The War of the Ghosts and Machines (The God Series Book 28)

Are you a ghost or a machine? You don’t need to be a superstitious believer to support the side of the ghosts. In this b

681 73 3MB

English Pages 437 [392] Year 2015

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

The War of the Ghosts and Machines (The God Series Book 28)

Table of contents :
The War of the Ghosts and Machines
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Lost Wisdom?
The Truth Revolver
The Cosmic Rubik’s Cube
The Evolution of Mind
The Mind Pilot
The Haunting
Thanatos and Eros
The Nephilim
Bicameralism
The Decline of Humanity?
The Answering Machine
The Mad Universe
The Mind Enigma
The Death Cult
The Sci-Fi Illuminati
The New God
Simplify and Reduce
Mythopoeic Thought
The Left Brain Interpreter
The New Ghosts
The Irrational Human
Strange Attractors
Mythos versus Logos
Autistic Atheists
The Dimensionality Enigma
Transcending Humanity
The Grammar of Reality
Literal and Metaphorical
The Islamic Myth
Be Very Afraid
Non-Enlightenment
Involution and Evolution
The War of the Crazies
The Mathematical Devil?
Paracelsus
Science and Buddhism
The Science of the Soul
The 1%
The Failure of Modern Thinking
The New Humanity
The Simulacrum
The Bronze Age Believers
Soul Dust
Louis Antoine de Saint-Just: Archangel of Terror
Evil Science
The Golden Age
The Hidden Persuaders
The Road To Nowhere
The Spreading Illness
The Eschaton
The Ways of the World
The Most Forsaken Place in the Universe
The Blank Banner
The Mediocre Souls
The Ignavi Gun
The Troll Plague
The Guru Con
Rage Against the Machine
The Missing Words
The Meaning of Life
The Old World Order
The Ghosts?
Math Magic
The Magisterium
The Music of the Spheres
Spaceship Earth
The Principle of the Best
The Machine Age
The Watching Machines
The Star Trek Transporter
The First Poets
Nitpickers and Pedants
Pseudoscience
The Machine Mind
The King of Kings?
Photonic Conservation
Gödel Numbering
Failure
Born Atheists?
Medieval Alchemy
The Glass Delusion
Mirror Man
Fairytales
The Fear
Inner and Outer Reality
The Idiots
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle
The Zombie Problem
Room in Hell?
The Extreme Brain
The Hegelian Universe
Luke Skywalker
All Things Are Numbers
War Without End
The Supernatural
Ghost People
Conclusion

Citation preview

The War of the Ghosts and Machines M P

H H

B

Copyright © Mike Hockney 2015 The right of Mike Hockney to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

Table of Contents The War of the Ghosts and Machines Table of Contents Introduction The Lost Wisdom? The Truth Revolver The Cosmic Rubik’s Cube The Evolution of Mind The Mind Pilot The Haunting Thanatos and Eros The Nephilim Bicameralism The Decline of Humanity? The Answering Machine The Mad Universe The Mind Enigma The Death Cult The Sci-Fi Illuminati The New God Simplify and Reduce Mythopoeic Thought The Left Brain Interpreter The New Ghosts The Irrational Human Strange Attractors Mythos versus Logos Autistic Atheists The Dimensionality Enigma Transcending Humanity The Grammar of Reality Literal and Metaphorical The Islamic Myth Be Very Afraid Non-Enlightenment Involution and Evolution

The War of the Crazies The Mathematical Devil? Paracelsus Science and Buddhism The Science of the Soul The 1% The Failure of Modern Thinking The New Humanity The Simulacrum The Bronze Age Believers Soul Dust Louis Antoine de Saint-Just: Archangel of Terror Evil Science The Golden Age The Hidden Persuaders The Road To Nowhere The Spreading Illness The Eschaton The Ways of the World The Most Forsaken Place in the Universe The Blank Banner The Mediocre Souls The Ignavi Gun The Troll Plague The Guru Con Rage Against the Machine The Missing Words The Meaning of Life The Old World Order The Ghosts? Math Magic The Magisterium The Music of the Spheres Spaceship Earth The Principle of the Best The Machine Age The Watching Machines

The Star Trek Transporter The First Poets Nitpickers and Pedants Pseudoscience The Machine Mind The King of Kings? Photonic Conservation Gödel Numbering Failure Born Atheists? Medieval Alchemy The Glass Delusion Mirror Man Fairytales The Fear Inner and Outer Reality The Idiots Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle The Zombie Problem Room in Hell? The Extreme Brain The Hegelian Universe Luke Skywalker All Things Are Numbers War Without End The Supernatural Ghost People Conclusion

Introduction The concept of “ghosts” once drove human thinking. By “ghosts”, we mean all things spiritual and religious. Humans of old unquestioningly believed in unseen gods and devils, in invisible angels and demons. The most ancient humans considered that trees, lakes, mountains, volcanoes, the wind, the sea, the sky, and so on, all had presiding spirits or gods that had to be

appeased to produce favourable outcomes. Failure to placate the gods courted disaster. Humans literally believed that invisible spiritual forces – “ghost” forces, so to speak – were in operation everywhere. In the past, “explanations” of reality were based on Mythos – on stories of spiritual beings and their spiritual actions invisibly controlling the human race. This was especially true in the case of the monotheistic God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims – the ultimate Mythos creation. Even in the present day, we can see the atavistic descendant of such ideas – i.e. that our fate is controlled by secret forces – in the notion of the sinister “Illuminati”. The Illuminati, according to popular mythology, are shape-shifting, pan-dimensional lizard aliens (!), serving as the unseen puppetmasters of our world. In the science fiction movie They Live by John Carpenter, a drifter puts on a special pair of sunglasses which reveal that many people amongst us are in fact aliens in human disguise who have taken over the Earth. They expertly conceal their true appearance and are busily engaged in manipulating the docile human masses with subliminal messages implanted in the mass media. Wikipedia says, “After putting on a pair, [Nada, the drifter] sees the world in black and white and discovers it is not what it seems. Media and advertising hide constant subliminal totalitarian commands to obey and conform. Many in authority, many of the wealthy, are actually humanoid aliens with skull-like faces. In a grocery store, Nada confronts an alien woman, who then speaks into her wristwatch notifying her fellow aliens about him.” An enormous number of human beings are attracted to elaborate conspiracy theories about unseen forces deciding our destiny. Such theories are never conducted scientifically, mathematically and philosophically (i.e. in Logos terms). They’re always about Mythos, about an incredibly complicated story with limitless beguiling ingredients. Traditional religions are of course of exactly the same kind. Modern conspiracy theories are just old religions with the names and cast of characters changed.

***** The “ghost” mentality is expressed through religion, fiction and art. However, since Descartes, the founder of modern philosophy, the “ghost” has been increasingly banished from intellectual discourse. A new idea has

arrived on the scene: that of the “machine”, the opposite of the ghost. According to this notion, there are no “ghosts” of any kind, and the universe is all about mindless, lifeless, meaningless, purposeless mechanisms that do nothing but obey the laws of science, which, classically, were deemed to be entirely deterministic, and are now deemed to be entirely indeterministic (statistical and probabilistic). Machine thinking gets rid of all ghosts, spirits, gods, devils, angels, demons, souls, and even the mind itself. The modern notion is that atoms are tiny machines, and, since everything is proposed to be made exclusively of atoms, everything must be a machine too. There’s no scope for anything other than material atomic machines. Humanity has gone from believing in invisible living “ghosts” to believing in visible dead machines. It’s no wonder humanity is so bewildered. What was yesterday taught as 100% true is today taught as 100% false. What is the Truth? Do we have any chance of discovering it given that the human mind has generated a 100% range, i.e. every conceivable diametrically opposed theory? It’s not a case of all human theories clustering around a common central core. Rather, the “core” for some people is the exact opposite of the “core” for others. There’s zero commonality. So radically opposed are their theories of existence, the proponents of each side might as well belong to different species, or even different planets. Abrahamists claim that the supreme Ghost (= “God”) created the universe. Materialistic atheists absolutely deny the existence of God. These are polar opposite claims about reality. The holder of one belief must conclude that the holder of the opposite opinion is insane ... 100% in error. We have labelled this extraordinary divergence in human thinking as the war between the ghosts and the machines. Everyone is on one side or the other. What side are you on?! You don’t need to be a superstitious believer to support the side of the ghosts. In this book, we will show that the ghost side has two faces: Mythos and Logos. The Mythos version of ghosts is laughably silly ... just read the Torah, Bible or Koran to discover how preposterous and irrational it is. The Logos version, on the other hand, is the most rational position you can possibly arrive at, that of hyperrationality, expressed through pure, ontological, monadic mathematics.

We live in either a spiritual universe, or a universe entirely devoid of spirit. Which is it? Scientific materialism claims the latter, while scientific idealism claims the former. Reality, scientific materialists say, is all about lumps of inert “stuff”. Reality, scientific idealists say, is all about selfperfecting monadic souls. You can’t get two more divergent views. Illuminism is the stance that scientific idealism is ontological mathematics (reflecting rationalism), and that it fundamentally contradicts scientific materialism (reflecting empiricism). Illuminism says that the intellect is on the side of “ghosts” – unseen mathematical, mental forces – and that the senses are on the side of machines – visible “things”. Plato divided reality into the invisible, transcendental, intelligible domain of absolute truth, and the visible, sensible domain of belief and opinion. Plato’s realm of Forms is a “ghost” concept. The notion of the sensible universe as where the truth of existence resides is a “machine” concept. It was philosopher Gilbert Ryle who coined the provocative phrase “ghost in the machine”. The Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy says, “[This was a label introduced] to describe a thesis of Descartes to the effect that, while the human body may be regarded as an enormously subtle and complicated machine, it only becomes a person when it is joined by an incorporeal soul. Although for Descartes the official defining characteristic of soul is consciousness, when he comes in Part V of the Discourse on the Method to offer ‘two most certain tests’ of the presence of a soul within the bodily machine these seem to be tests only of rationality. Although the brutes (animals other than man) are supposed not to possess souls, Descartes seems never actually to have drawn the conclusion, so often held against him, that the brutes must be altogether insensible.” In Descartes’ dualistic philosophy, we encounter the supreme intellectual collision between the “ghost” and “machine” ideologies. All subsequent philosophies came down on the side either of the ghost or the machine. German idealism was the vehicle through which the “ghost” philosophy gained its fullest, most rational expression. Anglo-American scientific materialism was the vehicle of “machinism”. Extremist materialists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox all effectively define human beings in exactly the way Descartes defined brutes: as soulless machines. It’s inconceivable that any spiritual

person could ever take the side of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hawking or Cox. To do so would involve a fundamental breakdown in logic and reason. If you are any kind of spiritual person, you are on the side of the ghost rather than the machine. If you are a materialist, you are emphatically on the side of the machine, and you vehemently deny the existence of the ghost. You can’t be a bit spiritual and a bit materialistic. One position precludes the other. There’s no halfway house, no compromise. This is a ghost universe or a machine universe. There’s no Cartesian dualism: ghosts and machines can’t interact. They have nothing in common. Either ghosts are a fantasy, or machines are. Either what we regard as machines are special types of ghosts, or ghosts are produced by machine interactions. “Ghosts” (monadic minds) define everything, or machines (material atoms) define everything. Once you have chosen which side you are on, you cannot then go around favourably quoting those who hold the opposite stance. We do not say that Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hawking, Cox, and so on, are a bit wrong. We say that their claims concerning ultimate reality are 100% false and insane ... perhaps even worse than the claims of Abrahamists and Karmists. They simply couldn’t be any more wrong. By the same token, these people are 100% opposed to the existence of Pythagorean-Leibnizian mathematical monads. You must commit to one side or the other: spirit or matter; ghost or machine; the universe as a living, purposeful, teleological organism, or the universe as a dead, purposeless machine. This is a zero-sum game. Mathematically, the machine ideology flows from the exclusive belief in dimensional, extended mathematics based on positive real numbers, while the ghost ideology advocates the primacy of dimensionless, unextended mathematics based on zero and infinity.

***** “At one time human nature was split in two, an executive part called a god, and a follower part called a man. Neither part was consciously aware.” – Julian Jaynes The “god” part is a ghost part; the “man” part is a machine part. The man part is studied by science, the god part by religion and spirituality (Mythos), and math (Logos).

The Lost Wisdom? Many people imagine that the human race once had higher wisdom than it possesses now, that it was closer to fundamental reality. Is there any basis for such a notion? Surely today’s humanity has much more knowledge than ever before. The source of the notion that the ancients knew better than the moderns lies in a fundamental belief accepted deep down by most of humanity that “ghost” wisdom is superior to “machine” wisdom, and that we have lost the close contact we once had with the Ghost World. The human race is a dialectical species and its way of thinking has evolved radically over the years. You have failed to understand reality if you imagine that the brains of humans five thousand years ago were exactly like the brains they have now, and like those they will have five thousand years from now. Carl Jung talked about four mental functions arranged in two pairs, with each member of each pair standing opposed to its counterpart: thinking is opposed to feeling, and sensing is opposed to intuition. There are also two opposed attitudes: extraversion and introversion. The former looks outwards and is thus preoccupied with the external, while the latter looks inwards and is preoccupied with the internal. The human race was once overwhelmingly introverted, feeling and intuitive. This was perfect for supporting a ghost mentality. Let’s call this the thesis. In the last few hundred years, the intellectual agenda (dictated by the rise of scientific materialism) has been overwhelmingly extraverted, thinking and sensing. This goes hand-in-hand with a machine mentality. This is the antithesis. Both of these positions have led to bizarre and unfortunate consequences for the human race. What we need is a synthesis. The ultimate human being will be well-balanced in terms of extraversion and introversion, thinking and feeling, sensing and intuition. However, within that overall balance, there will be a vital need for some specialist groups that provide unique insight to the rest of humanity. The group that can best tell humanity about the true nature of reality is that of introverted thinking intuitives, reflecting a combination of “old” and “new” human thinking. This “INT” group (Introversion, iNtuition and Thinking) is attracted to mathematical, philosophical and metaphysical thinking, to reason, logic, and “proof”. The INTs are intellectually opposed

by the dominant EST group (Extraversion, Sensing and Thinking). This latter group is attracted to scientific thinking, which is based on experience, observations, experiments, the senses, and “evidence”. There’s a perpetual intellectual war between rationalists (INTs) and empiricists (ESTs). If the ESTs do not think in the right way – i.e. in the way aligned with the truth of fundamental reality – then scientific materialism is disastrously leading us down the wrong path. If you yourself are an EST, it’s almost impossible for you to doubt scientific materialism. You are more or less hard-wired to believe the claims of science. The notion of “ghosts” is as inconceivable to you as the notion that Einstein’s principle of relativity is false. Ironically, it’s the ghostly Cosmic Mind – the unobservable Singularity at the heart of existence – that refutes Einstein. The whole of science is in fact falsified by the existence of “ghosts”, i.e. minds/souls.

The Choice Are you a ghost or a machine? For people with a machine mentality (scientists and atheists), everything is about visible objects, and the denial of any invisible reality. For all religious and spiritual people, there’s more to existence than merely what appears to us. There are invisible things – such as souls – and invisible, mental forces, beyond the reach of any scientific experiment, but, crucially, not beyond the reach of reason, logic and mathematics. Machine people reduce everything to lifeless, mindless, purposeless atoms of matter: the ultimate little machines. For “ghost” people, reality reduces to dimensionless, mathematical singularities, which are none other than the hyperrational monadic souls posited by Pythagoras and Leibniz. Ghost people subscribe to atoms (minds) with atomic number zero, i.e. minds/souls are made of massless, dimensionless photons. Machine people start with hydrogen atoms, with atomic number one. All “ghost” entities are associated with zero and infinity. All machine people deny the existence of zero and infinity. Mathematically, these are the two numbers where the ghosts and the machines collide head on. For ghost people, everything begins with zero and infinity, the two numbers that destroy scientific materialism. For machine people, machines randomly magic themselves into existence from non-existence, for no reason and via no mechanism since this is the only way to avoid admitting that an eternal, rational, mathematical order of zero and infinity rules the universe.

This book is all about demonstrating that there are indeed ghosts in the machines – something that science routinely laughs at – and, therefore, that science is completely wrong in all of its claims about ultimate reality. Science is false exactly because it ignores the invisible ghosts – minds/souls – that animate the universe. These “ghosts” aren’t ridiculous Mythos things of religious superstition. They are mathematical Logos entities. They are dimensionless, unextended, immaterial, autonomous Fourier frequency domains (singularities). Math, not religion, is what refutes science. Math is the ghost that haunts science. Math is what science has never understood, just as it has never understood mind. In fact, these two facts are one and the same: math is mind!

No Reason There’s no valid reason why empiricist science should use rationalist mathematics. Empiricism opposes everything rationalism stands for. Science has no right to use math, but without math it would be useless. Why has no scientist ever contemplated the implications of that?!

The Truth Revolver When you hear scientists referring to “evidence”, you should, as Hermann Goering once commented in a different context, reach for your revolver. Nietzsche destroyed the whole of science in one sentence when he said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” All scientific “facts” are interpretations; all scientific “evidence” is interpretation. A scientist can’t tell you what time is ontologically, or space, mass, matter, energy, speed ... or anything. So, what does “evidence” mean in relation to totally undefined things? What scientists ought to say is, “We interpret ‘facts’ according to our scientific schema of reality, whose truth content we cannot establish. ‘Evidence’ is that which conforms to our model, our simulation, our simulacrum, of reality. If you reject our model, there’s no reason for you to accept our ‘evidence’. In our materialist model of reality, lifeless, mindless atoms, obeying the falsifiable laws of physics, determine our behaviour, and all of our ‘evidence’ assumes the truth of this model. No part of our model accommodates any evidence of mental agency, of a mind outside space and

time that exercises free will. You, with your mental schema, might see clear evidence for mental agency. We, with our material schema, can’t even conceive of mental agency. So, we will never agree with you on what evidence is evidence of.” That means that evidence is not evidence at all, but an ancillary of an unproven model or schema. It’s pure interpretation, opinion, belief and conjecture. It only constitutes evidence of the hypothesis through which the evidence is interpreted, i.e. the “evidence” is entirely circular. It’s as valid as its assumptions, and, in science, these assumptions are never analytically proved. In other words, “evidence” is belief, but belief isn’t evidence that any rational person would ever accept! “Thomas Kuhn has eloquently shown that scientists’ preference for one paradigm over another is determined by a host of non-scientific, nonempirical factors. As noted earlier, David Bohm also points out that there is no scientific evidence that argues for the dominant fragmented scientific worldview over Bohm’s hypothesis of undivided wholeness. However, while scientific evidence offers no help in this regard, other forms of evidence may, indeed, shed some light on the matter. Mystical and spiritual teachings down through the ages have spoken about the fundamental interconnectedness of all things and that the microcosm somehow contains the macrocosm.” – Will Keepin

The Cosmic Rubik’s Cube The universe in itself is non-sensory, rational, and mathematical. It’s a living, self-optimising, self-solving, spiritual organism. The universe can be likened to a Rubik’s Cube. At the beginning of the universe, the cube is perfect. A symmetry breaking event then occurs, corresponding to the cube’s perfect arrangement of coloured faces being randomly scrambled. The universe subsequently attempts to solve itself, i.e. to return to its original, perfect configuration. Like an average person encountering the Rubik’s cube for the first time, the universe has no idea how to solve itself, so it simply tries endless brute force tactics and trial and error. It would take forever to arrive at a solution were it not for the fact that the universe is a living organism (not a machine) ... i.e. it can learn.

Thanks to evolution, the unconscious universe eventually produces conscious minds, then hyper-conscious minds (belonging to the Gods). The Gods are the ones who work out exactly how to solve Rubik’s cube, hence to restore the universe to perfection. Everything else – whether it likes it or not – gets put in its perfect position by the actions of the Gods. You have two choices: 1) become one of the Gods that solve the puzzle of the universe, and make everything and everyone else submit to their divine will, or 2) be one of the helpless, confused pieces, waiting to be fitted into place. Do you want to find the answer to the cosmic Rubik’s cube, or be one of the parts of the cube being shuffled into place? Your decision. Can anyone seriously imagine that the mathematikoi – the Illuminati – will not one day know exactly how to render the universe perfect? You have a basic choice. Support us or oppose us.

***** If you could somehow observe the universe from outside, you would see it going through all possible permutations necessary to solve the cosmic Rubik’s cube. You would see an immense mathematical, self-solving process. It would be all about the objective optimisation of rational Form. However, the view from the inside is radically different. The universe’s interior view concerns the subjective optimisation of empirical Content. The two processes are of course intimately linked because Content is the flip side of Form. There’s a one-to-one correspondence between Form and Content. When the universe is perfect in Form, it’s also perfect in Content. It’s divine. Where the exterior view of the universe resembles an immense, tectonic, mathematical process to establish the perfect mathematical configuration, the interior view resembles a dialectical battle of Content: of ideas, beliefs, opinions, hypotheses, sensations, intuitions, interpretations, often expressed through savage violence (and “natural selection”). The interior process looks anything but rational, but is in fact being rationally controlled by dialectical logic that delivers, in the end, “Content perfection” (to match “Form perfection”). The dialectic is the exact means by which a blind, unconscious process can come to consciousness, and then, having achieved that, come to a perfect rational understanding of reality. Beliefs such as animism,

Abrahamism, Karmism, scientific materialism, and all the different philosophies, weren’t in fact arbitrary and accidental, they were inevitable. The dialectic produced all of them, and demanded all of them. Each succeeded because it reflected the dialectic, and otherwise it would have failed. Hegel said of Napoleon, “I saw the Emperor – this world-spirit – riding out of the city to survey his realm. It is a truly wonderful sensation to see such an individual, who, concentrated here at a single pint, astride a horse, reaches out over the world and masters it.” In Hegel’s system, Napoleon was at that moment the instrument of the dialectic, the dialectic embodied, driving forward the self-realization of the Spirit in history. Hegel said of the dialectic, “Spirit is at war with itself; it has to overcome itself as its most formidable obstacle … What Spirit really strives for is the realization of its ideal being; but in doing so, it hides that goal from its own vision, and is proud and well satisfied in this alienation from it. Its expansion therefore does not present the harmless tranquillity of mere growth, as does that of organic life, but a stern reluctant working against itself. ... [Spirit] certainly makes war upon itself – consumes its own existence; but in this very destruction it works up that existence into a new form, and each successive phase becomes in its turn a material, working on which it exalts itself to a new grade.”

***** Instead of a Rubik’s cube, the ontological problem the universe is actually solving is that of returning all matter to mind ... turning all matter (broken light) back into pure light. In Jungian Terms, the True God is reintegrating his Shadow (the False God). In Gnostic terms, the True God is eradicating the material world created by the False God (= the Demiurge). It says in Abrahamism that the Abrahamic “God” created the world. That means that the Abrahamic God is none other than the Devil, and the task of the True God is to wipe out every trace of the Abrahamic Devil-God and his diabolical Creation. The True God’s primary strategy is a most simple one ... the expansion of the spacetime universe. By the laws of ontological Fourier mathematics, the expansion of the physical universe corresponds to the return of matter to Mind (the Cosmic Singularity).

Correspondence Emanuel Swedenborg defined a “correspondence” as a basic relationship between two levels of existence. He claimed that the Word (the Bible) was composed by God entirely on the basis of correspondences, so, to understand the Bible, you are first required to understand the language of correspondence, without which you are lost. You are seeing through a glass, darkly. Everything is obscured. For Swedenborg, the Spiritual Plane has a correspondence with the Natural Plane, mind has a correspondence with body, intention has a correspondence with action, and the spiritual sense of the “Word” has a correspondence with the literal sense of the Word. Every fact about the World tells us something about its Creator. Everything said about man (the image of God) tells us something about God and his plans for man. “According to Swedenborg, angels speak to each other in correspondences and in the early days of the Golden Age people on this earth also could speak in correspondences so that they could communicate directly with the angels. They had a holy book, the Ancient Word, written in correspondences, which is still used in heaven. As the human race fell into evil the ability to understand correspondences was lost, as was most of the Ancient Word.” – Wikipedia In fact, ontological mathematics is the language of existence. Precious few people have ever understood this language. Math, not the Ancient Word, is the true Spiritual Language. “When the Lord was in the world he spoke by correspondences, and thus both spiritually and naturally at the same time. This is apparent from His parables, in which every single expression contains a spiritual sense. However, people of Jesus’ time only understood the natural, literal level of His teaching. Correspondences were not disclosed to the primitive early Christians because they were too simple to understand them. Thus Jesus said, ‘There is so much more I want to tell you, but you can’t bear it now.’ [MH: The coded fiction of the Illuminati similarly invokes correspondences.]” – Wikipedia Scientists study the world on a purely sensory level. They have no concept of a Platonic, non-sensory, intelligible level, defined purely by reason and

logic, and expressed mathematically. “The people of the Golden Age loved correspondences, and made small images to remind themselves of heavenly things. But as the human race declined into evil and the knowledge of correspondences was almost lost, people began to worship the images themselves, in other words they began to practise idolatry.” – Wikipedia Likewise, scientists started to worship appearances (phenomena) rather than understand the things (noumena; things in themselves) that they were an appearance of. The scientific method is predicated on the belief that the things that appear to us are actual reality, and anything that doesn’t appear to us doesn’t exist at all. There’s no suggestion in science that what we observe has a kernel (the thing in itself) that we never observe under any circumstances, for the simple reason that it’s non-sensory. “The knowledge of correspondences of the Ancient and Israelitish Words spread widely in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. In Greece, the correspondences were turned into the myths of antiquity. There were people, notably those referred to as wise ones, diviners or magi, who still had some knowledge of correspondences until the time of the Lord’s advent. This is evident from the Wise Men who came to the Lord at His birth; and this was why a star went before them, and why they brought gifts gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matt. 2:1-2, 9-11). The star corresponded to knowledge from heaven, gold to celestial goodness, frankincense to spiritual goodness, and myrrh to natural goodness. These three components are the correspondential basis for all worship.” – Wikipedia It has always been suggested that “wise ones” have access to secret knowledge denied to others. In fact, it’s mathematical metaphysicists – the mathematikoi – who possess all true secret knowledge! “In historical analysis, Biblical criticism and comparative mythology, parallelomania refers to a phenomenon where authors perceive apparent similarities and construct parallels and analogies without historical basis.” – Wikipedia Science likewise manically imagines apparent similarities between phenomena and ultimate reality. The plain fact is that you cannot work out what ultimate reality is merely by looking at the world. Your senses won’t

help you at all. Ultimately reality is rational, logical, intelligible and mathematical, i.e. entirely non-sensory and non-empirical. If reason is our proper tool for apprehending reality then reality is rational. If it’s our senses, as science claims, then reality is sensory, ergo not rational, and not intelligible. No sensory thing is an intelligible thing. You can’t work out what ultimate reality is by observing an object. You can work out what ultimate reality is by applying reason. There’s a principle of sufficient reason. There’s no principle of sufficient sensation. You can work out the whole of math by applying reason. You can’t work out anything at all merely by looking at something. You can invent countless “explanations” to account for what you are observing, but that’s interpretation, not knowledge. “From the mere letter of the Word of the Old Testament no one would ever discern the fact that this part of the Word contains deep secrets of heaven, and that everything within it both in general and in particular bears reference to the Lord, to His heaven, to the church, to religious belief, and to all things connected therewith; for from the letter or sense of the letter all that anyone can see is that – to speak generally – everything therein has reference merely to the external rites and ordinances of the Jewish Church. Yet the truth is that everywhere in that Word there are internal things which never appear at all in the external things except a very few which the Lord revealed and explained to the Apostles; such as that the sacrifices signify the Lord; that the land of Canaan and Jerusalem signify heaven – on which account they are called the Heavenly Canaan and Jerusalem – and that Paradise has a similar signification.” – Swedenborg, Arcana Cœlestia (Heavenly Mysteries or Secrets of Heaven) The Jungian attitudes of Extraversion and Introversion determine the two opposite ways in which we orient ourselves to the world. Extraversion directs our energy outwards to the external world (of people, places, things and machines). Introversion directs our energy inwards to the inner world of thoughts, ideas, imagination, intuitions and ghosts.

The Evolution of Mind The mental evolution of the universe takes place via the mental components of the psyche identified by Jung. Like everything else, these are in

dialectical conflict with each other, and seek to come to a perfect synthesis.

The Jungian Perceiving Functions 1) Sensing: The collection of concrete data via our five senses. 2) Intuition: The collection of data via non-sensory means. (Intuition is a kind of extra-sensory perception.)

The Jungian Judging Functions Thinking: The evaluation of information via objective and logical criteria. What has universal importance? Feeling: The evaluation of information via subjective criteria involving one’s personal values and relationships. What has individual importance?

Collection and Evaluation The perceiving functions collect information. The judging functions evaluate information and use it for making decisions. Science is entirely based on sensory information gathering. It rejects intuition. As for thinking, science presses it into the service of evaluating and interpreting sensory data only. Everything else involving reason and logic is excluded. Feelings are also ignored by science, meaning that science subordinates evaluation to collection. Emotional religion and rational math, on the other hand, are all about putting evaluation above collection. Mystical religion, conversely, has the gathering of information via intuition as its primary focus. It’s thus the spiritual counterpart of sensory science, while emotional religion is the spiritual counterpart of rational math. Science and mysticism have data collection as their primary objective, with evaluation playing a secondary role. Math and emotional religion have evaluation as their primary objective, with data collection playing a secondary role. Science would never dream of evaluating anything nonsensory, and mysticism would never evaluate anything non-intuitive. Math, on the other hand, can evaluate itself ... its own rules and structure. It doesn’t need any external data. That’s why it’s all about reason and logic. Emotional religion can concentrate on the feelings it generates. It needs no other data. That’s why it’s all about love, terror, faith and hope.

A person always prefers one perceiving function over another, and one judging function over another, and one particular function is preferred overall. Some people prefer thinking, some intuition, some feeling, and some sensing. Religion is all about feeling (Abrahamism), or mystical intuition (Eastern religion). Science is all about sensing. Mathematics and metaphysics are all about thinking. There are eight Jungian “attitude-functions”: 1) Extraverted Sensing: Focuses on the objective world, and on gathering factual data from sensory experiences. This is the world of science. 2) Extraverted Intuition: Focuses on possibilities, meanings and patterns in the objective world. This is the business and media world. 3) Extraverted Thinking: Focuses on the logical order of the objective world. This is the arena of engineering, architecture, technology and design. 4) Extraverted Feeling: Focuses on emotional accord and harmony in the objective world. This is the world of religion and community. 5) Introverted Sensing: Focuses on inner sensory experiences. Perception is not based directly on the object, but is merely suggested by it, allowing a massive intensification of sensation absent from the actual object. This is the world of the connoisseur. 6) Introverted Intuition: Focuses on the inner world of symbols, meanings, insight and patterns arising from the unconscious. This is the world of the visionary. 7) Introverted Thinking: Focuses on the inner world of reason and logic. This is the world of the great theoreticians. 8) Introverted Feeling: Focuses on the inner world of deeply felt values and experiences; strives for an inner intensity unrelated to any external object. This can result in mystical ecstasy. This is the arena of intense art, religion and spirituality. Judging types like to settle matters, i.e. they want to achieve a resolution, to close off a situation. Perceiving types prefer to keep things open; to defer decisions and resolutions, to keep their options open. In Myers-Briggs terms, scientists are of the “SP” type. This means that they don’t want to

reach a final answer to existence. If they did, they would be judging types. Those most committed to settling the question of existence are the INTJs.

***** “SP” types: appear to the world as concrete (scientific). “NP” types: appear to the world as abstract (spiritual). “TJ” types: appear to the world as logical (mathematical). “FJ” types: appear to the world as empathetic (social).

Form and Content Math is all about the evaluation of eternal, necessary Form. Science is all about the gathering and interpretation of temporal, contingent Content.

Animals Animals exist in the moment, at the level of data collection, and of instant, instinctive evaluation of the data. They don’t reflect on their experiences and perceptions, i.e. they’re not conscious. You must carefully reflect and evaluate to be conscious, and that’s exactly what animals don’t do. It’s also what scientists and mystics don’t do. Scientists, as machine people obsessed with sensory data collection, literally lack consciousness. Scientists deny free will and assign no meaning and purpose to life. That’s exactly what you would expect of non-conscious machines. Scientists are incapable of reflecting on and evaluating unobservable things about which they can never gather sensory data. For scientists, the mechanical process of data collection is much more important than the intellectual evaluation of data. Scientists are antiintellectuals, which is why they privilege sensory experiments over reason and logic. They are primitive thinkers who cannot imagine a noumenal world distinct from its appearance. They are ruled by their senses, not by their intelligence, which is why science makes so many unintelligible, plainly irrational claims. Science rejects the principle of sufficient reason. It has no inherent logical, rational, analytic first principles. It has no formal ontology and epistemology. Any theory can be abandoned at any time, depending on the latest experimental results.

Science breaks down the further it gets from the senses and experimental data, yet this is exactly the arena where ontological mathematics comes into its own. You cannot be a true thinker if the collection of data is more important to you than the rational and logical evaluation of data, and of data that’s implied and rationally demanded, but not visible!

The Mind Pilot “The movement of an elementary particle, according to Bohm’s pilot wave theory, is thus tied to a total force which is given by the sum of two terms: a classical force (derived from a classical potential) and a quantum force (derived from the quantum potential).” – Ignazio Licata, Davide Fiscaletti, Quantum Potential: Physics, Geometry and Algebra The movement of a body, according to Illuminist mind-pilot theory, is tied to a total force given by the sum of two terms: a classical force (derived from scientific materialism) and a mental force (derived from Fourier frequency mathematics). The mind is the pilot (ghost) that directs the body (machine). Without the mind, the human body would have no pilot, hence be just an inert, dead collection of material atoms.

***** “In 1931, John von Neumann published The Foundations of Quantum Theory, which remains to this day the mathematical bible on that topic. In this book, von Neumann offered a mathematical proof that an ordinary classical reality could not underlie quantum theory. For over twenty years, ‘von Neumann’s proof’ stood as a mathematical corroboration of the Copenhagen interpretation. However, in 1952, David Bohm did the impossible and uprooted this ‘proof’ by constructing a model of the electron with classical attributes whose behaviour matched the predictions of the quantum theory. In this model, the electron is viewed as an ordinary particle, with one key difference: the electron has access to information about its environment. To derive this model, Bohm began with the Schrödinger equation, which is the central mathematical formula of quantum physics. Using elegant mathematics, Bohm effectively partitioned this equation into two parts, or terms: a classical term that essentially

reproduces Newtonian physics, and a nonclassical term that he calls the quantum potential. The classical term treats the electron as an ordinary particle, as in classical physics. The nonclassical quantum potential is a wave-like term that provides information to the electron, linking it to the rest of the universe. The quantum potential is responsible for the wellknown wave-particle duality and all the other bizarre phenomena for which quantum theory has become famous. Indeed, the nonlocal character of quantum reality – as implied by Bell’s Theorem [See Einstein-PodolskyRosen experiment] and empirically observed in the renowned experiments of Alain Aspect – may be viewed as plausible evidence for the actual existence of an entity symbolized by the quantum potential.” – http://www.halexandria.org/dward404.htm According to von Neumann, an ordinary classical reality cannot underlie quantum theory. According to Bohm, a classical reality can underlie quantum theory, but only via the addition of something completely nonclassical ... a pilot wave (quantum potential) which has access to information about the particle’s environment (the whole universe!). The particle is a local spacetime entity; the pilot wave is a non-local singularity entity. In mind-matter terms, machine reality is a classical reality, but, when quantum reality is added, this becomes a ghost-in-the-machine reality, i.e. mind is added to matter. The dual-aspect ontology of Illuminism (frequency and spacetime) is not a classical reality, and it fully supports the notion of pilot waves, expressed through the Fourier frequency Singularity outside space and time, via which all things are interconnected. The “particle” is the local body; the “pilot wave” is the non-local mind (in fact, the pilot wave is related to the Cosmic Mind rather than to an individual mind). Each of us has a body guided by a mind, and our mind is linked to the entire universe. When we develop our mind sufficiently, we literally become God!

Seeing What Others Don’t Geniuses see what others don’t. Intuitives see what sensing types don’t. Scientists fail to see what others see, and then deny the reality of what the others have seen. Scientists regard their own blindness as vision!

Men and Women Male culture is largely “ES” – extravert and sensing. “Intelligent” men typically add “T” and thus become ESTs = scientists. Stupid men add “F” and thus become ESFs – e.g. Muslims! Female culture is largely “EF” – extravert and feeling. “Intelligent” women typically add “N” and thus become ENFs = spiritual and religious thinkers. Stupid women add “S” and thus become ESFs – e.g. Muslims (just like the stupid men!). Men are better at science than women. Women are better at religion, spirituality, empathy and morality than men. Men are more forthright than women. Women are more considerate. These are generalisations of course. Individual men and women may be nothing like their “universal”. The task is to make men and women much more intuitive, much more rational, and to create a profound introverted culture rather than a shallow extraverted culture. Above all, humanity must move from religion on the one hand (thesis), and science on the other (antithesis), to math (synthesis).

The Rivals “Despite the large number of philosophical schools and subtle nuances between many, all philosophies are said to fall into one of two primary categories, which are defined in contrast to each other: Idealism, and materialism. The basic proposition of these two categories pertains to the nature of reality, and the primary distinction between them is the way they answer two fundamental questions: ‘what does reality consist of’ and ‘how does it originate?’ To idealists, spirit or mind or the objects of mind (ideas) are primary, and matter secondary. To materialists, matter is primary, and mind or spirit or ideas are secondary, the product of matter acting upon matter. [MH: How can “matter acting upon matter” produce anything other than matter? It can’t possibly generate non-matter, i.e. mind! Mind, however, can mathematically produce matter, given that mathematics in itself is fundamentally mental, and matter is merely one of its outputs.]” – Wikipedia If everything is ultimately either mental or material then this raises the question of what math ultimately is. Is math material or mental? Since ontological mathematics is defined with regard to an immaterial frequency

Singularity outside space and time then math clearly fits into the mental conception of reality. All mental things are alive. All material things are dead. Math, as a mental thing, is alive. A mathematical universe is a spiritual, living, evolving organism. A scientific universe is a dead machine.

Materialism “The materialist view is perhaps best understood in its opposition to the doctrines of immaterial substance applied to the mind historically, famously by René Descartes. However, by itself materialism says nothing about how material substance should be characterized.” – Wikipedia Incredibly, materialism doesn’t define what matter is. The only thing you can be sure about is what materialists think matter isn’t ... it’s not mind! “Materialism is often associated with reductionism, according to which the objects or phenomena individuated at one level of description, if they are genuine, must be explicable in terms of the objects or phenomena at some other level of description – typically, at a more reduced level.” – Wikipedia The whole trouble with materialism is that it has no base level, hence involves infinite contingent regress. There are no eternal, necessary units in science. This isn’t true of ontological mathematics – the ultimate reductive system. In ontological mathematics, everything is reduced to an analytic state comprising sinusoids defined by the God Equation. “...philosophers such as Mary Midgley suggest that the concept of ‘matter’ is elusive and poorly defined.” – Wikipedia The concept of matter isn’t defined at all! No one knows what it is, and it’s impossible to say what it is, which isn’t surprising given that, logically, no such thing as scientific “matter” can possibly exist. It’s an absolutely incoherent and inexplicable concept. “Everything objective, extended, active, and hence everything material, is regarded by materialism as so solid a basis for its explanations that a reduction to this (especially if it should ultimately result in thrust and counter-thrust) can leave nothing to be desired. But all this is something that is given only very indirectly and conditionally, and is therefore only relatively present, for it has passed through the machinery and fabrication

of the brain, and hence has entered the forms of time, space, and causality, by virtue of which it is first of all presented as extended in space and operating in time.” – Schopenhauer No scientist has ever grasped that “material reality” is simply the construct of brain machinery, which itself results from unseen elements (immaterial monadic minds). If reality is a set of Russian dolls, there’s a foundational doll that isn’t visible at all. (We might liken it to the Platonic Form of the doll, which is in the immaterial domain outside space and time, and it not itself a doll.) No scientist understands that you can remove time, space, and spacetime causality and not be left with nothing at all (although you have certainly exited any conceivable world of “matter”). In fact, you simply leave time and space and enter the frequency domain, where frequency causality applies. By the same token, when you leave the dimensional domain, you haven’t left behind existence, you have merely entered the dimensionless domain ... of mind rather than matter! “Some scientific materialists have been criticized, for example by Noam Chomsky, for failing to provide clear definitions for what constitutes matter, leaving the term ‘materialism’ without any definite meaning. Chomsky also states that since the concept of matter may be affected by new scientific discoveries, as has happened in the past, scientific materialists are being dogmatic in assuming the opposite.” – Wikipedia Chomsky is absolutely right that “matter” has no definition and that there’s nothing in the ideology and methodology of science to prevent a new theory arising in which matter is explained mentally. In fact, ontological mathematics is exactly the means by which all of matter can be explained via non-materialist, reductive mathematics. “The nature and definition of matter – like other key concepts in science and philosophy – have occasioned much debate. Is there a single kind of matter (hyle) which everything is made of, or multiple kinds? Is matter a continuous substance capable of expressing multiple forms (hylomorphism), or a number of discrete, unchanging constituents (atomism)? Does it have intrinsic properties (substance theory), or is it lacking them (prima materia)?” – Wikipedia The idea that any philosophically illiterate, ignorant scientist could ever answer these crucial questions is risible. Yet if scientists can’t explain what

matter is, can’t explain what mind is, and can’t explain what math is, then what exactly is it that science has “explained”? It hasn’t explained anything. Science is just a model that simulates the observable world, but doesn’t tell you what the observable world is, and can’t even conceive of the unobservable (noumenal) world that underlies everything. “One challenge to the traditional concept of matter as tangible ‘stuff’ came with the rise of field physics in the 19th century. Relativity shows that matter and energy (including the spatially distributed energy of fields) are interchangeable.” – Wikipedia Science can define neither energy nor matter. It can’t refute the existence of dimensionless (mental) energy, which can be converted, or translated, into dimensional (material) energy, and vice versa. “This enables the ontological view that energy is prima materia and matter is one of its forms.” – Wikipedia Energy in its true form is analytic, dimensionless sinusoids, and “matter” is simply a dimensional expression of sinusoids. “On the other hand, the Standard Model of Particle physics uses quantum field theory to describe all interactions. On this view it could be said that fields are prima materia and the energy is a property of the field.” – Wikipedia Ontologically, science can’t define a field, can’t define energy and can’t define matter. It’s nothing but a set of heuristic fictions and ad hoc tactical manoeuvres. “According to the dominant cosmological model, the Lambda-CDM model, less than 5% of the universe’s energy density is made up of the ‘matter’ described by the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and the majority of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy – with little agreement amongst scientists about what these are made of.” – Wikipedia Scientific materialism can’t account for 95% of the universe! If that isn’t an epic fail, what is? How can anyone continue to take science seriously? Science will never show us the broad horizons where humanity is destined to become as powerful as Gods. Science is actively holding back humanity’s intellectual progress by insisting on the reality of matter. Matter

is a myth. It’s as ridiculous as religious faith. “Matter” is every bit as fantastical as the “God”, who, according to Creationists, created it out of nothing. “With the advent of quantum physics, some scientists believed the concept of matter had merely changed, while others believed the conventional position could no longer be maintained. For instance Werner Heisenberg said ‘The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible ... atoms are not things.’” – Wikipedia If atoms are not “things”, what on earth are they?! So, when schoolchildren are taught that atoms exist, this, according to one of the greatest scientists of all time, is a brazen lie. Why isn’t it made clear to everyone that “atoms” are heuristic fictions ... just constructs in a model? They have nothing to do with reality. They aren’t “things”; they are labels attached to a pseudomathematical simulacrum. “The concept of matter has changed in response to new scientific discoveries. Thus materialism has no definite content independent of the particular theory of matter on which it is based. According to Noam Chomsky, any property can be considered material, if one defines matter such that it has that property.” – Wikipedia In other words, matter is matter if you say it is ... and not otherwise! “Some modern day physicists and science writers – such as Paul Davies and John Gribbin – have argued that materialism has been disproven by certain scientific findings in physics, such as quantum mechanics and chaos theory.” – Wikipedia Matter has been disproven, so why hasn’t science admitted this? It’s because science has nowhere else to go. It’s never going to embrace mind, is it? Scientific materialism refuses to accept that it has been falsified. So much for scientific integrity. “In 1991, Gribbin and Davies released their book The Matter Myth, the first chapter of which, ‘The Death of Materialism’, contained the following passage: ‘Then came our Quantum theory, which totally transformed our image of matter. The old assumption that the microscopic world of atoms

was simply a scaled-down version of the everyday world had to be abandoned. Newton’s deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles, governed by the laws of chance, rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of the quantum theory goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. Quantum physics undermines materialism because it reveals that matter has far less “substance” than we might believe. But another development goes even further by demolishing Newton’s image of matter as inert lumps. This development is the theory of chaos, which has recently gained widespread attention.’” – Wikipedia Materialism, like God, is dead. It’s ridiculous that the Matter Myth is still taught as if it were true. Materialism is as bad as any religion. It has been emphatically falsified. Nothing in science survives that could ever be regarded as authentic “matter” ... some objective reality, made of atoms that you could individually place a tracker on, and follow their progress throughout all eternity. Without material atoms of that kind, there’s no matter at all. There’s just mind manifesting itself in different ways. “Davies’ and Gribbin’s objections are shared by proponents of digital physics who view information rather than matter to be fundamental. Their objections were also shared by some founders of quantum theory, such as Max Planck, who wrote: ‘As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.’” – Wikipedia Science is terrified of admitting that it has no real basis, that it’s based on an undefined myth. Planck is right, except there’s no “conscious and intelligent Mind” behind everything. Instead, there’s an unconscious, self-solving (dialectical) mathematical Cosmic Mind behind everything (made of individual, dialectical monadic minds ... our minds!). “According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, materialism denies the existence of both deities and ‘souls’. It is therefore incompatible with most world

religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.” – Wikipedia “Materialism” is just a codeword for atheism. It’s defined not by what it is but by what it’s opposed to: deities and souls. Materialism is the denial that deities and souls do or can exist. It can’t explain what matter is, but whatever it is, says science, it can’t be consistent with deities or souls. The trouble is, it can! Fourier mathematics is exactly how the apparent miracle is achieved. “In most of Hinduism and transcendentalism, all matter is believed to be an illusion called Maya, blinding us from knowing the truth. Maya is the limited, purely physical and mental reality in which our everyday consciousness has become entangled. Maya gets destroyed for a person when s/he perceives Brahman with transcendental knowledge.” – Wikipedia Scientists are those who have convinced themselves that Maya is real. They are thus Maya’s perfect victims. Maya’s task was to conceal the truth, and it found the perfect means of concealment in scientific materialism ... an ideology all about the phenomenal Lie, as opposed to the noumenal Truth. Math is the agent of Truth, and the antidote to both science and Maya. Transcendental, noumenal, ontological mathematics banishes Maya and reveals Brahman. “An argument for idealism, such as those of Hegel and Berkeley, is ipso facto an argument against materialism. Matter can be argued to be redundant, as in bundle theory, and mind-independent properties can in turn be reduced to subjective percepts. Berkeley presents an example of the latter by pointing out that it is impossible to gather direct evidence of matter, as there is no direct experience of matter; all that is experienced is perception, whether internal or external. As such, the existence of matter can only be assumed from the apparent (perceived) stability of perceptions; it finds absolutely no evidence in direct experience.” – Wikipedia The supreme logical absurdity of scientific materialism, with its fanatical support for empiricism, is that matter is itself non-empirical (!). As Berkeley pointed out, no one can directly experience matter. What they experience is the idea of matter, and the idea of matter is mental, not physical! As for the “stability of perceptions”, this is furnished mathematically, not via persistent “matter”. “Matter” is just a misinterpretation of math by stupid sensing types.

“If matter and energy are seen as necessary to explain the physical world, but incapable of explaining mind, dualism results.” – Wikipedia Energy is inherently dimensionless (mental), but can be expressed dimensionally, thus creating the illusion of matter. There’s no need for dualism, just dual-aspect mathematical monism. “Some critics object to materialism as part of an overly skeptical, narrow or reductivist approach to theorizing, rather than to the ontological claim that matter is the only substance.” – Wikipedia Given that no materialist has ever ontologically defined matter, it’s absurd that materialists make the ontological claim that matter is the only substance. Moreover, modern science doesn’t accept any eternal, necessary cosmic substance (arche), hence it’s doubly ridiculous to accept the belief of science that everything is material. Matter is now conceived to have ultimately come from non-existence via a miraculous, inexplicable, random event (the Big Bang). Materialism has no intellectual basis whatsoever. It’s therefore a religion. Yet religion is exactly what it was intended to refute. Dear, oh dear. “Particle physicist and Anglican theologian John Polkinghorne objects to what he calls promissory materialism – claims that materialistic science will eventually succeed in explaining phenomena it has not so far been able to explain.” – Wikipedia Science does indeed conveniently confer on itself a perpetual get-out clause. Whenever anyone points out all the things science can’t explain, scientists claim that, in the unspecified future, they will be able to explain them. This is a disastrous belief because it means that scientists never analyse anything analytically and logically. For example, they never examine the ontological and epistemological reasons why relativity theory and quantum mechanics can never be reconciled. Such an analysis would allow them to definitively refute one, or indeed both, of these theories, with no need for any experiments. However, scientists reject that approach and continue to make guesses (formulate hypotheses), and rely on experiments. They expect some experimentally verifiable, miraculous insight by a scientific materialist to bring about the unification of relativity and quantum mechanics. But no such insight has come despite the greatest effort in scientific history, involving the largest number of scientists in history, who

are also the best educated scientists in history, with the most facilities at their disposal, and unprecedented computing power to assist them. Given these facts, what makes anyone imagine that this wondrous insight is ever going to come? Yet science clings to its “promissory” note of future success. Without this note, science would have to admit that it has reached the end of its road, and the Truth lies beyond science. Like any religion, science will never accept its demonstrable failure. Ontological mathematics doesn’t rely on guesses and experiments. It relies on eternally valid reason and logic, on ontology and epistemology, on the precise definition of concepts, on the precise refutation of invalid, unsustainable concepts (with which science is littered). “Polkinghorne prefers ‘dual-aspect monism’ to faith in materialism.” – Wikipedia Ontological mathematics is a dual-aspect monism. It explains both mind and matter via the organisation of eternal, necessary mathematical sinusoids. As the God Series demonstrates, ontological mathematics proceeds by way of the principle of sufficient reason, not by way of guesses, sensory observations and experiments.

The Haunting “The ‘ghost in the machine’ is British philosopher Gilbert Ryle’s description of René Descartes’ mind-body dualism. The phrase was introduced in Ryle’s book The Concept of Mind (1949) to highlight the perceived absurdity of dualist systems like Descartes’ where mental activity carries on in parallel to physical action, but where their means of interaction are unknown or, at best, speculative. ... Ryle’s The Concept of Mind (1949) is a critique of the notion that the mind is distinct from the body, and a rejection of the theory that mental states are separable from physical states. In this book Ryle refers to the idea of a fundamental distinction between mind and matter as ‘the ghost in the machine’. According to Ryle, the classical theory of mind, or ‘Cartesian rationalism’, makes a basic category mistake, because it attempts to analyze the relation between ‘mind’ and ‘body’ as if they were terms of the same logical category. This confusion of logical categories may be seen in other theories of the relation between mind and matter. For example, the idealist theory of mind makes a basic

category mistake by attempting to reduce physical reality to the same status as mental reality, while the materialist theory of mind makes a basic category mistake by attempting to reduce mental reality to the same status as physical reality.” – Wikipedia Ryle is one of those philosophers who gets everything wrong because he can’t conceive of reality in terms of dual-aspect mathematics, i.e. Fourier mathematics, involving a frequency (mental) domain and a spacetime (matter) domain. Once you have assumed the wrong ontology and epistemology, everything you subsequently say is automatically in error. Cartesian rationalism doesn’t make a basic category mistake; it is incomplete in terms of the mathematics it uses to define mind and matter, and their relations and interactions. Fourier rationalism fully rescues Cartesian rationalism.

The “Official Doctrine” “There is a doctrine about the nature and place of the mind which is prevalent among theorists, to which most philosophers, psychologists and religious teachers subscribe with minor reservations. Although they admit certain theoretical difficulties in it, they tend to assume that these can be overcome without serious modifications being made to the architecture of the theory.... [the doctrine states that] with the doubtful exceptions of the mentally-incompetent and infants-in-arms, every human being has both a body and a mind. ... The body and the mind are ordinarily harnessed together, but after the death of the body the mind may continue to exist and function.” – Gilbert Ryle, 1949 In 2015, the “official doctrine” is in fact absolute scientific materialism that wholly denies the existence of mind in its own right. Most people, deep down, have no expectation that they will survive death because they have been so brainwashed by materialist arguments to deny the immaterial existence of their own soul. “Ryle states that the central principles of the doctrine are unsound and conflict with the entire body of what we know about the mind.” – Wikipedia Science doesn’t know anything at all about the mind (!), and never will, given that it fundamentally denies the mind’s existence in any meaningful

sense. “Such in outline is the official theory. I shall often speak of it, with deliberate abusiveness, as ‘the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine.’ I hope to prove that it is entirely false, and false not in detail but in principle. It is not merely an assemblage of particular mistakes. It is one big mistake and a mistake of a special kind. It is, namely, a category mistake.” – Gilbert Ryle In fact, all of this is true of scientific materialism, and of Ryle’s own views! They’re just one big category mistake from beginning to end. They’re based on a totally fallacious ontology. “[The ‘official doctrine’ of mind/body dualism is false because] it represents the facts of mental life as if they belonged to one logical type/category, when they actually belong to another. The dogma is therefore a philosopher’s myth.” – Gilbert Ryle In fact, it’s non-dualistic scientific materialism that’s false for exactly these reasons, i.e. it represents the facts of mental life as if they were facts of material machinery.

***** “Dealing with the traditional mind-body problem in The Concept of Mind (1949), Ryle sharply criticized Cartesian dualism, arguing that adequate descriptions of human behaviour need never refer to anything but the operations of human bodies. This form of logical behaviourism became a standard view among ordinary-language philosophers for several decades.” – Garth Kemerling “Behaviourism: Belief that all mental phenomena can be explained by reference to publicly observable behaviour or dispositions to behave. Modern psychology, exemplified by Watson and Skinner, is founded on the methodological principle that only overt human conduct (as opposed to introspection) is available for objective study, including scientific prediction and confirmation. In a more radical metaphysical form, behaviourism may deny the reality of mental entities or processes, all of which are held to be reducible to physical things or events. Logical or linguistic behaviourism, like that of Gilbert Ryle, holds that assertions about mental events can always be analyzed in behavioural terms. Contemporary functionalism is

often regarded as a modest form of philosophical behaviourism.” – Garth Kemerling In a mathematical universe, anything not expressed mathematically is certain to be false. “Ordinary-language philosophy”, such as Ryle subscribed to, contains zero math and is 100% false! The idea that ordinary, manmade language can in any way capture reality is one of the most bogus notions ever devised. It’s an insult to philosophy, science and math! Only anti-rationalists could ever hold such beliefs.

Freud versus Jung Freud focused on the past, Jung on the future. (Freud was a sensing type; Jung was intuitive.) Freud emphasised the division of the psyche, and considered this division inbuilt and permanent. Jung emphasized the need to make the psyche integrated and whole ... to heal its divisions. Freud was preoccupied with destruction, Jung with construction (creativity).

Thanatos and Eros “In classical Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the death drive (German: Todestrieb) is the drive towards death, self-destruction and the return to the inorganic: ‘the hypothesis of a death instinct, the task of which is to lead organic life back into the inanimate state’. It was originally proposed by Sigmund Freud in 1920 in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, where in his first published reference to the term he wrote of the ‘opposition between the ego or death instincts and the sexual or life instincts’. In this work, Freud used the plural ‘death drives’ (Todestriebe) much more frequently than in the singular. The death drive opposes Eros, the tendency toward survival, propagation, sex, and other creative, life-producing drives. The death drive is sometimes referred to as ‘Thanatos’ in post-Freudian thought, complementing ‘Eros’, although this term was not used in Freud’s own work, being rather introduced by one of Freud’s followers, Wilhelm Stekel.” – Wikipedia Scientific materialism – with its machine mentality and its nihilistic hatred of meaning and purpose – is reflective of Thanatos, the death instinct. If we

are machines, we can hardly be considered alive. Perhaps “undead” – zombies! – is the proper term. Eros – associated with life, creativity, meaning and purpose – is the essence of ontological mathematics ... reflecting the universe as a selfsolving, self-optimising organism. Eros is a “ghost” characteristic; Thanatos a machine characteristic. In Leibniz’s Monadology, we inhabit a fundamentally living universe. In scientific materialism, we inhabit a fundamentally dead machine, and we ourselves are dead, or undead, machines. What’s for sure is that, in the scientific worldview, we are pointless, soulless hulks.

The Nephilim The Nephilim were the offspring of angels and women. Genesis 6:4 says, “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.” What would the offspring of machines and women be like? What would we call them? Would they be an abomination that “God” would feel compelled to wipe from the face of the Earth? “Angels” (inhabiting human bodies) could mate with women, while machines (without human bodies) never could. The Nephilim is a “ghost” story. Terminator is a machine story.

The Sons of God and the Daughters of Adam “...many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the ‘faithful’ lines of Seth separate from the ‘worldly’ line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The ‘Sons of God’ are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the ‘daughters of men’ is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them.” – Chuck Missler Sethites are Abrahamists. Cainites are anti-Abrahamists. The Sethites and Cainites have always been at war. The “mark of Cain” is the mark of defiance of the Torture God of Abraham.

Bicameralism “Bicameralism (the philosophy of ‘two-chamberedness’) is a hypothesis in psychology that argues that the human mind once assumed a state in which cognitive functions were divided between one part of the brain which appears to be ‘speaking’, and a second part which listens and obeys – a bicameral mind. The term was coined by Julian Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, wherein he made the case that a bicameral mentality came to be the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind only as recently as 3000 years ago.” – Wikipedia If we associate sensing, thinking and extraversion with the left hemisphere of the brain, and intuition, feeling and introversion with the right hemisphere, then Jayne’s proposal suggests that over 3000 years ago – when the left hemisphere was primitive compared with the right – humanity was much more intuitive, much more emotional, and much more introverted than it is now. This equates to a humanity profoundly attracted to religion and spirituality. The average human lived in a kind of permanent dreamstate, hearing voices (of gods, spirits, dead ancestors, and so on), and didn’t relate to the world in the concrete, sensory terms of modern science. People, with their poor thinking capacity, would not have had a clear rational, logical idea of the world they inhabited. In terms of Paul MacLean’s triune brain, humanity was much more attuned to the reptilian brain stem (violence, basic functions and basic sensing), and the limbic system (emotion and intuition). The rational, logical neocortex had not yet bedded in properly. The last three thousand years have seen a switch from the right hemisphere to the left hemisphere, from intuition to sensing, feeling to thinking, introversion to extraversion. However, if we look at religions such as Islam, Orthodox Judaism, Fundamentalist Christianity, Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism, we see how quickly human beings can revert to their old ways. In particular, they can entirely abandon reason. Only a tiny percentage of humanity is truly acquainted with reason and logic. In terms of science, the switch from intuition to sensing has gone way too far, to the extent that intuition is more or less ignored. Scientists literally cannot conceive of anything non-sensory, and this has had disastrous effects for their thinking, and their core logic. All scientific “reason”, such as it is,

is devoted to supporting the assumption that everything is sensory. If ultimate reality is actually rational but non-sensory (i.e. mathematical rather than scientific) then the very basis on which science proceeds ensures that it will never encounter true reality. Scientists fallaciously believe that reality is both rational and sensory (empirical), something that flies in the face of the age-old war between rationalism and empiricism, the intelligible and the sensible, the noumenal and the phenomenal. That’s why scientific concepts are so muddled; they are monstrous, untenable hybrids of rationalism (expressed through math) and empiricism (expressed through sensory experiments). No scientist has ever seriously addressed the question of whether nonsensory existence is possible. This is ideologically rejected from the get-go. No scientist has, of course, ever provided any evidence or proof that there’s no such thing as non-sensory existence. This is simply held as a dogmatic belief, which is why science is much more like a religion than it cares to admit. Where science is about linking thinking to sensing, mathematics is about linking thinking to intuition, which is why science and math are so different. (Neither links thinking to feeling, as religion attempts to do; this is doomed from the beginning since thinking and feeling are Jungian opposites, which is precisely why religion is so full of illogic and unreason, and blabbers on about “love and peace” all the time, and never mentions ontology and epistemology.) A mathematician doesn’t need to observe the sensory world at all, hence is in many ways the opposite of a scientist (opposite in a different way from religious people: mathematicians are opposite in a rational and intuitive way, religious people in an emotional and mystical way). The scientific method of experiments is emphatically not the mathematical method of reason and logic. Mathematicians have intuitions, which they then prove rationally and logically. Scientists gather experimental data, which they then try to explain rationally and logically, but they automatically presume that all reason and logic – as it applies to the world – must support sensory reality. Since this places an enormous restriction on reason and logic – rendering them inconsistent and incomplete – science can never work as a rational undertaking. That’s why it supports empiricism and not rationalism.

The Abrahamic and Eastern religions both reject thinking (or, rather, subordinate it to sentimental faith and mysticism), and instead emphasise feelings and yearnings, especially those involving the supposed relationship of humanity to “God” or the “divine force”. Abrahamic religion tends to ally feeling to sensing and extraversion (just look at the Islamic Hajj, an astonishingly sensory and extraverted occasion), while Eastern religion allies feeling to intuition and introversion (just imagine the Buddha sitting alone under a tree, meditating ... that said, there are some amazingly extraverted and sensory Hindu festivals). These considerations yield the following table: Cultural System

Judging Function

Perceiving Function

Attitude

Science

Thinking

Sensing

Extraversion

Mathematics/ Metaphysics

Thinking

Intuition

Introversion

Abrahamism

Feeling

Sensing

Extraversion

Eastern Religion

Feeling

Intuition

Introversion

Bicameral Man

Feeling

Intuition

Introversion

Modern Man

Feeling (but in Sensing much closer balance with thinking)

Extraversion

Future Man (Higher Thinking Man; Enlightened Man)

Intuition

Introversion

We see that all human ways of responding to the world, and attempting to understand it, flow inexorably and inevitably from our respective personality types. Although this might imply relativism, all human cultural systems are very far from equally valid. Abrahamism, in particular, is absurd. If the world is rational, intelligible and noumenal, then feeling, sensing and extraversion are the worst ways to relate it, the ways guaranteed to generate the most errors, falsehoods, delusions and fantasies – exactly as we see. Eastern religion is superior to Abrahamism because it

relies on intuition and introversion. Science resembles Abrahamism, but is superior because it uses thinking rather than feeling. Mathematics/metaphysics is better than Eastern religion because, in common with science versus Abrahamism, it uses thinking rather than feeling. Mathematics/metaphysics is better than science because it uses intuition rather than sensing, introversion rather than extraversion, and reason and logic independently of the senses. Mathematics/metaphysics is what brings us closest to non-sensory, rational, intelligible, noumenal, ultimate reality. Most people in the world are wrong in every way in how they conceive of ultimate reality. The way their brains and minds are configured literally precludes them from being right. They are designed to live in the world, to survive and reproduce. These people are not designed to understand ultimate reality. Only the Highest Humans – the HyperHumans – are capable of escaping the human condition – life in this world – and seeing to the Truth beyond. They are much more highly evolved than everyone else. This higher evolutionary status is mental, not physical. If humanity wants to become divine, it must turn to their leadership, and accept the rule of the Enlightened Ones. Enlightened people will not rule selfishly. Precisely because they are enlightened, and above the petty concerns of the world and the ego, they will do what’s best for the whole of humanity (unlike the current Elite who do exclusively what is best for themselves). Above all, they will not be obsessed with money and all the trappings of wealth.

Hemispheric Balance The most well-rounded human beings would be those with perfect hemispheric balance: perfect balance between thinking and feeling, sensing and intuition, introversion and extraversion. However, they would not be the most enlightened human beings since enlightenment requires an emphasis on thinking, intuition and introversion. The ideal human being would be someone with perfect hemispheric balance for most of the time, but with the capacity to change the balance at will, and become more extraverted or more introverted when needed, more sensing or more intuitive, more rational or more emotional ... to be all things to all men at the appropriate time, hence to always be right for

whatever situation they find themselves in. They would be perfectly adapted to the world and all the different circumstances it presents. Swedenborg was right that humanity was once able to freely converse with the dead, spirits, ghosts, angels, demons and gods. This was the Golden Age of religion and spirituality. That’s the way humanity was originally wired. Now people are increasingly wired for scientific materialism, for atheism, skepticism, cynicism, nihilism, and solipsism (and even autism and psychopathy). This is an improvement in some contexts, but catastrophic in others. Where we were once “ghosts”, we are gradually turning into machines, or thinking of ourselves and others more and more in these dehumanised, depersonalised terms. We are becoming objects, commodities, things to be bought and sold. It’s no wonder that capitalism is the preferred economic system in the modern age. It’s run by the “market”: a dehumanised, depersonalised abstraction that can never be blamed for anything, that’s never elected by the people and is never accountable to the people. We are now allowing ourselves to be ruled by inhuman entities. That’s because we no longer see ourselves as human at all. Many people are happy and proud to proclaim that they have no free will. Well, anyone without subjective agency is a machine, not a human being. Paradoxically, humanity has been degenerating as much as it has been “evolving”. Just as we advance in one direction, we retreat in another. Just as we get better in one context, we get worse in another. What we have to do is advance in the optimal way on all fronts. We have to win without losing. We mustn’t become more sensory by losing all of our intuition, or more rational by abandoning our feelings. What’s for sure is that the Darwinian random mutation of genes isn’t going to solve our problems. If we want to evolve properly, we ourselves will have to intelligently design the context in which progress takes place. We must become Gods! We must create ourselves, and be our own masters. As Nietzsche said, “We, however, want to become those who we are – the new, the unique, the incomparable, those who impose on themselves their own law, those who create themselves.” “Jaynes uses bicameralism as a metaphor to describe a mental state in which the experiences and memories of the right hemisphere of the brain are transmitted to the left hemisphere via auditory hallucinations. The metaphor is based on the idea of lateralization of brain function although

each half of a normal human brain is constantly communicating with the other through the corpus callosum. The metaphor is not meant to imply that the two halves of the bicameral brain were ‘cut off’ from each other but that the bicameral mind was experienced as a different, non-conscious mental schema wherein volition in the face of novel stimuli was mediated through a linguistic control mechanism and experienced as auditory verbal hallucination.” – Wikipedia Drugs and hypnosis are two ways in which we can achieve radically different states of consciousness. If we are to become optimised human beings, we need to become experts at safely changing our conscious states. We must be able to activate or deactivate, excite or inhibit, parts of our brain hemispheres at will, in order to allow us to have the optimal personality type for whatever situation we find ourselves in. As things stand, all of us are good in some contexts and hopeless in others. We spend our lives in a minefield, and most of us retreat to some safe location, from where we rarely venture out for fear of being blown up. “The bicameral mentality would be non-conscious in its inability to reason and articulate about mental contents through meta-reflection, reacting without explicitly realizing and without the meta-reflective ability to give an account of why one did so. The bicameral mind would thus lack metaconsciousness, autobiographical memory and the capacity for executive ‘ego functions’ such as deliberate mind-wandering and conscious introspection of mental content. When bicamerality as a method of social control was no longer adaptive in complex civilizations, this mental model was replaced by the conscious mode of thought which, Jaynes argued, is grounded in the acquisition of metaphorical language learned by exposure to narrative practice.” – Wikipedia The decline of Bicameral Man led to the rise of Mythos Man. Where Bicameral Man heard the voices of the gods and obeyed them, Mythos Man wrote down elaborate stories of gods, creating a huge narrative in which human beings themselves started to have some agency (above all, the capacity to disobey the gods, as in the tale of Adam and Eve). They began to obey their own voice rather than the god’s voice. This equated to a transfer of right-hemispheric dominance to left-hemispheric dominance. As the process gathered pace, Machine Man (the scientist) finally arrived on the scene. He didn’t just disobey the gods; he denied that the gods even

existed. He also barely believed in his own authentic existence, regarding himself as nothing but a pointless, meaningless, purposeless machine. “According to Jaynes, ancient people in the bicameral state of mind would have experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of a schizophrenic. Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person would hallucinate a voice or ‘god’ giving admonitory advice or commands and obey without question: one would not be at all conscious of one’s own thought processes per se. Research into ‘command hallucinations’ that often direct the behaviour of those labelled schizophrenic, as well as other voice hearers, supports Jaynes’s predictions.” – Wikipedia Where Bicameral Man was highly intuitive and schizophrenic, Machine Man is highly sensory and autistic. “According to Jaynes, the older portions of the Old Testament (such as the Book of Amos) have few or none of the features of some later books of the Old Testament (such as Ecclesiastes)...” – Wikipedia If you read the Old Testament in general, it becomes obvious that you are dealing with a completely different kind of mentality. It’s more or less impossible for any modern, rational person to find any truth-content in the Bible. It reflects an incomprehensible worldview. Modern people who still believe in the Bible have very old brains. They have atavistic minds that can tune into the primitive thoughts of ancient human beings. They are themselves highly primitive thinkers – just look at any Muslim! Islam has no respect or tolerance whatsoever for critical analysis of the Koran, for scrutiny of the claims of Islam, for any exercise that subjects the Koran to detailed scientific, philosophical and mathematical dissection. “In ancient times, Jaynes noted, gods were generally much more numerous and much more anthropomorphic than in modern times, and speculates that this was because each bicameral person had their own ‘god’ who reflected their own desires and experiences.” – Wikipedia Nowadays, celebrities have replaced the gods. Everyone has their own set of celebrities that reflect their tastes. “He also noted that in ancient societies the corpses of the dead were often treated as though still alive (being seated, dressed and even fed) as a form

of ancestor worship, and Jaynes argued that the dead bodies were presumed to be still living and the source of auditory hallucinations.” – Wikipedia In the present day, at Halloween and the Day of the Dead, many people imagine the dead walking once more amongst the living. Food and drink are often left for them. Many people leave bottles of alcohol at gravesides to give the dead a last drink to commemorate the end of this party, and the start of the journey to the next. “This adaptation to the village communities of 100 individuals or more formed the core of religion. Unlike today’s hallucinations, the voices of ancient times were structured by cultural norms to produce a seamlessly functioning society.” – Wikipedia Why is Islam so popular in the modern world? It’s because of “cultural norms” ... the madness of Muslims is rendered culturally acceptable through ritualistic practices, uniform dress code, common food prohibitions, and so on. Muslims can’t see how mad they look to non-Muslims. “In Ancient Greek culture there is often mention of the Logos, which is a very similar concept. It was a type of guiding voice that was heard as from a seemingly external source.” – Wikipedia Logos was once conceived as the spoken “Word” (famously, Jesus Christ was called the “Word”). Gradually, it turned into the written, rational word, and was associated with education, learning, wisdom, reason and logic. “Jaynes inferred that these ‘voices’ came from the right brain counterparts of the left brain language centres – specifically, the counterparts to Wernicke’s area and Broca’s area. These regions are somewhat dormant in the right brains of most modern humans, but Jaynes noted that some studies show that auditory hallucinations correspond to increased activity in these areas of the brain.” – Wikipedia One of the tasks performed by the Illuminati in specific mind-expanding rituals is to reactivate these dormant areas. “Jaynes argues that schizophrenia is a vestige of humanity’s earlier bicameral state. Recent evidence shows that many schizophrenics do not just hear random voices but experience ‘command hallucinations’

instructing their behaviour or urging them to commit certain acts.” – Wikipedia Hypnosis can be likened to a kind of schizophrenia. Now the hypnotist provides the “command hallucinations instructing their behaviour or urging them to commit certain acts.” The fact that people can be hypnotised at all is indicative of some ancient brain system of the type described by Jaynes. “As support for Jaynes’s argument, these command hallucinations are little different from the commands from gods which feature prominently in ancient stories.” – Wikipedia What is “God” if not the ultimate source of commands? The desire of so many human beings to be commanded shows that this is an exceptionally deep-rooted part of the human psyche. The more a person becomes a commander, the more Godlike he becomes. Look at someone such as Hitler ... he was effectively God on earth. All of his commands were obeyed on fear of death. Like Jehovah, he could order a father to murder his innocent son as a test of faith and loyalty (and fear!), and be obeyed. “According to Jaynes, this bicameral mentality began malfunctioning or ‘breaking down’ during the second millennium BC. He speculates that primitive ancient societies tended to collapse periodically, (as in Egypt’s Intermediate Periods and the periodically vanishing cities of the Mayas) as changes in the environment strained the socio-cultural equilibria sustained by this bicameral mindset.” – Wikipedia It’s essential to make the Abrahamic mentality break down. Everything should be done to encourage the total collapse of Abrahamic culture. “The mass migrations of the second millennium BC, caused by Mediterranean-wide earthquakes, created a rash of unexpected situations and stresses that required ancient minds to become more flexible and creative.” – Wikipedia Globalisation and social networking will certainly change the way minds operate in the modern world. People of the pre-Internet age will begin to seem like a separate species. “Self-awareness, or consciousness, was the culturally evolved solution to this problem. This necessity of communicating commonly observed

phenomena among individuals who shared no common language or cultural upbringing encouraged those communities to become self-aware to survive in a new environment. Thus consciousness, like bicamerality, emerged as a neurological adaptation to social complexity in a changing world.” Internet Man will be very different from pre-Internet Man. This is a radically and rapidly changing world. People must adapt or perish. “Jaynes further argues that divination, prayer and oracles arose during this breakdown period, in an attempt to summon instructions from the ‘gods’ whose voices could no longer be heard. The consultation of special bicamerally operative individuals, or of casting lots and so forth, was a response to this loss, a transitional era depicted for example in the book of 1 Samuel. It was also evidenced in children who could communicate with the gods, but as their neurology was set by language and society they gradually lost that ability. Those who continued prophesying, being bicameral according to Jaynes, could be killed. Leftovers of the bicameral mind today, according to Jaynes, include religion, hypnosis, possession, schizophrenia and the general sense of need for external authority in decision-making.” – Wikipedia Were the prophets – Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed in particular – highly bicameral individuals? Were such “prophets” hearing the voice of God or the Devil? How would they know? The Devil, after all, is called the Father of Lies, and, in any case, regards himself as the True God.

The Decline of Humanity? According to the theory of evolution, things are ascending, getting fitter, better adapted to their environment. In the ancient world, however, the dominant idea was that of degeneration ... of humanity getting worse and worse. The ancients believed in involution (high to low) rather than evolution (low to high). Hesiod described five Ages of Humanity: 1) The Golden Age: Humans were created by the immortal gods and lived amongst them. Peace and harmony reigned. The earth provided everything everyone needed. No one needed to toil. People lived long, but retained a youthful appearance throughout. Their spirits later performed a guardianship role. Socrates’ daemon

– to whom he looked for guidance and inspiration – was such a spirit. 2) The Silver Age: Cracks started to appear in paradise. Strife and impiety surfaced. The gods were no longer held in respect. 3) The Bronze Age: War became the passion. Misery and suffering descended on the world. 4) The Heroic Age: This provided a welcome echo of the Golden Age. Humans became nobler again, more like the gods. 5) The Iron Age: Everything bad in humanity came to the surface. Human beings were revealed as almost demonic. They were gripped by evil, selfishness, greed, hate, arrogance, shamelessness, and narcissism. They revelled in lies and deceit. We remain stuck in this Age in the present day, although we might now call it the Industrial Age (the age of dark Satanic mills, as Blake put it), the soulless age of master-slave capitalism and mindless consumerism. The basic idea is that humans were once much more godlike, and much better able to mix with the gods and to understand them. We spoke “ghost” language rather than “machine” language. Today, we’d be much more comfortable with computers and robots than with angels and gods.

No Compromise If you are guided by your senses, and totally trust in your senses, you are a scientist. If you are guided by your reason and logic, and totally trust your reason and logic, you are a metaphysical mathematician. The first type swear by the scientific method of experimentation. The second type swear by the mathematical method, which involves exactly zero experiments. These are two blatantly different worldviews, indeed polar opposites. It’s farcical that science uses math. It has no conceivable right to do so. Science is the outright enemy of math. It promotes as truth and reality everything that’s absolutely incompatible with mathematical truth and reality. Science has no place for the principle of sufficient reason, whereas math is predicated on this principle. Reality cannot be intelligible (mathematical) and sensible (scientific). It’s one or the other. There is no possible compromise. Math is the precise

means by which all claims of science regarding ultimate reality are formally refuted. If math is right, science is ipso facto wrong!

It’s All In The Math Scientists believe only in spacetime. They can’t imagine anything other than spacetime. But they have no reason to believe that spacetime is all there is, bar their lack of imagination and mathematical literacy. Singularities exist in conjunction with spacetime, and singularities are minds. Matter is all about extension, spacetime and dimensionality. Mind is all about non-extension, frequency and dimensionlessness. It’s all in the math. If you do the math properly, you will inevitably arrive at Illuminism (scientific idealism) rather than scientific materialism.

The Math Conundrum Scientific materialism is predicated on a particular interpretation (distortion) of mathematics. It relies on dimensional, extended mathematics that addresses quantities such as mass, speed, volume, density, length, breadth, height ... everything measurable and quantifiable. Science is based on positive real numbers. No scientific theories conclude with imaginary, complex or negative quantities. (The only place where negative numbers routinely appear is in the context of “charge”.) Imaginary, complex and negative numbers are verboten in science. They are allowed to appear during the course of calculations, but must be entirely abolished by the end of those calculations. Max Born won a Nobel Prize really for doing nothing more than fallaciously getting rid of imaginary numbers from the final output of quantum mechanics. As for zero and infinity, they absolutely never feature in scientific mathematics. Science is formally said to break down at zero/infinity singularities. Science would have been entirely different if it had accepted dimensionless, unextended, frequency mathematics, hidden variables, rational unobservables, imaginary, complex and negative numbers, zero and infinity. It was purely because this was so difficult, and so seemingly abstract and unreal, that science proceeded the way it did. It always wanted measurable things (positive real numbers), and nothing else. The whole modus operandi of science, its entire character, flows from measurability and instrumentalism. If it can’t be measured, science says, if

there’s no instrument for it, it can’t exist. Science can’t measure and instrumentalise thoughts and the mind, so it says they don’t exist. It tries to define mind and thoughts in terms of measurable brain states, i.e. it compulsively seeks to define the unobservable and unmeasurable in terms of the observable and measurable; it obsessively attempts to apply the scientific method to them and never asks itself whether the scientific method might not in fact be severely limited in its scope. It never once doubts this method. It never once contemplates that there may be a vast reality beyond the reach of this method. Science will never be able to address mind and thoughts, anything unobservable, any hidden variables or rational unobservables.

