Questions & Criticisms


We get a number of messages challenging the reality of the OWO. Here is an example of one, with our response.


"In actuality I am very open to your position. The reason for my questions is that I, in defense of your position, am often presented with questions such as these from the skeptics. Since I as yet do not have airtight responses to them I was hoping to get some input from you. I find the skeptics paradoxically very helpful because it forces me to think harder and to refine my arguments (which favor your position). With that in mind, I still think you have left holes which need plugging. For example, a skeptic might argue that while Microsoft may be a bully now, it started as an entrepreneurial start-up that challenged the OWO (in the name of IBM). So a skeptic might argue that the Microsoft story is actually a victory over the OWO. Now maybe it has since been corrupted, I dunno...Also with regard to rigging the system, game theory presents scenarios wherein collaborative/corruptive/collusive practices emerge by those entities in "power" just because these practices are ones which will maintain the power of those in power. Kind of a positive feedback loop but not a conspiracy. What is your response to these? Your help on this will allow me to try to spread the word more effectively. "


If you think that the OWO is about specific corporations, you have entirely misunderstood. The OWO is about people - about "elite" people. Corporations are simply vehicles to allow them to control money, power, and people. But one corporation is as good as another. IBM gave way to Microsoft i.e. an elderly OWO institution was replaced by a new OWO institution. Nothing had changed other than the name of the corporation and the CEO. The OWO were still pulling all of the strings. Do you think the board members of IBM were thrown onto the scrapheap, penniless and ruined forever by Microsoft? The reality is that they had shares in Microsoft and made a fortune. Corporations come and go; the people who run them remain at the top, merely moving from one to another.


Game theory is a product and reflection of human behavior, not the other way around. To engage in collaborative/corruptive/collusive practices is precisely to engage in a conspiracy, which has as its precise objective to maintain the power of those in power. All that game theory does is place conspiracy theories on a mathematical basis. Why call it game theory at all? Simply by applying a neutral, mathematical label to something does not explain it away as a neutral, mathematical phenomenon. Don't you think there are obvious, predictable, quasi-mathematical rules to describe how conspiracies are conducted? They're not random. They've been tried and tested for millennia.


In a previous article, we mentioned a gameshow based on the famous philosophical problem known as the Philosopher's Dilemma, one of the central conundrums studied by Game theory. In the gameshow, two contestants have earned a lucrative pot of money between them. At the final stage of the show each contestant has to secretly decide to "split or steal", and the other person has no knowledge of what decision they have taken. There are three options: a) if both contestants choose to split then they each go away with a fair split of the spoils: 50-50, each b) if one wants to steal and the other wants to split then the thief takes the whole lot and the other leaves with nothing, c) if both choose to steal then both get nothing.


Prior to the final decision, the two contestants have a little chat about what they intend to do. Of course, anyone planning to steal is never going to admit it, so the chat always involves both parties swearing that they will split and have absolutely no intention of stealing. But can you trust what the other person is saying?


This is a classic Game theory scenario. What decision will you take based on no sure knowledge of the other's intentions?


Now, there are those who regard the OWO as a product of some quasi-mystical Game theory influence that mysteriously shapes our world and society, and which leaves them blameless as the authors of humanity's misfortune. Let's be absolutely clear about this. There would be no game if the two contestants were true to their word and split the money. There would be no game if one or both contestants didn't have the intention of screwing over the other and stealing all the money. There would be no game if one or both contestants weren't willing to lie through their teeth to the other to disguise their true intentions. In other words, it's not game theory that determines human behavior but human behavior that determines game theory i.e. it's the fact that some human beings are liars, cheats and thieves that creates the dilemma, the "game".


The thieves, liars and cheats are those with a "winner takes all" mentality, exactly the same mentality that underlies capitalism and the OWO.


We would assume that anyone who joins The Movement would be the sort of person who would never contemplate lying to and stealing from another person i.e. game theory does not apply to The Movement - every member always chooses the "split" option, to fairly share any windfall. Imagine a society based on the values of The Movement rather than on those of the sort of people who eagerly lie, cheat and steal to secure a decisive advantage for themselves; those like the bosses of Goldman Sachs!


"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."

- Martin Luther King


In our world, the liars, cheats and thieves are the OWO. They have no compunction whatsoever about lying to us, cheating us and stealing from us. Who are the thieves of our world? They are those who have all the money, of course. Doh! How did a tiny Elite manage to commandeer an absurd proportion of the world's wealth? Did it happen by some miraculous accident or did they relentlessly go out of their way to make it happen? Did they lie, cheat and steal at every turn to consolidate and expand their power? How else could they have come to be in a position whereby, for example, just twenty-five staggeringly greedy hedge fund managers have the same amount of wealth that could pay for thirteen million children to receive an education.


