Master/Slave dialectic


Most of us are slaves. No matter how much we loathe that conclusion and reject it, it is true nevertheless.


If you want to know if you are a slave, consider these criteria.


Every day you go and do a job you don’t like. It gives you no creative thrill, and you derive no feeling of self-worth from it. You are under someone else’s control. Your employer decides how you spend your time, not you. Your employer demands obedience, application and proper conduct from you. If you don’t comply, you will be fired. You must behave in the way that the employer sees fit, not in the way that you deem fit. In other words, you have handed over your definition of “proper conduct” to another. You have sold your time and effort to your employer. Sure, you get a salary in return. You can pay the bills, buy nice things, support your nearest and dearest, go on holidays, go out for fine meals at the weekend. In short, you can live comfortably. It is on that basis – that your petty needs are satisfied – that you can justify the fact that you have given away your control over the most precious thing you have: your own life.


Your employer, on the other hand, is wealthy, loves what he does, gets immense status and prestige from it, is admired and envied. His lifestyle is breathtaking. He has three magnificent homes, a 300-ft yacht, a stable of Ferrari supercars. He stays in the best hotels, and everyone is eager to do his bidding and fulfil his every wish. They are permanently at his beck and call, falling over themselves to please him. He can come and go as he pleases. He will never be sitting in front of another person waiting to hear if he is about to lose his job. He is the one who decides who gets hired and who gets fired. He controls his life. He allocates his time as he sees fit. He behaves as he wishes to. He imposes his views on others. Others depend on him, but he does not depend on them.


So, then, which are you…master or slave?


Who are the masters? The Old World Order. Who are the slaves? The rest of us.


Who is guilty? We are. Why? Because we allow the masters to rule us. In exchange for a “comfortable” living, we sign away our own lives. All over the globe, for billions of us, the headstones of our graves will bear exactly the same inscription: “Here lies the body of a person who was an adequate employee. He did what he was told and paid his taxes. He made no impact on the world. Nothing more need be said.” Are you happy for that to be your epitaph?


But on the marble headstones of the members of the Old World Order, overlooking vast, spectacular mausoleums, will be magnificent eulogies, great lists of achievements, the tales of the lives of people to whose tune so many danced.


Overwhelmingly, the masters are those born into privilege, those handed huge advantages from the outset. Their parents are wealthy. They live in the finest neighborhoods. They go to the finest schools. They join Masonic societies with the other sons and daughters of privilege. They agree to carve up all of the best jobs amongst each other. They marry each other and breed new generations of masters. They don’t care about anyone else. Why should they? They have everything they want. On their side of the equation, there is no question to be answered.


The people who must answer the question are the slaves. The question could not be simpler. It is: Why do we let the masters get away with it? And the answer is a painful one. It’s because we are lazy, apathetic, cowardly, satisfied with our trivial comforts. We’d rather accept the status quo than make any attempt to change things because then we’d need to leave our comfort zone, put in time and effort, and above all be brave and take bold risks. If we weren’t content with our enslavement, we’d be doing something about it. We’d be fighting back. But how many of us are doing anything at all? Don’t ask others what you need to do. Use your initiative.


The answer to why we behave this way was provided by one of the greatest Illuminists of them all – Hegel. His dialectic of the master and slave is a famous and hugely influential contribution to philosophy. On its own, it would have elevated Hegel to the highest ranks of philosophers, yet it was just one small part of his dazzling thinking.


Only those slaves who understand Hegel’s remarkable dialectic will be able to change their status and become free.





* * * * *



The Freedom Fight


Hegel’s treatment of the master and slave dialectic is highly complex and abstract, but we will attempt to communicate the gist of his argument in a way that non-specialists can follow. The starting point is the concept of self-consciousness.


Self-consciousness is, by definition, a consciousness that is able to reflect upon itself. While all non-human animals on earth display various levels of consciousness, none of them are self-conscious. Hegel asserts that self-consciousness cannot exist on its own. It needs something else with which to contrast itself. To know what it is, self-consciousness must be aware of what it is not. (In a later article, we will show how Hegel’s idea has astonishing implications for the nature of God, and is the key to why evil exists.)


A self-consciousness needs otherness, but as soon it encounters otherness it also experiences, for the first time, fear. Otherness is foreign, a potential threat, something that stands in opposition. The self-consciousness wishes to exert its will to power over the other thing. It wants to possess it, discover its secrets, absorb it, subordinate it, but, crucially, not to destroy it. If the self-consciousness takes ownership of the other thing, it will no longer find it foreign, hostile and threatening. But if it destroys the other thing, the self-consciousness will no longer have anything with which to contrast itself and will start to unravel. It cannot exist without the presence of otherness, yet as soon as it takes possession of otherness, otherness is no longer truly other. How can self-consciousness overcome this dilemma? Hegel came up with a profound and dramatic answer - by otherness arriving in the shape of a second self-consciousness.


Self-consciousness, in order to become true self-consciousness, needs not just any external object - any otherness - but another self-consciousness. By observing this other self-consciousness, by learning what it does and how it behaves, the first self-consciousness starts to understand itself. It learns what it means to be a self-consciousness.


Imagine a human child growing up on a desert island without the presence of another human or even an animal. Would the child develop language, would it become self-conscious, would it even become human in any true sense? The harsh but unavoidable truth is that it wouldn’t. We become human by growing up amongst other humans, by being taught and guided by adult humans, by socializing with humans, by developing relationships, good and bad, with other humans. We immerse ourselves in the pool of humanity and thereby become human. If we are unable to do that because we have extreme autism, or severe Down’s Syndrome, or any other debilitating condition that makes proper social interaction impossible, then we will never be truly human but more like an animal.


Think of the God of Christianity, Islam and Judaism existing in complete isolation before he allegedly created the world. How would this God develop as a self-consciousness without anything or anyone else with which to contrast himself? To a Christian, Muslim or Jew that question is not only absurd but also blasphemous and heretical. But their conception of God is ridiculous and incredible beyond words. Their God is one that could never exist. They believe in a fantasy. No intelligent person could subscribe to their religious beliefs. We said in an earlier section that our religion is one that even an atheist could contemplate accepting. That is because it is consistent with science and philosophy, and does not rely on the absurdity of faith. If you are prepared to believe in a 15-yr-old virgin giving birth to the omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, timeless Son of God in a stable in the Middle East 2,000 years ago, you are prepared to believe in anything. You are far beyond the reach of rational debate. Atheists will, rightly, instantly reject everything you have to say.  