***** Science is all about matching contingent spacetime formulae (hypothetical Forms) to measurable spacetime Content (empirical observations). That’s all it does. That’s why it’s so strongly associated with atheism, skepticism, nihilism, meaninglessness and purposelessness. Science can say nothing about non-spacetime formulae (ontological Forms) and non-spacetime Content (thoughts, feelings, emotions, will, desires, intuitions). It will never address the mind and its thoughts. It has no capacity for doing so. Science (physicalism) thinks of mathematics as something wholly separate from mind (non-physicalism). In fact, mathematics is mind! Thoughts in their basic form are simply sinusoidal waves, each with Form and Content, quantity and quality (qualia). Thoughts are both rational and empirical. They are rational in Form, and empirical in Content. Thoughts are experienced by the minds that think them (and minds are just autonomous, complete and consistent sets of sinusoids). This all occurs outside space and time, outside matter, in the mental – the mathematical – domain of frequency. Science will change irrevocably once it finally realises that dimensionless, unextended, mental mathematics (frequency mathematics) can be added to dimensional, extended, material mathematics (spacetime mathematics). It will change irrevocably once it realises that imaginary, negative and complex numbers, and zero and infinity, can be added to

positive real numbers above zero and less than infinity, i.e. the numbers that currently define science. Science is just the systematic misinterpretation of mathematics. Once it gets the math right, it will be cured of all of its silly, irrational and illogical materialist and empiricist ideology and dogmatism, all of its bizarre and crazy interpretations of reality. Science is a fallacious paradigm. It hasn’t realised that it’s actually a sensory distortion of mathematics. It would be nothing without mathematics, and that immediately means that the more it embraces mathematics, the better and truer it becomes. Eventually, science will simply be ontological mathematics, and what currently passes as science will be regarded as the empirical, phenomenal branch of ontological mathematics. The bulk of the New Science will address the rational, noumenal branches of ontological mathematics, where we find mind and thinking, i.e. the unextended, dimensionless, Cartesian world that science has hitherto entirely repudiated.

***** Old Science = Dimensional mathematics; extension; matter. New Science = Dimensionless mathematics and dimensional mathematics; the unextended and the extended; frequency and spacetime, mind and matter. It’s all in the math. Do the math!

***** Science is nothing but the denial of the existence of an ontological, noumenal, immaterial, frequency Singularity, outside space and time – the domain of mind. Science has zero evidence or proof that this domain doesn’t exist. Any coherent, rational, logical ontology and epistemology demands its existence. Science, of course, has no ontology and epistemology, and that’s exactly why it’s wrong. Science’s hatred of metaphysics has had the effect of destroying its ability to use math properly. Math itself is the ultimate metaphysical subject. Science believes that anything not related to dimensional mathematics can play no part in science. This is its central, catastrophic blunder. All that science has to do to become sane is embrace dimensionless mathematics. It

really is as straightforward, simple, logical and rational as that. That’s how mind can be added to matter.

***** Science is the Mythos that “matter” exists alone. The world we encounter is in fact both material and mental, but science has nothing to say about the latter, and tries to reduce it to material, measurable brains states, i.e. it seeks to make the dimensionless dimensional, a logical impossibility. It’s about time science became a Logos subject. It can do so only by recognising the primacy of mathematics, and the ontology of mathematics. Is that too much to ask? Science is not a rational subject. It’s the religion of the senses, and it declares anathema all things non-sensory. In its own way, it’s as much of a superstition as ancient religion. Religious superstitions concern the feelings, and scientific superstitions concern the senses.

The Dimensionless Dimensionlessness is defined by two numbers: zero and infinity, the flip side of each other. Neither can exist in the dimensional world. They are necessarily associated with immaterial singularities outside space and time. They are necessarily associated with mind and not matter. When science excludes zero and infinity, it thereby excludes mind, which is why science is so false in any claims it makes about ultimate reality. Science would be an honest subject if it admitted that it could say nothing about mind because mind is outside the scientific paradigm. Science doesn’t say that. Science says that mind is inside the scientific paradigm, being wholly derived from matter ... although it has absolutely no means to demonstrate this, and never will.

The Brain The brain is purely mathematical and performs nothing but mathematical operations. All the processes of our body – to which we never attend, and have no awareness – take place with wondrous, unconscious, mathematical precision. Consciousness, although it’s a mathematical phenomenon (like everything else in our world), is certainly not about formal, mechanical math. Consciousness is about will, desire, the emotions, the senses, mystical

intuitions and practical (rather than theoretical) reasoning. Mathematics, it must never be forgotten, is ontologically about Form and Content, but, culturally, society always links math to just Form, and uses science to address sensory Content, and psychology, philosophy, religion and art to address all other Content. Consciousness – unlike the unconscious – is designed for Content rather than Form, for induction rather than deduction, for information processing rather than for understanding what carries the information. Consciousness is about decision-making and teleology, not about what society regards as abstract mathematical calculations. Consciousness is about the practical, not the theoretical. Math, as society understands it, is always about the theoretical. However, math, ontologically, is Janus-faced. It has both an objective and subjective aspect, quantitative and qualitative, rational and empirical, theoretical and practical. It reflects both rational Form and empirical Content. To understand what reality actually is, what it’s made of, we must apply the objective, quantitative, rational, logical, and theoretical aspect of math, i.e. we must be rationalists looking to the intelligible world. However, to actually live in a mathematical world, we must apply the subjective, qualitative and practical aspect of math, i.e. we must be empiricists looking to the sensible and emotional worlds. The unconscious mind, for the most part, carries out automatic mathematical processes, with very little subjective, teleological input. The conscious mind, on the other hand, carries out non-automatic mathematical processes, highly driven by subjective agency (free will) and teleology, i.e. we use consciousness to plan how to achieve our aims. Our aims are never expressed as mathematical objectives, although, if we could see underneath all of our plans, hopes and dreams, we would discover that they all relate to our fundamental self-solving, self-optimising mathematical nature, and they are all designed to make us into perfected mathematical beings = GODS! In order to understand reality, to know it as it is in itself, as noumenon, we must overcome our ordinary consciousness, which is almost exclusively devoted to the phenomenal, to things as they appear to us. In terms of our survival and how well we flourish in society, reacting to appearances is enormously more important than understanding hidden noumena, so it’s no surprise that consciousness has evolved as it has. This was inevitable.

It’s exactly for this reason that it’s so hard to answer the mystery of existence, and so hard to consciously understand mathematics. That’s why it’s easy to fall into Mythos beliefs. “Explanations” that appeal to our desires, our will, our senses, our emotions, our faith, our mystical intuitions, our practical reason, will always be preferred to those based on pure reason, pure logic ... on pure, analytic, mathematical thinking. Yet only the latter is True. What a world! The universe in itself has no delusions at all, and is purely, objectively, mathematical. Human beings, on the other hand, are subjective and are imbued with delusions, falsehoods, errors, misinterpretations, faith, fantasies and Mythos. Such is the paradox of existence. Such is its dual nature. It’s light and dark, rational and empirical, Apollonian and Dionysian. In the Arthurian romances, the Lady of Shalott was forbidden to look at the world directly, so had to look at it obliquely via a mirror. Humanity is much the same. It cannot look at mathematical reality directly, and the mirror it uses to observe the world is human consciousness – the ultimate distorting mirror. We are victims of our own consciousness, of our own will, desires, emotions, senses and mystical intuitions. These are what stand between us and the Truth. Our conscious mind is the supreme agent of error. It’s the greatest liar there can possibly be, which is why it’s so much closer to the Devil than God. Why did we “Fall” from heaven to earth? Why did the material world beguile and bewitch us? Because of consciousness! Consciousness has no connection with the Truth. The reverse is the case. It’s mired in the Lie. Only the dialectic can eventually bring consciousness into a relationship with the Truth. The dialectic, over an immense period, banishes conscious errors, contradictions, inconsistencies, falsehoods, lies, delusions, fantasies and Mythos. In the end, it brings consciousness to Logos – to the Truth itself. Science believes that it’s on the side of the Truth. It’s not. It’s on the side of the delusional senses. It’s but a staging post on the path to the real Truth – mathematics.

The Unconscious and Conscious

The language of reality in itself is mathematics. The unconscious is mathematical. It’s ruled by numbers. Consciousness is expressed through manmade languages. It’s ruled by words, not numbers. It’s qualitative, not quantitative. Consciousness is no organ of truth. Only numbers are true (because they express the language of existence). Words are false because they are manmade. Only a lunatic would look to “ordinary language” to explain reality (as idiot philosophers such as Gilbert Ryle did). Manmade languages are the ultimate constructs, the supreme fabrications. They produce the Matrix in which humans relentlessly lie to themselves. Numbers are the antidote. Numbers are true. They are the only things which are. Why can’t the unconscious “talk” to the conscious? It’s because the unconscious reflects the language of existence ... mathematics (= numbers), while the conscious reflects manmade language = socially constructed and agreed words, reflecting the human condition, not the Truth. The unconscious and conscious communicate neither in numbers nor words. Rather, the former sends images to the latter, in dreams, which we must then seek to interpret.

The Answering Machine Pure mathematics is the quintessential subject for providing infallible, absolute answers. No other subject has this capacity, so, if mathematics is not the answer to existence, then existence has no answer. Some people might argue that the answer to existence is necessarily vague and imprecise. But how can reality have an approximate answer: a fuzzy, uncertain, probabilistic, statistical answer? That’s no answer at all. That’s mysticism, haziness, blurriness ... and eternal, necessary existence is none of those things. Reality in itself is exact, precise and analytic. The truth is either Truth, with a capital “T”, or it’s not truth at all, but mere interpretation, belief, conjecture, hypothesis and opinion. No “answer” that’s approximate can ever be part of a consistent and complete ontology and epistemology. It can’t be analytic, logical and precise. It can’t obey true conservation laws. If the “answer” to existence is approximate, there can be no true knowledge of anything, only vague “knowledge”, full of holes, incompleteness, inconsistencies, incompatibilities, contradictions and even errors – exactly as we see with scientific materialism!

In fact, if existence were built on anything other than a perfect ontology and epistemology, it would be unsustainable. Its inherent contradictions would instantly destroy it. Either existence would be entirely annihilated (hence there would be nothing but eternal non-existence), or it would comprise nothing but eternal chaos. Order, organisation and pattern would never appear. If you have any understanding of ontology and epistemology (which science doesn’t), you see that an ordered universe is the proof that existence is made of math. If anything else were the case, there would be either permanent disorder or nothing at all.

***** The Law of Energy Conservation, one of the most fundamental laws of all, is consistent solely with ontological mathematics as the true basis of energy. Only ontological mathematics provides an eternal, necessary framework in which energy can be perfectly, analytically, precisely conserved. In fact, all conservation laws point to mathematics as the ground of reality. If the answer to existence were not exact (i.e. mathematical) then no conservation law would ever actually be true. If the answer to existence is approximate, all so-called conservation laws would ipso facto be approximate too, meaning that they were not genuine conservation laws at all. They would leave scope for potentially catastrophic violations of conservation. Copenhagen quantum mechanics, with its untenable interpretation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, denies both that existence has an exact answer, and that there are any true conservation laws. In Copenhagen quantum mechanics, anything at all can happen ... the most improbable things aren’t forbidden, hence are certain to happen. This would inevitably result in reality degenerating into absolute chaos, or simply annihilating itself. Copenhagen quantum mechanics makes the preposterous claim that energy can be borrowed from time (the more that’s borrowed, the quicker it has to be repaid). Scientific materialism is so contemptuous of an exact answer to existence, so contemptuous of true energy conservation (i.e. eternal, necessary, instant-by-instant conservation) that it literally says that a whole universe can randomly jump out of non-existence for no reason. Even worse, infinite universes – the Multiverse – can do this too. The only

condition applied is that, on average, the overall energy should not exceed zero. Science is all about answers occurring within approximate ranges; ontological mathematics is about exact answers. These two approaches are associated with two radically different ontologies and epistemologies. They have nothing in common. You can be certain of one thing ... science is not the answer to anything at all. Ontologically and epistemologically, science is guaranteed to produce nothing but chaos, or total non-existence. It can under no circumstances account for the universe of staggering order that we actually encounter. Only its fraudulent use of mathematics gives science its apparent success.

***** Nothing is more demonstrative of the difference between materialism, and empiricism on the one hand, and idealism and rationalism on the other, than their respective definitions of what constitutes the law of energy conservation. For the latter, it’s an absolute, eternal, necessary law that can never be violated under any circumstances. For the former, it’s a temporal, contingent law and can be violated in at least two different ways: via contingent energy balancing, or contingent energy borrowing and subsequent repayment.

***** If we exist in a living mathematical universe, we can be sure it recognises all conservation laws exactly, it has an exact answer, and, what’s more, it will itself one day consciously arrive at this exact answer and thus attain Absolute Knowledge ... the knowledge of God. Ontological mathematics is the God Machine ... or, to be more accurate, the Evolving God Organism, destined to dialectically arrive at a divine Omega Point where it becomes exactly equivalent to the traditional notion of God.

Mathematical Beings Why are we obsessed with meaning, with purpose, with answering the big questions of life? It’s because we’re inherently mathematical beings, and mathematics, ontologically, is all about meaning, purpose and finding answers. Only beings made of math would ever be interested in solving the

mystery of existence. Any other creatures would simply accept whatever happened to them ... like mindless machines ... like scientists!

The Mad Universe Science says that you can randomly, miraculously and magically summon an entire universe out of nothing at all. If you can do this once, you can of course do it infinite times (since there’s no sufficient reason to prevent it), and thus create a Multiverse. So, universes of every conceivable character, size and type should at all times be randomly appearing out of nothing whatsoever, thus turning existence into nothing but random chaos, which is not at all what we observe. No scientist has ever plausibly explained how the randomist ideology and dogmatism of scientific materialism avoids a total universal collapse into infinite contingent regress, infinite chaotic regress, infinite uncertain regress, infinite statistical regress, infinite probabilistic regress, infinite indeterminism regress, and infinite acausation regress – leading to a universe of permanent disorder. Of course, scientists have more or less zero interest in disproving the ideology and dogmatism of science, and in fact they spend all of their time trying to justify it, no matter what, no matter how irrationally and illogically. Absolutely nothing is properly thought out in science since no ontological and epistemological principles – no analytic first principles – are ever applied to it. Science is an entirely ad hoc, arbitrary, heuristic system with no necessary consistency and completeness.

The Mind Enigma Nothing is more important than inserting mind into science, thus converting scientific materialism into scientific idealism (or scientific panpsychism). If we are to avoid making a total nonsense of the existing scientific framework, this goal can be accomplished solely mathematically. The task is not to ditch science, but to correct it. Science, rightly, rejects any non-mathematical intrusions, i.e. it won’t allow faith, mysticism or emotional Mythos into any of the formulae of science (tragically, it allows plenty of faith, mysticism and sensory Mythos

into the interpretation of those formulae). So, if mind is to make its longawaited appearance in science, this can be achieved via mathematics alone, and not via religion or philosophy. Ontological Fourier mathematics is the exact mathematical means to put mind into science, while retaining, largely intact, the existing scientific infrastructure. Fourier mathematics simply adds a frequency Singularity outside space and time (the domain of zero and infinity) to scientific spacetime. What’s so scary about that?

The Death Cult Materialists belong to a death cult. They are atheists, skeptics, cynics, and nihilists. Many of them are autistic and psychopathic. They deny meaning and purpose. They deny any spiritual component to existence. They deny substance, eternity, necessity, logic, the principle of sufficient reason. They are invariably empiricists who look to “evidence”, by which they mean only those things that can be repeatedly observed by the senses. They deny all hidden variables and all rational unobservables. They deny the ontology of mathematics.

Take Down All genuine intellectuals want to take down scientific materialism, to burst its bubble, to expose it as nothing but an elaborate heuristic fiction that’s utterly bankrupt as far as telling us anything about ultimate reality goes. Science is the Great Lie that must be overturned. It has replaced religion as the immense fraud that all intelligent human beings must resist and expose.

The Sci-Fi Illuminati “Adjustment Team [source of the movie The Adjustment Bureau] is a science fiction short story by Philip K. Dick (1954). ... The story has been described as Dick’s ‘first tentative try’ at Frederik Pohl’s ‘tunnel under the world’ theme, in which it is imagined that mundane existence is totally a product of unseen manipulators.” The popular mythology involving the “Illuminati” is the modern version of the ancient idea that gods and devils, angels and demons, are really running the world, and we are their helpless marionettes. After WWII, a notion

arose that hidden communists were everywhere, secretly taking over America (“reds under the beds”). Then came the notion that aliens were visiting the earth via UFOs, and experimenting on people [usually anally for some reason ... how very Freudian ... life is fucking you up the ass!], and generally controlling things. Some popular writers suggested that aliens were the truth behind the myths of gods and devils. Others suggested that aliens had genetically engineered apes to turn them into human beings. And so on. The “Illuminati” are today’s mythic version of this unseen group of puppetmasters. Historically, this all stems from the fact that the Illuminati were prominent behind the scenes in the three great Revolutions: those of America, France and Russia.

Intuition and Numbers KS: “Intuition = knowing the right numbers.” Exactly. You don’t need to be consciously brilliant at math to be able to use math optimally. Some special people have such powerful intuition that they can use math effortlessly, as second nature. To become a God, you don’t have to become the new Gödel (although it would certainly help). But you do have to “know the right numbers” intuitively. No tennis player gets out a calculator to work out how best to serve or return the ball. They perform all of the necessary calculations intuitively. Imagine having the intuitive capacity of an elite tennis player, but in every aspect of your life, in everything you do. Imagine perfectly returning everything life has to throw at you, and being able to serve perfectly, so that you get aces every time and totally dominate life. That’s what it means to know all the right numbers. Everything you do is a calculation, and most people screw up because they aren’t good enough at their sums! Their consciousness gets in the way.

Sense and Sensibility Empiricism: knowledge is sensation (Content). Rationalism: knowledge is reason (Form). All things in nature posses both Content and Form ... sensation, and the rational carrier of sensation, obeying rational laws of Form. What science

does is simply to match rational mathematical forms (patterns) to observed, empirical patterns in nature. That’s it!

The Ground Traditionally, the idea of an absolute ground of the world has been identified with the concept of God. It should in fact be identified with a God Equation, expressed through the fundamental ontological units of existence – monads. There’s no need for a religious Mythos conception of reality, only a mathematical Logos one. Mathematics is the basis of true religion – Logos religion ... religion consistent with reason, logic, ontology and epistemology.

Bias “Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. ... Confirmation bias can lead to the experimenter interpreting results incorrectly because of the tendency to look for information that conforms to their hypothesis, and overlook information that argues against it.” – Wikipedia “Observer bias: This refers to the cultural assumptions which all researchers bring to their work and which help determine their method of research and their observations. It has been argued by some that all enquiry (including ‘pure’ science) is simply a reflection of such biases. In any event, researchers are usually encouraged to make any known biases explicit in reporting their findings, in order to assist others wishing to reach a judgement as to the validity of the results.” – Gordon Marshall, A Dictionary of Sociology Confirmation bias is the tendency of a person to search for or interpret information in a manner that confirms their preconceptions. It’s closely related to observer bias [also called observer-expectancy effect, the experimenter-expectancy effect, expectancy bias, observer effect, or

experimenter effect] whereby a researcher expects a given result and unconsciously manipulates an experiment, or misinterprets data, in order to reach the desired outcome. Both of these effects are closely related to the bandwagon effect [groupthink], which is the tendency to do or believe things because many other people do or believe those things. Science is rife with people who manifest such biases. In fact, the whole of science is nothing but sensory bias, and the compulsion to interpret everything in sensory terms, and to deny the existence of anything that cannot be framed in those terms (such as the mind, soul, zero, infinity, complex numbers or God). Only reason can escape such biases since, when exercised properly, it reflects, eternal, infallible, absolute verities.

***** Religion, politics and conspiracy theories are even more committed to confirmation bias than science. Only ontological mathematics avoids this bias, since mathematical proposals are either right or wrong, with no interpretive grey area in-between.

Wholeness “[The] approach of wholeness could help to end the far-reaching and pervasive fragmentation that arises out of the mechanistic world view. In this flow, mind and matter are not separate substances. Rather they are different aspects of one whole and unbroken movement. ... The ability of form to be active is the most characteristic feature of mind, and we have something that is mind-like already with the electron.” – David Bohm David Bohm was one of the few scientists willing to stand up to the materialist orthodoxy. His “reward” was to be totally mocked and marginalised. There’s no greater irony than science’s claim that it supports freethinking. Henry Ford once said, “You can have any colour as long as it’s black.” Scientific materialism says, “You can have any science you like as long as it’s materialist.” Science refuses to listen to anything that’s incompatible with its ideology and dogmatism – hence it’s just like the Catholic Church. It also has its own Inquisition. It doesn’t torture renegade scientists, it simply removes their funding, and thus banishes them from the Church of Science.

The New God Ontological mathematics is about replacing “God” with the God Equation as the eternal, necessary foundation of existence. (Science refers to nothing eternal and necessary, which is why it relies on existence randomly jumping out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism.) Ontological mathematics is about replacing faith with reason, Mythos with Logos, “holy” books with math books, “holy” prophets with mathematical geniuses. Nothing is more important than that humanity should realise that what it previously regarded as God is in fact math, and that math, and only math, can “save” us. In fact, mathematics will transform us in the ultimate way – into Gods! That’s the promise of math. That’s the good news. That’s the gospel of the Illuminati.

***** “Geometry will draw the soul toward truth and create the spirit of philosophy.” – Plato

***** God is not the Creator, math is. Math is the basis of evolution. Evolution is just another term for describing the dialectical, teleological, self-optimising, self-solving process at the core of the living mathematical universe.

Life After Death “If we ask as to the future place of the soul we are not to think of the separation of the soul from the body as a change of place, since the soul has no determined place in a corporeal world, and, in general, occupies no place, but is in the spiritual world and in communion with spirits. ... It is remarkable how Kant proceeds further to describe without any hesitation the condition of the soul after death, in that it exchanges its sensuous vision which it enjoyed during life, with the spiritual vision, and that this is the other world. As regards the objects of that world they remain the same; they are not different in substance but only changed in being seen spiritually!” – Professor Heinze The view from the frequency domain (the world of photons) is entirely different from that of spacetime (the world of “matter”). The most “spiritual” people in the world are those who can start to see reality from

the photonic perspective. It’s a change from a scientific to a mathematical perspective (from a sensuous to a spiritual vision).

The Primitives Scientists are the primitives who believe that reality is all about the senses, and “evidence”. In fact, true reality is non-sensory and is all about reason, logic, math and proof. Nothing certain, absolute, perfect and infallible has ever been associated with the delusional senses. Scientists (empiricists) subscribe to “seeing is believing”. Rationalists subscribe to “reasoning is knowing”. The ultimate truths of reality are eternal and necessary. They have nothing to do with experiences, observations, observers, meditation, perceptions, the senses and experiments. You have 100% misunderstood the quest to solve the mystery of ultimate existence if you imagine it is in any way linked to empiricism. All the supreme truths are analytic and a priori and can be worked out without looking at the world once, or interacting with the world once. The eternal, necessary domain of frequency – the immaterial domain of the soul outside space and time – is an entirely rational, logical and mathematical domain. Leibniz said as much 300 years ago. The world’s smartest people, like Leibniz, never have an audience. They have no peers.

***** You cannot use empiricist thinking in connection with the soul. That’s why scientists can’t conceive of the soul and why they have no intellectual relationship with it. Scientists are as unenlightened as it’s possible to be. They are the people most alienated from their essential selves. Deep down, they believe themselves to be pointless, purposeless, meaningless machines, devoid of free will, assembled from mere chance and accident. The only true knowledge – eternal, necessary knowledge – is provided by reason. Empirical “knowledge” isn’t knowledge ... it’s experience, and experience is mired in subjectivity, opinion, conjecture, hypothesis, delusion, fantasy, belief, and interpretation. It relies on ad hoc, temporal, provisional, arbitrary, ever-changing, contingent schemas – exactly as we see with science. It’s a scandal that the word “science” is derived from the Latin scire: to know. If science is about knowledge, why can’t it tell us definitively,

absolutely and infallibly what ultimate reality is? Science ought to be renamed “Opinion.” This word means: “View, judgement founded upon probabilities, conjecture, fancy, belief, what one thinks, supposition.” Where religion is an emotional or mystical opinion, science is an opinion based on the highly dubious interpretation of sensory experiences. There’s absolutely no necessary connection between the non-analytic, irrational, illogical, contingent interpretation of human experiences – especially what is revealed to the human senses – and absolute, unquestionable knowledge that’s true for all time. Empiricism can never produce knowledge. Hume knew that. Kant didn’t. Neither philosophy nor science has ever faced up to Hume’s wholesale destruction of any possibility of reliable knowledge flowing from human experiences. Quite simply, if you want knowledge, then reason, logic and mathematics are the only shows in town.

Facts and Interpretations Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” This is the inevitable consequence of empiricism. With rationalism, there are eternal mathematical facts, and no interpretations. Empiricism and rationalism are utterly incompatible worldviews. The former is about interpretations, the latter about facts. Only the latter constitutes knowledge. The former is mere opinion and belief, and has nothing to do with real knowledge.

Eternity Eternity must be built from perfection ... not from and by God, but from and by mathematics. Mathematics is everything that “God” is supposed to be. “God” is the ultimate misnomer. It’s how Mythos humanity mislabelled the quintessence of Logos – math. Only mathematics can necessarily exist forever. Only mathematics is consistent with the eternal conservation of energy. Mathematics, ontologically, can never degrade, can never be depleted, can never lose energy, can never suffer heat death. It’s a perpetual motion machine, or, rather, perpetual motion living, mental organism. Mathematics is Living Reason. Mathematics is Living Light.

Possibility

Mathematics defines what is possible. Anything mathematically impossible ipso facto cannot exist.

“God” Mathematics is “God”. “God” is the “God Equation” ... the eternal, necessary ground of everything ... the cosmic formula for immortal life ... Plato’s Form of Life.

Science Science likes to portray itself as the neutral, rational, dispassionate, disinterested, objective pursuit of the Truth. In fact, it’s an utterly partisan undertaking, determined to present a particular view of the world – that of materialism and empiricism. Scientists don’t listen to facts and arguments. No scientist on earth can demonstrate that empiricism is superior to rationalism, or materialism to idealism. They simply assume this to be the case, while having zero evidence or proof. Scientists are quasi-religious fanatics, with whom you cannot have a rational, philosophical debate. They openly sneer and scoff at philosophy. They ought to sneer and scoff at their own untenable, ignorant, puerile beliefs.

Math What is math? Math is the perfect fabric of existence. It’s the brickwork of reality. Math is the perfect energy source of the universe. This is the most remarkable energy of all ... it’s the energy of pure reason, driving the Hegelian dialectic. It’s living energy ... thinking energy. What it’s striving to do is optimise itself, solve itself. We inhabit a living mathematical system working out how to answer itself, and we are all nodes in its calculation. The result that the existential calculation produces in the end is “God”, and we all share in that divinity. Ontological mathematics guarantees that every single one of us will become God. What could be a more perfect system than that?

Approximation Models are approximations to reality. Science is a model, so what is it that it approximates? Science approximates ontological mathematics = reality. Science is successful for one reason alone: it uses mathematics to model its observations of the world. And, by the same token, science is disastrously

unsuccessful when it comes to describing ultimate reality because science is all about observations, but ultimate reality – reality in itself – isn’t observable. Therein lies the fundamental problem of science, the problem that no scientist ever addresses.

Simplify and Reduce “Every time we want to understand anything, we have to simplify and reduce and, importantly, give up the prospect of understanding it all, in order to clear the way to understanding something at all. This, I think, is true of all human inquiry.” – Zia Haider Rahman No, to simplify, reduce and analyse does not mean that we cut ourselves off from the big picture. Reality results from the very simple, reduced and analytic. It’s hardly going to be made of the complex “big picture”, is it? The whole point of evolution is that complex things are built up from simple things. Complex bodies are the products of countless simple, repeating cells, expressing themselves in different ways. Isn’t it amazing that people who claim to believe in evolution – in the simple producing the complex – then turn round and say that we can’t understand reality via the simple? Well, that means we can’t be living in an evolutionary world! The only way to understand reality is, as Leibniz realised, to understand the simple substances from which it’s made, and see how complexity arises from the simples. There’s no other way. That’s exactly why mathematics – the quintessence of the reductive, analytic and simple – is the means by which we understand reality. Consider water. As a manifold, it seems incredibly complex, yet it’s just an enormous collection of simple H2O molecules, and the interactions between those molecules. Anyone who understands the Periodic Table of Chemistry knows that Zia Haider Rahman is totally wrong. All complex compounds and molecules are built up from the simple, pure, atomic elements. Understanding comes exactly from reduction, simplification and analysis, from finding the basic units that comprise the complex ensembles of things. If we couldn’t carry out this deconstruction, we would never understand anything at all.

The whole problem with mainstream religion is that it always looks to more complex things to explain simpler things, i.e. it looks to God – the most complex things conceivable – to explain the world, and thus simply begs the question of God’s existence. Like Zia Haider Rahman, religion subscribes to an anti-evolutionary and anti-reductionist worldview. It thinks that explanation is complex rather than simple. This is total nonsense. You must reduce, reduce, reduce; simplify, simplify, simplify; analyse, analyse, analyse. Find the basic bricks of existence and then build up everything else from them. Identify and understand the notes of the piano, and then you can play any tune you like. Don’t try to work out what music is from a completed symphony. The task is to get to the simple notes from which the symphony is produced.

Mathematical Freedom Mathematics frees us from conscious subjectivity and arbitrariness, from our emotions, experiences, senses, desires, will and mystical intuitions. These have no bearing on objective mathematics. Only mathematic is rigorous, systematic and analytic. Everything else is belief, delusion, opinion, conjecture and interpretation. Mathematics is the ultimate egalitarian, equal opportunities, meritocratic subject. It doesn’t care about how much money you had when you were growing up, who your parents were, where you lived, what your social status was, how popular and fashionable you were. All that matters is how good you are at it, how talented, how meritorious. Mathematics is the supreme hammer that smashes to smithereens all bullshit and charlatanry. You can bullshit a bullshitter. You can’t bullshit a mathematician. No blowhard can succeed in mathematics. You have to put up or shut up. You have to walk the walk, and not ... like so many ... just talk the talk. It has been said that the reason the world doesn’t hear much about Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems is that they concern Truth, and who cares about THAT? That’s exactly right. Humanity is an inherently mendacious species. It has no regard for Truth. Human consciousness is dishonest, selfserving, egotistic and delusional. To get to the Truth, we have to overcome ourselves, our own conscious self-deceit. That’s why the Truth is the hardest thing of all. People say that the world doesn’t make sense, but of course it does ... exactly because it’s a mathematical world, hence has an analytic answer.

The world that doesn’t make sense is the emotional, irrational, sensory, wilful, mystical interpretive world of consciousness. It’s consciousness that hides the Truth from us. Consciousness has its own priority – success in life: power, attractiveness, popularity, wealth, glory, the sexiest partners, the best jobs and careers, the best homes, best possessions, fastest cars, biggest yachts, most money, most luxurious lifestyle, highest status, most adulation, and so on. Absolutely none of that has any connection with Truth, yet it’s what drives each and every one of us on a daily basis. Our vanity is far more important to us than philosophy and mathematics. We prioritised worldly success and power over unworldly Truth. That’s the history of the human race in nutshell. We have a Will to Power, not a Will to Truth. Power and Truth align only at the Omega Point. What could be more problematic for the human race? – the gate to the Truth, to knowledge of ultimate reality, opens to you only if you overcome your own consciousness, your own vanity, selfishness and egotism. You have to abandon your Ego Trip if you want to enjoy the trip to gnosis, enlightenment, the Truth ... to divinity. The Gods aren’t the most arrogant of beings. They’re the opposite ... the most humble. They’re humble in the company of knowledge and Truth, and that’s what allows them to learn and grow. Narcissists learn only what’s useful to them. If mathematical Truth delivers no advantage to a narcissistic psychopath, he will have zero interest in it. That’s true for the whole of humanity. The only human beings who like mathematics are those who are socially empowered by it (by getting high-paying tech jobs thanks to it), or those who love the Truth, and know that there’s no Truth other than mathematical Truth. “The truth will set you free” = “Math will set you free”.

***** The Truth is Logos. It’s all about reason and intellect. Humanity’s tragedy is that it has always considered the Truth to be Mythos, i.e. concerned with “holy” books, religious revelations, prophets, popes, priests, gurus, messiahs, faith, the senses, the emotions, mystical intuitions, personal epiphanies and subjective experiences. Absolutely none of that will you help you, and you’re living in a fantasy world if you think it will. Sadly, humans are the experts in believing their own propaganda, and subscribing to their own fantasies.

Saul On The Road To Damascus “About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’” – Acts 26:13-15 So, Saul’s companions all saw the blinding light. It’s possible that they also heard the voice that spoke to Saul. “The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.” – Acts 9:7 So, Saul’s companions saw no light, but heard the voice. “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” – Acts 22:9 So, Saul’s companions saw the light, but heard no voice. Well, that just about covers every option regarding what Saul’s companions may have seen or heard. Who writes this stuff? Didn’t anyone do any fact checking? Who believes this stuff? It’s total drivel. It’s embarrassing! If the Bible is the Word of God, he needs a new speechwriter who isn’t either a compulsive liar or a totally unreliable witness.

***** If Saul persecuted Christ, why was he saved by Christ and not condemned to Hell? Everyone who rejects Christ is damned, but here we see a clear example where Christ chooses to perform a miracle to convert a persecutor and disbeliever. If he can do this why Saul, why not with all such people? Why does anyone get sent to hell? It’s clear that Christ can and does intervene at any time to save those who oppose him, so why doesn’t he do this uniformly and save everyone? He seems remarkably capricious, unpredictable, and unjust ... hardly what you would expect of “God”.

The Structure of Reason It has been said that logic is the structure of reason. In fact, math is the structure of reason, and math is the structure of logic. There could be no reason and logic without ontological mathematics. Without ontological

mathematics, there would be only chaos, disorder, disorganisation, unreason and illogic.

The Truth For Truth, you can’t look to words, only numbers. Numbers, and their relations, are the eternal truths of reason and logic. Numbers are the true language of existence, exactly as Pythagoras told us two and half thousand years ago. Humanity, as ever, didn’t listen. It preferred “holy” books, “sacred” scriptures ... lots of mad stories. Science is more successful than religion and philosophy purely because it uses numbers. Mathematics is inherently about numbers, not as an external, heuristic add-on (as in science, which is all about sensory matter rather than numbers), hence is vastly superior to science. Numbers are both quantitative and qualitative. Each has a particular Form, and a particular Content. Each is experienced in a different and unique way. You will never understand reality unless you grasp that numbers are ontological, and both rational and empirical. As an academic subject, mathematics treats numbers as pure abstractions. True mathematics – ontological mathematics – acknowledges that numbers are real, concrete things: energy frequencies, to be exact. Each is experienced. This gives them a specific quality, as well as a specific quantity. Mathematics is everything, and it needs to be both rational and empirical in order to explain everything; it needs to have both Form and Content. All of humanity’s problems with understanding existence flow from an inability to understand what math actually is in real terms. Science uses math purely quantitatively, and ignores its qualitative aspects. It regards math as nothing but an unreal abstraction rather than the very fibre and fabric of existence. Once science realises that mathematics, ontologically, is both quantitative and qualitative, there’s no further need for science! Science is the subject that adds qualitative, sensory, heuristic fictions to mathematical quantities. There’s no need for this. All qualities are strictly mathematical. Every ontological quality is directly attached to an ontological number (quantity). The number (energy frequency) is the information carrier; the quality is the experiential information carried by it. It’s all in the math.

Madness and Genius

The late John Nash was a genius. He was able to see reality in a radically different way from normal people. John Nash was also mentally ill. His genius flowed from his mental illness. However, one does not need to be mad, or to take drugs, to see reality differently from others. Humans come to the world emotionally, mystically (intuitively), or sensorily. That’s how they “see” things. To see reality differently, one need only apply reason and logic ... something that barely any human beings can do. The human misunderstanding of reality is just one giant product of the inability to think rationally, logically and mathematically. Science is the best that weakminded humans have come up with: an illogical comprise between empiricism and rationalism.

Speed and Endurance Lies have speed; truth has endurance. Lies are shallow; truth is deep.

Relativism Anyone who says, “My Truth is my Truth” is an absolute enemy of Absolute Truth. There is only one Truth, not as many Truths as there are people. All relativists say that their own experiences are the Truth. This is solipsism and narcissism. The Truth is eternal, necessary and Absolute, and wholly independent of any person and their experiences. The Truth is math. There is no other Truth. Opinions, beliefs, interpretations and self-delusions are not Truth. They are Mythos nonsense, opposed to the Logos Truth. If your experiences are the Truth, all insane people are in as close contact with the Truth as you are ... which makes you as mad as they are!

***** No one can be a rationalist and an empiricist at the same time. If you believe that your experiences are the Truth, hence that everyone has full access to the Truth by the mere fact of having experiences, you are an unashamed empiricist and totally opposed to rationalism. For rationalists, there’s a single rational Truth for all of existence, and it has nothing to do with anyone’s private experiences, sensations, feelings, and mystical ideas.

***** “If you chase two rabbits, you will catch neither.” – Russian proverb

If you subscribe to both rationalism and empiricism, you haven’t understood either. They are opposite ways of understanding reality, and have precisely nothing in common. In Jungian psychology, thinking and feeling are opposite ways of evaluating information, and sensing and intuition are opposite ways of gathering information. The thinking evaluating function is radically different when combined with sensing rather than with intuition. With sensing, it leads to science and empiricism, and with intuition it leads to mathematics and rationalism. When the feeling evaluating function is allied with sensing it leads to Abrahamism. When it’s allied with intuition, it leads to Eastern mysticism.

Commonalities Abrahamism

Mathematics

Abrahamism

Science

Eastern Mysticism

Mathematics

Eastern Mysticism

Science

Science

Mathematics

Eastern Mysticism

Abrahamism

Both emphasise evaluation; Abrahamism does so in terms of feelings, and mathematics in terms of thinking. Both use sensory information gathering (in the case of Christian Abrahamism, “God” allegedly incarnated on earth in human, sensory form). Both use intuitive information gathering. Both emphasise the gathering of information. Both use thinking, but in different ways. The latter is about reason; the former is about using reason to explain sensations. The latter is about rationalism, the former about empiricism. Both use feelings, but in different ways. The latter is about pure feeling towards a

Super Being; the former is about using feelings to evaluate intuitions. The latter is about theism, the former about pantheism.

Three Options There are three possibilities regarding the Truth: 1) Existence has no answers, i.e. there is no Truth (total skepticism). 2) Existence has one answer, i.e. there is an Absolute Truth (often called “God”, but actually the God Equation). 3) Existence has as many truths as there are people, i.e. there are countless relative truths. Truth is whatever you personally deem it to be, which is actually just a variant of option 1, i.e. there is no Truth at all since there is no standard upon which everyone can agree. Mathematics alone can deliver Absolute Truth. Nothing preceded mathematics. Nothing created mathematics. Mathematics is eternal and necessary ... and that’s exactly why it’s the full and final Truth.

***** “That which seems the height of absurdity in one generation often becomes the height of wisdom in the next.” – John Stuart Mill The people of today regard it as the height of absurdity that mathematics should be proposed as the answer to existence. The Coming Race of tomorrow will regard this proposal as the highest possible wisdom, and totally self-evident.

Hinduism and Nothingness “Mathematics is sometimes called the Queen of Science because mathematics supports science by its rational rules of analysis and proof.” – Akhandadhi Das

If mathematics “supports” science by its rational rules of analysis and proof then either: 1) all of science is rational and susceptible to mathematical proof, which means that science is in fact just math, or 2) there is an undefined part of science that isn’t rational and isn’t susceptible to mathematical proof, which raises the question of how any part of science can be compatible with math, i.e. we have encountered a variation of Cartesian substance dualism. How can the parts of science that are rational and mathematical interact with those parts of science that aren’t rational and mathematical? How can such a system possibly be coherent, consistent and complete? Scientific empiricism, a system for sensory information gathering, cannot be epistemologically compatible with mathematical rationalism, a system for evaluating non-sensory information. While mathematics can be used scientifically to reproduce observable patterns in Nature, it’s a category error to scientifically apply mathematics to anything unobservable. Singularities cannot be objects of science. Unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunctions cannot be objects of science. The invisible, rolled-up dimensions of string theory cannot be objects of science. Massless, dimensionless, unextended photons outside space and time cannot be legitimate objects of science. Time, an unobservable, ontologically undefined entity (within science), cannot be a valid object of science. Science is full of things that do not properly belong to science at all, but to ontological mathematics. Science is littered with category mistakes, but scientists are too philosophically ignorant to notice. Science is weighed down with incompatibilities, inconsistencies and incompleteness, all of which are overlooked as science sweeps forward with its delusional heuristic fictions. “Hindu thinkers embraced mathematics thousands of years ago as a precise form of philosophical reasoning.” – Akhandadhi Das If this were true, why isn’t Hinduism expressed mathematically? Hinduism doesn’t feature a single mathematical equation. Compare and contrast Hinduism with ontological mathematics. “And there are links between the [Hindu] appreciation of mathematical concepts and some of its most profound philosophical ideas. For example, academics have noted that the concept of zero as a number was a natural

outcome of an Indian culture that contemplated the possible non-existence of the cosmos at some starting-point of time.” – Akhandadhi Das Herein lies a fundamental problem. “Zero” does not mean “non-existence”. Zero means dimensionless mathematics ... something that has a net effect of “nothing”, not something that is nothing, i.e. non-existence. “But, rather than conclude that there is absolutely nothing prior to the universe, the Hindu proposition is that some form of reality – called Brahman – exists outside of time.” – Akhandadhi Das Well, is Brahman zero or non-zero? In Illuminism, an immaterial frequency Singularity of monadic souls exists outside space and time, and is the ground of matter, space and time. The Singularity is the domain of zero and infinity. “It is this energy of Brahman – or a part of it – that is transformed into the material universe we see around us.” – Akhandadhi Das If Brahman is equated to the Singularity, we entirely agree, but why refer to something mystical (Brahman) when we can refer to something analytic (mathematical). Ontological mathematics replaces Hinduism wholesale, just as it replaces scientific materialism wholesale. “How Brahman can exist as both the origin of the material world and as its transformed manifestation is explained in the philosophical theory of ‘simultaneous oneness and difference’.” – Akhandadhi Das The Singularity is made of countless singularities. The One (the collective Singularity) comprises the Many (individual singularities). The Singularity of singularities is therefore both the One and the Many ... oneness and difference. “It’s said that as eternal spiritual beings, we are one with, yet distinct from, the Supreme Soul, God.” – Akhandadhi Das We are one with, yet distinct from, the Singularity. We are individual singularities within the collective Singularity.

Dual Brain Theory

“The dual brain theory claims that the two cerebral hemispheres of the brain may sense and react to the environment independently from one another and that as a result of emotionally traumatic experience, one half may dominate the other in order to reduce the traumatized hemisphere’s exposure.” – Wikipedia For Jungian personality types to be valid reflections of reality, it’s essential for the two hemispheres to be distinct, and to reflect different capacities: to sense, evaluate and react differently to the environment. The left hemisphere is about thinking, sensing, extraversion and consciousness; the right hemisphere is about feeling, intuition, introversion and the unconscious. We can describe the left brain as the atheistic “scientific” brain, dedicated to matter, space, time, and spacetime causation ... everything visible, concrete and obvious. The right brain is the spiritual “religious” brain, dedicated to the immaterial mental domain outside space and time, to mental causation, to everything invisible and unobvious. In these terms, the evolution of the bicameral mind to consciousness involved a transition from a religious to a scientific (atheistic) worldview. It wasn’t so much the case that the bicameral mind was formally unconscious. Rather, it was differently conscious. It was much more introverted and spiritual, much less concerned with matter and spacetime. It might usefully be called an LSD Mind ... i.e. bicameral people would have seemed as though they were hallucinating and “tripping”. Conventional spacetime relations would have meant very little to them. Where the atheistic, scientific mind is unconcerned with meaning and purpose, and is devoted to mechanical process, the spiritual, religious mind is obsessively concerned with meaning and purpose, and has very little interest in mechanical process. Alternatively, we could say that the left hemisphere is all about extraversion, about spacetime, about what’s evidently “out there” (matter), while the right hemisphere is all about introversion, about the immaterial frequency domain outside space and time, about what’s “in here” (mind). In these terms, the left hemisphere reflects extraverted thinking, extraverted feeling, extraverted sensing, extraverted intuition and extraverted consciousness, while the right hemisphere reflects introverted thinking, introverted feeling, introverted sensing, introverted intuition and introverted consciousness (the unconscious!). In other words, each hemisphere has a full set of the Jungian cognitive functions of thinking, feeling, sensing and

intuition (rather than each of these functions being specific to one hemisphere, hence absent from the other), but each hemisphere is exclusively dedicated to a particular Jungian attitude (extraversion or introversion). We might also say that the left hemisphere reflects a judging preference, and the right hemisphere a perceiving preference. Dimensional (spacetime) mathematics and physics are very much associated with the left hemisphere; dimensionless mathematics and metaphysics are associated with the right hemisphere, as are pure reason and logic. Kantian phenomena relate to the left hemisphere, and Kantian noumena to the right hemisphere. When Kant wrote his “Critique of Pure Reason”, he was criticising reason and logic applied to noumena rather than phenomena, hence he was siding with science and empiricism, and opposing mathematics and rationalism. The left hemisphere revolves around Fourier spacetime functions, and the right hemisphere around Fourier frequency functions. It’s all in the math. The conscious relates to spacetime and individuation, the unconscious to frequency and interconnectedness. Given this inherent dualism in how we process and evaluate information, it’s no wonder that humanity has struggled so much to understand reality. Dualism is literally built into our two-chambered brains. “This theory is an extension of split-brain studies of epileptic patients having the corpus callosum severed in order to reduce seizures, but it has recently begun to be studied in patients who have experienced traumatic events without any kind of brain surgery. In essence, this theory can apply to anyone.” – Wikipedia It’s not just “traumatic” events that cause hemispheric imbalance. The very process of living causes it. As we grow and mature, we adopt certain habits and attitudes that reflect different hemispheric capacities, and, the older we get, the more entrenched these propensities become, until they furnish us with a fully fledged Myers-Briggs personality type. In a sense, we are all traumatised. All of us seek out certain scenarios, and actively avoid others. These others would cause us discomfort ... trauma. “Studies of healthy people with intact corpora callosa also indicate differing abilities or emotional responses associated with the two hemispheres.” – Wikipedia

This is exactly what would be expected if Jungian personality typing is correct. However, many scientists and neuroscientists scoff at Jungian psychology and regard it as a kind of elaborate astrology. The more you disregard the reality and agency of the mind, as scientists do, the more likely you are to dismiss psychological typing. Can anyone assign personality types to machines? If we are machines, we are devoid of personality. Only “ghosts” can have personalities. “The ‘dual brain theory’ is consistent with psychological studies suggesting that the brain compartmentalises different information. Further interpreted, it means the right side of the brain is predominantly pictorial, intuitive and creative, whereas the left side of the brain specialises in processing logical and verbal functions. This can be closely linked to consumer buying behaviour and how individuals process perceived information.” – Wikipedia We are, in a sense, entirely a product of how we compartmentalise different types of information. Scientists put all information that they regard as real into the sensory category, and consider everything else unreal. They are driven by Fourier spacetime processing, and dismiss Fourier frequency processing. Left brain logic and reason concern words (manmade language); right brain logic and reason concern numbers (math = natural language). The left brain concerns external visualisation (looking at the actual world); the right brain concerns internal visualisation (picturing mathematical objects, for example). The left brain concerns external images, and the right brain internal images. When we are awake, we are consciously preoccupied with images gathered from the external world. When we dream, our unconscious actively presents images it has constructed to our passive conscious.

Mythopoeic Thought “Mythopoeic thought is a hypothetical stage of human thought preceding modern thought, proposed by Henri Frankfort and his wife Henriette Antonia Frankfort in the 1940s. According to this proposal, there was a ‘mythopoeic’ stage, in which humanity did not think in terms of generalizations and impersonal laws: instead, humans saw each event as an act of will on the part of some personal being. This way of thinking supposedly explains the ancients’ tendency to create myths, which portray

events as acts of gods and spirits. A physiological motivation for this was suggested by Julian Jaynes in 1976 in the form of ‘Bicameralism’.” – Wikipedia Mythopoeic thinking is classical ghost thinking (religious and spiritual). Humanity is in the transition between Mythos (religion) and Logos (mathematics), with philosophy and science acting as the bridges. Philosophy and science offer a depersonalised, sensory Mythos rather than the personalised, emotional Mythos of religion. Philosophy emphasises abstract thinking, while science focuses on the concrete senses (hence regards philosophy as unreal). Mathematics is neither sensory nor emotional, and has no connection with Mythos. Ontological mathematics removes math from the abstract sphere to the concrete sphere, i.e. it doesn’t suppose math to be something separate from the world. It makes math the unseen, unexperienced fibre and fabric of existence. “According to the Frankforts, ‘ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians lived in a wholly mythopoeic world’.” – Wikipedia Muslims, Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians in today’s world continue to live in a wholly mythopoeic world. They regard ancient texts, full of absurd superstitions and primitive ideas about reality, to be the Truth. They reject all modern knowledge: all philosophy, all science, all math. These people are literally retarded. They have failed to evolve. The future will treat them as harshly as it does all non-evolving things ... it will render them extinct. They will assuredly join the dinosaurs, with whom they share the same intellectual capacity. “Each natural force, each concept, was a personal being from the Frankforts’ viewpoint: ‘In Egypt and Mesopotamia the divine was comprehended as immanent: the gods were in nature.’ This immanence and multiplicity of the divine is a direct result of mythopoeic thought: hence, the first step in the loss of mythopoeic thought was the loss of this view of the divine. The ancient Hebrews took this first step through their doctrine of a single, transcendent God: ‘When we read in Psalm 19 that “the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork,” we hear a voice which mocks the beliefs of the Egyptians and Babylonians. The heavens, which were to the psalmist but a witness of God’s greatness, were to the Mesopotamians the very majesty of godhead, the highest ruler,

Anu. [...] The God of the psalmists and the prophets was not in nature. He transcended nature – and transcended, likewise, the realm of mythopoeic thought.’” – Wikipedia The ancients had an entirely “ghost” understanding of reality. There was no concept whatsoever of a machine world. What we need to do is leave behind the irrational, Mythos, religious conception of “ghost” and move to a rational, Logos, mathematical conception of “ghost”, i.e. to the monadic ghost. Contrary to what the Frankforts claimed, the Jews were as mythopoeic as the Egyptians and Babylonians. The only change they made was to render God primarily transcendent rather than immanent (although the Abrahamic God is still conceived to be everywhere in the world, watching, knowing and having foreknowledge of everything that happens, hence is really every bit as immanent as the older gods; all that has changed is the vocabulary concerning where the home of divinity is ... for the Egyptians and Babylonians it’s in the world, and for the Jews it’s outside the world). “The ancient Hebrews still saw each major event as a divine act. However, they saw the divine as a single being – not a myriad of spirits, one for each natural phenomenon. Moreover, they didn’t see the divine as a will within nature: for them, the divine will was a force or law behind all natural events.” – Wikipedia Strangely enough, the Jewish transition away from many gods to just one god paved the way for the rise of science. All that was required was to turn the “God” that controlled everything and stood behind all natural events into the Scientific Law that controlled everything and stood behind all natural events. On the same lines, ontological mathematics simply converts “God” into the God Equation. “Some Greek philosophers went further. Instead of seeing each event as an act of will, they developed a notion of impersonal, universal law: they finally abandoned mythopoeic thought, postulating impersonal laws behind all natural phenomena. These philosophers may not have been scientific by today’s rigid standards: their hypotheses were often based on assumptions, not empirical data. However, by the mere fact that they looked behind the apparent diversity and individuality of events in search of underlying laws,

and defied ‘the prescriptive sanctities of religion’, the Greeks broke away from mythopoeic thought.” – Wikipedia Note how the phrase “their hypotheses were often based on assumptions, not empirical data” already reflects and presupposes the correctness of a scientific conception of reality. The idea that “empirical data” is essential to any successful hypothesis is itself an assumption, grounded in nothing but sensory prejudice. The ancient Greek philosophers were, in effect, attempting to define the ontological state prior to the Big Bang, and this was indeed a totally non-sensory, non-empirical state. Many aspects of ancient Greek philosophical thinking are far advanced of modern scientific materialist thinking. You see a Mythopoeic person whenever you notice anyone wearing odd, anachronistic clothing, such as turbans, funny dark hats, braces, hijabs, burqas, dangly strings ... when you see people with religious beards, religious wigs, religious ringlets, strange religious strands of hair, and so on. Why is “God” so interested in human hair?! Is he some sort of kinky hair fetishist? Has he got nothing better to do with his time?

***** Thesis: The religious “ghost” view of reality is highly personal. Antithesis: The scientific “machine” view of reality is highly impersonal. Synthesis: The mathematical “ghost” view of reality is highly impersonal in terms of the mathematics it deploys, and yet highly personal insofar as mathematics is ontologically expressed through living monadic minds – the true “ghosts”.

The Left Brain Interpreter “In neuropsychology the left brain interpreter refers to the construction of explanations by the left brain in order to make sense of the world by reconciling new information with what was known before. The left brain interpreter attempts to rationalize, reason and generalize new information it receives in order to relate the past to the present.” – Wikipedia The function of consciousness is to reflect on the past, and plan for the future (to make the past better than, or at least as good as, the past, and

certainly no worse). Consciousness has to construct explanations to rationalise actions actually decided and taken by the unconscious (the right brain). “The concept was first introduced by Michael Gazzaniga while he performed research on split-brain patients during the early 1970s with Roger Sperry at the California Institute of Technology. Sperry eventually received the 1981 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his contributions to splitbrain research. In performing the initial experiments, Gazzaniga and his colleagues observed what happened when the left and right hemispheres in the split brains of patients were unable to communicate with each other. In these experiments when patients were shown an image within the right visual field (which maps to the left brain hemisphere), an explanation of what was seen could be provided. However, when the image was only presented to the left visual field (which maps to the right brain hemisphere) the patients stated that they didn’t see anything.” – Wikipedia Scientists, like split-brain patients presented with items in their left visual field, are completely blind to what’s actually there. Scientists have wiped out the whole of intuitive, intelligible reality because their brains are wired for considering only sensory things upon which they can perform experiments. “However, when asked to point to objects similar to the image, the patients succeeded. Gazzaniga interpreted this by postulating that although the right brain could see the image it could not generate a verbal response to describe it.” – Wikipedia Mathematics is the language science needs to deploy if it ever wishes to describe and define all those things that are unavailable to the senses. Presently, science has no vocabulary, and no scope in its model, for addressing “hidden variables”. In fact, it specifically rejects them. “The drive to seek explanations and provide interpretations is a general human trait, and the left brain interpreter can be seen as the glue that attempts to hold the story together, in order to provide a sense of coherence to the mind.” – Wikipedia Consciousness is the left brain interpreter. The unconscious resides in the right brain. In bicameral days, the unconscious spoke to us. Now it’s silent,

except in our dreams, and in conditions such as schizophrenia, where the left brain censors have ceased to prevent right brain activity from entering consciousness. “In reconciling the past and the present, the left brain interpreter may confer a sense of comfort to a person, by providing a feeling of consistency and continuity in the world.” – Wikipedia One of the primary aims of consciousness is to produce a consistent, continuous 24/7 narrative, thus establishing a sense of enduring Self and personal identity, without which we would not be an “I”. “However, the facile explanations provided by the left brain interpreter may also enhance the opinion of a person about themselves and produce strong biases which prevent the person from seeing themselves in the light of reality and repeating patterns of behaviour which led to past failures.” – Wikipedia Consciousness is the source of delusion, of lies, of self-serving stories (to establish a self-aggrandising personal Mythos). Many, if not most, of the explanations with which we provide ourselves regarding our selves, society and reality are ridiculous. Organised religion is about as ludicrous as it gets ... nothing but crazy lies designed to pretend that someone is in charge of the Universe and caring for us. Sorry ... you’re looking after yourself! “The explanations generated by the left brain interpreter may be balanced by right brain systems which follow the constraints of reality to a closer degree.” – Wikipedia The dreams produced by the unconscious may be seen as a corrective sent by the right brain to give the left brain a shock, or reality check, to shake it out of its complacency. “The suppression of the right hemisphere by electroconvulsive [ECT] therapy leaves patients inclined to accept conclusions that are absurd but based on strictly-true logic. After electroconsulsive therapy to the left hemisphere the same absurd conclusions are indignantly rejected.” – Wikipedia Scientists are like ECT patients who, cut off from right brain intuition and emotion, accept absurd, autistic conclusions that make sense only in terms

of a sensory world, and which have no validity as soon as you accept the existence of a non-sensory world. All scientists are desperately in need of ECT treatment. Fry their brains! “The checks and balances provided by the right brain hemisphere may thus avoid scenarios that eventually lead to delusion via the continued construction of biased explanations.” – Wikipedia Left brain science has become as fanatical and delusional as right brain religion, inventing “explanations” of reality that are as lunatic, perhaps even more so, than those of religion. “In 2002 Gazzaniga stated that the three decades of research in the field had taught him that the left hemisphere is far more inventive in interpreting facts than the right hemisphere’s more truthful, literal approach to information management.” – Wikipedia Consciousness is mired in Mythos, whether sensory, emotional or mystical. The unconscious is linked to the Truth, and has no need to lie. Reason and logic work much better in tandem with the truthful, intuitive right hemisphere than the delusional, sensory left hemisphere. Left brain mathematics concerns dimensional math; right brain mathematics concerns dimensionless math. “Studies on the neurological basis of different defence mechanisms have revealed that the use of immature defence mechanisms, such as denial, projection, and fantasy, is tied to glucose metabolization in the left prefrontal cortex, while more mature defence mechanisms, such as intellectualization, reaction formation, compensation, and isolation, are associated with glucose metabolization in the right hemisphere.” – Wikipedia Consciousness relies on defence mechanisms to protect it from the truth. Science is also a defence mechanism – for sensing types ... so that they don’t have to confront the notion of a non-sensory reality to which they are ineradicably blind. Note how neuroscientists try to convert psychological states into states of glucose metabolization. Eat a Mars Bar a day and change your personality type! “It has also been found that grey matter volume of the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex correlates with scores on measures of Machiavellian

intelligence, while volume of the right medial orbitofrontal cortex correlates with scores on measures of social comprehension and declarative episodic memory. These studies illustrate the role of the left prefrontal cortex in exerting control over one’s environment in contrast to the role of the right prefrontal cortex in inhibition and self-evaluation.” – Wikipedia Our consciousness is Machiavellian. Nothing could be more cunning, more willing to be duplicitous in pursuit of its goals. The task for Truth-seekers is to overcome our consciousness. What is furthest from our human consciousness, personal experiences and self-serving lies? ... mathematics. Hence that’s where the truth is to be found! To understand the Truth of existence that preceded humanity, you must remove your humanity from your thoughts ... you must become totally rational, logical and mathematical.

***** All mainstream human thinking thus far has come to grief on zero and infinity, on dimensionlessness, on singularities, on eternity, on the cyclical versus the linear, on ultimate units, on the relations of parts and wholes, on completeness and consistency. Only mathematics can answer these questions, but mathematics is exactly the subject most feared and hated by human beings, the one they regard as most abstract and least human.

The Machine

The machine is the physical body in space and time, obeying the laws of dimensionality.

The Ghost

The mind is the immaterial ghost outside space and time, obeying the laws of dimensionlessness.

The Ghost in the Machine

To understand the Ghost in the Machine, imagine a drone aircraft. This is a machine with no pilot. By itself, it’s totally useless. It has no agency, no will, no teleology. A drone becomes functional only when it’s remotely controlled by a pilot thousands of miles away ... a pilot with agency, will, and teleology. As far as the drone (machine) goes, the remote pilot is its ghost. Anyone finding a broken-down drone in the desert would be confronted with nothing but a decaying, rusting machine. There would be no evidence of any pilot. A classical scientist such as Pierre Laplace would have laughed at you if you told him that the “life” of the drone (i.e. the pilot) was thousands of miles away, and still alive. When it comes to the human body, modern scientists are exactly like Laplace. They come across a dead body, and they see it as nothing but a rotting biological machine. They deny that it ever contained any animating soul. Yet the reality is this: a human body is the equivalent of a drone (a machine); a human soul is the equivalent of a drone pilot at a remote location (a ghost). The key difference is that the body is in spacetime (the

material world), while the soul isn’t in spacetime at all (it’s in the mental Singularity). Things can “die” in temporal, contingent spacetime. Nothing can die in the eternal, necessary frequency domain. Scientists are primitive, limited thinkers who come across a human body and imagine that everything that makes up the human body is present to them, i.e. is local to the human body. They have no concept of non-localism ... of the human body’s key ingredient (its mind) being at a completely different location. Of course, the scientific method simply doesn’t allow for any such considerations, but the mathematical method does. The scientific method is predicated wholly on localism, materialism, and what can be immediately observed. Once you throw in non-localism, the scientific method falls apart. Look at how inadequate the scientific method is for investigating quantum phenomena. Why are there so many different interpretations of quantum mechanics? Why can’t anyone prove one of these interpretations correct and refute the others? Isn’t that what science is supposed to be about? Of what value is a scientific system if it has twenty different interpretations, each implying a radically different ontology and epistemology? How is science helping us to understand reality, how is it explaining reality to us, if it can’t even tell us which quantum mechanical interpretation is correct? Scientific experiments are one thing. How to interpret them is an entirely different thing. Science has never grasped that scientific experiments generate “facts” which, by themselves, are more or less useless. It’s how they are interpreted that’s crucial, and science has no means whatsoever to prove the correctness of any of its interpretations. The whole of scientific materialism relies on the non-existence of a nonlocal mind, but science can prove neither that matter is a real thing (independent of mind) nor that autonomous minds do not exist. Yet it churns out endless interpretations that assume both of these contentions to be established, proven facts. Scientific interpretations of quantum mechanics are bizarre because quantum mechanics is about the interaction of a non-local domain with a local domain, but science tries to explain what’s going on purely in terms of localism (what can be immediately, locally observed). It dogmatically denies the existence of non-local hidden variables that would never, by definition, reveal themselves to any local experiment.

Where religious people have absurd reasons for believing in the existence of the soul, scientists have equally absurd reasons for not believing in its existence. The two absurdities are cured by noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematics, which deals with both the nonlocal (dimensionless) and the local (dimensional). Scientific experiments can’t reveal the non-local mind/soul to us, but math certainly can. As soon as scientific materialism (the science of the body) is replaced with scientific idealism (the mathematics of the soul), humanity will start advancing at an unprecedented rate. The task is to understand both the material drone (the local body) and its immaterial pilot (the non-local soul). Plato described the soul in terms of a chariot (with its horses), and a charioteer. In fact, he should have presented the chariot as the body, and the charioteer as the soul. Scientists just can’t get beyond their machine mentality, their senses, their localist obsession. They lack the imagination, intuition, reason and logic to conceive of anything remote, non-local, non-sensory, and immaterial. A neuroscientist will literally hold up a dead brain and believe that all the mental activity once exhibited by this brain was always contained exclusively within this lump of stuff, made of lifeless, mindless atoms. This automatically raises the question of how a brain can ever die (since it was never alive in the first place), or, equally, how it ever came to exhibit life and mind, given that we are told that it contains no components that are either living or possess mind! It all happens miraculously, magically, randomly, indeterministically, statistically, without reason or cause. You might as well believe in “God” ... an equal absurdity, an equally outrageous magic act!!! In ontological mathematics, the death of a brain occurs when its connection to its controlling mind breaks down ... exactly as a drone “dies” as soon as its connection to its controlling pilot breaks down. Death is a local, dimensional phenomenon, but life is a non-local, dimensionless noumenon. Death is compounded in spacetime while life is unitary, outside spacetime. Life is monadic, and a monad is an immaterial frequency singularity. If your brain is wired wrongly – if you are locked into your senses and can’t comprehend anything non-sensory – you have zero chance of understanding reality. Scientists suffer from exactly this defect.

Science is a reducing valve. It’s a limited, narrow, stunted mentality that blocks the path to the Truth. It filters everything through the local, materialist, dimensional senses, and thereby filters out everything that actually matters: non-local, non-sensory, dimensionless life and mind. Scientists are machine people. They are an insult to the life force. They are like the undead. It’s a scandal that these zombies – entirely lacking in imagination and intuition – have been allowed to hijack the intellectual high ground. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Stephen Hawking are the Zombies-in-Chief. Everything they say about ultimate reality is false. These people even deny the existence of free will – or any meaningful expression of free will – the quintessence of autonomous life and mind. Only a machine person imagines that he has no free will. It’s an extraordinary thing that so many of the world’s “intelligentsia” consider themselves dead machines without free will, instead of free, living organisms. These people are literally mentally ill. They all suffer from a version of Cotard’s Delusion ... the belief that they are actually dead. Wikipedia says, “The Cotard delusion (also Cotard’s Syndrome and Walking Corpse Syndrome) is a rare mental illness, in which the afflicted person holds the delusion that they are dead, either figuratively or literally ... The delusion of negation is the central symptom in Cotard’s syndrome. The patient afflicted with this mental illness usually denies their existence, or the existence of a certain body part, or the existence of a portion of their body. ... The delusion of negation of the self prevents the patient from making sense of external reality, producing a distorted view of the external world.” Scientists are those who believe not that part of their body doesn’t exist, but that their entire mind (soul) doesn’t exist. For scientists, matter is all there is. Anyone who considers himself a machine – made of lifeless, mindless atomic machines – has rejected life and meaning. They have made the Great Refusal. They have refused to be accountable and responsible for their own actions. They have denied their own minds. They have referred to the mind/soul as an unreal, absurd “ghost”. In fact, they themselves are absurd zombies. Materialism is quite simply one of the greatest dangers that has ever confronted the human race. If you want to get anywhere near the Truth, you

have to throw out all of your religious “holy books”, and all of your science books. What you need are books about Fourier mathematics!

***** No modern scientist has any difficulty conceiving of a person in one part of the world remotely controlling an object in another part of the world. Why do they find it impossible to conceive of something outside space and time remotely controlling something inside space and time? That’s all you’re required to accept if you want to embrace the world of the authentic mind and soul.

The Search “Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking in the radio for the announcer.” – Nasseim Haramein Looking for the drone pilot in the drone is ridiculous. Looking for the soul in the body is preposterous. Looking for the mind in the brain is lunatic.

The Remainder When you remove the philosophy of materialism and empiricism from science, and its sensory, experimental method, all that remains is math. The writer Franz Kafka futilely tried to interpret a world incomprehensible to him. Science thinks it has comprehended the world, yet its only real value is in modelling the observable world. The world in itself is not observable. It has no appearance, and science can tell us nothing about it. Science circumvents this catastrophe by the simple expedient of brazenly and arrogantly denying that there’s any non-observable, nonphenomenal world. Where Kafka, like Kant, regarded ultimate reality as unknowable, science, by arbitrary decree, has abolished the entire nonscientific world and proudly proclaimed all of reality scientifically knowable. How deluded can you get?!

Types and Extremes Feeling/Sensing: Abrahamism (prophets and holy books). Feeling/Intuition: Eastern Mysticism (gurus and sacred texts). Thinking/Sensing: Science (empiricism and materialism).

Thinking/Intuition: Mathematics and Metaphysics (reason and logic).

***** Extreme Thinking/Sensing (Introversion) = Autism. Extreme Thinking/Sensing (Extraversion) = Psychopathy. Moderate Thinking/Sensing (Introversion) = Theoretical Science. Moderate Thinking/Sensing (Extraversion) = Experimental Science. Extreme Thinking/Intuition (Introversion) = Visionaries. Extreme Thinking/Intuition (Extraversion) = Leaders. Moderate Thinking/Intuition (Introversion) = Pure Mathematics. Moderate Thinking/Intuition (Extraversion) = Applied Mathematics. Extreme Feeling/Sensing (Introversion) = Artists. Extreme Feeling/Sensing (Extraversion) = Abrahamic Fundamentalism. Moderate Feeling/Sensing (Introversion) = Carers. Moderate Feeling/Sensing (Extraversion) = Abrahamic Moderates. Extreme Feeling/Intuition (Introversion) = Schizophrenia. Extreme Feeling/Intuition (Extraversion) = Con Men, “Psychics”. Moderate Feeling/Intuition (Introversion) = Eastern monks. Moderate Feeling/Intuition (Extraversion) = Counsellors.

The New Ghosts The ghosts in the machine are no longer silly, religious ghosts. Now they are precisely defined mathematical monads – immaterial frequency singularities outside space and time. There’s nothing weird, vague, superstitious or mystical about them. They are the most rational, logical, analytic things you can get. In Illuminism, “ghosts” are eternal, necessary, living mathematical monadic minds. They are exactly what save the universe from being a

pointless, meaningless, purposeless scientific machine.

Neo-Darwinism Neo-Darwinism, with its random genetic mutations, can tell us zero about personality types and the evolution of the mind. Genetics doesn’t tell us a single thing about the mind. The mind plays no part whatsoever in genetic theory. If mind exists, neo-Darwinism is totally false. Neo-Darwinism would change instantly if we moved away from the concept of material genes (hylogenes) to psychogenes ... genes that reflect mind. This was what Jung was effectively trying to accomplish with his theory of archetypes. Science is in desperate need of Jungian thinkers and contributors, but it will never accept such people because it rejects everyone who is not a materialist and empiricist.

Faith and Hope “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” – Hebrews 11:1 In fact, mathematical reason is the proof of things not seen, and has nothing to do with faith. “Everything that is done in the world is done by hope.” – Martin Luther It should be done by reason.

Atavism Atavism means reversion to something ancient or ancestral. Islam is highly atavistic. Islamic Fundamentalists would like to return to the world of Mohammed’s time. They are people of the past, not of the future.

Israel If the Israelis are a modern people, why don’t they move en masse to America – where they will be welcomed with open arms, given how far America has bent over to accommodate them. But, of course, the Jews are a Mythopoeic people. They don’t want any old land, they want the Promised Land! Unfortunately, their Promised Land is right in the middle of the Muslim sphere of influence where they are about as welcome as the Black Death. Imagine how world politics would be transformed if the Jews left

Israel and went to America, allowing Israel to revert to Palestine. That would be the rational solution, but since when have Jews and Muslims ever been interested in reason? We are dealing with two insane Mythopoeic peoples with a mutually genocidal mentality. No one in their right mind would want to live next to Orthodox Jews or Muslims. It would be like living thousands of years in the past. The human race would take an infinite step forward if there were no Jews and no Muslims in the world. That’s a fact. They are an enormous brake on human progress, and the primary source of war and terrorism.

The Irrational Human LF: “The universe is totally irrational. We make rational what is irrational. The universe is an infinite fractal, not a number, as the number system is a logical system. If the universe is consistent lyrics expanding, then it is not numerable.” All irrational people believe that the universe is irrational – natch! Of course, they have no rational grounds for their belief, only the irrational and muddled thinking that makes them irrational in the first place. Reason and logic are of no use to those mired in faith and mysticism. LF claims that the universe is “totally irrational”, i.e. he believes that the universe is pure chaos, obeying no laws at all. Even one glance at our world proves that whatever it is, it isn’t absolute chaos. LF says that the universe is an “infinite fractal”. The Fractal Foundation says, “A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc.” Wikipedia says, “A fractal is a natural phenomenon or a mathematical set that exhibits a repeating pattern that displays at every scale. If the replication is exactly the same at every scale, it is called a self-similar

pattern. ... Fractals also include the idea of a detailed pattern that repeats itself.” So, in what way is a fractal “totally irrational”, and nothing to do with mathematics and numbers? “Chaos” is pure math, not a refutation of math. LF claims that the universe is not “a number”. How would he know if he doesn’t know what a number is ontologically? LF says that the universe is “consistent lyrics expanding”. Leaving aside the fact that the statement is devoid of any meaning, how can you have consistency, lyrics and expansion in a universe that LF previously told us was “totally irrational”? Nothing can expand in a universe of absolute chaos, nothing can be consistent, and you can’t have any “lyrics”. LF says that the universe isn’t “numerable”. If it isn’t, how can numbers apply to it all? How can numbers even exist in an innumerable universe? How can a number even be thought? LF is a typical example of someone living in his own irrational fantasy world, randomly throwing out buzz words that he doesn’t understand. You can’t say anything about reality unless you have a precise ontology and epistemology ... and only rational people can have that. The irrationalists will go on living in La La land.

Fractals “The natural world around us is defined by irregular surfaces and shapes with uneven edges and rough corners. However, since Euclid classical geometry has only described the smooth ideal shapes – the circle, sphere, square, cube… – rarely, if ever, found in nature. “Fractals are the geometry of the natural world, they describe the texture of reality! “This insight was introduced by the Polish born French/American mathematician, Benoit Mandelbrot. “In 1975 he coined the word ‘fractal’ as a way to describe shapes that are detailed at all levels of scale. What started as an investigation into an obscure area of mathematics culminated in Mandelbrot defining the new field of fractal geometry. Mandelbrot in his introduction to The Fractal Geometry of Nature said, ‘Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight line…”

“Fractal geometry is an extension to classical geometry, which with the aid of computers, can model and describe structures from sea-shells to galaxies! ... “The most striking characteristic of fractals is their self-similarity, the way the whole resembles smaller parts of itself at different scales. This property reveals natural fractal structures all around us – the way a branch with small twigs can look like a larger branch, which looks similar to the entire tree. How the jagged surface of a rock can look similar to an entire mountain, or how a river network resembles the smaller streams and tributaries that feed it.” – http://fract.al/background

Strange Attractors “In the mathematical field of dynamical systems, an attractor is a set of numerical values toward which a system tends to evolve, for a wide variety of starting conditions of the system. System values that get close enough to the attractor values remain close even if slightly disturbed. ... “An attractor is called strange if it has a fractal structure. This is often the case when the dynamics on it are chaotic, but strange nonchaotic attractors also exist. If a strange attractor is chaotic, exhibiting sensitive dependence on initial conditions, then any two arbitrarily close alternative initial points on the attractor, after any of various numbers of iterations, will lead to points that are arbitrarily far apart (subject to the confines of the attractor), and after any of various other numbers of iterations will lead to points that are arbitrarily close together. Thus a dynamic system with a chaotic attractor is locally unstable yet globally stable: once some sequences have entered the attractor, nearby points diverge from one another but never depart from the attractor.” – Wikipedia Lorenz Strange Attractor – Wikipedia

Does this look “totally irrational”, or marvellously mathematically patterned? There’s no such thing as a non-mathematical pattern. Mathematics stands behind everything. Non-mathematical existence is impossible. All mathematical existence is rational.

Mythos versus Logos Mythos and Logos existed before humans could write, hence Mythos and Logos concerned different aspects of the spoken word. Originally, “Mythos” referred to stories and poetry that concerned emotions, spirituality, and the gods. “Logos”, on the other hand, meant “to speak intelligently”. It was about facts, evidence, proof and the observable world rather than speculation about the unobservable world. Thus it came to be associated with reason, logic, study and analysis.

***** In Greek philosophy, “logos” referred to the divine reason implicit in the cosmos: that which ordered it and gave it form, meaning and purpose. Heraclitus was the primary philosopher of logos, and argued that it’s the cosmic version of the reasoning power in man. As above, so below. The logos is an active rational and spiritual principle that permeates all reality (in modern Illuminism, the logos is simply ontological mathematics). The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria taught that the logos served as the intermediary between God and the cosmos. It was the agent of God’s Creation, and also the agent through which the human mind apprehends and comprehends God. The logos was both immanent in the physical world and the transcendent, divine mind. In Christianity, “logos” is personalised as Jesus Christ, probably the greatest oxymoron in history.

Autistic Atheists “People with autism appear less likely to believe in God – a discovery that has strengthened theories that religious belief relies on being able to imagine what God is thinking, a capacity known as ‘mentalising’. “One of the hallmarks of autism is an impaired ability to infer and respond to what other people are thinking, so the investigators wondered whether this would affect their likelihood of believing in God.

“In a study of adolescents questioned on their beliefs, those with autism were almost 90 per cent less likely than non-autistic peers to express a strong belief in God. “The study – along with three others that questioned hundreds of people about religious belief and mentalisation abilities – also showed that men are worse than women at mentalising. This correlated with them being less likely than women to believe in God. “‘We reasoned that if thinking about a personal god engages mentalising abilities, then mentalising deficits would be expected to make belief in a personal god less intuitive, and therefore less believable,’ says Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada...” – Andy Coghlan, New Scientist Scientists – sensing and thinking types, hence lacking feelings and intuition – are extremely poor at empathising and mentalising, and have severely limited imagination. All of these factors make it almost impossible for them to accept the existence of anything non-sensory. They are the prisoners of their senses; the victims of the way their brains are physically wired. Atheists can’t help being atheists. They don’t have the imagination and intuition to escape that fate.

Outside Space and Time Science denies that anything exists outside space and time, and its entire understanding of reality is predicated on this. If this belief is false, so is science. Science is indeed wrong. The Singularity – the immaterial Fourier frequency domain of mind – exists outside the material world of space and time. As soon as you grasp that fact, you will cease to be a scientist and become an ontological mathematician. You will accept the independent, autonomous domain of mind, and you will thereby become religious or spiritual. It’s all in the math. The trouble with scientists is that they don’t do the math ... because they’re too stupid to accept the fact that math expresses two aspects: dimensionless (ghost) math and dimensional (machine) math. Scientists believe in dimensional mathematics, but reject dimensionless mathematics, although they have no rational, logical, mathematical grounds for doing so.

Monads are the Fourier frequency domains – (mental singularities) – that exist outside space and time, and from which the whole of mathematics (ontological, not abstract) derives.

***** The explanation of reality must lie in something that can be expressed dimensionlessly and dimensionally (mentally and materially). Math alone can do this. Scientific materialism emphatically can’t. Scientific materialism is a fallacy predicated on the alleged impossibility of dimensionless existence. Ontological Fourier mathematics proves that scientific materialism is false. If you have any understanding at all of mathematics, you will know that scientific materialism is an ideology formally refuted by mathematics. Science uses math, but only the dimensional part of math. The extraordinary omission of dimensionless math – for no valid reason – shows how intellectually bankrupt science is. Scientists are so dumb they don’t even realise they are required to disprove the ontology of dimensionless mathematics if their system is to have any credibility at all. Not a single scientist would have the vaguest idea how to go about disproving the ontology of dimensionless mathematics, and this is in any case impossible.

The Dimensionality Enigma Mathematics explains everything. Mathematics comes in two flavours: dimensional and dimensionless: Dimensional mathematics relates to the sensory, material world of spacetime, and is what scientists study. It’s the basis of physicality. It’s machine math. Dimensionless mathematics relates to the non-sensory, immaterial (mental) world of frequency, and is what ontological mathematicians study. It’s the basis of non-physicality. It’s “ghost” math. The dimensional relates to all numbers between zero and infinity (the numbers that define spacetime). The dimensionless revolves around zero and infinity (which define singularities).

***** It’s not a question of a “ghost” in a machine. Rather, the real issue is of the dimensionless in the dimensional ... the mathematical relationship between the dimensionless and the dimensional. Science calls dimensionless existence (mental existence) “ghostly”, i.e. unreal and ridiculous. In that case, science must disprove the existence of autonomous frequency singularities. Good luck with that!

***** All non-sensory things are mathematical things. They are all definable mathematically. Mathematics, not God, is what exists beyond the physical, “scientific” world. Mathematics, not God, created the physical world of space and time. Mathematics, not God, is eternal and necessary. Mathematics is metaphysics. “God” is how Mythos humanity wrongly labelled Logos mathematics. All references to “God” should be replaced by references to mathematics. Science believes it’s fighting for reason against religious superstition. In fact, it’s fighting against mathematical rationalism and logic, hence is the enemy of reason. Anyone who accepts that this is a rational, intelligible universe has acknowledged that it’s a mathematical, not a scientific, universe.

