THIS IS [AN EXCERPT FROM] ONE OF A SERIES OF BOOKS outlining the religion, politics and philosophy of the ancient and controversial secret society known as the Illuminati, of which the Greek polymath Pythagoras was the first official Grand Master. The society exists to this day and the author is a member, working under the pseudonym of “Adam Weishaupt” – the name of the Illuminati’s most notorious Grand Master.
The Illuminati’s religion is the most highly developed expression of Gnosticism and is called Illumination (alternatively, Illuminism). Dedicated to the pursuit of enlightenment, it has many parallels with the Eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. It rejects the Abrahamic religions of faith: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, considering these the work of the “Demiurge”; an inferior, cruel and wicked deity who deludes himself that he is the True God, and who has inflicted endless horrors on humanity.
If you wish to judge for yourself how deranged the Demiurge is, you need only read the Old Testament, the story of the Demiurge’s involvement with his “Chosen People”, the Hebrews. You may wonder why the “God of All” entered into an exclusive and partisan Covenant with a tribe in the Middle East several thousand years ago, why he promised them a land (Canaan) that belonged to others, and why he then actively participated with them in a genocidal war against the Canaanites.
Even more bizarrely, according to Christian theology, he then despatched all of those Hebrews, whom he had supported so fanatically, to Limbo – the edge of Hell – when they died. They couldn’t go to Heaven because they were indelibly marked by the “Original Sin” of Adam and Eve. Only the atonement provided by the agonising death of God’s “son”, Jesus Christ, could wipe the slate clean and allow the Hebrews to be released from Limbo. But there was a catch. Only those who accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour were eligible for Paradise.
Of course, the Chosen People of “God” have almost entirely rejected Jesus Christ. Therefore, from the Christian perspective, nearly all of the Chosen People are now in hell proper. Don’t you find God’s behaviour distinctly odd? Indeed, unbelievable? Don’t alarm bells start ringing? Doesn’t the behaviour of this God sound rather more like what would be expected of Satan? Remember that this same “God” ordered Abraham to perform human sacrifice on his own son, Isaac. Abraham, rather than rejecting this monstrous command, rather than denouncing the creature that gave it as evil incarnate, agreed to butcher his own flesh and blood to demonstrate how slavishly and mindlessly obedient he was – the prototype of all psychopathic, fanatical “believers”.
Does God’s command to Abraham sound like something that would ever pass the lips of the True God? We pity you if you think it does because you are surely a creature of the Demiurge and one of the legions of the damned. If, however, you doubt the credentials of the Abrahamic God, you may be receptive to the message of the Illuminati and our future-oriented, rational, scientific, mathematical and dialectical religion of light – Illumination.
THE ILLUMINATI ARE inextricably linked with the concept of a “New World Order”, and our enemies claim we have a supremely sinister vision of what the future world should look like. Well, judge for yourselves.
To create any new society, it’s essential to understand what has gone wrong with existing society. The functional unit of contemporary society is the family, so the family must be the focus of any attempt to change the world.
Can the family be said to have provided a successful foundation for our social relations? Do you feel that other families are on your side or are in some sense your enemy? Some families have proved phenomenally successful, while many more have failed dismally and most simply muddle along on the slow lane of mediocrity. Why should the family be celebrated as something magnificent when, according to any objective analysis, it is largely a failure? We live in a world that promotes freedom and choice. So shouldn’t society provide an alternative to the family and give everyone a meaningful choice? Instead of living in isolated, anti-social little boxes (houses), many families could be brought together to live in planned communities, where the presence of many people can dilute the eccentricities and neuroses that dominate so many households.
Psychological profiling could be used to match families that are likely to work together in harmony and friendship within a community environment of solidarity and mutual support. The concept of community has never been taken seriously by any government, and never given the opportunity to prove its viability. Yet the theory of community has been studied by many great thinkers, none more so than Frenchman Charles Fourier (1772 – 1837), a philosopher and utopian socialist, notable for having coined the word feminism.
The Communards of the revolutionary Paris Commune of 1871 were greatly influenced by his persuasive advocacy of the importance of community. Can his radical ideas be brushed off and applied in the contemporary world to move us all away from the dog-eat-dog family model of society, where families engage in a vicious, competitive struggle for resources, to a harmonious and cooperative community model of psychologically matched families working together for the common good?
Fourier was insistent that cooperation was the secret of a healthy society and would enormously improve the productivity levels of workers, each of whom would be rewarded in direct proportion to their contribution (i.e. hard work would be incentivised).