You seriously imagine that such a thing comes about randomly, through no design on the part of the Elite? What planet are you living on? How naïve can you possibly get? The whole basis of our society is that of the Elite conspiring against everyone else, with the intention of placing themselves in positions of unassailable power and wealth that they will then pass on to their children, and they to theirs, in perpetuity.


Our world is ruled by privileged family dynasties and only the most stupid people on earth could possibly conclude that the Elite have not actively conspired to make this happen, and to maintain this condition indefinitely, at the expense of all the rest of us.





* * * * *



Is Meritocracy Totalitarian?



Q. Can Plato, Rousseau and Hegel be portrayed as totalitarians?


A. Absolutely. Plato, Rousseau and Hegel have been attacked many times by commentators from all parts of the political spectrum. Many of the things they said can easily be twisted and misrepresented by their ideological enemies to depict them in the most sinister light. And exactly the same can be done in reverse. Advocates of Plato, Rousseau and Hegel can show how these three geniuses are humanity's greatest hope and how their enemies have delivered the appalling world we have today.


Politics is very simple. The question couldn't be stated more simply: who are the best people to be in charge?


Anarchists and libertarians are entirely opposed to rule by anyone. They hate the "Big State". They hate being told what to do by anyone. No nation in history has ever tried anarchy or libertarianism. There's a very simple reason for that. Anarchy and libertarianism are incompatible with nationhood, the State, government or even society itself. We already know what anarchy and libertarianism would be like in practice - the JUNGLE. Without rulers, all that would happen is that the law of the jungle would apply and the strongest would take over and make everyone else their slaves. The weak wouldn't stand a chance.


Anarchists and libertarians have all sorts of self-deluding arguments why this wouldn't happen. They have a touching belief that government itself causes people to become corrupt and if you remove government then everyone will be terribly nice to one another. In other words, they deny that human beings are animals who will resort to animal behavior at the earliest opportunity. If you were extremely strong in a world with nothing to prevent you doing whatever you wanted, wouldn't you, or others like you, just go ahead and carry through the basic logic of that position and become kings amongst men? After all, who's going to stop you?


We find it intellectually nauseating that anarchists and libertarians spend so much time criticizing other systems and seemingly none at all attempting to explain how on earth their own system would work without invoking a type of infinitely benevolent human being not known to exist anywhere on earth.      


Serious political thinkers spend little time contemplating anarchy and libertarianism since there's precious little to think about. These systems are 100% unworkable for anyone who doesn't want to take their chances in the jungle.


So, having left behind the supremely frivolous and naïve belief that human society can function without rulers, we return to the serious question of who should be in charge.


Here are the basic choices:


1)    The Dictator - the strongest person becomes the leader, and anyone who defies him must either kill him or perish. The most ancient societies were all ruled by dictators in one shape or another. (Rule by a dictator and rule by a tyrant is typically the same thing.)


2)    The Dictator wanted to hand on his power to his children, so Monarchy came into being. The Monarch claimed that he was mandated by God to rule and that he had sacred blood that was passed onto his children who should therefore rule after him. Monarchies still exist in many countries even in the 21st century.


3)    Theocracy: a high priest, senior cleric or prophet rules directly in the name of God. Modern Iran is a theocracy and there have been several theocracies throughout history. However, prophets, high priests or popes usually work hand in hand with Monarchs.


4)    Oligarchy: rule by a cabal of powerful men. This was a common system in ancient Greece and various versions of it often crop up. 


5)    Plutocracy: rule by the rich. Plutocracy and oligarchy are often more or less the same.


6)    Democracy. In ancient Athens, this was rule by the people instead of rule by plutocratic oligarchies or tyrants. In modern democracies, democratic leaders are invariably rich and supported by plutocratic oligarchic groups, whose interests they serve without question. Democracy in the modern world is always linked to capitalism - a rich man's economic system.


7)    The Market. Sometimes, capitalism claims to be rule by the Market, which is a mysterious abstraction. (In practice, the market is just a collection of powerful plutocratic cartels).


8)    The "Party". A single Party such as the Communist or Nazi Party rules, and is always led by a "strong man" dictator figure. The "Party" is by definition totalitarian. No rival political parties are permitted.