***** It’s impossible to understand reality without understanding zero, infinity and all the numbers in between. It’s impossible to understand reality without understanding the dimensionless and dimensional, without understanding points and their relationship to lines and curves. Everything comes back to math and its fundamental properties, qualities and features. Any system that does not fully address math is false. All mainstream religions are false because they contain no math at all. Science is better than religion because it features some math (indeed math is exclusively what gives science its power), but is inadequate because it cannot define math, and cannot use it in the complete and consistent way demanded by logic. Science is mathematics subjected to the fallacious ideology of materialism and empiricism. Science is a philosophical misinterpretation of mathematics, driven by sensory mania, and a total lack of intuition, imagination, empathy and theory of mind. Science is a product of defective

brains, unable to separate themselves from their sensory apparatus. Scientists subscribe to the fallacy that reality is sensible and empirical rather than intelligible and rational. They are deficient in reason and logic, which is why so many modern scientific speculations are more or less insane.

Transcending Humanity To understand ultimate reality, we have to remove from the equation our humanity, especially our human consciousness (the source of all of our delusions, misinterpretations, errors, beliefs, guesses and interpretations). The eternal truths of reason that precede the human condition are mathematical truths. Mathematics is the least human thing you can possibly get, hence the most truthful thing you can possibly get.

Truth For anything to be true, it must be expressed via a consistent and complete ontology and epistemology. Illuminism is true. All mainstream religions and science – all of which have no formal ontology and epistemology – are false. These are belief systems. They are not rational and logical, and fail to respect the principle of sufficient reason. They are all enemies of reason. Anyone, such as a scientist, who privileges his senses over his intellect, is opposed to reason.

The Grammar of Reality “It is now known that sense of agency is closely connected with [brain] lateralization. The left parietal lobe is active when visualizing actions in the first person, while the right parietal lobe is active for actions in the third person.” – Wikipedia The “grammatical person” reveals the relationship between the speaker and the other participants in an event, such as the addressee (the direct recipient of the speaker’s communication), or others (indirectly involved with the speaker’s communication, or the object of it). There are three grammatical persons in English:

1) First Person: This is used to talk about yourself. In the context of an utterance, it refers to the speaker. In a novel, the first-person perspective means that the main character is written as “I”. In a film, the first-person perspective means that the view of the camera is precisely the view of the main character. Also known as Point of View shot. Wikipedia says, “A point of view shot (also known as POV shot or a subjective camera) is a short film scene that shows what a character (the subject) is looking at (represented through the camera).” 2) Second Person: This is used to refer to the addressee of a communication. The second person is the listener, recipient or potential responder. In a novel, this means that the main character is written as “you”. In a film, the second-person perspective is rare since it would be the perspective of whoever or whatever the main character was constantly interacting with. 3) Third Person: This is used to refer to any person, place, or thing involved in an event or communication other than the speaker and the addressee. The third person is neither the speaker nor the listener, but someone else. In a novel, neither “I” nor “you” is used to describe the main character. Instead, the main character is referred to as “he”, “she” or “it”. In a film, the camera can move independently of the action of the main character or the things around him, or it can directly track him.

***** First Person: The Speaker. Second Person: The Speaker’s Audience. Third Person: Everybody else.

***** In Bicameralism, the “God” in the right hemisphere of the brain is the “I”: the speaker, the agent, the master. The follower in the left hemisphere of the brain is the audience, the recipient of instructions, the slave. Everyone else is “them”.

With the rise of consciousness, the God in the right hemisphere fell silent, and the follower was converted into the “I”, the active agent, the one taking the decisions rather than merely obeying them. In the tale of Abraham and Isaac, “God” was the first-person “I”, Abraham was the second-person “you” (to whom God was giving orders), and Isaac was the third person “he” to whom things were done. The very notion of “God” involves a follower surrendering agency and decision-making to another being. God is therefore the true “I”. When we become “I”s, something dramatic must happen: 1) we must say, “God is dead” and become atheists and existentialists, looking to ourselves alone, and not to any Gods allegedly supervising the world, or 2) we ourselves must become the Gods, those supervising the world. Bicameral Man was highly religious, believing that he was subject to the will of gods, spirits and demons. Over time, the more conscious people became, the less religious they proved. Stupid people, in the present day, are barely conscious. For them, consciousness is a thin veneer over their old bicameral minds. Anyone who subscribes to the message of ancient prophets or gurus is essentially still listening to the “voice of the God” (or God’s spokesperson). Look at Muslims, Jews and Christian Fundamentalists. These people aren’t conscious. They have surrendered agency to a glorified imaginary friend, exactly as the bicameral people of old did. Consciousness is a function of reason. The more rational you are, the more conscious you are, and the more of an “I” you are. Rational consciousness is what undoes all of the errors of irrational consciousness, humanity’s predominant mode of consciousness. Scientists aren’t conscious. In fact, they deny the existence of autonomous mind. Where bicameral humans imagined themselves the puppets of the gods, scientific materialists believe themselves the puppets of lifeless, mindless atoms, and the laws of physics (which are now conceived to be random, indeterministic and statistical). In other words, bicameral people aren’t “I”s, and nor are scientists. Bicameral people are puppets of “ghosts”, while scientists are puppets of machines. Only rationalists are conscious people – “I”s. As such, they are becoming Gods. They accept responsibility for their lives. They don’t look to either ghosts or machines to take responsibility for their actions. They are their own ghosts. They need no others.

Literal and Metaphorical The left hemisphere of the brain is literal. The right hemisphere is metaphorical (imaginative; emotional; intuitive). Scientists are highly leftbrained people (sensing thinking types). This means that they have difficulty with metaphor, emotion, imagination, intuition, empathy and mentalisation, hence they are firmly on the autistic spectrum. Autistics find it exceptionally difficult to conceive of gods and spirits, of anything non-literal and non-sensory. Ghosts are impossible to them. They are much more comfortable regarding themselves as machines and computers, which, likewise, have no capacity for metaphor, imagination, intuition, emotion, empathy and mentalisation. Science is the product of a certain kind of mind ... the autistic mind, cut off from imagination, emotion and intuition. It’s no wonder scientists can’t conceive of mind as a real thing. To them it’s as absurd as a ghost or God. All dimensionless, non-sensory things are unimaginable to scientists. It’s extraordinary that humanity’s intellectual agenda has been hijacked by autistics, who don’t represent humanity at all. One branch of the autistic spectrum is that of psychopathy. Psychopaths are extreme risk-takers. They love dangerous sports, and intense physical experiences. They have no emotional connection with others. They are soulless people, lacking in imagination and intuition. They are obsessed with dominating the here and now in the physical world. Look around you. Wall Street and Washington D. C. are run by psychopaths, and Silicon Valley is run by autistics. That’s the new unholy alliance ruling the world. Ayn Rand’s libertarians support the whole operation. The Tea Party is a psychopath party. “Greed is good,” they say. “Selfishness is virtuous.” That’s the gospel of the sociopath. The world was screwed in the past because it was run by religious maniacs and mystical intuitives obsessed with unseen powers. The world is screwed now because it’s run by psychopaths, sociopaths and autistics. But the world needn’t always be screwed. It can be saved by thinking intuitives – rationalists. The only people who have never ruled the world are the rational intelligentsia, those who endorse Plato’s Republic.

*****

We were once ruled by the metaphoricists. Now we are ruled by the literalists. We need to be ruled by the rationalists.

***** “Wernicke’s area processes the literal meaning of language, while the homologous region in the right hemisphere processes the intent of a speaker. It has been found that people with damage to the right inferior parietal cortex experience alien hand syndrome, as do people who have had a corpus callosotomy. This reverses the relationship between the right and left hemispheres posited by bicameralism: it is the left hemisphere that ‘speaks’ and the right hemisphere that is responsible for self-awareness.” – Wikipedia Human mental evolution is all about the six Jungian factors: extraversion, introversion, sensing, feeling, intuition and thinking. The task of evolution is to optimise these factors in the whole human race. We’re very far away!

Matriarchy RM: “The belief that matriarchy will be better than patriarchy is delusional. Only meritocracy, free from affirmative action, feminism and other forms of sexism, has a chance of succeeding. ... The best women and men at the top, and equal opportunities for all.” Patriarchy has some strengths and many weaknesses. Matriarchy would have a different set of strengths and weaknesses, so will be better than patriarchy in some regards and worse in others. The task, some might say, is to dialectically harness the best of patriarchy and the best of matriarchy, and exclude the worst of both. However, meritocracy, as RM indicates, renders both redundant. Meritocracy seeks to take the best of everything and to reject the worst of everything, and in doing so to optimise everyone on earth. Winston Churchill’s famous political dictum was: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” In other words, he regarded democracy as the least bad form of government. What the world needs is the best form of government, not the least bad. Churchill cynically observed, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Anyone who believes

such a thing to be true is a total hypocrite if, like Churchill, they then promote democracy and stand for democratic election. They are endorsing something that they themselves find repugnant and farcical. Meritocracy is the cure for democracy. In the limit, once everyone has been optimised by meritocracy, meritocracy and democracy will actually be one and the same, and the evidence will be “a five-minute conversation with the average voter”. Anyone having such a conversation will be inspired by how brilliant, clever and well-informed the average voter is in a meritocracy. Humanity deserves, and must have, the “best”, not the “least bad”.

The Mystery Why do so many Muslims risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean to get to the infidel West? Why don’t they go to Saudi Arabia, home of Islam? Why don’t they go to Mecca, wave the Koran triumphantly in the air, then get on their knees to pray to Allah and Mohammed? Is there anything more perverse than Muslims going to non-Muslim countries in search of a better life? Haven’t they understood the simplest thing ... it’s Islam itself that’s ruining their lives. Even Muslims don’t want to live in Muslim countries. And Muslim countries won’t accept other Muslims into their countries. You’ll never find Saudi Arabia throwing open its borders. The West gets blamed when migrants drown en route to Europe. Why doesn’t Allah get blamed? It’s his will after all ... if you believe in Islam.

The Islamic Myth You often hear people claiming that there was a highly enlightened period in Islamic history. They never provide any meaningful details. The fact is that there was no such period. Would any Westerner say that the period of 1225 – 1274 C.E. (the lifetime of Thomas Aquinas) was a great period of enlightenment? Thomas Aquinas himself was one of the greatest geniuses in history, but he doesn’t stand for the general culture of his day. Sure, there were a few smart people in Muslim countries at certain periods – most of whom were viewed with extreme suspicion – but how does that mean that the general Islamic culture, and the average Muslim, was “enlightened”? Islam has always been the ideology of pure endarkenment. A few individual exceptions – a few heroic outsiders – does

not amount to an Islamic “enlightenment”. If a time machine took any modern Westerner back to any Muslim nation during the so-called Islamic “Golden Age”, they would find it anything other than “enlightened”. Even today, in the West (never mind in the Islamic world), there’s no real enlightenment. The “Enlightenment” was never anything more than the liberation of a tiny intellectual elite from the authority of religion. The world is desperately in need of a True Enlightenment that frees the entire human race from organised religion.

***** DF: “Attributing the ‘Islamic golden age’ to Islam is like attributing the scientific worldview to Christianity. They were coexistent, but that’s about it. They were, in fact, antagonistic.” Exactly so! The fact that unenlightened eras gave rise to an occasional enlightened person does not make those eras in any way enlightened. The average Muslim in all Islamic countries in all periods of history has been ferociously opposed to reason, logic, philosophy, science and math. You need only look at any Muslim country or community today to see the truth of that. The West is barely enlightened either. Look how many crazy American Christians still believe in the Bible and Creationism. These people have never undergone any enlightenment. No one in their right mind could look at Orthodox Jews and consider them part of the modern world at all. These people might as well be living in the Bronze Age. The human race is full of anachronistic people who look to ancient books and superstitions for the truth. They avoid philosophy, science and math like the plague. How could anyone consider these people – and they are about 80% of the human population – “enlightened”? To put the word “enlightenment” in the same sentence as Islam is to commit a category error. In the West, anyone can denounce Christianity and Christ without fearing for their life. Five hundred years ago, they would have been put to death. In the Muslim world today, anyone who denounced Islam, Mohammed and the Koran would be killed on the spot. Those who claim that Islam was once enlightened and had a Golden Age are politically correct fanatics, liberal zealots, and multicultural

ideologues, cynically distorting history to pretend that Islam is much less of a threat to the West than it seems to be. Islam must be seen for what it is ... a backward superstition created by an illiterate tribesman who heard voices and created a psychopathic brainwashing machine, full of hate, intolerance and violence. Just look at “Islamic State”, the true descendants of Mohammed. The self-proclaimed Islamic State is exactly what Medina would have been like under Mohammed’s control 1400 years ago. Islamic State is a time machine, showing us the full truth and horror of Islam. To be fair to Mohammed, even he thought he might be demonically possessed. In fact, he was simply a madman, one of those crazies in history who actually succeed. Ninety-nine out of a hundred of such people fail. But one always gets through every now and again, usually because they are much more motivated, committed, forceful and charismatic than those around them. Look at Hitler. No matter how much you hate Nazism, no matter how much you disagree with every word Hitler uttered, it’s more or less impossible not to a feel a strange shiver of excitement when you see old footage of Nazi rallies. Mohammed was an Arab Hitler, someone who cast a spell over the Arab people with his Arab “Master Race” vision and rhetoric. Hitler said the Aryans were a world-historic race. Moses said it was the Jews, Pericles the Athenians, Leonidas the Spartans, Alexander the Great the Macedonians, Caesar the Romans, St Paul the Christians, Mohammed the Arabs, Genghis Khan the Mongols, Napoleon the French. Marx said the Communists were the inheritors of the Earth. The British Empire thought the sun would never set on its glory. The Americans spoke of their “manifest destiny”. The Japanese and the Chinese both believed they were the true human elite. There’s nothing new about this “Chosen People” notion. It keeps cropping up through human history. Everyone is attracted to it – provided they’re included in the “in-group”. Why can’t science ever succeed in persuading the majority of humanity? Because it doesn’t use this Mythos rhetoric. Illuminism too is in serious trouble – being far too Logos oriented. Yet we recognise the absolute need for Mythos. We need to seduce the masses ... or we need to seduce 100% of the world’s intelligentsia. It’s one or the other.

Be Very Afraid Muslims to the West: “Be very afraid. You’re fighting people who love death more than you love life.” The West to Muslims: “Be very afraid. You’re fighting people who love killing more than you love death. That’s why we have the greatest arsenal of lethal weapons in history while you have Kalashnikovs, IEDs and swords.” The thing that Muslim terrorists have never understood is that the West doesn’t mind slaughtering Muslims – guilty or innocent. You’d need to be both suicidal and insane to take on the West. Muslim fundamentalists are exactly that. No matter how much they love death, they can’t beat people who love killing them, and who have made killing into an industrial, capitalist process, with every weapon constituting a “profit centre”. Muslims are relying on the West to be too politically correct, too liberal, too multicultural and too weak to stand up to Islam. A major part of their strategy is to paralyse Western governments by way of Muslim mass emigration to Western nations so that governments become terrified of upsetting aggressive minorities in their midst. Sorry, when the shit hits the fan, the West will use its weapons of mass destruction against Muslims without hesitation. You simply haven’t understood the psyche of the West if you haven’t understood that. Why is it that primitive Islam believes it can defeat the advanced West? It’s because badly educated Muslims are victims of magical thinking. They imagine that if they are devout enough, and fanatical enough, Allah will intervene on their behalf and wipe out the infidels. In other words, Muslims regard their God as their ultimate weapon of mass destruction. And that rather sums up Islam.

Non-Enlightenment No rich man has ever achieved Enlightenment. The rich are exclusively focused on being rich, not on being enlightened. Only people who focus exclusively on enlightenment will ever become enlightened! Of course, you need to identify the correct way to become enlightened. That isn’t the way of faith, mysticism, meditation, praying, fasting, mindfulness, controlled breathing, emptying the mind, personal experience, or any similar such

thing. It’s the way of reason, logic, knowledge, understanding, intellect, and, ultimately, math.

Opposition Anyone who opposes us invariably engages in emotionalism, mysticism, obscurantism, sensory mania, irrationalism, illogic, religious faith, and various strains of outright insanity. If you can’t define your ontological terms, you can’t define anything. We define the building blocks of existence to be eternal, necessary sinusoids (i.e. mathematical thoughts in themselves). Anyone who seeks to challenge our position must do two things: 1) prove that sinusoids are not the basis of existence, and 2) define and prove whatever it is that they claim is the basis of existence ... good luck with that! If they can neither disprove our case, nor prove their own, they have zero credibility. Charlatans always fail to define their terms. They hide in the Definitional Gap. In this gap, since no terms are ever defined, people can witter on about all of their mystical, emotional, irrational notions and beliefs without fear of contradiction. You can disprove only those things that have been defined, and you disprove them by showing that the attempted definition entails a fundamental and fatal contradiction. For example, we have demonstrated that science’s version of the Law of Energy Conservation involves an absolute contradiction since it does not actually require the eternal, necessary conservation of energy at all, but only the average, temporal, contingent conservation of a cosmic energy level of zero. As long as that condition is met, energy can be created and destroyed in any amounts! Our opponents must define every term they use (as we have), and, if they don’t, they literally don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. They’re making it up; engaging in pure Mythos – storytelling – which has no connection with Logos (the Truth). Humanity is an emotional, storytelling species, not a dispassionate, rational species. It’s full of Dr McCoys rather than Mr Spocks. That’s what makes human existence both so wondrous and so hopeless. It’s why humans invent all sorts of nonsense to “explain” reality. They engage their emotions, their senses, their mystical intuitions, their beliefs and superstitions. Reason – the highest, newest and most vulnerable addition to the human psyche (it’s what distinguishes us from animals) – is at the back

of the line. With ontological mathematics, reason goes right to the front, and only then does the rational answer to existence finally appear. In terms of Paul MacLean’s theory of the triune brain, humanity attempts to solve the problem of existence via its primordial reptilian brain stem (senses), or its mammalian limbic system (emotion and intuition), but never its computer-like neocortex (reason). Religion uses the limbic system (it’s all about emotional faith and intuitions), science uses the reptilian brain stem (it ignores feelings and intuitions and relies solely on the senses), and ontological mathematics uses the neocortex (it ignores the feelings, mystical intuitions and the senses, and deploys pure reason and logic alone).

The AC Site and the God Series The Armageddon Conspiracy website is a taster for the God Series. If you haven’t read the God Series, you know next to nothing about Illuminism. The AC site takes a predominantly Mythos approach. The God Series is overwhelmingly Logos. Humanity as a whole is overwhelmingly Mythosoriented, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that so many people who style themselves “Illuminists” are much more attracted to the Mythos of the Illuminati rather than the Logos teachings of the Illuminati. You’re far more likely to impress us if you talk about Logos Illuminism rather than Mythos Illuminism.

The Positive and Negative Dialectic Many people are unable to understand how dialectical progress actually takes place. We noticed on a particular Facebook page that moronic, destructive trolls were being welcomed as “dialectical”. The Facebook page in question is a pathetic, ineffectual mess, full of people achieving nothing with their lives, and mired in Mythos nonsense, to which the contributors devote all of their time (they spend none on discovering Logos truths). The point of the dialectic is not to cause stasis and “analysis paralysis”. It’s not about free speech and giving everyone their say. It’s not about ensuring that everyone has their opinion heard, no matter how silly. The most successful dialectical movements in history are 1) Imperialism, 2) Nationalism), 3) Racism, 4) Christianity, 5) Islam, 6) Capitalism, 7) Communism, 8) Fascism, and 9) Scientific Materialism. Not a single one of these movements tolerated or tolerates dissent, heresy, freethinking, pointless debate ... giving their trolling enemies any platform

whatsoever. In fact, they are concerned with the absolute purity of their message and the extermination of their enemies. They succeed precisely because they unite their followers behind a single, unadulterated vision. They fail as soon as that unity collapses. The Catholic Church is a joke now because it failed to exterminate Protestantism. Previously, it had exterminated Catharism, but it lacked the will to wipe out the Protestant heretics too. The dialectic moves forward via pure systems that generate dialectical opposition. Imperialism, Nationalism, Racism, Christianity, Islam, Capitalism, Communism, Fascism and Scientific Materialism have all been ferociously opposed in their time. The point is that the dialectical opposition should come from outside the group. If the dialectical opposition comes from inside the group, the group is doomed. The group will never achieve any coherence and momentum. It will be self-sabotaged by cynicism, skepticism, distrust, internal faction fighting, narcissism, egotism, point scoring, and so on. We despise trolls because their agenda is to destroy whatever cause they attack, to tie it up in pointless, argumentative knots. The focus is switched away from the cause’s supposed purpose to the trolls’ agenda, i.e. it becomes all about the trolls rather than about the original subject. This is the recipe for utter failure. No disunited, incoherent group, lacking clarity and purity of message, can ever succeed. As soon as you find yourself on a Facebook page that’s infested and infected with self-aggrandizing trolls and constant bickering, you must leave ... assuming you actually want to do something with your life rather than simply frittering it away on nonsense. The only people getting anything out of a Facebook page dominated by trolls are the trolls. Any positive Facebook page would place a 100% ban on trolls. Trolls are not on a Facebook page to promote its cause. They are there to destroy the cause and promote their own. If you haven’t realised that yet, just how dumb are you?! We make it our policy never to engage with anyone who subscribes to any Facebook page that provides a platform for anti-Illuminist trolls. The simple fact that you have tolerated these people means that you can be of no help or value to our movement. You are codependents of the trolls, actively sabotaging our movement.

***** “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.” – Voltaire

Our Own Construct If, as various philosophers have contended, the material world exists only because we perceive it, then, without our perceptions, there’s no external world. If there’s no world without us, that means that we and the world are one and the same thing. That also means that the laws of Nature are our own products. They would not exist without our minds, hence the unavoidable implication is that our minds constructed them, which was exactly the conclusion Kant came to.

***** If every human being went to sleep at once, the external world would not exist for humanity. Each human would be in their own private reality.

Involution and Evolution Involution: the descending direction ... from high to low. Evolution: the ascending direction ... from low to high. Involution = symmetry breaking ... something perfect shatters. Evolution = symmetry restoration ... something imperfect is made perfect; broken perfection is repaired.

Death Christians say that love and Jesus overcome death. In fact, only math overcomes death! Math, not Jesus, is eternal life, light and Truth.

Teaching versus Brainwashing RM: Those ISIS people know all too well (from generations of experience): you can’t teach Islam to anyone. You can only brainwash it into someone from birth.

The sad truth is that brainwashing is triumphant everywhere. Liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, political correctness, fashion, traditiondirectedness, other-directedness ... these are all aspects of brainwashing. Family, friends and community are the primary vectors of brainwashing, and who is strong enough to stand up to them? How many outsiders, freethinkers and radicals are there in the world? Scientific materialism is an immense brainwashing system. The more exposed to it you are, the more likely you are to turn to atheism, cynicism, skepticism, relativism, and nihilism. In science, you do not become a radical and a freethinker (how many radical scientists have you ever met? ... they are staggeringly conservative and reactionary, and refuse to consider anything outside the extremely narrow scientific box). You become part of a machine that declares existence pointless, meaningless and purposeless. You do not turn to logic, analysis, deduction and the principle of sufficient reason. These are all viewed with extreme hostility by science, which instead worships sensory “evidence”. Of course, the senses are about as reliable as feelings, i.e. not at all. They’re mired in subjectivity and delusion. Why is it so hard for us to communicate our message? It’s because we are trying to teach people a complex new system based on reason. We are not coming from the angle of family, friends, community, mainstream religions, mainstream political parties, consumerism, fashion, and so on ... so we have no mechanism for brainwashing and indoctrinating people. And why would we want to? We want a world of rational, logical, self-solving, self-optimising, autonomous thinkers. They will be highly cooperative with others like them because that’s the rational thing to do for those who want to make the most rapid progress. Are one hundred geniuses working together more productive than one working in total isolation? You bet! They will stand up to those who support the plague of unreason since an irrational humanity will never build paradise on earth, fair and just to everyone. Teaching goes hand in hand with learning. Brainwashing goes hand in hand with weak, fearful, non-freethinking submissives. People good at being brainwashed are very poor learners. Once they have absorbed the brainwashing, they never challenge it, and never learn new things. They actively avoid anything that teaches old dogs new tricks. That’s why the world is the way it is.

For humanity to advance, all the brainwashing mechanisms have to be smashed forever. That means massively intervening in the capacity of families, friends, communities, religions, political parties, economic systems, and even science, to indoctrinate vulnerable minds. There’s no bigger challenge. Humanity must switch from a mode of brainwashing and mindless obeying to teaching and learning. We must stop bowing to Gods and become Gods!

The Unholy Alliance RM: “The rest of 2015 will see many more viral news stories of collegeeducated Muslim women being ‘suppressed’ and ‘discriminated against’ by racist white people. “In 2016 we’ll see a complete merger of Western Feminism and Western Islam (including the Nation of Islam and Five-Percent Nation). “2016: ‘I whine, therefore I am.’” Very true, sadly. We live in a culture that bends over backwards to allow people to hold utterly bizarre, irrational, mad and dangerous beliefs, and never once seeks to challenge these crazy views in the Court of Reason. Islam should be under constant rational attack since it’s nothing but an offence to reason. Muslims, and others like them, should be left in no doubt whatsoever that they are the enemies of reason, and none of their beliefs are rational. Why do governments support faith rather than reason?! Because they themselves are supremely irrational and hostile to merit and reason.

The War of the Crazies “Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat magical fruit from a magical tree. ... Christianity: The belief that God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself because his Creations, which he knew were going to disobey him, disobeyed him. ... Makes perfect sense.” – Internet Meme “Scientific materialism: The belief that nothing at all can randomly make itself into something for no reason at all via no mechanism at all for no

purpose at all; the belief that all living things are zombies because they are actually made of dead things; the belief that mindless lumps of matter can organise themselves into aggregates that think, write poetry and fall in love; the belief that existence is totally pointless, meaningless and purposeless, that everything is ruled by chance, accident and randomness; the belief that unobserved cats in special boxes are alive, dead and in living-dead states all at once ... Makes perfect sense.” Enough already with absurd Mythos accounts of reality that make sense only to the insane. Christianity is a preposterous emotional Mythos. Science is a preposterous sensory Mythos. Neither has any relationship with reason.

The Mathematical Devil? Christians often say that they would love to meet the Devil (!) because it would “prove that God existed”. Leaving aside the fact that the Abrahamic God is the Devil, is this claim logical? In traditional Christian theology, there’s only one necessary being, and all other beings are contingent. So, if God is the necessary being, there’s no need for there to be a Devil. Therefore, to encounter “God” does not logically imply that there must also be a Devil. There’s no logical necessity for the existence of the Devil. “God” need not have created him. Equally, if you encounter the Devil, you may in fact have encountered the only necessary being in the universe, and so his existence is no proof of God’s existence. In a universe with only one necessary being, to meet God does not imply the existence of the Devil, and nor does meeting the Devil imply the existence of God. There is only one necessary being in Abrahamism, not two (since that would constitute a dualism and not a monotheism). The Devil need not exist. And nor, for that matter, need God! Only in a dualist system would meeting the Devil imply the existence of God. But that wouldn’t be a monotheism, hence wouldn’t be what Abrahamists believe in.

***** “‘What? Does not that mean in popular language: God is disproved, but not the devil?’ – On the contrary! On the contrary, my friends! And who the devil also compels you to speak popularly?!” – Nietzsche

***** Does the God Equation imply the existence of a Devil Equation? Is Evil a force controlled by a cosmic formula? A contest between a God Equation and Devil Equation is more or less what karmic theory is all about (if given a suitable mathematical makeover). Or it’s what bringing “balance” to the Force in Star Wars is all about.

The Four Kinds of Intuition Intuition must be understood in terms of both Form and Content, and frequency and spacetime: 1) “Form intuition” is what great mathematicians tune into. 2) “Spacetime intuition” is what artists, musicians, architects, sculptors, and so on, tune into in order to give them sympathy with, and mastery of, spacetime Form. 3) “Content intuition” is what ordinary intuitives tune into. 4) “Frequency intuition” is what mystics and psychics tune into, giving them non-local knowledge. Jungian synchronicity operates via this route.

Mathematical Reality “Mathematics is the queen of the sciences and number theory the queen of mathematics.” – Gauss Why do people worship the Queen’s subjects rather than the Queen herself? “There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not some day be applied to phenomena of the real world.” – Lobachevsky All of ontological mathematics must be applied to all of reality! Ontological mathematics and reality are one and the same. “It is no paradox to say that in our most theoretical moods we may be nearest to our most practical applications.” – A. N. Whitehead Indeed!

“The advancement and perfection of mathematics are intimately connected with the prosperity of the State.” – Napoleon The most prosperous State on earth will be the most mathematically literate State on earth. “Mathematics – the unshaken Foundation of Sciences, and the plentiful Fountain of Advantage to human affairs.” – Isaac Barrow Nothing offers a greater advantage in human affairs than math. “Algebra is generous; she often gives more than is asked of her.” – D’Alembert Math delivers the answer to everything. “Neglect of mathematics works injury to all knowledge, since he who is ignorant of it cannot know the other sciences or the things of the world.” – Roger Bacon Exactly so! “In mathematics I can report no deficiency, except it be that men do not sufficiently understand the excellent use of the Pure Mathematics.” – Francis Bacon Tragically, scientists have no understanding of the ontology of mathematics.

Tearing It Down “In most sciences one generation tears down what another has built, and what one has established another undoes. In mathematics alone each generation builds a new story to the old structure.” – Hermann Hankel It’s a certain proof of how unreliable and unworthy science is that it’s subject to continuous change. Science is always in need of verification, and always liable to falsification. Math, on the other hand, is eternally true. No mathematical Truth has ever, or ever could be, refuted. Math is in no need of verification, and cannot be falsified. It’s therefore a category error to mix up math and science. Science has no valid claim to math. It should not be allowed to use it. If you removed math from science, science’s total intellectual bankruptcy would be revealed. It would immediately turn into a religion! It would become alchemy.

Paracelsus “Man is a microcosm, or a little world, because he is an extract from all the stars and planets of the whole firmament, from the earth and the elements; and so he is their quintessence.” – Paracelsus

***** Paracelsus’s worldview had three pillars: Philosophy: knowledge of nature ... of the elements of earth and water. Astronomy: knowledge of the cosmos and the earth ... of the elements of air and fire. Alchemy: knowledge of the whole cosmos ... of all four elements.

***** Ens (plural entia) – an existing or real thing; an entity. Paracelsus said that diseases are rooted in one or more of the five “Entia”, three of which concern the physical, and two the spiritual, level: Physical Level 1) Ens Astrorum or Ens Astrale: the influence of the stars on the body. 2) Ens Veneni: the influence of toxins on the body. 3) Ens Naturale: the physical constitution itself (a weak constitution is much more susceptible to illness than a strong one). Spiritual level 4) Ens Spirituale: the influence of spirits on the body. 5) Ens Dei or Ens Deale the influence of God on the body.

***** “Medieval medicine rigidly adhered to the medical theories of Galen, that all diseases were caused by an imbalance of the four humors in the body: Blood, phlegm, and yellow and black gall (humoral pathology). Health could be restored by correcting the imbalance, often using techniques such

as bleeding, purging, or sweating. Paracelsus rejected this theory entirely, explaining instead that pathological changes in the body were caused by external entities: Ens astrorum (cosmic influences, including climate and geographical location); ens veneni (toxic substances, which would include the causes of contagious diseases, infections, and diseases caused by poor diet or environmental poisons); ens naturale et spirituale (defective physical or mental constitution); and ens deale (an affliction sent by Providence). Diseases such as rheumatism, gout, and dropsy, which were caused by the over-accumulation of harmful substances in the body, should be treated by expelling the poisons, and restoring the vital functions of the organs.” – http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Paracelsus

***** Paracelsus believed in the body’s ability to heal itself, through the agency of mind, with mind and body being intimately related, and each affecting the other. Accordingly, he regarded mental illness as having as much reality as physical illness. Many physical diseases, he said, had their roots in psychological problems (psychosomatic illnesses), and many mental illnesses in physical problems (somapsychic illnesses). Paracelsus was the first thinker to use the term “unconscious”. Plainly, the concept of the “hidden mind” fits in with his idea of mental processes, of which we are unaware, influencing our body and health.

***** The medicines Paracelsus used were derived from plants. He subscribed to the notion that all substances are potential medicines, and also potential poisons. The concentration decided which it was: “the dose makes the poison”. According to Paracelsus’s theory of medicine, poisons can be cured by the same or a similar poison: evil can fight evil. He was therefore one of the spiritual forefathers of homeopathy. Wikipedia says, “Homeopathy (from the Greek: hómoios, ‘-like’ and páthos, ‘suffering’) is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann based on his doctrine of like cures like (similia similibus curentur), whereby a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people. ...

Homeopaths claim that Hippocrates may have originated homeopathy around 400 BC, when he prescribed a small dose of mandrake root to treat mania, knowing it produces mania in much larger doses. In the 16th century, the pioneer of pharmacology Paracelsus declared that small doses of ‘What makes a man ill also cures him.’”

Science and Buddhism “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.” – Tenzin Gyatso (Dalai Lama) Unless the Dalai Lama also says, “If Buddhism proves some belief of science wrong, then science will have to change”, he has, in effect, declared to the world that scientific materialism is superior to Buddhism, and can correct Buddhism (whereas the converse isn’t true). Therefore, there’s no point in being a Buddhist! All Buddhists, according to the “logic” of the Dalai Lama, ought to become scientific materialists. After all, how can Buddhism ever compete with science? How can it contradict science if science is regarded as that which is capable of contradicting Buddhism?

***** “In theological discussions with religious leaders, I often ask what their response would be if a central dogma of their faith were disproved by scientific discipline. When I put this question to the Dalai Lama, he unhesitatingly replied as no traditionalist or fundamentalist religious leaders do: In such a case, he said, Tibetan Buddhism would have to alter. Even, I asked, if it’s a really central tenet, like reincarnation? Even then, he replied.” – Carl Sagan In which case, Buddhism is not a religion, but a “spiritual” branch of science, dependent on the findings of science, and capable of being falsified by science at any time. It’s easy for people to claim that they will change their beliefs if necessary. In fact, what actually happens is that people simply reinterpret their beliefs while fully sustaining them. Just ask any scientist ... they are the experts in continuously reinterpreting their fallacious beliefs in order to keep on believing.

Complex Organs “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory [of natural selection] would absolutely break down.” – Darwin But those modifications are generated mentally, not physically!!! Darwinism shouldn’t be a scientific materialist theory at all. Nothing is more complex than the human mind. The mind could not possibly have come into being via numerous, successive, slight modifications of organisations of mindless atoms. There is no bridge from material atoms to mind. Therefore, Darwin’s theory, by his own account, absolutely breaks down.

***** “There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked – to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.” – Richard Feynman

“Scientific integrity”? Is that some kind of joke? Science is utterly intellectually dishonest. It categorically refuses to reply to any ontological and epistemological challenges raised against it. It simply ignores anything it doesn’t like, or finds inconvenient, or problematic to its ideology and dogmatism. Scientists spend almost zero time trying to challenge the coherence of their own theories. That’s why scientific theories keep being refuted, while mathematical theories don’t. All scientific theories are totally unstable because they have no logical foundations. Feynman is simply promoting the tiresome propaganda of science. The “ideals” of science are never practised by actual scientists.

Making It Up Science likes to say, “Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up.” In your dreams, science! Science is just a sensory Mythos, as opposed to the emotional Mythos of religion. Scientists do nothing but make shit up. The only thing that saves science is mathematics, which is all about deduction and has nothing to do with the induction that science relies on. On the basis of induction, science makes stuff up such as ... Schrödinger’s cat is alive, dead, and dead-alive, or there are infinite clones of us, or infinite universes, or wavefunctions need observers in order to collapse, or non-existence randomly produces existence for no reason at all via no mechanism at all. You’d need to be a lunatic to imagine that science isn’t all about making shit up. Never listen to science’s propaganda ... unless you’re the sort of person who just likes making stuff up!

***** Lots of scientists are attracted to Buddhism, which is another pile of madeup nonsense. Buddhism, like alchemy, is an example of what science would be like without math.

Authority “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” – Galileo Galilei Therefore, one person, with sufficiently powerful reasoning, can refute the entirety of science, predicated on the authority of the scientific establishment. Leibniz, on his own, was smarter than every scientist who has ever lived put together.

The Dagger “You cannot meet God until you carry within yourself the dagger of disbelief.” – Kabir Anyone with such a dagger will kill God. Faith in God is entirely dependent on belief in God, not in disbelief! Science ought to direct a dagger of skepticism against itself. Or a dagger of reason, logic and intellect.

The Science of the Soul The Science of the Soul = Ontological Mathematics.

***** “How can the ‘Soul’ be called a ‘Science’ – when there is absolutely no proof of the existence of a so-called ‘soul’??” – V How can scientific materialism be called a “science” when there is absolutely no proof of the existence of so-called “matter”?! As for the soul, of course there’s proof that it exists – the ontological argument, proceeding by way of ontological mathematics. There is of course no empirical evidence for a soul, but that has nothing to do with proof. A soul is defined as non-empirical (i.e. it’s rationalist and intelligible), so you’re a moron if you think or demand that the soul should ever reveal itself to simplistic scientific materialist experimentation. Science need not be materialistic and empiricist. It can be, and ought to be, idealist and rationalist ... as Leibniz intended, in which case it’s entirely valid to talk of the science of the soul. When are people going to stop swallowing the propaganda of scientific materialism?

Xenophanes The philosopher Xenophanes said that God had no human traits. He wrote, “The substance of God is spherical, in no way resembling man. He is all eye and all ear, but does not breathe; he is the totality of mind and thought, and is eternal.”

God is eternal and necessary. Everything else that has come into being is doomed to perish: it’s temporal and contingent. Temporality and contingency always relate to combinations, compounds and functions of eternal, necessary things.

***** Xenophanes said that the soul is breath. The soul is of course math.

Visible Gods For Plato, the stars are visible gods. They are incorporate deities, viewing and directing the universe.

Hylonoism Hylonoism (from hyle “matter” and nous “mind”): matter as enminded. “... the view I am advocating here is a panpsychist dual-aspect monism, one that grants equiprimordial status to mind and matter, and sees both as inherent in all that exists. This is all condensed into my term ‘hylonoism’.” – David Skrbina A panpsychist system such as this is much closer to the doctrine of living matter (hylozoism) than it is to Leibniz’s view of everything, including matter, deriving from monadic minds.

Thy Name is Vanity All people have the choice to be positive or negative. We are fascinated by the phenomenon of people who hang around Illuminist Facebook pages for months and years at a time doing nothing but trolling. There are only two reasons why people repeatedly go to where they’re not wanted in order to troll: 1) they enjoy it ... they’re sadists who love attacking others; they love being negative, cynical, unpopular and bullying others, or 2) they feel massively threatened by what they’re condemning, so compulsively attack it to avoid having to agree with it; they have to keep reassuring themselves that they are right and what they are attacking is wrong, but they always fail to deploy any rational arguments to support their case. Either way, these people are negative, vain narcissists with nothing better to do with their time. They’re a waste of space. We’ve written millions of words and scores of complex books in the same time that our

critics have been pointlessly trolling on Facebook pages. That’s because we’re positive people who get things done. As Hegel said, “Nothing great in the world has ever been accomplished without passion.” People with negative passion are those who try to sabotage those with positive passion. They are wreckers and destroyers, with nothing constructive to contribute. If they were builders, they would go to where they were wanted and help to create something. But these sad, pathetic people have no interest in that. They’re troubled, tormented individuals, projecting their toxic negativity onto everyone else. We’ve never once encountered any critic who has refuted a single thing we’ve said, or even bothered to study what we’ve said (the prerequisite for attempting to show that we’re wrong!). These loudmouths and blowhards are a plague on society. They should be hissed off the stage. They are depressing, negative nutjobs, of zero value to society. If you don’t like what we say, move on. Find something that enthuses you. Don’t hang around like some sad fuck. Get a life.

The 1% There’s a great, ongoing war between the “one percents”, i.e. the various elites of the world. Thousands of years ago, the most violent human beings were the 1% – the elite that ruled through simple brute force. Originally warlords, they came to be known as “kings”. Then a new elite arose – the religious elite. These were cunning psychological manipulators – high priests, prophets, popes, shamans and gurus – who could scare people with talk of the afterlife, demons and devils, angry gods, vengeful angels, and so on. They expertly manipulated Mythos. The religious elite ruled either in their own right, or, more usually, as the chief advisers to the kings. They were the power behind the throne. The religious elite were, and are, the Mythos intelligentsia. They are experts in controlling stories. They are psychological geniuses who know which buttons to press to turn people into fanatics and maniacs. All radicalisers are religious manipulators. After many centuries, a new elite arose ... businessmen. Since the Industrial Revolution, capitalists have ruled the world.

In the past, kings and priests were rich but wealth wasn’t what defined them. Instead, their kingly or religious power was their essence. Over time, they became increasingly reliant on bankers and the rich to finance their wars, palaces and lifestyles. Gradually, the moneymen took over from the priests as the advisers to the kings. Where cardinals once whispered into the ears of kings, now former CEOs of Goldman Sachs stand behind Presidents and feed them their words. Eventually, money became more important even than kingly and religious power, and the moneymen themselves sat on the thrones of power. Many of them were Jewish, the Jews being the world’s traditional financiers. The Jews invariably practised predatory rather than productive capitalism, since they had no regard for the nations that hosted them, and were quite happy to see the masses suffer (since they regarded them as rabid anti-Semites). Today’s world is ruled by the rich ... by banks, corporations, entrepreneurs, stock markets, bond markets, the super rich, and the elite families of inherited wealth. The Jews – full of contempt towards the goyim – are at the heart of this world of the rich. The rich (disproportionately Jewish) have won the Game of Thrones. They have displaced the kings and priests. Where the priests were once the right-hand-men to kings, it’s now lawyers, accountants, economists, advertisers, media consultants, brand advisers, spin doctors, lobbyists, PR gurus, scientists, technologists and engineers who are the advisers to the rich, and their facilitators. The law, media, science and technology are in slavish service to capitalism. So, historically, we have seen a contest between three elites: the kingly, priestly and wealthy. There is, however, another elite that has never ruled ... the intelligentsia ... the Logos elite – philosophers and mathematicians, in particular. The intelligentsia have always served the other elites. The agenda of the Illuminati is for the intelligentsia to assume control of the world, and to rule it in the name of Reason, for the benefit and optimisation of all. We don’t want rich people running the world in their own selfish interests (as we have to endure now), we don’t want kingly elites running the world autocratically (as we used to endure), and we don’t want priestly elites running the world dogmatically and maniacally (as we used to have, and as we see in the present world via the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism).

It’s time for the Age of Reason. It’s time for the Second Enlightenment. It’s time for the smartest people to take over the world, and to lead the human race out of the darkness. That’s what meritocracy is all about. Plato, Rousseau and Hegel demonstrated what has to be done politically. Their systems are the basis of the rule by the world’s greatest resource ... its smartest people ... the Genius Class. We need to transition from money to intelligence, from Mythos to Logos, from mainstream religion to ontological mathematics (predicated on the mathematical monadic soul), from hereditary rule and inheritance to meritocracy ... from kings, high priests, bankers, financiers and the wealthy to the smart. Well, whose side are you on? Who will you support in the game of thrones, the great war of the elites? Behind which sigils will you march?

***** “Their majesties of Spain and Portugal are offended because the Paradise of the Poor is seldom pleasing to those who rule over them.” – The Mission

The Failure of Modern Thinking It’s revealing that our books refer much more to ancient Greek thinkers, medieval Scholastic thinkers, and intellectuals of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries than to 20th and 21st century thinkers. The reason for this is simple. The last two centuries have been totally dominated by the ideology and dogmatism of scientific materialism. If this ideology is false – which it is – it means that all of the intellectual rivers that have flowed from it are polluted with error, falsehood and delusion. Modern thinking is riddled with mistakes and fallacies. Just as the whole of Islamic thinking is entirely false given that the Koran, upon which it’s based, is entirely false, so everything that flows from science is fundamentally wrong. (Its use value should never be confused with its truth value. Things – such as religion and morality – can be very useful while being totally false. Science is no different.) All of Judaism is false since the Jewish Bible is false. All of Christianity is false since Jesus Christ wasn’t God. For a thousand years, Western thinking was stunted by the need to reconcile it with Christian revelation

and faith. It needed the schism between Catholicism and Protestantism to create the room in which new thinking could take place. Likewise, a schism is dialectically required to occur in scientific materialism if new thinking is to become possible again. Science must split into two: old school scientific materialism and new school scientific idealism or panpsychism. The hegemony of modern materialistic scientific thinking must be obliterated. Science is now the biggest obstacle to the Second Enlightenment, to the true Age of Reason. We need modern thinking to be driven by math, not by science; by reason, not the senses; by logic, not experiments. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems do not show the limitations of reason. On the contrary, the reveal the sheer power of reason. Reason is so potent that it can detect any error in reasoning. Anything that is inconsistent and/or incomplete cannot be true. Only ontological mathematics is consistent and complete. Therefore, only ontological mathematics is true.

***** It’s an astounding thing, but we continue to see people who have attached themselves to the Illuminist movement acting as apologists for Abrahamism. Have these people forgotten what Abrahamism is all about? Let’s remind them ... if a voice in your head tells you to murder your children, you say YES! What kind of rational person would seek anything other than the complete eradication of Abrahamism, the Devil’s religion? No ifs and no buts.

Unholy The union of mathematics (rationalism) with science (empiricism) is an unholy alliance. When it comes to defining and knowing ultimate reality, you must choose one or the other. It can’t be both. Science is automatically inconsistent and incomplete because of the way it tries to blend rationalism and empiricism.

***** Observable World: Ad hoc mathematics plus observations (experiments) = science (empiricism); the study of appearances (phenomena).

Unobservable World = analytic, eternal, necessary math = ontological mathematics = metaphysics; the study of things in themselves (noumena). Science is entirely predicated on the self-evident fallacy that all existents are available to scientific experiments and the human senses. Scientists are people who point to sensory things as their “evidence”, rather than presenting iron-clad rational arguments as their proof. Scientists simply do not trust reason, logic and math. They trust their senses.

The New Humanity “It is difficult to predict the extent of self-government that the man of the future may reach or the heights to which he may carry his technique. Man will become immeasurably stronger, wiser, and subtler ... The average human type will rise to the heights of an Aristotle, a Goethe, or a Marx. And above this ridge new peaks will rise.” – Trotsky Once humanity has adopted the perfect system for human development and advancement – meritocracy – there is no limit to the benefits that will flow. We will produce the greatest geniuses of all time ... “singularity” geniuses.

The Turing Test Alan Turing was interested in how mathematics expresses itself in nature. He didn’t think hard enough. Nature doesn’t express mathematics; Nature is mathematics. Why have so few people grasped this truth? Only something perfect can exist eternally. Anything imperfect would be destroyed by its own imperfections, contradictions, inconsistencies and incompleteness. Only mathematics is complete and consistent. Only mathematics is perfect. Therefore, ontology is mathematical. This argument is infallible.

The Simulacrum “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth – it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.” – Baudrillard Baudrillard’s statement might as well be the motto of scientific materialism. Science is a simulacrum that thinks it’s true. However, contrary to what

Baudrillard says, the simulacrum is that which absolutely conceals the truth. The Truth is math.

The Bronze Age Believers There are people in today’s world who continue to believe in ancient superstitions from the Bronze Age, to wear specific items of clothing identifying them with these decrepit belief systems. These people have chosen to live in the past, to believe that the past contains more knowledge and truth than the present and future. They have refused to accept the future, so why should the future accept them? We should introduce a Test Act whereby you must declare whether you live in the past, or look to the future. Is humanity evolving, or is all of its glory in the past? Did the ancients have greater knowledge than the people of today, meaning that humanity has gone backwards, regressed, failed to evolve, become less knowledgeable, more stupid and further removed from the Truth? Anyone who thinks that ancient prophets and gurus knew more about reality than the geniuses of the modern age (starting with Descartes) are literally insane. Anyone who looks to any ancient religion for Truth and Knowledge – whether it’s Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism – is absolutely deluded. The only ancient religion that is acceptable is Illuminism itself because it’s the only one committed to dialectical evolution, to accommodating all new, rational, provable knowledge. It advances as math advances. Illuminism has no religious Mythos, dogmatism or ideology. It is predicated entirely on the eternal truths of reason, i.e. those things that are rationally, provably true. It places no reliance on faith, feelings, the senses, experiences, observations or mysticism. You are not required to believe a single thing. You are not required to be a slave of your senses and experiences.

Intelligible versus Sensible The soul is intelligible, not sensible. Reason is intelligible, not sensible. Mathematics is intelligible, not sensible.

Reality in itself is intelligible, not sensible. The soul = reason = mathematics = reality in itself.

Gnoseology Gnoseology is an obsolete synonym for epistemology. Classical gnoseology concerns the metaphysical theory of knowledge. It is sometimes described as the theory of non-human rooted knowledge (i.e. rationalism), as opposed to human-rooted “knowledge” (i.e. empiricism).

Soul Dust You are told that you are made from stars. You are not told what stars are made of. They are made of ... souls! You are a soul and your body is made of souls too. Souls are all there are: your soul and all other souls. Nothing else exists. Everything comes from souls.

Past and Future There are two human races: one that always looks to the past and is antievolutionary; and one that always looks to the future and is defined by dialectical evolution. The backward-looking humanity is defined by Mythos, by “holy” texts, prophets, gurus, revelation and faith. The forwardlooking humanity is defined by Logos and looks to an Age of Reason and the Second and Final Enlightenment. These two humanities cannot co-exist. One must decisively and irreversibly triumph. If Future Humanity wins, all mainstream religions will perish, and so will scientific materialism. If Past Humanity wins, the world will not progress from its current state, and Humanity is doomed to extinction. It will fall to the intelligentsia of other, alien worlds to advance the cosmic dialectic. They are the ones who will become Gods ... not the human race.

***** Make no mistake, the future is mathematical. Only the galactic species that has the nous and imagination to embrace math can achieve divinity. Mathematics is the language of existence, the divine language.

The Critics People are the prisoners of their humanity, of their human personality types, of their inbuilt biases, prejudices, schemas and beliefs, of their “common sense”. People who criticise the God Series have invariably never read it. What they do is acquire a quick notion of it – that math is asserted to be the basis of reality – and then they attack this position with their kneejerk schemas and beliefs, their pre-existing faith positions. The immense difficulty we have is in attempting to reason with people who can’t reason. That’s a fool’s agenda, so we seek only the kind of people who can reason well enough to understand what we are saying. We are not here to convert the unreasonable. We are here to persuade those who already have high reasoning skills that we are right, and to convince them to join our mission to bring the world under the rule of Reason, rather than the rule of religion, science, physical force or wealth. When we have all the smartest people in the world on our side – exhibiting the strongest possible will to power – nothing can to stop us. The power of intelligence is the greatest power there is. The world has been transformed by reason, not by faith and prayers. Without reason, we would still be living in caves and praying to the gods of the skies, winds, rivers, rains, mountains and volcanoes. The stupid can beat the smart only if they have a stronger will, which they always do thanks to sheer weight of numbers. The smart have always lacked will. They have been reluctant to do what has to be done ... the ugly things that the stupid never hesitate to do. Once the smart have overcome this inhibition, nothing will stop them. The smart must not be in the business of negotiating with the stupid. The smart must dictate their terms to the idiots. It’s the smart way ... or hell. The smart are the true agents of the dialectic. If humanity refuses to become divine, it’s because it lacked the reason and the will. We have only ourselves to blame. Only the brightest amongst us – the most meritocratic – can make humanity what it has the potential to be. We will build Plato’s Meritocratic Republic whether the stupid like it or not, and whether the rich and the religious like it or not. To do so, the will to power needs to flow more strongly through us than anyone else. We need to unite Leibniz, Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Cesare Borgia and Caesar in one.

***** “lf the attribute of popular government in peace is virtue, the attribute of popular government in revolution is at one and the same time virtue and terror, virtue without which terror is lethal, terror without which virtue is impotent. The terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue.” – Robespierre

Louis Antoine de Saint-Just: Archangel of Terror “Most arts have produced miracles, while the art of government has produced nothing but monsters.” – Saint-Just “One does not make revolutions by halves.” – Saint-Just “A nation regenerates itself only upon heaps of corpses.” – Saint-Just “What produces the general good is always terrible or seems bizarre when begun too soon ... The Revolution must stop when it has perfected public happiness and liberty through the laws.” – Saint-Just “I have not found a single good man in government; I have found good only in the people.” – Saint-Just “Man was born for peace and liberty, and became miserable and cruel only through the action of insidious and oppressive laws. And I believe therefore that if man be given laws which harmonize with the dictates of nature and of his heart he will cease to be unhappy and corrupt.” – Saint-Just “Happiness is a new idea in Europe.” – Saint-Just “You who make the laws, the vices and the virtues of the people will be your work.” – Saint-Just “When a people, having become free, establish wise laws, their revolution is complete.” – Saint-Just “Peace and prosperity, public virtue, victory, everything is in the vigour of the laws. Outside of the laws everything is sterile and dead.” – Saint-Just “Every political edict which is not based upon nature is wrong.” – SaintJust

“One cannot reign innocently: the insanity of doing so is evident. Every king is a rebel and a usurper.” – Saint-Just “It is time that we laboured for the happiness of the people. Legislators who are to bring light and order into the world must pursue their course with inexorable tread, fearless and unswerving as the sun.” – Saint-Just “It has always seemed to me that the social order was implicit in the very nature of things, and required nothing more from the human spirit than care in arranging the various elements; that a people could be governed without being made thralls or libertines or victims thereby.” – Saint-Just “The legislator commands the future; to be feeble will avail him nothing: it is for him to will what is good and to perpetuate it; to make man what he desires to be: for the laws, working upon the social body, which is inert in itself, can produce either virtue or crime, civilized customs or savagery.” – Saint-Just “In the circumstances in which the Republic finds itself, the constitution cannot be inaugurated; it would destroy itself ... The provisional government of France is revolutionary until there is peace.” – Saint-Just “Insurrection is the exclusive right of the people and of the citizen. Every foreigner, every man clothed with public authority, is outlawed if he proposes it and must be put to death as a usurper of sovereignty and as interested in fomenting troubles for the purpose of doing evil or of adorning himself. Insurrections taking place under a despotism are always salutary. Those which break out in a free state are sometimes dangerous for liberty itself, because the revolt usurps its sublime pretexts and its sacred name. Revolts in free states leave long and painful wounds which bleed a whole century.” – Saint-Just “The Revolution has grown cold; all its principles are weakened; there remains only red caps worn by intriguers. The exercise of terror has made crime blasé, as strong liquors made the palace blasé.” – Saint-Just “When human statecraft attaches a chain to the feet of a free man, whom it makes a slave in contempt of nature and citizenship, eternal justice rivets the other end about the tyrant’s neck.” – Saint-Just

“The French people recognizes the Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul. The first day of every month is to be dedicated to the eternal.” – Saint-Just “In every Revolution a dictator is needed to save the state by force, or censors to save it by virtue.” – Saint-Just “Citizens, by what illusion could one persuade himself that you are inhuman. Your Revolutionary Tribunal has condemned three hundred rascals to death in a year. Has not the Spanish Inquisition done worse than that ... Have the English assizes butchered no one in that period? ... What of the kings of Europe, does anyone prate to them of pity? Ah, do not allow yourselves to grow soft-hearted!” – Saint-Just “Dare! – this word contains all the politics of our revolution.” – Saint-Just “It is not enough, citizens, to have destroyed the factions, it is necessary now to repair the evil that they have done to the country.” – Saint-Just “The vessel of Revolution can arrive at port only on a sea reddened by torrents of blood.” – Saint-Just “I do not belong to any faction, I will fight them all.” – Saint-Just “Saint-Just’s rise to power was stratospheric and unstoppable. Fiercely intelligent, dedicated and focused on his cause, he drafted the French Constitution of 1793 and was among Robespierre’s most trusted friends. Like Robespierre, when the end came for Saint-Just it was swift and merciless and he was executed alongside his friend on 28th July. “Immediately before his arrest, Saint-Just attempted to make an eloquent speech in defence of Robespierre before members of the Convention but found himself unable to finish. Disgruntled deputies countered and heckled until, eventually, Jean-Lambert Tallien interrupted and silenced him, pushing him away from the lectern. Despite this, SaintJust would not be provoked and instead attempted to continue speaking and make his point. Calm and dignified, he refused to surrender the platform and remained in place until his arrest and removal. “Detained in the Hôtel de Ville with the other arrested men, Saint-Just remained as calm as ever as around him, his former colleagues fell into a panic. Whilst others committed suicide or attempted to do so, Saint-Just calmly accepted his fate and walked unflinchingly to the scaffold alongside

Robespierre and twenty others. With no trace of fear he went to the guillotine, convinced of his righteousness to the last.” – Catherine Curzon

***** The Guillotine – the National Razor The Committee of Public Safety

Evil Science Bertrand Russell said, “Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.” In these terms, science is becoming increasingly evil since, amongst the intelligentsia, it has become the single biggest obstacle to the Truth. Bertrand Russell himself was a man steeped in error and falsehood.

The New Science It’s essential for the New Science to put agency, subjectivity, teleology, free will and mind into its equations – everything formally repudiated by today’s science. The equations of existence must be blazing with fire at all times. The New Science is about existence as a living organism, not as a dead machine. Only organisms come with fire. Machines never do.

***** “The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning and does not stop until you get into the office.” – Robert Frost The scientific brain closes down the moment it gets to the lab or the office. As you would expect, we get many critics from the scientific materialist community. They always blabber on about “evidence”, thus showing that they haven’t understood a single word of ontological mathematics. We deal in rational, logical proof, not in absurd sensory (delusional) interpretations, with no ontological and epistemological basis. The senses can’t prove that “matter” exists. No sensualist can even define “matter”! We have never once encountered any rant by a scientist that put a single dent in ontological mathematics. Never once has any scientist refuted

anything we said. For some bizarre reason, many of these people focus on our hatred of Abrahamism, which betrays the reality that these people actually belong to that most bizarre subset of atheistic science ... scientists who are Abrahamic believers (usually Jews, or Christian Fundamentalists). None of them has ever read the God Series. At best, they might have previewed one book, i.e. a tiny percentage of the enormous content of the series, yet they feel they are in a position to pontificate on ontological mathematics. That’s scientists for you ... dismissing material they have never read. So much for scientific research. These people are a joke. You need to be rational to understand the God Series. It’s not for people suffering from scientism. Only the smartest people in the world are capable of understanding the God Series, and that rules out the vast majority of scientists, people who irrationally and illogically believe that their senses are better routes to truth than their reason and logic. This is only a superficially sensory universe. Underneath the appearances, it reflects Hegelian dialectical panlogism, and Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason. This universe is quite literally made of reason, which is why only reason can reveal its ultimate secrets. It’s not made of the senses or anything sensory. The senses are detectors of what appearances the ontological mathematical units of reality assume. They tell you nothing at all about what those units are in themselves. Scientists have never comprehended this most basic of all facts.

The Designer Who designed the Designer? A mathematical world inherently exhibits design. Design comes inbuilt in mathematics. It requires no Designer. It is Design.

Ex Our movement welcomes ex-Jews, ex-Muslims, ex-Christians, ex-Hindus, ex-Buddhists, ex-Sikhs, ex-materialists, ex-atheists. It utterly condemns and rejects any such person who is not “ex”!

Story People Humans are story people. They follow story logic and believe the most ridiculous stories, provided the stories have an internal “logic” that appeals

to them, comforts them, and through which they can “understand” the world as a great story. The Bible is just a giant narrative – a novel purporting to be reality and Truth. Just like all popular novels, the Bible contains zero mathematics, zero science, zero philosophy, and zero Logos. It’s sheer Mythos from beginning to end, with zero Truth content. It’s a compelling emotional extravaganza, and nothing else.

Project Hope Nothing could have been more daunting and terrifying than the enormous and vastly better equipped English army that faced the tiny Scottish force at Bannockburn in 1314, yet the Scots won the field. That’s what happens when an ingenious, meritocratic, brave people dares to be free, to have the highest hopes and ambitions, and will let nothing stop it.

The Smell Andromache (wife of Hector of Troy) to Helen of Troy: “When you walk in a room, the men smell sex, the women smell death.” Helen: “No, the women smell sex; that is why they detest me. The men smell death and it smells exciting, because it smells like war.” (Simon Armitage’s The Last Days of Troy)

We Shall Not Serve We are not here to serve the Elite. We are not here to kneel. We are not here to bow. We are not here to grovel. We are not here to beg. Are you one of the deluded masses that believe that the rich elites deserve their loot? As Balzac said, “Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.” The Elite are the criminals who didn’t get caught, those who chose and bought the judge, jury and the law itself. Will you go on playing a game rigged against you? If you do, you’re the worst type of loser. You’re pathetic. You’re a loser now and forever. You want to be a loser. If you didn’t, you would change the game to ensure that you had as good a chance of winning as anyone else. No person from an unprivileged background can expect to succeed in a world ruled by privilege. 1 + 1 = 2. It’s time to revalue all values, to reboot the world, to reload the program for this world. What are you going to do? Are you just going to bleat about life, or are you going to act, to do something?

The world is full not of the Can-Dos but the Can-Do-Nothings. Go on, justify your existence. Demonstrate even one creative thing you have ever done. Show in what way you have made a difference. Show how you have risen above the Ignavi. There’s no way this world can change unless the Elite are toppled. So, we ask you again, are you for or against the Elite? What are you going to do to remove them? Are you for or against 100% inheritance tax, the tax that breaks the power and wealth of the Elite once and for all? Anyone who opposes this tax is a friend and ally of the Elite, and an Enemy of the People. Your choice is simple. Demand 100% inheritance tax. Do not take part in capitalist democracy. Do not serve the Elite. Demand the end of ancient, decrepit, pathetic religions. Demand the Second Enlightenment.

The God Series The God Series is the guaranteed answer to everything ... but only if you’re smart enough. Why would anyone imagine that the Truth is available to stupid, irrational people, those obsessed with faith, or with their own feelings and experiences, or with mystical intuitions, or their fallible senses? Truth is about reason and only the most intelligent people can use reason properly.

A Curious Thing It’s a curious thing, but many of the people who come to the AC website are just about the last people we would want to be reading it and taking an interest in it. Their understanding of it is close to zero, and in fact they stand for more or less the opposite of what we advocate. We attract many “spiritual” types, but we endorse hyperrationalism. What a fuck on! Do not read the AC website unless you agree that mathematics – the most daunting subject of all, dealing with the two greatest mysteries of all (nothing and infinity) – is the only conceivable, rational, analytic answer to the mystery of existence. If you hold any other position, you are an irrationalist and the AC site contains nothing of value to you.

Islamic State Modern America was founded by exactly the same kind of people who are building the “Islamic State” in the Middle East. i.e. religious fanatics,

extremists, fundamentalists and grim Puritans, obsessed with the infallibility of their holy text, hated and persecuted in their home countries, and wishing to flee to a new land to build the perfect Holy, Godly Nation, reflecting their sacred Covenant with their God. America, to this day, is full of right wing religious nuts and conspiracy theorists who despise the Government and the Godless State, and imagine Communism and Atheism encroaching everywhere. American “patriots” and the 9/11 “Truth” Movement are – with their constant, insidious YouTube videos spreading their hatred of the State and ludicrous conspiracy theories, designed to radicalise vulnerable, irrational youths – just the mirror image of the internet-savvy Jihadists ordering young Muslims to rise up against their Governments and States to overthrow them. The Jihadists want to set up a Koranic caliphate; the American “patriots” want to set up Ayn Rand’s ultra-capitalist Market, where Government and the State have been abolished, and everything is run by the market. It’s not Government and the State that need to be overthrown, it’s bad Governments and bad States, and they need to be replaced by good Governments and good States, serving the public good and the Commonwealth. No Government or State led by greedy, selfish, right-wing capitalists who support private advantage over the public good can be anything but toxic. Free-market capitalism has led to the greatest financial inequality in human history. Is that supposed to be progressive and serving the public good? The facts have spoken. Right wing ideology leads to Dictatorship by the rich elites, and the enslavement of the rest of us. All right wingers are Enemies of the People. They are the supporters of the tyrants that want to have total power over the people.

Irredeemable “I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” – Thomas Jefferson “Question with boldness the existence of God. I do not believe any of the Christian doctrines. The greatest enemies of Jesus [are the doctrines and creeds of the church].” – Thomas Jefferson

Christianity is the least rational religion. It doesn’t make any sense at all. Christianity sees its greatest strength as its claim that God incarnated on earth and lived as a human being. This is fantastic in Mythos terms, but is unintelligible and deranged in Logos terms. By definition, God cannot be a human or experience the human condition. The comic strip character Clark Kent lives as a human, but he’s not human, knows he’s not human, and knows that he can turn into Superman at any time. Such a person has zero true understanding of the human condition because, obviously, you need to be human to have that understanding. Jesus Christ, if you believe Christianity, was God, and that, automatically means that he wasn’t human. Christianity seeks to have its cake and eat it by claiming that God was both fully human and fully divine – a logical impossibility.

The Narrative The world is full of people peddling grievance narratives and entitlement narratives. Where is the Hero narrative, the merit narrative, the intelligence narrative, the achievement narrative?

The Trolls We get innumerable right wing trolls ranting and railing against us. All of them are psychopathic narcissists. They think they’re real special, real smart. But special, smart people can point to great accomplishments. Not one of humanity’s achievers, of humanity’s winners, has ever spent time trolling. People troll because their lives are empty. They’re crying out for attention. They’re consumed by narcissistic rage and want to big themselves up ... to stop themselves from collapsing. These are eggshell people, waiting to break.

The Choice You are either for the public good or the private good. If you are a freemarket capitalist, you are ipso facto for the private good since capital belongs to the private elites and not to the public. There’s nothing more sickening, hypocritical and fraudulent than freemarket capitalists pretending to be on the side of the People. All rightwingers support the private over public good, and that’s because they see much greater opportunity for greed and selfishness if private elites are in

charge rather than the public. All right-wingers are friends and allies of the elite 1%, hence they are automatically Enemies of the People.

The Golden Age According to Hesiod, the Golden Age ended when Prometheus stole the fire of the gods and gave it to mankind. This act of disobedience is the classical equivalent of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, causing them to be driven out of paradise. But what Prometheus and Adam and Eve prove is that we do not need gods, and we ourselves can become gods. We are the new Prometheans, the new Faustians. We won’t take just the sacred fire from the Gods, but everything they have. The world is divided into two: those who are on their knees to the Old Gods, and those who are becoming the New Gods. There can be no reconciliation between these two groups. They are diametrically opposed. One group thinks “God” is outside them, and the other that “God” is inside them. There can be no greater difference.

Pessimism “I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will.” – Antonio Gramsci It’s easy to look at the world and see everything in decline and going to hell in a handcart, yet any situation can be transformed ... if you have sufficient will. The intelligentsia have always lacked will and have always taken the cowards’ way out and served religious, political, military or economic elites with vastly stronger will. But everything will change when the smart people ally Nietzschean will to their intellect. Nothing will be able to beat them. They will become as Gods.

The Movement Reloaded You are the change in the world. If you don’t change, the world won’t change. It’s time to undergo your appointed metamorphosis ... from grub to hero, from worm to God. Change is the basis of everything, and the thing most in need of change isn’t the world but always yourself. When you change, you will see the

world with brand new eyes, you will see that all things are possible, and you will see a thousand new beginnings. Step up your game, motherfuckers. Bring your “A” game or don’t bother showing up. Who wants the second best, the second rate, the halfhearted, the mediocre? The Movement wants only the achievers, the talented, those who can make things happen rather than just talking about it or moaning about it.

Mohammed If you want to picture the “Prophet” Mohammed, think of a man exactly like Abraham, standing over his child, ready to kill it because of a voice in his head commanding him to do it. Osama bin Laden would have been very like Mohammed. If Mohammed lived today, he would be proclaiming Global Jihad and demanding the global imposition of Sharia Law, cheering on every Muslim terrorist, and ordering them to martyr themselves as they smite the infidels. US special forces would be after him, and he’d probably die in a drone strike. His body would be buried at sea, the ultimate unmarked grave.

Borrowing Energy? Because energy has no continuous ontology in scientific ideology, it can be miraculously “borrowed” from the past or future (i.e. from an “uncertain” time interval). This is pure magic. If energy can never be created or destroyed under any conditions then this borrowing “trick” – which appears in all sorts of quantum mechanical speculations – is wholly invalid and absolutely impossible, meaning that all theories based on this notion are wrong. “Borrowing” amounts to magicking energy out of nothing, and then “paying it back” (destroying it) to balance the books. This is the exact opposite of what the First Law is all about ... the absolute impossibility of creating or destroying energy. You simply cannot borrow energy from nonexistence. Non-existence has no properties at all, and no ability to generate anything at all. It has no connection with energy whatsoever. All energy that exists in the universe is eternal and immutable.

Up and Down Who’s up, who’s down? The rich are always up, and you are always down! Haven’t you figured that out yet?

Apes, Humans and Evolution If we have all evolved from some apelike ancestor, why should we conclude that we have all evolved equally? Aren’t some of us still close to the apes, and some of us further removed? If some apes remind us of humans, isn’t it the case that some humans remind us of apes?

The Lost Cause? “If we take the widest and wisest view of a Cause, there is no such thing as a Lost Cause because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause. We fight for lost causes because we know that our defeat and dismay may be the preface to our successors’ victory, though that victory itself will be temporary; we fight rather to keep something alive than in the expectation that anything will triumph.” – T. S. Eliot

Reality Check While a glittering Roman general was enjoying a glorious Triumph through the thronged streets of Rome, a slave stood behind him and whispered in his ear, “All this will pass. You are nothing but dust.” Isn’t that what someone needs to tell today’s super rich? Inheritance is the exact means by which the rich attempt to pass on their glory to their offspring. Glory is actively earned ... never transmitted by passive inheritance. There is no glory in being a parasite, in living off the dead.

Free Speech Winston Churchill said, “Where there is a great deal of free speech there is always a certain amount of foolish speech.” In today’s world, free speech leads to an avalanche of foolish speech. Social networking has released the greatest tidal wave of idiocy in human history. Where fools used to be placed in the corner wearing a Dunce’s cap, now they pontificate on everything under the sun on the internet. Facebook and Twitter have given maximum expression and liberation to mental illness. Many people who arrive at the AC website have come for all the wrong reasons, to get validation of their mad ideas and beliefs. When you read Facebook pages dealing with Illuminism, you can’t help but notice that many of the contributors are mentally ill, and not far removed from believing in fairies.

Illuminist pages attract trolls in droves. These are people whose only desire is to wreck, destroy, mock, ridicule, pour out negativity and contempt. They have zero positive contribution to make. They have no constructive instincts whatsoever and are always exclusively driven by bitterness, hatred and revenge. They consider themselves “inside dopesters” ... people who imagine they know what’s going on in the world and can’t be duped – but they are in fact just clueless dopes who get fooled all the time, mostly by themselves, by their own arrogance and closed minds. They say things such as a book can be taken seriously only if it’s written by a recognised authority with a reputation to uphold. This is the classic fallacy of the “appeal to authority” – the idiotic belief that only recognised “experts” can ever be right, and what they say is automatically superior to what anyone else says. Of course, every single great advance in history has been produced by geniuses attacking the received wisdom, overthrowing the claims of the established experts and rendering their dinosaur views obsolete. Why do billions of people still believe in ludicrous ancient religions? It’s exactly because they too look to “authorities” to tell them what and how to think. These people can’t think for themselves, can’t use their own reason. A reputation counts for nothing if you’re wrong. An expert is only an expert until he’s not. The only subject that deals in infallibility is ontological mathematics. Trolls have only one instinct – to use whatever argument suits their case at a particular moment. One moment, they revere “authorities”. The next, they will quote from some wacky guru, or even put forward their own weird and wonderful beliefs. You can’t have it both ways. If you think that only books by establishment experts count then you are obliged to parrot their opinions at all times because you yourself have no right to make any claims since you are not a recognised expert. Why would we listen to the parrots when we can listen to the “experts” themselves? You ought to become voiceless if you have declared that only the establishment’s chosen experts can be right. But trolls are never worried by consistency, logic and reason. They say whatever is expedient to their trolling activities, whatever can put other people down and big themselves up. Their own narcissism is always their primary and indeed exclusive preoccupation.

Trolling is one of the most unfortunate aspects of the modern world, and a total abuse of “free speech”. Free speech mustn’t be allowed to degenerate into “foolish speech”, or it will become valueless, and even dangerous. It will represent an immense obstacle to human progress, the opposite of what free speech was supposed to accomplish. Pro-Illuminist sites should have zero tolerance towards trolling. Trolling is certainly a kind of “free speech”, but not a kind that any rational person would endorse. When was the last time you found a troll improving the human condition with their venomous outpourings? Trolls want to use “freedom” to destroy others, not to improve the world. Is that really the type of freedom that meritocrats want to support?

Inheritance Tax DH: “100% inheritance tax? Ahahaha! Good luck making that a reality!” Allowing 80 people to have as much wealth as 3.5 billion people. Ahahaha! Good luck making that a reality! .... oops, it has already happened!

***** What’s the point of “Illuminist” pages that give a platform to antimeritocratic moronic parasites living off the leftovers of the dead, who have achieved fuck all ever?

The War Occupy Wall Street opposes Big Business (Capitalism). The Tea Party opposes Big Government (Democracy). Which side are you on? There’s no such thing as “capitalist democracy”. There is either capitalism (private power) or democracy (public power). Which side are you on?

Perfect Clarity The awesome, indestructible, indomitable, indisputable clarity of mathematics. Nothing else is clear. Everything else involves seeing through a glass darkly.

The Hidden Persuaders

Who are the Hidden Persuaders? Who are the Subliminal Projectors? Who are the False Consciousness Constructors? Who are the practitioners of Subliminal Seduction? Are you one of their victims? How would you know? Who are the Primers, priming you for their sinister, subliminal messages? Are you the victim of Agency Panic? This is defined as an intense fear that you can be shaped or controlled by powerful forces outside yourself; that you have lost your own agency and are now being manipulated by an external agency.

Hanging Around On any Facebook page discussing Illuminism, you will find several cretinous trolls who do nothing but badmouth the AC website and post literally hundreds of messages denouncing it in every possible way. Many of them say that the Illuminati doesn’t exist. Well, isn’t it odd to spend time hanging around Facebook pages devoted to a non-existent, a total fantasy? If you “know” that it’s all nonsense, why haven’t you moved on? Isn’t it utterly perverse behaviour to spend your life devoted to something that you yourself have proudly proclaimed doesn’t exist? What kind of person obsessively posts hundreds of messages regarding an absurd fiction? You are defined by your behaviour, by your actions, by what you do with your time. So, those people that deride the AC website have decided that the most important thing in their entire life is to deride that website (!). This is the task to which they have devoted themselves. They literally don’t do anything else. They are posting their sniping, carping, cynical, skeptical comments all day long. What sad and pathetic lives these people have. They have nothing positive in their lives. They feel compelled to commit their whole lives to negativity, to slagging things off, to destruction, to trolling, to trying to aggravate people and creating doubt and cynicism. When you go to any Facebook page, you always have a choice: to be positive or negative. All psychologically healthy people seek out Facebook pages where they can be positive. But what about the sick people, the mentally ill people? Well, they seek out Facebook pages where they can be as negative as possible. They love being negative. They feel empowered by it. They get off on ridiculing people, bullying people, bigging themselves up

and putting others down. They are looking for their narcissistic codependents. They are desperate for you to bow to them, to tell them they are right and you are wrong. It infuriates them if you don’t acknowledge their “brilliance”, the “fact” that they have seen through all the bullshit, that they alone haven’t been duped, while you most certainly have. They spend their time being negative – on Facebook pages with which they have zero sympathy or empathy – because their real purpose is to exercise power over you. That’s what thrills them. They don’t want to go to Facebook pages with which they agree because then no one would notice them. Their “talent” is for attacking and contradicting, nor for agreeing and cooperating. Any Facebook page that gives a platform to such people is antiIlluminist, and actively helping hawk predators to attack Illuminism. Illuminism is about retaliating against psychopathic hawks, and if you don’t retaliate then you are not an Illuminist. Anyone who posts hundreds of anti-Illuminist messages should be blocked from any Facebook page purporting to have Illuminist sympathies. There are no end of places for people to attack the Illuminati. Why aren’t these trolls on those pages? Because that would be no fun for them. If you tolerate these people, it’s purely because you’re a pathetic, submissive narcissistic codependent. Now and again, people try to contact us. We always ignore any such people if we have noted that they subscribe to Facebook pages that are full of anti-Illuminist trolls. We have better things to do with our time than waste it on sad sacks and losers. We engage with positive people, not with trolls and their fellow travellers and codependents. Only the worst human beings are attracted to constant negativity and to being where they are not wanted. If you tolerate these people, you’re as bad as they are. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Equally, “All that is necessary for the triumph of trolling predators is that their victims do nothing.” We see several allegedly pro-Illuminist Facebook pages that look exactly like anti-Illuminist pages given that so many trolls are posting on these pages. Any such pages ought to close down. If administrators can’t block trolls, they ought to give up. We ourselves closed down our Facebook page because we had better things to

do than read messages by trolls, and to be forever engaged in blocking these pointless, negative people.

***** Think of your own behaviour. Do you show up every day on a Facebook page to pour out negativity and cynicism? And if you wouldn’t do it, why do you think that any decent person would? You have to remove toxic influences from your life, and that means getting as far from trolls as you can. If you have any trolls as Facebook friends, you’re as bad as they are. You’re reinforcing them. If you can’t recognise a troll, it’s because you’re one ... or one of their codependents.

The Road To Nowhere There’s a ghastly Facebook page called the “The Path of Illumination”. We must presume it’s satirical because no rational person could ever imagine that this pile of horseshit has any connection with authentic Illumination. On the few occasions when we glance at it, it appears to be completely overrun by gibbering simians randomly hitting the keyboard as if they’re engaged in the experiment to get infinite monkeys to produce, by pure chance, meaningful strings of words. Or all we see are odious, preening, toxic vermin. Where’s the Pied Piper when you need him? Every Facebook page needs a rat-catcher. Some Facebook pages need to do the decent thing and commit suicide. Anyone who subscribes to “The Path of Illumination” page has chosen their side ... and it’s not ours. We want that page to be specifically known as a place where our enemies gather to oppose everything we stand for. It’s an anti-Illuminist page, run by trolls promoting their own egotism and megalomania, and attracting the sad-sack codependents of trolls. The admin is a Muslim. WTF! It can be no coincidence that this page has exactly the same name as the Facebook page we previously ran (Path of Illumination). This is a sabotage page, as should be evident from one glance at it. There’s no law against wasting your life on mind-rotting crap. But anyone who does so is no meritocrat and no Illuminist. Hold up a mirror and have a good look at yourself. Is hanging around on the pathetic Path of Illumination Facebook page your contribution to the world? Is that your best shot at living a worthy life? Anyone who posts anything on that page

has told the world what manner of person they are – an absolute failure, going nowhere, achieving nothing, sliding back into the primordial slime. No one makes you waste the gift of life. That’s your choice. That’s on you.