Fourier, inspired by the phalanx – the basic military formation of the ancient Greeks that relied on cooperation and coordination of the soldiers who had to move as a disciplined whole if they wished to secure victory – applied this name to the new communitarian entity that he wished to be the basic unit of society rather than the family. “Phalanxes” would be housed in huge, beautiful buildings called Phalanstères that were like grand hotels.
These buildings were envisaged as having four floors, with the most talented occupying the top floor and the least the ground floor. Relative wealth was determined by your job, which was assigned on the basis of merit, interest and dedication. Also, unpopular, unpleasant jobs that no one wanted to do attracted higher pay.
Fourier regarded “trade” as Jewish and Jews as the “source of all evil”. He advocated that they be forced to perform farm work in the Phalanstères. He asserted that poverty was the cause of most of the ills of society, hence there must be a decent minimum wage for everyone, including those unable to work. This is perhaps the first appearance of the “basic income” doctrine – everyone in society should have a guaranteed amount of money to live on – although it was assumed that anyone who could work would work and no one would choose to opt out and simply take the money (if they were neither ill nor unemployed against their will).
Fourier wanted to liberate everyone – every man, woman, and child – and he regarded liberation as having two primary aspects: intelligence, nourished by education, and joy, nourished by the healthy expression of human passion. Everywhere, he saw intelligence and joy under attack. Education for the vast majority of people remained rudimentary and religion continually constrained all joyful activities. Work also undermined joy, so he wanted to crack the secret of turning work into play.
People who love what they do will invest far more time and care into it than those who hate their work. They will do a far better job and be enormously more productive. They will feel fulfilled, contented, at one with their work. The most depressing thing is to be alienated from how you spend your time because that’s what constitutes your life. To love life, you must love how you spend your time, and you never will if you’re trapped in a job you hate and you’re only doing it because you have no alternative. That makes you a slave, and there’s nothing worse than that. People and work must be harmonised. The State should find what people like doing and give them jobs that involve that activity, in the company of others who enjoy it too. Work should be the centrepiece of a joyful life, not the thing from which people flee.
Most people spend their lives dreaming of their free time and of the “weekend” when work mercifully stops for 48 precious hours for many people. Countless individuals are driven by this permanent Sisyphean treadmill of work, play, work, play, ad infinitum. Play takes on a kind of insane, desperate character with many pumping themselves full of drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of their lives. Precious few use their spare time to dig their escape tunnel from their prison camp. They never get out.
Life can be good only when work and play coincide – you love what you do to earn your living. Soccer players are immensely envied because they relish what they do, are paid a fortune for it, enjoy all the finest things in life because of it, and received endless adulation. Most soccer players are morons, but, hey, you can’t have everything, can you?
Fourier was a zealous proponent of a New World Order based on harmonious, communitarian collaboration. The Illuminati share his vision.
“PHALANSTERY” (ALSO CALLED PHALANX): a socialist community as planned by Charles Fourier; any communal association; the buildings housing such a community; a grand hotel-cum-monastery.
Origin: French phalanstère (phalange (phalanx) + (mona)stère, monastery).
Fourier’s utopian vision was of a world organised into self-sufficient phalanges (phalanxes), each consisting of about 1,600 people sharing common buildings (phalansteries) – very much like modern university campus halls of residence – and working about 5,000 acres of land to grow the foodstuffs for the community (i.e. the phalanx was designed to integrate urban and rural features and provide self-sufficiency in food and drink). Educational facilities were to be provided, along with workshops for handicrafts. Regular entertainment would be laid on and everything would be rationally organised to provide a happy and harmonious social life. Those doing the most menial, unpleasant tasks or the most challenging and demanding, were to be paid the most from the commonwealth, while those doing the easiest and most pleasant jobs would be paid the least. The phalanx were to be linked into suitable cooperative groups and finally into a great federation.
Theoretically, each phalanx could be self-governing with its own unique character, like an ancient Greek city-state, or a whole group of phalanxes might agree to have a common government. This model is supremely flexible. It is the political equivalent of atoms and molecules in chemistry. The basic political atom is the phalanx and these atoms can be joined to create molecules of different sizes. Is this not an inherently better system than a one-size-fits all democracy with a single centralized government? It offers far more freedom, choice, flexibility and dynamism and can accommodate on an equitable basis radically different political and religious approaches to life. Phalanxes that have different outlooks can ignore each other while having friendly relations with those on a similar wavelength. Basically, everyone in the world can have a bespoke political and social system if they can find 1600 other similarly minded people.