Hegel was fascinated by what would happen when a self-consciousness first encountered a second self-consciousness. The first self-consciousness would certainly now have another object with which to contrast itself, but this would be no simple object that could be straightforwardly owned and negated as all the previous objects had been. In fact, this other self-consciousness might be a serious threat. Also, the first self-consciousness is plunged into an identity crisis. It is no longer unique. Not only that, perhaps, the first self-consciousness worries, the other self-consciousness might want to try to own and negate it as if it were just another object.

Imagine two humans who have been raised in perfect isolation suddenly coming into contact with one another. What will they do? How will they behave? Hegel says that each requires recognition from the other: recognition that they are independent self-consciousnesses that are not mere objects to be owned and negated. What if the other refuses to provide that recognition?


If another self-consciousness does not acknowledge that I am also a self-consciousness, my whole identity is at stake. I am thrust into an existential crisis. Who am I? What am I? What will become of me? Does my existence have meaning?

When prisoners of war are being broken, one of the main tactics used is to dehumanize them, depersonalize them, refuse to acknowledge their humanity, their existence as anything other than objects. Many people have gone insane when subjected to this treatment. If you travelled the globe and were never once acknowledged as a human being by anyone you met, if you were ignored at every turn, if you were treated as invisible, you would soon no longer be human in any functioning sense. Quite simply, we cannot be human without acknowledgement of our humanity by other humans. Most people take their identity for granted, but it is astonishingly fragile, as many prisoners of war discover to their cost. The Jews in Nazi death camps were stripped of all of their humanity. They were turned, metaphorically, and even literally in some cases, into objects. One survivor, the great writer Primo Levi once dared to ask a guard, “Why?” regarding some incident. The response he got was infinitely chilling: “Here, there is no ‘why’.”


Recognition is not just important, it is a matter of life and death. Our whole existence hinges on it. Without it, we are objects. We are not human. We might as well be dead.


Hegel says that in the first encounter between two self-consciousnesses, the outcome is so critical, so much is riding on it, that in effect it becomes a fight to the death. Yet death must not happen. If either is killed, the other is denied the possibility of recognition and loses the chance to be a proper self-consciousness. (Remember that Hegel says that a self-consciousness cannot exist in the absence of another self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is social and plural, never singular.)

So, while each person fights as if to the death, the struggle does not actually end in death because that would be the end for both self-consciousnesses, both the victor and vanquished. The only way for the situation to be resolved is for one self-consciousness to, finally, submit to the other i.e. for one to prove to be more cowardly and weak than the other, less able to put everything on the line in order to win, less willing to risk death itself.


So, both have survived and both can now acknowledge the other, but a terrible and infinitely fateful asymmetry has entered the equation. The struggle has ended with the complete victory of one over the other. The victor is the master and the vanquished his slave. The victor was prepared to fight to the death; the vanquished wasn’t. He gave up. The victor is courageous and the vanquished a coward. The victor is strong and the vanquished weak. The master controls and the slave is controlled. The master is the ruler and the slave is the ruled.

This struggle has, symbolically, been going on since the dawn of humanity. We have all participated in the struggle and we are now all either masters or slaves. It’s easy to know which. If you work for another person, you are a slave. If you can be fired, you are a slave. If others control your life, you are a slave. If you are fearful of what others might do, you are a slave. If you have to await the decisions of others, you are a slave. The freer and the more independent you are, the more you resemble a master.


Although it seems that everything is perfectly set up for the master, Hegel says that this is not the case. Certainly, the master can put the slave to work and live excellently off the slave’s hard toil. He can indulge in play all day long if he wishes. While the slave labors from dusk until dawn, the master lives a life of leisure and ease. Yet he is dissatisfied. He was hoping for acknowledgement from another self-consciousness, another person, but now he finds it hard to see the slave as anything other than an object. The asymmetry in their relationship means that there is no equality in the recognition for which they fought. The slave hates being viewed as a thing, and the master can barely tolerate being looked at by the slave.


But a new and amazing dialectic takes over. The master, living off the labour of the slaves, does no work himself. But the slave’s work, bit by bit, begins to change the environment. Fields are cultivated, buildings constructed, goods manufactured. In all of this work, something of the slave is turning into physical form. His consciousness is becoming externally objectified. He realizes he has a mind of his own, that he’s capable of creation, and of ordering his environment. He becomes proud of his achievements. His self-assurance steadily builds. He no longer feels so wretched and worthless in comparison with the master.


When the slave and master survey the world, the slave sees the fruit of his own work, while the master sees the outcome of another’s work. The slave finds that his consciousness is appearing all around him in the shape of the work he has performed. He is finding a way to attain recognition and deeper understanding of his own consciousness other than solely through the approval of another self-consciousness. He grows as a person. He pours himself into his work. He learns things and becomes increasingly skilled. The master, on the other hand, is becoming lazy and inept, with none of his own work to show for his time.


As the dialectic unfolds, the slave, theoretically, should become more and more powerful until he is the equal of the master. At that point the master will no longer be able to treat him as anything other than a free man. Each side has achieved what it wants. The slave is no longer deemed less than human, and the master at last gets the recognition he craves from an equal. The master-slave dialectic has culminated in an outcome that preserves the two most valuable features of the dialectic: the master’s freedom, and the slave’s skilful work. Now the slave can enjoy the master’s freedom, and the master can acquire the skills of the slave.


At least, that’s what’s supposed to happen. But what if a group exists - the Old World Order - that wishes to ensure that the masters always remain on the top, and the slaves remain permanently less than human? Whether we are brave enough to acknowledge it or not, that’s the world we live in today. Police and soldiers are there to enforce the masters’ will.


Our way of life is inherently based on masters and slaves. We bow to assorted Gods, like slaves bowing to masters. We bow to monarchs and presidents, to the rich, to celebrities. We never tire of bowing to others and getting on our knees. We are controlled at every turn. Isn’t it time to unshackle us, to stand up straight for once?





* * * * *



The Right Brain God


Many people are perplexed by the concept that God is within them. One book that could radically alter their view of this possibility is The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. This book is written from a scientific, atheistic, materialistic viewpoint, and treats God as a product of neuroscience: our religious beliefs derive ultimately from the way the brain is wired. But is an entirely different interpretation possible, one that furnishes potential evidence for the existence of the soul and reincarnation?





* * * * *



The human brain consists of two hemispheres linked by a thick band of connective tissue called the corpus callosum. The two hemispheres are not identical. In right-handed people, the left hemisphere is dominant and controls the right side of the body, while the right hemisphere controls the generally weaker left side of the body. Bicameral means “two chambered” and provides a good way of describing the human brain with its two distinct but connected hemispheres.


The left hemisphere is normally considered the seat of language and logic while the right hemisphere is the province of art, mathematics and music. Autistic savants can show bewildering technical expertise in art, mathematics and music while often being regarded as backward in relation to language, logic and empathy. It has been speculated that these individuals suffered left-brain trauma in the womb due to an abnormal response to testosterone, leading to right-brain dominance. People who have suffered strokes in the left brain have been known to undergo remarkable transformations and discover high-level artistic, musical or mathematical skills that were not in any way evident previously.