Compare and Contrast “The Path of Illumination” Facebook page is an abomination that opposes everything Illuminism stands for. It’s overrun by trolls, troll codependents, narcissists, egotists, megalomaniacs, morons, New Age speculators, credulous retards, anarchists, libertarians, conspiracy theorists ... the sad, the bad and the mad ... everything we loathe. Now consider “The Gnostic Age” Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/gnostic.age This is the kind of page we are more than happy to endorse, which very much reflects Illuminist values. It’s a smart page saying smart things. So, everyone who supports Illuminist values should support that Facebook page (and the various pages and sites to which it links). “The Path of Illumination” page should be allowed to sink back into the swamp or sewer whence it came. Let the rats run amok, spreading the deadly plague amongst themselves.

The World Revolution “A world revolution begins with each individual maximising their potential.” – The Gnostic Age The sole legitimate function of any State or government is to maximise the potential of each and every citizen: to actualise every person as fully as possible. The States and governments of the present day are all about maximising the potential of the rich elites, and minimising everyone else’s potential. When the financial Elites of power and privilege are in charge, no one else gets in a look in. Only a fool would go along with a world where they are second-class citizens in a two-tier society (rich elites and poor nonelites).

If “If only I could disprove the AC site, everyone would see how great and powerful I am.” – predator narcissist

“If...” – the AC site (with thanks to the Spartans!) Everyone on earth is welcome to attempt to disprove ontological mathematics. Good luck with that! Of course, you’d actually have to be intelligent and know what you’re talking about to even try ... which rules out all of the predator narcissists. All they ever blabber on about is “Satan”, and their “experiences”, and their idiotic beliefs. Not once do they mention mathematics, science or philosophy. To discuss these things, you must actually have knowledge. Bullshit and anecdotes don’t cut it.

Knowledge versus Belief People know that 1 + 1 = 2. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God. They do not know this. They have no evidence or proof for this claim. All non-Christians do not believe it. 1 + 1 = 3 is a belief. There’s nothing to stop people from holding such a belief, but it has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge. It’s astounding how many people don’t know the difference between knowledge and belief. Belief is defined as an acceptance that something is true without any evidence, proof, reason or logic. Knowledge is that which is accepted as true on the basis of evidence, proof, reason or logic, i.e. it’s the exact opposite of belief. People who despise knowledge like to claim that mathematics is a belief system, and thus they prove that they have zero understanding of both mathematics and knowledge. These people literally know nothing. They are people of faith only. They do not accept that knowledge is knowledge. They regard 1 + 1 = 2 as a contingent belief rather than as a necessary, incontrovertible, eternal fact! You cannot argue with such people. They are wholly irrational. You cannot believe in knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge precisely because it does not involve belief. A belief can be converted into knowledge if and only if evidence or proof emerges that vindicates it. Knowledge can be found to be based on belief if it contains some element for which there is no rational ground. Science, for example, has a belief that what preceded the Big Bang was non-existence, capable of spontaneously creating existence. “Knowledge”, like belief, need not be correct (if it’s not mathematical knowledge), but, no matter what, it must have a basis other than belief. The

only knowledge that is infallible and absolute – literally incontestable – is the complete and consistent knowledge of ontological mathematics.

Illuminati “Researchers” David Icke believes himself an expert regarding the “Illuminati” – shapeshifting, pan-dimensional alien lizards, apparently. In fact, he’s an expert in his own fabrication of the “Illuminati”, not in anything to do with the actual Illuminati. “Researchers” are self-declared “experts” in researching the gossip, rumours, speculation, conspiracy theories and memes regarding societies such as the Illuminati. They have no actual knowledge of these societies and their deep backgrounds. How could they? They’re not members, so everything they say can be dismissed as pure speculation, fuelled by their personal, political, religious and economic agendas. The Illuminati were originally condemned as left-wing, anti-Catholic, anti-monarchy, anti-rich fanatics (French Revolutionary Jacobins). Today, they are routinely portrayed as Jesuits, monarchists, bankers, Jews, crony capitalists, Washington D. C. politicians, and so on, i.e. the 100% opposite of the original portrayal. When this happens, you can be sure that you’re dealing with people’s projections, which have no basis in reality. “Illuminati” is simply the empty label given to some allegedly unseen group controlling the world, onto which conspiracy theorists project all of their hatred and frustration. People such as Alex Jones and David Icke relentlessly stoke people’s fears and paranoia and make a very healthy living from doing so. They don’t write books about philosophy, science and ontological mathematics! The people running the world are no mystery. All you have to do is follow the money. Who are the small group of eighty people who have as much wealth as three and a half billion people? That’s who’s running the world! Duh! 1 + 1 = 2.

***** Illuminism is about ontological mathematics, and always has been. Pythagoras was the first ontological mathematician. You won’t find any mention of ontological mathematics outside the God Series. What does that tell you? It tells you that this material cannot have been borrowed from any other source in the world, and that means that either some random person

invented ontological mathematics in the last few years – the most astounding intellectual feat of all time – or that the God Series reflects an ancient source of secret knowledge, accumulated by humanity’s finest minds. Well, which is it? The question you always have to ask yourself is whether this material is available anywhere else and could have been copied from anywhere else. If not, it’s genuine. All fakes and frauds are copies or obvious fantasies (such as those of David Icke). You can’t create a fantasy regarding ontological mathematics. Mathematical claims are either right or wrong. You can’t hide behind Mythos. You’re in pure Logos territory. We note that not one troll has ever attacked our Logos material. Not one has ever shown any awareness at all of ontological mathematics. All they blabber on about is “Satan”. Who is Satan? Satan is the Demiurge: Jehovah, Jesus Christ, Allah – the “God” of Abrahamism. We are those who call for the complete abolition of Abrahamism and thus Satanism. We are not the Satanists ... the trolls are!!! Any of our critics who does not mention ontological mathematics has no credibility, and to understand ontological mathematics you would need to have total knowledge of the millions of words of the God Series, including the remaining books of the series that have not yet been published. The trolls have no knowledge whatsoever of the God Series. The entire extent of their knowledge regarding us is a few pages they’ve skimmed read of the AC website. People always hate and fear what they don’t understand. They feel a tremendous compulsion to rubbish it so that they don’t have to worry about it. Imagine if you took Illuminism seriously. You would then have about five million words to read, regarding material of which you have no knowledge, and which is staggeringly complex, dealing as it does with the mathematical fabric of existence itself. Rather than go down that rabbit hole, the morons and trolls simply shout, “It’s fake, phoney, fraudulent, nonsense, fabricated, idiotic, Satanic, evil, copied, based on the writings of Crowley ... or whatever.” Not once do they engage with ontological mathematics. They don’t even know what it is, and they’re certainly not going to spend any time finding out because then they would have to admit that everything they believe about reality is false.

You must be humble when you approach Truth and Knowledge, and stupid trolls never are. They are always self-serving narcissists, and they only like things they can use for their own advantage. Truth and Knowledge are of no use to them, and they don’t want to talk about them. They want to talk about their experiences and beliefs, and nothing else. The AC site can actually be used as a means of detecting narcissists. Anyone who rails against it, while showing no substantive knowledge of its enormous content, is plainly a narcissistic psycho troll. They have a real problem with the AC site because they are so intimidated by it. They know that if we succeed, they fail. It’s a zero-sum game. In the new world, the trolls, narcissists and psychopaths will be powerless and marginalised. Talented, positive, constructive men and women will be running the world, and the rulers of the old world will be in zoos, safely shut away from decent people. They won’t be able to pull anyone down anymore. The Age of the Troll and Bully will be over once and for all, cured by the Age of Reason.

The Spreading Illness Trolling is a form of mental illness. The troll seeks out places to go where he can cause maximum trouble, distress, annoyance, irritation, disruption and destruction. He’s drawn to conflict and completion. He has no creative and constructive instincts. If he wants to bitch about the world, he should of course set up his own website, blog or Facebook discussion page. But he never does. He needs to feed off the cruelty he inflicts on others. He needs to taunt, torment and bully them. That’s how he gets his kicks. The troll is always a psychopath, sociopath or sadist. Trolls are invariably on the autistic spectrum. In particular, most suffer from Asperger’s Syndrome. They have zero empathy and sympathy, and totally abnormal responses to standard human interaction. The average person has no desire to be engaged in constantly squabbling with people and slagging them off ... to being surrounded with people who dislike them and want them gone. This is not true of the troll. He flourishes in such environments. Trolls have no self-awareness, and no self-critical faculty. It’s impossible to reason with them. They are effectively mad. You can’t debate with the insane.

Trolls have nothing positive to contribute. They are wholly negative, cynical, carping, malicious people. They are anathema to the Illuminist movement. An Illuminist page is finished the moment a troll shows up and is not dealt with (totally unfriended and blocked). Free speech should always be extended to rational, intelligent people. It should never be extended to trolls since they are there to shout others down, harangue and ridicule them, and constantly big themselves up. Their agenda is always themselves. They have no other agenda. Their free speech is what they are interested in, not yours. You are there purely to serve as their victim. If you put up with it, you deserve to be a victim. You’re a total failure and loser. Trolling has become an epidemic on the internet. Trolls, like hackers, have ruined the internet. They have made it a profoundly unpleasant arena. The bullies have taken over the playground. It’s time for the fight back!

***** “When Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from troubled dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a monstrous insect.” – Kafka One day, a decent person awoke from troubled dreams and found himself transformed into a monstrous internet troll.

Whistleblowers Whistleblowers don’t stand a chance. The people they are blowing the whistle against are the ones in charge, the ones who will be “investigating” their complaint. We all know how that’s going to turn out, don’t we?

Meritocracy versus Religious Faith ST: “I want meritocracy that will not be controlled by anti-religion government. I want a meritocracy which gives anyone the freedom to choose his religion.” Let’s get this crystal clear. Mainstream religion – Abrahamism or Karmism – is totally incompatible with meritocracy. No one who believes that some people are going to eternal paradise and others to eternal hell depending on what absurd fantasy-God they believe in has any place in a rational meritocracy. No one who believes in a caste system has any place in a rational meritocracy. No one who believes that people are being controlled

like puppets by the actions of their past lives has any place in a rational meritocracy. Meritocracy is not about perpetuating the Old World Order. It’s about replacing it with a New World Order. Faith must be abolished. The last thing that any meritocratic State would ever tolerate is exactly the kind of religious mania that has made meritocracy necessary in the first place, as its cure! Absolutely never tell anyone that meritocracy is not opposed to mainstream religious faith. It emphatically is. In a meritocracy, no one can be free to believe that some meritocrats are going to hell for disagreeing with them. Religious faith is 100% incompatible with meritocracy. If you don’t agree, you should leave the meritocratic movement immediately because, self-evidently, decrepit, evil old religions are more important to you than rationalist meritocracy. Meritocracy is about eradicating insane beliefs, not condoning and perpetuating them in the name of some absurd multi-cultural political correctness. We don’t respect people of religious faith. They are the enemy, not our allies. How dumb do you have to be to give these religious nuts the time of day? We are against them, and we make no apologies for that, just as they make no apologies for saying that we are all going to hell. Get real, people. Stop living in La La land. This is not a liberal world full of pacifist doves. It’s a dialectical bloodbath where hawks will prey on you and pick your bones without a moment’s hesitation. We don’t want any Abrahamists anywhere near our movement.

The “Old” Obstacle “As children under the age of 18 (in some countries under 16) are not allowed to vote due to their lack of knowledge and experience, so should retired people lose their right to vote on the account that they gave up their responsibilities as citizens. They stopped working, hence stopped contributing to the society. Why should people, who are literally waiting to die, be allowed to make decisions that will adversely impact the younger generations, but will make little difference to those same pensioners in the little time they have left? You might say that it’s because pensioners have extensive life experience. That may be so, but, in general, after people retire, they become detached from the newest trends and the zeitgeist. Only

the elderly who continue working and thus contributing to the society should be allowed to vote. “Consider the Scottish Referendum. Nearly three quarters (73%) of those aged 65 or over voted ‘No’ (i.e. not to separate), 59% of those aged between 25 and 34 voted ‘Yes’ (i.e. to separate) and 71% of those aged 16 or 17 also voted ‘Yes’. Considering that 17.4% of Scottish population are 65 and over, if pensioners were not allowed to vote, we are likely to have had a free, independent Scotland right now. [Figures taken from the Lord Ashcroft Polls on Scottish Independence]. “The problem with retired people is that they are incredibly risk averse and progress averse. They are scared of change, because they are incapable of adapting to it. Evolution, with few exceptions, guarantees it. Timothy Leary suggests that throughout their lifetimes people were able to activate several brain circuits, but once they reached 40 the great majority of them stayed at the same level for the rest of their lives. The older they get, the more they cling to the ‘good old good ways’, because that’s what they know best. If they were to accept progress, it would mean that they could no longer sustain their comfy power positions that most of them are in now. “Once pensioners are no longer allowed to halt progress, society will start advancing at an incredible rate. New advanced, rational laws will start being passed. The legislative system will become more transparent, making it work for the wider population, not just a few fat cats who protect their dirty, cash-cow businesses.” – NK MH: It’s true that people over 40 have a disturbing tendency to become set in their ways, and to turn into reactionary conservatives, following an obstructive right-wing agenda. They become obsessed with inheritance ... with passing on their wealth to their children, and fuck everyone else. The old are those most fanatically opposed to 100% inheritance tax, hence are the biggest obstacle to a meritocratic society of equal opportunities. Their experience, such as it is, has usually become obsolete and irrelevant. The changing world has passed them by. Would the “experience” of old men and women from the Stone Age count for anything in today’s world? Experience is not something by which you should set much store. Reason, intelligence, knowledge, will, drive, ambition and adaptability are enormously more important. You have to be able to change and move with the times.

The function of the State should not only be to optimise the under 40s, but also the over 40s, to keep their minds fresh, active, adaptable, still capable of learning and growing. We don’t want over 40s to become dinosaurs and fossils. You should be bright and active until the day you die. People in great jobs, jobs they love, don’t want to retire. Retirement is a rehearsal for death.

***** “The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom.” – H.L. Mencken Age has the unfortunate tendency to turn people into old fools, prattling on about their redundant “experience” as if it counts for shit. “With age comes wisdom, but sometimes age comes alone.” – Oscar Wilde The old are rarely wise. They’re usually just old. The only elderly people you should listen to are those who are young at heart, still full of energy, with flexible minds, capable of learning new things. People like that actually learn from their experiences, and keep learning, and can pass on genuine wisdom. “Do not let me hear Of the wisdom of old men, but rather of their folly, Their fear of fear and frenzy, their fear of possession, Of belonging to another, or to others, or to God. The only wisdom we can hope to acquire Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.” – T. S. Eliot “You have to push as hard as the age that pushes against you.” – Flannery O’Connor “I don’t believe one grows older. I think that what happens early on in life is that at a certain age one stands still and stagnates.” – T. S. Eliot “Old men ought to be explorers.” – T. S. Eliot “As we grow older, the world becomes stranger.” – T. S. Eliot

“Where is the Life we have lost in living?” – T. S. Eliot “O dark dark dark. They all go into the dark, The vacant interstellar spaces, the vacant into the vacant, … And we all go with them, into the silent funeral, Nobody’s funeral, for there is no one to bury.” – T. S. Eliot “That is no country for old men. ... Those dying generations ...” – W. B. Yeats (Sailing to Byzantium) “You say I am repeating Something I have said before. I shall say it again. Shall I say it again?” – T. S. Eliot

BDSM Get your kink on ... Sex for Salvation!!! Only in kink is the true nature of your sexual partner revealed ... and your own nature. Only kink frees you from the politically correct, vanilla bullshit ... from the Persona World of fakes, phoneys and frauds, of everyone pretending to be something they’re not. In kink, all the masks drop and your true self is revealed.

On Criticism “There are no two words in the English language more harmful than ‘good job’.” – Whiplash “It’s surprising how many people from The Movement circles are incapable of receiving, or constructing and voicing, criticism. Providing and welcoming criticism is incredibly important – it’s the antithesis stage of the dialectic. Without it, there would be no real progress, since there are few, if any, individuals who are capable of critically assessing their work and their ideas. “It is clear that majority of people from the West, particularly from the US and the UK, are very cautious when providing feedback for fear of hurting people’s feelings. This creates a culture where being social (friendly) is more important than being honest and true to yourself. In this

culture, people are not used to receiving serious, constructive criticism; hence they delude themselves that their first attempt is always good enough. This culture breeds mediocrity: it fosters wimpy softies, it sometimes even breeds pathetic, sensitive egomaniacs who are incapable of accepting that they were wrong, or that their work is not as good as they thought. What is worse, once they receive any negative word, they take it personally! “Then they either ignore your comments and avoid interacting with you, or they give up completely. These people need to open themselves up to criticism and learn to rationally analyze this feedback and integrate it in their self-growth. “When someone seriously criticizes you, rationally assess their criticism, consider whether the criticism has basis – if it’s rational. Emotional criticism is nearly always subjective and therefore insignificant. On the other hand, rational criticism is like a map that can lead you to a treasure island. When assessing and analyzing criticism, it is important to consider the critic, as they might not have the expertise or the insight to provide you with an accurate picture. Just as some maps are more accurate than others, so some feedbacks are more helpful than others. “If you view criticism rationally and not emotionally, there is no reason why you should feel bad when being criticized. Welcoming criticism is the best way forward for self-improvement. By ignoring any critical remarks addressed your way, you halt your development. Each of us perceives the world differently – we live in our own island realities. If you ask people around you, and they give you their honest opinion, nearly always their opinion of you differs from your own. This is why criticism is so vital. Often we overlook our weaknesses, or we just don’t have a good standard of comparison. “When people that are close to you give their honest feedback, they help you build a better picture of where you stand in relation to others. Criticism is like an immaterial reflection in a mirror that you wouldn’t be able to see without someone’s help. This is precious information, and if used appropriately, can help you transform yourself from base metal to gold.” “Linus Torvalds said, ‘Don’t ever make the mistake [of thinking] that you can design something better than what you get from ruthless massively parallel trial-and-error with a feedback cycle. That’s giving your intelligence much too much credit.’ What Torvalds describes is nothing other than dialectical evolution. That’s why the dialectic has to be built into

all aspects of society. Criticism is a necessary part of the dialectic, and essential for growth (as opposed to self-delusion).” – NK MH: The West is an “other-directed” society where people look to get on well with their peers (“others”), to be in accord with them and agreeable to them. The thing they fear most is to be cast out from the social group. This means that many people go out of their way not to offend others, and this means that they don’t criticise shoddy work, and instead praise it, thus giving a false impression of its quality and worth. This inevitably leads to a mediocre and even sub-standard world, a dumbed-down human race rapidly racing to the bottom, not the top, in terms of quality. Crap is hailed as “genius”! People start to think they are much smarter and better than they actually are. They become totally self-deluded. Many Facebook trolls believe themselves geniuses, and others are too polite to tell them that they are retarded and should fuck off back to the jungle and the caves where all the savages live.

“Bless you” The Movement isn’t a hippie movement. It’s not New Age. It’s not about peace, love, forgiveness, and turning the other cheek. It’s not about faith. It isn’t “spiritual” if spiritual means sitting under a tree meditating and chanting “om”. It’s not about the “love and light” brigade. It’s much closer to Nietzsche than Buddha, and Nietzsche wasn’t any kind of liberal. He was an extremist radical. We don’t want you to “like” us. We don’t crave your approval. We want you to be strong, smart, trustworthy, honourable, noble, bold, resourceful brave ... as all knights should be that seek the Grail. We simply aren’t interested in the weak and the meek, those searching for something to fill the vacuum in their empty heads. We’re interested in the Coming Race of superwomen and supermen, not in the bland, banal masses blabbering on about peace and love, and some God substitute. We want people who are committed to quality. As Robert M. Pirsig said, “Care and Quality are internal and external aspects of the same thing. A person who sees Quality and feels it as he works is a person who cares. A person who cares about what he sees and does is a person who’s bound to have some characteristic of quality. ... Art is anything you can do well. Anything you can do with Quality.”

Abraxas is defined as the first being to become God. Our task is to emulate him, not to worship him. Our task is to achieve the same Quality that he did.

***** Scientists’ sensory mania actively prevents them from seeking any alternative explanations, especially those involving mental agency and nonlocalism. They come with their scientific goggles on, and they can never imagine reality without those goggles. Their rigid schema is in place for everything they do and think.

The Troll Force of Gravity “For something foul is drawn to something good.”

The Eschaton “[Eric Voegelin] identified the root of the Gnostic impulse as alienation, that is, a sense of disconnection from society and a belief that this lack is the result of the inherent disorder, or even evil, of the world. This alienation has two effects: “The first is the belief that the disorder of the world can be transcended by extraordinary insight, learning, or knowledge, called a Gnostic Speculation by Voegelin (the Gnostics themselves referred to this as gnosis). “The second is the desire to implement and or create a policy to actualize the speculation, or Immanentize the Eschaton, i.e., to create a sort of heaven on earth within history. “According to Voegelin the Gnostics are really rejecting the Christian eschaton of the kingdom of God and replacing it with a human form of salvation through esoteric ritual or practice. “The primary feature that characterizes a tendency as gnostic for Voegelin is that it is motivated by the notion that the world and humanity can be fundamentally transformed and perfected through the intervention of a chosen group of people (an elite), a man-god, or men-Gods, Übermensch(en), who are the chosen ones that possess a kind of special knowledge (like magic or science) about how to perfect human existence.

“This stands in contrast to a notion of redemption that is achieved through the reconciliation of mankind with the divine. Marxism therefore qualifies as ‘gnostic’ because it purports that we can establish the perfect society on earth once capitalism has been overthrown by the ‘proletariat.’ Likewise, Nazism is seen as ‘gnostic’ because it posits that we can achieve utopia by attaining racial purity, once the master race has freed itself of the racially inferior and the degenerate. “In the two cases specifically analyzed by Voegelin, the totalitarian impulse is derived from the alienation of the individuals from the rest of society. This leads to a desire to dominate (libido dominandi) which has its roots not just in the Gnostic’s conviction of the imperative of his vision but also in his lack of concord with a large body of his society. As a result, there is very little regard for the welfare of those who are harmed by the resulting politics, which ranges from coercive to calamitous (e.g. the Russian proverbs: ‘You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette’, ‘When you chop wood, chips fly).” – Wikipedia Which side are you on – that of the Abrahamists (Believers) or Gnostics (Knowers) ... those who passively wait for heaven or those who actively plan to build heaven?

Libido Libido: “psychic drive or energy”; desire; lust; the instinct for life, growth, reproduction, power, ascent. Libido is active. People with low libido are passive.

The Separation If democracy (people power) cannot be separated from free-market capitalism (elite power) then democracy is pointless and a fraud! The people can never be in charge in a world of capital controlled by an elite few. Why isn’t that self-evident? Because the elite have constructed a false consciousness in the gullible, credulous, ignorant sheeple so that they believe whatever the elite tell them.

Enlightenment Enlightenment has nothing to do with “peace and love”. We arrive at enlightenment via the dialectic, and the dialectic is the most savage thing there is: the exterminatory war of opposites. The dialectic eventually brings

us – some of us – to knowledge of reality, and that is the knowledge that reality is made of mathematics and is mathematics. The Buddha knew nothing about mathematics and denied the existence of the eternal monadic soul via which mathematics is carried ontologically, hence he was a staggeringly unenlightened individual with zero understanding of true reality. On what basis would any rational person ever choose to be a Buddhist? Buddhism is all about subjective experiences and feelings. It’s not a logical, rational, complete and consistent system of ontology and epistemology.

The Market? What do you want – a designed, intelligent economy run by meritocrats appointed by the people and accountable to the people, fuelled by reason and with the Public Good as its defining objective ... or an undesigned, unintelligent market economy run by unelected rich elites, with no accountability to the people, fuelled by irrational exuberance, by greed and fear, boom and bust, with private profit, wealth and power as its defining objective? Your choice. Should the people rule (democracy and meritocracy), or the private elites (free-market capitalism and privilege)?

The Fact Whether anyone likes it or not, the following terms are inevitably going to become synonymous: The Illuminati, Illuminism, Meritocracy, The Movement, The Dialectic, The Republic of Laws, The Social Contract, The Monadology, The Second Enlightenment, The Age of Reason, Logos, Ontological Mathematics. All of them go together indissolubly. While it might be desirable for terms such as “Meritocracy” to be completely separated from the name “Illuminati”, with all of the baggage that word now carries, the enemies of Meritocracy will insist on making the connection, just as they will insist on linking 100% inheritance tax – the fundamental basis of a rational, meritocratic world opposed to privilege, cronyism, nepotism and hereditary rule and power – with either fascism or communism in order to discredit it. That’s the way the world works. You have to be prepared to defend the whole rationalist agenda, or not at all. The war is between a rationalist, Logos future for humanity and the

continuation of an emotional, sensory, mystical, Mythos humanity, as we currently have. Meritocracy must be about a revolution in the nature of the human race and how it operates, or it’s just another silly, pointless fringe activity. It must be allied to a radically new vision of humanity and its destiny, or it has zero chance of succeeding. The world is already full of powerful systems: Abrahamism, Karmism, Democracy, Monarchy, and Free-Market Capitalism. Meritocracy can never succeed unless it inspires people much more than any of these others, and that means it must aspire to be an all-embracing formula for transforming the human condition. It cannot be just another marginal political party and pressure group. Meritocrats must have a Grand Vision. Anything else is certain to fail. No one is going to become attracted to meritocracy unless they see it as the definitive, dialectically inevitable cure for all of humanity’s ills. Marxism cast itself in exactly those terms, and became massively influential. But Marxism was merely a dialectical thesis, opposed in due course by capitalist democracy (the antithesis). Meritocracy is the preordained final synthesis, the cure for both communism and capitalism. Meritocracy is the End of History, i.e. the final stage of human politics. There will be nothing after Meritocracy.

***** Thanks to the endless propaganda directed against the Illuminati, most people have completely forgotten what the word “Illuminati” actually means. The Illuminati are the “Enlightened Ones” ... those committed to and seeking Enlightenment. If you aspire to a Second Enlightenment, a true Age of Reason, then you yourself are an Illuminatus. Why would a group of selfish, endarkened, greedy, capitalist elitists – the actual people who are self-evidently running the world – choose the name “Illuminati” for themselves? They obviously didn’t, and they obviously wouldn’t. The only people who would call themselves the Illuminati are those who are preoccupied with the light, with enlightenment – intellectuals interested in the betterment of humanity, not narcissistic psychopaths who want to enslave humanity, and pass all of their power and wealth down their dynastic line forever.

Illuminism, which is really just a different name for Gnosticism, has never been about anything other than knowledge, reason, intellect, and understanding how reality operates in order to defeat those who deserve to be defeated ... the Power Elite, the Old World Order. It shows how successful the propaganda machine of the OWO is that is has portrayed their Nemesis as the bad guys. Are you stupid enough to believe what the Elite’s media machine – and their puppet conspiracy theorists such as Alex Jones and David Icke – tells you?

The Ways of the World “The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing.” – Oscar Wilde “An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all.” – Oscar Wilde “Everything popular is wrong.” – Oscar Wilde “Popularity is the one insult I have never suffered.” – Oscar Wilde “A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.” – Oscar Wilde “If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got ... and you’ll keep feeling what you’ve always felt.” – Unknown “It’s not the truth that hurts us but letting go of the lies.” – Unknown “I would rather fail in a cause that will ultimately triumph than to triumph in a cause that will ultimately fail.” – Jim Elliot “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.” – Norman MacEwan “If there is hope in the future, there is power in the present.” – John Maxwell “Nothing changes if nothing changes.” – Unknown “To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.” – Oscar Wilde

“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions...” – Oscar Wilde “The world is a stage and the play is badly cast.” – Oscar Wilde “There is no sin except stupidity.” – Oscar Wilde “You see things as they are and say, ‘Why?’ But I dream of things that never were and say, ‘Why not?’” – George Bernard Shaw “Do you deserve truth? You sure seek it, but do you deserve it? If you want to see real things burning you first have to reach up to the height of the fire.” – Nietzsche “If you haven’t found something you are willing to die for, you aren’t fit to live.” – Martin Luther King, Jr. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead

***** “Never regret thy fall, O Icarus of the fearless flight For the greatest tragedy of them all Is never to feel the burning light.” – Oscar Wilde

The Choice All of us are here in this world. That’s a hard fact. So, what are you going to do with your life – use it or waste it? Are you going to make a difference, have an impact, give a point to your existence? Or are you going to drift and bumble along ... be one of the massed legions of monochrome mediocrities and nonentities that vanish into the background? Will you be one of the Invisible Men with which the world is full? They come and go and no one notices whether they were here or not. They live without praise or blame, as Dante put it. They are the grey people, the blank people, the people who don’t know what to do with the gift of life. The Movement isn’t for such people. The Movement is only for the ambitious, for achievers, for

those who want to change the world, for those who admire world-historic figures, and want to be one themselves. Are you capable of greatness, or are you one of the weak, meek, pathetic, apathetic, lazy, inept, unambitious, uninspiring hordes who just want to dissolve into the ether, as if you have never been in the world at all? It’s your choice, no one else’s. It’s your move. We all have an inner fire. It’s time to light yours. It’s time to set yourself ablaze. Find those who can stoke and fan your flames to create a great pyre that lights up the world. Be a burning Viking Longship pushing out to sea, a blazing star shooting through the heavens, a mighty flaming beacon illuminating everything around it. Break on through to the other side ... your divine side.

Helen of Troy Hellene (plural Hellenes): a Greek, especially an ancient Greek. Should we refer to “Helen” of Troy as “Helene” of Troy? The story of the Trojan War is the story of something or someone extremely precious to the Hellenes (Greeks) being taken by the Trojans, and having to be recovered, no matter the price, for the honour of Hellas (Greece).

The Pope The current Pope has made so many casual remarks that defy orthodox Catholic theology that, 500 years ago, he would have been burned at the stake as a heretic! The Pope is just a PR man, designed to be “nice, liberal and cuddly”, a media-friendly figure. Catholicism purports to be about Absolute Truth, and no Catholic can contradict today what the Catholic Church pronounced true yesterday. According to the Catholic Church, all non-Catholics are damned to hell (“There is no salvation outside the Church”), animals don’t have souls, and the Pope is Jesus Christ’s substitute on earth ... until the Second Coming.

Spam Spammers send people messages with subject lines saying things such as, “You have an email that must be read.” Some people find it very hard to resist reading something that “must be read”. Religions are ancient spamming schemes that say, “You must read this Holy Text, and you must

believe it or terrible consequences will befall you.” Historically, many submissives found it impossible not to go along with the “prophets” – the ancient religious spammers who sent their spam to every corner of the world.

The Movement You don’t have to formally join anything to become a member of The Movement. If you agree with its agenda, you simply assume the identity of one of our activists. The same goes for the Illuminati. You are welcome to call yourself an Illuminatus if you agree with the manifesto set out on the AC website. The Movement will succeed only if it attracts self-creating, selfdefining, ambitious, intelligent, self-motivating, self-initiating, natural-born leaders. You don’t need permission to become an activist for The Movement. You just go ahead and do whatever you think can advance the interests of The Movement. The Movement is about releasing your creativity. The trouble with the world is that it’s so lacking in creativity, unless it involves brainless internet memes. People seem to have limitless energy and interest in producing trivia and junk. All of that goes out of the window when anything serious is demanded. Humanity has a Triviality Gene of awesome proportions, rivalled only by the Trolling Gene for totally negative people with an instinct solely for destruction. Well, can you do anything serious minded? Can you make a difference? Can you create? Or you one of life’s spectators, bystanders, anonymous faces in the crowd, and perpetual understudies? Are other people on the stage of world events, but never you? Many people think they are great ... until they are asked to do something great. And then the penny finally drops ... they are clueless nobodies who can’t do anything at all. Their abilities stop at posting incoherent messages on Facebook and Twitter. That’s the limit of their ability to influence the world. They are Ignavi, one and all. The Movement is about attracting those with actual talent, those with real energy, those who can manage to do things rather than just talking about it and deluding themselves that they can do it.

***** The task is to set up autonomous cells of The Movement, via individuals or like-minded groups of friends, but not to generate a large, unwieldy organisation where people get bogged down in “politics” and “committees”, and where “analysis paralysis” kills all energy. Don’t worry about activism. Just do it. Do whatever you’re good at, the things into which you can pour your energy. Don’t worry about making mistakes. You will make plenty of them. Learn from them and move on. Mistakes are essential in dialectical development and evolution. Every time you fail, you will fail a bit better (i.e. less badly), and eventually you won’t fail at all. You will be one of life’s successes. As JFK said, “Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.” Well, are you daring enough? As Becket said, “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

Peerless The smarter and more talented you get, the fewer peers you will have. That’s the price of being much cleverer and meritorious than the people around you. Those who found the Grail were peerless.

What Do We Stand For? We want to see the end of all of the world’s old, decrepit, psychotic religions. This is the twenty-first century, and ancient superstitions and tribal “Commandments” have no right to be here. We want to see the end of predatory capitalism – the economic system designed to allow a tiny, greedy, infinitely selfish, narcissistic and psychopathic elite to rule over the rest of us and establish great dynasties of wealth and power that will rule over us in perpetuity. We want every person on earth to be given a proper chance to demonstrate their merit, and rise as high as their talent warrants, without any invisible obstacles being placed in their path, without having to take part in a game rigged against them, and be the victim of unseen cartels pulling all of the strings on behalf of chosen (privileged) players. We want the smartest and most talented human beings to be leading the world since it would be insane to want stupid and untalented people at the top, as we currently have.

We have a world where the Peter Principle applies ... the people at the top have been promoted beyond their level of competence, but there’s no one above them to fire them, and they refuse to be fired by those below them. We need to ensure that every inept person in an influential position is accountable to the people and can easily be fired. We are for public not private control of society. Capitalism is an economic designed to bring about the rule of the public sphere by the private sphere, via the “market”, which is unelected and unaccountable to the people, and in which the people have no representation and no say. Free-market capitalism is the exact means by which democracy is sabotaged and subverted, and the people prevented from controlling their own destiny. You can have rule by the people, or rule by private markets, but you can’t have both. Which is it to be? You must choose. We want the scientific and mathematical methods to be extended to economic policy, social policy, religious policy, drug policy, education policy, health policy, police policy, and so on. We want the end of moralising and sermonising. We want the end of pious, pompous, sanctimonious preacher people prattling on about their Stone Age moral codes and beliefs. We want the end of parental abuse of children via religious indoctrination, and even physical mutilation of babies (circumcision; genital mutilation). We want the end of crazy parents being allowed to bring up crazy children, made crazy by their parents’ crazy beliefs. We want faith to be abolished, to be treated with no respect at all. Reason must be the new standard. We want a Logos Society and an Age of Reason. Mythos must be consigned to the arena of harmless entertainment. We want a Second and Final Enlightenment where humanity at last frees itself of the cancer of ancient religious myths, which have done more damage to the human psyche than anything else. Ancient religions made, and continue to make, billions of people deranged. We can build heaven on earth, but only through reason, knowledge and an intellectually optimised human race. It shows how retarded the human race is that there are billions of people who despise the notion of the

maximisation of human intelligence as the primary goal of government policy. What can you do with a humanity that loves being stupid and has absolute contempt for intelligence, and no interest in it at all? We live in a world where money, not intelligence, is the driving force, and those with money are never going to give up their power to let the smartest take over. The question is very simple ... what are the smartest going to do about it? Do they have the will to take over from the rich? In Star Trek, that’s exactly what happened. Humanity’s future must be as an intelligent, meritocratic, rational species, not as a religious species on its knees to invisible gods, or a capitalist species enslaved and owned by the super rich. If you oppose us, it’s for a simple reason ... you yourself are irrational and unintelligent, and you know you will not prosper in a competition with smart people. You will be the dialectical opposition to us. That’s the nature of the world. For us to succeed, you must fail. And you shall! Be in no doubt about it. We are on the side of dialectical progress and no power on earth can withstand that. We are the future of humanity whether you like it or not. We are Humanity 2.0. You are the dinosaurs, waiting to become extinct, waiting for your trip to the cosmic abattoir. Get Real Get Active Get Going.

Political Systems We endorse Plato’s Republic and Rousseau’s Social Contract. We want the Hegelian dialectic to be built into every aspect of society and all of its institutions. We are wholly opposed to unelected, unaccountable, unintelligent “markets” allowing the rich to invisibly and sinisterly control the gullible, ignorant masses. We seek a Star Trek future where organised religion has been utterly marginalised, free-market capitalism abolished, the super rich rendered extinct, and the world is ruled by the smartest, most intelligent and talented members of humanity.

Sophia

Sophia ... wisdom. Philosophy ... love of wisdom. Science ... knowledge (Latin). Gnosis ... knowledge (Greek). Logos ... Reason. Mathematics ... Learning. Illuminism is all about reason, learning, knowledge, and wisdom. We are opposed to organised religion, faith, New Age syncretism and spiritualist bullshit, doped-out hippie nonsense, “love and light” claptrap, conspiracy theories, and so on. We don’t rate the experiences of stupid people, only of smart people who have learned from their mistakes and put their experience to good use, rather than simply becoming arrogant, self-inflated and in thrall to their own propaganda and self-delusions. We advocate using the scientific method to study the empirical, phenomenal, observable world, and the mathematical method to study the rational, noumenal, unobservable world. The two systems must be mathematically complete and consistent, meaning that they must be based on ontological mathematics. We want to bring about a Second Enlightenment where a True Age of Reason is inaugurated, and the scientific and mathematical methods are extended to all aspects of society.

The “Experience” Delusion Old people try to gain an advantage over young people by referring to their superior “experience.” Well, let’s consider the whole issue of experience. Old Abrahamists, no doubt, have had countless experiences and yet they are as stupid as they were the day they were born, and they still know nothing about true reality. So much for experience. The “voice of experience” is frequently the voice of a fool, a charlatan and a bully. A smart twenty-year old can be much closer to enlightenment than some pompous, sanctimonious, self-inflated, crashing old bore telling everyone how much life experience he has (but thus proving it was all to no

avail since anyone who had learned from life would know never to play the old man’s card). People who think that experience rather than reason is the way to enlightenment are as deluded as you can get. How many old folk do you know who have decades of experience, yet know nothing of the secrets of existence? Such people are legion. Experience is valuable only if it helps you to reason better, and, if it doesn’t, it’s worthless. Many people would be well-advised to forget everything they think their experience has taught them and start again from scratch. They need to downsize their experience and upsize their reason, intelligence and knowledge. It’s not experience that separates people but reason. A young, smart person is much closer to the truth than an old, experienced, bombastic idiot. Referring to “experience” is simply a means for silly old men to big themselves up and pretend they know shit. Most of them know fuck all ... and are exactly the people who made the world the shithole and mental asylum it is today. Remember the maxim that must be applied to all experience: have you had a thousand different experiences, or the same experience a thousand times? Dull-minded people just keep repeating the same old same old, and believing the same old same old. They never learn a thing. They’re too dumb, too arrogant and too lazy to learn. Many old people are experienced in things that are now obsolete. A vast amount of people’s experience becomes obsolete long before they’re dead, rendering all such experiences worthless and irrelevant to the world. If experience is useful, why do billions of people still believe the superstitions of the ancient Middle East? Experience and progress do not go together. Most geniuses do their masterwork before the age of 25 ... before they are corrupted by “experience”. The truths that Plato talked about are still true today. The experiences of the old gits who mocked Plato are forgotten and irrelevant. In the face of the Truth, you must be as humble as possible. Experience has nothing to do with Truth. Countless human beings have had countless experiences ... how many of these same people have told you the Truth of Existence, down to the finest detail? How many of these people believe the

same old shit with which their parents brainwashed them? How many of them still believe crazy old, refuted religions from the Bronze Age? Billions of people today still believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, that Mohammed met the Angel Gabriel in a cave, and that the rabbi Yehoshua ben Yosef was God! So, of what value is experience? Only reason and intelligence count. “Experience” is just another form of faith, just another subjective opinion, conjecture, hypothesis, interpretation. It has zero Truth Content. The eternal truths of reason of course existed before the instant of the Big Bang. There are no eternal truths of experience. If you want to know what preceded the Big Bang, you have nowhere to go other than reason. And if you don’t know what preceded the Big Bang, you will never know anything about reality, and you will never reach enlightenment.

***** The world is not suffering from a shortage of experience, but it’s certainly suffering from a severe deficiency of reason, intellect and knowledge. When it comes to experience, there are two types: valuable and worthless. For most people, their experiences are worthless, and they never learn anything from them. Valuable experiences are those that make you more rational, and better able to recognize the rational truth. Many older people were fooled in their youth, and have never forgotten the shame of being duped. However, rather than developing greater reason so that they can see through bogus claims, they have simply become cynical, skeptical, closed-minded and paranoid. If you placed the Truth right in front of them, they would never see it ... because they would be terrified it was just another con to deceive them. Many older people voluntarily blind themselves to the Truth.

***** A statement purporting to be rational is either right or wrong. Faith doesn’t come into it, opinion doesn’t come into it, and experience doesn’t come into it. Don’t let any old bores prattle on about experience. Ask them what they know and what they can prove, and you will soon discover that they know nothing and can prove nothing, and all they have to offer you is bitterness, cynicism and skepticism. Most older people have failed in life, and everything they say reeks of failure. They are terrified of anything new that

they know they won’t be able to understand. New things will make them even more obsolete, and even bigger failures, so they end up railing against everything new and becoming utterly conservative and reactionary.

***** For 99.9% of people, your experience of life is valueless if you imagine it has told you even one thing about ultimate reality. Living and knowing are two totally different things. Living gives you countless experiences, but it doesn’t tell you what reality is. Endless people have come and gone without having established any relationship with the Truth. There are people who say things such as, “There are two kinds of knowledge: false knowledge, which all belief systems are – you have no experience of them yourself, but you keep talking about ‘higher planes’, for example. And there is true knowledge, which is intrinsically tied to your own experience.” But this is absurd. Your “knowledge” of your experiences is exactly that: knowledge of your experiences. It’s not knowledge of everything that you don’t experience, the whole of existence outside yourself, the whole of unexperienceable, noumenal, ultimate, rationalist reality. Those people who say that their experiences constitute knowledge are solipsistic clowns. People in madhouses have never-ending experiences. What sane person would accept that these experiences reflect real knowledge? You get people who say, “All knowledge tends to de-mystify existence, which is a mistake: Existence is inherently mystical.” This is an outright attack on knowledge, and a formula for obscurantism, faith and, ultimately, total solipsism. (Moreover, it’s often exactly the same people who say that all true knowledge is tied to your own experience who also say that existence is inherently mystical, i.e. it has nothing to do with knowledge, and true knowledge is fundamentally impossible, which raises a blatant contradiction in referring to “true” and “false” knowledge in the first place. If existence is inherently mystical, “false” knowledge is no falser then “true” knowledge, since knowledge has no meaning in a mystical system explicitly predicated on the denial of authentic knowledge.) You get people who say, “Real wisdom is not parroting false knowledge, but comes from the heart and from experience.” Well, that’s neither wisdom nor knowledge but sheer emotionalism and solipsism, with no validity beyond the person saying it.

You get people who say, “And Enlightenment happens when all thoughts stop, but you are still conscious.” This is the sort of irrational drivel that such people constantly spout. Leaving aside the absurd idea that thoughts can stop in inherently thinking beings, consciousness means being aware of your own thoughts. If all of your thoughts have stopped then you have ceased to exist, and if you are not aware of any of your thoughts, you are not conscious. In neither case have you achieved Enlightenment. In fact, you have achieved the opposite. Such remarks are all too typical of New Age irrationalism, which is all about the heart, the senses, the gut, and experiences, but never about the head, reason, intellect, knowledge, and mathematics. These people think they know something, but don’t in fact know anything at all. Why do people like to refer to experience rather than knowledge? It’s because their subjective experiences can’t be contradicted. However, their claims to knowledge definitely can! All the charlatans – lying through their teeth to you – hide behind “experience”. Here’s what we stand behind: 1 + 1 = 2!!! Now, fuck off anyone who disagrees with that! No New Age “gurus” ever refer to provable or evidential statements. They only ever refer to personal anecdotes, personal feelings, personal experience, personal intuitions, their personal Mythos ... total subjective nonsense.

***** Do you have something to say or nothing worth hearing? As Pythagoras said, “Be silent or let thy words be worth more than silence.” All the New Age spiritualists ought to embrace silence ... permanently! Never listen to anyone telling you personal anecdotes, and about their “experiences”. That’s the opposite of knowledge. The whole of Christianity, Buddhism and Islam flows from ridiculous personal anecdotes and “experiences”. It’s Mythos garbage. You’d need to be deranged to believed that another person’s experiences can reveal the truth of existence to you. Unfortunately, most people are deranged. They are submissives who lap up everything that charismatic dominants tell them, no matter how ridiculous. “Islam” is just one giant personal anecdote by a psychotic dominant, and lapped up by the submissive Arab hordes.

*****

The whole of Buddhism results from what some freaky old geezer experienced while sitting under a tree. How mad would you have to be to be a Buddhist? The whole of Christianity flows from some Jewish rabbi’s delusion that he was the Son of God. The whole of Judaism flows from one guy (Abraham) who thought that God ordered him to murder his own son, and from another guy (Moses) who held a conversation with a burning bush! Don’t you see? It’s all these stories, anecdotes, and “experiences” that are the source of the Mythos lunacy that gullible, credulous people believe in. In modern times, David Icke had a mental breakdown, started wearing purple and believing himself the Son of God. Then he said that the Illuminati were shapeshifting, pan-dimensional aliens. Er.... !!! Not surprisingly this nutter has hundreds of thousands of followers. It has always been thus. Read the God Series if you want to stop being insane! It doesn’t contain a single anecdote or reference to personal experience. It doesn’t ask for your trust, or for you to believe anything. It utterly condemns faith, mysticism and obscurantism.

Hate We often get accused of hate. So what? We do hate. We hate all of the morons getting in the way of humanity’s divine trajectory, all of the clowns who believe in ancient stories of weird, psychotic tribes wandering in the Middle East in search of God, all the fools who believe in love and light, the pacifist cowards, the politically correct liberals who want to destroy freedom of expression, the idiots who worship democracy, the deluded who imagine they are unconditionally free to do whatever they like, the selfish, greedy capitalists ... absolutely everyone putting the brakes on the advance of humanity. You’re living in a fantasy world if you believe the problems of this world will be solved by people saying, “Peace, man; give me a big hug; love and light”, or sitting under a tree to meditate (what a pointless exercise ... a clear manifestation of anti-life forces, of running away from life so as not to “suffer”). What has delivered humanity’s control of its environment and its ability to land men on the moon – mathematics and science, or religion and meditation? No prizes for getting the right answer.

Only reason will set humanity free. Only intelligence will solve our problems. The people who say that we should not hate the irrational are themselves the irrational and deserve to be hated. This is a dialectical universe, and, if you understand what that means, you will know that hate is one of the primary drivers of enlightenment. Humanity progresses to enlightenment as much through hate as love... that’s what the dialectic is all about. Don’t be afraid to hate. Always hate what deserves to be hated. Otherwise, you are aiding and abetting the hateful, and you are therefore hateful too (and not the “nice” person you delude yourself that you are). Never tolerate that which should never be tolerated, for otherwise you are giving solace to the intolerant. Always hate irrationalism or you yourself are promoting irrationalism. Never forget that enlightenment is all about knowledge, about understanding the true workings of reality. It has nothing to do with pacifism, liberalism, hippies, meditation, “om”, karma, or Eastern religion. Never equate enlightenment to love and non-hate. Always equate it to the highest reason, intellect and knowledge, to revealing how the universe works in its innermost kernel. If you get this wrong, your whole life will be wrong. There are countless people who believe themselves on the path to enlightenment who are in fact entering upon the road to absolute endarkenment. Buddhism, for example, is entirely false ontologically and epistemologically, hence has zero truth content. It’s just one ancient guru’s opinion of what enlightenment is, and if you listen to the wrong guru, you’ve thrown away your whole life. We never ask anyone to believe us or trust us or listen to our “experience”. What we say either makes rational sense or it doesn’t, and if you can outreason us and disprove us (which would require you to be a genius in the field of ontological reason and ontological mathematics – good luck with that!), you ought to reject everything we say. That’s the test we apply. If something – such as Buddhism – is unquestionably irrational, we reject it. If you can’t trust your own reason, you’re in real trouble. You should agree with us only if your reason mandates it (which it will if you’re a highly intelligent person, and won’t if you’re not, in which case you will

certainly oppose us, denounce, and call us fakes, liars, madmen, pseudoAbrahamists, and so on). We get legions of carping trolls who read only about three pages of our material – and then feel absolutely qualified to dismiss it as nonsense while they peddle their own absurd pet theories. They say we are full of hate, while they themselves direct nothing but hate towards us. They accuse us of being divisive like the Abrahamists, and then fail to see how divisive they themselves are. So it goes. Stupid people never see themselves for what they are. We have nothing against divisiveness, provided you’re on the right side of the divide. In fact, we dialectically rely on it. What we can’t stand is divisive, toxic trolls calling us divisive. Take a look in the mirror, why don’t you?! There’s nothing worse than divisive people saying they are against divisiveness. They have no self-awareness at all. If you are a person who is angry, frustrated, and hateful towards many people, embrace it and turn it to some positive use! Why do you think evolution gave us these emotions?! Don’t disown your own nature to listen to some deluded guru or self-appointed preacher man. Get Smart Get Real Get Dialectical

Divine Mathematics Mathematics traces the patterns of eternity. It draws the face of God himself.

Eternal Form “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep…” – Genesis 1:2 But “God” wasn’t formless and void. Form, order and organisation always exist. There’s no such thing as the “formless and void”. The state preceding the Big Bang wasn’t “formless and void”. It was mathematical Form defined by the God Equation. It was the Fourier frequency domain, which gave rise to the Fourier spacetime domain. At no stage was there any formlessness or void anywhere at all. True formlessness and void don’t

exist. The fabric of existence is noumenal, ontological mathematics, the quintessence of form, order, and organisation.

The Most Forsaken Place in the Universe In Dante’s vision of hell, a vestibule stands between the gates of hell and the river Acheron (the river of woe) where Charon the Boatman ferries the damned across the fast-moving river of pitch-black water to the First Circle of Hell (Hell proper). As they pass through the vestibule, the souls of the damned encounter a strange sight – the Lost Souls. The damned don’t linger in the vestibule for long – they’re just passing through – but the Lost Souls are trapped there forever. These are the souls rejected by both heaven and hell. Heaven shut its gates to them, and hell doesn’t want them, so they have nowhere to go. They are permanently stranded in No Man’s Land. What did they do to earn this fate? These were the souls that refused to support one side or the other in life – they were the neutrals, the uncommitted, those who lived for themselves, who joined no cause except their own. They did not choose either good or evil but lived their lives without making any conscious moral choices whatsoever. They were cynical and skeptical, always calculating their personal advantage. In Christian mythology, when Lucifer’s angels rebelled against God, and Michael the Archangel led the loyal angels against them, many angels remained neutral, standing on the sidelines, waiting to see who would win. When God cast down the rebel angels into hell, he made sure he cast down these neutrals too, but they were no more wanted by Satan than by God, so they remained permanently on the near side of hell’s river, banned from ever crossing, and equally banned from ever leaving. Such is the destiny of those who refuse to choose a cause, who refuse to commit, refuse to follow a banner. They are called the Ignavi, and they are the most pathetic and ignoble of all creatures. They are the Last Men, the opposite of the Supermen. They are the feeble, laughable creatures that remain when heaven and hell have received all of the souls they are willing to take. They have no home. They have nowhere to go. The Ignavi are the selfish, the self-obsessed, always looking for their own benefit, and never willing to choose a side, never willing to fight, to risk themselves, to make any sacrifices. Their calculation is always the

same: let others fight it out and then see how the land lies at the end when the smoke clears. See what opportunities there are to gain profit for themselves ... you know, like free-market capitalists. They are the cowardly “neutrals” who refuse to side with any cause until it’s obvious who’s winning (i.e. they have no ideological commitment and would support whoever won, thus maximizing their self-interest). Most of humanity belong to the Ignavi, not to the Damned or the Saved. Neither God nor the Devil has anything but contempt for them. The fate of the Ignavi is a terrible one. They are condemned to run naked forever behind a blank banner (the flag of all those with no cause except themselves), which flutters one way and then another (i.e. never settling into a definite position reflecting a definite cause), and which they can never catch (just as they could never catch a cause in life). As they chase the flag, they are ceaselessly stung by hornets and wasps. With each sting, blood and putrid matter leak from them, feeding the writhing mass of worms and maggots they are forced to run across. In life, they refused to be stung by any cause, and now they are stung without end. The worms write bloody, insulting messages in the soil in an unknown script. The Ignavi’s cries of woe are unremitting. The air is continually rent with their shrieks, shouts, screams, and lamentations. Their torment has no end. “This miserable state [Dante is informed by his guide Virgil] is endured by the dreary souls of those who lived without blame and without praise. They are mixed with the cowardly choir of angels who were not rebellious, nor were loyal to God, but were for themselves. Heaven drove them forth to keep its splendour from being sullied; and the depths of hell receives them not, for the wicked would thus have some glory over them ... The world allows no report of them to exist. Mercy and justice disdain them. Do not speak of them, but look and pass on.” “I looked and saw a whirling banner that went by so quickly that it seemed it would never pause; and behind it came so long a train of people that I should never have believed death had undone so many … These wretches, who were never truly alive, were naked and viciously stung by wasps and hornets that made their faces stream with blood, which, mixed with their

tears, dripped to their feet, and disgusting maggots collected in the pus.” – Dante Well, will Heaven and Hell alike deny you entry? What is your sacred cause? What moral decisions have you taken? How have you ever served anyone or anything other than yourself? Are you fated to reside in the AnteInferno for all time? This barren, hopeless place is within the perimeter of hell, yet not truly part of it. It’s Neverland. Being pious, Dante tells us, is more than a matter of simply not sinning. Unlike the non-committal souls, you must actively practise virtue and side with the righteous. You have to be on the right side, not the wrong one, and not in the neutral, agnostic middle. You must make a leap. You must choose and commit.

The Great Refusal “I hate journalists. There is nothing in them but tittering jeering emptiness. They have all made what Dante calls the Great Refusal. The shallowest people on the ridge of the earth.” – W. B. Yeats Are you one of the great refusers, one of the cynical, sneering trolls – the utterly empty, blank, pointless people who have nothing constructive to offer the world?

The Falsehood “That which has always been accepted by everyone, everywhere, is almost certain to be false.” – Paul Valery

The Blank Banner Are you a follower of the blank banner of the Ignavi, the most pathetic flag there can possibly be? The blank banner is for all empty, non-committal souls. It’s for those who backed no clear side, supported no clear leader, and simply ran back and forth with no direction, other than their own comfort and advantage. There is nothing worse and more dismal than to be a follower of this banner, the banner of the Last Men. If you have chosen no sacred cause in life, if you haven’t chosen sides, the blank banner is your banner.

Since they were neither good nor evil, the Ignavi have no place in the afterlife. They might as well never have existed. They were pointless people who made no impression. Is that you too? Ante-hell, the vestibule of hell, is also called “Nowhere”. It’s the eternal home of the Ignavi, the most pathetic souls of all, the souls that ought never to have existed, those that made no choices in life, “who lived a life but lived it with no blame and no praise”. It includes those agnostics too selfabsorbed to make choices, those who were neither hot nor cold on important matters. They neither believed nor disbelieved, neither knew nor didn’t know, neither blasphemed nor opposed the blasphemers, neither stood for free speech nor against it. Now, they run about the hills of Ante-Hell forever, having no hope of dying to end their misery, doing nothing but chasing banners (causes) they will never catch. You are not saved because you have done nothing wrong. You must do something right. You must choose. You must leap one way or another. You must commit. The worst places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintained their neutrality, who sat on the face and refused to take part. Are you one of those who will dwell eternally on the edge of hell? Life isn’t a spectator sport. You must be involved.

The Bronze Jars In some tellings, the Ignavi ended up inside bronze jars, scattered about the vestibule’s great plain of mud and dirt. The voices of those trapped inside the jars could be faintly heard through the walls of the jars, but not enough to be intelligible, although it was assumed they were begging for help, or to be put out of their misery once and for all. Because these people chose no cause, they don’t deserve to be heard. They are voiceless to the rest of the world. Is that you? Or is your voice that of the pointless troll with nothing positive to say, who does nothing but snipe at others to big himself up?

The River Acheron Any soul that has any physical contact whatsoever with the River Acheron is trapped forever in that infernal, cursed river, indescribably cold and

bleak. These helpless and hopeless souls are fully aware but unable to move. Is that like your life?

The Gate of Hell Above the Gate of Hell is a foreboding inscription on the lintel, saying that this is the way to the city of desolation and eternal sorrow, of hopeless suffering and punishment, but created out of divine justice: THROUGH ME YOU PASS INTO THE CITY OF WOE, THROUGH ME YOU PASS INTO ETERNAL PAIN, THROUGH ME YOU PASS INTO THE DAMNED. JUSTICE MOVED MY HEAVENLY ARCHITECT; TO MAKE ME WAS THE TASK OF DIVINE POWER, AND SUPREME WISDOM JOINED WITH ETERNAL LOVE. BEFORE ME WERE CREATED ONLY ETERNAL THINGS, AND I ENDURE ETERNALLY. ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER HERE.

***** The Arch of Hell Once you enter hell, you never again see anything of the outside world. In hell, there is no sun. Nothing shines at all. There is no light. There is only “darkness visible”, as Milton put it.

Nowhere Between heaven and hell is “Nowhere”, the vestibule of hell, the place of all the Nobody People, the No Men of No Man’s Land. This is where all the agnostic, non-committal, neutral people – all those who failed or refused to make any choices in life – must now run around forever looking for something to cling to, to commit to, to have as a cause.

The Demons

Face up to your demons and they’ll vanish before you know it! Refuse to do so, and they will haunt you forever.

The Mediocre Souls Don’t be one of the monochrome souls, one of the legions of the mediocre and totally forgettable. Mediocre souls do not commit any noteworthy crimes or sins, but nor do they do anything to achieve greatness and recognition, any acts of merit that would earn their entry ticket to the Elysian Fields.

Drive Angry “Drive Angry is a 2011 American supernatural action film starring Nicolas Cage and Amber Heard, and directed by Patrick Lussier. ... John Milton (Nicolas Cage) is an undead criminal who has broken out of Hell to kill Jonah King (Billy Burke), a cult leader who tricked Milton’s daughter into joining his followers in the wake of Milton’s death, only to kill her and her husband and steal their daughter – Milton’s granddaughter – to be sacrificed in a Satanist ritual.” – Wikipedia Drive Angry is one of the most interesting movies of recent years. Protagonist John Milton, an escapee from hell, has stolen a gun called the “God Killer” from Satan. Satan has sent the “Accountant” to recapture Milton and retrieve the gun. The Accountant says at one point, “Satan is simply the warden of a very large prison. Quiet man actually, thoughtful and he’s well read. And I happen to know the idea of sacrificing children in his honour annoys him greatly.” Here we have hell depicted as a prison run by Satan on behalf of God. Satan is God’s employee, rather than his sworn enemy and foe. The Accountant deals with “spiritual accounts”. He’s rather like the embodiment of karma. Is the Accountant actually Charon the Ferryman, he who counts everyone into hell and ferries them across the infernal river? Throughout the movie, the Accountant flips a coin called an Obolos, an ancient Greek coin placed in a dead man’s hand (or two of them over his eyes) by mourners as payment to Charon.

One of the Accountant’s roles is to retrieve lost souls, to round up souls that have gone missing. According to the Accountant, Satan is good and working for God. Milton asks the Accountant if he thinks he’s Anubis. In Egyptian mythology, the jackal-headed god Anubis was the one in charge of deciding whether a soul belonged to Heaven or Hell by weighing its heart on a scale. Wikipedia says, “In Egyptian mythology, where Duat is the Underworld, there would take place the Weighing of the Heart, in which the dead were judged by Anubis, using a feather, representing Ma’at, the goddess of truth and justice responsible for maintaining order in the universe. The heart was the seat of the life-spirit (ka). Hearts heavier or lighter than the feather of Ma’at were rejected and eaten by Ammit, the Devourer of Souls.”

The Weighing of Souls “The psychostasia, Greek ‘weighing of souls’, is a method of divine determination of fate, which persists from the Iliad through to Christian theology. ... Among later Greek writers the psychostasia was the prerogative of Minos, judge of the newly deceased in Hades. ... For Christians, among the terrors that await at the Last Judgment is the weighing of souls. Sin is heavy, and sinful souls are to be consigned forever to Hell. ... The Archangel Michael has scales for the weighing of souls. ... In the literature of the Mandeans, Abathar Muzania, an angelic being, has the responsibility of weighing the souls of the deceased to determine their worthiness, using a set of scales.” – Wikipedia “After her role in creation and continuously preventing the universe from returning to chaos, Maat’s primary role in Egyptian mythology dealt with the weighing of souls (also called the weighing of the heart) that took place in the underworld, Duat. Her feather was the measure that determined whether the souls (considered to reside in the heart) of the departed would reach the paradise of afterlife successfully. ... In the Duat, the Egyptian underworld, the hearts of the dead were said to be weighed against her single ‘Feather of Ma’at’, symbolically representing the concept of Maat, in the Hall of Two Truths. This is why hearts were left in Egyptian mummies while their other organs were removed, as the heart (called ‘ib’) was seen as part of the Egyptian soul. If the heart was found to be lighter or equal in weight to the feather of Maat, the deceased had led a virtuous life and would go on to Aaru. Osiris came to be seen as the guardian of the gates of

Aaru after he became part of the Egyptian pantheon and displaced Anubis in the Ogdoad tradition. A heart which was unworthy was devoured by the goddess Ammit and its owner condemned to remain in the Duat. “The weighing of the heart, pictured on papyrus in the Book of the Dead typically, or in tomb scenes, shows Anubis overseeing the weighing and the lioness Ammit seated awaiting the results so she could consume those who failed. The image would be the vertical heart on one flat surface of the balance scale and the vertical Shu-feather standing on the other balance scale surface. Other traditions hold that Anubis brought the soul before the posthumous Osiris who performed the weighing. While the heart was weighed the deceased recited the 42 Negative Confessions as the Assessors of Maat watched on.” – Wikipedia

The God Killer The God Killer is a gun so powerful that any soul shot with it goes to neither heaven nor hell but is instead annihilated from existence entirely. The origin of the gun is not entirely clear. Was it devised by Satan to be used against God himself? Or did God create it and give it to Satan to wipe out particularly recalcitrant souls, rebels demons, and the like? The God Killer: it has the power to completely destroy a person’s soul. The God Killer: it prevents a person from going to either heaven or hell. The God Killer: it’s a gun that can supposedly kill anything (even God?). The God Killer: it doesn’t just kill a person, it erases them from the universe. The God Killer: Did the Devil shoot and kill Jesus Christ with it? The bullets of the God Killer are inscribed with the Latin phrase: Deus Velox Nex, which loosely translates as “God’s swift [violent] death.”

The Ignavi Gun In Dante’s Inferno, the pathetic Ignavi are denied entry to both heaven and hell, so must remain forever in the No Man’s Land that stands between the front gate of hell and the river that the souls of the damned are ferried

across to reach hell proper. It’s a kind of oblivion. We need an Ignavi Gun that sends all pathetic people straight to Nowhere.

The Secret Chord As the song says, is there a secret chord that pleases the Lord? Is there an all-powerful musical note, the base note of the Music of the Crystal Spheres?

Salva Veritate (“With Unharmed Truth”) “Two terms are the same (eadem) if one can be substituted for the other without altering the truth of any statement (salva veritate).” – Leibniz “Terms which can be substituted for one another wherever we please without altering the truth of any statement (salva veritate), are the same (eadem) or coincident (coincidentia). For example, ‘triangle’ and ‘trilateral’, for in every proposition demonstrated by Euclid concerning ‘triangle’, ‘trilateral’ can be substituted without loss of truth (salva veritate).” “Logic [Salva Veritate, Latin, ‘saving the truth’]: A term in logic that means ‘preserving without losing the truth-value,’ in relation to the intersubstitutivity of co-referring expressions, that is, expressions having the same reference.” – Blackwell Reference Online

The Armageddon Conspiracy The End of Christianity. The End of Judaism. The End of Islam. The End of Karmism. The End of Free-Market Capitalism. The End of Mythos (a world of absurd stories). The End of Monarchy. The End of Democracy. The End of Scientific Materialism.

The End of Privilege. The End of Inheritance. The End of the Rule by the 1% Global Elite.

***** It’s time for a new human race, a new way of doing things. It’s time for hyper rationalism, for Logos, for ontological mathematics, for equal opportunities, for true people power, for meritocracy, for sanity and reason. It’s time for the New Enlightenment. It’s time for the New World Order. It’s time for HyperHumanity. It’s time for Global Illumination, for the people of the world to become the Shining Ones, the Illuminated Ones, the Angels of Light ... the Illuminati!!!

The New Zombies “Had an interesting dream/nightmare about the zombie apocalypse. The zombies were intelligent, and the more people they ate, the more intelligent they got. And they hunted out the most intelligent. The stupid people were just snacks/junk food. I was running around with a group of random people trying to outsmart these mega intelligent zombies! Arrggaaagh!” – SB

The Failure of the West The West is being destroyed by its own lack of purpose and values, by its toxic liberalism and negative libertarianism, by its catastrophic avoidance of producing an identity in its citizens. “Going shopping” is not an identity. Voting every few years for someone you dislike less than some other guy isn’t an identity. People find an identity in a sacred cause, and the two main drivers of the West – capitalist materialism and scientific materialism – both flee from sacred causes as fast as they can. They equally characterize reality as meaningless, purposeless, pointless, trivial, materialistic ... as being all about soulless commodities, soulless things, soulless people, and the

soulless profit principle (available to only a tiny soulless ruling elite). Life is about objects, things, drones, drudges, dreary jobs. “Life is shit and then you die” is the inescapable message. Even people are objectified and made into commodities to be bought and sold in the market. As for science, it almost literally denies that people have minds and free will. Both Communism and Nazism gave people an identity. The Nazis loved being Nazis. It filled them with purpose, meaning, pride, and a glorious vision of the future. In today’s world, Islam offers a glorious image to its radicalised followers, and those fanatics are always those most disillusioned with the West and what it has to offer. They are total failures in the world of capitalist democracy and scientific materialism, so why wouldn’t they look to something else to give them hope? The West is dying because of its cynicism, scepticism, agnosticism, atheism, nihilism, liberalism, political correctness, scientific materialism and capitalism – which all go together as a dreadful, despairing, grim vision of a soulless universe devoid of any value and purpose whatsoever. The West is nothing but a “dark Satanic mill”, as Blake put it. As Nietzsche said, we must revalue all values. We can only beat mad religions by replacing them with better, more rational religions ... and that’s exactly what Illuminism provides. The West will fail totally unless it can regain its spirit, and that means finding religion again, but this time Logos rather than Mythos religion. Forget the old Gods. Humans themselves are the new Gods ... if they did but know it! Nietzsche said that God is dead. It’s time for him to be reincarnated ... in us!

Charlie Hebdo The most salient fact about the Charlie Hebdo atrocity is that not a single Islamic nation on earth, nor any Islamic community, has its version of Charlie Hebdo. Islam has no satire. It’s a humour-free zone. You simply can’t have comedy and satire in an Islamic context ... and that’s why Charlie Hebdo was wiped out. Humour itself is offensive and Satanic to Muslims. If humour were important to them, they would have Islamic Charlie Hebdos ... but no Muslim would dare to make jokes about Islam, and if you can’t make a joke of your own religion, you can’t make a joke of anything else either.

What is the Islamic Hell? ... it’s the Charlie Hebdo office! Laughter is what you’ll never hear in the Muslim heaven, and who but a humourless psycho would want to go there?! Ayatollah Khomeini said, “Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.” There you have it – straight from the horse’s mouth. Islam has no clowns, but it seems to the rest of the world that every Muslim is a clown ... or a terrorist.

***** The Old and New Testaments are as short on jokes as the Koran.

Genghis Khan The dying Genghis Khan didn’t want his tomb found, so he gave instructions to his soldiers to butcher everyone they saw on the way to his chosen burial site, to kill everyone involved in constructing his tomb, and then, finally, to kill themselves. It seems that they were true to their orders because nearly 800 years after the bloody warlord’s death, the location of his tomb remains unknown. The tomb is said to conceal an incredible treasure, brought from every corner of the Khan’s vast Mongolian empire. The site of his tomb is a “forbidden zone”, a “great taboo”.

The Troll Plague Trolls have something in common with serial killers. They never stop. You can’t reason with them. They’re mentally ill, and frequently autistic (meaning that they have extremely abnormal emotional responses). They are the people who actually enjoy inflicting harm; natural-born bullies and hawks. They’re like human sharks ... all they think about is predation. Their path to raising themselves up is by putting you down. Trolls have much more energy than you, and can put in far longer hours. Since they have no social lives (because no one would ever spend any time with them), and since they have no other interests than “fucking you up”, they have all the time in the world.

Don’t feed the clowns, Don’t interact with them. If you do, they’ll drag you down to their gutter level.

The Buddhist Mystery AS: “In a coma, you are unconscious. In Enlightenment, there is no thought, but you are conscious. Strange that the idiots here can’t, or don’t want to, know the simplest things...” How can you be conscious without thinking? This is the most laughable hogwash ever. Seriously, is this the mind-rotting garbage that the average Buddhist actually believes? With unconsciousness, there is thinking but no awareness of it. With consciousness, there is thinking and awareness of it. The notion that there is consciousness but no thinking is simply absurd. You might as well say that you are conscious when you are dead (given that the dead don’t think)! Anyway, what is it that’s alleged to be conscious given that there’s no essential self in Buddhism? The claim seems to be that existence is made of consciousness, yet consciousness is non-thinking. Actually, if you’re not thinking – unconsciously or consciously (or both) – you don’t exist! But isn’t that “nirvana” (extinction)?

Nirvana “In the Buddhist tradition, nirvana, ‘to blow out’, has commonly been interpreted as the extinction of the ‘three fires’, or ‘three poisons’, passion, (raga), anger (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidyā). Traditionally many Buddhists have preferred to explain it as the absence of the weaving (vana) of activity of the mind.” – Wikipedia So, the goal of Buddhism is to stop the mind from working! You might as well not exist. Buddhism is a staggeringly pointless and silly ideology. To all those people who love meditating, do you realise that the idea is to wipe out your mind and identity ... then call that deathlike state “enlightenment”?!!! Save yourself all the trouble ... get a lobotomy!

Mind Chatter AS: “Today, you never question the constant inane chattering of ‘I...’, ‘I...’, ‘I want...’, ‘I crave...’, ‘I desire...’, ‘I...’ ....... thus revealing that you are the

perfect slave of your so called mind. Only no-mind helps.” The Buddhist formula for life ... kill your mind! Don’t have a mind. Stop being an “I”. Become an “it”, or nothing at all. Buddhists are just scientific materialists who haven’t worked that out yet. They believe in mindlessness, like the mindless matter of science.

Science and Buddhism Science and Buddhism both deny the existence of any transcendental self, so what is it that they claim is doing the thinking? What is being represented to what? Scientists don’t say, although their explanation must lie in material atoms since that’s all they believe in. As for Buddhists, they don’t even have atoms to turn to since atoms are incompatible with “karma” (whatever that is) – unless we attribute mind, life and morality to them.

No Mind AS: “For the zillionth time: Enlightenment is a state of NO-MIND and NOTHOUGHT. Meditate until NO-MIND/NO-THOUGHT happens, then we will talk further. All your other skillz are irrelevant to a Buddha.” There you have it ... straight from a wannabe Buddha’s mouth ... Buddhism is about having no mind and no thought. What kind of people believe that enlightenment means the end of mind and thought? You literally might as well be dead. That’s Buddhists for you ... some of the least enlightened people you could ever conceive ... a total insult to reason, knowledge, understanding, intellect, thinking and life itself. What kind of person wants to become a Buddhist? Buddhism = nihilism = “nirvana” = the extinction of personal identity; total non-being. And, er, if you “meditate until NO-MIND/NO-THOUGHT happens”, one thing you certainly won’t be in a position to do is “talk further.” Doh! These people are total irrationalists, living in a fantasy world of mysticism, emotionalism and obscurantism.

***** Someone else suggested that AS really meant to say ... “indescribable mind” and “uncommunicable thought”. That’s not helping! It’s just more mystical claptrap pretending to be profound but concealing the most extraordinary shallowness. It’s ANTI-THOUGHT.

***** It’s often valuable just to invert what nutters say and then you get something that resembles the truth. For example, when AS says that enlightenment involves No Mind and No Thought, you simply invert this and say that enlightenment is Total Mind and Total Thought, i.e. God Consciousness.

Enlightenment? How can anyone talk about being enlightened if they make no reference to ontology, epistemology, relations of ideas, matters of fact, mathematics, science, analytic and synthetic statements? For such people, enlightenment isn’t anything to do with knowledge (gnosis) but is purely concerned with an experiential state that you can supposedly achieve through meditation. Let’s be perfectly clear: meditation has no connection with knowledge. Any non-knowledge-based approach to enlightenment is absurd, and mere subjective fantasy. Anyone can delude themselves that they have achieved enlightenment. How would we know if they had? There must be countless insane people in mental asylums, and countless Buddhists (!) who think they have accomplished it. None of them ever say they have attained absolute knowledge of existence and the ability to use that knowledge to achieve any goal (as if they were “God”), but surely that’s what true enlightenment is.

Transcendental Meditation “Transcendental Meditation (TM) refers to a specific form of mantra meditation called the Transcendental Meditation technique, and can also refer to the organizations within the Transcendental Meditation movement and to the movement itself. The TM technique and TM movement were introduced in India in the mid-1950s by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1918– 2008).” – Wikipedia So, what’s going to lead you to enlightenment – transcendental meditation or transcendental mathematics? What’s going to allow you to build starships? Can you conjure star vessels into existence by chanting mantras? Good luck with that!

*****

Don’t meditate. Calculate! But that’s too hard, isn’t it? Much better for the likes of you to stick to the path of least resistance.

Guru Talk “During practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique, as the mind easily and spontaneously settles inward and mental activity subsides, wakefulness naturally increases, as confirmed by EEG brainwave research (Cognitive Processing 2010). When the mind comes to a state of complete rest, but remains fully awake in its state of maximum comprehension, this is the experience of pure awareness or transcendental consciousness. This state is described as a reservoir of unlimited energy, happiness and intelligence at the source of the thinking process – the essential nature of the mind, one’s deepest, inner Self. The TM technique is designed to facilitate this process of transcending. “To transcend means to go beyond all mental activity, all thoughts, sensations and perceptions, to experience this silent state of pure awareness or pure consciousness. It’s called ‘pure’ because it’s consciousness in its purest, simplest state – just consciousness by itself, aware of itself and nothing else. This transcendental state is also known as the fourth state of consciousness, unlike waking, dreaming or sleep, with its own style of physiological functioning. It is not a trance-like state or form of selfhypnosis, but a settled, peaceful, expanded state of awareness that is completely natural to every human nervous system.” – http://meditationasheville.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/transcending-4th-state-of-consciousness.html

This is what we call “guru talk”, or “charlatan shit-shat”! It sounds quite exciting and enticing, until you actually try to assign any meaning to its central claims. What, ontologically and epistemologically, does it mean to say that the mind “comes to a state of complete rest”? How can a mind – defined by its thinking activity – “rest”? It doesn’t even rest when we’re dreaming! It’s impossible for a mind to stop, to rest ... even “death” can’t stop a mind’s activity. No sooner are we told that the mind comes to a complete rest than we are informed that it “remains fully awake in its state of maximum comprehension”. WTF! This state – we are advised – is associated with a “reservoir of unlimited energy, happiness and intelligence at the source of

the thinking process – the essential nature of the mind, one’s deepest, inner Self.” Sounds fantastic, right?! However, we are then told that “to transcend” means to go beyond all mental activity, all thoughts, sensations and perceptions, to experience this silent state of pure awareness or pure consciousness. How can a mind be powerful if it has gone beyond all mental activity? A mind that doesn’t exhibit mental activity ISN’T A MIND! What is “consciousness” if it has no connection with thoughts, sensations and perceptions? This is total gibberish and nonsense. Moreover, there is no “inner Self” in Buddhism, so the above claim is anti-Buddhist! The essential Self is entirely denied by Buddhists. So, what is it that is claimed to be conscious, to be fully awake and aware? Aware of what? “Pure” consciousness, consciousness in its purest, simplest state, consciousness in itself, is, apparently, aware of itself and nothing else. Eh? What does that even mean? How can consciousness be aware only of consciousness (and not thoughts, sensations and perceptions)? If we said something such as “Red can only be aware of red.” Would that be any more or less meaningful than “Pure consciousness can only be aware of pure consciousness”? It’s circular nonsense. Of what use is consciousness if it isn’t aware of any thoughts, sensations and perceptions? It might as well be dead! But that, of course, is really what “nirvana” or “fourth consciousness” actually is! Waking, dreaming, sleep ... death!!! What could be more obvious? In what does “pure consciousness” allegedly inhere? What is the ground level of Buddhism? What is its fundamental ontological claim? If this isn’t definable (and it emphatically isn’t!), Buddhism is just meaningless garbage for soft-minded empiricists who despise logic, rationalism and math. These transcendental meditators talk about “a settled, peaceful, expanded state of awareness”, yet awareness seems to be exactly what this proposed state is lacking. Far from consciousness expanding, it seems to have shrunk to nothing at all. We could easily say that death is a profoundly settled, peaceful, blissful state where “death consciousness” is aware of nothing but itself, where there are no thoughts, perceptions, feelings or sensations. We could dress this up in all sorts of seductive guru talk and make people long for death!

It’s impossible to work out how nirvana differs from death. What’s for sure is that it doesn’t involve any thinking self, any essential self, any immortal soul. What is really being described is a state where you – as an individual – perish, and you are subsumed by the energy of the cosmos. Schopenhauer’s philosophy gives us the key to what’s really going on. When you “die”, your phenomenal self is re-absorbed into the single, noumenal, Cosmic Will that unites all things and contains all of the energy of existence. Yet Schopenhauer regarded this not as heaven but as hell! For Schopenhauer, “nirvana” meant the ability to cease to will, hence to vanish from existence entirely!!! A non-willing, non-thinking, non-perceiving mind is a mind that no longer exists at all. Well, can any transcendental meditator outargue Schopenhauer, one of the greatest thinkers of all time?!

***** “Experience” cannot explain existence. Only something that transcends experience can do so. It’s not meditation (!), it’s math. Soz to all the chanters of “om” and all the meditators! What kind of person believes that chanting and meditating take you to enlightenment? Enlightenment is a state of knowledge (Absolute Knowledge), not the experience of a nonthinking mental state (No Knowledge At All). A mind that doesn’t think isn’t a mind.

***** The aim of transcendental meditation is to change your state of consciousness. Yet being much more rational is also a change in your state of consciousness (rational people are much more conscious than irrational people). The best way to cultivate reason is via logic, philosophy and, above all, mathematics. (Science isn’t much good since it’s an empirical rather than rational subject, and actually holds reason in quite a degree of contempt, refusing, as it does, to engage with ontological, epistemological, cosmological and physico-theological issues.) How many Buddhists approach enlightenment via reason, logic and mathematics? Zero!