Those are more or less all of the different political systems that have been tried by humanity, and all have been a dismal and proven failure.


Plato advocated "aristocratic" rule - rule by "the best". By that, Plato meant the most intelligent: philosopher kings. He envisaged brilliant rulers trained in how to rule in the best interests of all. His ruling elite lived on a communist basis. They had no private property, no private wealth and shared everything. Since they had no money, they couldn't be accused of ruling for their own financial benefit. Nowadays, aristocracy has been rebranded as meritocracy: rule by the most talented (which will usually mean the most intelligent).


Rousseau promoted the idea that the State should be dedicated to the advancement of the "General Will" - what is in the best interests of everyone. He was utterly opposed to any "particular" wills. For example, when a political party wins a democratic election, does it really rule in the interests of all, or is it in fact ruling in the partisan interests of the section of society that voted it into power? Plainly, all democratic parties rule according to the particular and not the general will.


In Hegel's view, citizens come to dialectical perfection through the institutions of the State. The idea that individuals left to their own devices can ever become "optimized" (self-actualized) is an absurdity. Imagine a State without an education system. How would people become educated? Humanity would make no progress at all. It's only through institutions of civilization and progress - education, health, law, transport, science and so on - that humanity advances.


So, when you put Plato, Rousseau and Hegel together it comes down to this:


The best rulers are the most intelligent. They are prohibited from being rich. They are painstakingly trained in the art and science of statecraft in order to rule in the best interests of all. Their aim is to maximize the potential of each and every citizen. That's the basis on which they will be judged. They will create perfect State institutions that will reflect the General Will. This is a system of "positive liberty" i.e. the State actively intervenes in people's lives in order to ensure that they become the best they can be. The opposite of positive liberty is of course negative liberty whereby the State leaves people to their own devices and has no vision of a perfect society and smart people. Modern capitalist democracies are negative liberty States. They take no interest at all in the quality of human beings. For example, they would never dream of banning sleazy, prurient tabloid newspapers that spread toxic and degrading gossip and appeal to everything that is worst in people for the sake of getting them to part with their money. A Meritocratic State WOULD ban such trash and everything else that corrodes the quality and best interests of humanity.


So, if you hate the idea of smart people running society; taking an interest in the quality of the human race; outlawing capitalist products if they are deemed contrary to the public good; attacking and destroying all systems of privilege, nepotism and cronyism; imposing 100% inheritance tax on people's estates, using widespread psychological profiling to ensure that people can readily find people on their own wavelength and avoid those who are not, and so on … then meritocracy is not for you.


It's very simple. Meritocracy is about turning humanity into a Society of Gods via the relentless exercise of the scientific method and the Hegelian dialectic. Meritocracy asserts that humanity can become perfect and create heaven on earth by allowing the smartest people - the greatest geniuses of the human race - to be in power and to use their reason to solve all problems. Look how far science has come by relentless application of the scientific method. Imagine similar methods being applied to every aspect of society in pursuit of ever-increasing perfection.


If that is not your vision too then you will certainly regard Meritocracy as a fascist and totalitarian system, but don't worry - you will never be subjected to Meritocratic rule. Meritocracy is only for those who want a perfect society, designed by reason. Only those who sign up to that vision can be part of it. Everyone else will be outside the State since if they were in the State they would simply sabotage it with their irrationality, negativity and obstructionism.


The aim of the Meritocratic State is to peacefully and by negotiation separate itself from anti-Meritocratic forces. We have no intention or desire to have non-Meritocrats in our State. We have no desire to be tyrants over those who oppose us, and by the same token we will never accept their tyranny over us. We will resist tyrannical anarchists or libertarians who seek to destroy the State in order to explore their own anti-intellectual theories of human nature. Meritocracy is about the highest human intelligence and quality.  


Meritocracy seeks to create the strongest, smartest, most creative, bold, adventurous, autonomous, independent, self-actualized, fulfilled, free and resourceful people in human history. We understand that many people are suspicious of State power and want to be left alone. That's no problem. The State can't work with people who are opposed to it, so you will never be part of it. Therefore, it will be necessary to divide countries into parts. Meritocracy supports the city-state structure exemplified by ancient Greece. The meritocratic State will be one such city-state … and it's up to the opponents of meritocracy to set up their own city-states. Then we can all have what we want - with no groups being tyrants over any others. We are the greatest champions of freedom in human history, but we know that there is no such thing as freedom without rational rules and systems, with which everyone complies in their own rational interests. That's the message of Plato, Rousseau and Hegel.