The left-brain is characterized as selective, focused, methodical. It filters information to allow the “big picture” to be seen. The right brain, on the other hand, deals with all of the detail ignored and filtered by the left brain. Ours is a left-brain “big picture” society, but that doesn’t mean it was always so. Julian Jaynes’s radical hypothesis is that what we regard as modern consciousness is intimately connected to the evolving dominance of the left brain and, particularly, to the development of language and writing. Before that, the right brain was in charge and what we regard as consciousness simply didn’t exist. In fact, Jaynes speculates that human consciousness as we now understand it has existed for only about 3,000 years.


What existed before consciousness was the “bicameral mind”. Jaynes argues that human beings, as they started to learn rudimentary language, began to undergo a form of auditory hallucination when they were stressed. They would hear a voice in their head commanding them what to do: “fight”, “run”, “drink”, “rest”, “hunt”, “shelter” etc. The hallucinated voice was that of the tribal chief or some authority figure. The person carried out the command unquestioningly. No consciousness existed to allow the command to be pondered, challenged or contemplated. It was simply executed robotically. Even when the tribal chief died, his hallucinated voice would still be heard for a long time after. In this way, it would seem that he wasn’t actually dead. Was the tribal chief promoted to the status of “god” at this time? (This was the origin, Jaynes suggests, of the belief in life-after-death and therefore the human religious sensibility.) As society grew more complex, additional voices arose to reflect additional chiefs and gods.


The bicameral human mind had an inbuilt master-slave structure: one part of the brain barked orders, and another part carried them out immediately. This permitted a rapid and decisive response in crisis situations. It is a more sophisticated form of animal behavior, most of which is pre-programmed and instinctual. Animals don’t reflect on their behavior and don’t take time to decide what to do, and nor did the bicameral mind.


According to Jaynes, the hallucinated voice(s) arose in the right hemisphere of the brain and was heard in the left hemisphere. The right brain was the master that issued executive commands and the left brain was the slave that dutifully followed them. From this originated the human propensity for master-slave relationships.


Jaynes thought his model provided an insight into hypnosis. The authoritative voice of the hypnotist becomes that of the right-brain master that once spoke to human beings. The left brain reverts to its old slavish instinct and mindlessly obeys the master’s commands.


In a TV show featuring British illusionist Derren Brown, he rang a public call box and waited for someone to answer. As soon as a person picked up, he shouted, “Go to sleep!” Amazingly, many of those who answered the phone were filmed immediately slumping to the ground in a deep sleep. Brown’s explanation was that these people were extremely suggestible. He pointed out that most people would ignore a ringing phone in a public call box, assuming it was a wrong number and knowing it definitely wasn’t for them. Those who do answer are almost Pavlovian in their behavior - they feel compelled to pick up a phone if it rings, no matter what the situation is, as if they have been conditioned since birth to do so and have no conscious choice. Is “suggestibility” a vestige of the old bicameral mind?


(In the 1960s, it was rumored that the CIA carried out research on “voice control” as part of their top secret MK-Ultra project. The idea was to use a form of auditory hypnosis via the telephone to gain control over the person at the other end of the line. An agent would use subtle vocal commands and specific acoustic tones to bring the listener under his influence and then manipulate him for the desired purpose. It was hypothesized that the right hemisphere of the brain was more impressionable than the left and could be targeted. Once it had been brought under control, it could be used to direct the left brain. Afterwards, the subject would be made to forget what had happened. This procedure is entirely consistent with Jaynes’s theory.


Is schizophrenia, where people hear voices ordering them to do things, a reversion to the old bicameral mind? Are the “imaginary friends” that some children create also a product of the ancient bicameral mind?


Are young children conscious? How many of us can remember even one detail of our earliest years? Yet we clearly did things, despite not being conscious in any way that we can recall. Perhaps we were guided by a bicameral mind in our childhoods, with our parents’ voices the ones we hallucinated in our heads to tell us what to do when our parents weren’t physically around. We can’t remember this phase of our lives because we had no consciousness to organize memories for us. Children in infancy exhibit similar traits to autistics; they don’t understand concepts such as deceit and empathy. Nor would people with bicameral minds have understood these concepts. Are autistics operating according to a form of bicameral mentality?


Is a charismatic leader with hypnotic language skills - someone like Hitler, Mussolini, Martin Luther King, Billy Graham - taking the role of the hallucinated voice of the tribal leader or god of bicameral times? Is that why they inspire such devotion and can command vast crowds? At huge election rallies, are human beings reverting to their vestigial bicameral selves? Is that why they love strong leaders, why they love authority, why they love celebrities and the super-rich? Have they placed these people on a par with the old bicameral gods? Is a lynch mob a manifestation of a collective bicameral mentality kicking in? - a leader commands and the mob mindlessly obeys. Is the office hierarchy where people feel compelled to obey their inept managers a throwback to bicameral thinking? People say they’re scared to lose their job if they disobey. They’re obviously much less scared of losing their self-respect.


When Moses went up to the summit of Mount Sinai and encountered Yahweh, when Mohammed went into a mountain cave and encountered the Angel Gabriel, when Jesus spoke with his heavenly Father, were they all exhibiting “bicameral episodes”? Such episodes are thought to be more frequent if people have been fasting, meditating, isolating themselves from others. In short, if you go into the wilderness for forty days, you markedly raise the chances of having a bicameral episode. Are such episodes the basis of the “divine revelations” of Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Is the “Word of God” the same as the “Voice of God”?


In a famous experiment by Benjamin Libet, strong evidence was provided that consciousness may often consist of retrospective rationalizations of events that have already been decided by the brain i.e. free will might be illusory. But another explanation is possible. Perhaps the older bicameral mind acts before the conscious mind, except the hallucinated voice is silent. The conscious mind then rationalizes the event as its own work.


Is our love of acting and role play, of story-telling and fantasy, of impersonating others, of assuming an identity for computer games, of having an avatar in a virtual reality world like Second Life, related to the inbuilt existence of a twin nature arising from the left and right brain, and from the modern conscious mind and the old bicameral mind? Studies have shown differences between how men and women use their right and left brains. Are women more prone to submissive and compliant behavior because they are more bicameral then men? Is the human obsession with opposites, with binary logic, related to bicameralism? Is the “double”, the doppelganger, the shadow, the “other” all intimately connected with bicameralism? Does the ultimate root of good and evil lie in bicameralism? There is virtually no arena of the human condition, which couldn’t be considered as some kind of bicameral phenomenon.


