We Are Not Free


History is teleological. It has a “telos” – an end, a purpose. It is not a collection of random events but is moving in a definite direction that can be discerned. Hegel identified the central axis of history – freedom. He said, “The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.”


History comes to an end when absolute freedom has been attained. Absolute freedom is the condition where every person has the opportunity to express their maximum potential. If they fail, it is because of their own deficiencies, not because they have been sabotaged by others.


At the moment, the vast majority of us have no authentic freedom. The system is set up to serve the interests of the Old World Order. They are free; the rest of us are deluding ourselves. The OWO’s genius is to give us the illusion of freedom, while withholding true freedom. History will not reach its telos until superficial freedom is replaced by genuine freedom.





* * * * *



Our contemporary illusory freedom is part of a long chain of history that has been analyzed in detail by Hegel. He shows us how we came to be where we are. He starts his study of historical teleology by examining the ancient civilizations of the Orient. In ancient China, India and Persia only one person was free - the ruler. The will of all those who served the ruler was subordinated to that of their master. No one had a conscience in any modern sense; no one formed their own opinions about right and wrong. All personal responsibility was absent from them. They simply obeyed.


In China, the people were like small children. Their emperor was their father. In India, the caste system of Hinduism introduced another element. As well as the despotism of the ruler, the people were subject to the inflexible despotism of religion. If you had a lowly station in life, you couldn't complain. It was just karmic retribution according to Hinduism, for misdemeanors in a previous existence. You had no right to demand freedom, and the thought didn't even occur to you. In Persia, the situation was different again. Once more, a despot reigned and religious rules applied (this time Zoroastrian rather than Hindu). However, whereas Hinduism was despotic - your nature was determined by a prior life of which you had no awareness - Zoroastrianism was about an ongoing struggle between good and evil in which everyone had a role to play.


The absolute ruler of Persia would never be challenged while he obeyed Zoroastrianism, but if he acted against the religion then he risked being deposed. In other words the ruler, like his subjects, was constrained by principles. He could not be capricious in the manner of the rulers of India and China.


Hegel saw the restraints placed on the ruler by principles (intellectual or spiritual) as providing the basis of "true history". If those principles could be changed, humanity might be transformed. Under the rule of a Chinese despot, there was no principle to which anyone could appeal to bring about change. In India, Hinduism was equated with nature itself and was also immune from change. These were static societies, where no possibility of the introduction of radical freedom realistically existed. In Persia, the rule of law implied that new laws might one day be enacted that could lead to a better society.


In the west at this time, the city-states of ancient Greece were coming to prominence. These city-states were fiercely competitive and offered a much more individualistic vision of humanity. Power was much less centralized. When the monolithic Persian Empire collided with the free city-states of Greece, the Greeks emerged victorious. The central reason for the success of the Greeks was that they fought more effectively, with a greater sense of what was at stake. The Persian soldiers were like automatons. They knew that their ruler saw them all as utterly disposable. Their morale was much lower than that of the Greeks, and they were far more likely to panic and flee.


But even the Greeks were not truly free. Sparta was a military state, with every citizen pressed into service. A huge population of Helot slaves served the Spartans. In Athens, in name a democratic state, the vote was restricted to adult males who had completed military training. Women and foreigners had no vote and, as with Sparta, a large slave population served the state. Even the citizens themselves were far from free in a modern sense. They identified with the state to such an extent that its interests were theirs. They were more like cells in a body than free agents with minds of their own. Athens put Socrates to death because he dared to challenge the authority of the state and to ask the sort of awkward questions that modern dissenters routinely pose. Spartans who refused to serve the military ethos of their state were killed or banished in disgrace. The situation in contemporary America where many citizens actively loathe the federal government and even plot against it would have been incomprehensible to the Greeks. Every such dissenter would have been put to death.


Eventually, Greece succumbed to a despot - Philip II of Macedonia. Philip's son, the famous Alexander the Great, went on to conquer Persia, India and Egypt. (Egypt, the nation of god-like pharaohs, was another empire where freedom was minimal.)


But a new empire - the Roman, soon eclipsed Alexander's empire. Rome was like a cross between Sparta and Athens: a harsh military machine that still managed to acknowledge the rights of citizens. Again, a huge slave population served it. Yet Rome was defeated in the end by a slave ideology - Christianity. The ethos of the empire changed under this new and strange religion that opposed all of the old pagan gods of Rome.