The ultimate "free" system is the jungle - no formal rulers and no formal rules - but only an insane person, or a beast, would want to live there. Civilization is about rules and institutions, and they necessarily impose constraints in the name of true freedom: which is living amongst your peers in the best way for all, not the best way for a few rich people or particular individuals. Your freedom is always linked to the freedom of others. Anarchists and libertarians have never grasped this. They think freedom is being able to do what they want to do in any circumstances regardless of others. That is a recipe for all out war between people.


We already know what anarchy and libertarianism offer. In the immortal words of Thomas Hobbes, "No arts, no letters, no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."


"During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man." - Thomas Hobbes


Meritocracy replaces the "Leviathan" (the great State force that Hobbes imagined as necessary to preserve society and civilization) with a rational constitution. All rational people in a rational State will comply because it is the rational thing to do, and in the best interests of all (thus expressing the General Will). Irrational, subversive elements that oppose the General Will will be "forced to be free", to use Rousseau's chilling but pragmatic words, or they will be excluded from the State from the outset.


There is no easy answer to the problems of the world that will satisfy everyone. You must choose sides and, as soon as you do, you will be unpopular and have enemies. Making difficult choices is what life is all about. If you refuse to make those choices, you will never be truly alive.





* * * * *



"KZ" asked us an extremely important question:


"100% Inheritance Tax is something I'd say is a very important part of the Meritocratic Nation. Such a tax will ensure that there will not be a "Noble" class (in which wealth is passed down through generations) and it will ensure that everyone gets an equal opportunity to succeed, just as the American Founding Fathers wished. The only problem is I don't know how to sell this idea to the common man! In a discussion with a close friend, I attempted to sell the idea, but the response I received was, "If I am to spend my life working and struggling, I want the fruits of my efforts to go to my kids. Why should I work if I know everything will go to the government or someone else?" The only response I had was that it's honorable and proper, but he'd say to hell with that. His family first. This seems to be a slight bump in the road."


Our Comment: You're absolutely right about the importance of 100% inheritance tax to a meritocratic society. As for your friend, you have to "enlighten" him. The exact reason he works in a rotten job and "struggles" is that he's part of a system that does not regard him as a human to be cultivated; just as a wage slave and a consumer. Naturally, he wants to spare any kids of his the same misery that he is enduring, but the best way to achieve that is to help change the system. "Why should I work if I know everything will go to the government or someone else?" Much of it already goes to someone else - to the Elite!


"My family first" is exactly the mantra we attack over and over. That is the mentality that the Elite use to justify their wealth and power, their creation of family dynasties that rule over us forever. If you asked any member of the Elite what his philosophy was he would say Family First! i.e. screw the rest of you suckers. That attitude is the fastest route to an anti-meritocratic society.


Ask your friend this question: If in the future he is able to pass on a huge advantage to his kids, what does he say to the kids whose parents weren't able to pass on anything? His implicit message to them is FUCK YOU!!!! (just as the Elite say to us.) If that's his attitude towards others who are less fortunate than he is then, frankly, he's scum - a part of the evil system we are trying to overthrow. Why should children be penalized because their parents were unable to make much money? Are the sins of the fathers to be visited on their sons? That is a monstrous ideology. If your friend works hard, but has some bad luck (gets sick on a long term basis, for example) and isn't able to pass on much to his children, is he happy in the knowledge that society will treat his kids as badly as he implicitly wants to treat the kids of poor families who don't inherit much from their parents?


Equally, why should children benefit because of work done by someone else (their parents) - that's the whole basis of "trust fund" rich kids who have no talent at all yet sail through life in easy street. People should be judged on the basis of their own work and talent; not of those to whom they are related. In a meritocratic society, decent people would be appalled to have something given to them that they hadn't personally worked for.


This is a moral issue. Your friend is either moral or he isn't. If he has contempt for the children of unprivileged families then he is an immoral person. He will either be happy to be characterized as immoral, or he'll start paying attention to what you're saying. Either way, you'll discover a lot about him.


You should always emphasize fairness, justice, equal opportunities, merit, morality, personal responsibility and personal work (not work by proxies on your behalf).


You should always condemn privilege and narrow self-interest (being only concerned with your own success and that of your family - that's exactly why our society is so fucked and why so many people are dehumanized wage slaves).