Is this not the future? Is this not how the world should be, a world of choice and liberty? Imagine a whole world where the family square box (house) model of the world is abolished and is instead replaced by a phalanx model where each phalanstery resembles a campus university, with educational facilities at its core. There would also be many bespoke workshops for hi-tech companies, design companies, and so forth. Each phalanstery would have a medical facility, and a group of phalansteries a hospital. There would be shared entertainment complexes and shopping areas.
With this basic model, we would have the building blocks to create bespoke societies and city-states. Everyone would be able to have their own utopia where they are surrounded by those who share their values. There wouldn’t be a capitalist corporation in sight, nor any bank “too big to fail”, nor any irrational market.
Fourier dreamt that there would be millions of these phalanxes all across the world, loosely ruled by a benevolent world omniarch (“ruler of all”), or a World Congress of Phalanxes.
Fourier, an ardent advocate of equal rights for women, believed that the traditional family home oppressed women and that they would be much freer within a community, supported by many other women. He considered that all important jobs should be open to women and men on an equal basis and aptitude alone should decide who was given a particular job. He was keen to speak of women as individuals rather than as appendages of men (as they were normally characterized). What he saw of marriage so horrified him that he himself never married.
A compassionate man, Fourier was sympathetic towards the plight of the sexually rejected (and perhaps he suffered that fate himself). He had the rather charming idea of jilted suitors being led away by a corps of fairies who would administer a love cure. More intriguingly, he proposed a card-index system of personality types that could be consulted by people looking for casual sex. He also defended homosexuality.
For the world to be completely changed, the institutions of the world must be completely changed and the unit that is most in need of change is the family. Dysfunctional families abound.
Every such family causes endless problems for society. We can’t go on like this. The boil of family dysfunction must be lanced, and the easiest thing is to dilute the family by placing it within a community context. The psychological toxins present in so many homes would be enormously diluted in a community environment where everyone is exposed to far more people. In a phalanstery, children could enjoy a boarding school environment in one wing, while the parents would be nearby in another wing. Children could spend quality time with their parents while not being constantly subjected to the parental madness that afflicts so many households.
Many psychiatrists regard the family home as one of the most disturbed and dangerous places in the world, the source of endless mental illness via child abuse, spouse beating, bullying, trying to fit children into a parental mould of unrealistic expectations and so on. Schizophrenics often become markedly healthier when removed from the family home and then relapse when they “recover” and are sent home i.e. it’s the home environment that seems to be responsible for the schizophrenia. Stupid parents will inevitably infect their children with stupidity. Obese parents will have obese children. All of the neuroses of parents will be passed on to their children. Fanatical religious beliefs will be passed on. Are alcoholics and drug addicts fit parents? Are the permanently unemployed good role models?
The family home is catastrophic for many people. Nothing is more important than that its harmful effects should be negated as much as possible. Community is the answer.
The optimal solution is to allow quality time where parental love and nurturing are at their best, but to enormously reduce overall contact time between children and parents so that all the neuroses, bad habits and mental toxins don’t have a chance to be transmitted. Everyone will be much healthier and happier.
Fourier’s basic design for a phalanstery consisted of three parts: a central block and two wings. The central block was intended for quiet activities and included communal dining rooms and kitchens, meeting rooms, libraries, studies and lecture rooms. One of the wings was for heavy labour and noisy activities including carpentry, hammering and forging. Noisy children had a play area here. The other wing contained ballrooms, activity areas and reception areas for meetings with outsiders. Private apartments were located throughout. Some have compared phalansteries to land bound ocean-liners.
The strength of a community is that it offers access to a much wider range of talents than those of parents alone; it takes a lot of the pressure off parents (the children are no longer in their pockets all the time and they’re not totally reliant on them); childcare can be spread out and any neurotic parental behaviour diluted. Any extremist views are likely to be moderated. If parents are genuinely interested in bringing up their children in the best possible way then one thing they will have to recognise is that they’re not ideal for the job, and many others must help with the task. That goes for ALL parents. There’s no such thing as a perfect parent. An African proverb says, “It takes a village to raise a child.” That’s exactly right.
Never forget Philip Larkin’s incendiary poem, This Be the Verse:
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.
Our world will be far better off adopting communes as the fundamental unit of society. At a stroke, people will be far more cooperative and the deadly, cutthroat, soul destroying game theory competition between families will at long last come to an end.
Sinister governments love the family because it is the ideal means for spreading the ideology of “divide and rule”. If families are all working against each other in a ferocious contest of self-interest, they will pose no threat to the entrenched elite.
