not an enormously superior vision to the nihilistic, unpersonalised Nirvana of Buddhism? In every way, Teilhard’s system provides an enormous improvement over Buddhist thinking. Teilhard talks of a person attaining fulfilment by “becoming lost in the greater than himself.” The word lost is rather unfortunate. What Teilhard means to say is surely the opposite: we find ourselves by being immersed in the greater than ourselves. It is through being parts of the Whole that we become complete. If the Whole – the greater than ourselves – never comes into being then none of us is ever complete. Our fate is indissolubly linked to the fate of All. That’s why the selfish, the privileged elites, are such enemies of progress. They are obstructing the advance of the Whole. Humanity is optimised when each person is optimised. That means we MUST all help each other. Those forces that want to be king of the castle, with everyone else on their knees in worship, are anathema. Teilhard made an astonishing pronouncement: “The universe is a collector and conservator, not of mechanical energy, as we supposed, but of persons.” In other words, the First Law of Thermodynamics that energy can

be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed, could be recast as: persons are neither created nor destroyed, only transformed in terms of their consciousness. Teilhard provides a marvellous encapsulation of his thinking: “[The] world would be unintelligible and the presence in it of reflection would be incomprehensible, unless we supposed there to be a secret complicity between the infinite and the infinitesimal to warm, nourish and sustain to the very end – by dint of chance, contingencies and the exercise of free choice – the consciousness that has emerged between the two. It is upon this complicity that we must depend. Man is irreplaceable. Therefore, however improbable it might seem, he must reach the goal, not necessarily, doubtless, but infallibly.” ***** To what extent is humanity still biologically evolving? Has not our progress become entirely transferred to the mental sphere? Memes – units of cultural transmission – have taken over from genes. It’s a tragedy that science has dismissed the key component of existence (free-standing mind), and this error must be corrected if humanity is to have a healthy future. Teilhard observed: “…at the end of its analyses, physics is no longer sure whether what is left in its hands is pure energy or, on the contrary, thought.” Anyone familiar with the mysteries of light (photons are massless and experience neither time nor space) knows the truth of Teilhard’s observation. Is light material or is it actually mind? The dimensional and dimensionless domains often seem to be operating against each other, and to have entirely different objectives, yet their dialectical conflict is essential to the evolution of the universe. Materialism asserts that dimensionality drives existence; Idealism asserts that dimensionlessness is the unseen controller in this physical world of ours. It’s no surprise that the true controller can’t be scientifically detected for the simple reason that it’s not in the physical world. Science won’t countenance the existence of anything it can’t study and test. It’s committed to the ideological stance that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is one of the most fallacious positions ever adopted and has proved a catastrophe for science: it will never understand the true workings of the

cosmos until it acknowledges the real existence of mind in a dimensionless domain. Existence is a feedback loop between the dimensional and the dimensionless, between matter and mind. According to science, there is no feedback loop and mind is just some strange epiphenomenon of matter that serves no function in a deterministic world of scientific cause and effect. “There can be no doubt about it: the great human machine is designed to work and must work – by producing a super-abundance of mind. If it does not work, or rather if it produces only matter, this means that it has gone into reverse.” -- Teilhard Teilhard’s perceptive comment is relevant to the Hegel-Marx debate. Hegel was an idealist and Marx a materialist (a dialectical materialist, not a mechanistic materialist), and Marx proudly boasted that he had “stood Hegel on his head” by turning the idealistic dialectic into a materialistic one. Material circumstances shape ideas, Marx asserted, instead of the other way around. By focusing relentlessly on atheism and materialism, Marxism proved a deadly attack on the human spirit. It was hostile to freedom and free speech, obsessed with control and with a command economy directed entirely from the centre by the totalitarian Communist Party: hardly a formula for making human beings GODS. More than a material economy, we need a SPIRITUAL economy. We should be creating spiritual products that provide food for the soul rather than disposable materialist junk. Imagine a creative economy, a soulful economy, an economy of art, of thinking, of performance. Imagine an economy directed at all times to the improvement of the mind. Is that not the world we should be building? Instead a few capitalists create a lot of junk in Chinese sweatshop factories and flood the world with their garbage. Their sole motivation is to make themselves rich. They couldn’t care less what effect their products have on the people, just so long as they personally make heaps of money. Should such people be allowed to be the controllers of our world? Shouldn’t all consumer products be judged according to whether they are raising or lowering the quality of the human race? Shouldn’t all products that are designed to enrich the elite but degrade the masses be banned?