*****

The only point of meditation is if it clears your mind of all clutter ... all sensations, all feelings, all mystical intuitions, all vanities, all delusions, all desires, all will, all the things that make you human ... leaving you to contemplate nothing but pure reason ... pure mathematics ... existence in itself, without any appearance. That’s the true nirvana! Would any Buddhist like to disagree?

Buddhism So, go on, all you Buddhists ... show how the Buddha is right and we are wrong. Show that he leads you to enlightenment and we don’t. Go on, explain the Buddha’s ontology and epistemology. If you can’t, what the fuck do you think you’re talking about? You’re as endarkened as it’s possible to be. You literally bought into the gibberish of some ancient mystic who knew nothing about math, hence nothing about true reality. And what does that say about you? You are emphatically not a rational person. You are an emotionalist, persuaded by silly stories by silly gurus from ancient days. You have failed to evolve. You have failed to understand the knowledge available in today’s world. Anyone who thinks that the answers to existence lie in the ancient world is an enemy of knowledge, and rejects knowledge. Why else are you ignoring all of the knowledge that has come to light since the Buddha’s day? Look where math is now compared with where it was in the Age of Buddha. The Illuminati revere the insights of Pythagoras, but the world of knowledge has moved on since then. Pythagoras was the first ontological mathematician, but the math of his day wasn’t advanced enough for him to know all the answers. Now it is!

Buddhists and Trees Trees are at one with Nature. They are strong, silent, untroubled. They don’t suffer. They sink their roots into the soil and feed and drink from Mother Earth. Their leaves are blown by the wind, and washed by the rain. They exist in a non-conscious state that could be described in Buddhist terms as “no mind” and “no thoughts”. Buddhists build meditation halls amongst the trees. They sit under trees and clear their minds ... as if they were trees. They want to be as free from suffering as trees are, to be as rooted as trees, and as at one with Nature as

trees. A Buddhist could think of nothing better than to be a tree. Trees fulfil all of the aspirations of Buddhists – blissfully freed from desire, anger, suffering and ignorance. Buddhism is totally hostile to active, dynamic life, to reason, knowledge and understanding. It’s an evasion of active life. Buddhists just want to be passive like trees that need for nothing. What is a Buddhist’s greatest joy ... to set up a meditation commune! Enough said. Buddhists don’t spend any time building hyperdrives for spaceships, that’s for sure. They’re not making a Soul Camera.

Buddhists Buddhists don’t regard themselves as people. They are merely processes, of the kind described by David Hume. They themselves proclaim that they have no Self, no Soul ... hence they are simply contingent processes in nature. What is “nirvana” if not the desire for the process that constitutes your contingent “being” to dissolve into absolutely nothing at all ... or a state where any conceivable identity you ever had is reduced to nothing at all? You haven’t understood anything at all about Buddhism if you think that its incoherent ontology and epistemology point to anything other than humans being contingent processes with no essential identity, meaning that no fundamental distinction can be drawn between Buddhists, trees and rocks. What is the teleology of Buddhism? – to become “nothing” (nirvana). Buddhism is utterly hostile to the life force, which is the force of essentialist monadic souls. Buddhism has a great deal in common with scientific materialism. There is no essential self in science (no soul), just atomic processes. Humans are fundamentally no different from trees, rocks and computer since all of them are just contingent assemblies of atoms ... processes in nature, and nothing else. They have no essential identity, nothing to distinguish them from anything else. When a human dies, according to the enemies of the soul, he turns to dust just as an old computer does, implying that there was never any real difference between them. In Illuminism, of course, a human has a unique, essential, monadic soul, which a computer certainly doesn’t have. Unsurprisingly, many scientists with “spiritual” inclinations are also Buddhists. Buddhism, like scientific materialist atheism, is pure nihilism,

but it masquerades as something other than that via its 100% fallacious ontology and epistemology. The great Western philosopher Schopenhauer showed what Buddhism is really all about – the desire for extinction in order to escape the essential suffering inherent in existence. It’s remarkable that people receptive to Eastern mysticism will persuade themselves of anything in order to keep their mystical vision alive. Buddhism and Hinduism have never been subjected to a serious Western critique. If they were, they would be torn to shreds. They are devoid of either scientific or mathematical content or merit, hence are a total fantasy based on the personal “experience” and anecdotes of mystical gurus (i.e. charlatans). When we ridicule Abrahamism, the anti-Abrahamists cheer us on. When we ridicule Eastern religion, the same people are appalled. Funny, that. We are using exactly the same critical method in both cases. You can’t agree with us when it suits your taste, and disagree with us when it doesn’t. That’s exactly the mindset that afflicts all those who believe that their religion is right and all other religions wrong. Any system that does not have a comprehensive ontology and epistemology is false. Full stop. Any such undefined system is antiintellectual. Ontological mathematics is the only system with a complete and consistent ontology and epistemology, the only system that’s completely defined. Nothing else can challenge ontological mathematics. Any belief system that is in disagreement with ontological mathematics is ipso facto false. Take all of the world’s holiest books and read them all. Then read all of the books of the God Series. Which set of books is telling you a bunch of Mythos stories, and which is telling you the Logos Truth? It is insane for any person who considers himself rational and logical to stand against math, the most rational and logical subject you can get.

Nobel Prizes Where are all the Nobel Prizes for Hindus and Buddhists? List all the great philosophical, scientific, mathematical, engineering and technological achievements of Hindus and Buddhists in the last 400 years. How did a tiny British army conquer and rule the whole of India for centuries? What do Hindus and Buddhists do in the present age? Do they build the Bridge to Heaven? No, Buddhists build meditation centres in the jungle

(often for white tourists!), while affluent Hindus imitate soulless Western consumerism. Way to go. Exactly what the human race needs above all else. Let’s all hug some trees. (Make sure to say that in Cartman’s voice!) Despite Eastern religion’s total lack of intellectual achievements, we’re all supposed to follow Eastern mysticism to become enlightened. You would follow Eastern religion only if you despised reason, logic, intellect and math. You might as well go and live in a cave if you’re attracted to Eastern guru talk. Meditation? ... who ever advanced the human condition by meditating, by “clearing their mind of everything”? How can anyone link meditation to enlightenment? What a totally bizarre notion. Meditation is useful only if its object is to think more rationally and logically, more mathematically. But that’s never its object!

***** The four peoples who have contributed more than anyone else to the intellectual glory of humanity are the ancient Greeks, the Renaissance Italians, the Enlightenment Germans, and the European Jews (especially German Jews). Whatever else can be said about the Jews, it hasn’t stopped them from producing many of the most dazzling thinkers the world has ever seen.

The Tree Huggers Become a tree! It’s all the rage. It gives you wood (wink!). Be still like a tree. Be calm like a tree. Be part of Nature like a tree. Let the wind flow past you, as it does with a tree. Let the rain fall on you, as it does with a tree. Be serene like a tree. Grow deep roots like a tree. Feed and drink from Mother Earth, like a tree. Let birds land on you, like a tree. Let them shit on you, like a tree. Free your “mind”, like a tree. Sit under a tree and meditate. Empty your mind of reason, logic, intellect and knowledge. Stop thinking. Be just like the tree that’s sheltering you. Imitate the tree and, in no time at all, you’ll feel exactly like a tree. You’ll have no worries, just as a tree has no worries. To experience non-thought – like a tree – is to be totally enlightened!!! You see, anyone can be a guru. Seriously, we could easily start an Eastern religion about getting in touch with your “inner tree” – strong,

solid, upright, supporting your core – and leaving behind all of the stresses and strains of human life.

***** What are you doing being silent and static under a tree (like the Buddha) if you do not want to be a tree? Your actions betray you. Dynamic people do stuff. Static people don’t. Dynamic people accept and embrace the suffering and desires of the world. Static people sit under a tree and wish it all away. They wish they weren’t here anymore so that they wouldn’t have to suffer anymore, so they wouldn’t desire anymore. They long to be like trees ... because trees don’t suffer and don’t desire. Buddhism ... how to waste your life, how to flee from your life, while pretending to yourself that you’re becoming “enlightened.” A life without desire and suffering is no life at all. You might as well not exist.

Spiritual? No one who denies the existence of the soul can be truly spiritual. That therefore includes all scientific materialists and all Buddhists. They are believers in contingent process and infinite contingent regress (devoid of eternal, necessary monadic foundations). They don’t accept the existence of eternal rational necessity, expressed through living monadic minds (the ultimate “spirits”).

Liberalism Have you ever met a practising Buddhist who wasn’t a politically correct liberal? Have you ever met a radical Buddhist with real fire in his belly? Could you imagine Nietzsche as a Buddhist? Ew ... the very thought!

The Buddhist Retreat What is the message of Buddhism? – Detach ... Retreat ... Disengage. You might as well be dead ... or a tree! In fact, you must attach, engage, advance, commit, live. You must strive for knowledge. You must burn with desire. You must risk it all. As Nietzsche said, “For believe me! – the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted

seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors, you seekers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be content to live hidden in forests like shy deer! At long last the search for knowledge will reach out for its due: it will want to rule and possess, and you with it!” Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s Superman, is the opposite of the Buddhist Underman, or Last Man. Buddhists are the shy deer that live in the forests, hiding behind the trees. You’re here to be a person of action, not a passive observer meditating under a tree. If that’s all you’re going to do with your life, you’ve wasted it. You’re here to make a difference, not to withdraw from the battle.

***** Buddhism – Godless and soulless – is that most contradictory of things: spiritual atheism. The Buddhists are Ignavi. The Buddhists say, “We are cosmic processes. We have no soul, no essential self, no transcendent self. We have merely a contingent, empirical, temporal self, whose selfhood is entirely illusory. If we don’t have a soul, an essential self, then nor does the Universe ... as above, so below.” Which means that Buddhism reduces to scientific materialism, except “matter” in Buddhism is hylozoistic (matter is conceived as a living substance) or panpsychic (matter has inherent mental qualities). However, the Buddhist universe can never be conscious since consciousness requires an eternal, necessary, essential mental self, and no such thing exists in Buddhism. How can something full of dimensional parts – as matter is – be present to itself, how can it be a whole, a unity? Only singularities can be whole unities. Nietzsche said, “I would believe only in a God who knows how to dance.” There’s no dancing in Buddhism, and no dancers, just a bunch of sour, po-faced monks sitting stationary beneath trees, with begging bowls outstretched. Get dancing, you fuckers!!! Sing for your supper. Do some fucking work for a change. What a bunch of work-shy bums!

***** Nietzsche says Go, the Buddha says No. Nietzsche says Start, the Buddha says Stop.

Nietzsche says Get On The Ride Of Your Life, the Buddha says Get Off. Nietzsche says Yes, the Buddha says No. Life isn’t a spectator sport. There’s no opt out. You’re here. Get on with it.

The Four Noble Truths of the Buddha 1) The Truth of Suffering. 2) The Truth of the Cause of Suffering. 3) The Truth of the End of Suffering. 4) The Truth of the Path leading to the End of Suffering. Buddhism, as you can see, is exclusively defined by the fear of suffering. Since living inevitably entails suffering, Buddhism is a fear of life, and is all about fleeing from life. Schopenhauer, not the Buddha, told the true story of Buddhism: existence is evil; to exist is to suffer; therefore, one must cease to exist (nirvana). Let’s recast the four alleged Noble Truths as: 1) Life is Suffering. 2) Life is the Cause of Suffering. 3) Death is the End of Suffering. 4) The Path leading to the End of Suffering is the Path of Death ... Suicide. Isn’t that what the Buddha really meant? Isn’t that what he should have said? What is “nirvana” if not death ... extinction ... annihilation?

The Guru Con “Today, millions of people in America and Europe try to find contact with tradition and with teachers who can show them the way. But in large part the doctrines and teachers are either fraudulent, or vitiated by the spirit of public relations ballyhoo, or mixed up with the financial and prestige interests of the respective gurus. Some people may genuinely benefit from such methods in spite of the sham; others will apply them without any

serious intention of inner change. But only a detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of the new believers could show how many belong to each group” – Erich Fromm The Illuminati would never expect you to believe anything we say. We put forward rational, logical propositions only. Either you rationally agree with them, or you don’t. End of story.

The Dismal Teaching “I teach suffering, its origin, cessation and path. That’s all I teach.” – the Buddha Where’s the reason, the logic, the ontology, the epistemology, the metaphysics, the science, the philosophy, the math? The Buddha was simply the first self-help guru, the Tony Robbins of his day. He was someone preoccupied with misery, suffering, melancholy, woe and fear. What a joyless fucker! The Buddha is almost the opposite of Nietzsche, the great life affirmer. When Nietzsche turned against Schopenhauer, he was turning against the fundamental nihilism of Buddhism.

***** “The Four Noble Truths contain the essence of the Buddha’s teachings. It was these four principles that the Buddha came to understand during his meditation under the bodhi tree. “The truth of suffering (Dukkha). “The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudaya). “The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha [Nirvana]). “The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga). “The Buddha is often compared to a physician. In the first two Noble Truths he diagnosed the problem (suffering) and identified its cause. The third Noble Truth is the realisation that there is a cure. The fourth Noble Truth, in which the Buddha set out the Eightfold Path, is the prescription, the way to achieve a release from suffering.” – http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/beliefs/fournobletruths_1 .shtml

The Buddha’s teachings are all about suffering and his proposed method for ending suffering. They have nothing to do with ontology, epistemology, gnosis, science, metaphysics, and mathematics. Buddhism is an antirationalist religion, preoccupied with heuristic, empirical techniques for relieving suffering. It has nothing to do with reason, logic and knowledge. It’s ferociously anti-intellectual, in exactly the same way as its brother-inarms (science) is. It’s all about the sensible, contingent, temporal world, not the intelligible, necessary, eternal world.

Dukkha “Dukkha is a Buddhist term commonly translated as ‘suffering’, ‘anxiety’, ‘stress’, or ‘unsatisfactoriness’. The principle of dukkha is one of the most important concepts in the Buddhist tradition. The Buddha is reputed to have said: ‘I have taught one thing and one thing only, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.’ The classic formulation of these teachings on dukkha is the doctrine of the Four Noble Truths, in which the Truth of Dukkha is identified as the first. “Dukkha is commonly explained according to three categories: 1) The obvious physical and mental suffering associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying. 2) The anxiety or stress of trying to hold on to things that are constantly changing. 3) A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance. “The Buddhist tradition emphasizes the importance of developing insight into the nature of dukkha, the conditions that cause it, and how it can be overcome. This process is formulated in the teachings on the Four Noble Truths.” – Wikipedia This is the gospel of anti-life, of the cowardly escape from life. It’s the opposite of the message of Nietzsche, whose Superman embraced every instant of life and wished every instant to be repeated infinitely. You’re either for life or against it. The Buddha was definitely against it. He was a shameless life-denier, a man who fled from life rather than throwing himself into the heart of it. He found life supremely unsatisfactory, stressful and full of angst. He was a total doom and gloom

merchant, a person for whom the glass of life was always absolutely empty. He got no joy from life. He didn’t celebrate life. Life, for the Buddha, was all about suffering and misery. Schopenhauer, following the Buddha, concluded that existence is inherently evil, so the task is to cease to exist, and this is what “nirvana” is all about. Napoleon’s standing order was “March to the sound of the guns.” The Buddha’s standing order was the exact opposite. You should retreat from the action as fast as you can. If you live your life as someone permanently afraid of suffering then you don’t live at all. To live is to suffer, but it’s exactly that suffering that makes the good times so sweet. The Buddha wants to annihilate both ... the pleasure and the pain, the joys and the miseries, the highs and the lows. He wants you to be the undead. Zombies don’t suffer. But what person full of the vitality of life wants to be a zombie? Schopenhauer’s version of Buddhism involved ceasing to will and thus ceasing to exist. Is that what you seek – absolute annihilation?

Anatman: The Not Self “In Buddhism, the term anatta (Pali) or anatman (Sanskrit) refers to the perception of ‘not-self’, recommended as one of the seven beneficial perceptions, which along with the perception of dukkha, and anicca, is also formally classified among the three marks of existence. “The ancient Indian word for self or essence is atta (Pali) or atman (Sanskrit), and is often thought to be an eternal substance that persists despite death. Hence the term anatta is often interpreted as referring to the denial of a self or essence. Anatta is used in the early Buddhist texts, as a strategy to view the perception of self as conditioned processes (or even an action), instead of seeing it as an entity or an essence. “Taken together with the perceptions of anicca (impermanence) and dukkha (imperfection), anatta (not self) perception is the last of the three marks of existence, which when grasped strategically, leads to dispassion (nibbida). Dispassion then causes the mind to naturally tend to the deathless, and this is called release (vimutti).” – Wikipedia There is no “ghost” in Buddhism, just as there is no ghost in materialism, which makes Buddhism a version of materialism. It’s therefore about as unspiritual and anti-spiritual as it’s possible to get.

Nirodha and Nirvana Q. “I came across the concept of Nirodha in the book The Meditative Mind by Daniel Goleman. I think it’s originally from the Visuddhimagga. In the book, it seems to be placed above Nirvana in the path of insight. I have never heard of this term anywhere else or ever heard of anything being above Nirvana. Does anyone have any details about what this is and why it would be placed above Nirvana?” – Crab Bucket A. “Nirodha is usually translated as ‘cessation’, as in ‘cessation of suffering’, the third noble truth. In a more general sense, Nirodha is often used as a synonym of Nirvana. “Digging deeper, Nirodha doesn’t mean passive cessation (as in something ceasing by itself), but rather actively suppressing, controlling something. For example, suppressing a criminal by isolating him. In modern Hindu, a language descended from Sanskrit + local vernaculars, Nirodha is a word for condom. From this we can understand, that cessation of suffering is not an automatic result of the Realization, but a skill one can master. “Digging even deeper, to the question if there is anything above Nirvana, Mahayana gives a clear answer that Nirvana is really just the other side of Samsara. Somewhere midway between confusion and enlightenment, one is supposed to realize that ‘bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys’ (to quote Linji, the founder of Rinzai school). In this sense, Nirodha can be seen as true liberation from any form, beyond all duality, including liberation from the very concept of liberation.” – Andrei Volkov Clear now? Buddhism is just a whole bunch of bizarre, mystical jargon, concealing its total lack of meaningful content. True Enlightenment is about a rational state of mind, a state of perfect knowledge and logic. It’s about a full mind, a God Mind that understands all things. In an intelligible Universe, that means understanding exactly how the Universe works ... mathematically. False Enlightenment, such as that of Buddhism, is an empirical state of mind, a state arrived at by a specific technique such as meditation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with reason, logic, knowledge and understanding. It has nothing to do with becoming God and knowing all things.

Buddhists seek an empty mind, voided of reason, knowledge and intellect. They want not a clear mind but a cleared mind, a mind with no content. But that’s not a mind at all. That’s not life ... that’s death ... extinction, annihilation, oblivion. Is that what you seek? If it is, you are the opposite of enlightened, and you are certainly not becoming God. Buddhism is merely a procedure for achieving a certain state of mind. You might as well take drugs and save yourself all the bother! The one thing you can be 100% about is that Buddhism will give you zero understanding of ultimate reality! Buddhism is about the release from life; Illuminism is about the total understanding and mastery of life. They couldn’t be more different.

***** “Nothing is more conducive to peace of mind than not having any opinions at all.” Georg Christoph Lichtenberg “Nothing is more conducive to peace of mind than not having any mind at all.” – Buddhists

The Middle Way? The Buddha advocated the Middle Way. Why is it that people like the idea of the middle? The middle is the arena of compromised muddle, where no one stands for anything, where no one commits. It’s the opposite of Kierkegaard’s leap of faith. It’s where you would never find a Nietzschean Superman. The middle ground is the home of the despicable, wretched Ignavi, those who cannot pick a side and commit to it, those who stay neutral while the world is burning down around their ears. There’s nothing admirable about the middle ground. It’s pathetic. All people who inhabit that ground are cowards. They’re weak and passionless. Like the Buddha himself, they are terrified of suffering, they are terrified of attachment, engagement, commitment, dedication. These are not risktakers. They are nothing like Faust and Prometheus. They never rage against the Gods. They are Nietzsche’s hopeless Last Men.

Karma

Karma is the proposed law of cause and effect in the ethical and moral realm. Bizarrely, many Buddhists seem to believe it corresponds to scientific or mathematical cause and effect. They talk about ethical and moral action and reaction as if it were Newtonian action and reaction. Scientific laws of cause and effect have a mathematical formula associated with them, and make testable predictions. Has anyone ever seen a mathematical formula associated with karma? Can anyone anywhere predict a karmic “eclipse”? Has karma ever made a single testable prediction? Karma is total bullshit. It’s simply embarrassing when people mention karma as a real aspect of existence, and link it to scientific cause and effect.

Will To Power and Karma The strong can dominate the weak with no adverse consequences. Sure, the weak try to react in some way, but it’s never symmetric and equivalent. The strong always beat the weak. So much for karma. It’s beaten by Will to Power every time.

The Driver According to Dante, love is the driver of the universe. God emanates his love to the universe, and the universe strives as best as it can to return that love. According to Taoism and Star Wars (!), balance drives the universe. The universe is yin and yang, the light side of the Force and the dark. Whenever it goes out of balance, it immediately works to restore balance. According to Hinduism and Buddhism, karma (ethical and moral “cause and effect”) drives the universe. According to classical science, mechanical “cause and effect” is the driver of the universe. The universe is a giant, deterministic, clockwork device, going forward as a great machine, according to mechanistic inevitability. According to modern science, the universe is driven by randomness, chance and accident. It’s just one random miracle after another. The universe itself was supposedly born of a random miracle. According to ontological mathematics, reason drives the universe. This is a universe powered by the principle of sufficient reason, expressed through self-solving, self-optimising, mathematical monadic minds.

***** Love (for feeling types), reason (for thinking Logos types), balance (for mystical intuitive types), moral cause and effect (for feeling and intuitive Mythos types), and scientific cause and effect (for rational sensing types), are all understandable as proposed explanations of reality. The only one that isn’t understandable is modern science’s randomism, chance and accident. This view is totally opposed to reason, logic, intellect, causation, determinism, love, balance, karma, and mechanism. It’s the ultimate miraculous non-explanation. It literally makes this a universe of magic and miracles where things happen for no reasons via no mechanisms. It’s simply extraordinary that science, which once allied itself with reason and determinism, has turned into this total, insane mess. The reason is simple. Without an unobservable mathematical Singularity at the heart of both relativity and quantum mechanics – without “hidden variables” – it’s impossible for reason and determinism to apply to science, and, since scientists aren’t going to appeal to “God”, or karma, or the “Force”, or love, they are literally left with nothing remaining but randomness, chance, accident and miracle. And, being the kind of people they are (irrational sensing types), they have found themselves entirely happy with this “solution”. Modern science has made itself all about observations, the output of experiments, the things that appear to the senses. Modern science is quite literally an all-out war against the unseen and unobservable. Whether it be God, the soul, the mind, free will, reason, logic, de Broglie-Bohm quantum mechanics or ontological mathematics, they are all automatically ruled out by the Church of Science because they breach this Church’s primary Article of Faith: everything must be about materialism and empiricism, and anything else will be automatically dismissed as non-existent and ridiculous.

The Buddhist Con Why do scientists and atheists look to Buddhism for their spiritual “kick”? It’s because Buddhism places far less reliance on Mythos (stories) than other religions, and far more reliance on self-help and pseudo-philosophy (atheistic and materialist in character since God and the eternal soul are both fundamentally denied).

Buddhism, exactly like science, is a grotesque failure to understand zero and infinity. We laugh at all those who are too dumb to understand zero and infinity, and the fundamental role these numbers play in existence. You’re never going to “get it” if you never come to terms with the reality of zero and infinity (the defining numbers of dimensionlessness). They are the answer to existence. Humanity has never misunderstood anything as badly as it has zero and infinity. The God Equation is the ontological mathematical basis of zero and infinity.

Rage Against the Machine You must rage against the machine mentality, against the scientific, atheistic and autistic reduction of humans to soulless machines. Ghosts are the antidotes to machines. Support the Ghosts!

Evolution Evolution initially appears more physical than mental, which is why neoDarwinists can claim it looks random. As evolution proceeds, it becomes increasingly mental. Humanity’s biological, physical evolution has effectively ceased. It is now evolving mentally. All Jungian personality types are different modes of human mental evolution. Not all of these personality types are equal. Some human minds (manifested through their personalities) are much more advanced and evolved than others. Some people have personality types that ensure they are much closer to brutes than gods. Scientists have failed to evolve an intuitive capacity, and are much more attuned to their senses than their reason. Primitive religious types have barely evolved at all. They were dumb animals in recent past lives.

Troll Attack When trolls attack a Facebook page, the page becomes all about them, and not about whatever the page was originally devoted to. The trolls post far more messages than everyone else, on a far more regular basis than everyone else. Most of their posts are random and have no connection with anything (other than feeding their own narcissism and serving to completely dominate the page). Their command of language is usually woeful, and it’s

rarely clear what point they are actually making. Trolling is part of their daily routine, and they never consider stopping. They have totally abnormal emotional responses. If you were specifically named on a Facebook page as someone who ought to be removed from the page by the admins, this would cause normal people pause for thought. It doesn’t worry trolls at all. In fact, they take pride in it, and renew their efforts, and are more obnoxious than ever. Of course, there’s no surprise concerning any of this. These people are on the autistic spectrum, and that’s why their behaviour is so strange, that’s why their communication skills are so poor, that’s why they post obsessively as part of their daily routine, that’s why their emotional responses are so abnormal. These people are mentally defective. Most of them are still living with their mum. They have no friends, no job, no sex life, and no one likes them. They can’t fit into the world at all. Not that they care. These people inhabit their own little autistic world, and when they drag you into that world, you’re entering the domain of severe mental illness. You’d be as mad as they are to want to stay there. The computing age has given enormous power to autistics because they themselves are machinelike people. The vast majority of hackers are autistic, the vast majority of trolls are autistics, the vast majority of people disfiguring the internet and ruining it for everyone else are autistics. You can’t beat these people because that would require them to be rational, and that’s the last thing they are. They are a modern plague, and they are having their autistic revenge on the rest of us.

***** Trolls are always embittered, talentless nobodies who believe they ought to be treated as incredibly talented “somebodies”. They completely lack selfawareness of their own merit, or obvious lack thereof.

Experience? If a company has to “let people go”, who are the first in line? It’s the overpaid, cynical, “experienced” dinosaurs, set in their ways, unable to adapt, unable to retrain, to relearn, to keep up with the new ways of the world. So much for experience! Experience has value up to a certain point, and after that point it becomes an active obstacle to progress. It becomes ossified and petrified.

No employer seeks out a person with “experience” who has selfevidently long since failed to keep up with the changing world. Experience in these circumstances has become obsolete and counterproductive.

David Icke So, a mentally disturbed troll who says that his “experience” has told him that the AC site is nonsense turns out to be a huge fan of David Icke. Well, what a surprise – not. Remember, these trolls always have an agenda. They don’t come to Illuminist pages innocently. They are there to do a wrecking job. Well, then, what kind of “experience” causes you to think that the world is ruled by shape-shifting, pan-dimensional, invisible lizard aliens ... hmmmmmmmm. These trolls always use Facebook aliases to hide their true identity while railing against “anonymity”. Bizarre that, given that they themselves make sure they are anonymous. David Icke is of course a nutter ... and so are all of his followers ... the lizard people.

God All you have to do is open the door and let God in, Christians say. But why do you have to open the door? Why doesn’t God just come in? Is he a vampire that needs an invitation? Why does God have to be asked to help? Why doesn’t he just help! Isn’t he God?!

The Troll Infestation A troll is a fox in the chicken coop. Once you have let them loose in a Facebook page, that page is fucked. The page becomes all about the troll, all about their agenda, all about their feeding frenzy, all about people fighting with them or fleeing from them. In any case, it’s all about them ... exactly as they intended all along. These people are monstrous egotists and they can’t stand anyone who opposes them and refuses to big them up.

Preaching to the Choir Everyone who opposes torture will agree with campaigns condemning torture, while those who aren’t bothered by torture won’t pay any attention. Many people hate terrorists with a passion and want them to be tortured regardless of whether any useful information is extracted. Anti-torture

campaigners say, “Torture is horrible and you wouldn’t want it done to you.” But that’s self-evident. The people who support torture don’t want it done to them, but certainly don’t mind it being done to others. In fact, they actively approve of it being done to others. Any kind of torture, including something such as the notorious practice of waterboarding, is utterly trivial in relation to the supposed “tortures of hell”. If billions of our fellow human beings are delighted to see their enemies being sent to hell and horrifically tortured for all eternity, why would they be remotely bothered by waterboarding being done to others? A humanity that didn’t want others to suffer in hell wouldn’t know what torture was ... torture simply wouldn’t exist. A humanity that lusts for the “wrong-doers” to get what’s coming to them in hell doesn’t have any qualms at all about torture. That’s a blunt fact. You can’t get rid of torture until you get rid of the concept of hell and limitless punishment for the “bad guys”. What is needed to oppose torture is a reverse psychology campaign, of the kind described below.

***** Sign up to our Torture Challenge ... It’s God’s Work!!! Do you think evil, wicked people should be tortured in hell forever? If so, you must agree with routinely torturing terrorists, murderers, rapists and paedophiles. These bastards deserve it. They’re all going to hell, so you’re simply giving them a little, and well-deserved, taste of what’s to come. Try our 30-second torture challenge ... waterboard your friends and see how good it feels to make others suffer!!! Write to your Congressman to demand that we start torturing all criminals as a matter of course. Remember, you’re doing God’s work!! Or, er, you’re doing the Devil’s work because God gets the Devil to do all the torturing on his behalf. So, sign up to our Torture Campaign ... It’s the Devil’s Work!!!

Half-Baked Trolls DH: “The way the meritocratic platform stands, I consider to be a half baked idea.” OK, you’ve said it, so you can fuck off now and find something positive to do with your time. Of course, we all know that you, and all others like you, won’t be going anywhere. You’ll keep saying it over and over again, and

your arguments will never improve. You see, you have nowhere else to go. All you have in your life is the capacity to say, “I hate this idea”. How sad is that? You are not for anything, If you were, you’d go and support it. What you are is against things. That’s what defines you. That’s why you will always be a troll ... until you kill yourself when you finally realise how pointless your life has been and how everyone despises you because you have never once contributed anything positive to the world.

Exformation “Exformation is a term coined by Danish science writer Tor Nørretranders in his book The User Illusion published in English 1998. It is meant to mean explicitly discarded information. However, the term also has other meanings related to information, for instance ‘useful and relevant information’ or a specific kind of information explosion. ... “Effective communication depends on a shared body of knowledge between the persons communicating. In using words, sounds, and gestures, the speaker has deliberately thrown away a huge body of information, though it remains implied. This shared context is called exformation. Exformation is everything we do not actually say but have in our heads when or before we say anything at all. Information is the measurable, demonstrable utterance we actually come out with.” – Wikipedia Exformation: the shared body of knowledge which is not explicitly used when people communicate, but without which communication would be impossible. All belief systems, including science, rely on exformation. All scientists share a materialist and empiricist Meta Paradigm which is never explicitly referenced or defended, but which informs the entire scientific enterprise. No one in science would, for example, ever think to assign agency to mind since this would contradict the scientific system of exformation. A scientist referring to subjective agency would literally not be understood by other scientists. He would seem to be talking a different language, hence he would instantly lose credibility, and consequently his job!

The Missing Words

A vast amount of communication takes place at the implicit rather than explicit level. This is really bad news for autistics who want everything to be explicit. Someone said that we had “contradicted” ourselves when we said: 1) Anyone can join the Movement, and 2) The Movement will never accept any Abrahamist. This alleged contradiction exists only if you are unable to fill in a very simple, unsaid clause in point 1), one that would never have to be stated to anyone who wasn’t autistic. Point 1) would, if written out in full, say, “Anyone can join the Movement who shares the same line of thinking, sympathies and objectives as the Movement.” The qualifying clause is self-evident because no one would ever join the Movement if they hated everything the Movement stood for, as all Abrahamists would and do. What point 1) means is that we would never reject anyone who agreed with the Movement’s agenda, no matter who they were or what background they came from, i.e. we don’t discriminate against anyone who’s on our side. We do, of course, discriminate against everyone who opposes our agenda. No one in their right mind could ever believe that we had invited Abrahamists to join the Movement. We get many nitpicking, pedantic, almost deranged criticisms levelled against us by people who plainly have no concept of subtext and implicit clauses. Some things are so obvious that they never need to be said. Anyone who can’t understand what’s not said, as well is what is said, must have a real problem with being part of the human race. The vast majority of human communication is never spelled out. It doesn’t have to be because it’s so obvious. The statement “Anyone can join the Movement” is obviously rhetorical rather than literal since, self-evidently, no one who is an enemy of the Movement can ever join the Movement.

Truth A troll posted a message quoting George Bernard Shaw: “All great truths begin as blasphemies.” This very same troll had rubbished the AC site for supposedly not having been written by publicly-known academics with “reputations to uphold”. Well, for one thing, the AC site may well be written by well-known academics who are deliberately writing anonymously ... because they are representing the views of the secret society of which they are members, and

because they are demanding, amongst other things, radical changes in the academic world of which they are part, and by which they are oppressed. Second, you can’t be on the side of reputation and blasphemy at the same time. The AC site is totally blasphemous towards the academic establishment (particularly scientific materialism), Abrahamic and Karmic theology, and right-wing conspiracy theories. We are the ones who reflect George Bernard Shaw’s dictum, not moronic trolls. You see the joke though ... the trolls regard themselves as great heroes of truth. They ridicule the AC site for not having been produced by the establishment and then they ridicule it for being the establishment that they are heroically resisting, in their own deluded minds, with their trolling comments.

The Established Experts The established “experts” should be respected. At least they have gained recognition amongst their peers, and that’s no easy task. But, remember, today’s experts will always be found wanting by tomorrow’s experts. And today’s establishment experts are always less expert than non-establishment geniuses ... those who truly change the world and set the agenda.

The Self-Loving Trolls When narcissistic trolls who believe they know everything (in their own self-estimation) encounter our work, they immediately feel extremely threatened by it and set out to trash it, discredit it, sabotage it, rubbish it, sneer at it and get others to agree with them (usually by bullying them and hysterically shouting about their own, sad, crazy ideas as if they were selfevident truths). These trolls feed on your doubt and their certainty. They want to force you to reject our work so that they can then turn around and say, “Look, I was right all along. It’s all bullshit. Even the people that supported it have turned against it.” Remember, these psychopathic narcissists can’t big themselves up if they have to acknowledge that there are millions of words out there of a grand unified, final theory of everything that they don’t understand in the slightest, and which portray them as retarded cavemen. In our rational, meritocratic world, these people would be a joke. They would be routinely mocked. They would be powerless. They know that themselves, which is

it’s so important to them that they wreck our work. If we succeed, they fail. That’s the zero-sum game that they, with their reptilian brains, understand all too well. You have to ask yourself why these people who rubbish our work and call it nonsense, fake, phoney, a waste of time and totally worthless, spend so much time and effort hanging around Illuminist sites. Any rational person instantly moves on from stuff they regard as devoid of value. These people don’t. They post message after message, incessantly trying to discredit us. Of course, their subconscious agenda is that they’re trying to rebuild their self-love and confidence. They can do that only by getting you to agree with them and submit to their “genius”. Plainly, our work has triggered a massive emotional crisis in these people, and they have to lash out at it to reassure themselves. Otherwise, they’d have to face the Truth – that they’re moronic nobodies who don’t have a prayer of understanding ontological mathematics. Have you ever seen these retards commenting on Euler’s Formula, the Riemann Sphere, Fourier Mathematics, Complex Numbers, Zero and Infinity, Leibniz’s Monadology and Hegel’s Dialectic? No, they quote wizards, magicians, spiritualists, New Age gurus, the Buddha, mystics and outdated commentators on the occult and esoteric world. What a joke. The people least likely to accept new truths, and most likely to vehemently oppose them, are narcissistic trolls. New ideas render them powerless. They are deeply conservative, right wing fanatics.

***** “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” – Schopenhauer Trolls are the agents of Stage 1. They are the “controlled opposition”, and frequently just the hysterical opposition. Psychopaths initiate Stage 2. Rationalists bring about Stage 3.

Contra Trolls “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The

credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming ; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” – Teddy Roosevelt Trolls are the worst species of critic. They never put forward their own ideas (they don’t have any, being utterly uncreative and unimaginative). They always hide behind someone else’s ideas, usually someone they read in their late teens or early twenties ... they have never moved on since then. They are totally closed minded. They wouldn’t be able to troll if they were open minded because trolling is all about shouting, “I’m right, and you’re wrong”, without providing any evidence or proof, without using any rational and logical arguments, without adapting to any new information and new thinking. Trolls, as we have noted, are those who perform the first phase of the opposition to truth. They are the ones who ridicule it, citing the rancid, old, discredited “truths” as their justification. Trolls are dinosaur thinkers. They have never once had an original thought.

Ignoratio Elenchi “Ignoratio elenchi. (Latin for ‘ignorance of the refutation’.) In English the phrase is used more widely to cover the ignoring, rather than ignorance, of any contention, not just a refutation. A person is, in modern usage, guilty of an ignoratio elenchi if his contribution to the discussion fails to meet what his opponent actually said.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The trolls who routinely attack Illuminism are laughably guilty of this crime. They never once address what we have actually said. Science and religion also ignore what their opponents say. Indeed, this intellectual sin is almost ubiquitous. It amounts to total intellectual dishonesty, and a refusal to rationally engage with the opponent’s position. Both religion and science are intellectually obliged to respond to philosophy and mathematics. It’s outrageous that they hide away from answering their critics. The God Series is our formal response to all of our opponents.

One Neck For The Chopping Block Our ambition is to have all the anti-Illuminist trolls and nutjobs on one Facebook page – the satirically named “The Path of Illumination” (aka “The Path of Total Endarkenment”). The trolls and their nutty codependents can engage in the ultimate bonfire of negative bitching, carping and bigging themselves up – until they all spontaneously combust and mercifully rid the world of their inane gibberings.

Symptom of the Times The reason why we mention trolls a lot is because they are symptoms of the Machine Age we are currently enduring, where autistic geeks and soulless psychopaths are running the world via computing, banking, stock and bond markets, and corporations. The trolls are high up on the autism-psychopathy spectrum. They are malicious, destructive sadists. Where everything Midas touched turned to gold, everything the trolls touch turns to poison. They are utterly negative, pointless people who have never made a positive contribution in their whole lives. So warped are they that they actually promote their toxic negativity and claim it’s healthy – just like the Spanish Inquisition! You can’t reason with such people. They have zero interest in logic. If you analyse what these people say and do, you will see that they are always following a tactical, and never a strategic, agenda. They will say anything to score a cheap point, even if it totally contradicts what they said one second ago. They have no values, no consistent position. Smart people see right through them. The naive and submissive find them convincing. So it goes. Remember, if you want to oppose the Illuminati, get along to the Path of Illumination page and knock yourself out bitching about us. After all, what else are you going to do with your sad, empty lives? Losers! Failure is your best friend. It never leaves your side. Failure and you: best friends forever (BFFs).

Troll Ghosts Trolls are a kind of ghost ... they haunt places, and try to scare people. They have no life of their own, so migrate to wherever the living are to be found.

Trolls are the undead. They are vampires who suck the lifeblood out of things. They are the zombies who feed on the living.

The Enemy AM: “My personal POV is that we must skim all the bullshit we can find in the doctrine of the Movement, and we must be able to debate any question without having to face a ‘quotation of the Movement’s evangelists’. We are supposed to be the rational ones and open to discussions and the thinking process. We are not here to have any taboo about discussing any topic. The consistency of the doctrine of the movement is one of these topics.” People such as AM have no interest in advancing the cause of the Movement. They want to destroy it. They post countless attacks on the Movement. If these people think they are supporting the Movement, they have a truly perverse idea of what “support” means? If they don’t like the Movement, they can fuck off. Don’t hang around pretending to support something when you do nothing but attack it. Any Movement that gets gripped by the analysis paralysis brigade, the endless nitpickers and pedants, has no future. It will generate no momentum and no enthusiasm, and become nothing but a talking shop for narcissists and the anally retentive. What’s for sure is that it will accomplish nothing.

***** WF: “What is annoying is that I found all of this material late. I read it and whilst I may disagree with a few minor points I know that what is important is that I agree on the key issues. Now it seems that there are countless Illumination and Meritocracy pages and many of them spout tripe and are full of cretins. It seems if none of the original ideas are still there. I keep encountering people like you. After talking to too many people like you, I couldn’t blame the original authors if they gave up. It is like bashing in my head with a rock.” Exactly so! We would expect anyone to disagree with us over minor points here and there. The task, however, as WF appreciates but so many others do not, is not to get bogged down in the sidetracks and byways. Everyone should be motoring down the highway of the key issues. If you don’t support us on

the key issues, you’re not a member of our Movement. If you do support us on the key issues, you would never engage in the behaviour of someone such as AM who has posted numerous trolling attacks against us, while claiming to be some sort of supporter of our Movement. As they say, with “friends” like that, who needs enemies?

The Meaning of Life ELM: “Mathematics cannot provide meaning to life. It’s a model. It’s like expecting your computer to tell you what to have for breakfast.” What a total fucking retard! Math is the only thing that can provide a meaning to life. Math is the only thing that’s not a model, not a Mythos, not an interpretation, not a belief, not an opinion. A computer is a machine; it’s not a living, teleological monad. Total Fail! This is the kind of cretin that frequently posts on Illuminist Facebook pages. He has no idea what ontological mathematics is, and he has never read any of the God Series. It doesn’t prevent him from shouting off his mouth about something he knows nothing about. All he does is bring to bear his pre-existing, and totally false, conception of what math is. He claims math is a model. A model of what?!!! Who invented math? Math existed before any human did, and will exist when humanity is no more. Anyone who opposes math opposes reason. People such as ELM are totally irrational. By the way, there are apps for telling you what to have for breakfast! ELM couldn’t even get that right.

The Choice Should the Meritocracy Party seek to gain popular support by appeasing religious nutters, ultra capitalists, anarchists, libertarians, and so on? If that’s what the Meritocracy Party did, it would be so compromised, so watered down, that, by the time it took power, it would be indistinguishable from all the other hopelessly compromised political parties that it was designed to overthrow! The Party would have no mandate to do anything radical. You are either convinced by meritocracy, or you’re not. The task is not to gain power by diluting meritocracy until it’s unrecognisable. It’s to bang

the drum of meritocracy until it becomes the only sound anyone can hear, the only show in town. All other systems are dialectically doomed to fail. Meritocracy will succeed ... because there’s no rational alternative.

Party X Party X doesn’t say what it stands for. It presents a manifesto with blank pages. You can project onto it whatever you like. It’s a clean-sheet political party. It specifies no policies and no agenda, but says, “We will change everything.” So, would you vote for Party X?

The Resistance It’s not our job to help you. It’s your job to help us and thus help yourself. We are the Resistance. We are the Plan. We are the Solution. We are the Illuminati.

The Old World Order What will you do to end the rule of the elites? What will you do to bring about the end of the Old World Order? Anything?

100% Inheritance Tax This tax will be levied on every person in the world – once they are dead, and it no longer means anything to them. You cannot tax the dead. What you can do is tax the parasites and scroungers hoping to live off the bones of the dead. 100% inheritance tax eradicates privilege once and for all. No one can inherit anything financial from anyone. This will have zero effect on the poor who have no financial legacy anyway, but it will wipe out dynastic wealth and power, and thus reboot the world. Anyone who opposes this tax is an enemy of the people. All such people have chosen to side with the rich

elites. Hell mend them. For making such a choice, they can expect no mercy. You either want the people to rule or the rich to rule. There’s no inbetween state. Make your choice. Stand with the rich or stand with the people. We are all participants in this war. If you do not choose then you have ipso facto chosen ... you have chosen that things should remain as they are. You have chosen the Old World Order.

Occupy The Occupy Movement had no coherent direction, and was massively infiltrated by anarchists and libertarians. The more popular you make a message, the more dumbed-down and diffuse it invariably becomes ... as Occupy found out. Eventually, they didn’t stand for anything at all other than general dissatisfaction concerning prevailing capitalism. Our ideas will never be popular or populist. Ontological mathematics will never be fashionable. However, all intelligent people will understand its worth, and they are our true audience. We don’t want to be prescriptive about what activists should do. All movements succeed or fail depending on the ideas they convey. Our real task is to bring together the smartest people in the world and make them realize that they don’t have to serve the rich anymore. There’s no reason why smart people shouldn’t take over ... if they have the will. We have to show that smart meritocrats don’t have to serve rich capitalists.

The Open Book Descartes considered the mind an open book that could be read by the light of reason. There was nothing at all that we could not access or examine in our own minds. We don’t need to look at the world and experience the world in order to know the world. Reason and logic can reveal all of existence’s innermost secrets.

Consciousness Descartes identified mind with consciousness. The mind is in fact a labyrinth, or a succession of ever-deeper levels of cellars, full of bric-abrac, junk, unopened rooms, forbidden rooms, cursed rooms, masks, taboos,

fears, hopes, terrors, doubts. Consciousness is the tiny reception area that sits on top of all of that. The front door to the whole thing is the Persona, the mask.

The Non-Self The “inner life” is all about the self. In science, there’s no self, no inner life, no internal agency. Science reduces everything to mindless, lifeless atoms. According to science, how these lumps of “stuff” organise themselves (starting from pure randomness, chance and accident) produces the empty epiphenomenon of mind and life. In Illuminism, mind and life are essential, fundamental, eternal features of existence. In science, they are bizarre contingencies. Mind and life are the same thing: there can be no life without mind, and no mind without life. It’s therefore impossible for a machine to have mind or life. The reason why science thinks machines can be alive and have minds is that a machine is made of nothing but lifeless, mindless atoms, and, according to science, so are we, hence there’s no difference in kind. Once you reject materialism, you can no longer subscribe to the fantasy that machines can ever be alive and “think”. They most certainly cannot. You cannot upload your consciousness to a machine. Consciousness can reside only in an immortal, living monad.

***** Given that mind and life are synonymous, science’s claim that mind is an epiphenomenon of mindless matter is equivalent to the claim that life is an epiphenomenon of death! (or lifeless matter, to be more exact). If life and mind are immortal, scientific materialism is totally false. If life and mind are immortal then contingent, temporal matter is an epiphenomenon of life and mind, not the other way around.

Math versus Science Mind = math. Matter = science. Mind = metaphysics. Matter = physics. Mind = frequency. Matter = spacetime. Mind = Supernature. Matter = Nature.

Mind = singularity. Matter = spacetime. Mind = dimensionless. Matter = dimensional. Mind = zero/infinity. Matter = all other numbers. Mind = eternal. Matter = temporal. Mind = necessary. Matter = contingent. Mind = substance. Matter = non-substance. Mind = eternal conservation of energy. Matter = temporal conservation of energy. Math = mind underpins Science = matter. The dimensionless, immaterial mathematical Singularity of mind underpins the dimensional, scientific, spacetime universe of matter. Math is the invisible, mental, unobservable reality behind all things. Math is God.

***** Science: empiricism, the senses; temporality, contingency and induction. Math: rationalism, reason, logic, intellect; eternity, necessity and deduction. Cartesian “Dualism”: math = unextended = mind; science = extended = matter. Math is the mental reality outside scientific spacetime. Math is the Kantian noumenal world outside the scientific phenomenal world. Mathematics is the ghost in the scientific machine. Mathematicians are intuitive ghost people; scientists are sensory machine people. Are you a ghost or a machine, a mathematician or a scientist? It’s all in the math! Math, not God, is the “mysterious” entity beyond science that defines science. Math is the rational, intelligible basis of the empirical, sensible, scientific world. Math is the dimensionless Platonic domain outside space and time, in which the eternal, immutable Truth resides. Math – not Platonic Forms or Ideas – is the Truth. This was a position stated by Pythagoras, the first ontological mathematician.

The Ontological Thought

In terms of an analytic, complete and consistent ontology and epistemology, reflecting eternal necessity, there’s only one possible entity that can be a thought in itself: a sinusoidal wave, with both Form and Content. A sinusoidal wave is a sign, comprising signifier and signified; it’s an information carrier and the information carried. From the fact that a mathematical sinusoid is a thought in itself, everything else follows. You will never grasp what reality is unless you understand that a thought in itself is, ontologically, an eternal, necessary sinusoidal wave. The phenomenal thoughts that pass through our minds are simply collections of noumenal thoughts-in-themselves. They are mental wavefunctions, hence are fully part of math and science.

Reality Reality comprises nothing but perceivers and their perceptions, thinkers and their thoughts. The perceivers/thinkers are dimensionless mathematical monads, and their perceptions/thoughts are either dimensional scientific spacetime objects or dimensionless inner feelings, desires, sensations, intuitions, and will. Monads are Kantian noumena; their sensory perceptions are Kantian phenomena.

***** Individual minds perceive and think individually. This corresponds to the mental, frequency world of subjective agency (free will). The Collection of all Minds perceives and thinks collectively. This corresponds to the material, spacetime world of objective machinery (scientific determinism).

***** Mind = the individual; Matter = the collective. Mind = math; Matter = science. Mind = unextended; Matter = extended. It’s all in the math! Material things are simply collective thoughts; mental things are individual thoughts. Mind and matter is all about the individual mind versus the collective mind. What could be more straightforward? Everything is mind.

There’s no such thing as “matter” entirely independent of mind, as science claims.

The Ghosts? “Ghosts” are dimensionless, immaterial things outside space and time. “Machines” are dimensional, material things inside space and time. There’s no mystery about the existence of ghosts in machines. It’s exactly the same as the assertion that math is in science. There’s nothing controversial or mysterious about that. Science can’t do without math, yet can’t say what math actually is, just as it can’t say what mind actually is. In fact, mind = math. It’s all in the math. “Ghosts” are monads. Machines are bodies made from the constituent sinusoids of monads. Do the math! Only a mathematical illiterate would ever wonder at the presence of a ghost in a machine, and deny that it’s there at all. The dimensional (observable) must always derive from the dimensionless (unobservable); bodies must always derive from minds. The tragedy of both mainstream philosophy and mainstream science is that both have no idea what math actually is! They have consistently and fatally misdefined it, and been utterly clueless about its ontology. Math is the ghost that haunts all intellectual discourse. It seems the most mysterious thing of all, yet reason and logic can reveal all of its secrets. The whole of ultimate existence can be worked out mathematically since ultimate reality is nothing but math. We live in a universe of dialectical panlogism (= self-solving, self-optimising panmathematics). Math is the most dreaded subject in the world, the least human subject in the world, the subject that demands the highest exercise of reason and logic, exactly the qualities in which humanity is weakest and most lacking. It’s because humanity is so alienated from math (from reason and logic) that it has struggled so hard to understand rational, intelligible reality, and why is has been fatally sidetracked by faith (Abrahamism), mysticism (Eastern Religion), the senses (science) and Mythos (an understanding of reality based on stories and emotions rather than reason and logic ... modern conspiracy theories are pure Mythos).

The war between religion and math is the war of emotionalism versus rationalism, while the war between science and math is the war between empiricism and rationalism, yet the latter has always been a phoney war since science can’t do without math, but math has no need at all of science. Science is just math with a bunch of arbitrary, sensory heuristic fictions added to it. It’s Logos math given a sensory Mythos makeover, to its extreme detriment. Likewise, Abrahamism and Eastern religion are just math given an emotional and mystical makeover. All the proofs of an eternal, necessary “God” are actually proofs of eternal, necessary math. Math, whether you like it or not, underlies and underpins everything.

The Ghost Possibility Ghosts are possible if dimensionless existence is possible, if singularities are possible, if zero and infinity have ontological reality. Machine advocates (dimensional thinkers) can do absolutely nothing to disprove dimensionless existence. Machines will always be haunted by ghosts. Light = massless, unextended, dimensionless existence outside space and time. All ghosts are light! Light is the immaterial ghost in the material machine.

The War Which side are you on in the war between science and math, between the senses, experiments, induction and “evidence” on the one hand, and reason, logic, deduction and proof on the other? You can’t be on both sides. It’s one or the other. Ultimate reality is either sensible (scientific) or intelligible (mathematical). The senses or reason – which is it? You cannot claim to be rational if, like 100% of scientists, you privilege the senses and experiments over reason and logic. Science is not the ally of math; it’s its deadly enemy. Science is the False God (Demiurge) that conceals and mocks the True God (Math = Light). Are you a believer in the False God, the Impostor God of science?

Reality Reality comprises: Spacetime (r > 0 → science).

Outside spacetime (r = 0 → math). Therefore total reality = spacetime (temporal and contingent) plus what lies outside spacetime (the eternal, necessary frequency domain) → r >= 0 (science and math). Reality comprises everything that’s in spacetime, and everything that’s not in spacetime. What could be simpler? Matter is in spacetime; mind isn’t. Our body and senses and are in spacetime; our mind (feelings, desire, will, intuition, reasoning) isn’t!

***** Science isn’t at war with religion, it’s at war with math. Math is the fly in science’s soup. Science can’t explain what science is doing there, or even what it is. All of the arguments in favour of a rational “God” are arguments in favour of rational math. Catholic Scholastic philosophy, when properly understood, is actually all about the reality of math, not the reality of the Christian God.

Math Magic The mathematical mind knows no bounds. It’s in touch with the entire universe. It can perform action-at-a-distance (via the Cosmic Mind, which is a wormhole that interconnects the entire universe). Psychokinesis, ESP, Transcendence and Enlightenment are all mathematical phenomena. The soul is mathematical. Death is scientific. Eternal life is mathematical. Math is the basis of reincarnation. The world is alive because math is alive. Math is the World Soul. God is math. The Math God mandates that everything happens for a reason. There is no randomness, accident, chance, uncertainty, indeterminism and acausation. God forbids randomness, and so does the God Equation.

Objects Carry Essences Magical thinkers believe that everyday items can take on the spirit of their owners or, indeed of past owners and past circumstances. In reincarnation, a physical object – the body – literally takes on the spirit of the soul that owns it.

Death

All atheistic scientists believe that the mind dies when the material body dies, i.e. mind, they say, is produced by matter and wholly dependent on matter. Mathematics – conveyed via immortal monads – guarantees that mind does not die with the body, and is independent of the body.

The Higher Power Math is the high power that guides all natural events. Math is what makes the universe a living, thinking, evolving organism. Math renders the world sacred.

Two Minds We have two minds: 1) The slow, deliberative, abstract, logical, rational mind. This is the Logos mind that leads us to the intelligible, introverted world of math. 2) The fast, automatic, associative, emotional, instinctive, sensory and intuitive mind. This is a) the Mythos mind that links us to the sensible, extraverted world of science, b) the mind that links us to Mythos religion and spirituality, and c) the mind that gives us intuitive flashes of the mathematical world. The “fast” mind is the largely story-based mind that is responsible for snap-decisions, irrationality, stupidity, spontaneity, immediacy, emotionalism, religion, and magical thinking in general. Scientists believe they have Logos minds. In fact, they have Mythos minds. They subscribe to the sensory Mythos. The only aspect that makes science a Logos enterprise is its illegitimate use of math.

A Mind of Its Own Our body has a mind of its own (our own soul). The cosmos has a mind of its own too (the World Soul).

The Magisterium “In Catholicism, the magisterium is the authority that lays down what is the authentic teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church, that authority is

vested uniquely in the pope and the bishops who are in communion with him.” – Wikipedia Science has its own magisterium. No one in science dares to challenge science’s popes and bishops. You lose your job if you do. Scientists are every bit as closed-minded as Catholic cardinals. The only “evidence” they accept is that acceptable to their faith system. All other evidence, and all rational and logical argumentation incompatible with the Church of the Senses, is discarded.

Day and Night Apollo is the God of Day who lives by the light of reason. Apollo is rational, logical, sober, hard-working, restrained, celibate. Dionysus is the God of Night who lives by the darkness of unreason. Dionysus is irrational, wilful, illogical, playful, intoxicated, unrestrained and highly sexual. Each of us has an Apollonian Self and Dionysian Self, in a dialectical tension with each other. We begin as almost exclusively Dionysian (irrational beasts). Slowly, some of us acquire reason and become Apollonian (although most never do) ... we master our primitive, animal selves and start to transform into angels and Gods.

Consciousness “Consciousness is a much smaller part of our mental life than we are conscious of, because we cannot be conscious of what we are not conscious of.” – Julian Jaynes “Mental life” is overwhelmingly unconscious. Many thinkers have claimed that what we are not conscious of cannot exist for us (and, taking this to its extreme, the solipsist concludes that our own consciousness is all that exists). Such people deny that there’s any such thing as the unconscious mind.

Sartre Against the Unconscious “One of the main objections that Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) had with both Freudian psychoanalysis and surrealism was their basic underlying assumption of an unconscious. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) thought that the

unconscious drives are often undesirable to the conscious component of the mind and the inability to adequately deal with them is the source of conflict and neurosis. In a sense, one is lying to oneself through the repression of certain undesirable unconscious drives. Freud and his followers claimed that it is only through indirect analysis that one might gain access to this otherwise inaccessible area of the mind. The surrealists followed Freud in asserting that there was a part of the human mind that was inaccessible to direct human introspection and awareness. This assumption of an unconscious was a central part of the surrealist’s artistic works. The techniques that they developed, such as automatism and automatic writing, were used in order to get to the truths that supposedly lay in the unconscious. Sartre completely rejected this account of the mind, claiming instead that we have complete conscious access to all causes of our actions.” – Glenn Mason-Riseborough Sartre had a problem with the unconscious mind. Science has a problem with the mind itself.

The Solution “Indeed, it is sometimes almost as if the problem had to be forgotten to be solved.” – Julian Jaynes Many times, when faced with an intractable problem, we should take the problem out of our consciousness, place it in our unconscious and let it work out the answer, which it will subsequently present to us via intuition. Sensing types, with their limited intuition, do not have this option available to them, which is why they think in an autistic, scientific, machinelike way, manifesting no imagination.

The Sublime “The sublime: 1. That which is beyond all comparison (that is, absolutely) great, either mathematically in terms of limitless magnitude, or dynamically in terms of limitless power. This is the standard meaning, derived from Kant. 2. The term used to designate natural objects that inspire a kind of awed terror through sheer immensity. In the 18th century, it was common to consider aesthetic experience under the paired concepts of the beautiful and the sublime. The sublime was held to be satisfying either, as for Edmund Burke, in virtue of the pleasurable nature of the terror that it arouses, or, as

for Kant, in virtue of its intimation of a capacity of the mind to apprehend the limitless or indeterminable.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Mathematics itself is the supreme sublime subject. Nothing is more sublime than zero and infinity – the defining numbers of the singularity, of the soul! We use sublime thinking whenever we contemplate dimensionless existence. Sublime thinking is ghost thinking, and is exactly the type of thinking denied to machine thinkers. They never think sublimely. They do think autistically.

The Quintessence “Quintessence: In Aristotelian physics, the pure fifth element (Latin: quinta essentia), believed to be the component of heavenly bodies. It was distinguished throughout the medieval period from earth, air, fire and water but was believed to be latent in them. Alchemists, equating it with the prima materia or first matter, from which the rest of the world was made, attempted to distil it from other elements.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Mathematics itself is the quintessence. Earth, air, fire and water are the four elements of science, and mathematics is the invisible quintessence at the root of them all. Mathematics is the dimensionless “prime matter”, the arche, from which all other things are derived.

Privileged Access “Privileged access: The particular relationship we have to the contents of our own consciousness, but that none of us has to the contents of anybody else's.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Machines are available to all. Ghosts are not. Machines are objects. Ghosts are subjects. Scientific materialists are deniers of subjectivity. We have privileged access only to our own ghost minds, to our own subjectivity.

Physicalism “Physicalism: The doctrine that all propositions asserting ‘matters of fact and real existence’ can be formulated as statements about publicly observable physical objects and activities.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy

Physicalism is the gospel of anti-mathematics, anti-mind and anti-subject. There is no place for the “ghost” in physicalism.

Panpsychism “Panpsychism: The theory that holds that the world is rendered more comprehensible on the assumption that every object is invested with a soul or mind. Like the related doctrines of animal soul and world soul, the theory is anti-materialist and historically rooted in post-Cartesian debates about whether only man can be said to possess a soul or mind. In various forms, panpsychical views are evident in the philosophy of Leibniz and Schopenhauer.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Note that panpsychism has no necessary connection with consciousness. Many advocates of panpsychism have failed to grasp this elementary point, which means they frequently talk ridiculous nonsense that wholly undermines panpsychism. Panpsychism, by default, must always be associated with the activity of unconscious mind.

Nous “Nous (Greek for mind): A term used by the pre-Socratics to indicate knowledge and reason. For Plato it meant the rational part of the soul. For Aristotle it was the intellect, in which he distinguished between active and passive reason, the former alone being immortal and eternal.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy “Nous” is just another word for “ghost” ... rational ghost. Science denies the existence of nous, which is why science is utterly anti-intellectual and irrational.

Noetic “Noetic: 1. In general, cognitive. 2. In contrast to empirical and sensuous, pertaining to that which can be apprehended by reason alone.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Science is an ideological denial of the noetic.

The Music of the Spheres

“The superb music believed by Pythagoreans to be produced by the regular movements of the heavenly bodies. No earthly ears – except perhaps those of Pythagoras himself – have had the good fortune to hear it. This strange and haunting notion has captured the imagination of poets in successive generations.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Math itself is the music of the spheres. All spheres are perfect math. All musical notes are perfect math.

Monadology “The term ‘monad’ originally meant ‘unit’ or ‘unity’, and Leibniz argued that only true unities can be substances; in his words, ‘What is not truly one being is not truly one being.’ A monadology is also usually regarded as asserting (as Leibniz’s philosophy did) that the true unities are absolutely independent of one another.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy You will never understand reality if you don’t understand monads. Monads are eternal, necessary, uncreated, immaterial, dimensionless, autonomous, mathematical ghosts.

Arguments from Illusion “The collective name given to all appeals, made for the purpose of casting doubt upon perceptual beliefs, to the possibility and actual occurrence of perceptual error. ... all that anyone can be immediately aware of, in what they might uninstructedly describe as perception, is their own private sensory experiences; their sense data, that is, constituting a forever impenetrable veil of appearance between them and the external world.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy No one sees external reality. They see their internal representation of external reality, a very different thing. Science has never apprehended this simple point. Science naively believes that what is perceived is really what’s there, in exactly that form. Once it’s granted that reality in itself is radically different from how we perceive reality, the whole basis of science collapses (in terms of being able to tell us anything at all about ultimate reality). All science can do is produce a model of what we perceive. It can never get beyond that model to the reality of what it actually is that we are

perceiving (the thing in itself, the noumenon, independent of our perception).

Masked Man Fallacy “The mistake of arguing that because someone knows (or does not know) something under one description, they must therefore know it (or they therefore cannot know it) as the same thing when it appears under another description. For instance, from the fact that my father knew Lloyd George, and that my father did not know who the masked man was, it does not follow that the masked man was not Lloyd George.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Scientists conceive of mind under one description (some undefined epiphenomenon of matter), hence believe that the immaterial monads of ontological mathematics cannot be minds (and, indeed, cannot exist at all), i.e. having bought into the ideology that mind is derived from matter, it follows, for them, that no description of mind cast in immaterial terms can be true. The whole of science is subject to the masked man fallacy. Science believes that all things can be described in material things, and whenever, they encounter anything unexpected, that thing too must somehow be material. No immaterial reality is ever considered either real or possible. The fact that minds are associated with bodies does not mean that minds are products of bodies. The physical body masks the non-physical mind.

Extra Sensory Perception “ESP: The various putative phenomena of acquiring information without any employment of the senses. ESP is telepathic if the information is acquired from other people, or brutes, and clairvoyant if not. If this information is acquired before it becomes available to the other person, or in the events and objects in themselves, then the ESP is called precognitive. ... Until recently most parapsychologists, assuming a Cartesian view of man, have seen telepathy as direct communication between essentially incorporeal minds or souls, and clairvoyance as such a soul’s substitute for perception. ... Psychokinesis is movement by the mind or soul to refer to the putative phenomenon in which a person moves some object without any physical object with that object. ... The soul of Descartes would, presumably, act upon its body by psychokinesis, which must also be God’s

mode of operation upon the material creation.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Newtonian gravity can be considered as the exercise of psychokinesis by God on his material creation! It’s God’s mind, his will, that makes the planets move around stars. In Jung’s system, sensing and intuition are opposite mental functions, as are thinking and feeling. We can define the following equivalences: Sensory perceptions = Sensory intuitions. Extra-sensory perceptions = intuitions. Intellectual (thinking) perceptions = intellectual (thinking) intuitions. Emotional perceptions = emotional intuitions (gut feelings).

***** Sensing thinking types (scientists) are cut off from ESP and gut feelings. Sensing feeling types are cut off from ESP and intellectual intuitions. Intuitive thinking types (mathematicians and metaphysicians) are much less sensory, and much less driven by emotion. Intuitive feeling types are the most “spiritual” human beings, the most empathetic. They link to and feel the core of reality, though they tend to do so mystically rather than in hard, intellectual, analytic terms.

Spaceship Earth “We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian-Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before

somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.” – R. Buckminster Fuller We couldn’t agree more. This is the exact promise of the Meritocratic Society. The geniuses will support everyone else. As Marx said, “From each according to ability, to each according to his needs.” However, unlike in Communism, the geniuses will be handsomely rewarded for their efforts. “Take the initiative. Go to work, and above all cooperate and don’t hold back on one another or try to gain at the expense of another. Any success in such lopsidedness will be increasingly short-lived. These are the synergetic rules that evolution is employing and trying to make clear to us. They are not manmade laws. They are the infinitely accommodative laws of the intellectual integrity governing the universe.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Nothing is more important than universal rational cooperation, the opposite of the message preached by the selfish libertarians who say, “Fuck You” to everyone else. “We’re all right, Jack,” they arrogantly bray. “We don’t give a damn about you.” “Our brains deal exclusively with special-case experiences. Only our minds are able to discover the generalized principles operating without exception in each and every special-experience case which if detected and mastered will give knowledgeable advantage in all instances.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Exactly so. Only reason and logic – enshrined in mathematics – can discover the generalized principles. Modern science is all about a myriad of disconnected special-case experiences and observations, which, because science is irrational, illogical and anti-intellectual, it’s incapable of drawing together using intellect alone (i.e. without reference to the fallible, unreliable senses). “Of course, our failures are a consequence of many factors, but possibly one of the most important is the fact that society operates on the theory that specialization is the key to success, not realizing that specialization precludes comprehensive thinking.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Spot on, again. Science is full of extremely narrow thinkers who are so specialized that they can no longer see the wood for the trees. Science is

increasingly autistic. No autistic person will ever explain reality to nonautistic humanity. Scientists are “idiot savants” – without being savants! “One of humanity’s prime drives is to understand and be understood. All other living creatures are designed for highly specialized tasks. Man seems unique as the comprehensive comprehender and co-ordinator of local universe affairs.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Science is ferociously opposed to understanding. When science says that reality is based on chance, accident, randomness, acausation, indeterminism, uncertainty, miracles and magic, it has become the absolute enemy of understanding, and the zealous advocate of non-explanation. Where the principle of sufficient gives a reason why every fact is thus and not otherwise, science operates according to a principle of unreason, where no explanation can ever be given for any particular fact ... it arose for no reason, via chance, accident and randomness, via no mechanism. This is science’s “explanation” for how existence came into being. It’s literally an insult to the intelligence. The opposite of “God” (= the principle of sufficient reason; everything can be exactly explained) is Randomness (= the principle of no sufficient reason; nothing has an explanation). Science, in its absolute hatred of God, has raced into the arms of Randomness. It has been too stupid to realise that God is in fact Math, without which science would be astrology. “As a consequence of the slavish ‘categoryitis’ the scientifically illogical, and as we shall see, often meaningless questions ‘Where do you live?’ ‘What are you?’ ‘What religion?’ ‘What race?’ ‘What nationality?’ are all thought of today as logical questions. By the twenty-first century it either will have become evident to humanity that these questions are absurd and anti-evolutionary or men will no longer be living on Earth.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Science itself is now the primary source of unreason and illogic in the world, making utterly absurd claims that render it meaningless for humans to exist at all! “There’s a major pattern of energy in universe wherein the very large events, earthquakes, and so forth, occur in any one area of universe very much less frequently than do the small energy events. Around the Earth insects occur more often than do earthquakes. In the patterning of total

evolutionary events, there comes a time, once in a while, amongst the myriad of low energy events, when a large energy event transpires and is so disturbing that with their general adaptability lost, the ultra-specialized creatures perish.” – R. Buckminster Fuller The ultimate paradigm shift that will be ushered in with ontological mathematics will cause all ultra-specialized, autistic scientists to perish. They won’t have any place in the future world. Science is enormously more complex than it needs to be – all because it refuses to be grounded in the supreme simplifiers and organisers of reason, logic and ontological mathematics. Something some as M-theory is bewilderingly complicated – way beyond the capacity of anyone to understand – because it’s not actually an understandable subject. It has no rational ontology and epistemology, and is nothing but a vast array of ad hoc, arbitrary, bizarre pseudomathematical abstractions that have zero prospect of ever fitting together in a single, logical, unified, complete and consistent system. Nonunderstandable things are always immeasurably more complex than understandable things. Why is the Abrahamic “God” so complex? Because it’s a concept that’s impossible to define, hence invites as many interpretations as there are Abrahamists. M-theory is science’s “God” and every bit as subject to endless interpretation. It’s so abstruse that it brings to mind the statement by the British statesman Lord Palmerston regarding a notorious political problem: “Only three people have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business – the Prince Consort, who is dead – a German professor, who has gone mad – and I, who have forgotten all about it.” “Man is going to be displaced altogether as a specialist by the computer. Man himself is being forced to reestablish, employ, and enjoy his innate ‘comprehensivity.’ Coping with the totality of Spaceship Earth and universe is ahead for all of us.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Autistic scientists increasingly resemble computers and machines. They even deny their own free will, which is equivalent to calling yourself a dead machine rather than a living soul. “Evolution consists of many great revolutionary events taking place quite independently of man’s consciously attempting to bring them about. Man is very vain; he likes to feel that he is responsible for all the favourable things

that happen, and he is innocent of all the unfavourable happenings. But all the larger evolutionary patternings seeming favourable or unfavourable to man’s conditioned reflexing are transpiring transcendentally to any of man’s conscious planning or contriving.” – R. Buckminster Fuller “Manmade” global warming, anyone? Is that now the expression of supreme scientific vanity? Until science can explain exactly why the earth has gone through much hotter periods in the past, as well as much colder ones – i.e. why the earth has such a wide temperature range that has nothing at all to do with human activity (since humans either weren’t there in the past, or weren’t producing any of today’s industrial pollution) – then how can any scientist know that it’s humans making the difference this time and not some perfectly natural variation in the earth’s climate? No one denies that the world is undergoing global warming. That’s not the issue. The issue is what’s causing it. Is it Man or Nature? In terms of inflating your own self-importance and getting much more funding and career prestige, it’s tactically much better for climate scientists to claim that Man is responsible – because that’s something that we can do something about. If Nature is responsible, we’re just along for the ride. “Our little Spaceship Earth is only eight thousand miles in diameter, which is almost a negligible dimension in the great vastness of space. ... Spaceship Earth was so extraordinarily well invented and designed that to our knowledge humans have been on board it for two million years not even knowing that they were on board a ship.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Likewise, humans still don’t know that they are part of an immense, selfsolving, self-optimising cosmic mathematical organism! “Now there is one outstandingly important fact regarding Spaceship Earth, and that is that no instruction book came with it.” – R. Buckminster Fuller But an instruction book did come with the mathematical universe ... mathematics! However, you have to be able to read it, and understand it, and humanity has never been good at reading manuals ... or at math! “Synergy is the only word in our language that means behaviour of whole systems unpredicted by the separately observed behaviours of any of the system’s separate parts or any subassembly of the system’s parts. There is

nothing in the chemistry of a toenail that predicts the existence of a human being.” – R. Buckminster Fuller It’s all in the math! The mathematics of monads makes the appearance of human beings inevitable, and then of angels and Gods! “Universe is synergetic. Life is synergetic.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Ontological, monadic mathematics provides the ultimate synergy. “Topology provides the synergetic means of ascertaining the values of any system of experiences. Topology is the science of fundamental pattern and structural relationships of event constellations.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Do the math! “The procedure we are pursuing is that of true democracy. Semi-democracy accepts the dictatorship of a majority in establishing its arbitrary, ergo, unnatural, laws. True democracy discovers by patient experiment and unanimous acknowledgement what the laws of nature or universe may be for the physical support and metaphysical satisfaction of the human intellect’s function in universe.” – R. Buckminster Fuller We don’t need “patient experiment”, we need “patient reasoning, logic, and mathematics”. “Einstein, Planck, and other leading scientists said, ‘We’re going to have to reassess and redefine the physical universe.’ – They defined the physical universe as ‘an aggregate of non-simultaneous and only partially overlapping transformation events.’ – R. Buckminster Fuller And they got it all wrong. They moved away from classical determinism to insane indeterminism, the most spectacular and incomprehensible volteface in intellectual history, conferring a 100% range on the claims of science, i.e. what it says today is black it might tell you tomorrow is in fact white. “Every time man makes a new experiment he always learns more. He cannot learn less. He may learn that what he thought was true was not true. By the elimination of a false premise, his basic capital wealth which in his given lifetime is disembarrassed of further preoccupation with considerations of how to employ a worthless time-consuming hypothesis.

Freeing his time for its more effective exploratory investment is to give man increased wealth.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Every time man reasons correctly he always learns more. Every time he reasons incorrectly, he knows less (and is deluded more). We need to go back to Descartes and Leibniz, not Locke and Newton. Science is taking us away from ultimate knowledge. “Sum-totally, we find that the physical constituent of wealth-energy cannot decrease and that the metaphysical constituent-know-how can only increase. This is to say that every time we use our wealth it increases.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Humanity has turned its back on its ultimate wealth: reason. It has embraced its unreliable, delusional senses, its frivolous feelings, and mystical intuitions. “The difference between mind and brain is that brain deals only with memorized, subjective, special-case experiences and objective experiments, while mind extracts and employs the generalized principles and integrates and interrelates their effective employment. Brain deals exclusively with the physical, and mind exclusively with the metaphysical.” – R. Buckminster Fuller The brain is for scientists, the mind for mathematicians and metaphysicists. Scientists should simply shut up about mind since they know nothing about it, and deny its very existence. “Synergy is the only word in our language which identifies the meaning for which it stands. Since the word is unknown to the average public, as I have already pointed out, it is not at all surprising that synergy has not been included in the economic accounting of our wealth transactions or in assessing our common wealth capabilities.” – R. Buckminster Fuller The “average public” will never know. That’s why it falls to the intelligentsia to improve humanity and allow humanity to fulfil its divine destiny. “You may very appropriately want to ask me how we are going to resolve the ever-acceleratingly dangerous impasse of world-opposed politicians and

ideological dogmas. I answer, it will be resolved by the computer.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Colossus: The Forbin Project! That went well! HAL, 2001 ... that went well! Dr Strangelove ... that went well! Ex Machina ... that went well. Terminator ... that went well! “While no politician or political system can ever afford to yield understandably and enthusiastically to their adversaries and opposers, all politicians can and will yield enthusiastically to the computer’s safe flightcontrolling capabilities in bringing all of humanity in for a happy landing.” – R. Buckminster Fuller In your dreams. Reason is humanity’s only salvation. “... above all cooperate and don’t hold back on one another or try to gain at the expense of another.” – R. Buckminster Fuller We have no chance while we are surrounded by libertarians, anarchists, religious maniacs and right wing global capitalists who will say and do anything for a profit. “Wealth is our organized capability to cope effectively with the environment in sustaining our healthy regeneration and decreasing both the physical and metaphysical restrictions of the forward days of our lives.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Intelligence is the true wealth of the human race. Humanity is currently extremely poor, yet the greatest riches are just over the hill ... if humanity embraces the genius class of meritocrats. “Our school systems are all nonsynergetic. We take the whole child and fractionate the scope of his or her comprehending coordination by putting the children in elementary schools – to become preoccupied with elements or isolated facts only. Thereafter we force them to choose some specialization, forcing them to forget the whole. ... We may well ask how it happened that the entire scheme of advanced education is devoted exclusively to ever narrower specialization. We find that the historical beginnings of schools and tutoring were established, and economically supported by illiterate and vastly ambitious warlords who required a wide variety of brain slaves with which to logistically and ballistically

overwhelm those who opposed their expansion of physical conquest. They also simultaneously DIVIDED and CONQUERED any and all ‘bright ones’ who might otherwise rise within their realms to threaten their supremacy. The warlord vitiated their threat by making them all specialists and reserving to himself exclusively the right to think about and act comprehensively. The warlord made all those about him differentiators and reserved the function of integration to himself.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Nothing is more important than getting the education system right. From that, all else follows.

***** “In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” – Karl Marx

The Swarm of Bees? “In philosophy and mathematical logic, mereology is the study of parts and the wholes they form. [Ancient Greek méros, ‘part’ + -logy]” – Wikipedia “I assume in this book that matter is ultimately particulate. I assume that every material thing is composed of things that have no proper parts: ‘elementary particles’ or ‘mereological atoms’ or ‘metaphysical simples’. “A simple or mereological atom is an object without proper parts, and a physical simple is a simple that, unlike mathematical objects or God or Cartesian egos, belongs to the subject matter of physics. “Plato and Descartes [say] that you and I are simples – though not, of course, physical simples. ... Spinoza, Hume and Peter Unger [say] that you and I do not really exist. ... “The thesis about composition and parthood that I am advocating has far-reaching ontological consequences: that every physical thing is either a living organism or a simple. (For suppose there is something that is neither

a simple nor an organism. Since it is not a simple, it has proper parts. Since it is not an organism, it has no proper parts). We might, in fact, think of simples as degenerate organisms...” – Peter van Inwagen, Material Beings “In his book Material Beings, Peter van Inwagen argues that all material objects are either elementary particles [simples] or living organisms. Every composite material object is made up of elementary particles, and the only such composite objects are living organisms. A consequence of this view is that everyday objects such as tables, chairs, cars, buildings, and clouds do not exist. While there seem to be such things, this is only because there are elementary particles arranged in specific ways. For example, where it seems that there is a chair, van Inwagen says that there are only elementary particles arranged chairwise. These particles do not compose an object, any more than a swarm of bees composes an object. Like a swarm of bees, the particles we call a chair maintain a more or less stable arrangement for a while, which gives the impression of a single object. An individual bee, by contrast, has parts that are unified in the right way to constitute a single object (namely, a bee).” – Wikipedia The whole of science is predicated on fantasy objects, none more so than the human body. As van Inwagen says, any genuine composite object must be a living organism. The only thing that can animate a body is a living soul, which is not itself a physical entity. A human body, devoid of a dimensionless soul, is just an ephemeral collection of physical particles. It can have no unity, no wholeness, no coherence, no integration. That’s why a body without a soul turns to dust. There’s nothing to hold it together. What’s the difference between a dead body, turning to dust, and a living body? How can scientific materialism explain the difference? Since it can’t invoke an immaterial soul as the answer, it must assume some magical force that is present in the latter but gone from the former. Science has no idea what the force is. It seems to be something that “emerges” when atoms are organised in a certain way, yet when that organisation changes by an infinitesimal amount, the magic force departs and the body dies. If you don’t accept this ridiculous magic emergent force then you must conclude that there is a non-physical, mathematical entity that links to the body and gives it its life. When its control of the body breaks down (through the physical degradation produced by age, disease or accident), the body reverts to the dust it was before.

