K
KZ9
Invité
Read everything in this particular order :
1. Coded 4 books : Access denied - Merit Revolution
2. All articles found here in chronological order : Illumination: the Secret Religion - The Coming Race
3. Non Coded 3 books : Access denied - Merit Revolution
4. Series 7 books : Access denied - Merit Revolution
****
5. Also you may want to read an older site that exists as an archive : The Meritocracy Party - Introduction
And also you should see this:
I Pet Goat II, By Heliofant (Analyse and research it, the more you do the more ideas you will see and then understand)
The actual site: http://merit.clan.su/ (didn't realise it needed a login)
https://www.facebook.com/meritocracy4earth
https://www.facebook.com/illumination4earth
*****
A summary from the site in case you didn't wish to read the site, although the proofs are on the site so you'll only see them there:
The Great Enlightenment War
A number of great dialectical struggles must be won before humanity can proceed to the next stage of its divine evolution. The most enlightened amongst us most overcome the most endarkened.
Here are all the victories that must be won:
Enlightenment versus Abrahamism
Abrahamism has no place at all in an enlightened world. It's a terrifying, sinister, irrational belief system with zero truth content. Abrahamists believe that God would order a father (Abraham) to murder his son. Such a thought, in the context of the True God, is literally unthinkable. The "God" of Abraham is a Torture God, a God of Terror. Morality is never discussed in the Abrahamic "holy" texts. All they are concerned with is slavish, mindless obedience to "God". Abrahamism is nothing but primitive operant conditioning promising people the maximum incentive (heaven) for obeying "God" and the maximum punishment (hell) for disobeying. It is nothing but a system of control of stupid, credulous believers. Abrahamism's history has been one of extremist violence, fanaticism, and tyranny. It has not one thing worthwhile to offer the world. Abrahamism must be subjected to the Final Solution - complete eradication from this world. The Devil must die!
Reason versus Faith
"Whenever we read the obscene stories [of the Old Testament], the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt or brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine
Abrahamism champions faith. Faith means a strong or unshakeable belief in something without any proof. The insane person who is certain he is Napoleon is a person of faith. In fact, faith and insanity are the same thing. Why would anyone believe anything without proof? Billions of Christians believe that the Creator of the Universe was born in a stable to a Jewish virgin some 2,000 years ago. (The Jews themselves do not believe it.) Is that belief anything other than insane? It stands in absolute opposition to reason, logic, science and common sense, and even the Jews think it's stupid. Surely a claim so ridiculous must be backed up by irrefutable proof? But in fact it's backed up by no proof at all. It's just an assertion, a story in a book. Why would any sane person consider it true? And in fact no sane person would. If you believe in Christianity, you are saying that reason and science are wrong. You are rejecting everything solid, true and real in favour of a preposterous story.
Faith is quite simply an insane concept. Faith has no place in the rational world. Faith is a word that should be removed from the human vocabulary. It serves no positive function and is historically associated with extreme evil. It must be abolished.
Everything should be considered proven, provisionally proven, not proven, or refuted. At the very most charitable, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ would have to be considered not proven, and that is surely no basis for the most successful religion in world history. Science is based on evidence and reason and has wiped the floor with religion. In any contest between science and religion, science should be regarded as the default position and religion as being in severe want of evidence.
Believers should be stigmatised as stupid and mad - because that's exactly what they are.
Knowledge versus Superstition
Enormous numbers of people still inhabit a world of primitive superstition. Superstition is of course a close relative of faith. Just like faith, superstition is ferociously anti-science and irrational. Superstition is defined as an irrational belief based on ignorance or fear and characterised by obsessive reverence for omens, charms or unseen forces.
Knowledge is the antidote to superstition. Superstition, like faith, must be driven out of the vocabulary. It must be stigmatized. There is simply no place for it.
Good deeds versus Faith
Protestants have rejected good deeds in favour of faith (via the doctrine of justification by faith). Faith is consequently selfish and immoral and encourages scorn for other people and a refusal to help and cooperate with them.
We must have a world where good deeds are the basis of our moral code and faith has no role at all. Good deeds help others; faith helps no one. There is no moral justification by faith. Good deeds are the sole moral justifier.
Protestantism is an evil religion. Martin Luther, its sleazy founder, declared, "Reason is the Devil's whore." A religion that hates reason and good deeds is the definition of a Satanic religion. Protestantism must be eradicated.
High IQ versus Low IQ
Most people in the world are stupid. Stupid people will never become Gods. The State should never pander to the stupid. It must do everything in its power to raise the general IQ. This can be achieved only through a) enormous investment in education, 2) enormous changes in the environment (children must be removed from ugly, unhealthy, stupid environments, 3) an assessment of whether parents are a stupid or clever influence in their children's lives (never forget that half of all parents will be below the median intelligence); if the former, contact time between parents and children must be reduced by the expedient of sending children to boarding schools where they will be supervised and taught by intelligent people.
Scientific Method versus Moralising
The "Drugs War" has been going on for decades and shows no sign of being won. What's the point of this war? Is it all because some strident moralizers say that drugs are "wrong"? Well, their moralizing stance certainly hasn't accomplished any victory over drugs. Isn't it time to try non-moralizing tactics? Isn't it time to apply the scientific method, the most successful method in human history? Isn't it time to legalize drugs and collect evidence as to whether that leads to better or worse outcomes than at present? In fact, isn't it time to apply the scientific method to all aspects of the State and to eliminate moralizing entirely?
Let's make everything evidence based. Policies can be adopted, abandoned or amended not because they're morally "right" or "wrong" but because they are evidentially successful or unsuccessful.
Who are the moralizers? - the priest caste and the political preachers. Who needs these people? They have troubled the world long enough. Let them be gone. Let evidence and method replace these clowns.
Reincarnation versus Resurrection
Resurrection is an absurd concept that makes people think their souls are created by God and are entirely under his control. In fact, souls are uncreated and eternal. When people understand that, they will realize that they are not subject to God at all. In fact, the logical conclusion of the doctrine of reincarnation is that everyone can perfect themselves and become God. Once you grasp that you are not controlled by God - that he can't send you to heaven or hell - and that you create your own fate and can send yourself to heaven because you yourself have become God then your attitude towards existence, God and yourself is transformed forever.
When everyone accepts the truth of reincarnation, it will revolutionise the world. Abrahamism will perish and everyone will start to work on the grand project to make themselves God.
YOUR FATE IS IN YOUR OWN HANDS - NOT ANYONE ELSE'S. GOD, STRICTLY SPEAKING, IS IRRELEVANT TO YOU, EXCEPT AS THE SHINING BEACON THAT DRAWS YOU ONWARDS AND UPWARDS TOWARDS YOUR OWN DIVINITY.
Karma versus Choice
The theory of karma is that there is some sort of moral force in the cosmos that is somehow quasi-scientific and it can "calculate" your sins versus your virtues and then create a future life for you in which your sins catch up with you and you are made to suffer, or your virtues are rewarded and you are allowed to enjoy a happy life. Of course, no one anywhere can present any plausible scientific explanation for how karma influences DNA or what environment you are going to be born in. If you are a fan of karma, try to propose how karma scientifically causes an Indian who was once a Brahmin (highest caste), but was very sinful, to come back as an Untouchable (lowest caste). How does DNA reflect the Indian caste system?
It's all BULLSHIT. Karma is one of the most absurd concepts ever devised. It has nothing to do with science. As for morality, how is this to be assessed? When Adolf Hitler thought the Jews were responsible for the woes of Germany and decided to eliminate them, he unquestionably thought he was right and that he was doing good. He thought he was entirely morally justified. By exactly the same token, Abraham thought it was good and right to kill his own son because God had ordered it. The ancient Jews thought it was good and right to exterminate the Canaanites. The Inquisition thought it good and right to burn heretics and witches. The Americans thought it good and right to exterminate the Native American tribes and to drop atom bombs on Japan. How does karma "know" whether these actions are right or wrong, good or evil? If you were President Truman weighing how to end the war against Japan, would you have dropped the atomic bomb or sent many thousands of American soldiers to their deaths instead? There is no RIGHT answer, so how can karma possibly know what's right and what's wrong? Karma isn't even characterised as a conscious intelligence with the power of thought, so how does it ponder moral issues? How does it reach rational conclusions?