Governments must take an interest in the products of capitalism. A freefor-all is unacceptable. We all know what happens in unfettered capitalism: a race for the bottom, a global dumbing down, a general debasement of humanity, pandering to everything that is lowest, worst and most ignoble. We get the Lowest Common Denominator world, the junk society for junk people. We get instant gratification, short-term thinking, the obsessive pursuit of the pleasure principle. All that rich capitalists do is pander to all the worst aspects of the human race that generate the highest profits in the shortest time. That’s the only thing that capitalists care about. They have no interest in the quality of the human race. In fact they are the perpetual enemies of quality. What good would a high quality human race be to their profits? None at all.

Negentropy THE TERM “NEGENTROPY” (negative entropy) has been coined for entropy that works in the opposite direction to the materialistic version of entropy. In science, time is defined as the direction of entropy. Clearly, in a domain where time does not pass and there are no distances between points, the conventional type of entropy doesn’t exist. It is here that negentropy reigns. The anthropic principle of science (anthropic means “relating to man”) can be interpreted as a negentropy doctrine asserting that living things order the universe. Negentropy is sometimes called “syntropy”: a term that was intended to provide a unifying principle for biology and physics. Biology is where negentropy manifests itself and physics is where entropy rules. The most important arena in science is the interface between physics and biology. Here, materialism and idealism collide head on. There is where entropy and negentropy battle it out. The mind has to get a hold over matter, to form a bridgehead, and it does so in the mysterious interface between the science of matter and the science of life. Here is where the unconscious begins its long ascent to consciousness. If we could conquer this twilight domain, we ourselves could create life.

Noospheric Potential

“…we have as yet no idea of the possible magnitude of ‘noospheric’ effects. We are confronted with human vibrations resounding by the million – a whole layer of consciousness exerting simultaneous pressure upon the future and the collected and hoarded produce of a million years of thought. Have we ever tried to form an idea of what such magnitudes represent?” -Teilhard ISN’T IT TIME governments embarked on maximising noospheric effects instead of lining their own pockets and helping their privileged friends? When humanity is properly educated – when everyone gets the standard of education reserved for the privileged elite – then we will reach a creative Singularity that will bring about a total transformation of our world. We could get there in just one generation if governments were committed to this goal. ***** “…we may begin by asking seriously whether life will not perhaps one day succeed in ingeniously forcing the bars of its earthly prison, either by finding the means to invade other inhabited planets or (a still more giddy perspective) by getting into psychical touch with other focal points of consciousness across the abysses of space. The meeting and mutual fecundation of two noospheres is a supposition which may seem at first sight crazy, but which after all is merely extending to psychical phenomena a scope no one would think of denying to material phenomena. Consciousness would thus finally construct itself by a synthesis of planetary units. Why not, in a universe whose astral unit is the galaxy?” -- Teilhard While the galaxies are racing away from each other as space expands, we might imagine great crystal spheres of thought doing the exact opposite and floating majestically towards the centre of the universe where they will converge to form one enormous cosmic mind. Is it possible to think of black holes – where all matter has been crushed out of existence and space and time have stopped? – as the noospheres of dead solar systems? Every galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its centre. Is that in fact a galactic noosphere, mentally guiding the myriad stars around it just as Plato conceived of souls directing planets? Will all the black holes and supermassive black holes come together to form a single cosmic noosphere? Was the Big Bang Singularity an incipient,

unconscious cosmic consciousness?

noosphere

seeking

the

means

of

acquiring

The Personal Universe “The only universe capable of containing the human person is an irreversibly ‘personalising’ universe.” -- Teilhard Did the universe give birth to us just to throw us away like handfuls of dust, as scientists would have us believe, or are people in fact what the universe is all about? Increasing consciousness is the same as increasing personalisation. The cosmos is heading towards a summit of perfect persons – the Community of Gods, the Society of the Divine.