Is the human race as a species prone to individual and mass hallucinations because of bicameralism? Can humans create such powerful simulations of other “voices” that they effectively conjure gods, ghosts, spirits, vampires, werewolves and a whole gallery of supernatural beings out of their imaginations and then believe they are real? Are mediums (those ones who aren’t outright charlatans), so skilled at simulating the thoughts of a dead person about whom they have collected a few details that they can accurately describe how that person might have behaved when he was alive? Is that why they seem so convincing? Are people who have uncannily accurate intuitions about other people running incredibly powerful simulations of those others in their mind? Or is something else going on?


Some patients suffering from a hallucinated personality claim that the hallucination knows more than they do. What does that imply? It could be argued that the right brain, with access to all of the detail that the left brain filters out, may well seem to have greater knowledge. It retains all of the facts that the left brain has long forgotten.


Some people have had “split brain” operations involving the severing of the corpus callosum. Could that result in a person developing two “selves”? Not nearly enough scientific research has been conducted on split brain patients. They could hold the key to persuading the world about the reality of the bicameral mind.


The word “paranoia” literally means having another mind alongside one’s own. That is exactly what the bicameralism is.


Does multiple personality syndrome (MPD) - when one personality seemingly divides into two or more - derive from bicameralism? Regarding those people who can provide vivid details of past lives when they are under hypnosis, are memory traces of buried “voices” being accessed? (If someone living in America who had never left the country were able, under hypnosis, to successfully reveal the location of an ancient artifact that had been buried in France for hundreds of years and state that he himself had hidden this object in a previous life, how could any mainstream hypothesis account for this?) Is “speaking in tongues” a bicameral phenomenon? (If someone were to speak fluently in an ancient and “dead” language which they had never previously encountered and of which they could have no possible knowledge in conventional terms, how could any mainstream hypothesis possibly account for this?)


In ancient Rome, an individual’s “genius” was his guardian and guiding spirit. This “genius” could easily be interpreted as an echo of the bicameral voice of old. Socrates, when he was on trial for his life, spoke of a daemon that helped him in difficult times. He described it as, “…a sort of voice which comes to me and has done so since my childhood; and when it comes it always dissuades me from what I am proposing to do, and never urges me on.” John Milton referred to a “Celestial Patroness” who guided his poetry. William Blake seemed to live his life amongst a plethora of visions and auditory hallucinations. Wagner reached his creative peak when he searched inside himself for his musical ideas rather than looking to the outside world. Mathematician Françoise Chatelin heard a voice which, he claimed, instructed him in a new way of understanding numbers.


Some people might speculate that the vestigial bicameral “voice” could be equated with the Jungian “Shadow” aspect of the personality, or with the Freudian “Id”. What is referred to as the “unconscious” may actually be the interplay between the modern conscious mind and the ancient bicameral mind. In certain situations, particularly stressful ones, the bicameral mind may come to the fore since it is far more decisive and quick-acting than the conscious mind.


When intoxicated people find that they can get home from a bar yet not have any conscious recollection of a single part of their homeward journey, they sometimes say they were on “autopilot”, but perhaps it was their old bicameral mind that took over and guided them safely home. What about sleepwalkers? Have they been taken over by their old bicameral voice and then remember nothing about it when they wake up? As for dreams, human beings really have no idea what takes place in the dreamscape. People are woken up in order to report what they have been dreaming about. However, that involves their normal conscious mind kicking in and then trying to rationalize the few fragmentary images it can remember. It is possible that the dreamscape is where the old bicameral mind has much more say than normal, and tries to communicate messages to our consciousness, most of which are promptly forgotten unless they are particularly vivid? Jaynes thought that bicameral humans didn’t really dream at all. Since they had no sense of “self”, they could never imagine themselves in other times, places and situations, as modern, conscious humans do when they’re dreaming. Rather, a bicameral person continued to experience the same sort of hallucinations in sleep as when awake i.e. voices speaking to them, accompanied, perhaps, by images of dead tribal chiefs, gods, heroes etc. Jaynes also speculated that the sexual encounters of bicameral people were boring and infrequent since they had no fantasy space to go to in their minds to spice things up. In many ways, bicameral humans are as far from modern human beings as Neanderthal Man.


There is a group called the “Hearing Voices Movement” which claims that between 2% and 4% of the population regularly hear voices, but only about one third become mental patients. In other words, there are people who hear voices and yet manage to cope with them and function normally. John Nash, the Nobel Prize winning economist, eventually managed to control the voices that had tormented him all his life.


There is a phenomenon known as the “Third Man”, derived from T.S. Eliot’s poem Waste Land:


Who is the third who walks always beside you?

When I count, there are only you and I together.

But when I look up the white road

There is always another one walking beside you.


The idea is that in times of extreme stress, a presence can manifest itself and guide a person out of danger. Many people in life-threatening situations have described such a presence giving them direct instructions. Frequently, they attribute it to divine intervention. Many mountaineers, marathon runners and people doing extreme endurance sports have reported Third Man encounters. Scientists typically assert that oxygen deprivation is leading to deterioration in brain function, leading to hallucinations. However, the people undergoing these experiences seem not to be going into a chaotic, unfocused, disconnected state that will lead to their death, but the precise opposite. Why would a hallucination be so helpful and so specific in its advice? According to Jaynes’s theory, what is happening is that the left brain is surrendering control to the right brain and the old bicameral mode is being restored during the crisis.


Jaynes’s theory is massively speculative but it seems to convincingly address many issues that are inexplicable within the parameters of alternative and more conventional hypotheses.  


There is no mystical element in Jaynes’s thinking. He is rationalizing a wide range of phenomena according to specific differences between the left and right hemispheres of the human brain, leading, he thinks, to hallucinated voices (and perhaps hallucinated bodies too). These hallucinations are, he proposes, the basis of humanity’s religious beliefs.


Jaynes’s hypothesis, as it stands, is one that should speak loudly and persuasively to atheists. Even though they reject the concept of God, they may see the possibility of “expanding their consciousness” via getting in touch with the strange landscape of the right brain, full of creativity, mathematical, artistic and musical potential, and vast resources of unfiltered data that, if it could all be accessed under certain conditions, might provide amazing insights and extra capabilities. Wouldn’t we all want access to an inner voice that could help us in times of danger, or that could revolutionize our perception of reality? Just as humanity underwent a remarkable transformation when it evolved from the bicameral mind to modern consciousness (in Jaynes’s theory), so it could take another radical leap if modern consciousness could selectively tap the old bicameral mind.


But there’s another possibility that Jaynes never considers. What if the bicameral hallucinated voices aren’t hallucinations? What if they’re real? What if the voice is that of the divine spark? What if it was the divine spark that guided humanity from its ape ancestry to modern consciousness? That would be one way of accounting for the staggering difference between humans and all other animals.