The karma doctrine is effectively saying that absolute standards of good and evil are ingrained in the fabric of the cosmos, yet this is ludicrous. How can a non-thinking entity assess good and evil? Good and evil are products of consciousness and can only be judged by consciousness. There is no good or evil in the absence of consciousness. Since karma isn't conscious, it can have no conceivable opinions of good and evil. Karma is a philosophically laughable concept. It is ridiculously naive and foolish. Like Abrahamism, karma must be consigned to the dustbin. It serves no useful function at all, and in its support for the caste system, it's inherently evil. Isn't that the supreme irony? - karma itself deserves to be punished for its wickedness. Karma, by its own logic, should reincarnate into a lower form to learn the moral lessons of its errors. And thus karma eats itself. It unravels into total absurdity.
You choose your fate: your fate doesn't choose you. Your choices NOW are what count; not your choices of the past.
Domination versus Submission
Our world is a place where dominants prey on submissives. There are relatively few dominants - only 1 in 20 - and plenty of submissives for them to hold sway over.
The dominants are the masters in the Hegelian dialectic, and the submissives are the slaves. The submissives are afraid to fight. They're terrified of the dominants even though they massively outnumber them.
It's time for submissives to toughen up. The days of cowardice are over. Stand up. The gap between masters and slaves must be bridged.
Meritocrats versus Privileged Elites
Our world is and always has been controlled by privileged elites - the Old World Order. They have invariably been dominants who have enjoyed enslaving others. Their policy is one of pursuing relentless self-interest and passing on their wealth and power on a hereditary basis. They are all about dynastic power, stretching across the ages. They have no interest in the merits of the ordinary people. In fact, they will do everything in their power to ensure that the meritorious of the underclass pose no threat to them.
If we want a free, meritorious world, privilege must be eradicated 100% and never again taint our world. Dynastic elites can be prevented by one extremely simple measure - 100% inheritance tax. At a stroke, the Old World Order would be destroyed.
It can never be stressed enough how important it is for privilege to be obliterated. Privilege is perhaps the greatest curse of all on our world. It has shaped everything. If we want a new world, we must kill the main force that shaped the old - privilege. Privilege creates a two-tier society of the haves and have-nots. Your fate in life becomes dependent not on your own efforts but those of your parents and grandparents. If they have failed to make lots of money, you're fucked. If they have accumulated gold bars by the barrow load, you've got it made even if you're the least meritorious person on earth.
Apart from the privileged themselves - who of course love privilege - only insane people would endorse a world of privilege. Yet huge numbers of ordinary people support the right of parents to pass on wealth to children, the essential mechanism of privilege. Just how dumb are ordinary people? They have no sense at all of their own self-interest. It's deranged to support a system that gives advantages to others and penalises you.
State versus Family
The family is the centre of the system of privilege. The richest families have commandeered the State to serve their interests. The State should be there to act justly and equitably towards all families, not to favour the rich. The State must dictate to the family, not the family to the State. Parents think they can do whatever they like to their children and that it's none of the State's business. In fact, everything is the State's business. Dysfunctional families create endless problems that the State has to pick up the bill for. Why is there crime, police, lawyers, courts, prisons, social workers, welfare systems etc? - because dysfunctional families can't be anything other than a source of poison in the State. Therefore the State must do everything in its power to prevent the creation of dysfunctional families that drain the resources of the State. The rights of the family are currently paramount, but it's the rights of the State that should be paramount. The State should operate on the principle that all citizens will be productive and make a positive contribution to society. If a family is not shaping up then the State has no choice but to intervene. There is no social contract that productive families should have to pay the bills of unproductive families. When a family starts making a negative contribution then, in effect, it puts itself in the care of the State and the State has the absolute right to sort out the problems of the family in whatever way it deems appropriate, regardless of the wishes of the family. By becoming a drain on the State, a family breaks the social contract and is no longer contractually protected from State intervention. There can never be any contractual principle that scroungers should be allowed to live off State benefits and offer nothing in return. The social contract between State and citizen isn't a free ride for the lazy and stupid. Citizens have obligations to the State and if they cease to fulfil those obligations, the State is entitled to expel them from the State or take remedial measures.
Community versus Family
The family is the basic unit of society, but if a family goes wrong - as a huge number do - it becomes a disastrous burden on the State. Given that so many families break down, it's crazy to base the raising of children on this single model that frequently fails. Family should be just one choice, and there ought to be at least one other - the commune.
If you're a child and you don't have a healthy family environment, you're in deep trouble. Your life is potentially ruined before it's even properly begun. If you're put in State care, that's an even bigger disaster. Why? Because you're treated as a "problem". No one is rooting for you and supporting you.
What's needed is a nurturing environment. A commune is the answer, but not any old commune - a psychologically designed commune. Who are the people who give you as much support as family? - good friends. Who are your good friends? Probably people who are a very good match for your personality profile and share your likes and dislikes.
In State care, a kid gets thrown in with all sorts - including bullies and people of completely different personality types who wind him up and leave him feeling alienated and insecure. This is a formula for disaster. But if kids were profiled and surrounded by compatible types and compatible carers, they would form a like-minded supportive community. They would have plenty of friends and allies and feel completely secure - all outwith the context of the family.
The family fails too often to be the core unit of society. We must create viable alternatives and the idea of a "friendship community" based on psychological compatibility must be the best bet.
Social Capitalism versus Capitalism
Raw capitalism has proved a catastrophe for the world. It has become the natural ally and primary tool of the privileged elite. It's via capitalism that they exert their control over the rest of us. But capitalism per se isn't evil. Profits, markets, private enterprise, entrepreneurship are fine as long as they are not permitted to get out of control. Rational, controlled capitalism tied to the interests of the State rather than those of the privileged elite is a valid and desirable economic system. This is what we call social, public or meritocratic capitalism. It's capitalism with a social dimension, a social conscience where the profit principle isn't allowed to explode out of control.
Consciousness versus Bicameralism
Most people in our world aren't truly conscious. They have a veneer of consciousness over a much more primitive mind - the master-slave mind that psychologist Julian Jaynes labelled "bicameral" (two-chambered, reflecting the left and right hemispheres of the brain). In ancient times, according to Jaynes, the right hemisphere generated hallucinated voices like those of the "gods", that gave commands to the slavishly obedient left hemisphere (the "worshipper").
Most people are therefore susceptible to being slavishly obedient to "higher powers" whether they be religious, political or economic. The bicameral mind goes hand in hand with a master-slave world of domination and submission i.e. the familiar world of Abrahamism and the Old World Order of dynastic privileged elites.
We can only overcome primitive bicameralism by boosting consciousness (the modern, higher functioning mind that evolved from bicameralism). That means we have to give people a better education, and more exposure to reason and knowledge. These are the antidotes to bicameralism.
Right brain versus Left Brain
Experiments on "split-brain" patients where the corpus callosum connective band of tissue that links the two hemispheres is deliberately severed to reduce the severity of epileptic attacks, showed that each hemisphere is capable of independent action, has different capabilities, different knowledge, personality, emotions and so forth i.e. the two hemispheres are actually two different people. In contrast with bicameralism where the right hemisphere is dominant, the left hemisphere is the dominant conscious hemisphere in modern humans. The right hemisphere is effectively the home of the unconscious and has all manner of mysterious qualities.
Humans will become enormously more powerful and aware of higher possibilities if a much closer relationship can be established between the left and right hemispheres. Arguably, this decisive evolutionary transition would pave the way for us to become Gods by unlocking the latent higher powers of the unconscious to the conscious mind.
The connective tissue of the hemispheres - the corpus callosum - thus becomes extraordinarily important.
Multinational corporations versus bespoke companies
Immense global corporations have acquired a power that allows them to dictate to governments. This is absurd. Corporations should never be allowed to get so big. Instead, capitalism should be based on small, bespoke companies integrated with local communities and countries.
Work versus Job
Everyone should be engaged in work rather than holding down a job. Work is an activity that expresses your creativity, into which you can pour your soul. Your work reflects who you are and you derive immense satisfaction from it. A job, on the other hand, is something you do to pay the bills. You hate it and get no joy from it. It makes you feel alienated and depressed. Capitalism offers plenty of jobs but very little work. We need a new social capitalism that's all about fulfilling work rather than alienating jobs.
LCD versus HCF
Capitalism relentlessly targets the lowest common denominator. It's all about dumbing down and the race to the bottom. It targets primal drives and instant gratification. We need social capitalism that raises people up rather than casts them down. We need a "higher common factor" doctrine, one of quality rather than quantity.
Evolution versus Creationism
The universe is all about evolution. Becoming God is all about evolution.