Let no one kid themselves. The privileged Elite send their children to elite schools and colleges where they get the finest education money can buy and access to an elite social network that will guarantee them the best jobs for life precisely because they HATE YOU. They do not want you and your children to enjoy the advantages that they enjoy. They want to use their money to EXCLUDE you, to permanently lock you out from the good jobs. Their money is deployed as a weapon. These people are gangsters.


Look at the example of Fabrice Tourre of Goldman Sachs. Do you seriously imagine that you are in a fair competition with these people born into privilege? You don't stand a chance. None of us do. From the moment we were born, we had already lost. For us to have a chance of being winners, these people must be swept aside. There are billions of us and handfuls of them. What are we waiting for? Permission? Don't worry, it has already been granted. We have full permission to create a New World Order where all the forces of privilege lie dead and buried forever.


Why should any child, because of the failure of its parents to make huge amounts of money to lavish on it, be penalized for life, be denied any chance of leading a decent life? It's a scandal. Why should any child, just because it has extremely rich parents, be guaranteed a life of leisure on easy street? It's a scandal.


The fundamental principle of meritocracy is that everyone should be judged on their own merits, not on those of their parents, siblings or anyone else. The rich cannot be allowed to use their wealth to buy advantages for their kith and kin. Otherwise, we would be enshrining a two-tier society of rich and poor. Capitalist democracy is exactly such a two-tier system. It pretends to empower the people, while actually being entirely about the interests of the rich. Capitalist democracy is government of the people by the rich for the rich.


In the forthcoming British General Election, two of the three candidates for prime minister attended elite private schools. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair had an elite private education. Most leading politicians in Britain attended private schools. Although only 7% of the British people are privately educated, the vast majority of leading jobs go to these people. Why would anyone take part in a game totally rigged against them? And look at the head of state of Britain - a monarch - unelected and impossible to remove. The "Queen" is a person who enjoys that status purely because of the identity of her parents. Britain is an anti-meritocratic, class-ridden society of privilege, where the elite continue to rule as they have always done. "Democracy" is a farce, a masquerade by the rich to conceal the age-old face of Plutocracy - rule by the rich. When will the rest of us wise up?


The people cannot be free until the two-tier society is smashed, until the rich no longer set the agenda.  


Meritocracy is about preventing money being used to rig society. Therefore, 100% inheritance tax applies i.e. no one on their death can pass on a single cent to anyone else. All of their money becomes the property of society to be reinvested in society, and particularly in education. They can spend every cent they earn during their life, but they can't spend it on buying a privileged education for their children.


When they're dead then they own nothing because the dead have no property rights. And why should the relatives of the dead be allowed to inherit from the dead? They didn't do any work for it. They didn't raise a sweat. It's a straightforward principle of personal dignity and responsibility that you should be paid for your own efforts, not for someone else's. To receive money for work that you never did is a form of the ancient crime of usury. Usurers were those who lent money to others for exorbitant interest and were then able to make an excellent living out of the labour of others. It was a crime in the past to make a fine living from the toil of others, and it should still be a crime.


If you work hard with the intention of leaving it to someone else then you are implicitly turning them into a parasite feeding off your efforts. You have no right to make another person a parasite, and they, if they have one shred of self-respect, should not accept a cent from you.


We should be building a society of dignity and fairness where no one gets an unfair advantage by virtue of to whom they are related. As soon as you allow privilege, i.e. a system where those who have excessive wealth can use that excessive wealth to buy an unassailable advantage for their family over other families, then you have destroyed merit. You guarantee the perpetual rule of an Elite who will always be able to price you out of the market. That's exactly the world we live in now. The Elite despise inheritance taxes; they want to be able to pass on every cent to their families to ensure that their families remain in wealth and power forever. To destroy the privileged Elite, all of their money has to be stripped from them when they die.


Inheritance tax must be raised to one hundred percent since no one can be allowed to use the wealth they have acquired to transmit a posthumous anti-meritocratic advantage to someone of their choosing. As the great Scottish-American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, once the richest man in the world, said, 'By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of the rich man's estate which should go at his death to the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell.' Carnegie was strongly of the opinion that enormous legacies to children were harmful to those children. More importantly, they are harmful to the state because they provide an unfair, anti-competitive advantage to some people, thus transgressing the Meritocratic Principle.


Whereas oligarchs are consumed with their desire for material wealth and conspicuous spending, meritocrats are obsessed with culture and the experiences of the mind. An excess of money would be vulgar for a meritocrat, and all meritocrats would bear in mind Andrew Carnegie's warning, "The man who dies rich dies disgraced."