Dead Religions IF CATHOLICISM WERE run by smart people, it would make Teilhard a saint and appoint a Teilhardian Pope. Teilhard said, “For almost all the ancient religions, the renewal of cosmic outlook characterising ‘the modern mind’ has occasioned a crisis of such severity that, if they have not yet been killed by it, it is plain they will never recover. Narrowly bound to untenable myths, or steeped in a pessimistic and passive mysticism, they can adjust themselves neither to the precise immensities, nor to the constructive requirements of space-time. They are out of step both with our science and with our activity.” It’s an astonishing thing that billions of people in our world continue to advocate beliefs utterly repudiated by facts and logic. Is there anything more depressing than that people subscribe to absurd views simply because they were told to by their parents? They don’t care about reason, evidence, logic, facts, common sense, contemporary knowledge or anything else. They cling, like drowning men, to ancient texts that, though describing themselves as the Word of God, are laughable, preposterous and practically deranged. How do you have a rational debate with the insane? The world has chosen to call madhouses by other names: synagogues, mosques, churches and temples. The sooner we openly say that people who believe in the old Gods are mentally retarded or demented the sooner we will be diagnosing the central problem that has afflicted our world. The behaviour of Jews, Christians and

Muslims is unacceptable in the 21st century. There’s no place for these dinosaurs. They are an enormous brake on human progress. The urgent need is for clever humanity to detach itself from the stupid, badly educated, irrational, superstitious legions of faith and let them rot in whatever deserts of the mind and caves of ignorance they choose to inhabit. In the modern age, it must be a criminal act to be an Abrahamist. It’s offensive in the eyes of God. Let the faithful return to the primordial slime. They have refused to evolve, so they have sealed their own fate. The Jews can go on obeying their 600+ rules, the Muslims can go on praying five times a day to the God of 9/11, Christians can go on worshipping a tortured carpenter on a Roman cross. Slowly but surely they will stare at the ancient slime and it will stare back at them, and neither will see any difference. As for the rest of us, we can get on with building the new Babel, and this time we will bridge the chasm between ourselves and heaven. The Illuminati are the advance guard of the Army of Light. Isn’t it time to leave behind the Forces of Darkness – the Abrahamists and the privileged elites?

The End of Biological Evolution “A certain sort of common sense tells us that with man biological evolution has reached its ceiling: in reflecting upon itself, life has become stationary.” -- Teilhard IS IT ANY LONGER possible to think that humanity will evolve any further biologically? Future humanity is much more likely to reflect genetic engineering and cybernetics than random mutation and natural selection. Is it the case that the rise of consciousness kills biological evolution? All other species on Earth would profit by evolving features that made them much more like humans, but humans must now look to evolution in the mental sphere. That’s why stupid religions can now be considered antievolutionary. Just as humanity once shared a primate ancestor with apes but split off, leaving the other apes infinitely far behind, so will the Abrahamists fall infinitely far behind in the mental sphere and seem more ape than human. They can’t complain. They brought that fate on themselves.

Bergson – the Genius of Intuition FRENCH PHILOSOPHER HENRI BERGSON (1859-1941), a great influence on Teilhard, was a dualist who asserted that inert matter was in a constant battle with a vast, vital impulse that he called élan vital. This dynamic element drove the universe onwards and upwards in a process that Bergson labelled “creative evolution”. The universe was a moving, growing, living organism. Science took slices of life as though in an autopsy and rendered them as dead tissue to be examined under a microscope, but in the process lost everything that was vital. Bergson said of creative evolution: “The whole evolution of life on our planet is an effort of this essentially creative force to arrive, by traversing matter, at something which is only realised in man and which, even in man, is realized only imperfectly.” The creative force is trapped in matter but in humanity it’s starting to free itself. Reality is not solid matter, nor thinking mind, but living, creative evolution. In Bergson’s view it was this inherent creative urge, not natural selection, that drove evolution. The élan vital is an enfolded, creative Intelligence within the depths of the cosmos, and every aspect of human experience can be affected by it via a “breakthrough” experience. Through it, we can bring about a creative transformation of the world. In Bergson’s view, reality has two opposing tendencies: a reality that’s making itself (life; élan vital) and a reality that’s unmaking itself (matter, “death”, opposed to life). Intuition is derived from the élan vital while analysis (science) is the study of dead matter. Bergson was insistent that science provided an inadequate description of the universe, omitting too much of critical importance. Despite all of its grandiose claims, science has made no impact at all in explaining life, mind, free will and consciousness – all the things that define humanity. Bergson believed that the full universe was best apprehended by intuition, not science. He asserted that science approaches life as if were a movie composed of many frames. Run the frames at the right speed and the illusion of movement and life is created, but each frame is in fact static and lifeless. The scientific movie analysis misses something essential to life. Life is an indissoluble continuum, not a succession of states. The concept of