The idea of a Creationist God makes humanity entirely dependent on him. We are his slaves. The Abrahamist religions are all about slavery to "God". Absolute obedience is demanded. People are expected to "submit". A Creationist God is intrinsically linked to a master-slave model. An evolutionary God and evolutionary universe is about human freedom and progress, about raising ourselves up to perfection.
Creationism is a catastrophic doctrine, and scientifically, morally and theologically false. Evolution is the truth of the universe and everything is becoming, evolving.
It's time for creationism to be consigned to oblivion, and with it will go the Abrahamist God.
Education versus Indoctrination
Most people in the world aren't educated. Rather, they are indoctrinated with ridiculous dogmas. Look at Muslims. They are remarkably stupid because of Koranic brainwashing.
Muslims have been conditioned to be deferential. They are terrified of being individuals, of speaking out against nonsense. There are many atheists and skeptics in the Christian West. Why is there no tradition of atheism and skepticism in the Islamic world? It's because there was no Islamic Enlightenment, nothing to counteract the Koranic brainwashing. Muslims have rendered themselves subhuman because they have allowed themselves to be terrified into believing the most embarrassing hogwash conceivable. Anyone who rejects reason relegates themselves to the domain of animals - the less than human - and we shouldn't be afraid to say so. The world has pandered to the stupid for far too long. Did you know that the Koran actually teaches that the Earth is flat? It must be right. After all, "God" wrote it and he created the world. Yeah, right!!!!! Just how dumb would you have to be to think the Koran said even one true thing? Only a complete failure of reason would stop you from laughing out loud as you read page after page about camels and goats and making sure you wipe your ass with your left hand.
A Muslim woman said that Muslim men must have a beard because "it's in the Koran." Why doesn't such a woman ever stop to wonder why the alleged Creator of the Universe would be interested in the facial hair of men? Is bushiness of beard the measure of holiness? But, of course, Mohammed - a bearded man seeking to impose a visual brand on his followers to distinguish them from clean-shaven pagans - would be extremely keen to claim that God demanded that men have beards. Are all clean-shaven men to go to hell? What, for not having a fucking beard?!!!!!
"Holy texts" set themselves against reason and knowledge. Such texts are incompatible with education. In any nation that values education, "holy texts" must be rejected. They should be banned from schools. They should actually be thrown on ceremonial pyres designed to consign ignorance to the flames.
Reason versus Love
Forget love. It's reason that the world is short of and reason that will propel the world forward. The Enlightenment wasn't about love but about reason. Love is an emotion and we have to escape excess emotionalism if we're to have a rational society.
All the new age, hippie rhetoric about love is nauseating and reveals a deep hatred of reason and intellect. Love is a quality most often trumpeted by stupid people, incapable of any hard analysis of the world. They think that love = peace = harmony = perfect world. In fact, love = hate = division = conflict = war = violence = greed = narcissism = egotism = selfishness = privilege = everything that's wrong with the world. For "love" to have any meaning, it must be involved with a judgment that one thing (the loved thing) is better than another (the unloved thing), and the other thing then becomes "other", an object of hatred. Hitler loved Germany, so he hated Germany's perceived enemy - the Jews. The Jews love their God, so they hate everyone who does not. Privileged families love themselves and hate non-privileged families. Love AUTOMATICALLY summons hate, hence is a catastrophe. When are people going to wake up to the horrific truth of "love"?
Reason, not love, is our salvation. Reason is emotionally neutral and objective. Love is entirely subjective.
Mythos versus Logos
Love goes hand in hand with Mythos-thinking while reason is the core of Logos-thinking. Mythos is all about emotions, stories, parables, fables, delusions, wishful thinking, while Logos is about rationality, logic, analysis, facts, evidence.
The great divide in our world is between Mythos and Logos and, if we apply the commonly quoted "80/20" rule, we can assert that 80% of the world are Mythos thinkers who are attracted to simplistic, stupid religions that provide emotional comfort and facile, false "certainty". The Enlightenment was about the rise of Logos. At best, 20% of the world are Logos thinkers and they are responsible for 80% or more of the advances of the human race.
In other words, we have a disastrous imbalance of Mythos and Logos thinking. Mythos has a place, but it ought to be subordinated to Logos. The division between science and religion is the division between Logos and Mythos, and there can be no question that science has proved enormously more beneficial to humanity than religion. Anyone capable of rational analysis would conclude that religion has had nothing but malign consequences for humanity, while science has showered humanity with gifts. So why do all governments still relentlessly favour Mythos over Logos?
Logos must be given pride of place and Mythos exposed for what it is - the inferior partner that should be ignored when anything serious is being discussed. Mythos should be what guides us when we are at play, and Logos when we are at work.
Mythos is subjective, crazy nonsense, albeit emotionally seductive, while Logos delivers real, meaningful, objective progress according to methods and evidence.
All schools should be compelled by law to enshrine the supremacy of Logos over Mythos. Consider the Creationism versus Science debate. Creationism is pure Mythos and asserts that something is true because an old book says so, without a single fact, mathematical equation, scientific theory or any evidence at all, while science provides facts, evidence, sophisticated theories that explain all manner of phenomena, a detailed intellectual and rational framework, and an objective view completely divorced from a subjective book produced by ancient, scientifically illiterate Jews. How can there be any debate at all about which provides the right approach and the infinitely more plausible solution?
It's insane to try to use Mythos against Logos. There can only be one rational winner. Unfortunately, people aren't rational. Look at Islam with its fanatical adherence to the ludicrous Koran - pure Mythos. Is there such a thing as an intelligent Muslim? How can anyone who believes even one word of the Koran be intelligent? It's a contradiction in terms. It contains not one reference to Logos thinking. But stupid, superstitious, emotional people of faith "understand" the Koran (because it's so simplistic) and are clueless if they pick up a book on mathematics, philosophy or science. Doesn't that say everything?
Creationists tried to have the teaching of evolution banned from schools. It ought to be the other way around. Any anti-scientific claims to truth should be prevented from being taught in schools. How else will we produce rational people unless we teach them rationally?
Serving God versus Becoming God
Humanity's relationship with God is paramount and shapes our collective destiny. If we serve God then he is our master and we are his slaves. We are expected to be on our knees to him. Our duty is to obey him, regardless of what he says or does. Even if he orders a father to kill his son - a psychotic order - Abrahamists will willingly obey because they are servile, brainwashed automata who have no personal concept of good and evil. Why didn't "God" want people to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - because then they would conclude that he was evil (as his infinite cruelty and violence have demonstrated all too clearly to any rational person who has taken the trouble to read the grotesque and nauseating Old Testament).
Everything changes if you are Becoming God rather than serving God. Then you can make up your mind about good and evil. You can get off your knees and stand on your feet. You have no respect for those false gods - monarchs, popes, preachers, prophets, the super rich, the privileged elites - who claim to be God's voice on earth.
The world has a clear choice: a master-slave model such as the Old World Order has always implemented, or a meritocratic model where anyone from any background can rise as high as their talents permit and no permanent master class and slave underclass is ever allowed to form. This is the basis of the Illuminati's New World Order.
We must never again be slaves of God. We must have a contract/covenant with God whereby we tell him what we expect of HIM. It is not for him to dictate to us. We will create Gods in our own image. They must serve our interests, not we theirs. We are all becoming God, so we need bow to no one. God is our guide, our exemplar, the light that shows us the way to join him. God is never a tyrant over us, demanding that we worship him and get on our knees and avert our eyes.
Tradition-directed, Other-directed and Inner-directed versus Autonomy
Has your life been dictated by an ancient religious book, community elders with long beards and an insular, ghetto community where everyone knows what's expected of them and everyone knows everyone else's business? Then you are tradition-directed.
Has your life been dominated by your peer group? You're terrified of being disliked, ostracised, different from everyone else. You follow whatever fashion your peers follow, whether you like it or not. You're terrified of telling them to fuck off and doing your own thing. Then you're other-directed.
Has your life been lived in your parents' shadow? Are you a clone of them? Do you share all of the same values? Then you're inner-directed, driven by the deep values your parents have instilled in you. You will stand up to traditions and peers if they contradict your inner value system. But these are not actually your own values. They have been chosen FOR you, not BY you.
It's wrong for anyone to be controlled by traditions, peers or parents. The State must be committed to producing AUTONOMOUS individuals who are self-defining and self-creating. What this means in practice is that the State education system should provide a wide range of ways of approaching life and children should choose whatever makes most sense to them and is most compatible with their nature, character and personality. They become true individuals who have chosen the type of person they are going to be, not had it imposed on them by others.