The last thing the Elite want is a meritocratic nation where their children are denied any privileges over anyone else, where money cannot secure any advantage.





* * * * *


Why do most movements for change fail? It's because their participants have no clear idea of what they stand for and what they really want. Enormous numbers of people with different agendas come together and then of course are unable to formulate a common way forward. They squabble and bicker and find that they have only one thing in common - the desire for something "better" than they have now. Yet they have no united vision of what this better thing will be, so each movement collapses under its own contradictions and internal tensions. And the rich elites just laugh and keep getting richer. They know they are invulnerable as long as the masses cannot agree, and they have taken great care to divide the masses as much as possible.


The Occupy Movement failed because it did not have a stated objective, hence was all things to all men. The Occupy Movement was a mixture of extreme right wing libertarians calling for the end of government and its replacement by markets, of left wing anarchists who wanted to destroy the State, of New Age hippie dreamers, of socialists, left wing reformers, do gooders and moralists - a catastrophic alliance of incompatibles.


A movement can succeed only if everyone in it agrees with one objective. Our objective is crystal clear - the removal of the power of private rich elites forever, and that means the removal of all of their assets when they die, via 100% inheritance tax. The Revolution is about the overthrow of irrational free-market capitalism that delivers a super rich elite and catastrophic cycles of boom and bust, and putting in its place meritocratic, rational capitalism controlled by elected, accountable economic geniuses serving the public where boom and bust is ended for good. We are not arguing for the end of capitalism but for the end of the capitalism that stands outside the control of the people. If the people are not in charge of capitalism then they are its slaves ... the slaves of the private elites who currently control capitalism.


The Old World Order's plan is not mysterious or strange. It is the simplest one imaginable, and is tacitly supported by many people who claim to oppose the Old World Order.


It is this: how do I ensure that my family is more successful than other families? As soon as you let that thought enter your head you are damned. It is the gospel of the Old World Order, their morality, their path to "salvation".


The issue could not be simpler. If you have the ability to place your family above more talented families, what will you do? Will you make the most of that advantage, or will you refrain? Will you sacrifice the interests of your family to those of more talented strangers, or will you do everything in your power to give your family an advantage over those strangers? Do not call yourself a meritocrat if you want the untalented members of your family to prosper more than the talented members of other families.


The remarkably untalented Bush family dominates American political life because it is the ultimate manifestation of the desire of the American family to glorify itself no matter that it lacks any trace of merit. But are not all families like that? That is what the Old World Order relies on. It succeeds because it is the ordinary family writ large. All typical families would do the same in their position. They would use their wealth and power to rig the system in favor of the members of their family. They do not care about the objective merits of their family, or of other families.


If you are a genuine meritocrat, you would support the most meritorious person over a close member of your own family. How many would actually do that in practice?


There can be a fair world only if there is a willingness to acknowledge the superior merit of others. That is the great challenge to humanity. It is also the only way for any family to get true justice. If you do not believe in merit then you will be ruled by rich and privileged families such as the Bush family. They have used their advantages to the maximum, and your children have paid the price. And you do not deserve any better.






* * * * *



Next week will be the first article on the philosophy of the Illuminati. It will cover topics like the origins of the universe and demonstrate how religion and science can co-exist. It is long and can be difficult to understand, but those who persist and read it all (perhaps multiple times) will be soaking up the philosophy of the some of the world's greatest minds.


The original project on armageddonconspiracy.co.uk where this info was first shared was for the purpose of bringing the first 7 degrees of the Illuminati into the public domain. The time has come for a second enlightenment, and members of the Illuminati recognized this, which is why they felt the need to share their teachings - they see that many people are ready for it.


The original AC site where the material is being collected from was finished a couple years ago. Since then, they have, on their site under the section "Last Post", announced a restructuring of the society.


From now on, the Illuminati will have 5 rather than 10 degrees. The material that has been released to the public and will be shared on this site along with the books that can be found on Amazon under the name "Mike Hockney" are the material for the first degree. When you have gone through all the information, and if you share the views presented, you will be entitled to the status of First Degree Illuminatus. The Second Degree is considered a private degree, while the last three Mystery Degrees remain as before and constitute the secret aspect of the Illuminati for the initiated only.


Here's an excerpt from next week's article:

"Illumination teaches that God is not the creator of the universe. The opposite is true. The universe is creating God. God is the telos - the object, the purpose - of the evolving, Becoming universe. All of the astonishing conclusions of Illumination flow from this single truth."