The Roman Empire was eventually resurrected in the guise of the Roman Catholic Church (religious power) and the Holy Roman Empire (political and military power). The structure of the Catholic Church resembled that of the old Roman Empire, with the pope replacing the emperor and the cardinals the Senate. Archbishops, bishops and priests were the equivalents of the officer ranks of the Roman army. It was a rigid hierarchy. The ordinary people, if they wanted God's favor, had to go through the appropriate channels, from priest to pope. The pope was the "vicar of Christ", God's representative on earth. The people themselves had no direct access to God. If they wanted to pray, they had to invoke a saint. The idea that an ordinary person could have a personal relationship with God was unthinkable.


Then Islam appeared. This religion had nothing resembling the hierarchy of Catholicism. There was no pope, no voice of central authority. Every ordinary Muslim could open a direct channel to Allah. All they needed was the Koran. To that extent, they were freer than Catholics, though the history of Islam has not proved conducive to genuine freedom. (Muslims are in such awe of their God that he takes the role of master and they of slaves. Slaves, by definition, are never free. Muslims - "those who submit" - revel in their own slavery. In terms of the dialectical progress of history, nothing is more certain than that Islam will have to be reformed or is doomed to a slow death because of its opposition to freedom.)


Eventually, the idea of a direct line to God spread to the Christian world. Martin Luther opposed the Catholic hierarchy and increasingly viewed it as an active obstacle to the true Christian message. The Protestant Reformation emphasized scripture over the authority of the Church. The Bible, previously only available in Latin (which ordinary people could not read) was translated into German. Now everyone could study the Bible and draw their own conclusions. There is only one Catholicism but there are now scores of Protestant sects. When people are free to make up their own minds, the tendency is always towards the proliferation of factions. Gnosticism historically had many factions, each emphasizing a different aspects of Gnostic thinking. Islam has not splintered in the same way as Christianity because it is so simplistic that there is little scope for doctrinal dispute. Shia and Sunni Muslims differ over whether Mohammed's descendants should have been accorded special status, not over points of doctrine. 


With the decentralization of power in the west and the release of the individual from the rigid hierarchy of Catholicism, freedom spread rapidly. Hegel regarded the Reformation as a decisive event in history, a huge breakthrough for the dialectical advance of freedom. Science, in particular, was liberated from theology. Whereas the Catholic Church accused Galileo, one of the world's greatest scientists, of heresy and suppressed his work, scientific thought started to flourish in free-thinking Protestant countries. The Counter-Reformation, which brought the Jesuits to the fore, realized that Catholicism had to move with the times, and Catholicism also embraced science and the new thinking of the Enlightenment. 


Islam became stuck in a rut because of overemphasis on the Koran and did not advance in terms of freedom, and to this day is scientifically and culturally backward. In Europe, the Renaissance, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the Enlightenment led to an intellectual ferment that fuelled increasing freedom and started to switch the emphasis to the individual. Nationalism and the slow disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire added fresh impetus. Then came the two critical events of the 18th Century - the American and French Revolutions. The Reformation had eroded the centralized power of Catholicism and now these two Revolutions had eroded the centralized power of monarchs.


Although Napoleon, a product of the French Revolution, chose to make himself an emperor, he also introduced codes of rights for citizens. These codes were derived from the thinking of the Revolution and influenced the whole of Europe, including Hegel's nation Prussia, a militaristic monarchy.


In public, Hegel was content to proclaim that the Prussia of his time represented the culmination of history. Freedom of the individual had reached a sensible level, he said, tempered by the need for security, rightful authority and law and order. This kept him in good stead with the authorities, and ensured that he attracted no suspicion.


In private, Hegel despised the Prussian state and longed for its overthrow and the implementation of true freedom. He believed that he could influence events more effectively if he appeared as a dutiful Prussian citizen, while secretly working behind the scenes against the Prussian monarchy.


Hegel's analysis was adopted by Karl Marx, who now put forward class war based on economic inequality as the primary battleground of freedom. Rich people are much more free than poor people. Therefore to increase freedom wealth must be more evenly distributed. A communist state, according to Marx, was the final word in freedom since all private property was abolished, all wealth equally spread, and everyone had equal rights.


History has not supported Marx. The fall of the Berlin Wall brought an end to the Marxist dream. Communism did not deliver increased freedom. It was totalitarian, oppressive, bureaucratic, backward and reactionary.