Autonomy is the essence of freedom. Free people will never be slaves. They will be natural meritocrats.
Materialism versus Spirituality
The capitalist world is one of objects. People themselves are objectified. The acquisition of objects is the highest good in our society and your status is dependent on how highly others value the objects you own. This system is spiritually dead. It creates soulless zombies in shopping malls, aimlessly shuffling from one purchase to the next in a conveyer-belt process that never ends. You can never have enough objects. You will always need the latest upgrade, the latest fashion, the highest status objects - and these are permanently changing. There is no endpoint, but when your personal end comes (your death) all you have to show for it is a lot of junk that your relatives then consign to the garbage dump. And that metaphorically and even literally is what became of your life on earth - it joined the rest of the garbage. Is that how you want to live your life?
The State must introduce spirituality into our lives, not via master-slaves religions but through the aspiration that all of us are engaged in a sublime project to create a Community of Gods, a Society of the Divine. The pursuit of our own perfection will ensure we never become trapped in the status game, objectified, defined by our possessions rather than who we are.
Children versus Parents
Parents are often deemed to have absolute rights over their children, to the extent that parents are allowed to cut off the foreskin of an 8-day old baby boy without a single voice of protest being raised. The parents' belief system literally has an effect on the little boy's bodily integrity.
He is parentally "branded". He had no say in it at all. His consent was neither sought nor required. His parents were treating him as an object, a slave, a thing to which they could do anything they liked.
Is that acceptable? Isn't it the worst thing imaginable? The function of parents is to love, nurture and support their children, it's not to impose their own beliefs on them. If we genuinely say we are advocates of freedom, how can we let children be the slaves of their parents? Every baby is embraced by freedom the moment they are born. No major decision can be taken about their future without their consent. The function of parents and the State is to provide children with a framework that keeps all options open until the child is mature enough to make his own free choices.
Eros versus Thanatos
Eros is the principle of life, energy, growth, vitality and an ascending trajectory while Thanatos is the principle of death, decay, degeneration, depression and a descending trajectory. Our world is full of Thanatos forces. Abrahamism - with its obsession with hell - is nothing but death. Capitalism - the cult of the object that even turns people into objects - is pure death. The privileged elite who reduce everyone else to mere bystanders, spectators and non-persons embody the gospel of death.
"Pascal's wager" probably encapsulates the cult of death better than anything else. The wager is this: 1) on the one hand, if God exists and you obey his laws, you will achieve the maximum possible gain (eternal joy in heaven) while if he doesn't exist your maximum loss will be your opportunity to live as you like on earth and 2) on the other hand, if God exists and you don't obey his laws you will achieve the maximum loss (eternal pain in hell) and if he doesn't exist your maximum gain will be that you can do whatever you like with your mortal life on earth.
Pascal thought it was a no-brainer that you should rationally wager on God's existence because your potential loss is so great if you get it wrong that he doesn't exist and your potential gain isn't all that much if you get it right. But the wager is much more complex than Pascal seemed to think. If there is no afterlife then if you obey some book of lies you have thrown away the only life you will ever have. This is an infinite loss since you will never again get a chance to live.
Moreover, if "God" is an entirely different type of being from the one Pascal envisaged then it's possible you are sentencing yourself to eternal pain by NOT living life as fully as you can. What if God punishes those who chose to believe lies rather than live life?
What if you can become God only by living a succession of great lives where you are true to yourself and not to some ancient book of revelation?
The entire basis of Pascal's wager is terror. This was a man who was petrified of God, the afterlife and indeed of life itself. Who wants to sign up to a wager of fear? Is that rational? Abrahamism functions entirely on this basis. It makes you afraid to live. It drowns you in the darkness of Thanatos.
All gospels of fear, terror and death must be INFINITELY rejected. They are an insult to life, just as Pascal himself was.
Nietzsche wrote of the "depraving of Pascal, who believed his reason had been depraved by original sin while it had only been depraved by his Christianity!" and described him as "the most instructive of all sacrifices to Christianity."
Positive Liberty versus Negative Liberty
Negative liberty is about being free FROM. Positive liberty is about being free FOR. Negative liberty is associated with right wing distrust of the "big State". The State should exert minimal interference in people's lives. The self-interested, self-absorbed, selfish family is the essence of negative liberty.
Positive liberty is associated with the grand transformative project to create a new type of human being. Ancient Athens, Sparta, Rome, the French Revolution, Nazism and Communism were all positive liberty initiatives. The family is often distrusted by positive liberty States, being viewed as a divisive and subversive element within the State that seeks its own advantage rather than the advantage of all. Whereas the positive liberty State is concerned with what Jean-Jacques Rousseau called the "General Will", the negative liberty State focuses on the particular wills of families, sectional groups and institutions. Negative liberty plays the "divide and rule" game. Different interest groups are played off against one another and a stable Game Theory solution is sought. Negative liberty is not unlike the "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction) Cold War between America and the Soviet Union. All groups in the State are regarded as selfish units relentlessly pursuing their own self-interest. Just as Adam Smith spoke of an "invisible hand" guiding free market economics to arrive at a reasonably stable solution, so the negative liberty doctrine assumes that a similar invisible hand brings all of the competing, selfish entities within society to a stable equilibrium. This is a dog-eat-dog world full of suspicion, selfishness and obsession with status.
The positive liberty doctrine considers it impossible for society to be healthy if groups are continually at each other's throats. Positive liberty States are obsessed with unity rather than the cutthroat diversity and division of negative liberty States. Positive liberty States can lead to dangerous conformity while negative liberty States generate toxic alienation and distrust between people.
What the Illuminati advocate is communitarian, autonomous, meritocratic positive liberty. Individuals should be fundamentally independently minded and autonomous, but they should rationally understand that a community where everyone seeks to help each other is infinitely stronger than one where everyone is out to put everyone else down and to create a competitive advantage. Meritocracy is a natural partner of autonomous positive liberty whereas privilege goes hand in hand with negative liberty.
Religious Truth versus the Real Truth
Mainstream religions promise the "truth" to everyone, which is one reason they are so successful. But what if the truth is a function of intelligence? Then the most intelligent can have access to truths denied to stupid people. How many people can understand Einstein's theories? Well, if Einstein has discovered real truths, these are not truths that ordinary people will ever grasp, right? Why should truth be open to everyone? Is genius? There is no prima facie reason why truth should be "democratic". And, if it isn't, some people will inhabit the world of truth much more meaningfully than others.
Hegel was of the opinion that only the philosophically minded had access to the highest truths. He regarded art and religion as ways by which non-philosophers could achieve some contact with the truth, but at a simplistic level in comparison with philosophy.
Can you imagine any religion telling the truth about truth? - i.e. that it is completely false to assert that truth is equally available to everyone.
Control versus Freedom
The elite of society are terrified of losing everything, as in the French Revolution. They are therefore obsessed with control. Religious leaders are obsessed with control, as are business leaders, political leaders, leaders of all institutions. Those at the top are terrified of losing control. So they build control into everything. Stifling, authoritarian hierarchies are everywhere.
Isn't it time for freedom? A world of autonomous individuals would not be one in which those individuals would tolerate being controlled. We have to get to the state where no one is controlled and groups of people come together cooperatively to achieve common goals. The most meritorious people for each task will take charge since that's the rational thing to do, but, as the tasks change, so will those who are most meritorious.
Wolves versus Dogs
Dogs are tame wolves. They were bred for tameness so that they could be controlled and managed. We have to move away from the world of dogs and wolves. There's no place for rigid systems of control and hordes of docile, sedated, tame workers.
The autonomous individual is never a tame dog, nor is he a wolf praying on others.
It's well known that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hasn't that been proved endless times? So there must be clear limits on power, and above all that means restricting the amount of money anyone can have. Money = power so no one can be allowed to have too much money.
The powerful have always abused their power and that abuse must be stopped by law.
Quality versus Quantity
Capitalism is all about quantity. What price? What profit? How many units sold? What cost? How many employees? And so on.
We should be moving instead to a world of quality. If an activity does not raise the quality of the human race, it should be illegal. How will we make a better world if we don't have higher quality people?
Meritocracy is about quality (what are your qualifications) while democracy is mere quantity (a head count). It's impossible for democracy to improve the quality of the human race for the simple reason that democracy makes no reference at all to quality. It simply doesn't enter into the democratic ideology. Meritocracy is purely about quality and only via meritocracy will human beings be turned first into supermen and superwomen and finally into Gods and Goddesses.