time as individuated – tick, tock in an endless succession of seconds – is not how time is actually experienced. Mathematical time, according to Bergson, is a form of space while real, living time is duration: “Pure duration is the form which our conscious states assume when our ego lets itself live, when it refrains from separating its present state from its former states.” We can perceive pure duration only when we concentrate on our internal experience only. We might call it the psychological rather than physical experience of time. Bergson’s evolutionary view was that élan vital, the life-drive, permeates the universe, and guides evolution. It is like a Great Mind at the steering wheel. Intuition is how humans communicate with the great spirit of élan vital, and ultimately élan vital is God himself, the source of creation and creativity.

Intuition BERGSON THOUGHT INTUITION could be used as a philosophical tool and described it as a method of ‘thinking in duration’, reflecting the continuous flow of reality. Intuitive and conceptual thinking were contrasted, the former providing dynamic knowledge of reality while the latter could furnish only the static, analytical knowledge of science. Intuitive thinking is associated with “pure” or “real” time (duration – continuous and indivisible) and conceptual thinking with “mathematical” time (scientifically measurable time – divisible into units or intervals that mask the real flow of time). What Bergson was intent on highlighting was a real difference between the analytical time of science, which dictates how we normally think of time, and how we actually experience time. In other words, he’s saying that there’s an artificial time and a real time, and science has mistakenly focused on the former. Real time cannot be analyzed mathematically. Its inherent continuity precludes it from being broken up. To conceptualise it in terms of intervals is to falsify it and lose its essence. The only tool for apprehending real time is intuition. Bergson was seen as thoroughly irrational and anti-science, yet his philosophy gripped the public imagination for a time and he was a highly influential philosopher, though his significance has now vanished almost

entirely. He left no school of Bergsonism, and his ideas were too mystical and idiosyncratic to take an enduring place in mainstream philosophy. Nevertheless, his point that science converts time into a form of space that can be divided into definite units (and defined events), rather than as an endless flow of experience in an indivisible continuity, is an interesting contribution to how we should best think of time. He was defending the subjective rather than objective interpretation of time. Intuition is a highly subjective form of thinking, so his position was very much a championing of subjectivity over scientific objectivity. For Bergson, intellect provides objective knowledge and intuition a different kind of knowledge – subjective knowledge. Many philosophical problems are caused by the use of conceptual instead of intuitive thinking, and can be resolved only when intuition is deployed as a philosophical method. The optimal way forward is to correctly harness the two approaches. Freedom belongs to the intuitive domain and scientific cause and effect to the domain of analytical intellect. The scientific view of time and space as divided into intervals, with the world being regarded as a movie of still frames being run in quick succession, lends itself entirely to an objective impression of relentless cause and effect. But where in that movie do we see a subject deciding to initiate an action that has nothing to do with the sea of cause and effect with which it is surrounded? Imagine a camera being trained on a human being sitting quietly staring out of a window. A set of movie stills would give the conventional impression of cause and effect, yet there will be a moment when the person will get out of his seat and go and make a cup of coffee, or pick up a book, or listen to music. How does the film capture the internal, subjective decision of the person to act and have a causal effect on his environment? Are scientists seriously suggesting that if we had a magic camera that could film activity in brain cells, we would see a chain of cause of effect that would tell us that a person was about to switch on his coffee machine? The great Scottish philosopher David Hume pointed out that causation cannot be perceived, only inferred. Imagine a ball striking another ball and making it move. We conclude that the second ball has moved because of the contact from the first, but what if we did the same thing again with the same two balls and this time the second ball did not move at all? Where is causation now? The point is that all we ever see are objects doing things