FOURIER BELIEVED THAT THERE are twelve fundamental passions: the five senses (touch, taste, hearing, sight and smell); four soul passions (friendship, love, ambition and parenthood); and three “distributive” passions: la papillone, la cabaliste, la composite.
“La papillone” is the love of variety. Anyone would be driven crazy by a production-line job of mindless repetition. Even lovers grow tired of each other and have affairs. Fourier considered that endless drudgery stunted and repressed human beings. So, it’s essential to eliminate all tedious or unpleasant jobs using automation.
“La cabaliste” revolves around rivalry and conspiracy. Fourier intended to utilise this positively by creating healthy competition between different teams of workers to see who could produce the most goods, or the goods of the highest quality. The mistake that Communism made was to try to eliminate competition when, in fact, all societies need some degree of competition as an incentive and to act as a team builder and unifier. The trick is to get the right balance and prevent competition from becoming sinister and poisonous. As for conspiracy, people love conspiracy theories and conspiring. Even the task of arranging an orgy with the sexy couple at the next table (!) involves a conspiracy of sorts. These secret arrangements are delicious in all contexts. Secret societies are a manifestation of la cabaliste.
“La compositer” is the most satisfying of all because it is about creating a composite of the other passions, so, for example, it might involve a delicious meal (the senses) in good company (the soul) while discussing the details of a conspiracy (la cabaliste).
Fourier, obsessed with numbers, produced a list of 810 psychological types derived from these twelve passions. Multiplying by two (male and female) gave a figure of 1,620. Thus each phalanstery was in some sense a microcosm of society, containing a couple of each possible psychological type.
Fourier thought his Law of Passional Attractions i.e. matching up those with the same passions, would revolutionise society in the same way as Newton had revolutionised physics. This is probably the first appearance of the idea that society is best shaped via a study of people’s psychological types and matching them accordingly.
Interest in Fourier erupted in the 1960s, with hippie communes imitating many of his ideas. They particularly liked his advocacy of sexual liberation and free love. He accepted sadism and masochism among consenting partners as well as sodomy, lesbianism, homosexuality, pederasty, bestiality, fetishism, sex between close relatives – in fact anything at all so long as it was consensual.
As for women, he considered that men had effectively turned them into slaves. The level of any civilization could, he said, be determined by the extent to which its women were liberated. He rejected the tyranny of patriarchy and believed that the family structure inherently subjugated women. It turned women inwards to spouse and children and alienated them from society. In the phalanstery, family arrangements were entirely different and much more outward looking.
Fourier is a truly great visionary. His ideas concerning turning work into play, a variety of work to prevent boredom, a designed community, sexual liberation, an educational emphasis, a hatred of oppression, an appreciation of the importance of psychological profiling, his championing of feminism, mark him out as a man well ahead of his time. Perhaps the world is only now ready for Fourier.
Frenchman Henri de Saint-Simon (1760 – 1825), a contemporary of Fourier, was an advocate of meritocracy, in the shape of a scientific technocratic elite who would run society according to rational, objective principles and repeat the success of science in the social sphere. Saint-Simon was the founder of French socialism, the first utopian socialist, and one of the influences on the thinking of Karl Marx.
He advocated the abolition of the law of inheritance (with the right of succession transferred from the family to the State) and the creation of a social fund. Society itself would be the sole owner of all the means of production and would entrust the running of industry to the most able. His system is thus a meritocratic, socialist technocracy run according to scientific laws. He regarded bureaucrats as parasites.
Saint-Simon called for the emancipation of women and insisted that they must be treated with complete equality in relation to men. He advocated the equal distribution of property, power, culture and happiness. In his view, freedom and equality could be attained only through a science of society based on community living. A scientific society would surely resolve the problems of the poor and lowly.
It’s interesting to note that Western socialist utopian thinkers have always championed the cause of experts, intellectuals and meritocracy while Western right-wingers are often extremely hostile to intellectuals and favour democracy over meritocracy. Whereas the left wing thinkers want smart people to be in charge and for society to emulate the scientific method and be based on rational laws, right-wingers want the rich and privileged to be in charge, and for the ordinary people to be in thrall to idiotic religions of faith, irrationality and superstition.
It’s time for the world’s smart people to unite and defeat the religious and political right wing once and for all. Right-wingers are stupid, driven by simplistic slogans and infantile analysis of complex matters. They always prefer moralising to scientific evidence. The intelligentsia have to bring to an end the rule of the stupid – the Dumbocracy, the Idiocracy, the MORONarchy.
It’s time for a Smart Society led by smart people obeying reason, logic, science, philosophy, technology, mathematics, psychology, sociology and art. One generation is all that’s needed to transform this benighted world of ours.