1. Coded 4 books : Access denied - Merit Revolution
2. All articles found here in chronological order : Illumination: the Secret Religion - The Coming Race
3. Non Coded 3 books : Access denied - Merit Revolution
4. Series 7 books : Access denied - Merit Revolution
****
5. Also you may want to read an older site that exists as an archive : The Meritocracy Party - Introduction
And also you should see this:
I Pet Goat II, By Heliofant (Analyse and research it, the more you do the more ideas you will see and then understand)
The actual site: http://merit.clan.su/ (didn't realise it needed a login)
https://www.facebook.com/meritocracy4earth
https://www.facebook.com/illumination4earth
*****
A summary from the site in case you didn't wish to read the site, although the proofs are on the site so you'll only see them there:
The Great Enlightenment War
A number of great dialectical struggles must be won before humanity can proceed to the next stage of its divine evolution. The most enlightened amongst us most overcome the most endarkened.
Here are all the victories that must be won:
Enlightenment versus Abrahamism
Abrahamism has no place at all in an enlightened world. It's a terrifying, sinister, irrational belief system with zero truth content. Abrahamists believe that God would order a father (Abraham) to murder his son. Such a thought, in the context of the True God, is literally unthinkable. The "God" of Abraham is a Torture God, a God of Terror. Morality is never discussed in the Abrahamic "holy" texts. All they are concerned with is slavish, mindless obedience to "God". Abrahamism is nothing but primitive operant conditioning promising people the maximum incentive (heaven) for obeying "God" and the maximum punishment (hell) for disobeying. It is nothing but a system of control of stupid, credulous believers. Abrahamism's history has been one of extremist violence, fanaticism, and tyranny. It has not one thing worthwhile to offer the world. Abrahamism must be subjected to the Final Solution - complete eradication from this world. The Devil must die!
Reason versus Faith
"Whenever we read the obscene stories [of the Old Testament], the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt or brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine
Abrahamism champions faith. Faith means a strong or unshakeable belief in something without any proof. The insane person who is certain he is Napoleon is a person of faith. In fact, faith and insanity are the same thing. Why would anyone believe anything without proof? Billions of Christians believe that the Creator of the Universe was born in a stable to a Jewish virgin some 2,000 years ago. (The Jews themselves do not believe it.) Is that belief anything other than insane? It stands in absolute opposition to reason, logic, science and common sense, and even the Jews think it's stupid. Surely a claim so ridiculous must be backed up by irrefutable proof? But in fact it's backed up by no proof at all. It's just an assertion, a story in a book. Why would any sane person consider it true? And in fact no sane person would. If you believe in Christianity, you are saying that reason and science are wrong. You are rejecting everything solid, true and real in favour of a preposterous story.
Faith is quite simply an insane concept. Faith has no place in the rational world. Faith is a word that should be removed from the human vocabulary. It serves no positive function and is historically associated with extreme evil. It must be abolished.
Everything should be considered proven, provisionally proven, not proven, or refuted. At the very most charitable, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ would have to be considered not proven, and that is surely no basis for the most successful religion in world history. Science is based on evidence and reason and has wiped the floor with religion. In any contest between science and religion, science should be regarded as the default position and religion as being in severe want of evidence.
Believers should be stigmatised as stupid and mad - because that's exactly what they are.
Knowledge versus Superstition
Enormous numbers of people still inhabit a world of primitive superstition. Superstition is of course a close relative of faith. Just like faith, superstition is ferociously anti-science and irrational. Superstition is defined as an irrational belief based on ignorance or fear and characterised by obsessive reverence for omens, charms or unseen forces.
Knowledge is the antidote to superstition. Superstition, like faith, must be driven out of the vocabulary. It must be stigmatized. There is simply no place for it.
Good deeds versus Faith
Protestants have rejected good deeds in favour of faith (via the doctrine of justification by faith). Faith is consequently selfish and immoral and encourages scorn for other people and a refusal to help and cooperate with them.
We must have a world where good deeds are the basis of our moral code and faith has no role at all. Good deeds help others; faith helps no one. There is no moral justification by faith. Good deeds are the sole moral justifier.
Protestantism is an evil religion. Martin Luther, its sleazy founder, declared, "Reason is the Devil's whore." A religion that hates reason and good deeds is the definition of a Satanic religion. Protestantism must be eradicated.
High IQ versus Low IQ
Most people in the world are stupid. Stupid people will never become Gods. The State should never pander to the stupid. It must do everything in its power to raise the general IQ. This can be achieved only through a) enormous investment in education, 2) enormous changes in the environment (children must be removed from ugly, unhealthy, stupid environments, 3) an assessment of whether parents are a stupid or clever influence in their children's lives (never forget that half of all parents will be below the median intelligence); if the former, contact time between parents and children must be reduced by the expedient of sending children to boarding schools where they will be supervised and taught by intelligent people.
Scientific Method versus Moralising
The "Drugs War" has been going on for decades and shows no sign of being won. What's the point of this war? Is it all because some strident moralizers say that drugs are "wrong"? Well, their moralizing stance certainly hasn't accomplished any victory over drugs. Isn't it time to try non-moralizing tactics? Isn't it time to apply the scientific method, the most successful method in human history? Isn't it time to legalize drugs and collect evidence as to whether that leads to better or worse outcomes than at present? In fact, isn't it time to apply the scientific method to all aspects of the State and to eliminate moralizing entirely?
Let's make everything evidence based. Policies can be adopted, abandoned or amended not because they're morally "right" or "wrong" but because they are evidentially successful or unsuccessful.
Who are the moralizers? - the priest caste and the political preachers. Who needs these people? They have troubled the world long enough. Let them be gone. Let evidence and method replace these clowns.
Reincarnation versus Resurrection
Resurrection is an absurd concept that makes people think their souls are created by God and are entirely under his control. In fact, souls are uncreated and eternal. When people understand that, they will realize that they are not subject to God at all. In fact, the logical conclusion of the doctrine of reincarnation is that everyone can perfect themselves and become God. Once you grasp that you are not controlled by God - that he can't send you to heaven or hell - and that you create your own fate and can send yourself to heaven because you yourself have become God then your attitude towards existence, God and yourself is transformed forever.
When everyone accepts the truth of reincarnation, it will revolutionise the world. Abrahamism will perish and everyone will start to work on the grand project to make themselves God.
YOUR FATE IS IN YOUR OWN HANDS - NOT ANYONE ELSE'S. GOD, STRICTLY SPEAKING, IS IRRELEVANT TO YOU, EXCEPT AS THE SHINING BEACON THAT DRAWS YOU ONWARDS AND UPWARDS TOWARDS YOUR OWN DIVINITY.
Karma versus Choice
The theory of karma is that there is some sort of moral force in the cosmos that is somehow quasi-scientific and it can "calculate" your sins versus your virtues and then create a future life for you in which your sins catch up with you and you are made to suffer, or your virtues are rewarded and you are allowed to enjoy a happy life. Of course, no one anywhere can present any plausible scientific explanation for how karma influences DNA or what environment you are going to be born in. If you are a fan of karma, try to propose how karma scientifically causes an Indian who was once a Brahmin (highest caste), but was very sinful, to come back as an Untouchable (lowest caste). How does DNA reflect the Indian caste system?
It's all BULLSHIT. Karma is one of the most absurd concepts ever devised. It has nothing to do with science. As for morality, how is this to be assessed? When Adolf Hitler thought the Jews were responsible for the woes of Germany and decided to eliminate them, he unquestionably thought he was right and that he was doing good. He thought he was entirely morally justified. By exactly the same token, Abraham thought it was good and right to kill his own son because God had ordered it. The ancient Jews thought it was good and right to exterminate the Canaanites. The Inquisition thought it good and right to burn heretics and witches. The Americans thought it good and right to exterminate the Native American tribes and to drop atom bombs on Japan. How does karma "know" whether these actions are right or wrong, good or evil? If you were President Truman weighing how to end the war against Japan, would you have dropped the atomic bomb or sent many thousands of American soldiers to their deaths instead? There is no RIGHT answer, so how can karma possibly know what's right and what's wrong? Karma isn't even characterised as a conscious intelligence with the power of thought, so how does it ponder moral issues? How does it reach rational conclusions?