and then we impose an interpretation of what we witnessed based on causation. We do not SEE causation as an actual thing. Causation isn’t something we can see, hear, feel, touch, taste or sensually detect in any conceivable way. Causation is not an observable of the physical world; it’s not a “thing” accessible to the senses. Little flags don’t pop up saying “this is a cause” or “this is an effect”. Causation is never anything other than a mental, thinking category that we impose on the world to understand it; an interpretation of the reasons for what we have observed. Is it possible that we could wrongly identify the causative agent? Absolutely – we do it all the time. Think of the myriad religious, philosophical and scientific theories that have been wrong about causation. The Jews say that Jehovah caused the world to exist. Scientists say that a fluctuation in “nothing” created our world. Is this definitive “cause and effect” or pure speculation? Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” In other words, he denied not only cause and effect, but the things to which cause and effect were applied. When the concept of an “atom” is probed according to quantum mechanics and relativity theory, it turns out to be a staggeringly nebulous concept – it’s not possible to say in any definitive way whether it’s a particle or a wave, what its energy is or even where it is – yet this is the foundation of “solid” materialism that scientists proclaim as “truth”! In the case of the ball that doesn’t move when struck, we would create some hypothesis that perhaps it had become stuck to the table or been replaced with an identical but enormously heavier ball, but these would be attempts to explain away what he had observed. At no stage would we have observed causation itself. It was Hume deadly attack on causation that awoke Kant from his “dogmatic slumbers”, and his solution was to say that space and time, cause and effect were constructs of the mind that we had no option but to impose on the noumenal world to render it intelligible. Yet if our minds have compelled the world to be “intelligible”, haven’t we just created an elaborate fantasy that has no connection with reality? In the case of a person choosing to make coffee, we would NEVER see any prior causation. We would infer from his actions that he had decided to have coffee. In other words, causation might be regarded as a RETROSPECTIVE judgment that we make in response to observed actions rather than a 100% predictive tool of science. When a pool player’s shot

goes wrong, he thinks he’s committed an error, but how does he actually know this? It’s an interpretation, not a fact. We impose our expectations on things, but frequently our expectations are wrong. What about the alternative scenario: our expectations are right and actuality is wrong! How could we ever be sure of which is which? As Hume realised, we are dealing with habit and expectation, not with guaranteed knowledge. Bergsonian intuition might be able to reveal that a person was about to make coffee; science never could. How could science possibly analyse atomic behaviour to decide whether a person is about to a) make coffee or b) listen to music or c) watch TV or d) go for a walk or e) read a book? Yet the claim of science, with its relentless chains of atomic cause and effect, is that we could indeed know what a person is going to do before he does it by analysing atomic behaviour. We could look at some atomic vibration and say, “Aha, now he will make coffee.” Bergson, rightly, rubbished this kind of scientific analysis. It discounts the possibility that the person can freely initiate his own choices. Bergson was raising important issues, but he lacked the methodology to challenge the extremely successful scientific view. Science has been so dominant that it’s only possible to challenge it on its own terms, and that means mathematically since mathematics is the queen of the sciences. Bergson asserted that if reality was not a succession of static moments then there was an uncertainty in events which produces a freedom of creative possibility. At all times he sought to provide scope for a creative dimension to reality, thus proving himself a great champion of creativity.

Élan vital GOOD DESCRIPTIONS OF Élan vital and Creative Evolution are provided by Wikipedia: Élan vital was coined by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his 1907 book Creative Evolution, in which he addresses the question of selforganisation and spontaneous morphogenesis of things in an increasingly complex manner. Élan vital was translated in the English edition as “vital impetus”, but is usually translated by his detractors as “vital force”. It is a hypothetical explanation for evolution and development of organisms, which Bergson linked closely with