What if the divine spark has full memory of all of its previous incarnations, and these memories can be accessed under hypnosis? (Plato, an advocate of reincarnation, argued that all true knowledge involves recollection. We are not discovering anything new…we are simply remembering what our soul knew when it was part of the divine order.) What if glossolalia - speaking in tongues - is actually a manifestation of the native tongues of previous incarnations? What if some incarnations go back to the very dawn of humanity and know exactly what happened back then? What if they know the truth of the “Garden of Eden” and all the other Biblical events? What if they know the identities of the archons? What if they deliberately became silent, as part of a greater plan, once they had brought humanity to consciousness? The combination of reincarnation and a hidden voice that can be accessed in certain circumstances is nothing short of a way to bring the whole of human history alive, to reveal all of the moments once thought lost in time. And what if the divine spark also offered glimpses of the divine order, and the uttermost secrets of the universe?


Jaynes’s proposal could be treated as a mystical theory providing direct evidence of the divine spark located, in effect, as a separate personality in the right hemisphere of the human brain - divinity inside man - or as a rationalist’s account of how we might think the divine exists even though it is only a sophisticated hallucination produced by brain wiring.


Jaynes’s theory permits the religious to glimpse the divine spark, and atheists a higher self. In that way, it can unite both factions in the pursuit of a higher humanity with massively expanded possibilities.


Those who might speculate that the Illuminati’s path to enlightenment is concerned with gaining reliable and consistent access to just the sort of inner voice of wisdom, command and revelation that features in Jaynes’s theory would be on the right track. But on that subject we can say no more.


“There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come.”

Victor Hugo


“All truth passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”






* * * * *





Odd though it may seem, hypnosis is one of the most important subjects in the world. The mental state associated with hypnosis is, more or less, the key to understanding humanity.


One of the most important books of the twentieth century for the Illuminati is The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by psychologist Julian Jaynes. Every member of the Illuminati is given a copy and expected to be absolutely familiar with its contents. The reason it has been so eagerly embraced by the Illuminati is that it provides a contemporary update of the material taught by the Illuminati to its membership since the time of Grand Master Hegel.


Hegel’s master-slave dialectic was, and remains, the Illuminati’s central teaching to explain why we live in such an unjust and wicked world, so full of privilege, hate, violence, destructive (rather than constructive) competition, selfishness, greed, low self-esteem, religious madness, religions that worship the Devil and call him God, corrupt and incompetent governments, unscrupulous companies ripping off their customers, bankers blackmailing the whole world, celebrity culture, and so on.


Nietzsche’s concepts of Will to Power, master and slave moralities, and the distinction between “good and bad” on one hand and “good and evil” on the other were added to Hegel’s teachings.


Jaynes’ hypothesis makes the master-slave dialectic the driving force of the evolution of the human mind itself.


There is a bridge between the minds of the higher animals and those of humans: there was no miraculous leap directly from the unconscious animal mind to human consciousness. Long ago, animal “societies” evolved a feature that is everywhere evident - the dominance of the alpha male: the group leader.


Animals play “follow the leader.” A leader is deposed only when a new, younger alpha male comes along and takes the “king’s” position by force.


The alpha male dictates the conduct of the group. What could be more natural than that the animal mind should internalize and enshrine this model of the dominant giving orders to the rest (the submissives) and make it as efficient as possible?


To reflect the ways of nature, the bicameral (two-chambered) human brain simply had to appoint one hemisphere as dominant (the master) and the other hemisphere as the slave. In right handed-people - the vast majority of humanity - the right hemisphere was the one chosen for bicameral dominance because, paradoxically, it was the most “alien” to the right side of the body (which is in fact controlled by the left hemisphere).


Commands issued from the dominant right hemisphere (as an auditory “hallucination” according to Jaynes, of the type that people experience even in the modern day when the likes of schizophrenics report “hearing voices” - which are obviously originating in the schizophrenics’ own unconscious and then being interpreted as belonging to other people) and were rigidly obeyed by the left hemisphere. There was no question of debating the commands. The right hemisphere was “God - he who must be obeyed”.


This bicameral mind was pre-conscious. It worked extremely well for tens of thousands of years as humanity evolved, but eventually there came a time when people were too numerous and society had become far too complex for the simple model of bicameralism. Above all, as people learned to write and develop sophisticated language skills, a revolution in brain wiring was created.


It was the left hemisphere - the slave hemisphere - that became proficient in written and spoken language (because it had to be extremely good at interpreting the grunted commands of the right hemisphere and analytically understanding every nuance of each order). It thus became smarter, more rational and logical than the right hemisphere (which gradually became the seat of art, music, creativity and complex spatial awareness), and thus assumed dominance. Above all, it created the voice of the “I” - the ego, the self, the soul, the rational person - who persists from day to day as our core identity.


Modern consciousness didn’t replace the underlying bicameral brain architecture and associated bicameral mind; it was simply built over it. Just as the excavations at Troy revealed multiple versions of that famous ancient city, built over each other in layers, so the brain has simply created new structures on top of the old (as we saw with the triune brain). There was no top-down redesign; simply a clunky evolution of old animal systems, many “unfit for purpose” in relation to human consciousness (which is why so much human behavior is so bizarre).


The left-hemisphere dominance of modern consciousness sits right on top of the old right-hemisphere dominance of ancient bicameralism - you couldn’t get a more potentially dangerous and unstable combination - and in certain situations, control effectively switches back from modern consciousness to ancient bicameralism, and the hemispheres therefore switch in terms of dominance during these phases. This plunges us into an entirely different mental state - the one we see in the phenomenon of HYPNOSIS.


That’s why hypnosis is staggeringly important and should be the subject of intense scientific research - rather than being regarded as a strange party trick, or weird version of the placebo (“I will please”) effect. Hypnosis, in one form or another, is everywhere and shapes the human world.


Religion is a form of mass suggestion. It is mass hypnosis, mass activation of the bicameral mind. Religion reflects the master-slave paradigm, with God as the Supreme Master and all of us as his slaves.


Weak, frightened people craving the ancient voice of authority are fatally attracted to Abrahamism. They long for the absolute certainty that the voice of absolute command delivers. The voice of God is the voice that reveals no trace of doubt or fear. People want to hear that voice because it removes their fear too, providing they obey the voice to the letter.