The karma doctrine is effectively saying that absolute standards of good and evil are ingrained in the fabric of the cosmos, yet this is ludicrous. How can a non-thinking entity assess good and evil? Good and evil are products of consciousness and can only be judged by consciousness. There is no good or evil in the absence of consciousness. Since karma isn't conscious, it can have no conceivable opinions of good and evil. Karma is a philosophically laughable concept. It is ridiculously naive and foolish. Like Abrahamism, karma must be consigned to the dustbin. It serves no useful function at all, and in its support for the caste system, it's inherently evil. Isn't that the supreme irony? - karma itself deserves to be punished for its wickedness. Karma, by its own logic, should reincarnate into a lower form to learn the moral lessons of its errors. And thus karma eats itself. It unravels into total absurdity.
You choose your fate: your fate doesn't choose you. Your choices NOW are what count; not your choices of the past.
Domination versus Submission
Our world is a place where dominants prey on submissives. There are relatively few dominants - only 1 in 20 - and plenty of submissives for them to hold sway over.
The dominants are the masters in the Hegelian dialectic, and the submissives are the slaves. The submissives are afraid to fight. They're terrified of the dominants even though they massively outnumber them.
It's time for submissives to toughen up. The days of cowardice are over. Stand up. The gap between masters and slaves must be bridged.
Meritocrats versus Privileged Elites
Our world is and always has been controlled by privileged elites - the Old World Order. They have invariably been dominants who have enjoyed enslaving others. Their policy is one of pursuing relentless self-interest and passing on their wealth and power on a hereditary basis. They are all about dynastic power, stretching across the ages. They have no interest in the merits of the ordinary people. In fact, they will do everything in their power to ensure that the meritorious of the underclass pose no threat to them.
If we want a free, meritorious world, privilege must be eradicated 100% and never again taint our world. Dynastic elites can be prevented by one extremely simple measure - 100% inheritance tax. At a stroke, the Old World Order would be destroyed.
It can never be stressed enough how important it is for privilege to be obliterated. Privilege is perhaps the greatest curse of all on our world. It has shaped everything. If we want a new world, we must kill the main force that shaped the old - privilege. Privilege creates a two-tier society of the haves and have-nots. Your fate in life becomes dependent not on your own efforts but those of your parents and grandparents. If they have failed to make lots of money, you're fucked. If they have accumulated gold bars by the barrow load, you've got it made even if you're the least meritorious person on earth.
Apart from the privileged themselves - who of course love privilege - only insane people would endorse a world of privilege. Yet huge numbers of ordinary people support the right of parents to pass on wealth to children, the essential mechanism of privilege. Just how dumb are ordinary people? They have no sense at all of their own self-interest. It's deranged to support a system that gives advantages to others and penalises you.
State versus Family
The family is the centre of the system of privilege. The richest families have commandeered the State to serve their interests. The State should be there to act justly and equitably towards all families, not to favour the rich. The State must dictate to the family, not the family to the State. Parents think they can do whatever they like to their children and that it's none of the State's business. In fact, everything is the State's business. Dysfunctional families create endless problems that the State has to pick up the bill for. Why is there crime, police, lawyers, courts, prisons, social workers, welfare systems etc? - because dysfunctional families can't be anything other than a source of poison in the State. Therefore the State must do everything in its power to prevent the creation of dysfunctional families that drain the resources of the State. The rights of the family are currently paramount, but it's the rights of the State that should be paramount. The State should operate on the principle that all citizens will be productive and make a positive contribution to society. If a family is not shaping up then the State has no choice but to intervene. There is no social contract that productive families should have to pay the bills of unproductive families. When a family starts making a negative contribution then, in effect, it puts itself in the care of the State and the State has the absolute right to sort out the problems of the family in whatever way it deems appropriate, regardless of the wishes of the family. By becoming a drain on the State, a family breaks the social contract and is no longer contractually protected from State intervention. There can never be any contractual principle that scroungers should be allowed to live off State benefits and offer nothing in return. The social contract between State and citizen isn't a free ride for the lazy and stupid. Citizens have obligations to the State and if they cease to fulfil those obligations, the State is entitled to expel them from the State or take remedial measures.
Community versus Family
The family is the basic unit of society, but if a family goes wrong - as a huge number do - it becomes a disastrous burden on the State. Given that so many families break down, it's crazy to base the raising of children on this single model that frequently fails. Family should be just one choice, and there ought to be at least one other - the commune.
If you're a child and you don't have a healthy family environment, you're in deep trouble. Your life is potentially ruined before it's even properly begun. If you're put in State care, that's an even bigger disaster. Why? Because you're treated as a "problem". No one is rooting for you and supporting you.
What's needed is a nurturing environment. A commune is the answer, but not any old commune - a psychologically designed commune. Who are the people who give you as much support as family? - good friends. Who are your good friends? Probably people who are a very good match for your personality profile and share your likes and dislikes.
In State care, a kid gets thrown in with all sorts - including bullies and people of completely different personality types who wind him up and leave him feeling alienated and insecure. This is a formula for disaster. But if kids were profiled and surrounded by compatible types and compatible carers, they would form a like-minded supportive community. They would have plenty of friends and allies and feel completely secure - all outwith the context of the family.
The family fails too often to be the core unit of society. We must create viable alternatives and the idea of a "friendship community" based on psychological compatibility must be the best bet.
Social Capitalism versus Capitalism
Raw capitalism has proved a catastrophe for the world. It has become the natural ally and primary tool of the privileged elite. It's via capitalism that they exert their control over the rest of us. But capitalism per se isn't evil. Profits, markets, private enterprise, entrepreneurship are fine as long as they are not permitted to get out of control. Rational, controlled capitalism tied to the interests of the State rather than those of the privileged elite is a valid and desirable economic system. This is what we call social, public or meritocratic capitalism. It's capitalism with a social dimension, a social conscience where the profit principle isn't allowed to explode out of control.
Consciousness versus Bicameralism
Most people in our world aren't truly conscious. They have a veneer of consciousness over a much more primitive mind - the master-slave mind that psychologist Julian Jaynes labelled "bicameral" (two-chambered, reflecting the left and right hemispheres of the brain). In ancient times, according to Jaynes, the right hemisphere generated hallucinated voices like those of the "gods", that gave commands to the slavishly obedient left hemisphere (the "worshipper").
Most people are therefore susceptible to being slavishly obedient to "higher powers" whether they be religious, political or economic. The bicameral mind goes hand in hand with a master-slave world of domination and submission i.e. the familiar world of Abrahamism and the Old World Order of dynastic privileged elites.
We can only overcome primitive bicameralism by boosting consciousness (the modern, higher functioning mind that evolved from bicameralism). That means we have to give people a better education, and more exposure to reason and knowledge. These are the antidotes to bicameralism.
Right brain versus Left Brain
Experiments on "split-brain" patients where the corpus callosum connective band of tissue that links the two hemispheres is deliberately severed to reduce the severity of epileptic attacks, showed that each hemisphere is capable of independent action, has different capabilities, different knowledge, personality, emotions and so forth i.e. the two hemispheres are actually two different people. In contrast with bicameralism where the right hemisphere is dominant, the left hemisphere is the dominant conscious hemisphere in modern humans. The right hemisphere is effectively the home of the unconscious and has all manner of mysterious qualities.
Humans will become enormously more powerful and aware of higher possibilities if a much closer relationship can be established between the left and right hemispheres. Arguably, this decisive evolutionary transition would pave the way for us to become Gods by unlocking the latent higher powers of the unconscious to the conscious mind.
The connective tissue of the hemispheres - the corpus callosum - thus becomes extraordinarily important.
Multinational corporations versus bespoke companies
Immense global corporations have acquired a power that allows them to dictate to governments. This is absurd. Corporations should never be allowed to get so big. Instead, capitalism should be based on small, bespoke companies integrated with local communities and countries.
Work versus Job
Everyone should be engaged in work rather than holding down a job. Work is an activity that expresses your creativity, into which you can pour your soul. Your work reflects who you are and you derive immense satisfaction from it. A job, on the other hand, is something you do to pay the bills. You hate it and get no joy from it. It makes you feel alienated and depressed. Capitalism offers plenty of jobs but very little work. We need a new social capitalism that's all about fulfilling work rather than alienating jobs.
LCD versus HCF
Capitalism relentlessly targets the lowest common denominator. It's all about dumbing down and the race to the bottom. It targets primal drives and instant gratification. We need social capitalism that raises people up rather than casts them down. We need a "higher common factor" doctrine, one of quality rather than quantity.
Evolution versus Creationism
The universe is all about evolution. Becoming God is all about evolution.