At the end of the Cold War, American academic Francis Fukuyama declared that western, liberal, capitalist democracy would be recognized as the end-point of history's pursuit of freedom. History had come to an end, he said. The whole world would adopt the American and European system of government and economics, he thought. He has been proved as wrong as Marx.


Hegel's central thesis that history is about the increase in freedom of the ordinary citizen has proved correct. However, it is obvious that we have not reached the end-point of freedom.


The mission of the Illuminati is to take humanity to that end-point. The obstacles to freedom are everywhere. Monarchies still exist all across the world. Repressive religions are still corrupting billions of people. There are dictators and tyrants. Power resides in the hands of rich elites that manipulate political and economic systems for their own ends. The super-rich are flourishing as never before. The Old World Order, a group of 6,000 people, run the planet.


The Illuminati's agenda has never altered - to overthrow oppressive religions, governments and individuals who seek to control the people and hold back freedom.


What is ultimate freedom? - when every person on earth gets an equal chance to maximize their potential. When those who rise higher than others do so on grounds of superior, demonstrable merit alone. What does that mean in practice? No one can be allowed to be too rich or too poor. Failing families cannot be allowed to spiral ever downwards. Successful families cannot be allowed to buy additional advantages and privileges and turn themselves into powerful, self-perpetuating dynasties. The state must take a far more active role in people's lives.


Right wing political parties such as the Republicans in America and the Conservatives in Britain continually demand the minimization of state interference in people's lives. These parties are the tools of the Old World Order. They want rich, elite, dynastic families to rule the world in perpetuity, and for the state to keep out of their clandestine business. When you hear anyone calling for a reduction in the power of the state, you know you are listening to a mouthpiece of the Old World Order.


The Jewish philosopher Isaiah Berlin in his essay "Two Concepts of Liberty" (1958) highlighted the difference between the Old World Order's approach to freedom and that of the New World Order. Isaiah Berlin was a Zionist and close friend of the Rothschild family. He loved to move in the circles of the wealthy and powerful: a typical hanger-on of the Old World Order, an advocate of their ideology.


Berlin distinguished between "negative" and "positive" liberty. Negative liberty is the position that people should be left to themselves, and the state should impose the minimum number of constraints. This type of freedom isn't for anything; rather it is concerned with being free from interference. American Republicans trumpet the value of negative liberty. The state is kept passive in relation to the people. Some people - the rich, powerful and well-connected - flourish while the rest, the vast majority, live bland, banal lives or, in the case of a large underclass, lives of grim, grinding poverty and despair. The state extends no helping hand. American capitalist democracy is the creed of negative liberty. Many American citizens live in squalor, with minimal access to basic standards of health care. Tens of millions of Americans are poor, with no prospects. They are sustained by the illusion of the "American Dream", which, in reality, is as rare as a lottery win. One in a million defy the odds and succeed. For many of the rest, the dream is a nightmare.


Positive liberty is where the state is highly interventionist and offers the people a grand vision, a collective project in which everyone can participate. It promises them identity and self-realization, a release from the directionless, purposeless lives that overtake most people when they are left to their own devices. Positive liberty is for something. It is about becoming something new. From this type of liberty a new humanity will emerge: stronger, fitter, more intelligent, capable of greatness. Ordinary people will be able to get in touch with their Higher Selves, to unleash the latent powers within them that negative liberty seeks to inhibit. Positive liberty is a progressive and active conception of liberty. It is about changing the world for the better.


Cynicism, apathy, nihilism, and social fragmentation are the fruits of negative liberty. Our horizons are narrow and limited. Junk proliferates. People become zombie consumers, perpetually stuck in a vast, 24/7 shopping mall. They shop for the latest cheap trinkets with which the rich have tempted them. They worship celebrities because their own lives are so lacking. They are always dreaming of a better life, but doing nothing to make it happen. They don't have the tools or resources to make a difference.


Celebrities become "brands". People are reduced to "brand followers". Even dead celebrities like Michael Jackson are brands. What kind of world is it where advertising brands shape the world? You mustn't be seen with the wrong brand, you must pay a fortune for the right brand. Apathy is endemic in societies based on negative liberty. Selfishness is maximized. "I'm all right, Jack." "I'm looking after Number 1." Screw everyone else. There's no community. People are alienated and estranged. They live in "bad faith". They have an "unhappy consciousness." Yet our leaders tell us that we've never had it so good. They have never had it so good, but the rest of us inhabit a Waste Land where there are no values.