There are three ways to explain the life in the human body: 1) Materialism: Myriad dead atoms come together in a certain way, and life magically emerges ... this is the lunatic assertion of science. 2) Hylozoism: Myriad living atoms come together in a certain way, and a unitary mind somehow emerges from all these disparate living atoms. 3) Mentalism: An immaterial monadic mind outside space and time links to a special collection of atoms (a cell containing DNA, the biological “code of life”), gives it its actual life, and causes it to reproduce, generating in due course a full human body. All cells are under the control of the monadic mind. Without it, all cells would die and return to dust. Control is exerted largely unconsciously.

Epiphenomenalism “Epiphenomenalism: A doctrine concerned with the relationship between mind and body, advanced in the late 19th century as an alternative to the theories of interaction and parallelism. One of its proponents, T. H. Huxley, in his paper ‘On the Hypothesis that Animals are Automata’ (1874), considered consciousness to be an epiphenomenon of molecular changes in the brain and hence all mental events to be the effects of physical events but never the causes of either physical or other mental events.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy Science, to this day, regards animals, including humans, as essentially biomechanical automata, wholly lacking in free will and subjective agency. We are mere machines, and there are no “ghosts” separate from the machinery.

Chaos Hesiod described the gap between heaven and earth as “chaos”. Aristotle regarded this word as the pre-philosophic concept of “space”. For the Stoics, it was a “watery state”, which, so they believed, follows the periodic destruction of the universe by fire, and precedes its reconstruction. Many ancient belief systems, including Judaeo-Christianity, involve the

imposition of order (by God or Gods) upon pre-existing chaos, often conceived as a great, restless water. (“Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. ... So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.” – Genesis)

Bruno Giordano Bruno believed that “God” is the unifying substance from which all things in the Universe are derived. In modern Illuminism, ontological mathematics, defined by the God Equation, performs this role.

Brahman In Hinduism, Brahman is the ultimate being or soul, which is both immanent and transcendent, existing both in the universe and in itself. In ontological mathematics, the monadic Singularity performs this role.

The Principle of the Best The principle of the best is Leibniz’s principle of perfection. It delivers the best of all possible worlds.

Bishop Berkeley “[Berkeley] is best known for the doctrine that there is no material substance and that things, such as stones and tables, are collections of ‘ideas’ or sensations, which can exist only in minds and for so long as they are perceived.” – Pan Reference Dictionary of Philosophy The material world exists only while it is perceived by the minds of the Monadic Collective. At the Singularity prior to the Big Bang, the material world is not perceived at all, hence doesn’t exist. Equally, by the end of a Cosmic Age, it ceases to be perceived, hence ceases to exist. Reality is pure mind. Bishop Berkeley’s system can be understood perfectly if it’s framed in mathematical terms, with sinusoids being objective thoughts-in-themselves.

Julian Jaynes “It is by metaphor that language grows.” – Julian Jaynes

Language is all about metaphor. So are science, religion and philosophy. Only math isn’t metaphorical. It’s ontological. “We have said that consciousness is an operation rather than a thing, a repository, or a function. It operates by way of analogy, by way of constructing an analog space with an analog ‘I’ that can observe that space, and move metaphorically in it. It operates on any reactivity, excerpts relevant aspects, narratizes and conciliates them together in a metaphorical space where such meanings can be manipulated like things in space.” – Julian Jaynes Consciousness is indeed an operation or function, and not a “thing”. A mind isn’t a consciousness; consciousness is a specific operation or activity of mind, which arises in specific circumstances. It’s not a given. It’s a potentiality that can be actualised, but need not be. “For if consciousness is based on language, then it follows that it is of much more recent origin than has been heretofore supposed. Consciousness comes after language! The implications of such a position are extremely serious.” – Julian Jaynes Consciousness does indeed depend on manmade language, which refutes all claims of naive panpsychism that consciousness is somehow built into existence. The true language of existence is math, and math, by default, is unconscious. “The Trojan War was directed by hallucinations. And the soldiers who were so directed were not at all like us. They were noble automatons who knew not what they did.” – Julian Jaynes Science still believes that humans are automatons, but not at all “noble”. “And when it is suggested that the inward feelings of power or inward monitions or losses of judgement are the germs out of which the divine machinery developed, I return that truth is just the reverse, that the presence of voices which had to be obeyed were the absolute prerequisite to the conscious stage of mind in which it is the self that is responsible and can debate within itself, can order and direct, and that the creation of such a self is the product of culture. In a sense, we have become our own gods.” – Julian Jaynes

Evolution is all about “becoming God”. “The language of men was involved with only one hemisphere in order to leave the other free for the language of the gods.” – Julian Jaynes Intuition and reason are how we communicate with the gods. Intuition works largely through the right hemisphere, spacetime (scientific) reasoning through the left, and mathematical (metaphysical) reasoning through the right. Mathematics is the true, perfect language of the gods, and, in itself (noumenal), is right hemispheric. Manmade languages are left hemispheric. We might assume that the areas of the left hemisphere most associated with manmade languages, are, in the right hemisphere, most associated with the natural language of math. “The bicameral mind with its controlling gods was evolved as a final stage of the evolution of language. And in this development lies the origin of civilization.” – Julian Jaynes Most human beings can all too easily slip back to bicameralism, especially when they are under high stress (when their future is filled with uncertainty). Civilisation can easily die ... as we see in the so-called Islamic State, a barbarous snake pit. “The king dead is a living god.” – Julian Jaynes Jesus Christ, the dead “King of the Jews”, is regarded as a living God. Nothing has changed! “Civilization is the art of living in towns of such size that everyone does not know everyone else.” – Julian Jaynes Towns, cities and mega cities are radically different from villages, yet the human psyche first evolved in the era of villages. This is a major part of the trauma of the human condition. Humans weren’t designed for modern modes of living, involving vast populations, densely packed together. We’ve come a long way in the last five thousand years! “Paradise Lost: A further observation could be made upon the story of the Fall and how it is possible to look upon it as a myth of the breakdown of the bicameral mind.” – Julian Jaynes

Writing killed the Bicameral Mind. The better you are at writing and numbers, the more conscious you are. “The importance of writing in the breakdown of the bicameral voices is tremendously important. What had to be spoken is now silent and carved upon a stone to be taken in visually.” – Julian Jaynes The rise of consciousness relocated the Gods from voices in the head to holy books. The Torah, Bible and the Koran refer to themselves as the “Word” of God. “The mind is still haunted with its old unconscious ways; it broods on lost authorities; and the yearning, the deep and hollowing yearning for divine volition and service is with us still.” – Julian Jaynes Most humans are bicameral submissives desperately seeking the dominant gods to show them the way. “According to our theory, we could say that before the second millennium B.C., everyone was schizophrenic.” – Julian Jaynes Schizophrenia shows us what humanity was once like. Autism increasingly represents what modern humans are like. Science is frighteningly autistic. It needs a huge injection of ghosts!

Good and Evil; Success and Failure “There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” – William Shakespeare Good and evil, success and failure, are all in the mind. You don’t need the approval of others.

The Science Absurdity Many of the claims of science are as lunatic as the claims of religion. What’s so worrying is that so many people imagine that scientific speculations are somehow more plausible. How can any rational, logical person who accepts the principle of sufficient reason take seriously the claims of science that reality is all about accident, chance, randomness, probabilities, statistics, indeterminism, acausality, uncertainty, approximation, unreality, and abstract potentiality wavefunctions? You

might as well believe in magic and miracles. You might as well believe in fairies and leprechauns.

The Different Types “God is Love; the Devil is hate,” say feeling types. “God is Oneness and Wholeness; the Devil is plurality and division,” say mystical intuitive types. “God is Reason; the Devil is Unreason,” say thinking types. “God (or the Devil), if he exists, is a sensory object; if he can’t be sensed, he doesn’t exist,” say sensing types. Note how sensing types don’t assign any qualities to God beyond whether or not he’s detectable by the senses. This is to entirely miss the whole point of God. The same is true in relation to the mind/soul.

The New Cathedrals In the past, cathedrals, temples and monuments were dedicated to the unseen gods (ghosts). Now they are dedicated to money (towering banks), shopping (colossal malls), the military (the Pentagon), politics (Congress), celebrity (palatial homes), sport (gleaming stadia), entertainment (vast auditoria), and science (the Large Hadron Collider).

The Machine Age “The Machine Age is an era that includes the early 20th century, sometimes also including the late 19th century. An approximate dating would be about 1880 to 1945. Considered to be at a peak in the time between the first and second world wars, it forms a late part of the Industrial Age. By the mid to late 1940s, the atom bomb, the first computers, and the transistor came into being, beginning the contemporary era of high technology and thus ending the intellectual model of the machine age founded in the mechanical and heralding a new more complex model of high-technology. ... “Artifacts of the Machine Age include: “Mass production of high-volume goods on moving assembly lines, particularly of the automobile

“Gigantic production machinery, especially for producing and working metal, such as steel rolling mills, bridge component fabrication, and automobile body presses “Powerful earthmoving equipment “Steel framed buildings of great height (the skyscraper) “Radio and phonograph technology “High speed printing presses, enabling the production of low cost newspapers and mass market magazines “Large hydroelectric and thermal electric power production plants and distribution systems “Low cost appliances for the mass market that employ fractional horsepower electric motors, such as the vacuum cleaner and the washing machine “Fast and comfortable long distance travel by railroad, automobile, and aircraft “Development and employment of modern war machines such as tanks, aircraft, submarines and the modern battleship “Streamline designs in automobiles and trains, influenced by aircraft design “Social influence: “The rise of mass market advertising and consumerism “Nationwide branding and distribution of goods, replacing local arts and crafts “Nationwide cultural levelling due to exposure to movies and network broadcasting “Replacement of skilled crafts with low skilled labour “Growth of strong corporations through their abilities to exploit economies of scale in materials and equipment acquisition, manufacturing, and distribution “Corporate exploitation of labour leading to the creation of strong trade unions as a countervailing force “Environmental influence: “Exploitation of natural resources with little concern for the ecological consequences; a continuation of 19th century practices but at a larger scale. “Release of synthetic dyes, artificial flavourings, and toxic materials into the consumption stream without testing for adverse health effects. “The Machine Age is considered to have influenced:

“Dystopian movies including Chaplin’s Modern Times and Lang’s Metropolis “Bauhaus style “Steampunk “Modern art (Cubism, Art Deco decorative style, Futurism).” – Wikipedia

***** The modern High-technology Age is just an extension of the Machine Age, but where wealth and power are now concentrated in fewer and fewer hands thanks to global technology, especially the internet. Many of the well-paid Machine Age jobs have totally vanished, leaving just the super rich owners of technology (the 1%), on the one hand, and all the rest (the 99%), on the other.

Ontological Mathematics It’s not enough to “like” ontological mathematics. When you understand it properly, you know that it makes everything else redundant. You therefore have to shed all of your old sympathies towards anyone or any system that’s not on the same page as ontological mathematics.

Ideology If you have a problem with a person’s ideology, you automatically have a problem with that person. You can’t say that you love Abrahamists while hating Abrahamism. Abrahamists are the agents, the vectors, of the thing you hate, so how can you not hate them too?

Who Are We And Where Did We Come From? This is a question of pure reason and logic. It has zero to do with science!

The Voice Can the Devil speak with the voice of God? How did Mohammed know he wasn’t promoting the Satanic Verses when he brought the Koran back from the cave? Why is it that to all non-Muslims, Islam looks exactly like Devil worship?

The Imaginary

Amphibian: “having two modes of existence”; “living a double life” ... from amphi- “of both kinds” + bios “life”. “Imaginary numbers are a fine and wonderful refuge of the divine spirit almost an amphibian between being and non-being.” – Leibniz “The Divine Spirit found a sublime outlet in that wonder of analysis, that portent of the ideal world, that amphibian between being and not-being, which we call the imaginary root of negative unity.” – Leibniz

The Watching Machines The best documentary maker in the world right now is Adam Curtis. In his three-part series called All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, he shows how humans have started to see both themselves and society as a soulless machines. Curtis argues that by thinking so much of machines and computers, we have started to see ourselves as machines and computers. This is the entire tendency of modern science and technology. Curtis’s conclusion is that humanity has dehumanised itself and now sees itself in purely machine terms … from which terrible consequences are flowing. Humanity progressively saw itself in machinelike terms in the belief that this would solve all of our problems, but, in fact, it has simply made them worse.

The Value The multitudes question the value of math. “What relevance does it have to my life, and life in general?” they ask. The stark answer is that mathematics is life. All of us are mathematical beings. People find God very mysterious. In fact, “God” is just a codeword for “math”. Math is the invisible force behind all things, which creates all things, which is transcendent and immanent, which is eternal and necessary, which is absolute, infallible and perfect. Math is the most important thing of all. Math is existence itself. Remove a personality from “God” and what remains? – math. Why should science have any objection to accepting Math as God?

Math “I wish everything were mathematics.” – Marinus, a Neoplatonist

***** “All of mathematics is abstract, of course.” – John Derbyshire Wrong, John ... none of true math is abstract. Math is the fibre and fabric of existence. Nothing is more baffling to the average, unenlightened human mind than the ontology of math. Math is so mysterious that humanity regards it as an unreal abstraction, the very opposite of the concrete world. Math is in fact the mental, spiritual, noumenal, religious reality behind all things. “God” is made of math. “God” is math. Humanity has never understood God and never understood math. That’s because they’re the same thing. Scientists, and hoi polloi, can’t imagine God as concrete, the soul as concrete, or math as concrete. They’re insufficiently rational and logical for such a leap of reason. Math is right at the heart of science, yet science has no idea what math is and what it’s doing there. It isn’t even interested in the question given that it does precisely nothing to address it.

Right and Wrong “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.” – Voltaire It is dangerous to be right when the science establishment is wrong. It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. It is dangerous to be right when everyone else is wrong.

Nicholas of Cusa “Just as all motion is from an unmovable cause, so everything divisible is from an indivisible cause. However, this visible, corporeal world is, assuredly, of a divisible nature, since what is corporeal is divisible. Therefore, this world is from an earlier, indivisible Cause.” – Nicholas of Cusa Mathematical monads are the unmovable cause (in spacetime terms) of all motion, and the indivisible cause of everything. Mathematical monads are the concrete entities that convey ontological mathematics.

“Therefore, in the Beginning, which is Truth, all things are Eternal Truth itself.” – Nicholas of Cusa In the Beginning was Math. Math is the Eternal Truth. Math is the Prime Mover and First Cause. Math, ontologically, is an immortal energy Singularity. “With the senses man measures perceptible things, with the intellect he measures intelligible things, and he attains unto supra-intelligible things transcendently.” – Nicholas of Cusa Math is the language of the intellect; science is the language of the senses; manmade languages are the languages of Mythos, of emotionalism and mysticism, of religion and politics. Humanity struggles with math, God and the soul (the “ghost”) because it struggles with intellect, logic, reason and nous. Humanity believes in its senses, its feelings, its mystical intuitions, and the stories (Mythos) it tells itself. The intelligible world is a nonsensible world, and humanity, with a few brilliant exceptions such as Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz and Gödel has proved simply clueless about this world. Humanity is too stupid to be intellectual. It always trusts its senses and feelings first and foremost. It certainly doesn’t trust reason and logic. That’s its whole problem. That’s why it’s so alienated from God, the soul and math. Nicholas de Cusa’s position was a clear anticipation of Kant’s transcendental philosophy. “The rational is apprehended through the intellect, however, the intellect is not found in the region of the rational; the intellect is as the eye and the rational as the colours.” – Nicholas of Cusa In fact, intellect, reason, logic, deduction and math all go hand-in-hand. “For reason’s measurements, which attain unto temporal things, do not attain unto things that are free from time – just as hearing does not attain unto whatever is not-audible, even though these things exist and are unattainable by hearing.” – Nicholas of Cusa Nicholas is reflecting the old Neoplatonic notion of reason relating to the fragmentary spacetime domain and nous to the unitary domain beyond space and time.

“The intellect alone has an eye for viewing an essence, which it cannot see except in the true Cause, which is the Fount of all desire. Moreover, since all things seek to exist, then in all things there is desire from the Fount-ofdesire, wherein being and desire coincide in the Same.” – Nicholas of Cusa Human beings as a generality are wholly unable to “see” with their intellect. They barely have an intellect. They can’t view “essences”. People consider their intellect, such as it is, as abstract. They regard their senses, feelings and mystical intuitions as “concrete”, and they just can’t conceive of anything intellectual as concrete in a different, noumenal, essential way.

Autism Autism reflects the extreme sensory thinking brain. Autistics are entirely lacking in intuition and empathy, hence wholly unable to relate to others and read others. Autistics are normally introverted, which means they are not a threat to others. When they are extraverted, they are psychopaths, and are extremely dangerous. Think of a serial killer. He loves the sensory, physical task of stalking, kidnapping, torturing and murdering his victim. He thinks about it obsessively, whether he’s a planner or spontaneous killer. He has zero empathy and sympathy, not one jot of care or consideration, for his victim. He can’t link to his victim emotionally or intuitively, so the victim seems to him no different from an object, a “thing”. No one would be distressed over chopping up a table. Serial killers regard their victims as little more than tables. They can’t see that they’re doing anything wrong. Look how closely scientific materialism comes to implicitly endorsing serial killing. Science says that we are all made of lifeless, mindless stuff, that existence is utterly pointless, meaningless and purposeless, that we have no free will, that our minds are empty epiphenomena, that we are mere machines subject to either determinism that we can never escape or indeterminism driven by randomness, chance and accident, which we can equally never escape. Given such a worldview, how could anyone ever condemn a serial killer? It’s not as if they have a choice, given that they are just mindless machines! Only ghosts can be moral agents.

The Star Trek Transporter

“A transporter is a fictional teleportation machine used in the Star Trek universe. Transporters convert a person or object into an energy pattern (a process called dematerialization), then ‘beam’ it to a target, where it is reconverted into matter (rematerialization). The term transporter accident is a catch-all term for when a person or object does not rematerialize correctly.” – Wikipedia On the face of it, the Star Trek transporter suggests an entirely materialist, machinelike conception of reality. No “ghost” is beamed from one place to another. There’s no soul transfer. The simplest way to understand the transporter is that it disassembles the atoms of a person’s body, beams them as an energy pattern to another location, and then reassembles them. Since a fully functioning human being is produced at the end of the process, perhaps thousands of miles from where they entered the transporter, the clear implication is that the human mind is an epiphenomenon of the material organisation of the body. No disembodied Cartesian mind is conveyed through the transporter beam. The transporter process is referred to as dematerialisation and rematerialisation, which fully reveals its materialist assumptions. Yet, we are not forced to reach this conclusion. In Illuminism, the monadic soul isn’t in the body at all. It links to and controls the body from the Singularity outside space and time. In this view, it doesn’t actually matter what happens to the physical body. You can beam it wherever you like. As soon as the body is reassembled, its soul can immediately link to it again and control it once again. The soul – the ghost, outside space and time – can link to anywhere in space and time (it can map to the entire spacetime cosmos), so there’s nothing in transporter theory that precludes the possibility of a ghost in the machine. “In the Voyager episode ‘Tuvix’, a transporter accident combines both the physical and behavioural aspects of Lt. Tuvok and Neelix into a single being.” – Wikipedia This comes close to suggesting that one person’s soul can link to another person’s body. “Persons being transported are at least sometimes able to perceive the functioning of the transporter while they are in transit. In the TOS episode, ‘The Doomsday Machine’, the Enterprise transporter malfunctions while

transporting Scotty from the disabled USS Constellation to the Enterprise due to a power drain, and Scotty’s pattern is nearly lost in transit. As soon as he successfully materializes, Scotty asks the transporter operator with concern, ‘What’s the matter with that thing?’ and orders the transporter to be taken off-line for emergency repair. This incident does not necessarily suggest that such malfunctions would have had strong effects on the person being transported, however, for Scotty’s expertise might have allowed him to perceive and diagnose subtle effects during transit that most people would not.” – Wikipedia This implies that the soul is indeed separate from the body and remains aware even while the physical body is being relocated. Plainly, a severe transporter malfunction will lead to the death of the body. The soul, however, will not die since it was never part of the physical transportation process. “In 2361, on Nervala IV, the USS Potemkin was conducting an evacuation of the science outpost on the planet. Lieutenant William T. Riker was part of the away team at the time. An unusual distortion field meant the Potemkin had difficulty beaming up Riker. A second confinement beam was initiated to overcome these difficulties, with the intent of reintegrating the two beams in the transporter buffer. This was unnecessary as only one beam was successful at transporting Riker, the modulation of the distortion caused the second beam to be reflected back down to the surface, materializing two Rikers, one on the ship, and one on the planet’s surface. Unlike the two Kirks created in 2266, both Rikers were functionally identical to the original man.” – http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Transporter Splitting one entity into two identical entities would be possible given a materialist conception of the mind (i.e. where mind results from the material composition of the body), but is impossible if the soul is immaterial. There’s only one immaterial soul for one material body.

***** “Mirror, Mirror is an episode of Star Trek (The Original Series). The episode involves a transporter malfunction that swaps Captain Kirk and his companions with their evil counterparts in a parallel universe. In the so-

called Mirror Universe, the Enterprise is a ship of the Terran Empire, an organization as evil as the United Federation of Planets is benevolent.” – Wikipedia According to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, we have potentially infinite clones (in potentially infinite parallel worlds), and, in fact, we are being continually cloned every time we are faced with any decision. Scientists actually believe that this proposal makes sense! That’s how crazy they are. Of course, any such notion is incompatible with a person having a soul, a unique monadic mind outside space and time, linked to a single body. A soul attaches to a body in the physical world at conception. It’s preposterous to suggest that people and worlds multiply whenever faced with any decision. Only a scientific materialist, wholly ignorant of philosophy, with no concept of ontology and epistemology, could ever take the Many Worlds idea seriously.

The Fly In the movie The Fly, Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum), a brilliant, eccentric scientist, invents “Telepods” that allow instantaneous teleportation of an object from one pod to another. It therefore has much in common with the Star Trek transporter system. When Brundle teleports himself, he’s unaware that a common housefly is also present within the transmitter pod. In Star Trek, careful measures are taken to screen out any impurities in a person’s signal before beaming takes place (there’s even a suggestion that diseases can be identified and removed during the beaming process), but no such screening is performed by Brundle, and his DNA fuses with that of the fly. (The Telepod computer, confused by the presence of two separate life-forms in the sending pod, simply merged them at the molecular-genetic level.)

The Original Fly “In Montreal, Quebec, scientist Andre Delambre is found dead with his head and arm crushed in a hydraulic press. Although his wife Helene confesses to the crime, she refuses to provide a motive and exhibits a number of strange behaviours. In particular, she is obsessed with flies, including a supposedly white-headed fly. Andre’s brother, Francois, lies and

says he caught the white-headed fly and, thinking he knows the truth, Helene explains the circumstances surrounding Andre’s death. “In flashback, Andre, Helene, and their son Philippe are a happy family. Andre has been working on a matter transporter device called the disintegrator-integrator. He initially tests it only on small inanimate objects, but eventually proceeds to living creatures, including the family’s pet cat (which fails to reintegrate, but can be heard meowing somewhere) and a guinea pig. After he is satisfied that these tests are succeeding, he builds a man-sized pair of chambers. One day, Helene, worried since Andre has not come up from the basement lab for a couple of days, goes down to find Andre with a black cloth over his head and a strange deformity on his left hand. Communicating with typed notes only, Andre tells Helene that he tried to transport himself, but a fly got caught in the chamber with him, which resulted in the mixing of their atoms. Now he has the head and left arm of a fly, and the fly has his miniature head and left arm, though he keeps his mind. “Andre needs Helene to capture the fly so he can reverse the process. Although she expends great effort in her search, she cannot find it and Andre’s will begins to fade as the fly’s instincts take over his brain. Time is running out, and while Andre can still think like a human, he smashes the equipment, burns his notes, and leads Helene to the factory. When they arrive, he sets the hydraulic press and motions for Helene to push the button. She activates the press twice – once to crush his head and once to crush his left arm. “The police, hearing this confession, deem Helene insane and guilty of murder. As they are about to haul her away, Andre’s son Philippe tells Francois he’s seen the fly trapped in a web in the back garden. Francois convinces the inspector to come and see for himself. The two men see the fly, trapped in the web, with both Andre’s head and arm, looking terrified. It screams ‘Help me! Help me!’ as a large brown spider advances on the creature. Just as the fly is about to be devoured by the spider, the inspector smashes them both with a rock. Thinking nobody would believe the truth, he and Francois decide to lie about the facts of the case so that Helene isn’t convicted of murder. In the end, Helene, Francois and Philippe resume their daily lives, with Francois explaining to Philippe that Andre died doing the most dangerous act to humanity, but also the most beneficial: ‘the search for the truth’.” – Wikipedia

In the original version of The Fly, two different creatures were produced: a monstrous man-fly (a man gradually assuming a fly’s soul) and a tragic flyman (a fly gradually assuming the soul of a man). This is a highly confusing scenario where the man-fly and fly-man each seem to have a share of the fly and man’s respective souls, with one gradually pushing the other out in each creature.

Derek Parfit “Derek Parfit (born 11 December 1942) is a British philosopher who specialises in problems of personal identity, rationality, ethics, and the relations among them. “Parfit is singular in his meticulously rigorous and almost mathematical investigations into personal identity. In some cases, Parfit uses many examples seemingly inspired by Star Trek and other science fiction, such as the teletransporter, to explore our intuitions about our identity. He is a reductionist, believing that since there is no adequate criterion of personal identity, people do not exist apart from their components. Parfit argues that reality can be fully described impersonally: there need not be a determinate answer to the question ‘Will I continue to exist?’ We could know all the facts about a person’s continued existence and not be able to say whether the person has survived. He concludes that we are mistaken in assuming that personal identity is what matters in survival; what matters is rather Relation R: psychological connectedness (namely, of memory and character) and continuity (overlapping chains of strong connectedness). “On Parfit’s account, individuals are nothing more than brains and bodies, but identity cannot be reduced to either. (Parfit concedes that his theories rarely conflict with rival Reductionist theories in everyday life, and that the two are only brought to blows by the introduction of extraordinary examples, but he defends the use of such examples on the grounds that they arouse strong intuitions in many of us.) Identity is not as determinate as we often suppose it is, but instead such determinacy arises mainly from the way we talk. People exist in the same way that nations or clubs exist. “A key Parfitian question is: given the choice between surviving without psychological continuity and connectedness (Relation R) and dying but preserving R through someone else’s future existence, which would you choose? Parfit argues the latter is preferable. “Parfit describes his loss of belief in a separate self as liberating:

‘My life seemed like a glass tunnel, through which I was moving faster every year, and at the end of which there was darkness... [However] When I changed my view, the walls of my glass tunnel disappeared. I now live in the open air. There is still a difference between my life and the lives of other people. But the difference is less. Other people are closer. I am less concerned about the rest of my own life, and more concerned about the lives of others.’ “Fellow reductionist Mark Johnston of Princeton rejects Parfit’s constitutive notion of identity with what he calls an ‘Argument from Above’. Johnston maintains, ‘Even if the lower-level facts [that make up identity] do not in themselves matter, the higher-level fact may matter. If it does, the lowerlevel facts will have derived significance. They will matter, not in themselves, but because they constitute the higher level fact.’ “In this, Johnston moves to preserve the significance of personhood. Parfit’s explanation is that it is not personhood itself that matters, but rather the facts in which personhood consists that provide it with significance. To illustrate this difference between himself and Johnston, Parfit makes use of an example of a brain-damaged patient who becomes irreversibly unconscious. The patient is certainly still alive even though that fact is separate from the fact that his heart is still beating and other organs are still functioning. But the fact that the patient is alive is not an independent or separately obtaining fact. The patient’s being alive, even though irreversibly unconscious, simply consists in the other facts. Parfit explains that from this so-called ‘Argument from Below’ we can arbitrate the value of the heart and other organs still working without having to assign them derived significance, as Johnston’s perspective would dictate.” – Wikipedia Parfit is a perfect example of the modern philosopher whose entire worldview is entirely dictated by scientific materialist thinking. Not once does it enter Parfit’s head that eternal souls exist. If they do, 100% of Parfit’s claims about identity are false. As ever, if you get your ontology wrong, everything you then say is wrong too. “Parfit then moves to discuss the identity of future generations. He first posits that one’s existence is intimately related to the time and conditions of conception. I would not be me if my parents waited two more years to have a child. While they would still have had a child, he would certainly have

been someone else; even if he had still been their first-born son, he would not have been me.” – Wikipedia The circumstances of our life will certainly be different, but not who we are. We are our soul! “Study of weather patterns and other physical phenomena in the 20th century has shown that very minor changes in conditions at time T have drastic effects at all times after T.” – Wikipedia Such considerations are wholly irrelevant to eternal souls that are not in space and time at all.

The First Poets Julian Jaynes argued that ancient peoples were not conscious. Are they conscious today? Most people exist at an extremely low level of consciousness, barely higher than bicameralism. Humanity needs to be enormously more conscious, and consciousness expands with reason and intelligence. Julian Jaynes said, “The very reason we need logic at all is because most reasoning is not conscious at all.” “Behaviour now must be changed from within the new consciousness rather than from Mosaic laws carving behaviour from without. Sin and desire are now within conscious desire and conscious contrition, rather than in the external behaviours of the decalogue and the penances of temple sacrifice and community punishment. The divine kingdom to be regained is psychological not physical. It is metaphorical not literal. It is ‘within’ not in extenso.” – Julian Jaynes “Every god is a jealous god after the breakdown of the bicameral mind.” – Julian Jaynes “Idolatry is still a socially cohesive force – its original function.” – Julian Jaynes “The vestiges of the bicameral mind do not exist in any empty psychological space.” – Julian Jaynes “I shall state my thesis plain. The first poets were gods. Poetry began with the bicameral mind.” – Julian Jaynes

“Poetry begins as the divine speech of the bicameral mind. Then, as the bicameral mind breaks down, there remain prophets.” – Julian Jaynes “If we would understand the Scientific Revolution correctly, we should always remember that its most powerful impetus was the unremitting search for hidden divinity. As such, it is a direct descendant of the breakdown of the bicameral mind.” – Julian Jaynes “The changes in the Catholic Church since Vatican II can certainly be scanned in terms of this long retreat from the sacred which has followed the inception of consciousness into the human species.” – Julian Jaynes “I therefore believe that these and many other movements of our time are in the great long picture of our civilizations related to the loss of an earlier organization of human natures. They are attempts to return to what is no longer there, like poets to their inexistent Muses, and as such they are characteristic of these transitional millennia in which we are imbedded.” – Julian Jaynes

***** Strange though it may seem, humanity’s task is not to escape from bicameralism, but to get back in touch with it, but this time in control of the gods rather than as their slaves!

Bicameralism and Consciousness Bicameral humanity was predominantly intuitive and emotional. Conscious humanity predominantly comprises sensing feeling types, and sensing thinking types. In the transition from bicameralism to consciousness, intuition gave way on a large scale to sensing, and feeling types acquired far more thinking capacity. In the transition from consciousness to Higher Consciousness, sensing will on a large scale give way to intuition, and thinking types will become overwhelmingly predominant: Bicameralism: Introverted intuitive feeling types predominated. (Humanity was intuitive, but lacked thinking capacity ... humanity was highly religious and superstitious.)

Consciousness: Extraverted sensing feeling and sensing thinking types predominate. (Humanity is sensory ... humanity is losing its religion.) Higher Consciousness: Introverted intuitive feeling and intuitive thinking types predominate. (Humanity is intuitive once again, but now at a much more rational level, and able to embrace Logos, as opposed to Mythos, religion.) For there to be a Higher Humanity, sensing types must be outnumbered by intuitives, the opposite of today’s situation; feeling types must be outnumbered by thinking types, the opposite of today’s situation; and an extraverted culture must give way to an introverted culture, the opposite of today’s situation. Sensing types must be brought across to intuition. Feeling types must be brought across to thinking. Extraverts must be brought across to introversion.

Facts? Sensing types conceive of everything taking place in space and time, and involving material objects and observable “facts”. These people cannot conceive of an immaterial domain outside space and time where there are no observable scientific facts at all, only rational, logical, unobservable mathematical facts.

The Spectral War The war of the ghosts and the machines is the war between mathematics and science. There can be only one winner – mathematics. Dimensionless mathematics is the noumenal ghost at the heart of the dimensional, phenomenal, scientific machine.

The Union “Relativity” and quantum mechanics cannot be united until both reflect a Singularity at the heart of reality. Both reject any such Singularity, so there will never be any union! Simple.

Nitpickers and Pedants

It’s amazing how often we see autistic comments on “Illuminist” Facebook pages, where people are nagging away at some tiny point while totally missing the big picture. If you support our position, do something for the Movement. If you have nothing better to do with your time than post sad, pathetic, bizarre remarks of total pedantry on Facebook, fuck off! We came across this comment: “I searched, and didn’t find any quote by Hitler referring to fascism.” What conceivable point does this quote have? It’s as absurd as saying, “I searched, and didn’t find any quote by Jesus Christ referring to Christianity.” Everyone on earth associates Nazism with fascism, but not the pedant who posted this comment. What is he seeking to achieve? Is he trying to stop the world from categorising Nazism under the fascist umbrella? Nazism is “National Socialism”. Perhaps we should put it under the banner of super socialism = Marxism. So, the Soviets weren’t fighting for communism and Mother Russia against fascism. Rather, they were “international” Marxists fighting “national” Marxists (the Nazis). WTF! If you want to play games, you can come up with any scenario you like. To what end? Are these pedants picking pointless fights for the sake if it? As Wittgenstein pointed out, there’s no such thing as a private language. “Fascism” is what the world takes it to be. It’s what the world understands by the term. All but one person on earth links fascism and Nazism. As Kafka said, “In man’s struggle against the world, bet on the world.” The world rightly has no time for people who can’t get over themselves. Why would it even occur to anyone to try to find a reference to Hitler using the word “fascism”? What would the absence of any such reference prove? That Hitler was a liberal democrat? Hitler, as you would expect, referred to Nazism, not fascism. The issue therefore is not whether Hitler mentioned fascism, but whether Nazism has the properties of a fascist movement, which of course it does. While Muslims chop off people’s heads, and global capitalism crushes the poor, some people are obsessed with whether or not Hitler ever referred to himself as a fascist. WTF! Whenever you think you’ve seen it all, you can be sure you haven’t. Even more ridiculously, the article under which the comment was posted didn’t even mention Hitler!

*****

“Iron rusts from disuse, stagnant water loses its purity, and in cold weather becomes frozen; even so does inaction sap the vigours of the mind.” – Leonardo da Vinci Pedantic people get even more pedantic as they age. They are literally the people who can’t see the wood for the trees.

The Absent Presence The authors of the AC website and the God Series aren’t on Facebook, Twitter or anything else. We contributed to a Facebook page some years ago before it became overrun by trolls, clowns and imbeciles. If we were to run a Facebook page in the future, we would unfriend and block about ninety percent of the people who attempted to access the page. We’re sick of idiots, moaners, whingers, whiners, pedants, and people congenitally incapable of saying anything intelligent and to the point. If you can’t make a difference in the world, if you can’t achieve anything in life, fuck off and die! If questioning whether Hitler was a fascist is the extent of your engagement with our movement, why don’t you go and play computer games and wizard shit? What do you think you’re doing coming to material written by intelligent people?

Ghosts? SB: “Why do dying people, before they go, claim to see members of their family who have already died? E.g. old lady on her death bed suddenly opens her eyes wide, talks to her dead husband or friend or mother/father who they think is standing at the end of the bed, just before they die. Why does that happen?” Either they’re hallucinating, or the presence of their loved ones is real. They project a physical appearance onto the mental presence of their loved ones. Why shouldn’t people encounter souls at life-death transition phases when the barriers come down between the living and the “dead”? SB: “Do you think souls have the ability to wait for other souls before they move on? Before the cycle is complete, perhaps there’s a queuing system in order to complete the formula before it can then progress...?”

A soul is an enormous information system. A soul that has reincarnated can still, in one mode of its activity, contact other souls from its past, especially in times of crisis, and most especially as death approaches a loved one. As the universe converges on the Omega Point, soul contact will become all-pervasive. We will all end up in blissful contact with all the souls we have ever loved and lost.

Pseudoscience Science isn’t a science. It’s a pseudoscience for mathematical and philosophical illiterates who oppose rationalism and logic. What’s truly disturbing about these people is that they imagine themselves on the side of reason yet they totally reject the principle of sufficient reason. We came across the following reference to one of our books: RS: “I followed the link to Amazon and read the blurb about the book ‘First: “The central reason for the failure of Einstein’s theory as an account of ultimate existence is …” I never heard that Einstein’s theory purported to say anything about ‘ultimate existence’.” You never “heard”? Heard from whom? Are you waiting for someone in authority to tell you what to think? Are you incapable of drawing your own conclusions about Einstein’s claims? Do you need permission to think? Either Einstein’s theory is making a claim about ultimate reality, or it’s not. If it’s not, what is it making a claim about? Some absurd fantasy? Are we to conclude from RS’s comment that science makes no claim to be about reality? You certainly don’t find many scientists claiming that science is an anti-reality subject!!! RS: “Then: ‘Because it’s an immaterial, dimensionless entity outside space and time, the Singularity is undetectable by any scientific experiment, yet its existence automatically disproves all claims of scientific materialism regarding the fundamental nature of reality. It is immaterial, dimensionless, outside space and time, undetectable … yet its EXISTENCE disproves…’” RS simply demonstrates that he’s another scientific clown who doesn’t get the difference between rational proof and scientific “evidence” – one of the primary themes of our books. Note his reflex scientific sneer at the very notion of the existence of something immaterial and outside space, time and

the scientific Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism – again, one of our major themes. As ever, the scientific morons irrationally and illogically make the claim that only the scientific world exists (despite claiming that science has nothing to do with “ultimate reality”!). RS: “I see why this is called the God Series. This is Deepak Chopra, this is pseudoscience. I didn’t know you were like that. I thought you were interested in humanism, skepticism, science, so thought you must be kidding when you appeared to endorse this book, which seems to violate 2 out of 3 of the above attributes. That’s all.” There you have it. A person who has never read these books, and is selfevidently mathematically and philosophically illiterate, immediately puts the God Series in his little “Deepak Chopra” box of things to be ignored, without further thought or effort. This reflects yet another of our themes ... the absolute contempt scientists have for anything at all that does not conform to their tiny, fanatical, materialist empiricist ideology and dogmatism – their manic faith in scientism. Any scientist with an open mind would have no objection to reading Deepak Chopra, if for no other reason than to refute him. But scientists – almost all of whom are on the autistic spectrum – cannot conceive of anything beyond the sensory realm, and have zero interest in reading about any such possibility. Note how no attempt is made by this person to see if we have indeed refuted Einstein (which we have). That possibility is automatically discounted. This closed-mindedness is of course exactly why science is so useless at giving humanity any valid knowledge at all about ultimate reality. Scientists are religious believers in science. They are the most appalling groupthinkers with zero imagination and zero intuition. This clown is so stupid – so bad at science – that he doesn’t even realise that it’s Einstein’s own theories that predict black hole singularities, photonic singularities and the Big Bang Singularity itself. That’s the science community for you – mentally retarded. The trouble is that the people who think they understand science don’t know shit about it. They subscribe to a Mythos that they don’t understand. It’s too complicated for them. Note how this person associates singularities with Deepak Chopra, not with reason, logic and mathematics. He immediately considers anything opposed to scientific materialism as religious, spiritualist and irrational. He never conceives of science – an empiricist rather than rationalist subject –

as being opposed to reason, logic, rationalism and math, hence on the Deepak Chopra side of the fence! Science makes even more ridiculous claims than Deepak Chopra does because it literally makes the insane claim that existence jumps out of nothing for no reason via no mechanism. Even Chopra doesn’t say anything as crazy as that. What’s truly bizarre is that cretins like RS – people who haven’t even read our books and know nothing at all about our case against Einstein – instantly dismiss it because it doesn’t conform to their religious faith in the Church of Science. They are blinkered, irrational, illogical, antimathematical fanatics. Like all religious types, they never study anything that challenges their position. Scientists reject everything that generates singularities ... even their own theories!!! They claim that these theories are right, until they are no longer right at singularities! Anyone who opposes us opposes mathematics, and only irrational, illogical people would ever stand against math. Science is a formally antimathematical subject that explicitly rejects as a fundamental reality the mathematical Singularity at the heart of existence (the eternal, immaterial, transcendent, immutable, perfect Platonic domain of absolute mathematical knowledge outside space and time). Science will never change. The people it attracts are totally opposed to reason, and wholly in thrall to their irrational senses. They are so irrational and illogical that they have no idea how irrational and logical they are. And that’s exactly the problem with being irrational and illogical. Your own stupidity and ignorance are the last things you can accurately gauge. That would require you to be logical and rational! RS: “Perhaps I’m naive, but I thought physics is all mathematics. Is there room for peer review in this system? If so, where are the papers? If not, how do we proceed?” Yes, you’re naive. Physics isn’t math. It’s not even close. It’s an ideological subset of math designed to accommodate the dogmatism of materialism and empiricism, hence it’s mathematically inconsistent and incomplete, and thus false. “Peer review”? What is peer review other than total groupthink and the enforcing of the prevailing ideology? What scientific peer review process or panel has even once considered the ideology of materialism and empiricism

to be false, and, alternatively, that idealism and rationalism are true? Has any scientific panel reviewed the God Series?! Is that our fault, or science’s fault? No scientist would ever enter into a debate about science’s actual validity, and whether it should be superseded by ontological mathematics. There’s plenty of “peer review” in Catholicism. Such reviews are only as good as the “peers” conducting them. If they are not rational and logical, and they do not subscribe to a rational and logical system, how can such reviews ever be worthwhile? Mathematics doesn’t use peer review. It uses mathematical proofs. A proof is either right or wrong. Science doesn’t involve infallible proofs. It’s all about highly interpreted “evidence”, and even that “evidence” is highly interpreted by our sense organs, brains and minds before we even begin to consider it. No one from outside the scientific system is ever scientifically peer reviewed since that would open science itself to being peer reviewed by those outside science (such as philosophers and mathematicians). Science is a hermetically sealed ideology, just like the Catholic Church, which also never listens to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to its faith system. Scientists refuse to engage even with philosophers of science. That’s how small-minded they are. That’s how pointless “peer review” is. Scientists don’t refute arguments deployed against them. They just ignore them ... exactly like any religion. RS: It’s been said time after time that proving something wrong or some new idea to be fact is the dream of every scientist.” Science never proves anything. It simply accumulates evidence to support fashionable interpretations. No interpretation is ever proved in science. In fact, according to Karl Popper, every scientific theory must be capable of falsification. By definition, you can’t prove true something that asserts of itself that it’s capable of being false. Science is all about verification and falsification. Math is about neither of those things. No experiment can verify a mathematical statement, and no experiment can falsify a mathematical statement, so how is it that math is at the core of science? No scientist will ever respond to such a question ... because all scientists have zero intellectual integrity. RS is the last person on earth who would be able to explain what math is, and why science uses it.

RS: “Science seems to be the best tool we have if the goal is to explain what we find in the material world.” “Seems”? So, other approaches might prove superior? When does science ever contemplate any change to its modus operandi and the Meta Paradigm through which it views everything? It’s not the goal of science to “explain” anything. No scientist can even “explain” what matter is, never mind what the “material world” is! Science is simply a modelling system that uses the ideology of materialism and empiricism (anti-rationalism), allied with a subset of mathematical rationalism, deemed consistent with science’s ideology. The purpose of science is to establish a productive model, not to explain reality. RS: “I’ve encountered the mind without matter assertion before but cannot dissociate it from spiritualism.” Exactly. You make a kneejerk attack on anything that promotes the real existence of mind without even bothering to study what it is you’re attacking. That’s why you’re a religious believer in scientism. You have no capacity to think rationally and logically, to challenge your own assumptions and beliefs. You have a totally closed mind and instantly attack anything that rejects your worldview – just like a Muslim! RS: “The emphasis on mind as a force in the universe sounds a little mystical/New-Agey.” According to your ideology! You haven’t even studied this subject, so how would you know? By your own admission, you reject anything that mentions mind out of hand ... just like all believers in the Church of Matter. You literally cannot conceive of immaterial existence. RS: “...Lots of high falutin’ rhetoric examined and rejected by serious investigators.” “Serious investigators?” The whole of science has been examined and rejected by serious investigators ... the greatest philosophers and mathematicians in history. When has science ever paid any attention? Like any religion, it ignores anything and everything it dislikes. RS: “I choose materialism over spiritualism in any form.”

The choice is between science and math (not “spiritualism”), between the machine and the ghost in the machine (the machine’s unacknowledged dimensionless mind). RS quotes from Figments of Reality: The Evolution of the Curious Mind by Ian Stewart: “So much for reality as a figment of imagination. Much more interesting, and absolutely central to this book, is the contention that imagination is a figment of reality. We mean at least two things by this. One is that what our minds observe, through our senses, is determined by the reality outside ourselves‚ subject to imperfections in what is doing the observing, and bearing in mind that we observe only a shadow. The second is that ‘mind’ does not require any ingredients that do not already exist in the material universe within which it evolved. It follows the same rules of behaviour as ordinary matter, space, and time, and it forms a part of the reality that it is attempting to observe. Mind is a process carried out inside an ordinary material brain made from ordinary brain material.” So, we have a follower of scientific materialism quoting a scientific materialist book to refute a non scientific materialist worldview! That’s like a Christian quoting the Bible to refute a non-Christian. That’s how irrational these people are. RS simply demonstrates how much of a fanatical believer he is in scientism, and how he has closed his mind to everything else. RS is exactly the kind of zealot we mock throughout our books. These are the people who oppose Reason and the Second Enlightenment. They are the enemies of mathematics. RS: “I may be far afield from what you contend, but this is about as much as I can say.” It didn’t stop you from slagging off something that you had never once studied and knew nothing about ... typical of a religious believer. If this is the calibre of people who support science, no wonder it’s so pathetic. You cannot be on the side of science and math. It’s one or the other. Math is on the side of reason. Science isn’t. Science takes the side of the senses. Since when were the ultimate secrets of existence to be revealed by and to the human senses? Where were the human senses at the Big Bang? So how can the human senses tell us what happened at the Big Bang? How irrational would you have to be to imagine that the human senses, and not reason, can unlock the secrets of the universe?

If this is a rational universe, it’s a category error to use anything other than reason to understand it. If this isn’t a rational universe, any ridiculous, irrational theory is as good as any other ridiculous, irrational theory. What’s fascinating about RS – an all too common believer in scientism – is not just the moronic content of his argument, where he spends all of his time arguing against the Straw Man of Deepak Chopra’s New Age spirituality, and zero time addressing ontological mathematics (which is what the book is actually about), but also how he argues, which is every bit as revealing. This person, according to his own confession, came across the words “dimensionless” and “immaterial” and instantly concluded – without any further study – that he was dealing with New Ageism. He proudly states, “I choose materialism over spiritualism in any form.” Well, there you have it ... a materialist zealot. Of course, as we have pointed out many times, there’s no ontological and epistemological definition of what “matter” is (nor of “space”, “time, “energy”, or “light”), so RS actually has no idea what he subscribes to ... just like all religious believers. Scientists are supposed to be evidence-driven and to do research, but not RS. He can’t wait to get onto Facebook and start mocking a book despite having zero idea of what it’s actually about, and zero idea of the mathematics of singularities. That’s all too typical of scientists and religious believers. They never take the trouble to actually find out what it is they’re attacking. RS isn’t attacking Deepak Chopra, he’s attacking mathematics ... the true basis of science! It’s incredibly easy to logically trap these ignoramuses. In their eagerness to rubbish anything that opposes science, they end up rubbishing math, without which science would be alchemy and astrology. That’s how stupid they are. The status of rationalist mathematics within empirical science is science’s greatest problem, yet scientists just sweep past this problem as if it doesn’t exist. RS makes no attempt to engage with the material he is attacking, makes no attempt to understand it, certainly doesn’t bother to read it, and dismisses it out of hand with his ferociously closed mind, yet this person presumably believes himself intelligent. He has a funny way of showing it. Debating Lesson 101 – know what it is you’re attacking before you attack it or you’re going to make a spectacular fool of yourself, and you might end up being quoted in a book that exposes you for the embarrassing clown you are!

RS says, “Math is universal, I have no problem with that. But ‘an immaterial mental Singularity outside space and time’ sounds no more possible than any other faith based contention, yet it calls science a religion. I don’t get it.” If you had bothered to read what you were attacking, you would get it. But of course, to expect a lazy, sloppy, scientific ignoramus to bother his ass doing any research before he opens his big gob is certainly demanding too much from these simpletons. How can math be “universal” if it doesn’t accommodate singularities? How can math be “material”? How can math be “inside space and time”? RS has literally no idea what he’s saying. In common with all scientists, he’s clueless about what math is, yet feels qualified to comment on it. If you have no idea what math is – and no scientist does – how can you attack the concept of “an immaterial mental Singularity outside space and time” as the basis of ontological mathematics, which is the true foundation of science? What RS – a true believer in undefined “matter” – cannot conceive is anything immaterial. It contradicts his dogmatic faith. Just like all religious types, he makes no attempt ever to challenge his own core assumptions. RS says, “I’m prompted to ask, what about all the successes of science? The scientific method seems to have a pretty decent record in advancing our knowledge.” What does RS mean by “knowledge”? Is he referring to the ad hoc, provisional, heuristic, falsifiable conjectures of scientific materialism and empiricism? How can anything falsifiable be “knowledge”? By definition, nothing that’s true can be false, so how can any truth be falsifiable? Something is either true or it’s not. If it’s not, it’s either downright false, or a mere opinion, belief or interpretation. The “successes” of science are actually the successes of math. Take away math from science and all that’s left is one big joke. RS says, “A unified theory of everything may or may not be discoverable, if it exists, but I don’t see it negating what has gone before.” There definitely won’t be a final, unified scientific theory of everything because any final theory cannot be falsifiable, yet all scientific theories are falsifiable. The final theory of everything can only be mathematical. Only

math can be absolute, infallible, definitive and final. The final theory of existence – which is of course ontological mathematics – definitely negates all of science which has come before it! RS says, “And mind is already a subject of physics if all science is reducible to just physics in the end.” A materialist zealot to the end! The whole of science is reducible to ontological mathematics in the end ... the science of monadic minds. RS demonstrates how impossible it is to have a rational debate with a scientist. Incredibly, the idea to which people such as RS are most resistant is that of math preceding science and determining science: in other words, what they most object to is unadulterated rationalism and logic. At all times, they drag everything back to their contingent, unreliable, fallible, human senses. Never let these scientific jerks get any traction. Shoot down their absurd, irrational arguments on sight. Let them know they are religious believers, in terms of their senses rather than their emotions. They believe what they see rather than what they feel, but the senses are barely less delusional than the emotions. What’s truly astounding is that these people imagine themselves rational even though they explicitly reject rationalism in favour of empiricism. These people don’t give up. They are immune to logical and rational arguments. They keep reverting to type and defending their dogmatic, refuted position. It’s just like having a debate with a Muslim – an exercise in futility. What’s truly alarming is that people such as RS imagine themselves different from Muslims, when, in fact, they are exactly the same. There will come a time when materialists such as RS, who deny the existence of an immaterial Singularity at the centre of existence, will seem as primitive and backward as the people who once denied that the earth is round, or that the earth revolves around the sun. These smug fools couldn’t be any more wrong.

The Question Is Enlightenment about an experiential state of mind, or about a comprehensive state of knowledge? Gnosis is extremely different from nirvana. A Buddhist can allegedly achieve “Enlightenment” via nothing

more complex than meditating properly. In Illuminism, absolutely no one would be considered to have reached Enlightenment in these terms, i.e. no Buddhist, including the Buddha himself, would ever be regarded as enlightened. Enlightenment is a state of Godlike knowledge, revealing the answer to existence, and how to fully master existence. Enlightenment is emphatically not a meditative state, entirely lacking in knowledge of anything at all! Never forget, the Buddha made no attempt to solve the problem of existence. He had no ontology and no epistemology. He never mentioned science, mathematics and logic. The specific problem the Buddha addressed was entirely different ... it was purely concerned with how to alleviate suffering. It had nothing to do with knowledge. It was about producing a state of mind – not unlike death – where suffering is impossible because suffering involves having a mind that thinks about things, and Buddhists, when in their full meditative state, don’t think about anything at all. They might as well be dead! Buddhism is a total insult to life, and a total waste of a life. Imagine a life where you had no pleasures and no pains, where you cared nothing for anybody, where you were attached to nobody, where you had no desires, no ambitions and no passions, where you never used reason and logic, where you acquired no knowledge, where you did everything in your power to reduce your mental activity to zero ... where your mind had completely flatlined. Could there be any more pointless and meaningless state? Yet this is what Buddhists mean by “enlightenment”. They’re as bad as the nihilistic scientific materialist machine thinkers that they so closely resemble. Buddhism is for really sad losers and failures, who aren’t smart and honest enough to become outright scientific materialists, who still cling to some version of spiritualism so attenuated as to be utterly worthless and meaningless. There is no Self in Buddhism, so what’s the point of it? Buddhism is simply really bad scientific materialism; materialism infected by the hopeless and absurd doctrine of “karma”.

The Impossibility “The theory [special relativity] unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A – which it requires no superintelligence to see is impossible.” – Herbert Dingle

This is indeed impossible in an absolute, objective reality. It’s not impossible in a relativistic, subjective reality. However, the latter cannot under any circumstances be compatible with objective reality, so, given the truth of objective reality, Dingle is completely right. Dingle was notoriously and shamefully mocked for his attacks on relativity. He intuited that it was wrong, but could never find a proper argument against it. This was because he never appealed to a mathematical Singularity outside space and time as the guarantor of objective reality.

To Be Or Not To Be To be non-maximally time dilated and non-maximally length contracted is to be in spacetime. To be maximally time dilated and maximally length contracted is to not be in spacetime (to be in the frequency domain). What could be more straightforward? Yet science has never understood this simple point. It ideologically believes that everything is in spacetime. Thus it makes crazy assertions such as “light isn’t in time but is in space” (because time is maximally dilated). It could just as easily, but never does, say, “light isn’t in space but is in time” (because length is maximally contracted). The reason it never says the latter is because it would then have to admit the total illogic of its position and confront the truth that falsifies the whole of scientific materialism, namely that there’s a domain of maximum time dilation and maximum length contraction (the frequency domain) that isn’t in spacetime at all, hence is outside the Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism upon which science relies for its religious faith in the Church of the Senses.

***** What Einstein never understood was that the absolute reference frame – the ether – was actually built into the Lorentz transformations that defined his special “relativity” (thus automatically rendering it non-relative!). The ether, the absolute condition, is none other than the fixed speed of light itself. Einstein thought he had abolished the ether. In fact, it was the most prominent term in his theory! He just didn’t recognise it. He looked through it as if it were a ghost. That’s what scientists always do. They are systemically blind!

*****

Einstein failed to understand the Lorentz transformations. Because his ontology and epistemology were wrong, so was his universally accepted (within the science community) relativistic interpretation of the Lorentz transformations. Here are the two fundamental problems with Einstein’s treatment of the Lorentz transformations. Look at the following term: √(1 – (vs2/c2)). Given that vs stands for the speed through space, Einstein took c to stand for the speed of light through space. What he didn’t realise was that the term above could equally have been written as √(1 – (vt2/c2)), where vt stands for the speed of light through time, in which case c is the speed of light through time. But how can c be both the speed of light through space and the speed of light through time? The plain fact is that c isn’t light speed through space or time. It’s the speed of light in the ontologically separate frequency domain. That’s why nothing in space and time can ever reach light speed. You have to leave spacetime to travel at that speed! All of this was lost on Einstein, who thereby committed one of the worst intellectual blunders in history, one that has disastrously misled science for over a century. Such is the price that has to be paid when empiricists and materialists make a mess of understanding a rationalistic, idealistic universe.

***** The frequency domain – represented by c, the speed of light – is the limit and bound of the spacetime domain. Dimensionlessness – represented by c – is the limit or bound of the dimensional. The Lorentz transformations have zero and infinity built into them: infinite time dilation; infinite length contraction; infinite mass (when a spacetime entity theoretically reaches the speed of light, which merely highlights the paradoxical fact that light itself is massless ... so nothing with infinite mass could ever be equivalent to massless light!).

Contradiction Science asserts that nothing can contradict the senses. Math asserts that nothing can contradict reason. Any contradiction of math is necessarily false. Any contradiction of science is not necessarily false. Given that, how can science and math possibly be used together? Science must be replaced by ontological mathematics.

The Ghostly Atom “The whole concept of a mind being an entity capable of interaction with matter has been severely criticized as a category mistake by Gilbert Ryle, who derides the ‘official view’ of the mind as ‘the ghost in the machine’. Ryle makes the point that when we talk about the brain we employ concepts appropriate to a certain level of description. On the other hand, discussion of the mind refers to an altogether different, more abstract level of description. It is rather like the difference between the Government and the British Constitution, the former being a concrete collection of individuals, the latter an abstract set of ideas. Ryle argues that it is as meaningless to talk about the communication between the Government and the Constitution as it is to talk about the mind communicating with the brain. “A better analogy, perhaps more suited to the modern era, can be found in the concepts of hardware and software in the brain, while the software is analogous to the mind. ... a quantum wave is really a description of our knowledge of the system (i.e. a software concept), whereas a particle is a piece of hardware. The paradox of quantum mechanics is that somehow the hardware and software levels of description have become inextricably entangled. It seems we shall not understand the ghost in the atom until we understand the ghost in the machine.” – P. C. W. Davies and Julian R. Brown Machines are made of atoms. A ghost can link to and control a “machine” – a large, complex collection of atoms such as a human body. It can link to and control an individual atom too, but there would be very little meaning in such an exercise since life and mind cannot be usefully expressed via individual atoms. Atoms are actually controlled by the Monadic Collective, i.e. the Cosmic Mind rather than individual minds.

The Machine Mind Autistics and scientists = Machine Thinkers. Intuitives and mathematicians = Ghost Thinkers. To be able to think like a ghost means to be able to think dimensionlessly, to be able to think in terms of singularities, of zero and infinity. This is exactly

what scientists can’t do. Zero and infinity must be included in any system purporting to be consistent and complete. They are not included in science, hence science is necessarily inconsistent and incomplete (and thus false).

Provable Ontological mathematics is a formally closed system (the whole thing plays out within a closed Singularity defined by a single formula, the God Equation), hence all ontological mathematical theories can be proven. No scientific theory can be proven. All scientific theories are permanently falsifiable, and no amount of verification can ever prove their truth. “Truth” is simply not a term that should ever be applied to science. Science is about “confidence” in a model. Confidence has nothing to do with Truth.

Wrong MH: “One hundred percent of scientists think that Einstein’s special theory of relativity is correct. One hundred percent of scientists are wrong. Isn’t that astounding? Why is it so hard for scientists to see the blatant errors in Einstein’s logic?” LD: “That statement is wrong. I just watched a leading British physicist lecture about the limitations of special theory of relativity; thus not one hundred percent believe in it.” What conceivable point is served by this comment? Firstly, the comment is actually false. To say that the special theory of relativity is “limited” is not to say that the theory is wrong. Of course the special theory is limited ... that’s exactly why there’s a general theory of relativity! This is a non-point by someone with no comprehension of what we are saying, and no comprehension of relativity. No scientist has ever stood up and said, “Einstein’s principle of relativity, hence his entire special theory of relativity, is false.” Therefore, our assertion is absolutely correct. The only scientist who cast doubt on Einstein’s special theory of relativity was John Bell, and even he never got round to saying that it was formally false and refuted. Einstein’s principle of relativity is a formal contradiction of the principle of objective reality, hence must be false.

The God Series The God Series is so called because it’s what “God” would have written if he were interested in explaining his Creation to humanity. He would not have used mad bearded prophets and bizarre “holy” texts about wandering ancient tribes. God is Logos, not Mythos.

Repetition SJ: “The series is great but they repeat sooo much of the same stuff over and over and over again. I am just waiting for The God Game: How to Create the Universe, The Illuminated Soul, The God Portal, The Illuminati’s Book of the Dead, and The Soul Camera.” Virtually no one understands the God Series. We use repetition, or rather, we say the same thing from many different, and increasingly deep angles, because, if one angle doesn’t work for the reader, another might. You need to be incredibly smart to see how subtle the points are that we are making. The allegedly boring repetition is actually always adding an extra dimension of subtlety to what we have already established. Bertrand Russell wrote, “... in Leibniz a vast edifice of deduction is pyramided upon a pinpoint of logical principle.” Every point we make has endless ramifications, affecting everything. We could rewrite the entire intellectual history of humanity from the perspective of ontological mathematics. Anyone who actually understood our books wouldn’t be “waiting” for any of our future books. They would be able to write them themselves! They’re simply the exploration of pure reason, and pure reason is open to all. It’s not the Illuminati’s property!

What Are You? Are you a “ghost”, i.e. a mathematician of the dimensionless, or a machine, i.e. a scientist of the dimensional? Autistic, dimensional, sensory thinkers have always found the unobservable, dimensionless, non-sensory universe unfathomable, ridiculous and non-existent (in their opinion). The dimensionless world is where religion, spirituality, metaphysics, the immaterial, and the mystical all collide – and they can all be rendered rational via ontological mathematics.

***** Ghosts – invisible, immaterial things outside space and time. Ghosts are detected by intuition and reason. Machines – material things inside space and time. Machines are detected by the senses.

Verification Do you verify knowledge via your feelings, senses, intuition or reason? “Knowledge” for Abrahamists is about their feelings (fears and hopes), and is expressed through faith. “Knowledge” for Eastern religious types is about their mystical intuitions, and is expressed through practices such as meditation. “Knowledge” for scientists is sensory, and is expressed through observations and experiments. Knowledge for thinking types is about intelligibility, and is expressed through reason, logic and math. Only this is true knowledge: eternal and necessary.

The King of Kings? How bizarre ... there are billions of people in the world who expect a Jewish rabbi called Yehoshua ben Yosef, who died on a Roman cross two thousand years ago, to come back to this world. How insane would you have to be to hold such an expectation? Ben Yosef, a rabble rouser who claimed to be the King of the Jews, was convicted of being an insurrectionist and enemy of Rome.

Pro-Life? “Pro-life” conservatives swear that God is against abortion. Er, is this the same God who wiped out the firstborn babies of Egypt, slaughtered pregnant women in Canaan, and drowned all the babies in the world – embryos, foetuses and newborns alike – at the Flood?

*****

JP: “I agree! The Bible is so funny, because it keeps saying God is good and loving over and over, and then proceeds to prove the exact opposite over and over. I suppose that serves as evidence for just how intelligent believers aren’t, if they really believe God is good and loving because the Bible says so but they fail to tell by his actions that it’s obviously not the truth.”

Perfection The fibre and fabric of existence must be perfect. If they were imperfect, they would disintegrate precisely because of those imperfections. Traditionally, it was thought that a perfect “God” (a super being) must be the perfect source of existence that guarantees a perfect universe. In fact, it’s a perfect system (math, defined by the God Equation) that’s the perfect source of existence and guarantees a perfect universe. Science, which denies both God and the God Equation, is an ugly, impossible system of uncertainty, blurriness, haziness, fuzziness, acausation, indeterminism, probability, statistics, chance, accident, randomness, contingency and inherent imperfection. Science could never be responsible for an eternal, necessary universe. Without eternal necessity (God/the God Equation), existence has to randomly jump out of nonexistence for no reason, via no mechanism. Science makes exactly this claim! Without an eternal, necessary order, the observed order of the universe has to create itself out of fundamental disorder, chaos, chance and uncertainty – a logical impossibility. Science has math at its core, but it makes no sense at all for math to be at the heart of science given that math is perfect, eternal, necessary, rationalist, and analytic while science is none of those things. Indeed, driven by its ideology of materialism and empiricism, science explicitly repudiates all of those properties of math as having any connection at all with reality. Math is seen as an unreal abstraction. But how can it be? How can science legitimately employ an unreal abstraction to describe reality? It’s senseless and ridiculous. Scientists regard perfection as impossible. In fact, it’s science (imperfection) that’s impossible. The foundations of the universe must be perfect, or, like any house with insecure foundations, the universe would collapse. Math provides the perfect foundations for the cosmos. Nothing else can.

Perfection is a subject that can be approached solely via perfect reason, perfect logic, perfect intellect, perfect rationalism ... all of the things discounted and rejected by science. Perfection is a strictly Platonic subject, but science hates Plato and dismisses everything he says. The entire intelligible world is a world of immutable, unchanging, eternal, necessary perfection. The sensible world is none of those things. Science goes with the latter and rejects the former. It regards all intellectual things – i.e. all perfect things – as abstract and unreal. It regards “God” as a ridiculous story, and the God Equation (math) as an ontological impossibility. It equally rejects mind and the soul because these are intelligible (perfect), not sensible (imperfect) entities. All perfect things are immaterial and outside space and time. They are eternal, necessary and rational. All imperfect things are material and inside space and time. They are temporal, contingent and empirical. Science studies imperfection and ideologically believes in imperfection (contingent “facts”). Math studies perfection and is predicated on eternal perfection (the eternal truths of reason). Wittgenstein, a great defender of scientism, regarded math as empty tautology that tells us nothing about the real world. In fact, math tells us everything about the eternal world of necessity, and it also tells how to construct a temporal, contingent world from it (via the Big Bang and Fourier mathematics), hence it’s the most “real” thing you can possibly get. Science makes the insane counterclaim that existence is a contingent (not necessary) phenomenon, is temporal (not eternal) and literally bootstraps itself into existence out of nothing at all, for no reason at all. This is a rational impossibility ... the very thing the wise ancient Greeks regarded as the quintessence of impossibility. If existence is eternal, it must be perfect (mathematical). If existence is not eternal, then the lunatic claim follows that it imperfectly leaps out of nothing at all for no reason at all via no mechanism at all. The imperfect, temporal, contingent world is either created from a perfect, eternal, necessary world that permanently underlies it (God or Math) or it imperfectly, magically and miraculously summons itself into existence – the maddest, most irrational and illogical claim ever made (one fully endorsed by science!). In rationalism, a perfect God or perfect Math makes the world. In empiricism, the world makes itself out of absolutely nothing, using absolutely no system and absolutely no mechanism. Insanely, science

prefers this preposterous and impossible scenario to one reliant on God or the God Equation. Science is nothing but a lunatic crusade against design and a Designer (whether God or the God Equation). Plainly, if the world isn’t designed then the design it manifests must have conjured itself into existence, but how can it if design (perfection!) is not a feature of scientific existence? This, of course, is why science has to use rationalist, eternal, necessary, analytic, perfect math ... although it makes zero sense and is utterly invalid for science to invoke the very thing it claims is impossible: a system of eternal, necessary design and perfection. Science, a thoroughly dishonest undertaking, has its cake and eats it. It rejects math and then shamelessly uses math. At no time does it ever address the elephant in the room – why it’s using math at all if math is simply some bizarre, unreal abstraction, somehow miraculously invented by human minds. How can you use unreality to describe reality? It’s laughable. If math isn’t real, science can’t validly use it. If math is real, who needs science? Ontological mathematics is the total replacement for science. It’s based on idealism and rationalism rather than materialism and empiricism. The Singularity is the rock upon which the ship of science is wrecked once and for all. The Singularity that preceded the Big Bang can be called “God” or the “God Equation”. It’s a perfect, immaterial, eternal, necessary, analytic, immutable mathematical order of existence (a Fourier frequency domain), outside space and time. It’s Plato’s transcendent domain of perfect Forms. If you deny the existence of this Singularity then you have no alternative but to declare that the universe miraculously creates itself out of non-existence, via no rules, no laws and no mechanisms (since none exist!). You are making a deranged claim that not just the world, but all rules, laws, mechanisms, order and design literally make themselves out of nothing for no reason, and with no possible rational and logical basis for doing so. You have an extremely simple choice. Either an eternal, necessary God or God Equation made the world, or the world made itself via the most miraculous, magical and impossible scenario ever proposed by the human mind. Science, when it comes to ultimate explanations, is infinitely more offensive to reason and logic than the most laughable claim of religion. Nothing could be worse than science’s explanation, or rather nonexplanation, for why we exist. It’s rationally impossible.

Science has only one saving grace, one thing that saves it from total lunacy – math. Yet science claims that math is unreal, abstract and impossible. Figure that one out. Science will never address these catastrophic problems at its core. It will proceed with its Feynman guesses, its sensory observations and experiments, its sensory “evidence”, and it’s muddled, ad hoc, arbitrary, heuristic hypotheses that are continuously falsified, and which never fit together consistently and completely – as we see most especially with science’s comical attempts to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics without using rational and logical analytic principles, without making any reference whatsoever to ontology and epistemology, without invoking the entirety of math, but only a fallacious subset of math based on positive real numbers. Science is intellectually embarrassing. It’s for people who despise reason and logic. It “works” only because it illegitimately uses math, the least empirical subject you can get even though science is entirely predicated on empiricism. In the whole history of science, not one scientist has ever explained what math is and why science uses it. Science claims to tell us about reality, yet it can’t even explain math. What a joke! The truth, of course, is that reality is math, but science will never accept the rational Truth. It worships empirical beliefs, opinions, guesses and interpretations.

Reality Eternal, necessary existence that precedes the temporal, contingent Big Bang world of spacetime and matter resides in an immaterial frequency Singularity outside space and time. This is the world that Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes, Leibniz and Gödel all pointed to, and is the world 100% rejected by scientific empiricism and materialism. (It’s exactly because of this irrational rejection that science will never unify general relativity and quantum mechanics.) The Singularity is of course a Cosmic Mind (“God”, if you will, but certainly not any conscious Creator as ludicrously depicted by Abrahamism). The true First Law of Thermodynamics, the inviolable conservation of energy, is compatible solely with an eternal, necessary order of existence where all the fundamental constituents of existence have existed forever and can be neither created nor destroyed. With scientific temporality,

contingency, uncertainty, probability, empiricism and indeterminism, there can be no such thing as a genuine First Law of Thermodynamics. Science repudiates true energy conservation. It makes an entirely different claim, namely that you can create and destroy energy at will as long as you do so in a manner that results in no sustained net energy production over any period of time, i.e. it says that as long as the average net energy of the universe is zero, you can do whatever you like with energy. This isn’t energy conservation. This is the conservation of a net average energy of zero, which is a completely different concept that science has fallaciously equated to a true law of energy conservation. With true – mathematical – energy conservation, all energy has existed forever (i.e. energy is eternal and necessary). With false – scientific – energy “conservation”, energy can be created and destroyed whenever you like, as long as there’s no net production of energy (i.e. energy is temporal and contingent). When analysed correctly, every law of science is seen to be entirely bogus and resting on obvious fallacies. Any valid law must reflect eternity, necessity and the eternal truths of reason. Only math qualifies. All invalid “laws” – i.e. all of science’s laws – rest on temporality and contingency. All such laws are supposed by science to have miraculously magicked themselves out of non-existence. Either laws exist eternally, or they don’t. If they exist eternally, they must have an eternal home (an immaterial mathematical Singularity outside space and time). If laws don’t exist eternally then, as a matter of simple logic, there must have been an era when they didn’t exist at all, and that means the insane claim is being made that such laws suddenly “choose” to create themselves out of nothing, with no conceivable basis. This is exactly science’s lunatic claim. Incredibly, scientists are excessively proud to stand behind this demented position ... they will choose anything at all just so long as they’re not standing behind God or a God Equation! If there were no laws prior to the Big Bang, how was the Big Bang controlled by any laws? According to scientists, not only matter, space and time magicked themselves into existence at the Big Bang, but so did all of the laws of science. If laws did exist prior to the Big Bang and the creation of matter, space and time, then these laws must be immaterial and outside space and time, but science ideologically denies the existence of anything immaterial and outside space and time. Science is well and truly hoist with its own petard.

What’s truly disturbing about scientists is that they don’t find any of their claims self-evidently irrational, illogical, anti-intellectual, laughable and impossible. All scientists think they are right, although no scientist on earth can rationally justify why science uses math, no scientist can explain what math is, no scientist can explain how non-existence produces existence, and no scientist can explain how non-existence apparently contains laws (which would render non-existence not non-existent after all since, if it can sustain existent laws, it must itself be an existent). Science pulls off the greatest intellectual fraud conceivable. It tries to portray non-existence not as absolute nothingness, but as some bizarre state of abstract unreality and potentiality (just look at the infinitely bizarre way in which the Copenhagen school interprets the wavefunction of quantum mechanics). Yet any such state must be an existent, hence can’t be nonexistent, as required by science. So, you have an easy choice. Is reality real or unreal? Science, unbelievably, opts for the latter! Science literally says that “reality” is actualised potentiality, while potentiality itself is defined as unreal and abstract. To become a rational, logical, intellectual anti-scientist, all you are required to do is deny that there’s any such thing as eternal unreal potentiality and instead embrace eternal real actuality (“God” or Math, defined by the God Equation). It’s not so hard, is it? Science claims that existence is a meaningless fantasy. Math says it’s a meaningful reality. It’s time for the Science Con to be ruthlessly exposed, for all scientists to be exposed as charlatans, con men and snake oil salesmen, as enemies of reason, logic, intellect, philosophy and math, as believers in the weird religion of materialism, empiricism, randomness, chance and accident, in which they have unswerving ideological faith. Science, as far as a rational explanation of existence goes, is the worst religion ever invented by the human mind. It’s the one most predicated on magic and miracles, the one least consistent with reason and logic, the one that most relies on the impossible. Nothing is more impossible than for existence to randomly jump out of non-existence for no reason via no mechanism – yet this is the central claim from which the whole of modern science is derived!

Conservation “The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant – it is said to be conserved over time.” – Wikipedia

There’s a fundamental problem with how this law is expressed. It refers to “time” – an ontologically undefined entity in science – and not to timelessness (eternity). It conceives of an isolated system in terms of “space”, but space, like time, is ontologically undefined in science. No reference is made to any spaceless, timeless state (a Singularity). Nor is it clear what “isolated” means. Isolated from what? Is scientific “existence” isolated from scientific “non-existence”? Is scientific time isolated from eternity? Is scientific space isolated from spacelessness? Is scientific contingency isolated from necessity? Is physics isolated from metaphysics? Is spacetime isolated from frequency? Is the dimensional isolated from the dimensionless, the body from the mind, the material from the immaterial? Is the universe isolated from the Multiverse? Is the world isolated from “many worlds”? Is potentiality isolated from actuality? Is reality isolated from unreality? Is the miraculous isolated from the non-miraculous? How can it be that the “real” world of Copenhagen quantum mechanics is not isolated from the unreal, abstract potentiality wavefunction of Copenhagen quantum mechanics? If reality isn’t isolated from unreality, anything becomes possible! The universe is a place of total magic. As soon as you seriously interrogate any scientific “law” and examine in turn each term and the assumptions behind it, the law’s meaning falls apart and all of its invalid and illogical assumptions are revealed. All “scientific” laws are actually dubious assertions of materialist, empiricist philosophy. The ontological mathematical law of energy conservation states: “The total universe is an isolated system ... there is nothing external to the universe; its total energy is constant, eternal and necessary; no energy can be created and none can be destroyed; all energy is therefore a permanent feature of existence. Before energy existed dimensionally (in terms of space, time and matter), it existed dimensionlessly, (in an immaterial frequency Singularity). Dimensional (spacetime) energy is a Fourier product of dimensionless (frequency energy).” The scientific version of energy conservation has no relationship to this whatsoever. Whole universes can appear out of nothing, for no reason. This is deemed acceptable by science provided that no net average energy is produced, i.e. so long as on average the total energy of the universe is zero. The scientific law never explicitly refers to this “average zero” requirement, and instead pretends it’s completely equivalent to a proper, eternal, necessary law of energy conservation (rather than a merely temporal and

contingent one that can summon energy out of thin air so long as it’s done in the right, averaged way). The one thing the scientific law of energy conservation definitely doesn’t conserve is energy. What it actually conserves is an average cosmic energy of zero, and that’s not what any analytic person means by energy conservation, which must be exact at every instant, and apply eternally and necessarily. It’s just another of science’s myriad cons, delusions and frauds to fool stupid people. Scientists simply play games with laws. They violate true energy conservation with all sorts of gimmicks and tricks that present the illusion that no breach has taken place when it emphatically has. As with everything in science, it all comes down to philosophical interpretation, but science never once admits to being a philosophy and actually attacks philosophy at every opportunity (even though it is one!). Science is materialist and empiricist philosophy with math (rationalism) invalidly added. Illuminism is idealist and rationalist metaphysics validly reflecting mathematical rationalism and logic. There’s a logical catastrophe at the heart of science – math! No such problem exists with Illuminism, which is entirely predicated on ontological mathematics, and fully reflects mathematical epistemology.

Photonic Conservation “[Photons] are not conserved ... the number of photons in the Universe is constantly changing.” – John Gribbin On the contrary, photons are perfectly, necessarily, eternally, and infallibly conserved. What is not conserved is the number of photons in direct interaction with the spacetime world at any particular instant. It’s absurd – a total violation of the true Law of the Conservation of Energy – to claim that the total number of photons in the Universe is not conserved. How can a photon – a massless, immaterial, dimensionless, unextended frequency entity outside space and time – be anything other than eternally conserved? How can you create an immaterial, eternal, necessary thing outside space and time from material, temporal, contingent things inside space and time? That’s a logical impossibility. Photons are never created by spacetime processes (and, equally, never destroyed); an interaction with them is

triggered by spacetime processes, and that’s an entirely different concept. All photons pre-exist space and time! All photons have existed forever, as is self-evidently true of any necessary, immaterial entities outside space and time.