The idea of a Creationist God makes humanity entirely dependent on him. We are his slaves. The Abrahamist religions are all about slavery to "God". Absolute obedience is demanded. People are expected to "submit". A Creationist God is intrinsically linked to a master-slave model. An evolutionary God and evolutionary universe is about human freedom and progress, about raising ourselves up to perfection.
Creationism is a catastrophic doctrine, and scientifically, morally and theologically false. Evolution is the truth of the universe and everything is becoming, evolving.
It's time for creationism to be consigned to oblivion, and with it will go the Abrahamist God.
Education versus Indoctrination
Most people in the world aren't educated. Rather, they are indoctrinated with ridiculous dogmas. Look at Muslims. They are remarkably stupid because of Koranic brainwashing.
Muslims have been conditioned to be deferential. They are terrified of being individuals, of speaking out against nonsense. There are many atheists and skeptics in the Christian West. Why is there no tradition of atheism and skepticism in the Islamic world? It's because there was no Islamic Enlightenment, nothing to counteract the Koranic brainwashing. Muslims have rendered themselves subhuman because they have allowed themselves to be terrified into believing the most embarrassing hogwash conceivable. Anyone who rejects reason relegates themselves to the domain of animals - the less than human - and we shouldn't be afraid to say so. The world has pandered to the stupid for far too long. Did you know that the Koran actually teaches that the Earth is flat? It must be right. After all, "God" wrote it and he created the world. Yeah, right!!!!! Just how dumb would you have to be to think the Koran said even one true thing? Only a complete failure of reason would stop you from laughing out loud as you read page after page about camels and goats and making sure you wipe your ass with your left hand.
A Muslim woman said that Muslim men must have a beard because "it's in the Koran." Why doesn't such a woman ever stop to wonder why the alleged Creator of the Universe would be interested in the facial hair of men? Is bushiness of beard the measure of holiness? But, of course, Mohammed - a bearded man seeking to impose a visual brand on his followers to distinguish them from clean-shaven pagans - would be extremely keen to claim that God demanded that men have beards. Are all clean-shaven men to go to hell? What, for not having a fucking beard?!!!!!
"Holy texts" set themselves against reason and knowledge. Such texts are incompatible with education. In any nation that values education, "holy texts" must be rejected. They should be banned from schools. They should actually be thrown on ceremonial pyres designed to consign ignorance to the flames.
Reason versus Love
Forget love. It's reason that the world is short of and reason that will propel the world forward. The Enlightenment wasn't about love but about reason. Love is an emotion and we have to escape excess emotionalism if we're to have a rational society.
All the new age, hippie rhetoric about love is nauseating and reveals a deep hatred of reason and intellect. Love is a quality most often trumpeted by stupid people, incapable of any hard analysis of the world. They think that love = peace = harmony = perfect world. In fact, love = hate = division = conflict = war = violence = greed = narcissism = egotism = selfishness = privilege = everything that's wrong with the world. For "love" to have any meaning, it must be involved with a judgment that one thing (the loved thing) is better than another (the unloved thing), and the other thing then becomes "other", an object of hatred. Hitler loved Germany, so he hated Germany's perceived enemy - the Jews. The Jews love their God, so they hate everyone who does not. Privileged families love themselves and hate non-privileged families. Love AUTOMATICALLY summons hate, hence is a catastrophe. When are people going to wake up to the horrific truth of "love"?
Reason, not love, is our salvation. Reason is emotionally neutral and objective. Love is entirely subjective.
Mythos versus Logos
Love goes hand in hand with Mythos-thinking while reason is the core of Logos-thinking. Mythos is all about emotions, stories, parables, fables, delusions, wishful thinking, while Logos is about rationality, logic, analysis, facts, evidence.
The great divide in our world is between Mythos and Logos and, if we apply the commonly quoted "80/20" rule, we can assert that 80% of the world are Mythos thinkers who are attracted to simplistic, stupid religions that provide emotional comfort and facile, false "certainty". The Enlightenment was about the rise of Logos. At best, 20% of the world are Logos thinkers and they are responsible for 80% or more of the advances of the human race.
In other words, we have a disastrous imbalance of Mythos and Logos thinking. Mythos has a place, but it ought to be subordinated to Logos. The division between science and religion is the division between Logos and Mythos, and there can be no question that science has proved enormously more beneficial to humanity than religion. Anyone capable of rational analysis would conclude that religion has had nothing but malign consequences for humanity, while science has showered humanity with gifts. So why do all governments still relentlessly favour Mythos over Logos?
Logos must be given pride of place and Mythos exposed for what it is - the inferior partner that should be ignored when anything serious is being discussed. Mythos should be what guides us when we are at play, and Logos when we are at work.
Mythos is subjective, crazy nonsense, albeit emotionally seductive, while Logos delivers real, meaningful, objective progress according to methods and evidence.
All schools should be compelled by law to enshrine the supremacy of Logos over Mythos. Consider the Creationism versus Science debate. Creationism is pure Mythos and asserts that something is true because an old book says so, without a single fact, mathematical equation, scientific theory or any evidence at all, while science provides facts, evidence, sophisticated theories that explain all manner of phenomena, a detailed intellectual and rational framework, and an objective view completely divorced from a subjective book produced by ancient, scientifically illiterate Jews. How can there be any debate at all about which provides the right approach and the infinitely more plausible solution?
It's insane to try to use Mythos against Logos. There can only be one rational winner. Unfortunately, people aren't rational. Look at Islam with its fanatical adherence to the ludicrous Koran - pure Mythos. Is there such a thing as an intelligent Muslim? How can anyone who believes even one word of the Koran be intelligent? It's a contradiction in terms. It contains not one reference to Logos thinking. But stupid, superstitious, emotional people of faith "understand" the Koran (because it's so simplistic) and are clueless if they pick up a book on mathematics, philosophy or science. Doesn't that say everything?
Creationists tried to have the teaching of evolution banned from schools. It ought to be the other way around. Any anti-scientific claims to truth should be prevented from being taught in schools. How else will we produce rational people unless we teach them rationally?
Serving God versus Becoming God
Humanity's relationship with God is paramount and shapes our collective destiny. If we serve God then he is our master and we are his slaves. We are expected to be on our knees to him. Our duty is to obey him, regardless of what he says or does. Even if he orders a father to kill his son - a psychotic order - Abrahamists will willingly obey because they are servile, brainwashed automata who have no personal concept of good and evil. Why didn't "God" want people to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - because then they would conclude that he was evil (as his infinite cruelty and violence have demonstrated all too clearly to any rational person who has taken the trouble to read the grotesque and nauseating Old Testament).
Everything changes if you are Becoming God rather than serving God. Then you can make up your mind about good and evil. You can get off your knees and stand on your feet. You have no respect for those false gods - monarchs, popes, preachers, prophets, the super rich, the privileged elites - who claim to be God's voice on earth.
The world has a clear choice: a master-slave model such as the Old World Order has always implemented, or a meritocratic model where anyone from any background can rise as high as their talents permit and no permanent master class and slave underclass is ever allowed to form. This is the basis of the Illuminati's New World Order.
We must never again be slaves of God. We must have a contract/covenant with God whereby we tell him what we expect of HIM. It is not for him to dictate to us. We will create Gods in our own image. They must serve our interests, not we theirs. We are all becoming God, so we need bow to no one. God is our guide, our exemplar, the light that shows us the way to join him. God is never a tyrant over us, demanding that we worship him and get on our knees and avert our eyes.
Tradition-directed, Other-directed and Inner-directed versus Autonomy
Has your life been dictated by an ancient religious book, community elders with long beards and an insular, ghetto community where everyone knows what's expected of them and everyone knows everyone else's business? Then you are tradition-directed.
Has your life been dominated by your peer group? You're terrified of being disliked, ostracised, different from everyone else. You follow whatever fashion your peers follow, whether you like it or not. You're terrified of telling them to fuck off and doing your own thing. Then you're other-directed.
Has your life been lived in your parents' shadow? Are you a clone of them? Do you share all of the same values? Then you're inner-directed, driven by the deep values your parents have instilled in you. You will stand up to traditions and peers if they contradict your inner value system. But these are not actually your own values. They have been chosen FOR you, not BY you.
It's wrong for anyone to be controlled by traditions, peers or parents. The State must be committed to producing AUTONOMOUS individuals who are self-defining and self-creating. What this means in practice is that the State education system should provide a wide range of ways of approaching life and children should choose whatever makes most sense to them and is most compatible with their nature, character and personality. They become true individuals who have chosen the type of person they are going to be, not had it imposed on them by others.