* * * * *


“Hypnosis is the black sheep of the family of problems that constitute psychology. It wanders in and out of laboratories and carnivals and clinics and village halls like an unwanted anomaly. It never seems to straighten up and resolve itself into the firmer proprieties of scientific theory. Indeed, its very possibility seems a denial of our immediate ideas about conscious self-control on the one hand, and our scientific idea about personality on the other. Yet it should be conspicuous that any theory of consciousness and its origin, if it is to be responsible, must face the difficulty of this deviant type of behavioral control…. [hypnosis] engages the general paradigm which allows a more absolute control over behavior than is possible with consciousness…I shall even go so far as to maintain that no theory other than the present one [bicameralism] makes sense of the basic problem [of hypnosis]. For if our contemporary mentality is, as most people suppose, an immutable genetically determined characteristic evolved back somewhere in mammalian evolution or before, how can it be so altered as in hypnosis? And that alteration merely at some ridiculous ministrations of another person? It is only by rejecting the genetic hypothesis and treating consciousness as a learned cultural ability over the vestigial substrate of an earlier more authoritarian type of behavioral control that such alterations of mind can begin to seem orderly.”


--Julian Jaynes



Jaynes’ thesis is revolutionary. If we treat consciousness as something we learn, like mathematics or a foreign language or driving or a musical instrument, extraordinary consequences flow. Some people may be better at it than others. Some may learn it faster and more profoundly. Some may be hopeless at it and never get the hang of it. Others may develop the consciousness of the gods themselves. A few may never truly become conscious.


Perhaps people have a “CQ” (Consciousness Quotient) analogous to an IQ. There may be a normal distribution curve of consciousness, with some people much more conscious than the average person while others are subnormal in terms of their consciousness (almost animal-like).


Just as society seeks to optimize IQ, it should seek to optimize CQ too. In fact, raising the consciousness of the average person should be the central goal of the State. Instead, it is the opposite. Schools teach memorization and regurgitation. It’s not uncommon for people to finish their basic education without the ability to think for themselves.


The State should teach consciousness. By that, we mean that society should teach people to think for themselves, unaffected by traditions or peer groups or parents: to be autonomous, self-reliant, independently-minded, self-reflective, self-aware, self-defining, self-creating. Because that is the nature of God. No one who is all of these things will be susceptible to bicameralism and control.


There are institutions that actively seek to make people less conscious. The army does not want soldiers to be conscious: simply to obey. The police are robotic enforcers of the Elite’s will. Factory workers aren’t conscious. People in offices aren’t conscious. Children in schools aren’t conscious.


Capitalism wants to be able to manipulate other-directed people; people who are fashion and peer-group obsessed. Look at the success of “fashionable” items. If one person has it, everyone has to have it. Conscious individuals do not follow the crowd, are not susceptible to peer pressure and don’t give a damn if they don’t have the latest gadget or hip object. Only slaves to fashion, slaves to groupthink, slaves to other-directedness: conformists, automata and weaklings can be conned by the capitalist mind control system.


All of the enormous corporations would collapse if the general population were conscious. No one would work for these multinationals and no one would buy their shit goods.


“New humans” should be non-conformist, dissenting, radical, independent and autonomous i.e. with maximized consciousness and invulnerability to all brainwashing and mind control systems, all hierarchies and mindless authority.


Some people in our world actually learn “group consciousness” rather than individual consciousness. They are obsessed with “fitting in” rather than being their true selves. They are terrified of being socially ostracized. Their whole lives are defined by fear and anxiety. Riesman called them the Lonely Crowd. They are an enormous mob desperately clinging together to avoid the vacuum, the infinite loneliness, at the core of their being. They don’t realize that consciousness is the cure for their problems. But of course no one has ever taught them that, and only the rarest people can teach themselves.


Everything should be done to combat the groupthink, group thoughtforms, and collective group minds that are evident everywhere in day-to-day life. The group mind - characteristic on the one hand of Dionysian collective irrationality and intoxication and on the other of bicameral group control - should be expressed only on special occasions. In our world, it is the default setting.


Advertising, politics, patriotism, nationalism, capitalism and religion are all aimed straight at the group mind. It’s much easier to control a group operating under a single consciousness than a group of freethinking, critical people with individual consciousnesses.


Being a “critical” person is essential to being conscious. You must have a well-developed bullshit detector. In terms of religion, politics and the manipulative advertising industry, ordinary people are totally lacking in a BS detector capability. In fact, judging by the way most people lie to each other relentlessly and usually get away with it, most people barely have bullshit detection in any aspect of their lives.





* * * * *



Hypnosis is a procedure for causing a subject to slip out of ordinary consciousness into bicameralism where the left hemisphere of the brain is primed to accept commands from a voice of authority - a “god”.


A subject under hypnotic control has been “persuaded” into surrendering left brain dominance and to suppress the “I” with which the left brain is normally associated.


The implication of the phenomenon of hypnosis is that human beings have a surprisingly shallow layer of consciousness and the old bicameral mind (which allows the unconscious to be vocalized and for meaningful consciousness to be switched off) can be summoned easily.


This explains why so many people are highly suggestible and so in thrall to powerful figures. It explains why society is run along master-slave lines with the privileged elite being the masters and everyone else their more or less willing slaves. The only reason why a few thousand people can control nearly seven billion people with so little difficulty is that the billions are predisposed towards this status. They feel comfortable with it. No self-respecting person would ever want to be regarded as someone else’s subject and yet an advanced nation such as the UK is full of people who are proud to be the subjects of a Queen. That is only possible with submissive, weak, suggestible people who long to be dominated. The British - the English in particular - are disgustingly subservient to Power.


Hypnosis brings us face to face with humanity’s terrible secret that most people relish being slaves and actively choose slavery for themselves.


They don’t want to be in control of their lives. They want to be controlled. It takes very little to remove their own conscious control and replace it with the control of a dominant person (the hypnotist). Why do people work in offices in soul-destroying jobs, why do they put up with a handful of people being multi-billionaires, why do they accept shitty lives? It’s because they’re born for it. It makes perfect sense to them. They don’t want to fight to change anything. They have low will to power. They are natural-born slaves, easily lulled into relinquishing conscious control of their lives.


Hypnosis turns people into actors performing a script written for them by the hypnotist. Just as a director instructs an actor how to perform a scene, a hypnotist directs his subject, and the subject does as he’s told as well as he can. Just as actors perform better in front of an audience, so the hypnotized perform better with a packed audience in attendance. In a sense, hypnotic behavior is simply acting by “amateurs”. Most people are acting most of the time. Their entire lives are an act. They are never truly in control of their lives.


For a hypnotist to be good at his task, he needs to be a natural dominant or able to act the part of a dominant. The more dominant the hypnotist and the more submissive the subject, the stronger the hypnotic effect.


A dominant enough person could hypnotize a submissive enough person simply by forcefully barking an order at them, but usually some form of induction is required.