“When the conditions of men are very unequal and the inequalities are permanent, individuals become little by little so dissimilar that each class assumes the aspects of a distinct race.” --Alexis de Tocqueville
HAVE WE NOT GENERATED such conditions and inequalities in the present day? In fact, the privileged class aren’t so much a different race as a different species. The elite have no empathy and sympathy with the lower orders, no understanding of how they live, and worst of all, no interest.
Alexis De Tocqueville (1805 – 1859), an acute French social commentator, put forward an interesting argument that in caste systems based on religion or class, people know who they are and where they fit in. They don’t have unrealistic goals because the horizons of their caste are clearly set and there’s no possibility of travelling beyond them. But what happens in an apparently “open” society? Then everyone has potentially infinite horizons. Everyone thinks everything is possible. Everyone is permanently dreaming of the better life they think will come, then increasingly frustrated and disappointed when it fails to arrive. They are in intense competition with everyone else. Everyone is anxious and obsessed with status because status reflects how well you’re doing in life. In a caste system, your social position is fixed so you can’t be preoccupied with status. Only open societies become immersed in status wars. But at least in a true open society, you really do have the chance to rise to the top.
The worst possible society is the fake open society that is actually a cunningly disguised caste system. In such a system, you enjoy neither the security nor boundaries of the caste system nor do you have any realistic opportunities to realize your dreams. They permanently tantalize you, but they’re always out of reach. That’s the world we live in now. The West calls itself an open democracy that encourages merit, but it’s actually a closed plutocracy run by the privileged elite that opposes merit. The elite live in gated communities far from the madding crowd. They have an elaborate code of signs and symbols to exclude outsiders. They go to elite schools and colleges that are beyond the price range of ordinary people; they join special clubs and societies that are closed to the mob.
But the ordinary person nevertheless subscribes to the “American Dream” and still thinks everything’s possible. It’s not. Everyone in the world is plagued by dreams of a perfect life, all the more so because perfect lives are forever paraded in front of us. Our media is full of images and tales of celebrities and the super rich enjoying seemingly ideal lives. Most people look at such lives and then at their own and there can be only one conclusion – they are a total failure in comparison and their dreams are turning to ashes.
What could be worse than to raise the highest possible hopes and then never deliver? That’s our world. And it’s an unsustainable world. The dreams it instilled in people but failed to turn into reality will be the same dreams that cause the people to turn against the elite in a great Revolution. As soon as they understand that they have been deceived, that freedom and democracy are an illusion and that they are in fact participating in the most insidious caste system with an impregnable dynastic elite sitting on top of the world, they will at last revolt.
The elite thought they could get away with lying, with their propaganda and the perfect illusions of the Spectacular Society, but all they have done is load the bullets into the guns of their enemies.
The Old World Order are always striving to turn themselves into a dynastic nobility that permanently rules the world. With every passing year, as the gulf between the rich and poor grows ever wider, this becomes increasingly possible, yet it also markedly raises the prospect of the inevitable dialectical response – a people’s Revolution.
Tocqueville made a fascinating observation regarding a phenomenon that occurs within aristocratic societies – the identification of servants with their masters and accompanying alienation from themselves: “The servant ultimately detaches his notion of himself from his own person; he deserts himself as it were, or rather he transports himself into the character of his master and thus assumes an imaginary personality. He complacently invests himself with the wealth of those who command him; he enjoys their fame, exalts himself with their rank, and feeds his mind with borrowed greatness.”
We see the same thing happening in the UK with the Royal Family. Millions of working people love this anti-meritocratic, unaccountable, elitist family that despises the ordinary people and refers to them as “subjects” and “commoners”.
The same perverse phenomenon occurs in relation to celebrity culture. Billions of people spend their lives identifying with celebrities and living through them vicariously. By reading all the gossip about the celebrities, seeing the glossy photos of their luxury dream homes and the fabulous parties they attend with the “beautiful people”, they imagine themselves becoming part of this scene, and that they will be best friends with the particular celebrity they most admire.
Of course, this is pure fantasy. It’s how to live in bad faith, to create a fake life that demeans you in every possible way. Celebrity culture and royalty are obscenities. They must be abolished for the psychological well-being of ordinary people. We must topple all of the false gods.