Autonomy is the essence of freedom. Free people will never be slaves. They will be natural meritocrats.
Materialism versus Spirituality
The capitalist world is one of objects. People themselves are objectified. The acquisition of objects is the highest good in our society and your status is dependent on how highly others value the objects you own. This system is spiritually dead. It creates soulless zombies in shopping malls, aimlessly shuffling from one purchase to the next in a conveyer-belt process that never ends. You can never have enough objects. You will always need the latest upgrade, the latest fashion, the highest status objects - and these are permanently changing. There is no endpoint, but when your personal end comes (your death) all you have to show for it is a lot of junk that your relatives then consign to the garbage dump. And that metaphorically and even literally is what became of your life on earth - it joined the rest of the garbage. Is that how you want to live your life?
The State must introduce spirituality into our lives, not via master-slaves religions but through the aspiration that all of us are engaged in a sublime project to create a Community of Gods, a Society of the Divine. The pursuit of our own perfection will ensure we never become trapped in the status game, objectified, defined by our possessions rather than who we are.
Children versus Parents
Parents are often deemed to have absolute rights over their children, to the extent that parents are allowed to cut off the foreskin of an 8-day old baby boy without a single voice of protest being raised. The parents' belief system literally has an effect on the little boy's bodily integrity.
He is parentally "branded". He had no say in it at all. His consent was neither sought nor required. His parents were treating him as an object, a slave, a thing to which they could do anything they liked.
Is that acceptable? Isn't it the worst thing imaginable? The function of parents is to love, nurture and support their children, it's not to impose their own beliefs on them. If we genuinely say we are advocates of freedom, how can we let children be the slaves of their parents? Every baby is embraced by freedom the moment they are born. No major decision can be taken about their future without their consent. The function of parents and the State is to provide children with a framework that keeps all options open until the child is mature enough to make his own free choices.
Eros versus Thanatos
Eros is the principle of life, energy, growth, vitality and an ascending trajectory while Thanatos is the principle of death, decay, degeneration, depression and a descending trajectory. Our world is full of Thanatos forces. Abrahamism - with its obsession with hell - is nothing but death. Capitalism - the cult of the object that even turns people into objects - is pure death. The privileged elite who reduce everyone else to mere bystanders, spectators and non-persons embody the gospel of death.
"Pascal's wager" probably encapsulates the cult of death better than anything else. The wager is this: 1) on the one hand, if God exists and you obey his laws, you will achieve the maximum possible gain (eternal joy in heaven) while if he doesn't exist your maximum loss will be your opportunity to live as you like on earth and 2) on the other hand, if God exists and you don't obey his laws you will achieve the maximum loss (eternal pain in hell) and if he doesn't exist your maximum gain will be that you can do whatever you like with your mortal life on earth.
Pascal thought it was a no-brainer that you should rationally wager on God's existence because your potential loss is so great if you get it wrong that he doesn't exist and your potential gain isn't all that much if you get it right. But the wager is much more complex than Pascal seemed to think. If there is no afterlife then if you obey some book of lies you have thrown away the only life you will ever have. This is an infinite loss since you will never again get a chance to live.
Moreover, if "God" is an entirely different type of being from the one Pascal envisaged then it's possible you are sentencing yourself to eternal pain by NOT living life as fully as you can. What if God punishes those who chose to believe lies rather than live life?
What if you can become God only by living a succession of great lives where you are true to yourself and not to some ancient book of revelation?
The entire basis of Pascal's wager is terror. This was a man who was petrified of God, the afterlife and indeed of life itself. Who wants to sign up to a wager of fear? Is that rational? Abrahamism functions entirely on this basis. It makes you afraid to live. It drowns you in the darkness of Thanatos.
All gospels of fear, terror and death must be INFINITELY rejected. They are an insult to life, just as Pascal himself was.
Nietzsche wrote of the "depraving of Pascal, who believed his reason had been depraved by original sin while it had only been depraved by his Christianity!" and described him as "the most instructive of all sacrifices to Christianity."
Positive Liberty versus Negative Liberty
Negative liberty is about being free FROM. Positive liberty is about being free FOR. Negative liberty is associated with right wing distrust of the "big State". The State should exert minimal interference in people's lives. The self-interested, self-absorbed, selfish family is the essence of negative liberty.
Positive liberty is associated with the grand transformative project to create a new type of human being. Ancient Athens, Sparta, Rome, the French Revolution, Nazism and Communism were all positive liberty initiatives. The family is often distrusted by positive liberty States, being viewed as a divisive and subversive element within the State that seeks its own advantage rather than the advantage of all. Whereas the positive liberty State is concerned with what Jean-Jacques Rousseau called the "General Will", the negative liberty State focuses on the particular wills of families, sectional groups and institutions. Negative liberty plays the "divide and rule" game. Different interest groups are played off against one another and a stable Game Theory solution is sought. Negative liberty is not unlike the "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction) Cold War between America and the Soviet Union. All groups in the State are regarded as selfish units relentlessly pursuing their own self-interest. Just as Adam Smith spoke of an "invisible hand" guiding free market economics to arrive at a reasonably stable solution, so the negative liberty doctrine assumes that a similar invisible hand brings all of the competing, selfish entities within society to a stable equilibrium. This is a dog-eat-dog world full of suspicion, selfishness and obsession with status.
The positive liberty doctrine considers it impossible for society to be healthy if groups are continually at each other's throats. Positive liberty States are obsessed with unity rather than the cutthroat diversity and division of negative liberty States. Positive liberty States can lead to dangerous conformity while negative liberty States generate toxic alienation and distrust between people.
What the Illuminati advocate is communitarian, autonomous, meritocratic positive liberty. Individuals should be fundamentally independently minded and autonomous, but they should rationally understand that a community where everyone seeks to help each other is infinitely stronger than one where everyone is out to put everyone else down and to create a competitive advantage. Meritocracy is a natural partner of autonomous positive liberty whereas privilege goes hand in hand with negative liberty.
Religious Truth versus the Real Truth
Mainstream religions promise the "truth" to everyone, which is one reason they are so successful. But what if the truth is a function of intelligence? Then the most intelligent can have access to truths denied to stupid people. How many people can understand Einstein's theories? Well, if Einstein has discovered real truths, these are not truths that ordinary people will ever grasp, right? Why should truth be open to everyone? Is genius? There is no prima facie reason why truth should be "democratic". And, if it isn't, some people will inhabit the world of truth much more meaningfully than others.
Hegel was of the opinion that only the philosophically minded had access to the highest truths. He regarded art and religion as ways by which non-philosophers could achieve some contact with the truth, but at a simplistic level in comparison with philosophy.
Can you imagine any religion telling the truth about truth? - i.e. that it is completely false to assert that truth is equally available to everyone.
Control versus Freedom
The elite of society are terrified of losing everything, as in the French Revolution. They are therefore obsessed with control. Religious leaders are obsessed with control, as are business leaders, political leaders, leaders of all institutions. Those at the top are terrified of losing control. So they build control into everything. Stifling, authoritarian hierarchies are everywhere.
Isn't it time for freedom? A world of autonomous individuals would not be one in which those individuals would tolerate being controlled. We have to get to the state where no one is controlled and groups of people come together cooperatively to achieve common goals. The most meritorious people for each task will take charge since that's the rational thing to do, but, as the tasks change, so will those who are most meritorious.
Wolves versus Dogs
Dogs are tame wolves. They were bred for tameness so that they could be controlled and managed. We have to move away from the world of dogs and wolves. There's no place for rigid systems of control and hordes of docile, sedated, tame workers.
The autonomous individual is never a tame dog, nor is he a wolf praying on others.
It's well known that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hasn't that been proved endless times? So there must be clear limits on power, and above all that means restricting the amount of money anyone can have. Money = power so no one can be allowed to have too much money.
The powerful have always abused their power and that abuse must be stopped by law.
Quality versus Quantity
Capitalism is all about quantity. What price? What profit? How many units sold? What cost? How many employees? And so on.
We should be moving instead to a world of quality. If an activity does not raise the quality of the human race, it should be illegal. How will we make a better world if we don't have higher quality people?
Meritocracy is about quality (what are your qualifications) while democracy is mere quantity (a head count). It's impossible for democracy to improve the quality of the human race for the simple reason that democracy makes no reference at all to quality. It simply doesn't enter into the democratic ideology. Meritocracy is purely about quality and only via meritocracy will human beings be turned first into supermen and superwomen and finally into Gods and Goddesses.