Political correctness is our new morality. In a world of political correctness, everyone is permanently on the verge of apologizing for fear that they might be about to inadvertently offend someone. To cause offence, any kind of offence, is the greatest of crimes these days. What sort of people are we when we feel compelled to apologize for what we know to be true? Do we no longer have any convictions? Do we stand for nothing? Is appearing nice, and being acceptable to our peers, what we have been reduced to?


Don't listen to the Rothschilds. Don't listen to Isaiah Berlin. Don't listen to the Old World Order. Negative liberty is a trap. It leads to our present-day wilderness, to a global shopping mall full of zombies, listening to piped-in muzak and searching for the right brands to boost their self-esteem. Negative liberty provides a global stage for reality TV, a global sports fields for preening, prancing show ponies. Some soccer players are now signing contracts worth £250,000 per week - £12.5 million a year - £60 million for a 5-year contract. Fight back. Don't watch these people. Shun them. Don't buy brands. Don't watch reality TV. Don't buy into all of the Old World Order's scams and tricks. Resist the tyrants. Theirs is a project for reducing us to subhumans; consumers on a conveyor belt, our only purpose to buy the latest gadgets, labels and designer items to line the pockets of the super-rich. We are the society of suckers. The stooges, the patsies. They saw us coming a long time ago. There's a sucker born every minute, and each of us was one of them. But our fate isn't set in stone. We can find our dignity again. We can become people rather than consumers. We must turn to positive liberty.


We are told by our masters to defend freedom and democracy. What they mean is negative freedom and dumbocracy. Is that what you want to fight and die for?


Ours is a democracy of obedience and compliance. In every country, we get the Siamese twins of Republicans and Democrats, Conservative and Labour, and so on. We are only one step removed from Henry Ford's version of choice - "You can have any color so long as it's black." In the 2004 American election, Americans were offered a choice between two rich, privileged members of Skull and Bones. Did it matter which candidate won? That was no choice at all. We never have a choice. We always get the candidates of the Old World Order.


No one is burned at the stake for heresy in our society. Instead, anyone who dares to reject the Old World Order is mocked and marginalized in the media. Political correctness, another ingenious device of the Old World Order, instantly shuts down any form of controversial debate. Criticize the Jewish bankers of Wall Street and you will immediately be branded anti-Semitic. You might as well be branded with the Mark of Cain. No one needs stakes, nooses and torture chambers anymore. We engage in self-censorship. Why? To stop us speaking out against the Old World Order. To stop us telling the truth.


The world has lost its nerve. It has become weak and feeble, full of "last men", those who wish only to satisfy their petty needs, to be left alone to get on with their small, trivial pleasures.


It's true that positive liberty can go wrong. The communism of the Soviet Union was the last major attempt to implement a whole new conception of society. It failed because it was an atheistic, slave morality that emphasized equality over merit.


The Illuminati have often been accused of crypto-communism, but we loathe communism as much as we do capitalism. We are advocates of competition. We praise ambition. We admire and encourage great accomplishments. We want to reward and celebrate the individuals who do outstanding things. We want innovators and geniuses. We want great people. But all within reason. In a meritocratic society, the desire for more than the average is admirable, providing you are willing to work harder than the average. But the desire for excessive reward, out of all proportion to the actual work you have put in, is anti-meritocratic. There are only 24 hours in a day. If one person works hard for 1 hr a day and another for 16 hrs a day, then, on the most basic view, he deserves 16 times more. He doesn't warrant a million times more as we often see in our contemporary capitalist society. In a meritocracy, there are no "masters of the universe." There are no astronomical rewards. Instead, there is the sort of glory for high achievement that the ancient Greeks understood: to wear a winner's laurel wreath, to receive the adulation of the crowd, and to be given a reasonable monetary bonus as a reward for excellence, isn't that enough? Why must some people, overcome by greed, be allowed to demand all the riches of earth for their meager achievements?


They should remember the tale of King Midas. When everything you touch turns to gold, you are doomed. And you deserve to perish. Greed is not good. It is a crime.






* * * * *



A world of the free


Existence is fundamentally teleological. Its purpose is to locate its hidden maximum, the transcendent point where it reaches its fullest expression. There, existence as an impersonal abstraction transfers power to a personal, concrete self-consciousness. That self-consciousness is the fruition of the universe's search for its own soul. It is what we call God. Once God has evolved, the universe's original telos has been satisfied. It is then God who sets a new telos. He is free to choose anything. He has the knowledge and power to accomplish whatever he desires.