Tocqueville said that in well-functioning aristocratic societies, the people had an instinctive trust in authority whereas in democratic societies there is an instinctive distrust. We see this all too clearly in the West where in every country everyone hates the government. Why is this? In aristocratic societies, the elite were better educated and cultured than the ordinary people and seemed much classier and more refined. The elite of today may have paid for a better education, yet they do not seem intellectually competent – think of the stumbling fool George W Bush – and nor do they seem classy, cultured and refined. In fact they often go out of their way to pretend to be “down with the people”. Yet by trying to blur the distance between rulers and ruled, they make themselves seem unremarkable and actually unfit for high office.
If the elite aren’t genuinely smarter than the ordinary people then the ordinary people will start to think they could do better. They will become convinced the government is not only inept but corrupt too, and that they are carrying out perverse policies to serve their own interests. Moreover, they will be right.
Tocqueville asserted that democratic societies were plagued by the right of “private judgment” where ordinary people felt entirely comfortable about criticising their rulers, something that was unthinkable in the great monarchies of old.
Tocqueville wrote: “Where the citizens are all placed on an equal footing and closely seen by one another, and where no signs of incontestable greatness or superiority are seen in any one of them, they are constantly brought back to their own reason as the most obvious and reliable source of truth. It is not only confidence in this or that man which is destroyed, but also the disposition to trust the authority of any man whatsoever. Everyone shuts himself tightly within himself and insists on judging the world from there.”
In the UK, the most elaborate measures are taken to protect the head of state – the Queen – from coming into contact with ordinary people and any prospect of having her position openly challenged. The media are invariably sycophantic towards her and no voices of militant republicanism are allowed to be heard. That’s the UK in the 21st century – barely changed from its feudal past.
The people of the UK are an embarrassment and it’s the black kids who rioted in London – who aren’t fooled by the propaganda of the elite – who probably offer the greatest hope of leading the UK towards a better future.
Tocqueville put forward an interesting argument that in aristocratic societies, the opinions of the people were formed by great men – i.e. experts – while in democratic societies “public opinion” is the greatest influence on the positions people adopt. The “tyranny of the majority” becomes a huge problem. People don’t respect expert opinion but they do acknowledge popular opinion. Yet what if Ibsen is right and the majority is always wrong? In his brilliant play An Enemy of the People, Ibsen savages the idea that ordinary people know best, that the wisdom of the crowd is superior to the wisdom of the individual genius. As meritocrats, we agree with Ibsen. Popular opinion once regarded the earth as flat and stationary, and at the centre of the universe. Had the world listened to popular opinion, it would never have evolved. Billions of people subscribe to the popular opinion that Abrahamist religions reveal the truth of life. Of course, the real truth is that these religions are wholly false.
Modern politicians frequently employ “focus groups” to shape their policies. They abandon any policies that are unpopular. Since when did leaders let their views be dictated by the followers? No wonder there’s a leadership vacuum in our world. Nietzsche was keen to point out that modern trends have militated against strong leadership. He asserted that people in democracies are incapable of leading. They don’t know how – and he has been proved right. The only people making the running in democracies are the greedy elite. Politicians are their puppets.
Democratic politicians are particularly obsessed with the strongest force for forming opinion in democratic societies – the media, controlled of course by the rich elite. The media churns out propaganda, which is absorbed by the people and then regurgitated by them. The media has constructed a false consciousness for the people. Unable to think for themselves, most people will happily go along with whatever the majority think and the media invariably mould the majority opinion.
If Michael Moore rather than Rupert Murdoch ran the media in America, America would just about be a socialist nation by now. Most people have no firm views about anything because most people are not well educated, do not study philosophy and are extremely unreflective. They embrace whatever ideas they find most appealing from moment to moment, and those opinions are invariably the ones which are repeated over and over again by the media manipulation machine. Most Americans have been brainwashed to hate communism but most of them have no idea what it actually is. We guarantee that if most Americans read the works of Karl Marx, many of them would be joining the Communist Party tomorrow. Marx is a brilliant thinker and even if you finally reject his views, you can’t help but be impressed by his arguments and his deconstruction of the evils of capitalism.
Most people are “shorthand thinkers”. They reduce all complex subjects to a few simplistic signs, symbols and soundbites. So, virtually no Christians know anything about Christian theology: the religious philosophy that underpins Christianity. “Christianity”, for the average Christian, means: “Jesus loves me; Jesus died for my sins; Jesus rose from the dead; only if I believe in Jesus will I go to heaven.” That’s it. That’s the extent of their “understanding” of Christianity. Why should anyone take the opinions of these people seriously if they do not constitute a meaningful, well-considered system of thought?