consciousness. It was believed by others that this essence (élan vital) could be harvested and embedded into an inanimate substance and activated with electricity, perhaps taking literally another of Bergson’s metaphorical descriptions, the “current of life”…A distant precursor of Bergson can be found in the work of the pre-Christian Stoic philosopher Posidonius, who postulated a “vital force” emanated by the sun to all living creatures on the Earth’s surface. The concept of élan vital is similar to Schopenhauer’s concept of the will-to-live. The French philosopher Gilles Deleuze attempted to recoup the novelty of Bergson’s idea in his book Bergsonism, though the term itself underwent substantial changes by Deleuze. No longer considered a mystical, elusive force acting on brute matter, as it was in the vitalist debates of the late 19th century, élan vital in Deleuze’s hands denotes a substance in which the distinction between organic and inorganic matter is indiscernible, and the emergence of life undecidable. ***** Creative Evolution (L’Evolution créatrice) is a 1907 book by French philosopher Henri Bergson. Its English translation appeared in 1911. The book provides an alternate explanation for Darwin’s mechanism of evolution, suggesting that evolution is motivated by an élan vital, a “vital impetus” that can also be understood as humanity’s natural creative impulse. The book was very popular in the early decades of the twentieth century, before the Neodarwinian synthesis was developed. The book also develops concepts of time (offered in Bergson’s earlier work) which significantly influenced modernist writers and thinkers such as Marcel Proust. For example, Bergson’s term “duration” refers to a more individual, subjective experience of time, as opposed to mathematical, objectively measurable “clock time.” In Creative Evolution, Bergson suggests that the experience of time as “duration” can best be understood through creative intuition, not through intellect. ***** Bergson is a salutary example of the rapid rise and fall of a thinker. For a time, he was perhaps the most famous philosopher in Europe, but his reputation fell off a cliff and now he’s barely known, and considered a bit of a joke.

Given that he raised many valid questions and was certainly batting in the right ball-park, it’s a shame that he has become so unfashionable. His problem was that he couldn’t devise any technical vocabulary that could make his ideas substantial and precise. In short, he lacked mathematics. All philosophers such as Bergson have faced the same problem of trying to fight a very precise and formidable opponent – scientific materialism. Metaphysics cannot defeat mathematics. It always seems like hopeless speculation. Scientific materialism is actually Mathematical Materialism whereas Illuminism is Mathematical Idealism. The reason why we can directly challenge scientific materialism is that we are using the same core language; mathematics. The reason why we claim that we have provided a grand unified theory of science, religion, philosophy, psychology and the paranormal is that we have provided a common mathematical basis for all of them. Using this mathematical framework, precise definitions and mechanisms can be provided for all the vague concepts with which the likes of Bergson wrestled. All of the arenas of thought that have been separated in our world – especially religion and science – can be brought back together only by using a common language: mathematics. Illuminism is the only religion that can compete with scientific materialism because we use mathematics as much as scientists do. All nonmathematical assertions are, frankly, vacuous and meaningless. All of science’ power derives from being able to use mathematics to predict the result of various measurements in the real world. When Einstein predicted that starlight would be gravitationally bent by the sun and could state by how much then all it took to make him an acknowledged genius was a measurement to see if he was right. Had he been a metaphysician talking about Élan vital, what test would have proved him right?

The Theorists of the Cosmic Organism TEILHARD, BERGSON, STEINER, SPINOZA and similar thinkers all conceived of the universe as some sort of organism and often asserted that it was actively evolving towards higher states. Scientific materialism on the other hand has never really departed from the view of the cosmos as a

gigantic clockwork mechanism that, once set in motion, inexorably unfolds according to the equally inexorable laws of science. The evolving, living universe can give rise naturally to life, free will and consciousness. It’s based on subjectivity, on the “interiorness” of the cosmos. The materialist view on the other hand is inherently objective and lacking free will, creativity and consciousness. It’s impossible to see how freedom could ever enter a machine. If your car started driving itself and chose beautiful destinations to visit, that’s how miraculous it would be for freedom to appear in the clockwork universe. Free will is the ultimate rock on which materialism founders. Ironically, materialism usually responds by denying that free will actually exists even though every human being can, at any time, freely choose to do whatever he likes. If you stand up at this very moment, were you compelled to do so by some special configuration of atoms, or did you simply decide to do it? At times, scientific materialism seems like a kind of insanity, wilfully denying the blatantly obvious. There are materialists who eagerly deny the existence of mind, consciousness and free will, yet the very act of denial involves mind, consciousness and free will! Science is a sterile worldview, an intellectual dead-end. It offers no big answers to the big questions. If you want to know everything, you must be an Illuminist.