The universe is not impersonal. It is not meaningless. It is not lifeless and barren. It creates meaning. It creates intelligence. It creates consciousness. It creates a soul. It becomes alive. It becomes a person. God is the universe as a living entity. The Hylocosmos is God's body and the Psychocosmos his mind.


The universe's original purpose was to become self-conscious and, from that point, to intelligently direct its own future and attain absolute freedom and knowledge. (Absolute knowledge, Hegel says, is "mind knowing itself as mind.") The earth became self-conscious in the shape of humanity and now it has an intelligence to direct it. The universe is earth writ large.


Each cell in a human body busies itself with basic, microscopic functions, yet all those cells put together can create a Hegel, Einstein or Da Vinci. The cells treated individually and the cells treated as a whole are two entirely different things. As the human personality is to individual cells so is God to the universe. It can be said that the purpose of cells in a human body is to provide the platform for human intelligence. Equally, the purpose of the components of the universe is to provide the platform for a universal intelligence. As above, so below. That is the ancient wisdom. We need only examine ourselves to see the way the universe works.


The wise will see that the reductive, scientific prescription of purposeless evolution by natural selection actually masks a more fundamental principle of the universe striving towards its telos in a process that is superficially blind but is anything but. Teleology does not contradict natural selection. Rather, natural selection is the primary tool of teleology, the mechanism it employs to find its way to its destination. Many scientists, because they can't directly observe purpose, declare that it is not there, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. These scientists erroneously, and contrary to the principles of the scientific method, conclude that purpose is permanently ruled out.


The scientific method recognizes that no scientific theory is ever definitively proved. Each theory is a provisional truth that can be overturned at any time if new evidence appears that refutes the theory. Science does not reach completion. Confidence in the findings of science increases each time experiment confirms theory, but 100% confidence is never, and can never be, attained.


Conventional religion makes humanity subordinate itself to God. It legitimizes the principle that a remote, mysterious authority should control us. This principle then reveals itself in every aspect of our lives. When we are children, our parents who seem like gods to us control us. Then, at school, teachers control us. Then, in the workplace, by managers and bosses. In our religious lives, to priests, preachers and popes. In our financial lives, by the "masters of the universe" in Wall Street and the City. In our leisure time, celebrities, "stars", "heroes" control us. We want to be like them, to wear what they wear, do what they do. We have negated ourselves. We have become nothing. We have surrendered the control of our lives to others.


Those who control us are the Old World Order. They think we deserve to be treated like cattle. After all, we meekly go along with our fate. We have not fought back. Like the Muslims, we submit. We should have "submission" branded on our foreheads. Why do we submit? Because we are weak and they are strong. There are many more of us, but they use the principle of "divide and rule" to control us. We can never agree amongst ourselves. And that's exactly what they want. That's why just 6,000 people can rule the world.


How can they be stopped?


We are raised to be cannon fodder. The masters are raised entirely differently. They are brought up to rule, and we are brought up to serve them. They have infinite ambition and the widest horizons. We settle for minimum wage jobs and dreary office work.


In a world of strong, resourceful humans who take control of their own lives, the power of the OWO would be shattered. The masters of the universe would vanish, as would the religious leaders, the authority figures, the managers, the bosses, the celebrities, the stars and heroes. We should be our own heroes, manage ourselves, control our own destinies. But that requires personal strength, energy and talent.


Those are the qualities that must be inculcated in every person. Imagine what billions of talented people could accomplish. Humanity could reach for the stars. We could unleash our maximum potential, live our lives to the fullest extent. We should shape our lives like the most expert of sculptors, fashioning the clay with our own personal genius. Instead, we go along with the schemes of the OWO. They don't want us to be strong. They don't want to help us. They have got the world they want. They want us to obey and cause them no trouble. They will let us do whatever we like, provided we don't challenge them. But only they lead truly free lives. The rest of us must endure the yoke of the Old World Order. You would think we would have tired of it by now.


Where are the revolutionaries of today? It seems our world can no longer create them. We are zombies, suckers, brainless consumers, shuffling our way towards oblivion. History will never mark our passing. We are the damned. The Old World Order have nothing to fear from us.


Yet teleology is on our side. From somewhere, through some mechanism, people will come to prominence who will dare to take on the power of the Old World Order. It is an inevitable outcome of the arrow of history. Freedom cannot be stopped.