Anything that helps to reduce the subject’s consciousness is useful. Tranquil music, mild drugs or alcohol, tiredness, a ritual for putting the subject “under” - these can all be used. The hypnotist can swing a watch backwards and forwards or say, “Look into my eyes…you are starting to feel very sleepy.”


In essence, the hypnotist is simply giving the subject a strong suggestion and an excuse to deactivate his normal consciousness. The subject becomes akin to a sleepwalker (and sleepwalking is itself an extraordinary phenomenon since a sleepwalker can move around, do quite complex tasks, even hold conversations, without being conscious - a sleepwalker is probably a good approximation of what bicameral humans were like in ancient times).


A sleepwalker is highly suggestible, and so is a hypnotized person. Any person with a weak consciousness is highly suggestible. The least suggestible people are those with an extremely strongly developed self consciousness. The more conscious and dominant you are, the less easily you can surrender conscious control.


The hypnotist has to check whether the subject is under. Typically, he will ask the subject to clasp his hands and then say, “You will try with all your might to unclasp your hands, but you will be unable to do so.” If the subject is indeed unable to separate his hands then he is ready for the next stage.


It has been found that even if the hypnotist doesn’t succeed with the first try to put the subject under, repeated attempts often work i.e. the subject learns to cooperate with putting himself under i.e. it is partly self-induced.


A person who is under is no longer an “I” and has no capacity for self-consciousness. Although he is a subject of hypnosis, he himself is no longer part of the subjective world but is now an object awaiting commands. He does not actually “know” he is hypnotized since that would be an inference drawn by consciousness, which he ho longer has.  


Julian Jaynes wrote: “Unless otherwise suggested, the subject is ‘deaf’ to all but the operator’s voice; he does not ‘hear’ other people. Pain can be ‘blocked’ off, or enhanced above normal. So can sensory experience. Emotions can be totally structured by suggestion: told he is about to hear a funny joke, the subject will laugh uproariously at ‘grass is green.’ The subject can somehow control certain automatic responses better than in the normal state at the suggestion of the operator. His sense of identity can be radically changed. He can be made to act as if he were an animal, or an old man, or a child.”


Jaynes points out that a person in a trance has a diminished grasp of temporal relations; time takes on a different character for the hypnotized. A conscious person gives a temporal narrative of how they spend their time. If a person in a trance is asked to recall what they did in the last hour then, because they lack such a narrative, they simply state various actions they performed, in no particular order, and no logical temporal sequence. Although they refer to themselves as “I”, it is a rather disembodied, atemporal I - a sort-of free-floating self.


Incredibly, subjects in a hypnotic trance can provide a narratized account if specifically asked to do so by the hypnotist. This has remarkable implications. It means that the subject is actually carrying out parallel processing: viewing the situation in two different ways at once. One process is atemporal and chaotic and one is temporal and sequential.     


This phenomenon is revealed even more vividly if a subject is required to plunge their hand into an ice bucket and ordered to feel no pain. One processing track does indeed record no pain, but the other does! The subject says he felt nothing, but if he is instructed to use another voice to reveal what he really felt, the other voice will describe the distress experienced because of the extreme cold.


So, within the hypnotic procedure, a “trance self” is created while the former self becomes a “hidden observer” - still there and watching, but silent and not in control. The trance self is the robotic bicameral self which has now taken over from the conscious self (thanks to the hypnotist). The trance self has very different properties from the conscious self. It is much more pain resistant, it does not track time or logical sequences, it has no personality, and is totally suggestible.


All human beings were like this once upon a time. The hidden observer - the modern conscious self - evolved and replaced the bicameral self, but hypnotists can reverse the process and restore the bicameral self, suppressing the conscious self and making it nothing but a subservient, hidden observer to the events of its own life.


Orwellian “doublethink” - the ability to hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously - becomes unsurprising in terms of this paradigm. The left and right hemispheres can have entirely different personalities never mind different ideas.


It’s possible to speculate that human consciousness is like an orchestra, with the conductor acting as the “I”, the self, the narrator, unifying all of the different, contrasting instruments. However, if the conductor goes absent, all of the instruments can start doing their own thing. Jaynes writes: “The idea is that in hypnosis the totality of mind or reactivity is being separated into concurrent streams which can function independently of each other.” This would provide an explanation of multiple personality syndrome.


Jaynes discusses the fascinating manner in which subjects collude in their hypnosis and establish the terms of reference beforehand. Before her hypnosis, a female subject wrote, “A person’s eyes must be closed in order to be in a hypnotic trance.” When she was hypnotized, the trance was broken every time she was asked to do anything that involved opening her eyes! Other people who did not think that the trance must involve closed eyes continued to remain in a trance state. In other words, your own expectations of hypnosis can dictate how you will react to being hypnotized. Another person was very resistant to hypnosis on the first occasion it was tried on him, and it transpired that he had written beforehand: “Most people cannot be hypnotized the first time.”


If someone didn’t want to be hypnotized, they wouldn’t be. The hypnotist isn’t making it happen; rather he is creating the environment in which the subject in effect hypnotizes himself (but the hypnotist will of course take all the credit). The subject will be much happier to “play the game” the more dominant the hypnotist is. It can’t be stressed enough that if you want to hypnotize someone you must be as confident, self assured and dominant as possible. If the subject is not totally convinced by you, it will take them much longer to be hypnotized.


A hypnotist should stake a claim to being an expert in mental matters. Declare yourself to be a Harvard psychologist or psychoanalyst. People are much more receptive to hypnosis when they think they are in the capable hands of an expert.


Jaynes writes: “The more godlike the operator is to the subject, the more easily is the bicameral paradigm activated.”


A phenomenon that is astoundingly similar to hypnosis is faith healing. Here we have a godlike preacher, claiming to be filled with the power of God. Subjects, in the presence of such a dominant person and in front of a large, enthralled, God-intoxicated audience, spontaneously become bicameral - they instantly self-hypnotize - and they will do whatever the faith healer commands. Many of the subjects may well do remarkable things because the bicameral mind has completely different pain thresholds from the conscious mind. A movement that could cause excruciating pain in the conscious state may be unfelt in the bicameral state. It’s possible that faith healing genuinely effects a lasting transformation in some cases because the body gets a genuinely radical jolt when it switches to full-blown bicameralism, but usually the effect is short term and the subject resorts to normal (all of his ailments return) as soon as his consciousness is back in control.


A TV documentary revealed that faith healers can prove efficacious in certain types of pain control (this being attributed to the placebo effect), but interestingly an actor playing the part of a faith healer proved even more successful than a practicing faith healer! By the same token, you don’t have to be a hypnotist to hypnotize people: you just need to be good at acting the part of a hypnotist! It’s the act that’s important, not the qualification.