The Meltdown A huge amount of scientific “logic” and reasoning breaks down because science believes that spacetime is an isolated system. In fact, the spacetime domain of matter is permanently interacting with the ontological Fourier frequency domain of mind. Electromagnetism is the mediating agency. Photons are eternal, necessary, massless, immaterial, dimensionless, unextended entities that are maximally time dilated and maximally length contracted, meaning that they are permanently outside space and time. Photons are “ghost” particles ... agents of mind. Photons are what souls are made of! It’s Soul World that gives birth to the material world of physical bodies and objects. Scientists deny that photons are conserved. In fact, photons are the quintessence of energy conservation! As ever, science is plain wrong in the claims it makes about ultimate reality. Science is just a defective mathematical model force-fitted to experimental observations. All of science is a grotesque misapplication and misinterpretation of math. Science works because it uses math, not for any other reason. Anything that uses math can’t help but reflect mathematical reality. Science is much more successful than everything else because nothing else uses math at all. Religion ignores math, so does mysticism, so does philosophy, so does metaphysics, so does meditation, so does Mythos. Science is the least bad of that bunch because it uses math the most. But science – a limited subset of math – is itself completely deficient with respect to math itself. Ontological mathematics cures this problem once and for all. It acknowledges that reality is 100% mathematical. No ifs and no buts. No meltdown in logic and reason. No catastrophic contradictions. No inconsistency and incompleteness. There is only one thing not destroyed by Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems and that is ontological mathematics itself since it’s entirely derived from a single mathematical formula (the God Equation), and nothing can be inconsistent and incomplete with regard to itself. Inconsistency and incompleteness are generated as soon as you attempt to describe any system via multiple axioms. Any such approach reproduces

the age-old problem of Cartesian substance dualism. Just as two totally different substances cannot interact, so two axioms that do not derive from exactly the same root (hence would just be tautologies of each other) cannot be compatible, and are sure to contradict each other. All axiomatic approaches to math are doomed to fail, exactly as Gödel proved. In fact, any approach to math based on anything other than ontology defined by a single equation is doomed to fail. Ontological mathematics is the one and only complete and consistent answer to everything. The God Equation is the Truth. Everything else, including science, organised religion and New Age speculation is a Lie. So, are you on the side of the Truth or the Lie? Your choice. Existence can have only one answer. That answer can only be the God Equation, the grand unified, final mathematical formula for everything. Too bad if you can’t understand the God Equation. The Truth is not for everyone, only for those who are intelligent enough for it. The Truth is not a democracy. It’s not about faith, feelings, mysticism or the human senses. It transcends the human condition entirely. The Truth preceded humanity and will be there after the last human has long gone, so any human approach to understanding the Truth – such as science or religion – is doomed from the start. Math is the language of existence, and only those who understand this language – consciously or unconsciously (intuitively) – can understand the Truth of their own existence. Math alone takes us out of the prison – the Platonic Cave – of our humanity, and reveals to us the eternal light of reason lying beyond. Deep down, everyone knows that math is the answer to existence, yet all but the smartest humans rail against the Truth. They would prefer anything else to be the Truth, anything that satisfies their human beliefs, human feelings, human senses or mystical human intuitions. People would much rather pray, meditate, weep or perform experiments than pick up a math book. So it goes. Everything comes down to zero and infinity. What are these? They are the core of ontological mathematics, derived from the God Equation. Zero and infinity crush all pretenders to Truth. What are the two numbers ideologically denied by science? – zero and infinity! They are the two numbers of the mind/soul, the very thing that science refuses to countenance under any circumstances. Science is the

supreme Lie, the wilful misrepresentation and misapplication of math ... the false and error-strewn way of doing math. Humanity, via science, overcame religion. Now humanity, via math, must overcome science. When it does, humanity will be able to fulfil its divine – mathematical – destiny. The “Gods” are those who have solved the God Equation. What could be more obvious?!!!

Gödel Numbering “In mathematical logic, a Gödel numbering is a function that assigns to each symbol and well-formed formula of some formal language a unique natural number, called its Gödel number. The concept was used by Kurt Gödel for the proof of his incompleteness theorems. (Gödel 1931) “A Gödel numbering can be interpreted as an encoding in which a number is assigned to each symbol of a mathematical notation, after which a sequence of natural numbers can then represent a sequence of symbols. These sequences of natural numbers can again be represented by single natural numbers, facilitating their manipulation in formal theories of arithmetic. “Since the publishing of Gödel’s paper in 1931, the term ‘Gödel numbering’ or ‘Gödel code’ has been used to refer to more general assignments of natural numbers to mathematical objects.” – Wikipedia Gödel’s technique is entirely invalidated as soon as numbers are defined ontologically (according to a single mathematical formula). An ontological number cannot be encoded as anything else since that would constitute an attempt to change its ontology ... an impossibility. Gödel’s technique can be applied only to erroneous, non-ontological versions of mathematics, which is exactly why all such versions are inconsistent and/or incomplete, hence false. Only true mathematics – ontological mathematics – can escape Gödel’s devastating proofs. Science is a version of mathematics that is both inconsistent and incomplete, hence fallacious. Only someone who can’t understand math and Gödel’s Incompleteness theorems would ever take science seriously as anything more than a approximate model for simulating the observable world. It has zero Truth value beyond that. That’s a mathematical fact. Do

the math! Oops, you can’t – because you’re a scientist, religious believer or New Age mystic.

***** Gödel himself believed in an eternal, objective, Platonic domain of Truth that could only be reached imperfectly by the human mind. The great man was wrong. Human reason can reach anything – once it aligns with divine reason = ontological mathematics.

The World As A Photographic Plate The world itself is a dynamic six-dimensional photographic plate, consisting of three spatial and three imaginary (= temporal) dimensions, upon which the activities of heaven slowly develop. Your body (and its behaviour) is the photographic plate upon which the activities of your soul are written. Your behaviour reveals your soul to the world. It tells everyone what kind of person you are. Of course, people go to great lengths to conceal their true selves – to mask themselves – but their unconscious always gives them away. They are betrayed by their unconscious because their unconscious, unlike their conscious, never lies. The conscious does almost nothing but lie, especially to itself. The conscious is Mythos; the unconscious is Logos. Words (manmade languages) are the language of the conscious. Numbers (Nature’s language) is the language of the unconscious.

The “Bigots”? Baruch Ben-David (not Yehoshua Ben-Yosef!): “This is simply wrong. These holy books [Torah, Bible, Koran, etc.] contain both truth and falsehood, as do all holy books ever written. Whether the books are worthwhile is a judgement call, but not the accuracy of some of their claims. These are some of the most inspiring literature ever written. This blanket claim is an indication of bigotry.” These books are certainly fiction (pulp fiction, not literature), and they have zero truth content. You may find them “inspiring”. That’s on you. We don’t. Like all religious maniacs and bigots, you talk as if your opinions, beliefs, tastes, feelings and experiences are applicable to everyone. We find your “holy” books sickening, obscene, evil and disgusting – anything other than “inspiring”, hence your statement is “simply wrong”. You say that these books contain both truth and falsehood. No, they don’t. They’re entirely

false. They have zero “accuracy”. Moreover, most of their believers call them infallibly true, and chop off the heads of anyone who disagrees. How terribly “inspiring” ... not. Baruch is a typical example of a religious fanatic, and we have absolutely no problem being considered as a bigot by someone of that ilk. We most certainly are ... and very proud of it. We are the Resistance to Evil Abrahamism, the Devil’s work. What is the story of Abraham and his son? “God” orders a father to murder his innocent son for no reason at all, and the father instantly agrees. How very inspiring and good – if you’re a sick fuck and an outright enemy of the human race!!! You must always be bigoted against bigots. Otherwise, you are tolerating and helping to perpetuate their bigotry. We can’t stand the defenders of Abrahamism, the sickest ideology ever devised. We will never tolerate Abrahamism. These people imagine we are afraid of the word “bigot”. No, we’re not. We embrace it and we are proud of it – if it means standing up to the scum who promote Abrahamism (Devil worship). A “bigot” is someone who is utterly intolerant towards beliefs that they regard as wholly false, wrong and wicked. We regard all Abrahamic beliefs as wholly false, wrong and wicked. They have no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and they have no place in the modern world. They are ancient, moronic superstitions, evil customs and rituals, and sinister brainwashing systems that destroy countless lives. Anyone who is not bigoted towards such beliefs might as well be one of the evil Abrahamists themselves. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Anyone who does not do something against Abrahamism is as evil as the Abrahamists. These ancient, decrepit, silly religions, reflecting bicameral minds, have no place in the modern world. They are actively holding back and resisting human progress. Evolution demands that they be rendered extinct.

***** “Bigot: One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain.” – Ambrose Bierce, Devil’s Dictionary

The Inner World “There is another world, but it is inside this one.” – W. B. Yeats

The other world is the ghost in the machine!

The Difficulty Why is it so hard for scientists and others to accept that math is the foundation of existence, that math is what existence is actually made of? Because they are too stupid! End of story.

***** Your faith won’t help you to understand existence. Your personal experiences won’t help. Your feelings won’t help. Your mystical intuitions won’t help. Your beliefs, opinions and interpretations won’t help. Meditation won’t help. Mindfulness won’t help. Only reason, logic and intellect will – the very things in which human beings are most deficient and defective, the opposite of the Mythos on which humanity relies. The Truth is only for smart people. Soz!

***** Of course, if you’re smart enough, you will grasp the supreme irony that even irrationality is mathematical. Irrationality is dialectically unoptimised rationality. After all, every stupid person has reasons for what they do. They don’t act without reasons. The trouble is they’re not good reasons. Science is a stupid person’s version of math. Scientists ignore all of the reasons why math should replace science. Scientists use math all the time, but they don’t know why, and they especially don’t why they don’t just abandon science and adopt math wholesale. After all, science can’t do without math, but math doesn’t need science.

Blocked How can a prisoner break out of his prison if he doesn’t believe he’s in prison, if his gaoler assures him he’s free, and he believes him? How can the brainwashed escape their brainwashing if they don’t know they are brainwashed, if their brainwasher assures them they are not brainwashed at all, and they believe him? Scientists and religious types alike are brainwashed prisoners who have no idea how irrational and deluded they are. They are all in Plato’s Cave, and have no concept of the True World outside. No amount of reason and logic will persuade them.

Failure Science’s failure to understand the soul has never been anything other than science’s failure to understand eternity and necessity, to understand the timeless and spaceless, to understand the ontology of math. Science has never refuted the existence of the soul. It has simply ideologically dismissed it because the soul is an intelligible, mathematical concept that has nothing to do with the sensible, scientific world. The soul exists outside space and time, but science claims that only things in space and time can exist, hence it has dogmatically rejected the soul from the get-go – without out any conceivable evidence or proof. Science has rid itself of the soul via science’s ideology, philosophy and method. It hasn’t rid itself of the soul scientifically, mathematically, logically, rationally and metaphysically.

Ontological Mathematics One day, the speed of light will be understood to be a mathematical constant as fundamental as pi. The same will be true of Planck’s constant.

Since Always Science has always been an insult to intelligence. The only thing that saved it from being a joke wasn’t experiments but math. Remove math from science and it instantly becomes alchemy. Alchemy had plenty of observations and experiments. What it didn’t have was math, and that’s why it failed. Any rational, logical person immediately realises that science isn’t required at all. Math is what explains reality to us.

Empiricism Empiricism is based on observation and experience. It has no due regard for system and theory. Verification or falsification of empirical claims proceed by way of observation and experiment alone. No appeal is made to logic and reason. Empiricism is all about the senses, not the intellect. This worldview regards reality as sensible rather than intelligible. It places heavy reliance on guesses and trial and error rather than on analysis and rational principles. Empirical claims are capable of being confirmed, verified, or disproved by observation or experiment – not by reason, logic and math, which

demonstrates how fundamentally irrational and anti-rational empiricism is. Yet this is the basis of science ... the human worship of the senses. An “empiric” was, historically, a person who, in medicine or other branches of science, relied exclusively on observation and experiment rather than theory, logic, reason and mathematics. Alchemists were empirics, as were the doctors from the Middle Ages who used all manner of ridiculous potions and “remedies” for the sick. Empirics thus came to be associated with quacks and charlatans. All scientists ought to be called empirics. An empiric is guided by practical experience rather than theory. Naturally, he relies on empirical methods. Since no qualifications are required, an empiric is often an unqualified or dishonest practitioner: a con man, a snake oil salesman. Empiricism is all about the experiential, practical, heuristic, observable, and demonstrable (to the senses). Empiricism doesn’t speak to reason, logic and intellect.

***** Every theory should be labelled with the personality type it’s designed by and for ... so that all of its weaknesses and biases are apparent to those who do not share that personality type. Any theory constructed by a sensing type will never be persuasive to an intuitive, and vice versa. Any theory constructed by a feeling type will never be convincing to a thinking type, and vice versa. All theories should be labelled as either Mythos or Logos.

The Cosmic Riddle Science is, in the words of Winston Churchill (regarding the Soviet Union), “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”

Proof? We came across an article entitled, “A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing.” This is a claim, not a “proof”. No valid mathematical proof can have the word “could” attached to it. That’s a contradiction in terms. The author actually means, “A Scientific Claim, Using An Inconsistent and Incomplete version of Mathematics And Pseudo-Mathematical Arguments To Bolster

The Scientific Materialist Belief That Existence Randomly Jumped Out of Nothing For No Reason Via No Mechanism.”

Creation Scientists such as Newton tried to work out how God designed the universe, not how Randomness generated it out of nothing for no reason and no purpose, via no mechanism. Many scientists of old would find modern science grotesque and insane. It would be incomprehensible to them how science has arrived at this desperate juncture. Modern science, in any claims it makes about reality, has actually become more perverse and ridiculous than religion.

The Fallacy SLG: “Something had to create all this”? Who created God? If God can be without a Creator, then so can the observable universe. Occam’s Razor is useful here – always opt for the explanation with the fewest assumptions. This type of answer reveals the catastrophic philosophical illiteracy of scientists and atheists such as SLG. Created things are temporal and contingent. “God”, as a putative Creator, is defined as eternal and necessary. No one can create anything eternal and necessary. The question is not the asinine one of who created God (if he is as defined, he cannot be created); it’s whether or not the concept of “God” can be validly considered eternal and necessary. If not, God cannot exist. There is nothing in Big Bang theory that makes the observable universe anything other than temporal and contingent, hence it’s a category error to equate the observable universe to God (eternal and necessary) and claim that the same logic applies. In fact, it’s not God but the God Equation that is properly associated with eternity and necessity. Nothing created math ... but math created everything else. Would scientists and atheists like to stop attacking the Straw Man of God and instead attack rationalism, logic and mathematics – thus revealing themselves for the irrational, philosophical ignoramuses they surely are.

The Atheist Delusion “The sophisticate, the skeptic, would like us to believe there is no truth. That there are no realities. That existence is a vast unconditioned accident.

That all things just happened. And these just happenings, include everything of biology, archaeology, astronomy ... everything you can think of. The Universe never was an intelligent thing. It was just there. “Now to have thousands of years of culture, and 20 years of education in our present embodiments and to be told that nothing means anything in the first place or the last place, is a little bit weak. It is a little bit an indication of stupid sophistication. It is not that way. You cannot assume even for a moment that this vast machinery that we see around us is without a soul. “It has to have a mind, it has to have realities, and it has to have purpose. We can’t imagine an eternity going on forever beyond the furthest imagination of mortals simply for no reason. We cannot actually take it for granted that anything is the cause of itself. We can’t assume that nothing brought forth something, that no laws gave us laws. We cannot assume that the vast pageantry of spheres which we can contemplate at night if the fog isn’t too heavy is nothing but an accident. We are already in science saying it is an accident or it has no meaning, at the same time depending upon it exactly and absolutely for the advancement of this science itself. If there were not rules, no scientific experiment would have any meaning whatsoever. It is because of these exactitudes that research is possible. And yet at the same time that we cling to these exactitudes, we deny their meanings. “We have got to take a new attitude towards this whole problem because it is getting nowhere. We have to realize definitely that, whatever the facts may be, we must have some kind of a personal integration. We must have a philosophy of life. We must have a code which is sufficient to ourselves. And if we want to assume that we are the only creature in the Universe that has such a code, what is the difference, we have to have it. We cannot afford to attempt to exist without it. For this code is the basis for the complete survival of the person. Without this code, some part of each individual is going to die. The death may not be complete, he may linger for some 75 to 80 years but some part of himself has died when he ceases to dream, ceases to hope, and ceases to have faith in the Purpose for which we are created.” – The Atheist Delusion

The Solution

Only the self-solving universe of ontological mathematics has an answer, which is fully delivered at the Omega Point. It’s impossible for the randomist universe of modern science to have an answer since it’s driven by nothing but chance, accidents and miracles, with absolutely no purpose, and no means to fulfil a purpose. Modern science is only for people who despise answers and want no answers. They desire to live in a pointless, meaningless, purposeless universe with no conceivable answer. That constitutes a severe form of mental illness. If you can rationally choose a universe with an answer, but irrationally prefer a universe with no answer, you’re not right in the head. People (scientists) who prefer their senses to their reason are clearly afflicted by a fundamental irrationalism and anti-intellectualism.

Knowledge “What transforms this world is – knowledge. Do you see what I mean? Nothing else can change anything in this world. Knowledge alone is capable of transforming the world, while at the same time leaving it exactly as it is. When you look at the world with knowledge, you realize that things are unchangeable and at the same time are constantly being transformed.” – Yukio Mishima Modern science is anti-knowledge. It’s all about the randomist, indeterministic, irrational, illogical interpretation of sensory observations. Science “explains” the world with regard to “unreal” mathematical wavefunctions that collapse randomly and indeterministically (and are formed randomly and indeterministically). Why doesn’t it simply accept real mathematical wavefunctions, that operate causally and deterministically, according to the principle of sufficient reason? That’s exactly what ontological mathematics delivers. It’s not based on observations and observables, but on rational unobservables. It posits a rational, logical, invisible, noumenal, mathematical universe underpinning the phenomenal universe of science. As soon as such a universe is accepted, reason and logic become the primary tools for investigating reality, not observations, experiments and the irrational, interpretive senses. We move from scientific induction to mathematical deduction.

Born Atheists? “In reality, people who are religious or hold to some conception of God aren’t any different than atheists. Let’s face it, we are all born atheists. No baby is born believing in the miraculous conception of Jesus, that Mohammed is a prophet or that Joseph Smith was chosen by God to spread Mormonism. Rather children are taught to believe religious doctrines, or adults freely choose them later in life. But even for those who identify as believing Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religion they are still atheists in respect to other Gods. In fact some of the very first people to be called atheists were Christians. They were dubbed so by the Roman authorities for denying the state Gods. Socrates was also branded an atheist for denying the various Greek Gods, even though he still believed in God. Therefore, Christians are atheists when it comes to Zeus, Thor and Dionysus. Atheists simply deny one more God than Christians do. And the progressive spiritual people that no longer believe in a theistic God who intervenes in human affairs but still use the word God aren’t describing anything supernatural. Thus, whether it’s liberation or process theology, pantheism or panentheism, these liberal ways of defining God as love, creative potential, the universe, everything or freedom are simply interesting methods of describing the natural laws of existence. Therefore this sacred and divine language used to describe the beauty, power and transformative potential of the spirit of life is for many ‘believers’ not describing anything different than what modern physics already acknowledges. Granted some take liberty with this and inject quasi-spiritual truths into science. But the point is that many liberals who use the word God are only a stone’s throw away from being agnostic or atheists themselves and their understanding of reality is often not that different from many atheists.” – Be Scofield

***** This is absurd. No one is born an atheist, no more than they are born a scientist or a philosopher or anything else. People are born and then they become, and the fact that most of them become religious suggests that they are born highly religiously inclined, hence the initial claim is utterly false. If people truly found religion absurd, and atheism “natural born”, we would indeed all be atheists. Look around you. How many people are atheists?

Only the thinking sensing types (the scientists) and the autistics might be said to be born atheists. They lack the intuition, imagination and spirit to be anything else. Atheism is a reaction to religiousness. It doesn’t exist in its own right. To be exact, it’s a sensory reaction to spirituality, emotion and intuition. Sensory people want sensory evidence for emotional, intuitive and rational claims. However, this is a ridiculous demand since emotional, intuitive and rational claims are inherently non-sensory. It’s a category error to expect a mathematical, rational soul in the frequency domain to be an object of sensory evidence.

The Truth “The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” – George Orwell

Henological Argument “Henotheism [from Greek hen, one]: A type of theistic argument for the existence of God with a form resembling the fourth of Aquinas’ five ways. From observations that there are various degrees of goodness, perfection, truth, and reality in the world, the argument infers that there must be one being which represents the highest degree of all these positive attributes as their full realization. This being is the best, most perfect, truest, and most real being and is God. If positive attributes can exist in different degrees without being realized in one being at the highest level or if there is no such highest level, the argument fails.” – Blackwell Reference Online

The Wisdom of R. Buckminster Fuller “Life is the spirit incarnate in time.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Life is the eternal ghost in the temporal machine. “There will come a time when the proper education of children, by a glorified system of spontaneous education of choice, similar to the Montessori System, will be made possible.” – R. Buckminster Fuller We have to entirely abandon the current sausage factory education system. “To ask a politician to lead us is to ask the tail of a dog to lead the dog.” – R. Buckminster Fuller

Politicians are the dogs of the rich. The rich lead everything ... in their own self-interest, to make themselves even richer, and the rest of us even poorer. “The opposite of nature is impossible.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Science is the opposite of nature. Nature is mind, and science denies the existence of the mind. “Our brains deal exclusively with special-case experiences. Only our minds are able to discover the generalized principles operating without exception in each and every special-experience case which if detected and mastered will give knowledgeable advantage in all instances.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Our brains are limited; our minds are not. They are infinitely large, infinitely powerful information systems. “Universe is synergetic. Life is synergetic.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Science isn’t synergetic. The supreme synergy is between mind and body, frequency and spacetime. Science ideologically denies this truth. “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Ontological mathematics will make science obsolete. “Those with financial advantage reason that selfishness is necessary and fortify themselves even further.” – R. Buckminster Fuller So, caps must be placed on financial advantage, and there must be a 100% inheritance tax at death. “Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment. . . . Humanity is in ‘final exam’ as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in Universe.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Humanity’s final exam is to leave behind religion and science and embrace ontological mathematics. “The nearest each of us can come to God is by loving the truth.” – R. Buckminster Fuller

Math is God. Math is the Truth. By doing math, consciously or intuitively, we become divine. “I am convinced that human continuance depends entirely upon: the intuitive wisdom of each and every individual.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Human continuance depends on intuition, reason, logic, intellect and math. “There are no solids. There are no things. There are only interfering and noninterfering patterns operative in pure principle, and principles are eternal. Principles never contradict principles. . . . The synergetic integral of the totality of principles is God, whose sum-total behaviour in pure principle is beyond our comprehension and is utterly mysterious to us, because as humans – in pure principle – we do not and never will know all the principles.” – R. Buckminster Fuller We will know everything ... mathematically. “Love is metaphysical gravity.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Love is emotional gravity! Hate is emotional anti-gravity. Reason is metaphysical gravity. Unreason is metaphysical anti-gravity. “Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are socioeconomic ploys – legally enacted game-playing – agreed upon only between overwhelmingly powerful socioeconomic individuals and by them imposed upon human society and its all unwitting members.” – R. Buckminster Fuller So, we must overthrow the Corporatocracy and return power to the People. “Critical threshold-crossing of the inevitable revolution is already underway.” – R. Buckminster Fuller The mathematical threshold is the final frontier we must cross if we wish to become a divine species. “The dark ages still reign over all humanity, and the depth and persistence of this domination are only now becoming clear.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Science has replaced religion as the intellectual Dark Age. “This Dark Ages prison has no steel bars, chains, or locks. Instead, it is locked by misorientation and built of misinformation. Caught up in a

plethora of conditioned reflexes and driven by the human ego, both warden and prisoner attempt meagerly to compete with God. All are intractably skeptical of what they do not understand.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Scientific materialism is the Dark Ages prison without bars, chains, or locks, “locked by misorientation and built of misinformation.” “We are powerfully imprisoned in these Dark Ages simply by the terms in which we have been conditioned to think.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Science has replaced religion as a vast, sinister, brainwashing system to which everyone is relentlessly subjected. “Every child has an enormous drive to demonstrate competence. If humans are not required to earn a living to be provided survival needs, many are going to want very much to be productive, but not at those tasks they did not choose to do but were forced to accept in order to earn money. Instead, humans will spontaneously take upon themselves those tasks that world society really needs to have done.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Only a Meritocracy can deliver a competent society full of competent citizens. “Dear reader, traditional human power structures and their reign of darkness are about to be rendered obsolete.” – R. Buckminster Fuller Religion and science alike must be abolished if the Old World Order’s reign of darkness is to end, and the New World Order – operating via the light of reason – ushered in.

The New Method When it comes to noumenal ultimate reality, the Empirical Scientific Method, predicated on experiments and the observable, must be replaced by the Rational Scientific Method, predicated on mathematics and the rational unobservable.

Reification Science reifies abstract concepts into the things (nouns) of “material” reality. Matter itself is the ultimate reification of ideas!

To Like Or Not To Like

We don’t want stupid people to read our books. If you are the sort of person who goes on Facebook to post negative, moronic comments about our books, don’t buy our books, don’t read our books, and keep well away from our books. They’re not for the likes of you. As Nietzsche said, “This book belongs to the very few. Perhaps none of them is even living yet.” We come across stupid comments about our books all the time. We rarely come across intelligent comments. We need a radically better audience than the one we are typically getting. If you’re not smart, go away. Try Buddhism!

Hanging Out If you like hanging out with retards, that’s because you’re a retard. If you like hanging out with people who achieve nothing, that’s because you’re not achieving anything. If you spend your time bitching on Facebook, that’s because your life is empty and you’re a total failure and loser. Those who can do, those who can’t engage in conspiracy theories about those who can. You have read countless conspiracy theories about the Illuminati. Have you read even one about ontological mathematics? Funny that.

Medieval Alchemy “The elemental system used in Medieval alchemy was developed primarily by the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan and rooted in the classical elements of Greek tradition. His system consisted of the four Aristotelian elements of air, earth, fire, and water in addition to two philosophical elements: sulphur, characterizing the principle of combustibility, ‘the stone which burns’; and mercury, characterizing the principle of metallic properties. They were seen by early alchemists as idealized expressions of irreducible components of the universe and are of larger consideration within philosophical alchemy. “The three metallic principles – sulphur to flammability or combustion, mercury to volatility and stability, and salt to solidity – became the tria prima of the Swiss alchemist Paracelsus. He reasoned that Aristotle’s four element theory appeared in bodies as three principles. Paracelsus saw these principles as fundamental and justified them by recourse to the description of how wood burns in fire. Mercury included the cohesive principle, so that when it left in smoke the wood fell apart. Smoke described the volatility (the mercurial principle), the heat-giving flames described flammability

(sulphur), and the remnant ash described solidity (salt). ... The classical elements correspond more closely to four of the states of matter: solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Modern science recognizes classes of elementary particles which have no substructure (or rather, particles that are not made of other particles) and composite particles having substructure (particles made of other particles).” – Wikipedia

Will and Reason Historically, humanity’s reason has always been subordinated to its will (its desires, impulses, and passions). Humanity will be enlightened only when reason is the master and will its servant. Will should be the source of power and drive for the intellect. It shouldn’t be what dominates the intellect. Humanity is ruled by its impulses. It needs to be ruled by its reason. The Fall from grace occurred when rational Gods fell into the material world and became irrational creatures of will ... this corresponds to involution. The Ascent to grace is when irrational creatures of will become rational Gods ... this corresponds to evolution. Humanity begins Dionysian, and gradually becomes Apollonian.

Transcendence “As a former Catholic priest, Karl Leonhard Reinhold retained the values of Christian morality and individual dignity. The basic Christian doctrines of a transcendent God and an immortal human soul were presuppositions in his thinking. [MH: It’s mathematics that is both transcendent and immanent, and which is ontologically conveyed by the immortal soul, aka the eternal mathematical mind of zero and infinity.]” – Wikipedia

God Man is God who doesn’t know he is God. It’s God, not Man, that Falls ... God becomes Man. Man must then Ascend, and when he does so fully, he becomes God once more. Involution: God → Man ... the Fall. Evolution: Man → God ... the Ascent. At the Omega Point, Man becomes equal to God (or restored to God ... God comes back to himself).

The Senses versus Intellect According to Kant, Man has a sensory intuition of things, whereas God has an intellectual intuition of things. Man is scientific; God is mathematical.

***** “God” is the universe. Nature is God’s appearance. The God Equation is the universe. Nature is the God Equation’s phenomenal manifestation.

Et in Arcadia Ego: And I am also in Arcadia “The translation of the phrase is ‘Even in Arcadia, there am I’. The usual interpretation is that ‘I’ refers to death, and ‘Arcadia’ means a utopian land. It would thus be a memento mori. During Antiquity, many Greeks lived in cities close to the sea, and led an urban life. Only Arcadians, in the middle of the Peloponnese, lacked cities, were far from the sea, and led a shepherd life. Thus for urban Greeks, especially during the Hellenistic era, Arcadia symbolized pure, rural, idyllic life, far from the city.” – Wikipedia The ghost is also in the body. Even in the body, there am I! The body is death, the ghost (soul) is its detachable life.

Thinking There must be a thinker (“I”) in order for there to be thinking. A thing is an object of thought. “I” is the subject that thinks.

Colour, Space and Time Just as there is no such thing as a colour that exists independently of the minds that perceive colours, so there are no such things as space and time that exist separately from the minds that perceive space and time. All primary qualities are as mental as secondary qualities. All of Nature – the system of bodies moving in time and space – is just a collection of sensible phenomena in the minds of perceivers. There is no external, independent material reality.

The Rise

Religion: the rise of the Mythos Ghosts. Science: the rise of the Machines. Mathematics: the rise of the Logos Ghosts.

Get Real It’s extraordinary that people regard vague, undefined “matter” as unquestionably real, yet they are equally certain that precise, analytic sinusoids are unreal and abstract. A person’s readiness to accept matter as real is directly proportional to how sensory their brain is. A person’s readiness to accept sinusoids as real depends entirely on how intellectual they are. Stupid people will never get it. Here’s a simple question – why should messy, clunky, uncertain things such as material “atoms” be believed in, but not precise, analytic, perfect sinusoids? To put it another way, why is it that people regard math as unreal and abstract? Why can’t they conclude that if we can conceive of sinusoids, they must be real? After all, why should the human mind be able to invent totally unreal things, with no precedent in reality? There is nothing that humans imagine – unicorns, for example – that couldn’t exist, or – in the cases of fairies, goblins, sprites, vampires and zombies – that don’t have a precedent in human religious and spiritual beliefs. No human can conceive of a square circle, since such a thing is impossible. All valid mathematical entities can and do exist – noumenally and intelligibly rather than phenomenally and sensibly. A sensory person cannot make the leap from phenomena (sensory things) to noumena (non-sensory things). It’s an intellectual bridge too far from them. Atoms are in fact sinusoidal wavefunctions. If you can’t understand that, it’s purely because you’re not smart enough and nothing can be done to cure you. All scientists are too stupid. They believe – with religious fanaticism – that reality is revealed by experiments, by what is revealed to the senses. In fact, experiments reveal only a very limited subset of reality ... that of phenomenal things available to the senses. They don’t reveal anything noumenal, unavailable to the senses. This whole noumenal universe is pure math, math in itself, which scientists regard as unreal and abstract (nonconcrete, i.e. non-sensory).

What is science? It’s phenomenal – in respect of its observations and experiments – and it’s noumenal – in respect of the math it uses. What science does – perversely – is conclude that experiments are “reality”, while math is “unreal”. In fact, math is true reality, while experiments show us an unreal sensory illusion (a hologram, a projection, a well-founded dream, a systematic hallucination, a Matrix). Science considers machines real and ghosts unreal. In fact, it’s the ghosts (monads) that are the reality and the machines that are unreal (they are a mental construct that wouldn’t exist without minds to think them). To grasp this, you need to be a thinking rather than a sensing type. If you are ruled by your senses, you will consider phenomena to be reality. If you are ruled by your intellect, you will know that noumena are reality. What’s the difference between Leibniz and Newton? Leibniz wrote about noumenal monads (intellectual entities), while Newton devised a mathematical formula that matched the observed motions of the planets, i.e. he linked math to the sensory (phenomenal) world, while Leibniz linked it to the unobservable noumenal world. To this day, science embraces Newton and rejects Leibniz. Ontological mathematics does the reverse. Ultimate reality is noumenal, not phenomenal; non-sensory, not sensory; immaterial, not material; mathematical not scientific; eternal, not temporal; necessary, not contingent; certain, not uncertain; a priori, not a posteriori; analytic, not synthetic; perfect, not imperfect; intelligible, not sensible; absolute, not relative; deductive; not inductive; rational, not empirical. In other words, science – unlike religion – has got everything upside down and the wrong way around. Religious Mythos is wholly false, but the key religious notion that ultimate reality is 100% noumenal is 100% correct, while science’s 100% denial of this is 100% false. Religion, conventionally, is led by faith, feelings, mystical intuitions and Mythos. Science is led purely by the senses. Ontological mathematics is Logos religion, where a noumenal God (a perfect person) is replaced by a noumenal God Equation (a perfect system). Never forget this simple truth ... science without math would be useless. Math is entirely noumenal, rational, logical and intellectual. Science has no idea what math is, where it came from, and how it can be used in conjunction with an empirical, sensory subject (i.e. science itself). Science – insanely – says that math is unreal and abstract, while using it all the time to describe “reality”. How can an “unreal”, purely intellectual subject have

any relevance to a “real”, purely sensory world? Math can be relevant to reality in only one case ... if reality is mathematical! In any other circumstances, math would be 100% useless. This simple logical conclusion has bypassed 100% of scientists, who are simply not logical at all. They are the prisoners of their senses. They lack the intellect to transcend their senses. They are fundamentally stupid, semi-autistic people. At the deepest level, every religious believer is smarter than every scientist, because at least they have grasped the simple truth that there’s more to reality than “seeing is believing”. They have understood that true reality cannot be seen, and cannot be experimented upon. Unfortunately, they have regarded this unobservable reality in Mythos rather than Logos terms. They have turned to “God” rather than Math. Only the holiest – i.e. smartest! – people can grasp what religion is really all about ... mathematics, and the monads (immortal mathematical minds) that convey it. Mathematics, not the Torah, New Testament or Koran, is the true Bible of religion. Mathematics reveals the “Mind of God”. Mathematics is the sacred text. Mathematical geniuses are the true prophets. The Church of Math is the only valid Church, the only Church that doesn’t, and can’t lie to you, can’t con you, can’t sell you snake oil, isn’t run by charlatans fleecing you and psychologically manipulating you, promising you heaven, and terrorising you with hell! To reach heaven is to personally solve the God Equation. When all souls collectively solve the God Equation, that’s when collective, cosmic perfection is attained.

The Rejection When the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it proved one of two things: 1) the Romans had “killed” the Jewish God Jehovah (since no real, living God would ever allow his temple to be annihilated), or 2) the Jews had been utterly rejected by their God ... this was the conclusion drawn by the Christians, the successors of the Jews, and the new Chosen People.

Imagine Imagine that tomorrow the Islamic religion suddenly vanished from the world, that no one believed in Mohammed and Allah anymore. Would humanity have lost a single thing of value? Wouldn’t it be a great day for

the human race? One day, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism will all be extinct. That day can’t come soon enough. Only then will humanity be free.

The Glass Delusion “The glass delusion is an external manifestation of a psychiatric disorder recorded in Europe mainly in the late Middle Ages (15th to 17th centuries). People feared that they were made of glass ‘and therefore likely to shatter into pieces’. One famous early sufferer was King Charles VI of France who refused to allow people to touch him, and wore reinforced clothing to protect himself from accidental ‘shattering’. “Concentration of the glass delusion among the wealthy and educated classes allowed modern scholars to associate it with a wider and better described disorder of scholar’s melancholy. “Robert Burton’s The Anatomy of Melancholy (1621) touches on the subject in the commentary as one of many related manifestations of the same anxiety: ‘Fear of devils, death, that they shall be so sick, of some such or such disease, ready to tremble at every object, they shall die themselves forthwith, or that some of their dear friends or near allies are certainly dead; imminent danger, loss, disgrace still torment others, &c.; that they are all glass, and therefore will suffer no man to come near them; that they are all cork, as light as feathers; others as heavy as lead; some are afraid their heads will fall off their shoulders, that they have frogs in their bellies, Etc.’ “Miguel de Cervantes based one of his short Exemplary Novels, The Glass Graduate (Spanish: El licenciado Vidriera, 1613) on the delusion of the title subject, an aspiring young lawyer. Thomas Rodaja fell into a grave depression after being bed-ridden for six months after being poisoned with a purportedly aphrodisiac potion. He claimed that, being of glass, his perceptions are clearer than those of men of flesh and demonstrated by offering witty comments. After two years of illness, Rodaja was cured by a monk; no details of the cure are provided except that the monk was allegedly a miracle-maker. “Dutch poet Constantijn Huygens wrote a Costly Folly (1622) centred on a subject who ‘fears everything that moves in his vicinity... the chair will be the death for him, he trembles at the bed, fearful that one will break his bum, the other smash his head’.

“French philosopher René Descartes wrote Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), using the glass delusion as an example of an insane person whose perceived knowledge of the world differs from the majority. [MH: Autistics and sensory scientists, severely lacking in intuition and imagination, perceive reality radically differently from others (religious and spiritual types). Sadly, they have managed to con everyone else into believing that their machine mentality is correct. They have convinced billions that life is pointless, meaningless and purposeless, and that we have no free will.] “In modern times, the glass delusion has not completely disappeared. There are still isolated cases today. ... “The neurotic behaviour of the 19th century Russian composer Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky seems reflective of the Glass Delusion, centring as it did around his difficulties caused by his belief that his head would fall off while conducting if he didn’t hold his chin.” – Wikipedia Tchaikovsky: glass symphonies by a glass man ... the music of the glass spheres. The Glass Delusion – the extraordinary psychiatric phenomenon whereby people believe they have literally turned into glass; the idea that we are made of glass and might shatter into pieces; the fixed, false delusion that one has turned into glass and is likely to break. The Machine Delusion – the extraordinary psychiatric phenomenon whereby people believe they have literally turned into machines and have no free will. Oops, that’s just “science”! “Psychoanalyst Adam Phillips believes the ‘glass delusion’ has powerful contemporary resonance in a society where anxieties about fragility, transparency and personal space are pertinent to many people’s experience of living in the modern world. The feeling of being made of glass could be a useful way of understanding how we negotiate society – a society that is increasingly crowded, but also one in which modern technological advances isolate us and offer apparently boundary-less communication. “Professor Edward Shorter, a historian of psychiatry from the University of Toronto suggests that it is the material of glass itself, and its newness in 17th Century Europe which holds the key to understanding the disorder. Throughout history the inventive unconscious mind has pegged it’s

delusions onto new materials. In the 19th century cement delusions appeared when cement emerged as a new building material, just as common delusions of recent decades include the fixed, false belief that the CIA or other security services can download thoughts through micro-transmitters.” – the BBC In the religious past, peopled believe they were religious creations. The rise of scientific materialism has made people believe they are scientific machines – like giant atoms – or atheistic creations of random, spontaneous, acausal processes. In the future, all human beings will slowly and painfully come to understand that they are in fact made of the fundamental substance of existence – mathematics – and, hence, that they all naturally speak the language of existence (math).

Summary of Cervantes’ The Glass Graduate “Through his own studies and brilliance, a peasant servant of two students becomes an educated man. Persuaded by an army recruiter of the soldier’s good life, he travels Europe before returning to his studies and becoming a licensed graduate of the law. An enamoured woman inadvertently poisons him with a presumed love potion, leaving him crazy, believing he is made of glass. The Glass Graduate gains fame and fortune for his wit and wisdom, despite (because of) his folly. Cured by a cleric, his former large following rejects the now sane professional. He returns to the good life of soldiering. Commentary “This novella exposes social foibles and the social construction of madness through the archetype of the wise fool. The poisoned quince, reminiscent of Eve’s apple, combines sorcery and religious possession as early etiologies for mental illness – ones present still in certain cultures; and, in the form of poison, reprised in the organic etiologies of contemporary Western nosology [the branch of medical science dealing with the classification of diseases]. “The Glass Graduate’s particular delusion combines altered bodily perception, narcissism and grandeur. Through preciosity [excessive refinement in art, music, or language] and protest the Glass Graduate forces social accommodation to his delusion, which becomes his force. Mocked and reviled, pitied and protected, he imposes through words and narrative

his version of the world. Madness, as for Michel Foucault, is disenfranchised discourse, here tolerated and even celebrated. Restoration to the status of the enfranchised sane makes the socially pertinent though socially powerless truths spoken by the insane lose their harmless cachet. Simultaneously, the disinhibition, witticisms and audacity of insane discourse disappear. “Ordinary life with its ordinary obligations becomes more difficult than the disenfranchised extraordinary life of the brilliant student, the soldier, or the madman. The Glass Graduate survives by returning to soldiering. The Glass Graduate, an ‘exemplary story,’ survives through an imaginative blend of literary devices, social observation, and epistemological inquiry.” – Jan Marta

***** It’s instructive that society pays no attention to the Glass Graduate once he’s cured. Society does not care for a sane, wandering philosopher, only for lunatic prophets.

***** All delusions serve a function. People who imagine they are made of feathers do not feel grounded, and imagine they could float off at any time. People who imagine they are made of lead feel weighed down by the world and their responsibilities, stopping them from moving. What is the Glass Delusion seeking to achieve? Glass is a fragile, breakable substance. We can see through it, as if it’s not there. When a person considers themself glass, they are telling the world how fragile they are, how scared they are of interaction with the world, fearing it might shatter them. They are terrified of intimacy since if anyone touches them, it might be sufficient to smash them. They think the world is saying to them, “We can see through you. You’re transparent to us. All of your secrets are open to us.” Metaphorically, if your head is made of glass, people can see what you are thinking. If your heart is made of glass, people can see your emotions. They can see your morality, whether you are good or evil. If your gut is made of glass, people can see the inner workings of your body, how you make shit, and what a shitty person you are.

A person suffering from this delusion likened himself to a glass window. When you look through a window, you do not see the glass of the window, only the world beyond. The sufferer said, “That’s me. I’m here and I’m not here. I am and I am not. I have a boundary, but it’s as if I don’t. The glass is both there and not there. You do not see it. You see through it. You always see what’s behind the glass, and never the glass itself. Glass people are in the world, but ignored by the world.” Someone with this delusion could easily develop a severe persecutory complex ... total paranoia. The world is looking at all of their thoughts and feelings, and laughing at them and mocking them. The world is telling them that it can break them at any time. They have no resilience in the face of the world. They lack backbone. They lack strong roots. The Glass Delusion might be regarded as a form of schizophrenia. With schizophrenia, inner voices sometimes tell you that the world is persecuting you, and that you need to take action to defend yourself. With the Glass Delusion, you are permanently open to the world and know that it can smash you to smithereens at any time. You try to shield yourself from the world by avoiding contact with others, by wrapping yourself in cotton wool, so to speak. You wear padded clothing. You don’t attack the world, you retreat from it. You don’t engage, you detach (like a Buddhist). The delusion reflects your inner state. You have reified your inner fragility and vulnerability. People with the Glass Delusion dread tripping, falling, breaking, snapping. They don’t want to be knocked or jostled. They are haunted by the thought of splintering into myriad broken pieces. Their integrity is at stake, their wholeness, their unity, their coherence. In Abrahamism, we are all glass to God. He can see right through us and he has total access to us. God sees into our (glass) hearts. He knows all of our secret thoughts and desires. He sees everything we do at all times. According to Freud, a child achieves its first moment of independence, of authentic freedom, when it tells its first successful lie to its parents. It realises its parents can’t see through it: it’s not made of glass. It can have its own thoughts and secrets. By making itself opaque to its parents, the child proves that its parents are not omniscient ... they are not God. The child discovers the Theory of Mind: that different minds hold different thoughts and beliefs. All of your thoughts and experiences are not universally available. You can inhabit your own private world.

Severe autistics can’t lie (because they have no Theory of Mind), hence can never achieve genuine independence and freedom. In many ways, autistics are sufferers from the Glass Delusion. They imagine that everyone can see through them and know what they are thinking, and they are tremendously sensitive to the environment, demanding that everything remain the same. Anything that’s different might shatter them, as if they are made of glass. It might be said that when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they were striving to be independent and free – to have their own thoughts and secrets. They didn’t want to be seen through by God. How can you be free and independent when someone knows everything you have done and are going to do? Following the discovery of their “crime” by God, Adam and Eve didn’t put on clothes because of anything to do with sexual shame. Rather, they did it in order to hide their “glass” bodies ... to prevent God from seeing through them. They were attempting to block God’s access to them. What is morally unacceptable – the lie – is essential for personal development. They don’t tell you that in religious class. Freedom and independence unavoidably begin with lies, with disobedience, with rebellion against the established powers. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of children necessarily disobeying their parent. A child’s capacity for lying, his talent for deception, guarantees his future as a functioning human being able to stand on his own two feet. “God” does not want us to be free and independent. We are to be forever dependent on him, and he will send us to eternal hell is we disobey him. He supposedly offers us freedom, but, if we ever exercise it, we will be damned for all time! To exercise it, we must lie and disobey, but these are exactly the sins that will seal our fate and deliver us to the eternal hellfire. In other words, you can never be free and independent in any dictatorial religious system of laws and commandments, any system of “halal” and “haram”. One need only look at contemporary Islam to see how opposed it is to free will, free speech and freedom in general. It has a lethal, murderous problem with freedom.

The Glass World A glass world full of glass people is a Panopticon world – there can be no secrets. A surveillance world is a glass world. No one can hide. A world of CCTV cameras pointing at us at all times makes the world glass.

Everything is seen. The Islamic world is a glass world – Allan sees everything; Allah wills it. The victim of the Glass Delusion is terrified that his vulnerabilities will be seen, his secrets exposed. The Delusion, which reached its peak in the 17th century, might be seen as a response to the growth of cities. People found their personal space increasingly challenged and threatened. They found themselves surrounded by others at all times, yet were frequently anonymous in the middle of a crowd of total strangers. Glass, which was starting to gain widespread use, seemed the perfect metaphor for the Age. Glass is fragile and needs its space, or will break ... but space was increasingly at a premium in the 17th century (and even more so now). People can see through glass, and, in a world of strangers crowding together, it frequently seems as if the world is looking right through you and doesn’t notice you at all. You are there in the world, yet no one sees you, and no one is interested in you. You want to scream at the world, “Do not come near me or I shall break. Give me space. Recognise me as a person. Do not look through me. I’m here.” With the rise of the impersonal world of crowded cities of strangers, of the growth of cut-throat businesses, with the religious wars – and growing religious doubts – of the 17th century, the more melancholic types turned their worries into a formal delusion. Glass, like a human body, has a firm boundary, but, unlike a human body, can be seen through. A sufferer of the Glass Delusion is almost saying, “You can look through me, but I beg you not to touch ... because that will break me.”

Mirror Man Glass is not a mirror ... you look through it to something else. It doesn’t reflect. Out there somewhere there must be people suffering from the Mirror Delusion. These are compulsive imitators and reflectors who don’t live their own lives. They’re always reflecting someone else’s life. People who are obsessed with celebrities continuously reflect their heroes, and can never be themselves. They are always Retweeting the thoughts of others, and never Tweeting their own thoughts. They don’t have any!

*****

Glass Man Syndrome: Brittle Transparency. The person doesn’t really exist because the person is always seen through, as if they’re not there. Mirror Man Syndrome: Blinding Reflection. The person doesn’t really exist because the person is always reflecting others. Others become brighter and brighter because they are infinitely reflected in the mirrored world.

Fairytales Cinderella wears slippers of glass, not velvet. Sleeping Beauty and Snow White rest in glass coffins. Imagine a world of glass mountains, glass clouds, glass homes ... and glass people. Imagine slowly turning into glass. Imagine specific parts of your body being made of glass ... your head, or your hands, your feet, or your penis ... with all the rest being normal. How would that affect you?

The Crystal World by J. G. Ballard “Deep in the central African jungle, time itself has begun to leak away, and the consequence of this temporal depletion is a super-saturation of space. Anything present within the ‘zone’ of leakage begins to crystallise: to reiterate itself as pure structure. Orchids and ferns encase themselves in intricately outgrowing replicas. Water hardens into a white and glowing ice. Crocodiles acquire new skins of glassy silver scales. ... All of the main characters eventually reach the ornate crystalline dream-forest of the ‘focal area’, where gem-eyed pythons slither past, and the bodies of men lie embalmed in diamond armour. ... It is the central paradox of catastrophe fiction that to destroy the world you must first summon it into being. The Crystal World is surely J. G. Ballard’s most gorgeous calamity: apocalypse not as abolition but as transfiguration. The prose of the jungle scenes glitters with a dark and elaborate beauty, which feels far from the chromesleek sentences of Crash, published seven years later. This is a Byzantine Ballard, relishing the prismatic intricacies of the ‘jewelled twilight world’ he has conjured. The crossing of the glacial river back to Mont Royal, the hunts through the radiant perils of the forest ... to me these are among the most brilliant episodes of Ballard’s fiction. They lustre on in the memory.” – Robert Macfarlane

“Through a ‘leaking’ of time, the West African jungle starts to crystallize. Trees metamorphose into enormous jewels. Crocodiles encased in second glittering skins lurch down the river. Pythons with huge blind gemstone eyes rear in heraldic poses. Most flee the area in terror, afraid to face a catastrophe they cannot understand. But some, dazzled and strangely entranced, remain to drift through this dreamworld forest: a doctor in pursuit of his ex-mistress, an enigmatic Jesuit wielding a crystal cross and a tribe of lepers searching for Paradise.” – Robert Macfarlane “The Crystal World is a novel by English author J. G. Ballard, published in 1966. The novel tells the story of a physician trying to make his way deep into the jungle to a secluded leprosy treatment facility. While trying to make it to his destination, his chaotic path leads him to try to come to terms with an apocalyptic phenomenon in the jungle that crystallises everything it touches. ... The main character is Edward Sanders, an English medical doctor, who arrives to the river port of Port Matarre, in Gabon. From here he tries to reach a leprosy treatment facility where his friends, Max and Suzanne Clair, live. Soon, however, he starts to recognize that a mysterious phenomenon is crystallizing the jungle along with its living creatures. The same phenomenon is reported to be present also in the Florida everglades and in the Pripyat Marshes (Soviet Union) as well. Scientific explanations of the phenomenon are provided within the book: however, Ballard offers mostly an interior and psychological perspective about it, directly through Sanders’ experiences. Several facts, furthermore, remain unexplained: for example, the ability of jewels to liquefy the crystals. The crystals also have the property to keep objects and beings in a suspended state of existence. Many passages deal with this characteristic, pointing out its capability to stop time and life. “In his route towards the deep of the forest, Sanders gets involved in a personal feud between Ventress, a Belgian architect, and Thorensen, the director of a diamond mine. In one of the most striking episodes of the novel, Sanders discovers the reason of the deadly rivalry to be Ventress’ former wife, Serena, who is terminally ill with tuberculosis. After a final confrontation, Thorensen decides to remain in his house within the jungle, in spite of the encroaching crystallization process. Two of the other characters met by Sanders in his voyage spontaneously make the same decision: Balthus, an apostate priest, and Suzanne. The latter, nearly gone mad and sporting the first symptoms of leprosy, is portrayed towards the

end of the novel as the leader of a band of lepers who set for the interior of the crystallizing forest, clearly to never come back. “After having barely escaped from the now quickly spreading crystallization, Sanders reaches Port Matarre. Here, however, he makes the same decision as Balthus and Suzanne. In the final pages, Sanders goes back to the river to face the same fate as Suzanne.” – Wikipedia “[A man’s floating body has] effloresced into a mass of translucent crystals.” – J. G. Ballard A crystallised crucifix. “[The deserted town is in the midst of a transformed forest in which] the crystalline trees are hanging like icons in those luminous caverns, the jewelled casements of the leaves overhead, fused into a lattice of prisms ... the birds and crocodiles frozen into grotesque postures like heraldic beasts carved from jade and quartz.” – J. G. Ballard Sanders wards off an attack by a sluggish “bejewelled” crocodile. The crystal forest, full of crystal trees and crystal flowers, belongs to a crystal world where time itself is crystallising. The crystal world represents the “divided self”: temporal and eternal, body and soul, machine and ghost. The body, by turning into crystal, is taking on one character of the soul ... it is outside time; it endures eternally.

Glass Glass is a substance that provides immediate access. We look through glass and see the world beyond. Yet we never see the glass itself. It doesn’t enter our awareness, unless it’s dirty, or a fly has landed on it ... unless something explicitly draws our attention to it. Glass people fear that if you touch them they will break. They metaphorically fear emotional engagement (because that too will shatter them). Glass people are poised between the public and private worlds. They are transparent to the world (hence are public since everyone can see through them), but insist on not being touched (they insist on their private space). Glass is a boundary that can be see through. It’s public by virtue of the second quality, and private by virtue of the first.

Glass people want to be seen, hence understood, but also want their privacy (hence to have secrets). They are thereby caught in a psychic conflict. The Glass Delusion dignifies an inner mental terror with an outer, physical, beautiful substance. It reifies the conflict between the public and private selves. Normal people wear a mask – a persona. They shield themselves from others. They treasure their secrets. Their ego is not directly exposed to the world. The world gets to see only the mask. With the Glass Man, however, the mask is removed, and thus the Ego is unshielded from the world. This makes the person incredibly vulnerable. If we are understood, we feel our lives will be better. How better to make ourselves understood by the world than to make ourselves transparent to the world ... to have no secrets from the world. Yet, in doing so, we make ourselves wholly vulnerable to the world. We have lowered all of our shields, all of our defences. We have no ego defence-mechanisms. We want to be transparent and yet not to be touched. We do and don’t want our private space. What prompts the Glass Delusion? – a tension between embracing the world and fleeing from it, from wanting to be part of it and wanting to be separated from it.

***** Although we might say that being made of glass renders our secret thoughts metaphorically visible to the world, we could equally say that being made of glass makes us invisible to the world. The world sees right through us as if we are not there at all. We are not seen by the world, and yet it can collide with us and shatter us. The world would hardly even be aware of destroying us. It doesn’t know we exist. It doesn’t care.

Broken Glass People ... Breaking People ... Broken People ... the People of Shattered Pieces ... the Invisible People. The Glass Delusion might be regarded as a manifestation of severe depression. Instead of keeping the depression within one’s mind, where it’s extremely hard to deal with, it’s externalised in the person’s body as brittle glass.

Superheroes

Superheroes in comic strips are manifestations of hidden desires. Superman – written by Jews – is a “Man of Steel” with superpowers, invulnerable to the world. His true identity is concealed from the world. He’s almost the opposite of the Glass Man, yet every bit as neurotic. Batman, Spiderman, the Avengers, the Invisible Man, Iron Man, the Fantastic Four, the X Men (Mutants) ... these are all reifications of hopes and desires of people who feel weak and threatened, who consider themselves vulnerable outsiders. Why do people play video games? Because they want to escape from reality. In the game, unlike in life, the can be the hero, the victor. The more of a loser in life you are, the more you retreat to virtual reality.

The Fear Fragile people fear that if you look into them, you will end up looking through them ... there is nothing to the person, nothing to anybody, but the prevailing culture wants to tell us that there is something to us. “It’s all about me.” We want to be seen, but we fear we will be seen through.

Substance “We are the hollow men. We are the stuffed men. Leaning together. Headpiece filled with straw.” – T. S. Eliot The Glass Man has chosen glass to represent their “substance”. Other types might choose cement, or straw, or feathers, or lead, or old tin cans, or, in the case of Transhumanists, silicon chips and integrated circuits. A denizen of virtual reality might choose an Avatar that bestrides the virtual world like a Colossus, while being a pathetic nobody in real life. Many trolls are of this kind. The substance a person chooses tells you all you need to know about them. Troll substance is pure poison and rage against the world.

The Mourners Freud said that mourners mourn for an actual person or object that they have lost, while melancholics are forever mourning something, without knowing what it is. It’s not a specific thing, but a general condition. They are feeling a loss, but haven’t located exactly what it is.

The grief of a specific lost object can be contained to some degree; a generalised, existential feeling of loss is infinitely harder to contend with. It affects and afflicts everything you do. What loss is a glass person mourning? Privacy? Strength? Robustness? Resilience? The ability to cope in the big bad world?

Extraverted and Introverted Laws In an extraverted culture such as that of the West, most laws are for the benefit of extraverts, and are frequently oppressive to introverts. Every law should be classified as extraverted, introverted or neutral, and all people of the opposite type should be allowed to appeal against it, or have an opt-out from it.

Metamorphosis “One day, Gregor Samsa, a travelling salesman, wakes up to find himself transformed into a giant insect (the most common translation of the German description ungeheures Ungeziefer, literally ‘monstrous vermin’).” – Wikipedia In Kafka’s Metamorphosis, a human turns into some kind of repellent creature (a dung beetle, cockroach or woodlouse), but his soul remains human. “Superman” might be regarded as the opposite of Metamorphosis: a Jew (an alien) turns into a superhero rather than into vermin. Kafka is one of the five greatest writers of all time. Given that all of his work is essentially a monumental wrestling with Judaism – with the Jewish God, religion, mentality and metaphysic, with the status of the Jew as an eternal outsider – one must thank Judaism for giving us Kafka! Judaism, at some level, is exonerated from its many crimes against humanity because it produced geniuses such as Kafka. Islam has produced no Kafkas. Islam has barely produced anything at all of any value to humanity. Islam is in any case just “Arab Judaism”, with an Arab (Mohammed) appointing himself as one of Jehovah’s prophets (in fact, the last and greatest of the prophets ... modesty was never Mohammed’s strong suit).

Rationalism versus Empiricism Rationalists are ruled by intellect, reason, logic, metaphysics and math. They consider the intellectual to be actual, real, concrete.

Empiricists are ruled by their senses, experiences, feelings and science. They consider the stuff of the intellect to be unreal and abstract, and the stuff of the senses to be actual, real and concrete. They are on the side of the senses against the intellect. Scientists are guilty of the “sacrifice of the intellect” (sacrificium intellectus). Wikipedia says, “The concept was taken up in a more individualistic sense by the Jansenist thinker Blaise Pascal, and particularly by the existentialist thinker Søren Kierkegaard, who thought that the act of faith requires a leap into the void, which amounts to a sacrifice of the intellect and reason. This was quintessentially expressed in the traditional dictum, credo quia absurdum, ‘I believe because it is absurd.’ This view of faith is rejected by the Catholic church, which regards reason as a path towards direct knowledge of God.” Science takes, in defiance of the intellect, not a leap of faith but a leap of the senses. Like faith, science opposes reason, and is explicitly antirationalist. The principle of sufficient reason does not appear in science, and is repudiated by 100% of scientists, none of whom operate rationally. Rationality appears in science only accidentally, as an effect of science’s use of math.

Nice and Smart The nicest people in the world are INFP and INFJs. The smartest people in the world are INTP and INTJs. Overwhelmingly, these are the types that “get” Illuminism. These four types constitute the Coming Race of Gods. They are the most advanced humans, They are Higher Humanity. The world would be paradise were it ruled by these four types. As is stands, these four groups are enormously marginalised in the present world (aka hell!).

Self-Action Existence is made of sinusoidal waves, and each sinusoidal wave is selfacting in the sense of being a self-contained, autonomous, independent, eternal energy system. However, each such sinusoid interacts with other such sinusoids. The world we perceive results from these interactions. No sinusoid ever transfers any energy to anything else. All that happens is that sinusoids come together in various ways and break apart in various ways, and the precise details determine the energy profile of the universe from

instant to instant. No attribute is separate from its substance. Nothing passes from one thing to anything else. All that changes are combinations of sinusoids. All sinusoids are determined by the God Equation, hence the whole of reality is simply the working out of the God Equation via its countless monadic nodes (souls!). The God Equation is the sole causal force in the universe. The Law of the Conservation of Energy ensures that nothing ever loses any energy. Each individual sinusoid perfectly reflects the Energy Conservation Law: none ever loses or gains energy. Physically, motions produce motions. Mentally, perceptions produce perceptions. As Leibniz realised, the true conservation of energy prevents interaction in the sense of any energy of one fundamental thing being transferred to any other fundamental thing. Interaction cannot proceed by way of transferring anything from one thing to another, but by combining things in a multitude of different ways, and uncombining them in just as many ways. It’s all about combination (and its reverse) rather than transfer. Many people have argued for parallel physical and psychical conservation of energy. In fact, mind and matter continuously combine and break up.

Mind and Matter Mathematical mind is the universal substance; the mathematical material world is its attribute. Mind is the universal reality, the thing in itself. Matter is the appearance of mind in particular circumstances dictated by Fourier mathematics. Mind is noumenon; matter is phenomenon.

Inner and Outer Reality Outer reality consists of space, time and matter. This produces “the machine”. Inner reality is mind, outside space and time. It’s “the ghost”. As with any ghost, it’s immaterial. The inner is real; the outer is apparent. The physical and the psychical are the outer and inner sides of reality. Machine is in machine, and all machines are ultimately in the worldmachine: the observable cosmos. Ghost is in ghost, and all ghosts are ultimately in the world-ghost: the unobservable Cosmic Mind that controls the cosmic machine. Yet the ghosts are also in the machines, whereas the

machines are not in the ghosts. The dimensionless underpins the dimensional. The dimensional does not underpin the dimensionless. The machine is based on “physical” energy, the ghost on “psychic” energy. The machine cosmos is merely the holographic projection of the Cosmic Mind. It’s therefore not a machine at all!

The Stuff of Dreams “Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits, and Are melted into air, into thin air: And like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp’d tow’rs, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on; and our little life Is rounded with a sleep.” – Prospero, Shakespeare’s The Tempest

The Brain and the Mind The mind selects from the possibilities and potentialities of the brain the means to its own ends. The brain is not the mind (as materialists claim). The brain is simply the machine organ through which the “ghost” acts. If the machine breaks down or is damaged, the ghost can no longer express itself properly (in the spacetime world).

Evolution The Law of Evolution: from the simple to complex; from the unformed to the fully formed; from potentiality to actuality.

Law Any law of physics can be logically broken. Such laws are falsifiable, empirical laws. Alternatives to these laws are easily conceivable. No law of mathematics can be broken. Such laws are unfalsifiable, rational laws. No alternative to these laws is conceivable. Mathematical laws anchor the universe. They form the perfect foundations of existence.

Consciousness

Babies and animals have experiences without being conscious. Therefore, being conscious is not a prerequisite for having experiences, as so many people wrongly believe. Consciousness means being able to reflect on the fact that you are having experiences rather than merely having experiences. Animals can’t reflect on their experiences. They are mental agents, but not conscious mental agents. Many commentators who espouse panpsychism are unable to distinguish between mind and consciousness. They don’t acknowledge a clear qualitative difference between conscious mind and unconscious mind. Can we conceive of a mind that’s permanently unconscious? Of course we can ... just look at an ant, a beetle, a cockroach or a woodlouse. Or a plant. Even a newborn human baby has an unconscious mind, and it takes a lot of effort by the people in its social environment to teach it consciousness. Without this tuition, a baby would grow up as unconscious as any animal. Human consciousness is not any kind of given. You do not become conscious merely by being human. Consciousness is developed through social interaction, most especially in the acquisition of a public language, which of necessity involves contact and exchange with other humans. Consciousness is a social phenomenon. There’s no such thing as a private language, and no such thing as private consciousness. “God”, on his own, could never be conscious. Only a community of Gods, like a community of humans, can be conscious.

***** “Jean-Paul Sartre argued in his masterwork Being and Nothingness that we, as human beings, can become aware of ourselves only when confronted with the gaze of another. Not until we are aware of being watched do we become aware of our own presence.” – Sue Roberts If this were the authentic criterion for self-awareness, every creature would be self-aware since every creature is aware of being watched, especially by predators. It’s a fundamental survival requirement. In fact, we become self-aware through theory of mind – conceptually realising that people hold different perceptions, thoughts and beliefs from ourselves. We don’t become self-aware through experience, as many naive panpsychists and empiricists believe. You cannot be conscious without language, reason, logic and intellect. Most humans are barely conscious

given that they are so poor at language, and so lacking in reason, logic and intellect. Most humans only just rise above bicameralism, the pre-conscious (but not wholly unconscious) mental state of the human race, which technically ended when human beings developed the capacity to write. Humans alone can write, and humans alone are conscious. Writing externalises concepts. It’s an intellectual process. It frees humanity from the tyranny of internal experience (empiricism). It allows humanity to become much more rational, and, especially, mathematical!

Underworld, World, Overworld, Dreamworld Underworld – the unconscious. World – the conscious. Overworld – the superconscious. Dreamworld – consciousness”.

an

alternate

conscious;

a

rehearsal

for

“death

***** Pre-personal – the subconscious. Personal – the conscious. Transpersonal – the superconscious.

Existence and Perception “I think, therefore I am.” – Descartes Existence is fundamental. All else is mere perception. All that ultimately exists are minds and their thoughts and perceptions. There are no nonmental things. Above all, there is no “matter” as a thing in itself, hence science is the 100% inversion of the truth. The only true part of science is math.

Mind and Body The body is conceived as a material machine. Mind is non-material and outside the laws of nature (i.e. of “material” nature).

The Idiots You will come across idiots saying such things as, “Panpsychism holds that everything is conscious; that is, consciousness is a property of all material forms of existence, as fundamental a property as well-established physical properties such as mass and charge. ... Panpsychism does not provide an explanation of why consciousness exists, but simply accepts it as a given. Thus one of its main attractions is that it seems to provide a way to avoid the dilemma of materialism vs. dualism. Consciousness does not emerge from matter, so no hard problem is involved. But neither is it distinct from matter, so no dualism is implied.” Panpsychism says no such thing. Panpsychism says that mind is everywhere, and, ultimately, that mind is all there is. Plainly, if everything comes from mind – as it does in Leibniz’s system – then mind is everywhere. It’s not a question of matter having mind. Rather, matter is a product of mind. Hylozoism, not panpsychism, is the philosophy of matter being alive and having mind. It’s utterly absurd to contend that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter, or that consciousness is a fundamental property of anything at all. As Leibniz made so clear, consciousness is something that evolves from the unconscious. The unconscious is the default mode of mind. To equate panpsychism and consciousness is to make the deranged claim that rocks and thermostats are conscious. Panpsychism is one of the most badly understood concepts in modern philosophy. This is unforgivable given that Leibniz set out the proper context in which to understand panpsychism over three hundred years ago. It’s incomprehensible how anyone could imagine that consciousness is built into matter. We are now to believe that atoms are actually conscious entities, having mental experiences and qualia! In fact, only monadic minds are capable of having conscious experiences, and consciousness is not a default property of mind but something that evolves from the default unconscious mind. Naive panpsychists have effectively defined mental experience as “consciousness”, when, of course, mental experience is unconscious by default. This type of panpsychist seems to find it impossible to conceive of having a mental experience without being conscious of it, i.e. they basically

deny the existence of the unconscious mind, and the unconscious mental experiences that necessarily go with it.

Keep Pushing “You just keep pushing. You just keep pushing. I made every mistake that could be made. But I just kept pushing.” – Descartes Scientists have proved utterly incapable of pushing beyond their sensory prejudices.

The Journey Spacetime is a cosmic ship that sails through the frequency domain, through the ether.

The Full Einstein Equation “He’s synonymous with genius, but Albert Einstein is also best known for what is easily the world’s most famous equation, E = mc². But did you know that it’s actually a shortened version of a longer equation? “E = mc² only describes objects that have mass but aren’t moving. The full equation, used for bodies in motion, is E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² where that extra ‘p’ represents the momentum of an object.” – Andrew Liszewski

Ghost Energy Mental energy (= “ghost” energy) is present throughout physics. It’s simply not recognised as such. Mind-matter (ghost-machine) dualism has been rebranded by quantum mechanics as wave-particle duality. No scientist realises it, but “wave” corresponds to mind (ghost). Once you know what you’re looking for, you start to see mind (immaterial frequency) everywhere in physics. Consider Einstein’s full energy equation: E2 = m2c4 + p2c2. Here, m is the rest mass, and p is the momentum (relating to movement). When there is no movement (p = 0), the equation reduces to the famous E = mc2. This is a key equation of matter. When there is no mass (m = 0, as in a photon), the equation reduces to E = pc. This latter equation, if interpreted properly, is a frequency rather than matter equation, i.e. it relates to mental (ghost) energy rather than material (machine) energy. But even E = mc2 reflects mental energy. Wherever c, the speed of light, appears in an equation, the frequency domain of mind is thereby factored

in. The speed of light is one of the primary means by which mind is unintentionally expressed in physics. Another critical equation is E = hf, where h is Planck’s constant, and f is the frequency. This is a full-on mind/ghost equation. Given that c = fλ, where λ is the wavelength, then f = c/λ, and E = hc/λ. So, given that E = pc, pc = hc/λ, hence p = h/λ. We have now expressed the photon’s momentum in terms of wavelength. Momentum is normally treated in terms of particles (matter), but now we can see that it can also be expressed in terms of waves (mind). The higher the frequency a photon has, the shorter its wavelength, and the more momentum it possesses. One of the most revolutionary figures in the history of physics was Louis de Broglie, the man who first united the ghost and the machine in physics by asserting that every particle was associated with a wave; that matter had wave properties, thus leading to wave-particle duality as a fundamental aspect of existence. De Broglie showed that, for all particles, λ = h/p, i.e. everything has a wavelength, hence is associated with some kind of wave. For de Broglie, nature has a fundamental symmetry. Just as Einstein had shown that light (waves) could be conceived (interpreted) in particle terms, de Broglie demonstrated that matter (particles) could be interpreted in wave terms. De Broglie said, “I was convinced that the wave-particle duality discovered by Einstein in his theory of light quanta was absolutely general and extended to all of the physical world, and it seemed certain to me, therefore, that the propagation of a wave is associated with the motion of a particle of any sort – photon, electron, proton, or any other.” Additionally, he observed, “It would seem that the basic idea of the quantum theory is the impossibility of imagining an isolated quantity of energy without assigning a certain frequency to it; such is the content of the Einstein equation, energy = hf. It is difficult to understand precisely the physical sense of this frequency but it apparently describes a certain internal ‘periodic [cyclic] process’.” De Broglie, controversially, asserted that the waves were “pilot” waves that guided a material particle in its motion, a theme later taken up by David Bohm. The precise interpretation of wave-particle dualism became the central problem of quantum physics, culminating in the truly absurd probabilistic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics where wavefunctions were characterised as unreal, abstract, mathematical

potentiality functions, which, under observation, indeterministically collapsed to produce a specific observable in the material world. To this day, this remains the idiotic and impossible model used by physics to understand wave-particle duality. (It’s designed purely to avoid the ghost in the machine; mind in matter.) Nothing in physics has been more badly misinterpreted than waveparticle duality. What it is really saying is that all matter is broken light, hence why matter has wave features. As for depicting waves in particle terms, we will be showing in a future book how this is all about Plank’s constant, h, which is entirely a property of waves. To put it another way, there is no real wave-particle duality at all. “Particles” are simply waves being interpreted in a certain way. Just as all matter comes from mind, all “particles” come from waves. You cannot have particles independent of waves; a particle is in fact a property of a wave. It’s not a case of particles and waves having some kind of parity, equivalence or equal ontological significance. Rather, waves are all that exist, and one of their properties is such as to be amenable to interpretation as material particles. Equally, all that truly exists is mind, and one of the properties of mind is such as to be amenable to interpretation as matter. The dualism is therefore only apparent, not actual. There is no dualism at all, only a monism that can be interpreted in dualistic terms. As ever, this all goes right over the heads of physicists who have zero ability to think philosophically. That’s why their interpretations of quantum mechanics are generally so risible and ridiculous. They insist on squeezing everything through their fallacious Meta Paradigm of materialism and empiricism, and ideologically dismissing mind, ghosts and real wavefunctions.

***** Wave-particle duality should be replaced by light/broken-light dual-aspect monism. Particles and waves could not be directly associated unless they were traceable back to a common root.

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle For all particles, λ = h/p. So, if the wavelength of an individual photon is decreased, the momentum of the individual photon increases. Likewise, if

the photon’s momentum decreases, its wavelength increases. This is of course the basis of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. As wavelength decreases, we know better and better where a particle is located (within the wavelength), while the particle’s energy (associated with its momentum) gets larger and larger. In the limit, when the wavelength is zero, we know exactly where a particle is, but its energy is infinite. This is meaningless, indeed forbidden, in physicalist terms – but certainly not in mental monadic terms. In fact, this state, repeated across all photons, corresponds to none other than the Big Bang Singularity where infinite monads are precisely located, each with infinite energy. A wavelength of zero (maximum length contraction) corresponds to a particle having left spacetime and entered the dimensionless frequency domain. Alternatively, when a particle’s spacetime momentum is zero, its wavelength is infinite and we have no idea where it is. This corresponds to the maximally expanded spacetime universe (which has zero spacetime energy, i.e. all spacetime energy has in fact been converted into dimensionless frequency energy). As soon as you add dimensionless, infinite-energy monads into the mix (zero/infinity singularities), you see that Heisenberg’s principle has nothing at all to do with ontological uncertainty and is instead all about infinitely precise and certain monads. The “uncertainty” in Heisenberg’s principle arises from the fallacy of interpreting it purely in spacetime terms, instead of grounding it in monadic frequency singularities (minds). Once the correct ontology and epistemology is applied, Heisenberg’s principle becomes a fundamental relation between the mind and matter domains (spacetime and frequency). It’s the total opposite of an uncertainty relation! As ever, science gets the math right but the interpretation hideously wrong because it always applies the wrong ontology and epistemology, namely that of materialism and empiricism rather than idealism and rationalism (expressed through monadic mathematics). You can be absolutely certain that as soon as zero and infinity hove into view, science will commit a fundamental error of interpretation, exactly as in Heisenberg’s case. Heisenberg, Born and Bohr did nothing but systematically misinterpret quantum mechanics, and, in common with Einstein and his theory of relativity, have thus held back science for decades. Science can’t reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics because both theories have been hideously mangled and misinterpreted by

their leading proponents, making it impossible for scientists following in their tracks to make sense of these theories. Only ontological mathematics can rectify them. A wholly different ontology and epistemology must be applied, one that privileges mind over matter (the most unthinkable outcome for a scientific materialist!).

Matter Waves Louis de Broglie spoke of “matter waves.” There are no such things. There are only waves that have properties that can be interpreted, in a simplistic model, in material terms.

No Dualism There are no genuine dualisms. All of them fall foul of the classic Cartesian substance dualism problem of getting incompatible things to interact. A particle conceived in strictly materialist terms has zero in common with any wave, hence cannot possibly have a relationship with a wave (just as matter and mind can’t interact in Cartesian philosophy; and indeed this is exactly the same problem restated in different terms, i.e. waves and particles rather than mind and matter). Reality is a strict monism, and everything must be reduced to monistic terms. However, monism offers a critical dual aspect, and it’s this dualaspect monism that is all too frequently misinterpreted as a substance dualism. Matter and mind are not separate substances: matter is an aspect of mind. Likewise, waves and particles aren’t separate: particles are an aspect of waves. There is no authentic dualism. The fundamental dual-aspect monisms are these: Form and Content, signifier and signified, information carrier and information carried; noumenon and phenomenon, rationalism and empiricism. Where one is present, the other is always present too. Mind and matter, waves and particles are not dual-aspect monisms. You can get mind without matter, and waves without material particles. Matter is a derivative of mind, and material particles are derivatives of mental waves. Likewise, the dimensional derives from the dimensionless (zero and infinity).

Equivalence

“While Einstein was the first to have correctly deduced the mass-energy equivalence formula, he was not the first to have related energy with mass. But nearly all previous authors thought that the energy which contributes to mass comes only from electromagnetic fields. “Newton: matter and light: In 1717 Isaac Newton speculated that light particles and matter particles were inter-convertible in ‘Query 30’ of the Opticks, where he asks: ‘Are not the gross bodies and light convertible into one another, and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter their composition?’ [MH: Newton was absolutely right that light can be converted into ‘gross bodies’, and ‘enter into their composition.’] “Swedenborg: matter composed of ‘pure and total motion’ ... In 1734 the Swedish scientist and theologian Emanuel Swedenborg in his Principia theorized that all matter is ultimately composed of dimensionless points of ‘pure and total motion.’ He described this motion as being without force, direction or speed, but having the potential for force, direction and speed everywhere within it. [MH: This is a variation on Leibniz’s monads, but without the rational integrity of Leibniz’s system.]” – Wikipedia

The Inconsistency “...our best theory of the very big, i.e. Einstein’s general relativity, is inconsistent with our best theory of the very small, i.e. quantum mechanics. But many look forward to the day when physicists will resolve these niggling issues and present the public with the Holy Grail of science: a Grand Unified Theory of Everything.” – Philip Goff No such theory will ever be forthcoming. The entity that is required to unify the two recalcitrant theories is an absolute, eternal, necessary, immaterial, frequency Singularity outside space and time, and since this Singularity is anathema to science (because it’s permanently beyond the experimental method that defines science), science will always avoid the only thing that can solve its problem. Like any religion, it’s hoist with its own petard – its fanatical ideology and dogmatism. Science will go on making Feynman guesses until Doomsday. It doesn’t know any other way. It’s the ultimate one-trick pony. Its worship of the senses prevents it from ever turning to logic, reason and the intellect. Anyone who believes in a sensible rather than intelligible reality – as all scientists do – can never rationally solve the problem of rational existence.

That is a simple, indisputable fact. It’s only because science is so philosophically illiterate that it doesn’t understand this. Scientists – as philosophical ignoramuses – don’t know what character a putative “final” theory must have. Such a theory must be in no need of experimental verification, and invulnerable to experimental falsification, hence can form no part of science, which is all about verification and falsification! Math, and only math, has exactly the qualities required for a final theory of everything.

Kant Kant argued that the thing-in-itself necessarily exists but cannot be known; that human knowledge is restricted to appearances only. This, in many ways, is an anti-knowledge stance, or one where “knowledge” is fundamentally tied to the human condition and the human senses. Science takes a similar position, basing everything on what human beings can observe, and regarding everything else as non-existent. In fact, true knowledge can have no connection whatsoever with the human race, the human condition and the human senses. True knowledge existed before any human existed, and will continue to exist after the last human has died. Any reference at all to the human perspective and the human senses is irrelevant to true knowledge, i.e. empiricism is absurd from the get-go in serious epistemological terms. What is the only subject that provides knowledge that transcends the human condition? – mathematics. Mathematics is eternally and necessarily true. Only math constitutes real knowledge of existence. Everything else is human belief, delusion, fantasy, Mythos, opinion, conjecture, hypothesis, and interpretation. Humanity has proved itself adept in everything that has nothing to do with knowledge, and utterly hopeless at acquiring knowledge itself. So it goes.

***** Reality consists of the self-in-itself and the thing-in-itself. The self-in-itself is the thinking agent; the thing-in-itself is an individual sinusoidal wave, or a group of sinusoidal waves. A self-in-itself comprises a complete and consistent set of things-in-themselves, capable of generating thinking, and ultimately of reflecting on that thinking. There are only two things: subjective minds and objects for subjective minds to consider. The minds confer an appearance on the things-in-

themselves, thus producing phenomena. Science studies phenomena and calls them reality. It wholly ignores selves-in-themselves and things-inthemselves. We can never perceive anything in itself, i.e. as not representation, and, since science only deals with representations, it can tell us zero about what is actually being represented. A self-in-itself or a thing-in-itself does not have any representational form, so cannot be “known” in terms of any undertaking that addresses only representations. For Kant, only that which can be represented can be known. This, in fact, is human interpretation, not knowledge. As Nietzsche said so devastatingly, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” This wipes out Kant’s philosophy, and science. Actually, there are “facts”, but they are strictly eternal, necessary, analytic, mathematical facts. Only these constitute infallible, absolute, true knowledge. Consciousness is preoccupied with representation. Only when it turns to non-representational reason and logic can it start to discern the world of necessary selves and things in themselves. All empirical representations take their material from sources supposed to be external to them. This, to people such as Kant, automatically implies a material world external to mind. In fact, it merely implies the existence of real things, both inside and outside a monadic mind. These real things are in fact always analytic sinusoids (and can be nothing else). Any sinusoid that does not belong to a particular monadic mind belongs to some other monadic mind. Nothing at all exists outside the collection of all monadic minds, and their constituent sinusoids. There’s no material or noumenal world independent of mind. Consciousness itself is a representation within a subject of things-in-themselves. Consciousness is all about representation, hence, if we want to access the unrepresented truth, we must transcend our human consciousness, or direct consciousness exclusively towards non-representational reason, logic and math. We have no need of science or religion.