Meritocracy is all about ensuring that only those with meaningful things to say will be listened to, and everyone else will be ignored. If you want to vote on economic policy, get yourself an economics degree. If you don’t have an economics degree or its equivalent then shut up in relation to economics since you literally don’t know what you’re talking about and why should any emphasis be placed on your ill-informed, half-baked, ignorant opinions?
We won’t make any progress in the world until we listen to the wise and ignore the stupid. Democracy, as all intellectuals have always understood, is a means of putting power in the hands of ill-informed public opinion. How can that be sensible and rational? Democracy goes hand in hand with Protestantism – it’s the cult of the loudmouthed moron who thinks bar talk constitutes philosophy; the self-appointed armchair expert who sneers at experts and thinks he knows better. It’s extraordinary how many badly educated people think they are right about everything. What that means is that they have contempt for education and regard it as essentially worthless. Meritocracy, on the other hand, regards education as the highest good, and it ought to be the axis around which the world revolves rather than the present mainstays of family, patriotism, religion and capitalism.
Tocqueville believed that the tyranny of the majority opinion would lead to intellectual stagnation. People, scared of disagreeing with the consensus, would stop using their reason and just go with the flow. In fact, stagnation was the least of it. Active dumbing down has taken place under democracy, a race for the bottom. Democracy has given us a lowest common denominator culture. There is almost zero intellectual content in the mainstream media.
Tocqueville made an astute observation about the American attitude to religion: “If we examine it very closely, it will be observed that religion itself holds sway there much less as a doctrine of revelation than as a commonly received opinion.” In other words, Americans believe because everyone else believes, not because they have spent any time studying the religion they profess to believe. Rather than knowledge, their beliefs are based on a) ignorance and b) whether or not they are popular. Truth content is neither here nor there.
Tocqueville asserted that in aristocratic societies, people identified only with their own class. They had intense loyalty to their own kind, and little to others. In a proper democracy, people can identify with everyone, and that makes their loyalty to each other much less intense. If you love everyone then in fact you love no one. The ultimate love is a craving for just one other person. Intensity is selective. You can’t be intense towards everyone. Democracy has the effect of simultaneously widening our empathy and sympathy base while reducing its passion. And perhaps this reduction goes so far as to finally diminish our regard for everyone. It makes us apathetic towards all.
In aristocracies, people are passionate towards some and indifferent towards most. In democracies, people gradually become universally indifferent. They are not motivated to be loyal to anyone other than their close circle, particularly their family. Thus we generate the game theory world of selfish families ruthlessly competing with each other: a nightmare.
Tocqueville wrote of aristocratic societies, “The notion of human fellowship is faint and men seldom think of sacrificing themselves for mankind, but they sacrifice themselves for other men.” Soldiers often say that they don’t fight for their country or any cause but for each other. Their primary loyalty is towards their platoon or company and to the fellow soldiers and friends upon whom they rely 100% in life or death situations. That breeds a strength of connection that non-soldiers will never grasp. Gangs too are intensely loyal to other members, while having hostility to everyone else. In democracies, people will fight for their families and that’s it. In theory, they should care about all of their fellow citizens but in practice they don’t. The best way to create a much wider loyalty group is via Fourier’s phalanx communities.
Tocqueville argued that democratic societies generate huge competitive pressures between everyone as they all strive to get the best jobs, houses, partners, schools for their children and so on. They become obsessed with their private interests and any enhanced empathy they may have had for others is destroyed. According to Tocqueville, the extreme individualism of democracy becomes mere egotism. Individuals grow solitary and deeply suspicious of others. Paranoia rises. Conspiracy theories spread exponentially.
As community is progressively destroyed by individualism, a side effect is for bureaucratic centralization to grow to fill the void of cooperation. Washington D.C. is created in all of its dismal “glory”, and its real function is to keep the peace between endlessly warring private factions that all hate central government.
“Despotism, which thrives on fear, sees in the isolation of men the best guarantee of its own survival, and therefore it takes enormous care to isolate them...Equality places men side by side, unconnected by a common tie. Despotism raises barriers to keep them apart: the former predisposes them not to consider their fellow creatures, the latter makes general indifference a sort of public virtue.” --Tocqueville
Democracy creates an atomised society, a bureaucratic, centralised despotism and a catastrophic indifference, if not actual hatred, between people, all of whom are ruthlessly competing for the same things. The authentic rat race has come to life and we have all allowed it to happen. We are no longer human. We look in the mirror and we try not to see the rat whiskers we all have.