Jaynes makes another powerful observation: “If we can regard punishment in childhood as a way of instilling an enhanced relationship to authority, hence training some of those neurological relationships that were once the bicameral mind, we might expect this to increase hypnotic susceptibility. And this is true. Careful studies show that those who have experienced severe punishment in childhood and come from a disciplined home are more easily hypnotized, while those who were rarely punished or not punished at all tend to be less susceptible to hypnosis.”


Jaynes says that if consciousness is learned rather than being supplied genetically then it can equally well be unlearned or its development arrested. This is a powerful observation and explains why the world is the way it is. Humanity is on a consciousness/bicameral knife-edge, and many people keep slipping into the bicameral mode, particularly when they encounter dominant religions or dominant individuals. The super rich are dominant, celebrities are dominant, politicians are dominant. All those given “legal” authority (such as the police) are dominant. All authority figures are dominant (although, of course, it is their label of authority that gives them dominance, not necessarily their own personality which may well be extremely weak). The master-slave paradigm and the bicameral paradigm are the same thing and this paradigm is embedded in our world. There are masters and slaves and nothing else.


The more conscious you are the less bicameral you are: it becomes much harder to dislodge the conscious self and transfer control to the bicameral self. Any advanced State MUST encourage and optimize consciousness. All master-slave set-ups should be abolished. We have to escape from the master-slave, bicameral pyramid and replace it with the meritocratic round table of consciousness.


Religions which specifically target the bicameral self in order to exploit it should be banned. Advertising, which seeks to command the bicameral self to buy whatever is being advertised, should be banned or it should be combated with “anti-advertising” aimed at the conscious self.


We are in a dialectical war between consciousness and bicameralism. Many of the institutions of the world are geared towards control via bicameralism. Many of the organized religions of the world simply wouldn’t survive in a world of fully conscious people.


If you are on the side of reason and consciousness, you must fight the bicameral hordes and all those evil masters who use bicameralism to exploit vulnerable, slave-like people.


Make no mistake, bicameralism (the master-slave paradigm) is the key to our world. Faith is on the side of bicameralism and reason on the side of consciousness.


Newspapers and commentators love the bicameral paradigm. They act as the gods telling the servile masses what opinions to hold. They are just another version of the pontificating priest caste. But they care nothing for their audience. They don’t want to improve them in any way, just to keep exploiting them.


No matter what you think of this website, you could never accuse us of dumbing down or patronizing you. We present the profoundest ideas ever devised by the human mind. When have you ever seen any content like this in a newspaper or discussed in a radio show or TV program? The Gatekeepers would never permit this material anywhere near the mainstream media.


Even simply reading this material is an act of extreme subversion that places you outside the common herd of servile bicamerals. Only conscious people can read this material and profit from it.


The Illuminati are the Army of Consciousness, but we have ranged against us the much vaster forces of bicameralism.


The powers that be all support bicameralism because it is the perfect system of control. Consciousness amongst the masses is no good to them because conscious people ask questions and challenge the elite.


The way the controllers want a society full of people who don’t ask questions. Who slavishly obey. And that’s just what they have.


Has Julian Jaynes provided an astonishing clue to how to transform humanity? He wrote:


“What is it then that hypnosis supplies that does this extraordinary enabling, that allows us to do things that we cannot ordinarily do except with great difficulty? Or is it ‘we’ that do them? Indeed, in hypnosis it is as if someone else were doing things through us. And why is this so? And why is this easier? Is it that we have to lose our conscious selves to gain such control, which cannot then be by us?


On another level, why is it that in our daily lives we cannot get above ourselves to authorize ourselves into being what we really wish to be? If under hypnosis we can be changed in identity and action, why not in and by ourselves so that behavior flows from decision with as absolute a connection, so that whatever in us it is that we refer to as will stands master and captain over action with as sovereign a hand as the operator over a subject?”




Well, why don’t we? Strong-willed people do in fact give themselves permission to succeed, to dominate, to create, to make their mark on the world. They authorize action and they execute it. They are the movers and shakers.


Many people think they can make a difference, but they’re deluding themselves. They don’t have what it takes to succeed. They don’t give themselves permission. They don’t authorize a full-scale assault. They keep inventing problems and difficulties for themselves; they see insurmountable obstacles; they fear the consequences of getting it wrong; they worry about this, that and the other. Finally, they have drained themselves of all energy and spark and are incapable of achieving anything. They talked themselves out of succeeding, and they will spend the rest of their lives regretting that they didn’t act when the time was right.


Let’s be crystal clear about this. You have to impose yourself on the world. You have to dominate it. No one will roll out a red carpet for you (unless you belong to the privileged elite). You have to self-hypnotize to succeed. Then you will have to hypnotize others with your dominant charisma and make them execute your plan. But, of course, you must have a plan in the first place. Well, do you? If not, why not? Isn’t it time you made your move?


“We are learned in self-doubt, scholars of our very failures, geniuses at excuse and tomorrowing our resolves. And so we become practiced in powerless resolution until hope gets undone and dies in the unattempted.”






So, now you have the full picture of hypnosis, everything you need to know about the subject that isn’t pure bullshit.


What are the key points?


1)      The hypnotist has no magical skill. He is simply a dominant or someone good at acting the part of a dominant.


2)      The subject is a submissive and is willing and almost eager to surrender conscious control and return to the comforting world of obeying and not have to take personal responsibility.


3)      The dominant simply uses some cheap gimmick such as swinging a watch backwards and forwards to persuade the subject that he is feeling sleepy and ought to allow himself to go into a trance state in which the bicameral mechanism is activated. As long as the person expects it to work, it will.


4)      In this state, the subject loses his conscious inhibitions and is receptive to a dominant voice telling him what to do.


5)      The dominant hypnotist should consider the subject as an actor whom he will direct as he sees fits.


6)      The hypnotist simply needs to suggest various things and the subject will execute them readily.


7)      In a sense, the hypnotist and the hypnotized are both acting, and the whole interaction can be viewed as an elaborate mutual performance.


In short, hypnosis involves a dominant person giving a submissive person orders in a ritualized, safe ceremony. That’s it. There’s nothing else. There’s no mystery, no magic, no paranormal happenings. It’s the logical exploitation of the bicameral human mind that is geared up for accepting orders.


“Orders” are usually called “suggestions” and the subject is described as being “suggestible”.


Any commands the hypnotist gives should of course be reversed by the end of the session. It’s the moral duty of the hypnotist to allow the subject to walk out of the room in the same state he came in, with no implanted suggestions and no unresolved orders. The hypnotist must always return the subject to “normal”, with no memory of all the orders he was given.


To be a hypnotist, you simply need to be confident, assertive, dominant and easily able to put a person at ease and control him. There’s nothing else to it.