The Zombie Problem “When there’s no room in Hell, the dead will walk the earth.” – Dawn of the Dead

“Physicalism is a grand and ambitious project, but there is a thorn in its side: consciousness. The qualities each of us encounters in our conscious experience – the feeling of pain, the sensations of biting into a lemon, what it’s like to see red – stubbornly refuse to be incorporated into the physicalists’ all-encompassing vision of the universe. Consciousness seems to be the one bit of left-over magic that refuses to be physicalised. And it’s all the fault of the zombies. ... “In philosophy of mind, ‘zombie’ is a technical term for a rather specific kind of creature that features large in philosophical thought experiments. A philosophical zombie ... is an exact physical duplicate of a human being that lacks consciousness. A philosophical zombie version of you would walk and talk and in general act just like you. ... and the reason it behaves just like you is that the physical workings of its brain are indiscernible from the physical workings of your own brain. If a brain scientist cut open the heads of you and your zombie twin and poked around inside, she would not be able to tell the two apart. However, your zombie twin has no inner experience... Your zombie twin is just a complex automaton mechanically set up to behave just like you. The lights are on but nobody’s at home. “It seems that if we want the physical sciences to account for consciousness, then we’re going to have to identify states of conscious experience – the feeling of pain, the experience of biting into a lemon – with brain states. ... The trouble is that it follows from the logic of identity that if philosophical zombies are possible, conscious states cannot be identified with brain states. “We can break down this zombie argument against physicalism as follows: 1) Philosophical zombies are possible. 2) Therefore, human brain states could possibly exist without human conscious states. 3) Therefore, human brain states cannot be identical with human conscious states. 4) For physicalism to be true, human brain states must be identical with human conscious states. 5) Therefore, physicalism is false.” – Philip Goff, Philosophy Now

In fact, the whole “zombie” argument presented in philosophy is ridiculous. It’s entirely trumped by the “ghost in the machine” argument. Imagine a human being as a machine with a “ghost” (soul) in it. Now imagine a human being as a machine with no “ghost” (soul) in it. The second entity is a pure machine (an entirely physicalist “thing”), while the first is a machine controlled by a vital, immaterial, animating, life-giving factor wholly outside the physicalist paradigm. In our scenario, the key issue is physical human only (i.e. machine) versus physical human with non-physical component (“ghost in the machine”). In the zombie scenario, the key issue is physical human (zombie) versus physical human with non-physical internal experiences (non-zombie). This second scenario is actually all about hylozoism, or a certain type of panpsychism. In hylozoistic terms, we would say that the human zombie is made of dead matter (non-living matter), while the “real” human being is made of living matter, which comes equipped with living, mental states (something wholly lacking in the zombies). In other words, what is at issue here is the nature of matter. Is it dead or alive? In panpsychist terms, we would say that the human zombie is made of mindless matter, while the “real” human being is made of minded matter, which comes equipped with living, mental states (something wholly lacking in the zombies). What is at issue in this case is whether or not matter has mental properties. The zombie debate reduces to a debate over the nature of matter. Three types of matter are contemplated (naturally, given philosophy’s subordination to science, there’s absolutely no reference to any immaterial mind or soul): 1) Dead matter (scientific materialism). 2) Living matter (hylozoism). 3) Minded matter (panpsychism). Scientific materialism makes the claim that life and mind can miraculously “emerge” from inherently lifeless, mindless atoms. Given this fact, there’s no “zombie problem” in scientific materialism because any human being, simply by virtue of being human, will automatically have mental states (which have “emerged”), corresponding to brain states, and these mental

states will constitute “consciousness”. In other words, scientific materialism can, within its own terms, simply deny that philosophical zombies are logically possible, hence the whole zombie argument automatically fails, i.e. science can assert that you can’t get brain states that aren’t associated with inner mental experiences, and that this happens through emergence and nothing else (especially nothing immaterial). Physicalism, in this view, is true because human brain states must be identical with human conscious states. What physicalism can do is appeal to the miracle of “emergence” to account for anything at all that seems inconsistent with physicalism. To prevent this, the doctrine of emergence – the notion of properties arising from entities in which they have no precedent – has to be completely ruled out. As any ancient Greek philosopher would have told you, emergence breaches the fundamental rule concerning the impossibility of getting something from nothing: life can never come from non-life, and mind can never come from non-mind. Emergence shows how easy it is for scientists to interpret reality how ever they please to maintain their belief system. They can appeal to magic (emergence) to add any ingredient at all to their physicalist model. Emergence is the exact means by which physicalism dishonestly and invalidly lays claim to non-physicalist properties. Philosophically, emergence is physicalism’s deus ex machina that it magically summons to explain anything said to be incompatible with physicalism. In truth, emergence formally refutes physicalism because it relates to factors that can have no possible existence within the physicalist model. It’s the cheapest and most fraudulent of tricks for physicalists to use the doctrine of emergence to save them from the inescapable consequences of physicalism. The hylozoists and panpsychists, on the other hand, seek to confer an inherent property on matter that’s absent from the physicalist (scientific materialist) account of matter. Yet this is to spectacularly miss the point of scientific materialism. Scientific materialism claims that lifeless, mindless matter can be alive and minded when organised appropriately, i.e. scientific materialism spikes the cannons of its opponents by arguing that matter – which is inherently dead – can behave hylozoistically or panpsychically in certain circumstances (namely, when the atoms are arranged into bodies that are considered “alive”, such as the human body). There’s absolutely nothing hylozoists or panpsychists can do to refute this position.

When all the philosophical sophistry and verbiage is cut through, all that remains is that scientific materialists claim that life and mind emerge from lifeless, mindless things, whereas the hylozoists claim that matter is inherently alive, and the panpsychists that matter inherently has mental properties. The zombie argument doesn’t shed any light whatsoever on who’s right since a genuine philosophical zombie is absolutely impossible. After all, in anyone’s book, there’s no such thing as a purely physical creature with no mental experiences. The zombie is proposed to be logically possible in relation to physicalism, but emergence is the physicalists’ escape route from this proposition, rendering zombies logically impossible within physicalism. So, as we see, the issue actually has nothing to do with “zombies”. The issue is all about emergence. If you put lifeless, mindless atoms together in a certain way, can life and mind magically emerge? If not, physicalism cannot account for mind and life. If mind and life are already factored into matter then this problem does not arise in the first place. However, science would then be committed to the position that atoms are alive and have minds ... and there’s absolutely nothing in science that supports any such notion. Within the prevailing paradigm of scientism, no such factor can be included in any scientific formula, and no scientific experiment can detect any such property. Moreover, with the alternative view (of hylozoism/panpsychism), we get into the old philosophical arguments regarding parallelism and interaction, i.e. if atoms are alive and have minds, do their mental states have causal power, or are they merely epiphenomenal; or do mental states run in parallel with physical states and somehow have their own mental causality that has nothing to do with their physical causality; or do mental states and physical states somehow interact? If so, how? We are right back to Cartesian substance dualism and the classic mind-matter interactivity problem. The “zombie” problem has simply dressed up age-old problems of philosophy in a new garb, but made zero substantive progress in resolving any of them. Where scientific materialists rightly deny the possibility of philosophical zombies (there’s no part of the zombie argument that dents scientific materialism at all if you agree that life and mind are emergent rather than inherent properties of matter), proponents of philosophical zombies refuse to take the step that would genuinely change the whole game, i.e. to acknowledge that there’s a soul completely outside the

physicalist paradigm, and it is in fact this soul that has inner mental experiences. Mind is in an ontologically separate compartment from matter, yet can interact with it via Fourier mathematics, which ontologically is all about the interaction of two distinct domains: the mental domain of frequency and the material domain of spacetime. Matter never has mental states ... only the soul does. Matter is produced by mind, but is not mind per se, hence does not have mental experiences. The zombie debate is an intellectual disgrace because it wholly ignores both Cartesian and Fourier dualism. The “zombie” philosophers are really just scientific materialists who don’t understand science. Rather than accept the materialist doctrine of emergence, they are seeking to add new states to matter, i.e. to make matter fundamentally alive and minded. Their real issue is with emergence, and that should be their philosophical target. “Zombies” are irrelevant, and are in fact totally impossible if you grant the reality of emergence. How can any philosopher dent the doctrine of emergence given that no one can define what emergence is? It’s pure magic. It allows scientific materialists to miraculously summon life and mind into existence from nonmind and non-life (albeit epiphenomenally). Yet, to make atoms themselves alive and minded, is to trigger all of the age-old problems of philosophy concerning parallelism versus interactivity, hence to call for a fundamental, yet entirely undefined and inexplicable, change to the nature of science as it currently exists. All of this can be avoided simply be embracing ontological mathematics, where minds exist in one domain (the Fourier frequency domain) and matter in another (the Fourier spacetime domain). No matter in space and time has to be alive and minded, as the “zombie” advocates propose. Spacetime matter is derived from living monadic minds, but is not itself living and alive in any meaningful sense, which is exactly why when the monadic mind breaks its link with the body (at death), all the atoms go their separate ways ... the body turns to dust. Given hylozoism or panpsychism, as conceived by the zombie proponents, it’s impossible to understand how death occurs at all. We should all be immortal if our atoms are fundamentally alive! The main advocate of the zombie argument is philosopher David Chalmers. Wikipedia says of his views:

“... Chalmers is famous for his commitment to the logical (though, importantly, not natural) possibility of philosophical zombies, although he was not the first to propose the thought experiment. These zombies, unlike the zombie of popular fiction, are complete physical duplicates of human beings, lacking only qualitative experience. Chalmers argues that since such zombies are conceivable to us, they must therefore be logically possible. Since they are logically possible, then qualia and sentience are not fully explained by physical properties alone. Instead, Chalmers argues that consciousness is a fundamental property ontologically autonomous of any known (or even possible) physical properties, and that there may be lawlike rules which he terms ‘psychophysical laws’ that determine which physical systems are associated with which types of qualia. He further speculates that all information-bearing systems may be conscious, leading him to entertain the possibility of conscious thermostats and a qualified panpsychism he calls panprotopsychism. Chalmers maintains a formal agnosticism on the issue, even conceding that the viability of panpsychism places him at odds with the majority of his contemporaries. ... And indeed, the fact that Chalmers concludes we have epiphenomenal mental states that don’t cause our physical behaviour seems one reason to reject his principle. ... “Chalmers argues that all forms of physicalism (whether reductive or non-reductive) that have dominated modern philosophy and science fail to account for the existence (that is, presence in reality) of consciousness itself. He proposes an alternative dualistic view he calls naturalistic dualism (but which might also be characterized by more traditional formulations such as property dualism, neutral monism, or double-aspect theory). ... “Chalmers is best known for his formulation of the notion of a hard problem of consciousness in both his 1996 book and in the 1995 paper ‘Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness’. He makes a distinction between ‘easy’ problems of consciousness, such as explaining object discrimination or verbal reports, and the single hard problem, which could be stated ‘why does the feeling which accompanies awareness of sensory information exist at all?’ The essential difference between the (cognitive) easy problems and the (phenomenal) hard problem is that the former are at least theoretically answerable via the standard strategy in philosophy of mind: functionalism. Chalmers argues for an ‘explanatory gap’ from the objective to the subjective, and criticizes physical explanations of mental

experience, making him a dualist. Chalmers characterizes his view as ‘naturalistic dualism’: naturalistic because he believes mental states are caused by physical systems (such as brains); dualist because he believes mental states are ontologically distinct from and not reducible to physical systems.” – Wikipedia Chalmers’ position is ridiculous. He hasn’t even addressed Panpsychism 101 ... exactly where is the mind? There are in fact two versions of panpsychism: 1) Minds exist outside space and time, and spacetime matter is a well-founded phenomenon they generate. This is Leibniz’s classical panpsychist, idealist position. 2) Nothing exists outside spacetime matter; minds are properties of material things in spacetime. This is Chalmers’ anti-Leibnizian version of panpsychism. Chalmers, instead of arguing that life and mind miraculously emerge from lifeless and mindless matter, insists that life and mind are somehow built into matter. He’s thus a scientific panpsychist materialist. At no time does he conclude that matter is actually derived from mind. He’s simply a materialist who believes that one of the properties of matter is some form of consciousness ... an utterly preposterous stance. Anyone who thinks that thermostats are teleological, living entities with mental experiences is bonkers! It all comes down to the collective spacetime domain versus individual frequency domains (i.e. singularities = minds) outside space and time. Illuminism locates mind in the dimensionless frequency domain. Chalmers locates it in the dimensional domain of spacetime and matter. However, this simply makes it part of the material world, hence a pointless epiphenomenon with no causal efficacy. Hylozoists locate life in the spacetime material world; we locate it in the frequency world. Panpsychists of Chalmers’ ilk make mind part of matter; we make it separate from matter (in the sense that it’s not in the spacetime world of matter at all), and yet (by Fourier mathematics) is the authentic source of matter. These are radically different ontological stances. As for scientific materialists, they make life and mind miraculous emergent properties of lifeless, mindless atoms when they are organised in

specific ways. Where scientists attribute mind and life to contingent arrangements of atoms (i.e. mind and life are products and properties of the organisation of matter, and not if matter itself), Chalmers inserts life/mind directly into matter, but has no means to demonstrate how this is scientifically or mathematically possible, and mind/life in any case ends up, by his own admission, being an empty epiphenomenon. Given Chalmers’ views, we might as well be zombies! For Chalmers, the only difference between a real human being and a philosophical zombie is that the former pointlessly experiences existence, while the latter does all of the same things, but without the internal experience of it. A zombie is a machine that experiences nothing. A human being is elevated above the zombie by having a ghost in the machine. It’s this ghost (soul) that experiences life, not the body. Moreover, the ghost is a teleological entity with subjective agency (free will). It’s not a scientific materialist entity at all. Chalmers, like all materialists, fundamentally rejects the possibility that anything immaterial can exist. People such as Chalmers are effectively arguing that consciousness is something physical, and inherently belongs to the spacetime world of matter. This is totally false. Given Chalmers’ stance, life and mind must be contingent, temporal phenomena that came into existence when the Big Bang miraculously occurred, and had no existence prior to that. In ontological mathematics, life and mind are eternal, necessary properties of existence. It’s a living, mental, mathematical Singularity that generates the Big Bang Universe. You couldn’t get a greater difference between these two views. Ontological mathematics supports the eternal conservation of life and mind energy. Chalmers’ view does not. His system formally violates the conservation of life and mind.

***** Chalmers makes consciousness an unquantifiable, unscientific, unmathematical “hidden variable” of matter (something that no scientist would ever accept), yet gives it absolutely no causal agency, thus rendering it pointless and meaningless. It’s remarkable that anyone would put so much effort into creating a system that simply makes us zombies that have experiences rather than zombies that don’t!

The only real way to save us from being zombie machines without free will is to appeal to ghosts ... mathematical ghosts (monads). Dimensionless, immaterial monads – autonomous Fourier frequency singularities – are the only way to escape the machine world. There’s no immortal soul in Chalmers’ world. In fact, his view is close to Buddhism, with all of its bizarre philosophical issues. In ontological mathematics, you are mathematically guaranteed to live forever, and to become God countless times during your immortal life. What’s not to like? The lives of zombies lack meaning. They are mere machines. Only ghosts can have lives full of meaning and purpose. So, what do you want to be: a zombie or a ghost? Zombies are Last Men. Ghosts are Supermen ... who will become Gods!

***** “What are they?” “They’re us.” – Dawn of the Dead No, zombies are not us. We have souls, while machines and zombies are soulless: there’s no ghost in the machine. We, however, are ghosts and that means we have immortal, indestructible souls. If atoms are dead, machines and zombies are dead too, or display the emergent property of “undeath”. Only ghosts are alive.

Room in Hell? Since “hell” is a zero/infinity domain, there’s always room in hell. To argue otherwise is to subject hell to physicalist criteria, thus making it a physical place.

Faith in the Scientific Method “If you see something, it’s real. If it can’t be seen or measured, it doesn’t exist.” – internet science meme Mathematics – in itself – can’t be seen or measured by science. Does that mean it doesn’t exist? Yet science without math is useless. So much for scientific “logic”! According to the meme, the mind – which can’t be seen

or measured – doesn’t exist. Yet it was a mind that devised the meme! Sheeeez!

The Barrier To Progress “The history of science shows that the progress of science has constantly been hampered by the tyrannical influence of certain conceptions that finally came to be considered as dogma. For this reason, it is proper to submit periodically to a very searching examination, principles that we have come to assume without any more discussion.” – Louis de Broglie Science refuses to perform any such searching examination of itself. It refuses to question and challenge its own key assumptions. It refuses to debate its Meta Paradigm of empiricism and materialism. It refuses because all of this would invite critical philosophers into science, and that’s the last thing scientists want. They are anti-intellectuals who are scared to get into a philosophical defence of science. They know they are incapable of it, so they simply avoid it. And then they have the cheek to sneer at religious leaders for equally avoiding any debate. New ideas in science are never tested philosophically, in terms of reason, logic, analysis, mathematics, completeness and consistency. The only test they are required to pass is apparent agreement with experimental results. However, as the multiple different interpretations of quantum mechanics demonstrate, theories that have entirely different ontologies and epistemologies – i.e. they totally contradict each other – can all agree experimentally. Experimental results are thus utterly hopeless as a criterion of rational truth. While they can falsify theories that disagree with them, they cannot falsify totally contradictory theories that do not disagree with them. Science has never faced up to this ... the inherent logical inadequacy of the method that defines it.

***** “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” – Niels Bohr Science is now entirely predicated on scientists regarding insane theories as correct theories! Craziness, it seems, is to be regarded as an essential property of scientific theories. No scientist ever stops to consider that perhaps lunatic claims are exactly that – lunatic.

Einstein said, “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Sadly, science now thinks insanity is indispensable!

Mumbo Jumbo We are totally against New Age gibberish. Unless you can bolster a New Age speculation with convincing science, math or metaphysical arguments, you should instantly drop it because you’re literally talking crap. We don’t want fans of ridiculous New Age speculation (pure Mythos) taking any interest in our Logos work. It’s an insult to our intelligence.

Sensible or Intelligible? Can you observe the answer to existence? Is the answer to existence a sensible thing? Do our senses give us access to it? Can you see it, touch it, smell it, taste it or hear it? If not, then can you understand the answer to existence? Is it an intelligible thing? Do our reason and logic give us access to it? It’s one or the other. The answer to existence is either intelligible or sensible. It definitely isn’t both! Irrationalists – such as scientists – require reality to be sensible. Rationalists – such as Pythagoras, Plato, Descartes and Leibniz – require reality to be intelligible. If you can write down the answer to existence as a mathematical formula, the answer is intelligible. If you cannot, the answer is unintelligible. There are no conceivable circumstances in which you can observe the answer to existence. The answer is not a material thing in space and time. Of one thing we can be 100% certain, science’s much-vaunted experimental method is 100% useless in revealing the secrets of an inherently non-sensory answer to existence! To be confronted by “God” is not to be confronted by the answer to existence. You would immediately have to ask, “Is this God? How can I tell? Where did he come from? How is ‘God’ possible in the first place? What is the sufficient reason for God?” In other words, all of the fundamental questions are still there. Nothing has been answered. God, as any kind of sensory and experiential thing, is no answer at all. God, as pure, eternal, necessary, non-sensory math, is the answer.

*****

Science hopes to find truth by observation, but this already presupposes that truth is material rather than mental given that we can observe the former and not the latter. As soon as you demand sensory evidence for any claim, all you have done is prove that you are a sensing type and materialist, nothing more. Reason can’t be observed, logic can’t be observed, ontological mathematics can’t be observed, reality in itself can’t be observed, the existential state prior to the Big Bang can’t be observed, minds can’t be observed, thoughts can’t be observed, life in itself can’t be observed, the passage of life to death can’t be observed, the afterlife can’t be observed, meaning and purpose can’t be observed. In other words, science is an incredibly narrow, stunted, limited conception of reality. No one is ever going to find the answer to existence via observations and scientific experiments. That’s a fact. The Truth is emphatically not sensory, not evidential, and not experimental, so science is totally blown out of the water. No sane person would ever look to science to explain why we exist.

Explaining Reality In the past, religion, philosophy, and mythology were all preferred to science as ways of explaining reality. Nowadays, science is humanity’s goto subject for acquiring “knowledge”, yet there’s an enormous fraud going on. Science claims to be all about detailed observations and experiments, but alchemy was all about detailed observations and experiments too, and no one today would regard alchemy as any different from religion, philosophy and mythology. So, if it isn’t in fact observations and experiments that give science its power, what is it? It’s math of course. Yet here we encounter a huge problem. Math is regarded as an empty, unreal abstraction, which immediately raises the issue of how it can have any relevance at all to reality if reality isn’t mathematical. Why does science ally math to observation and experimentation when math is pure rationalism and has nothing whatsoever to do with empiricism? Science has never once attempted to explain what math is and what it’s doing at the heart of science, and why it transforms science from alchemy into the powerful subject we have today. The presence of math at the core of science raises an even more fundamental issue ... why don’t we just forget science and turn to pure math

... why don’t we ignore the monkey and go straight to the organ grinder? What, exactly, is “science” bringing to the party? Science, in fact, offers only one thing ... observed patterns in nature. Math is then used to create a formula to reproduce each observed pattern, and, once this is done, we then have a means of bringing all similar phenomena under one mathematical generalisation. This process has proved fantastically productive, but, by definition, it can’t tell us anything at all about unobservable (noumenal) patterns. If reality contains unobservable patterns – such as that of the soul or God – then science can say nothing about it. But math can! There are endless patterns that mathematics can address that have no counterpart in observable, material nature. This immediately raises the issue of why the human race should stake everything on scientific observability, and disregard all mathematical unobservables. This is a philosophical and metaphysical issue, but science never enters into this debate since it contemptuously rejects philosophy and metaphysics. Science is predicated on observations and experiments, and it proceeds to make the insane claim that only observations and experiments are real, and anything else is non-existent or pure fantasy. Mathematics itself – which is unobservable and non-experimental – is thus regarded as unreal by science, which then begs of the question of what right science has to use it in the first place. How can the use of math be valid within science? Science totally ignores this fundamental question. Ontological mathematics does the opposite of science. It rejects observations and experiments and stakes everything on reason and logic. It thus has no catastrophic contradiction to explain. Ontological mathematics tells us that reason and logic, not the human senses and observations, take us to the heart of reality. This is an intelligible universe, upon which we impose a sensible appearance. It’s not a sensible universe that we render intelligible. Since sensible things are highly interpretive, they are not inherently intelligible things. Anything that is intelligible, however, can be given an appearance provided it has some aspect that lends itself to that process. In ontological mathematics, everything is made of analytic sinusoids, but each sinusoid has both a rational form and an empirical content. It’s this empirical aspect that’s the basis of math having a sensory appearance.

***** Scientists like to refer to anything they don’t like as “pseudoscience”. In fact, science itself is pseudomathematics. It’s a cranky, dubious misapplication and misinterpretation of math, and all of its absurd claims concerning the ultimate nature of reality flow from the way it mangles and distorts pure math.

***** What’s truly bizarre about science is that it regards itself as a rational and logical undertaking, yet it opposes rationalism (by supporting empiricism), and relies on no logical principles whatsoever. Any logic and reason that feature in science don’t come from science itself, but are dishonestly and illegitimately imported from math! Scientists, in short, are philosophical ignoramuses who have no idea what they’re doing. Simply by matching mathematical formulae to observed patterns in nature, they have stumbled upon an extremely useful way to gain some insights into the way that math shapes, defines and controls reality. Yet they haven’t twigged that the mathematical formulae they have chanced upon must reflect an ultimate pattern defined by a single, all-powerful mathematical formula. What this cosmic master formula is can be established rationally and logically. However, no amount of observed patterns could ever tell us what it is since an infinite number of patterns are possible. Induction can never lead is to the Truth. Only deduction can. “A common thread unifying non-scientific theories of the world is the reliance upon unseen (i.e., unmeasurable by any known instrumentation) forces to form their explanations. There being no objective means by which to quantify or qualify these unknown variables, there can be no independent test of their validity, and there is also no consistency of experience among practitioners. Theological arguments such as the existence and nature of God are beyond the scope of evaluation by science because the subject transcends the natural world and is not testable by any empirical means. Science cannot develop means of either verifying or falsifying this religious construct. ... Science hopes to find truth by observation. Those things that cannot be measured cannot be evaluated by science, and are irrelevant to it.” – Pamela Irvin Lazorko

All claims can be proved or disproved rationally and logically – by means of establishing whether they are compatible with complete and consistent mathematics. Supposedly verified scientific claims can themselves be rationally and logically disproved, as we have shown throughout the God Series. Science is a dubious philosophy (empiricism) that doesn’t realise it’s a dubious philosophy and imagines itself something entirely different ... a rational and logical, evidence-based method of acquiring authentic knowledge. In fact, it’s nothing but the systematic philosophical misinterpretation of mathematics. The only real knowledge produced by science is its mathematical component. All the rest is nonsense!

The Female Conundrum “Most men aren’t smart enough to realize that the higher you elevate your woman, the less available she is for other men.” – Reyna Biddy You might think this would be true. However, the extremely successful tactic of “Treat them mean, keep them keen” totally contradicts it! That’s human nature for you. Many women love to be treated like shit, and love those who walk all over them. They have no respect for those that don’t. That’s why women love “bad boys”. No woman gets crazy about a “nice” boy.

The Extreme Brain The autistic brain is the extreme sensory brain. The schizophrenic brain is the extreme non-sensory (intuitive) brain. Scientists are on the autistic spectrum. Mathematicians – depending on what type of math they specialize in – are on either the autistic or schizophrenic spectrum. Everyone’s on one spectrum or another!

Naturalism “W. V. O. Quine famously advocated what has come to be known as the ‘naturalistic turn’ for philosophy as a discipline , meaning that philosophical thought should become continuous with the natural sciences.” – Massimo Pigliucci Philosophy must in fact become continuous with mathematical reason and logic, not with scientific materialism and empiricism. Science without math

is useless. Math without science comes into its own! Every problem of modern philosophy stems from a) an inability to understand the ontology of mathematics, and b) instinctively looking to scientific materialism for “knowledge”. Philosophy is now largely in science’s pocket. Philosophy ought to be about the ramifications of ontological mathematics. Just as science must be swept away, so must contemporary philosophy, which is largely irrational junk derived from science. “I really can’t recall going to a session of the American Philosophical Association, or listening to a colloquium in my own department, and hearing any non-naturalistic take on any philosophical issue whatsoever.” – Massimo Pigliucci What does this prove? Merely that the Church of Philosophy is just another Church full of ideology, dogmatism, groupthinkers and mass conformism. No one who failed to reflect “naturalism” would get a job in a philosophical department, just as no scientist who did not agree with materialism and empiricism would ever be employed in a science department. Philosophy and science deny funding to anyone who does not agree with their established, dogmatic naturalism. Philosophy and science are now hideously smug, conformist, anti-intellectual subjects, hostile to all freethinkers, heretics, blasphemers and infidels. The Russian writer Zamyatin said, “True literature can exist only where it is created, not by diligent and trustworthy functionaries, but by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels, and skeptics.” Exactly the same is true of philosophy, science and mathematics, yet all of these are now ferociously bureaucratic enterprises run by dull, diligent functionaries with no imagination, who sit in front of departmental budget spreadsheets all day long and have never had a genuinely intellectual thought in their lives. “It was interesting to see so many people who all subscribe to the same basic philosophical view of the universe, and who all agree that science (be it physics, biology, neuroscience, anthropology or systems theory) is crucial for any progress in understanding...” – Massimo Pigliucci This represents the death of thought! It’s essential that all drudges, drones, functionaries, apparatchiks, bureaucrats, conformists and groupthinkers be driven out of the intellectual world. We need radicals, rebels, heretics, freethinkers, skeptics, madmen and dreamers.

Humanity was once subject to crushing religious conformism. Now it’s subject to crushing scientific and philosophical conformism. Virtually no philosopher stands up to science. One of the primary means of enforcing groupthink and mindless conformism is “peer review”, which should actually be called “dissident rejection”. The God Series itself is the greatest source of freethinking and intellectual rebellion and heresy in the world. Only dissidents are attracted to our cause. Conformists and groupthinkers despise us and rail against us.

The Digital Soul Camera “I have begun to contemplate how a soul camera would work, since I finally have the conceptual ‘big picture’ view of ontological mathematics. I never actually considered the possibility of a soul camera made of some type of ‘natural spiritual substances’, but the first idea to come to mind for me was a digital soul camera. Here are my conclusions: “The idea of a digital soul camera wouldn’t require much innovation in terms of materials, but where I found the stumbling block is in two things: the need for a proper, six-dimensional physics; and the need for a catalogue of space-time frequencies correlated to thoughts in order to better interpret the ‘soul picture’. Plotinus said that the body resides in the soul, so in a sense a body is actually a subset of the soul. [MH: All bodies reside in the Collective Soul (Psyche), not the individual soul (psyche). An individual soul (psyche) is a single monad. An individual soul ‘maps’ to the body; it doesn’t have a body ‘resident’ within it. The individual monadic soul must be clearly distinguished from the Collective Monadic Soul, comprising all monads. ‘Real’ bodies are in (or emanate from) the Collective Soul (which is what makes them objective); the ‘virtual’ bodies we generate in our private dreams are in the individual soul (which is what makes them subjective). The logic of Plotinus’ position is that all bodies are contained within the higher, collective Psyche, and a lower, individual psyche then links to a particular body; this is quite similar to the formal Illuminist view. Plotinus said, ‘And soul’s nature is so great, just because it has no size, as to contain the whole of body in one and the same grasp; wherever body extends, there soul is.’ What this means is that a soul can completely map to a body, hence control all of it. It doesn’t mean that a body is literally contained within an

individual soul. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, ‘[For Plotinus] the human person is essentially a soul employing a body as an instrument of its temporary embodied life. Thus, Plotinus distinguishes between the person and the composite of soul and body. That person is identical with a cognitive agent or subject of cognitive states. An embodied person is, therefore, a conflicted entity, capable both of thought and of being the subject of the composite’s non-cognitive states, such as appetites and emotions.’ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, ‘What Plotinus calls the “living being” (zoon) is what we would refer to, roughly, as the human-being, or the individual possessed of a distinct personality. This being is the product of the union of the lower or active part of the soul with a corporeal body, which is in turn presided over by the Higher Soul, in its capacity as reasoning power, imparted to all individual souls through their ceaseless contemplation of their source. The “living being,” then, may be understood as a dual nature comprising a lower or physically receptive part, which is responsible for transferring to the perceptive faculty the sensations produced in the lower or ‘irrational’ part of the soul through its contact with matter (the body), and a higher or ‘rational’ part which perceives these sensations and passes judgment on them, as it were, thereby producing that lower form of knowledge called episteme in Greek, that is contrasted with the higher knowledge, gnosis, which is the sole possession of the Higher Soul. Plotinus also refers to this dual nature as the “We” (emeis), for although the individual souls are in a sense divided and differentiated through their prismatic fragmentation, they remain in contact by virtue of their communal contemplation of their prior – this is the source of their unity. One must keep in mind, however, that the individual souls and the Higher Soul are not two separate orders or types of soul, nor is the “living being” a third entity derived from them. These terms are employed by Plotinus for the sole purpose of making clear the various aspects of the Soul’s governing action, which is the final stage of emanation proceeding from the Intelligence’s contemplation of the power of the One.’ Plotinus said, ‘We may treat of the Soul as in the body – whether it be set above it or actually within it – since the association of the two constitutes the one thing called the living organism, the Animate. Now

from this relation, from the Soul using the body as an instrument, it does not follow that the Soul must share the body’s experiences: a man does not himself feel all the experiences of the tools with which he is working.’ In fact, bodies participate in material interactions; they do not have ‘experiences’.] “To take a picture of the body with a camera that’s programmed to interpret its optics in a six-dimensional fashion would mean that you are also taking a picture of the soul. One would get a frequency domain decomposition of the body, and then comes the tricky part: interpretation. Of course, taking pictures of many bodies would give us the ability to discriminate which frequencies in the photograph belong to the body, and then they can be filtered out. Taking pictures of many different people with various emotions would give us the ability to see the frequencies associated with those emotions, and it could be done both with a body language and facial expression picture and one where the subjects being photographed express no such bodily characteristics. “Then, the emotions can be filtered out, and the same can be applied for thoughts. Finally, like stripping away layers of an onion, I’d imagine that we would be left with a highly asymmetric signal of very high frequency carried over a very, very low frequency: this would be the fingerprint of the soul. Learning how to analyze and interpret these signals could be done by the same means as above, but now this would give us the ability to see into very probable past lives, personal habits, ways of approaching the world, etc. But there’s a catch: the soul is a self-modulating signal and the camera takes only a sample of the signal for some period of time. Studying the nature of that self-modulation and how it evolves over time and changes might give one insight as to the direction and speed of evolution of one’s entelechy, and how close one is to reaching godhood. “Might I be close to the Illuminati’s conception of this device?” – P P has made a plausible proposal. Can you do any better? Let’s apply the wisdom of the crowd to the task ... the very intelligent crowd, of course!

***** “If body did not exist, it would make no difference to soul as regards size; for it is what it is. The universe extends as far as soul goes; its limit of extension is the point to which in going forth it has soul to keep it in being.

The shadow is as large as the rational formative principle which comes from soul; and the formative principle is of such a kind as to make a size as large as the form from which it derives wants to make.” – Plotinus

The Hegelian Universe “Reason [God] is substance, and infinite power; its own infinite material underlying all the natural and spiritual life which it originates; and the infinite form – that which sets this material in motion.” – Hegel “What God creates he himself is … God is the manifestation of his own self.” – Hegel “God is … the absolutely true, that from which everything proceeds and into which everything returns, that upon which everything is dependent and apart from which nothing else has absolute, true independence.” – Hegel “Whatever subsists has its root and subsistence only in this One … God is the absolute substance, the only true actuality … All through his development God does not step outside his unity with himself.” – Hegel “The only Thought which Philosophy brings with it to the contemplation of History, is the simple conception of Reason; that Reason is the Sovereign of the World; that the history of the world therefore, presents us with a rational process. This conviction and intuition is a hypothesis in the domain of history as such. In that of Philosophy it is no hypothesis. It is there proved by speculative cognition, that Reason – and this term may here suffice us, without investigating the relation sustained by the Universe to the Divine Being, – is Substance, as well as Infinite Power; its own Infinite Material underlying all the natural and spiritual life which it originates, as also the Infinite Form, – that which sets this Material in motion. On the one hand, Reason is the substance of the Universe; viz. that by which and in which all reality has its being and subsistence. On the other hand, it is the Infinite Energy of the Universe; since Reason is not so powerless as to be incapable of producing anything but a mere ideal, a mere intention – having its place outside reality, nobody knows where; something separate and abstract, in the heads of certain human beings. It is the infinite complex of things, their entire Essence and Truth. It is its own material which it commits to its own Active Energy to work up; not needing, as finite action does, the conditions

of an external material of given means from which it may obtain its support, and the objects of its activity. It supplies its own nourishment and is the object of its own operations. While it is exclusively its own basis of existence, and absolute final aim, it is also the energising power realising this aim; developing it not only in the phenomena of the Natural, but also of the Spiritual Universe – the History of the World. That this ‘Idea’ or ‘Reason’ is the True, the Eternal, the absolutely powerful essence; that it reveals itself in the World, and that in that World nothing else is revealed but this and its honour and glory – is the thesis which, as we have said, has been proved in Philosophy and is here regarded as demonstrated.” – Hegel “Spirit is self-contained existence.” – Hegel “The very essence of Spirit is activity; it realizes its potentiality – makes itself its own deed, its own work – and thus it becomes an object to itself; contemplates itself as an objective existence.” – Hegel “Spirit is essentially the result of its own activity; its activity is the transcending of immediate, simple, unreflected existence – the negation of that existence; and the returning into itself.” – Hegel [Although Nature changes, it does so only in self-repeating cycles]. Only in those changes which take place in the region of Spirit does anything new arise.” – Hegel “This development implies a gradation – a series of increasingly adequate expressions or manifestations of freedom … it assumes successive forms which it successively transcends.” – Hegel “Change, while it means dissolution, involves at the same time the rise of a new life – while death is the issue of life, life is also the issue of death … Spirit, consuming the envelope of its existence – does not merely pass into another envelope … it comes forth exalted, glorified, a purer spirit.” – Hegel “History in general is … the development of the Spirit in time, as nature is the development of the Idea in space.” – Hegel “Universal History is the exhibition of Spirit in the process of working out the knowledge of that which it is potentially.” – Hegel

“The History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom … The destiny of the spiritual world, and … the final cause of the World at large, we claim to be Spirit’s consciousness of its own freedom, and ipso facto, the reality of that freedom … This is the only aim that sees itself realized; the only pole of repose amid the ceaseless change of events and conditions, and the sole efficient principle that pervades them. This final aim is God’s purpose with the world; but God is the absolutely perfect Being, and can, therefore, will nothing but himself.” – Hegel “This aim is none other than [Spirit’s] finding itself – coming to itself – and contemplating itself in concrete actuality.” – Hegel “The nature and idea of Spirit is something merely general and abstract … a hidden, undeveloped essence, which as such … is not completely real … That which exists for itself only, is a possibility, a potentiality; but has not yet emerged into Existence.” – Hegel “A second element must be introduced in order to produce actuality – viz, actuation, realization; and whose motive power of the Will – the activity of man in the widest sense. It is only by this activity that Idea as well as abstract characteristics generally, are realized, actualized; for in themselves they are powerless. The motive power that puts them in operation, and gives them determinate existence, is the need, instinct, inclination and passion of man.” – Hegel “Nothing has been accomplished without interest on the part of the actors … nothing great in the world has been accomplished without passion.” – Hegel “This vast congeries of volitions, interests and activities constitute the instruments and means of the World-Spirit for attaining its object; bringing it to consciousness and realizing it.” – Hegel “Such are all great historical men – whose own particular aims involve those larger issues which are the will of the world-spirit. They may be called Heroes, inasmuch as they have derived their purposes and their vocation, not from the calm, regular course of things … but from a concealed fount … from that inner Spirit, still hidden beneath the surface. ... Such individuals had no consciousness of the general idea they were

unfolding while pursuing those aims of theirs … But at the same time they were thinking men, who had an insight into the needs of the time – what was ripe for development.” – Hegel “In the history of the world, the idea of Spirit appears in its actual embodiment in a series of existing forms, each of which declares itself as an actually existing people.” – Hegel “All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State. For his spiritual reality consists in this, that his own essence – Reason – is objectively present to him, that it possesses objective immediate existence for him. … For Truth is the unity of the universal and subjective will; and the Universal is to be found in the State, in its laws, its universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth. We have in it, therefore, the object of history in a more definite shape than before; that in which Freedom obtains objectivity. For Law is the objectivity of the Spirit … Only that will which obeys law is free; for it obeys itself – it is independent and so free.” – Hegel

***** “Spirit” is ontological reason/logic unfolding dialectically through time. There’s an eternal, necessary, immutable aspect to mathematics (which obeys Aristotelian logic – the Absolute Idea in itself), and a temporal, contingent, evolutionary aspect (which obeys Hegelian dialectical logic and converges on the Absolute Spirit). Existence is the combination of the two different aspects. The evolutionary (temporal) aspect is derived from the eternal aspect, and does not jump out of nothing at all, as science so absurdly claims.

Uploading Transhumanists believe that they can upload their minds into a machine, and thus become immortal. In fact, immortal monads download minds into biological bodies via reincarnation!

Quantifying the Ghost The notion of the ghost in the machine was introduced to mock the concept of the soul. In fact, it simply reveals the irrationality and mathematical

illiteracy of those who use the term dismissively. In this book, we have reclaimed the ghost and made it the basis of existence. The simple fact is that reality is made of one thing – noumenal, monadic “ghosts” – and these generate phenomenal machines. The ghost and the machine can be expressed entirely mathematically: The ghost is r = 0. (Thesis.) The machine is r > 0. (Antithesis.) The ghost in the machine is r >= 0. (Synthesis.) Alternatively: The ghost = zero/infinity = the frequency singularity of mind. The machine = all other numbers (all numbers between zero and infinity) = the spacetime domain of matter. So, the ghost in the machine = ALL NUMBERS, including zero and infinity. As Pythagoras said, “All things are numbers.” Science is simply the ideological rejection of zero and infinity (the numbers of the Singularity), and the acceptance of all other numbers (spacetime) ... well, apart from imaginary and complex numbers, and most negative numbers. All scientific theories dread zero and infinity and actively seek to avoid them. Any scientific theory that ends up at zero/infinity is deemed wrong at that point, so a new theory is sought that never arrives at there. Of course, it’s zero and infinity that are right, and scientific ideology that’s wrong. You can’t buck reality. However, given that science is a religion, no scientist will ever accept that their fanatical faith is false. Mathematics cannot be complete and consistent without zero/infinity. Science is an incomplete and inconsistent application of math, which fails precisely because it cannot accommodate zero/infinity. Zero/infinity defines ultimate reality ... eternal, necessary, indestructible reality ... and, by rejecting zero/infinity, science ipso facto abandons any possibility of providing a final theory of existence. Only math can deliver such a theory since math can address zero and infinity. It’s literally all in the math. Why is religion ridiculous? Because it doesn’t use math at all. Why is philosophy impractical? Because it doesn’t use math. Why is science partly

right? Because it uses a bit of math. How do you become totally right? By using Total Math! Simple.

***** Science is false exactly because, ideologically, it has no place for the two formally unobservable numbers of zero and infinity, the numbers that define an immaterial, mental singularity outside space and time. Zero and infinity are precisely the two numbers of the mind, the soul, the ghost ... the entity that so spooks all materialists and empirics. These retards simply can’t conceive of the immaterial, dimensionless ghost outside space and time. Science’s horror of singularities is science’s horror of the intangible ghost that no one can ever observe and no scientific experiment can ever detect. The device least imaginable to a scientist is a soul camera ... a ghost detector! Scientists associate “ghosts” with religion, superstition, irrationality, illogic, and so on. In fact, the ghost (zero/infinity) is the fundamental basis of reality. You cannot have a Big Bang spacetime universe without a Big Bang Singularity = Big Bang Ghost! The material world is permanently tormented by an unobservable ghost: the eternal mathematical Singularity at the dead centre of existence. Mathematics itself is the ontological ghost that haunts the whole of science. Math is the ghost in the scientific machine. Science doesn’t know what math is and doesn’t know what math is doing at the heart of science, and why science uses math at all, given that math is the direct opposite of the defining observational, experimental method of science. Science encounters the mathematical ghost all the time, without ever realising it. The Ghost World is the Kantian noumenal world. It’s the world of God, the soul and free will. Kant thought this world was unknowable. That’s because he was scientifically rather than mathematically minded. All Kantian phenomena concern all numbers other than zero and infinity. All Kantian noumena – which Kant wrongly believed unknowable – concern zero and infinity. Kant’s famous antinomies are, when reduced to mathematics, nothing but statements of zero/infinity on the one hand, and all other numbers on the other; and between circular reality on the one hand and linear reality on the other. They are purely mathematical problems. He believed them insoluble. They’re not ... they can be fully answered mathematically.

In Kant’s world, the ghost is the unknowable noumenal domain haunting the knowable phenomenal domain. At least Kant acknowledged the existence of world beyond phenomena. Science simply concludes that there’s nothing at all beyond phenomena. There are no ghosts, unknowable or knowable, science says. Such things are literally inconceivable to scientists. We need the Ghostbusters to become the Machinebusters, and to “cross the streams.” (“There’s something very important I forgot to tell you! Don’t cross the streams… It would be bad… Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.” – Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) on crossing proton streams.)

Two Categories There are two distinct ontological categories of numbers: zero/infinity on the one hand, and all other numbers on the other. The first two generate, bind and bound all of the others. The first two are singularity numbers; all the others are spacetime numbers. Scientists say that only spacetime numbers exist and that any scientific theory that reaches zero/infinity has somehow gone wrong and broken down. All that science has to do to become rational, logical, and mathematically consistent and complete, is to embrace zero and infinity, but these are exactly the numbers that are ideologically and dogmatically denied by science since they are permanently beyond the reach of science’s defining experimental method, on which it has staked everything! It has bet the whole farm on ultimate reality being observable, yet even a child can understand that it’s not. If ultimate reality is not observable, science can tell us nothing about it. Zero and infinity are the numbers of the dimensionless, unextended, unobservable, non-sensory mind. All other numbers are the numbers of the senses; the numbers of dimensional, extended, sensory, spacetime matter. Science, the religion of the senses, cannot acknowledge the existence of zero and infinity since these two numbers are non-sensory. Why does science reject the mind? Because the mind is non-sensory. What are the numbers of the mind? Zero and infinity. Why can’t minds (souls) die? Because they are zero/infinity systems. They can’t be broken

up, they can’t run out of energy. They are utterly indestructible. You can’t destroy infinite nothing. It’s all in the math! What is the true law of energy conservation? It’s a mathematical law of the eternal nature of zero and infinity. What is the false law of energy conservation? It’s the scientific law of temporal, contingent numbers. According to science, energy can be borrowed out of nothing at all, as long as it’s quickly “repaid”, and whole universes can be magicked into existence, just so long as they have no enduring net effect. These are two wholly incompatible versions of energy conservation, and they are associated with 100% different ontologies and epistemologies. Science simply ignores mathematical energy conservation, i.e. the law that everything that fundamentally exists has existed forever. It can’t refute it; it just doesn’t think about it at all. Energy conservation is a Ghost Law and science acknowledges no such laws. It entertains only machine laws (scientific determinism), or probabilistic laws (scientific indeterminism). It wholly denies mathematical determinism (and there’s no such thing as mathematical indeterminism). Mathematical determinism embraces the machine and the ghost, which is exactly why mathematical determinism is compatible with free will, while scientific determinism and indeterminism aren’t. Free will belongs purely to zero and infinity. If you reject these numbers, you can’t have free will. Materialist zealots such as Sam Harris are eager to write whole books telling you that you’re nothing but a machine. Sam Harris is a terrible scientist, terrible philosopher, and terrible mathematician. He’s a charlatan and sophist ... exactly the kind of fraudulent “thinker” who prospers in today’s world. Humanity will never be intelligent while it takes such people seriously. All of humanity’s delusions and errors come back to two numbers – zero and infinity – and the absolute inability of sensing types and irrational people of faith to comprehend these two numbers.

***** Pythagoras said, “Number rules all.” The supreme rulers are zero and infinity, which bind, bound and control all the others. Nothing can be less than zero, or more than infinity. (Negative numbers aren’t less than zero; they’re more than zero, but in the opposite direction from “positive” numbers. All numbers go out from zero. Zero is the origin.)

Luke Skywalker “Use the Force, Luke. Let go.” – Obi-Wan Kenobi Before his final attack on the Death Star, Luke Skywalker turned off his onboard computer and used the Force alone. He rejected the machine and relied on the ghost! You will never succeed unless you do likewise. Scientists can’t. They are the enemies of the Force.

Ghost Forces? Is the world controlled by observable (scientific) forces, or unobservable (“ghost”) forces? “Ghost” forces are of three types: 1) Religious, spiritual, mystical, Mythos forces – which prophets, gurus, sages, popes, priests, shamans, con men, charlatans, and so on, have all traded in. 2) Philosophical and metaphysical forces – such as Will, Will to Power, Geist, the Dialectic, teleology, Form, Mind, the Noumenal, the Unconscious, the Spirit, the Absolute Ego. 3) Noumenal, transcendental, ontological mathematical Logos forces, which are the direct opposite of the first type of ghost forces. Science has waged a relentless war against Type 1 and Type 2 ghost forces, but, in doing so, it has ruled out any thought of Type 3 ghost forces ... the invisible, rational forces of pure math.

***** One of the most disappointing aspects of Facebook pages that refer to Illuminism is that they virtually never mention ontological mathematics (Type 3 ghost forces), but make endless references to New Age and “spiritual” bullshit, i.e. to Type 1 ghost forces. We can tolerate Type 2 ghost forces, although we would always prefer Type 3 ghost forces. What we can’t stand is the drivel associated with Type 1 ghost forces. Not all ghosts (and their forces) are equal! There are Mythos and Logos ghosts, and you had better be on the side of the latter if you wish to consider yourself an Illuminatus.

***** The more astute of our readers will appreciate that all scientific forces are themselves ghost forces! For example, the wavefunction of Copenhagen quantum mechanics is an unreal, abstract mathematical entity that collapses randomly, indeterministically, via no mechanism whatsoever, when an observer makes an observation. This is totally “ghostly”. Moreover, when Schrödinger’s cat is not being unobserved, it’s said to be in the ultimate ghostly state of being alive, dead and in mixed living-dead states all at once. In fact, not a single scientific force is observable. All of them are ghosts! What is observable are certain patterns of events, and these patterns are then interpreted in terms of the ghost forces that are hypothesised to generate them. This isn’t much different from the ancients hypothesising that the gods and spirits were responsible for the observed patterns and event of Nature! Scientists have zero evidence or proof that the forces they claim to exist actually do. These forces are all speculative inferences. As Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations.” All scientific forces are interpretations of “evidence”, and the evidence itself is interpreted by our senses, i.e. we are dealing with interpretations of interpretations. That’s a totally ghostly process. Science merely deals with different kinds of ghosts! (We might call science an expression of Type 0 ghost forces.) Ghosts are all there are. The entire supposed spacetime universe of matter is just a ghostly hologram projected from a frequency Singularity of Mind. No one can ever leave Ghost World.

Mind versus Body: Ghost versus Machine Zero and infinity are the numbers of the mind, of eternal necessity, of dimensionlessness and non-extension, of the immaterial, of the unobservable, of the non-experimental, the non-sensory, of the noumenal, of the “hidden”, of non-space and non-time. They are the two numbers on which the whole of science comes to grief. Science is nothing but the absolute inability of sensing types to understand zero and infinity and to confer any reality upon them. All other numbers are the numbers of matter, of temporality and contingency, of the dimensional and extended, of the observable, of the

experimental, the sensory, the phenomenal, of the “revealed”, of space and time. Mathematics – the whole of mathematics – defines reality; the inconsistent and incomplete subset of math deployed by science certainly doesn’t. It’s not just zero and infinity that science rejects. It hates imaginary and complex numbers too, and has very little tolerance for negative numbers. To any truly mathematically minded, rational and logical person, science’s abuse of mathematics is grotesque and obscene, and renders science spectacularly irrational and illogical. Science is a systematic philosophical attack on mathematics, rejecting all numbers that cannot be understood in materialist, empiricist, observable, sensory terms. Science despises “ghosts”, but the ghosts it’s actually rejecting aren’t those of religion, spiritualism and superstition, but the nonsensory numbers of mathematics, and that makes science a joke. There’s no more significant fact than that science uses math all of the time without knowing what math is. How can you reject huge chunks of math if you know neither what math is, nor what the effects are of removing most of math from math! When you remove any numbers at all from the complete and consistent mathematical system, you automatically render math inconsistent and incomplete, hence false and wrong. That’s selfevident to any rational person ... but not to scientists, the standard-bearers of anti-mathematical irrationalism. Science is just wrong math, subjected to the ideology and dogmatism of the philosophy of materialism and empiricism. Once you get rid of that ideology, science can be saved ... by being converted into ontological mathematics! Do the math. Science is sensory math, but math in itself isn’t sensory at all. Math is what gives science all of its power, and is also what destroys the credibility of science, since science isn’t logically compatible with math. Science is empirical and mathematics is rational. They are the polar opposites of each other. Science is about the observable body (including the body of the universe), while math is about the unobservable mind (including the mind of the universe). Science is about spacetime, while math is about the Singularity (outside spacetime). Science is about the irrational senses. Math is about reason, logic and intellect.

It’s time that science was finally put in its place ... as a ridiculous, ideological misapplication of the mathematical truth of existence. It’s time for humanity to embrace reason and logic rather than the fallible, unreliable, deluded, human senses. Scientists simply aren’t intelligent enough for math. They insist on making math sensory rather than rational and logical. That’s the most egregious intellectual sin you can possibly commit. This is an intelligible, mathematical world, not a sensible, scientific world. There’s nothing at all outside math. Math accounts for everything. Humanity’s inability to understand reality has never been anything other than an inability to understand math, especially imaginary numbers, zero and infinity. Science is bad math and even worse philosophy. It’s time for good math and good philosophy = Illuminism.

Eternal Existence Eternal existence is defined by zero and infinity, the two dimensionless, indestructible numbers. Any system, such as science, which does not accommodate zero and infinity, cannot explain reality. Reality comprises all numbers greater than zero and less than infinity and zero and infinity. What could be more straightforward? Science is definitively false because it rejects zero and infinity. Science is wrong exactly because of this extraordinary, irrational and illogical omission, an omission driven by sensory mania and empiricist and materialist ideology. Scientists are too dumb to understand why they are wrong. They are religious zealots, and their religion is whatever is observable to their senses. Everything else is rejected. Why can’t science unite general relativity and quantum mechanics? Because both have arrived at the domain of zero and infinity... the Ghost World that science finds utterly incomprehensible. Science will never succeed in producing a final theory of everything. We can state that right now as an absolute fact. Any theory that does not formally include zero and infinity – and no scientific theory does – will never be anything but irrational, illogical, inconsistent and incomplete. You have a very simple issue to confront ... is ultimate reality observable (sensory) or rational (non-sensory)? Science opts for the former;

math for the latter. The scientific method is all about the former, the mathematical method about the latter. Both methods aren’t right. It’s one or the other. Only math, a closed system, can give reality an answer. Science, an open system, cannot. Science is for simple-minded sensing types and autistics. Science is a joke to all rational, logical thinkers. It’s staggeringly ugly, clunky, crude, childish, simplistic and plebeian. It’s just Math and Philosophy for Dummies, for irrationalists lacking in imagination, intuition, reason and logic. Science is literally just “seeing is believing”. What a pathetic faith. Anyone who worships their senses is an enemy of reason. All scientists are irrational.

Atomism In mental atomism, the fundamental atoms are photonic monads (souls), with atomic number zero. In material atomism, atoms begin at hydrogen, with atomic number one. Yet again, we see the collision between zero and non-zero. It’s all in the math. All concepts, to be intelligible, must be reduced to numbers. Without that reduction, people are trading in nothing but emotionalism, faith, interpretations, opinions, conjectures, hypotheses, Mythos and moonshine. Even God, the soul and free will can be reduced to numbers, specifically zero and infinity – the two quintessential noumenal (rather than phenomenal) numbers. These two numbers play no part in formal scientific thinking, hence feature in no scientific theories. However, the Big Bang Singularity, black and white hole singularities, and photonic singularities all reveal that “God”, the soul and free will are present in science – whether it likes it or not. Math is what makes the Kantian noumenon knowable rather than unknowable. Kantian phenomenal philosophy plus noumenal math = reality!

***** Zero and infinity are the two numbers of subjective agency (free will, teleology and meaning). Science is all about the rejection of zero and infinity, hence science rejects subjective agency, free will, teleology and meaning. Science is all about machine determinism (classical physics), or random indeterminism (quantum physics). Mathematical determinism involves two

different ontological categories: zero and infinity on the one hand, and all other numbers on the other. It’s the existence of these two categories, and their interaction (via Fourier mathematics) that underlies the mind-body problem, and which explains how free will and scientific determinism can be compatible. Free will belongs to zero and infinity (the Kantian noumenal world), while scientific determinism belongs to all other numbers (the Kantian phenomenal world). Remember ... it’s all in the math. There is no problem at all that math can’t resolve.

All Things Are Numbers Do you get it? Pythagoras really was right all along. All things are numbers. Number rules all. Numbers are the only way to understand reality. Everything else is howling at the moon. Humanity is a species that is fixated on the emotional word (Mythos) rather than the rational number (Logos). It’s fixated on the senses (sensing types), emotions (feeling types) and mysticism (intuitives) rather than on reason (thinking types). The feeling and sensing types, and the mystics, are all transfixed by words and images, and see numbers as bizarre abstractions, with nothing to do with reality. All reasoning types gravitate to numbers, as the supreme objects of reason, as the only precise and analytic entities in the thinking universe. Only ontological numbers can be consistent and complete. Nothing else can, most especially not words and images. Humanity has a real problem with reason and logic and that’s because reason and logic are properly about one thing only: numbers. Nothing has baffled humanity more than what a number is ontologically. Only the Illuminati have answered this question, and that’s why we alone can provide the definitive answer to existence via this God Series. Do the math! Numbers alone can explain reality. That’s the bluntest fact of all.

Scientists: The Last Men “The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest.” – Nietzsche

Scientists should never be admired. They are the Last Men. They have made the whole universe small because they have rejected the thing that makes it infinitely vast and powerful ... the mind! They are pathetic hopping creatures, with one leg and one eye.

Behold the Superfluous “Behold the superfluous! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the sages for themselves; ‘education’ they call their theft – and everything turns to sickness and misfortune for them. “Behold the superfluous! They are always sick; they vomit their gall and call it a newspaper. They devour each other and cannot even digest themselves. “Behold the superfluous! They gather riches and become poorer with them. They want power and first the lever of power, much money – the impotent paupers! “Watch them clamber, these swift monkeys! They clamber over one another and thus drag one another into the mud and the depth. They all want to get to the throne: that is their madness – as if happiness sat on the throne. Often mud sits on the throne and often also the throne on mud. Mad they all appear to me, clambering monkeys and overardent. Foul smells their idol, the cold monster: foul they smell to me altogether, these idolaters. “My brothers, do you want to suffocate in the fumes of their snouts and appetites! Rather break the windows and leap to freedom. “Escape from the bad smell! Escape from the idolatry of the superfluous! “Escape from the bad smell! Escape from the steam of these human sacrifices! “The earth is free even now for great souls. There are still many empty seats for the lonesome and the twosome, fanned by the fragrance of silent seas. “A free life is still free for great souls. Verily, whoever possesses little is possessed that much less: praised be a little poverty!” – Nietzsche

Philosophy M: “Mainstream religion is nothing but a collection of bullshit stories with no truth value whatsoever. Science is much superior to religion; it is

excellent at describing physical reality and creating useful advances and items. “However all that science does is model physical reality. It never explains what reality is. Scientific materialism is a useful tool but never does it explain what reality actually is. Philosophy explains reality and deals in truth. It answers the fundamental questions of existence itself. “Hardly anyone understands this. Why is that? Well, in order to understand science, you have to be much smarter than a dogmatic religious person. In order to understand philosophy, you have to be smarter than a scientist. The masses cannot even understand science and they have no hope of understanding philosophy. Truth is reserved for the intelligent and the willed. It is there for those with the intensity, awareness and desire to seek it out. Life itself is a puzzle, a mystery. The solution exists.” Religion uses no math, hence is totally false. Science uses a bit of math, hence is truer than religion, but it doesn’t use reason and logic, relying instead on the senses, hence is irrational. Philosophy uses speculative reason and logic, but does not use math, so it’s better than science in some ways, but worse in others. Organised, mainstream religion can be completely discounted as an explanation of reality, and so can ridiculous New Age spiritualism, which is as anti-mathematical as religion. So, everything comes down to science, philosophy and mathematics: 1) Thesis ... Science: partial use of math; opposed to reason and logic; relies on sensory “evidence” gathered from experiments. 2) Antithesis ... Philosophy: no serious attempt to invoke math; uses reason and logic, but not as part of any formal system, hence is highly speculative; philosophical metaphysics is entirely nonsensory and does not overlap with physics. 3) Synthesis ... Ontological Mathematics: totally committed to reason and logic; pure rationalism; in itself, ontological mathematics is wholly non-sensory; however, it’s entirely compatible with both physics (dimensional, spacetime math; all numbers other than zero and infinity) and metaphysics (dimensionless, frequency math; zero and infinity); it’s compatible with a Kantian noumenal (mental) and phenomenal (material) treatment of reality, and renders all Kantian noumena knowable

rather than unknowable; mathematical metaphysics completely overlaps with physics. Only math can solve the mystery of existence, but the illogical, irrational human mind (designed for Mythos) has staggering trouble understanding math. Almost 100% of human beings regard math as a cold, empty, sterile, unreal abstraction, and just a bizarre, manmade language. In fact, it’s the language of existence, of reality, of Nature, of noumena and phenomena, of mind and body, of the Singularity plus spacetime ... of everything. Math is the hidden, invisible, unobservable fibre and fabric of existence. The whole of religion and spirituality is a Mythos misinterpretation of Logos zero and infinity. Science is the ideological materialist and empiricist rejection of zero and infinity. Philosophical metaphysics is the futile attempt to rationally and logically understand zero and infinity (mental noumena) without invoking math! It’s math or nothing. And, of course, nothing is math. There is no system of thought or belief on earth that cannot be reduced to some claim or other about math. For example, science is simply the claim that zero, infinity and imaginary numbers aren’t real. Abrahamism (especially Kabbalah) is the claim that zero/infinity is God. Kantian philosophy is the claim that zero and infinity are unknowable. Schopenhauer’s philosophy is the claim that zero and infinity are a cosmic Will outside space and time. Leibniz’s Monadology is the assertion that existence is made of zero/infinity monadic minds. Hume’s philosophy is that we can never know anything about how zero/infinity and math relate to “reality”. Hinduism says that zero/infinity is the atman (and ultimately Brahman). Buddhism denies the existence of the zero/infinity atman (which is why so many scientists love Buddhist bullshit). Taoism is the claim that zero and infinity are yin and yang, and drive the universe. Quantum mechanics is the claim that zero and infinity vanish into Heisenbergian uncertainty. Einsteinian special relativity is the claim that there’s no absolute zero/infinity Singularity (ether) outside space and time. And so on. There’s nothing at all that you could say about the nature of reality that we could not reduce to a plausible or (usually!) implausible claim about math. Humanity, a Mythos species of words, is futilely trying to grasp a Logos universe of numbers. That’s why humanity can’t understand reality. It’s using words to address a numerical reality, and that’s a literal category error.

Nietzsche said that there are no facts, only interpretations. That’s certainly true of Mythos and words. It’s total nonsense regarding Logos and numbers. This is a Number Universe, but humanity regards it as a Word universe. Jesus Christ is referred to as the “Word”. He would never be called the “Number”. Yet in Neoplatonism, the Source of All is called the ineffable Monad, the One!

***** Humans can invent languages based on words. They cannot invent a perfect, complete and consistent language based on numbers, i.e. math. It’s literally insane that so many people believe that math is just another manmade construct. Humans don’t even know what numbers are ontologically – and the vast majority of number theory remains absolutely impenetrable to human beings – so how can humans possibly have invented numbers? Billions of people are fluent speakers of manmade languages. How many people are fluent in number theory? If humans invented math, why are they so shit at it? Yet every moron can catch a speeding ball – involving fantastically difficult mathematical calculations (which we perform effortlessly in our unconscious).

Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation “The word ‘transubstantiation’ derives from Latin – trans (across), and substantia (substance). The term is employed in Roman Catholic theology to denote the idea that during the ceremony of the ‘Mass,’ the ‘bread and wine’ are changed, in substance, into the flesh and blood of Christ, even though the elements appear to remain the same.” – Wayne Jackson “‘Consubstantiation’ is the idea that in the communion, the body and blood of Christ, and the bread and wine, coexist in union with each other. Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged.” – Wayne Jackson

***** Ghosts are the animating fire in scientific equations. Ghosts are the living fire inside cold bodies (machines). Bodies come from minds (from the Collective Cosmic Mind). All material “substances” are penetrated by ghosts.

Intellectual Rank 1) Metaphysical mathematicians – like Pythagoras and Leibniz. ... Total Logos. 2) Philosophers. ... Non-systematic, non-mathematical Logos. 3) Scientists. ... Sensory Mythos plus Mathematical Logos. 4) Religious and spiritual types (retards!). ... Total Mythos.

The Right Side Make sure you’re on the right side of the dialectic – that of the Illuminati. We are the plan. We are the answer. We are the ultimate rational synthesis: the resolution of all contradictions. Only the smartest people in the world can recognise the nature of our quest. Ours is a divine mission. We have the terrestrial Holy Grail and what we pursue is the cosmic Holy Grail. We are the Coming Race of Gods. It will fall to us to solve the problem of the universe. Will you be joining us? “I come as someone sacred, someone filled with piety and power, bearing a great gift for all your people.” – Oedipus (Sophocles) “Oh Theseus, dear friend, only the gods can never age, the gods can never die. All else in the world almighty Time obliterates, crushes all to nothing...” – Oedipus (Sophocles)

Dog and Cat People Most human beings were dogs in their last life. Dogs are extremely sensory creatures with acute powers of smell and hearing. Dogs are not known for their reasoning powers, and are mostly extraverted. No wonder scientists can’t think straight and are obsessed with their senses. Bow wow!!! Human beings who were once cats are now the introverted, intuitive, curious thinkers!!! Everything says something about you, especially what pet you keep.

The Dumb Machines Only an idiot denies that there’s a ghost in the machine. The task is to work out the properties of the ghost without degenerating into religious and

superstitious babble. Math is what we use to rationally define the “ghost”. Math is the ultimate spectral subject. We live in a world that looks like a machine but is totally populated by and penetrated by ghosts. The dimensionless is everywhere within the dimensional. “Ghost” is simply another name for an immaterial, dimensionless, monadic singularity. “Ghost” = zero/infinity. Materialists say there’s no ghost in the machine for exactly the same reason that they deny the reality of zero and infinity. The ghost (dimensionless) can never be part of the machine (dimensional) paradigm.

***** The only reason why science isn’t an intellectual joke is that its myriad absurdities are never challenged. Science proceeds merrily on its way, making Feynman guesses to account for experimental observations. It never logically and rationally challenges itself, and it ignores any challenges from outside science.

The Test Only smart people can conceive of ghosts. Stupid people dismiss them as nonsense. Your ability to accept dimensionless existence is a direct measure of your intelligence. You must of course define them in Logos rather than Mythos terms ... or you’re incredibly dumb.

Have You Understood? Your senses don’t show a greater reality to you than your reason. They show you a lesser reality. The senses aren’t more concrete than reason. They’re less concrete. The ultimate abstraction is what your senses are presenting to you. It’s all a hallucination. Reason, logic and math aren’t abstract. Everything else is! You will never understand what reality is unless you grasp that. The principle of sufficient reason – expressed through mathematical monads – is the foundation of existence.

Nothing KS: “Everyone is afraid of ‘nothing’. The mathematicians are afraid of the concept of ‘nothing’ (monads as mental, mathematical singularities.) Materialists are afraid of having ‘nothing’. We fear dying because we will

have ‘nothing’. There is ‘nothing’ to be afraid of because ‘nothing’ does not exist. No Fear!!!” “What deconstruction is not? Everything, of course! deconstruction? Nothing, of course!” – Jacques Derrida

What

is

“Nothing lasts but nothing is lost.” – Terence McKenna R: “We thank the Pythagorean Illuminati for discovering Ontological Mathematics. To the person who invented zer0, thanks for N0thing. To the person who invented Infinity, thanks for everything; and to the person who invented imaginary numbers, they just can’t be real. Those are the numbers that define existence after all.” Amen! This is the Gospel of the Illuminati.

War Without End The war of the ghosts and the machines is simply the war of those who can think dimensionlessly and those that can’t. The former are guided by their reason and intuition, the latter by their feelings and senses. The latter are completely locked into what their senses reveal to them, and they just can’t conceive of anything non-sensory. They are, bluntly, too stupid and too lacking in imagination. Scientists aren’t clever. They’re robotic thinkers, totally constrained by nothing more sophisticated than “seeing is believing”. They are incapable of thinking transcendentally: beyond their senses and beyond their human consciousness. They are incapable of contemplating the ultimate reality that preceded the Big Bang. These morons have hijacked the intellectual agenda. They need to be driven back into the sea. The Armada of Reason must sail again, and conquer all.

The Equation If math is real, science is false, and needs to be replaced by ontological mathematics. If math is unreal then science, by virtue of using math so heavily, must be unreal too. Either way, science is unquestionably false and wrong as a means of addressing ultimate reality.

*****

Science derives all of its power from mathematics. All of the most scrupulous observations and experiments in the world wouldn’t make science superior to alchemy. Math is what makes science what it is. Astonishingly, no scientist has ever understood this. Scientists are 100% convinced that the gathering of experimental “evidence” is the key to science’s success. Math is regarded as something weird, and not worth commenting upon. It’s to be used, but its presence within science is never to be explained or addressed in any way. Science uses math, yet excludes zero, infinity, imaginary and complex numbers, and more or less all negative numbers. It furnishes no mathematical reasons for this, and, indeed, math without all of these numbers is automatically rendered inconsistent and incomplete, hence totally false and wrong! As ever, science never addresses this catastrophic problem. Science doesn’t use logic, reason, or math itself, to exclude huge, vital, indispensable chunks of math. What it uses is the ideology and dogmatism of its philosophy of materialism and empiricism. In other words, it brings philosophical prejudice to bear on math – an approach doomed to absurdity and error. It tries to make math fit observations and experiments. It should be doing the exact opposite: making observations and experiments conform to mathematics. The interpretation of quantum mechanics would be 100% different if it were regarded as essential to make these interpretations consistent with math rather than with materialism and empiricism. No scientist ever addresses these problems that cast infinite doubt over the scientific project. Science is a really bad philosophy, which, given its anti-rationalist ideology, illegitimately uses rationalist mathematics. It’s the math, not the appalling philosophy, which gives science its success, yet scientists believe it’s their method – their philosophical method of experimentation, predicated on materialism and empiricism, which makes science so powerful. Math is and always has been the greatest problem facing science. Science has done nothing to confront this problem, and wouldn’t know how. Scientists are too stupid and dishonest. Science works because it uses math. Science fails because it doesn’t use math properly, because it doesn’t use complete and consistent math, because it ideologically excludes huge chunks of math. Put zero and infinity into science, and you change science forever. It’s that simple.

Anything that uses math must use math properly. Anything that doesn’t use math properly has to explain why not. Science cannot only not explain why not, it doesn’t even know what math is. Science is literally a subject that uses something it doesn’t understand and can’t define, yet claims to be able to explain reality to us ... it can’t even explain itself! It denies that it’s a philosophy while relying on nothing but philosophical prejudices in its treatment of math. Science can’t say that the universe isn’t mathematical, yet assumes this straight off the bat. Science claims that incomplete and inconsistent math can be validly used by science. It never explains why science doesn’t use complete and consistent math, and it never ponders the consequences of making this assumption. Above all, it never contemplates adding zero and infinity to science. If it did, science would automatically cease to reflect empiricism and materialism, and would instead reflect rationalism and idealism; psychophysics would replace physics. Zero and infinity – the two numbers of the soul – are the two numbers that destroy science. Science, a fanatical sensory faith, refuses to countenance these two non-sensory numbers, even though these numbers are absolutely essential to the completeness and consistency of math. Science, as we have said, is not only really bad philosophy, it’s also really bad math. It’s astounding that the scientific fraud hasn’t been exposed. Science can never explain reality to us. Only math can. That’s a 100% fact. If you are opposed to math, you are opposed to Truth itself.

***** Reality cannot, as scientists absurdly claim, be a bit mathematical and a lot non-mathematical. Either reality is 100% mathematical or 0% mathematical. If reality is 100% mathematical, science is redundant. If reality is 0% mathematical, science is false, given that math is what gives it all of its explanatory power. Either way, math – the ghost that haunts science – is science’s nemesis. Science is simply math subjected to an unacceptable human sensory filter. To understand reality, you must transcend the human condition, and that means, above all, transcending the unreliable, limited, fallible, frequently delusional, human senses. Strip away the human senses

(observations and experiments) from science, and what are you left with? – math. Any rational, logical person understands that science, if it wants to address ultimate reality and the ultimate question of existence, must become math. There’s no alternative. The Second and Final Enlightenment, the true Age of Reason, will be ushered in only when math replaces science. Religion reigned while humanity was emotional and mystical. The first “Enlightenment” involved humanity turning to its senses (science) instead of its feelings and mysterious intuitions. The second, true Enlightenment will happen when humanity progresses from its senses to its reason, from science to math.

***** Religion: Lower Humanity (emotional and mystical) ... Dionysian (Mythos). Science: Empirical Humanity (sensory) ... Doubting Thomas. Philosophy: Metaphysical Humanity (thinking) ... “I think, therefore I am.” Mathematics: Higher Humanity (rational) ... Apollonian (Logos). Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Taoists – the vast majority of humanity – still exist at the primitive, irrational, religious level of faith, feelings, mysticism and Mythos. All of these people are actively blocking human progress. Scientists exist at the primitive level of “seeing is believing”; the plebeian notion that all things must be observable and available to the humans senses (although all advanced scientific theories, such as M-theory, have almost zero connection with anything that could ever be available to the human senses, hence science is slowly but surely – and extremely painfully – moving towards pure math). Philosophers and metaphysicists think at a high level, but without any provable, systematic, complete and consistent framework. Math is what provides this framework. Tragically, many current philosophers believe that science is what provides the right framework in which to consider philosophical problems, which is exactly why so much of modern philosophy is as false and absurd as science is. Many philosophers, like nearly all scientists, deny free will, and for exactly the same reasons ...

scientific reasons, involving the absolute rejection of an unobservable soul outside space and time. Human evolution ends with reason, logic and math. That’s a fact. Humanity will always be utterly deluded while it listen to ludicrous stories of “gods”, while it’s overly emotional and overly mystical, and while it’s in thrall to its senses. Human feelings, senses and intuitions did not exist in the Singularity that preceded the Big Bang. Cosmic reason – conveyed by mathematical monads – did. Only when humanity gets in touch with cosmic reason will it understand existence. Why is that so hard for the average human to grasp? – because they are too enslaved by the human condition. They lack the imagination, intuition, reason and logic to conceive of what existence was like prior to the existence of a single human being! They lack the ability even to realise that anything that relies on human faculties can have no relevance to reality before the dawn of humanity. To understand reality, we must ignore our humanity. Only math transcends the human condition. Math is the language of existence, not of human beings. Math is the “ghost” language – the unseen, immaterial, dimensionless language of reality itself, reality in itself, of Hegel’s Absolute Idea. Of this, the Marxist Encyclopedia says, “The ‘Absolute Idea’ is both the apex and foundation of the philosophical system of Hegel. It includes all the stages of the Logic leading up to it; it is the process of development with all its stages and transitions. The Absolute Idea, or ‘World Spirit’, plays the same kind of role for Hegel as a deity. ‘History is the Idea clothing itself with the form of events’ [– Hegel] ... knowledge of the Absolute Idea [represents] the whole of Nature which has developed to the point where it is conscious of itself, or the concept of Nature developed to such a degree of concreteness that it has ‘returned to itself’ – an absolutely comprehensive, practical and concrete concept of the world. “Hegel defines the Absolute Idea as the ‘unity of the Theoretical Idea and the Practical Idea.’ The Theoretical Idea is the completed Notion or concrete concept of the world or object; the Practical Idea is the activity expressing this concept (practice); the unity of the two means fully ‘conscious practice’, people acting in true accord with their own nature.” Glenn Alexander Magee says, “Hegel understands Absolute Spirit – Absolute Idea concretized – as the telos or end of all reality.”

According to Swami Krishnananda: “[The] logical development of the Absolute Idea, [carried] through Nature, [is consummated in] the Absolute Spirit. [Hegel’s] dialectic continues till the Absolute Idea realises itself in the Absolute Spirit.”

Scientists Are From Uranus; Truth-Tellers Are From Neptune “Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it’s from Neptune.” – Noam Chomsky

The Supernatural Smug scientists don’t believe in ghosts and the supernatural. They ought to. “Ghosts” are monadic singularities (minds), and mathematics is the supernatural, i.e. the reality that underpins physical Nature. It’s time for machine scientists to accept the domain of the ghosts, for their machine world to be rendered spectral! (mathematical).

Truth “Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion – and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion ... while truth again reverts to a new minority.” – Kierkegaard Are you one of the truthful minority, or of the deceitful majority? Popularity and Truth are in direct antagonistic competition with each other. If we wanted to be popular, we would write about conspiracies, feelings, mysticism, aliens, New Age bullshit and wizard shit. The last subject on earth we would ever write about is math! But the general population isn’t whom we’re writing for. The God Series is for Higher Humanity, for the Coming Race of Gods.

Ghost People

If you accept that zero and infinity are ontologically real, you are a ghost person (mathematical metaphysicist). If you don’t, you are a machine (scientist). Machine people are autistic. Anyone who doubts his own subjective agency (free will) is autistic. Reason does not lead to the conclusion that we are automata, only maniacal scientific ideology and dogmatism that has no basis in logic and mathematics does so. You will never understand what the soul is if you do not comprehend the meaning of zero and infinity, of immaterial, dimensionless, ontological, mathematical frequency singularities outside space and time. The soul – the eternal singularity infallibly obeying the Law of Energy Conservation – is the quintessential unit of ontological mathematics. Science is clueless about the soul because it’s clueless about zero/infinity singularities. It’s math, not religion, that refutes science. Everything science says about ultimate reality is false. Not because science disagrees with prophets, gurus, popes, holy books and sacred scriptures, but because it disagrees with rationalist mathematics! There can be no greater intellectual transgression. “Religion” has nothing to do with silly stories, ridiculous bearded prophets, and preposterous “holy” books written by wandering tribesmen in the desert. Religion is pure math. When science attacks religion, it’s attacking reason, logic, ontology and epistemology. Religion has traditionally been approached via Mythos and mysticism. It should in fact be approached via pure Logos, reason, logic and math. Math is the means by which science and religion can finally be unified.

Conclusion The human race has gone from being obsessed with invisible forces (“ghosts”) to visible objects (“machines) ... from mind to matter. Humans have gone from believing that unseen spirits ruled their lives, to believing themselves machines. What’s the solution? What’s the synthesis of the ghost and the machine? – it’s the invisible mathematical mind: the monad. By virtue of being an invisible force, the monad is ghostlike. By virtue of its mathematical nature, the monad is compatible with science. Monads bring the war of the religious ghosts and scientific machines to an end. Math is the cure for both religion and science. Math is what reconciles religion and science.

Humanity was overly religious in the past (and still is in the present in the case of Jews, Muslims, Christian Fundamentalists, etc.). It was too obsessed with ghosts and witches. Now humanity (in the shape of atheists, scientists, cynics, agnostics, skeptics, nihilists, relativists, solipsists, materialists, autistics and psychopaths) is underly religious. It’s too obsessed with the senses, machines, and “seeing is believing”. In the past, prophets, priests, popes, rabbis, imams, gurus and shamans ruled the spiritual aspect of humanity. They were the Ghost Lords. Now, the ghosts have been abolished and the Machine Lords have taken over: scientists, accountants, lawyers, traders, bankers, CEOs, entrepreneurs, politicians, engineers, technologists, computer geeks, video gamers, quants, bureaucrats, functionaries, drones, drudges, apparatchiks. The human brain has evolved over the years, but scarcely for the better. The machine mentality is as bad as the ghost mentality. What we need is the rational mentality, expressed not through religion or science, but mathematics and metaphysics. Hegel said that philosophy was the culmination of human culture, leading us to Absolute Knowledge. In fact, it’s mathematical metaphysics that’s the highest level of human thinking, expressing absolute ontology and epistemology. Humans were much more intuitive in the past, and much more emotional. They believed in ghosts. Now they are much more sensory, and have greater thinking capacity. Autism and psychopathy are on the rise. People have started to believe that they are purposeless, pointless, meaningless automata. The machine mentality has become an epidemic. We need to restore human intuition, yet ally it with thinking rather than emotion (without becoming emotionless, passionless machines). We also need a switch from an extraverted culture of narcissism to an introverted culture of spirituality. The INFs and INTs shall inherit the earth!

Rerum Cognoscere Causas (“To Learn the Causes of Things”)