Tocqueville said of centralised democratic government, “It does not tyrannize, but it interferes, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies people, until each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
India was the jewel of the British Empire. Astoundingly, just a few thousand Britons controlled a subcontinent of one hundred million. How was such a thing possible? Why didn’t the Indians simply sweep the British away? Tocqueville was fascinated by what psychological forces had allowed the British to maintain their power for centuries.
His primary answer was the Indian caste system. The vast majority of people belonged to the lower castes and imagined they were being punished for wrongdoings in previous lives. If they wanted to improve their lot next time round, they had to stoically endure their grim lives. This karmic ideology makes people passive and accepting of ill treatment. It’s perfect for tyrants who want to control large numbers of people. The small number of highest caste Indians had no fellow feeling with their countrymen. If anything, they identified more with the British, whom they regarded as a high caste too. In fact, the British in effect reinvented themselves as the highest caste in the Hindu religion, higher even than the priestly Brahmins. They used the existing caste mechanisms for running India, but now they placed themselves at the top of the tree. So, everything continued much as before. The British had no need to interfere. They just collected the money at the end of the line.
The British upper class are superb at adopting airs and graces and presenting themselves as a deserving elite. The Indians genuinely thought the British were a superior caste and that it was wise to obey them. Once you’ve made people buy into your myth, you’ve got it made.
The Old World Order have effectively created a new caste system. They have made everyone else believe that they are a superior caste – as evidenced by their enormous wealth – and everyone has gone along with it. The people think to themselves that if they bring down the elite, the ultimate shit storm will be unleashed. Who will be able to run the world better than the self- styled “masters of the universe”? Without them, the world will surely fall apart.
The key task for the OWO is to control the media machine – their propaganda department, their Orwellian “ministry of truth” (which tells nothing but lies!) – and ensure that no plausible rival system is allowed to present itself to the people. Democracy, for all its rhetoric, is totalitarian. When have you ever heard any discussion of alternatives to democracy in the media? When has capitalism ever been seriously challenged in the Western media? Billions of people are led to believe that there is no alternative to the rule by the OWO. It’s either the OWO or chaos and ruin. The OWO actively prey on the fears of the masses.
Companies often say in their corporate brochures that they are only as good as their “people” – the employees. The same is true of nations. A nation is only as good as its citizens. That, in fact, is the guarantor that there is nothing to fear. If you believe that your nation has many good and great people in it then if the present system collapses, it will soon be replaced by something new and potentially much better. Far from being something to fear, it’s a glorious opportunity and probably the best chance you will ever have to make your personal mark.
The OWO have also benefitted from the social atomisation, inter-family competition and mutual indifference of those in democratic societies. Unlike the Muslims in the Arab uprisings, they have little inclination to gather together. Islam is all about community and religious tradition; the West is all about the family and individual. It’s enormously harder to get Westerners off their fat asses.
The collapse of the existing order is a great opportunity for you; what you’ve always been waiting for. Let’s get rid of the Old World Order. They have fucked our world and now it’s time for them to be fucked. The new world can be built very quickly – using the assets of the rich. They have forfeited those assets because of their crimes against the people and their criminal ineptitude in managing the economy. Their greed – and their greed alone – was the cause of the financial meltdown. Now they must pay.
The monarchy and aristocracy of the France of 1789 had no idea what was about to hit them. Their arrogance blinded them to what was going on. Their isolationist, privileged lives, where they never came into contact with ordinary people, meant that they had no idea of the fury of the people. They imagined their wealth, the law and, ultimately, the army would protect them. They were wrong on every count. The French aristocracy had engineered tax immunity for themselves, and no longer bothered to fulfil any of their duties to their communities. In the modern day, the super rich live behind huge gates, have no interest in the community at large and use top accountants to reduce their taxes to nothing.
Today’s super rich have repeated all of the same catastrophic errors as the French elite of 1789, and now history will repeat itself. The Revolution is surely coming.
The internet is a discontent magnifier and it can link people everywhere. All it would take is one giant heave and the Western elite will topple. All of their assets will be seized and meritocrats will establish a provisional government.
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.” --W.B. Yeats (The Second Coming)
“A terrible beauty is born.” --W.B. Yeats (Easter 1916, commemorating the Irish Easter Uprising against the British Empire)
Had I the heavens’ embroidered cloths, Enwrought with golden and silver light, The blue and the dim and the dark cloths Of night and light and the half-light, I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. W.B. Yeats (He wishes for the Cloths of Heaven)
It’s time to make our dreams real. It’s time for the ancien régime to fall. The elite have made themselves hated by everyone. Now it’s time to pay the piper. The ingredients are in all in place. Now, as in 1789, one spark is all that’s needed.
Thanks to: http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com