Are you one of the freedom fighters? What are you going to do to change the world?






* * * * *



What appears in history books is not the real history of the world. Real history is conducted in secret and is almost never documented. Real history revolves around a handful of power-players, together with a small number of secret societies and closed associations. Real history is all about conspiracies whereas history, as it appears in books, resembles a crime scene investigation. Events take place and historians come along later and try to work out what caused those events. But while crime scene investigators have elaborate scientific techniques to help them gather decisive forensic evidence, historians have access only to what is available in the public record and even that is often unreliable.


If there is no public record, historians have nothing to fall back on other than their imagination. They create a narrative to link the events, to establish cause and effect. But that’s all it is – a narrative, a story. It's not the truth. The real causes are always concealed from the gaze of history. Only a fool would take a historian’s interpretation of events as reality. History is as meaningful as literary criticism. Historians are always unreliable narrators.


At the end of the movie The Godfather, Michael Corleone is seen being appointed as the new Godfather, and the door is closed in the face of his wife because she is an untrusted outsider. It is also closed in the faces of the audience. That is a metaphor for history. The door is always closed in our faces at the moment when the vital decisions are taken. We never hear what took place, who said what, who advanced what arguments, who disagreed, what glances were exchanged, what was whispered. All we get is the speculation of historians who weren’t there, working from second-hand sources and the narratives of previous generations of historians.


The whole of history could be considered as The Godfather on a global scale. Powerful people conspire in secret rooms far from public scrutiny and then send out their agents, assassins and attack dogs to execute their will. Presidents, popes and princes are agents too. Although these people may seem powerful in their own right, the real decision-makers stand in the background, unseen. Presidents, more often than not, are puppets put in post to do the bidding of their masters. That might involve declaring war, introducing new laws favorable to the puppetmasters, awarding lucrative contracts to the puppetmasters’ favored corporations, appointing allies of the puppetmasters to vital, well-paid jobs, discrediting enemies of the puppetmasters, planting stories, even carrying out assassinations. All of that will be denied, of course. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?


And, naturally, they have a huge machine of misinformation, disinformation, spin and propaganda, to conceal themselves and rubbish their enemies. Conspiracy theorists are always dismissed as mad. Who benefits from the discrediting of conspiracy theorists? The conspirators, of course. Their greatest trick is to convince the ordinary person that they do not exist. In the fairytale The Emperor’s New Clothes, the scam-artist weavers say that anyone who is unable to see the emperor’s (non-existent) new set of clothes is either stupid or unfit for the office they hold. Something similar happens in reverse with conspiracy theories. Anyone who can see the conspiracy is called stupid or unfit for office. But in each case the reality is the opposite of what we are told by those who seek to con us.


No historian will ever take conspiracy theories seriously. They can’t afford to. If they admit that conspiracy theories exist then they are putting themselves out of a job because they are admitting that the causes of major historical events are forever concealed from them. Historians promote their own agendas and exaggerate their own importance and significance. The conspirators can rely on historians not to cause any trouble. It’s an alliance of self-interest.


Many conspiracy theories are absurd. That does not mean that conspiracies do not exist. The whole point about conspiracies is that only the conspirators know what takes place in the secret meetings. So everyone else has to engage in speculation, and they add to the mix their own prejudices, pet topics and fantasies. Before long, people are claiming that the Illuminati are lizards from another dimension who dress up in zip-up human costumes or use elaborate shape-shifting technology whereby their true form can be glimpsed only at certain transitional points. This is where conspiracy theories merge with science fiction and fantasy. Most of this way of thinking originates in the work of the founder of Scientology, science fiction writer Ron L Hubbard.


The Illuminati have engaged in many conspiracies over the millennia, but the vast majority have failed. The Illuminati are up against conspirators who are enormously more powerful. On rare occasions, they have managed to infiltrate the secret councils of the Old World Order, and it is from these episodes that they have built up their knowledge of the OWO’s modus operandi. But they currently have no one in the inside. By the same token, on a couple of occasions the enemy has infiltrated the Illuminati, although no infiltrator has ever gained access to the highest level. Even members of the Illuminati virtually never come into direct contact with the ruling council of the Illuminati.


Many of the people who condemn the Illuminati are wealthy, right-wing, pro-monarchy fascists who, to this day, are disgusted by the French Revolution and loathe the Illuminati-inspired slogan of the revolutionaries: freedom, equality and brotherhood. If you think that King Louis XVI of France was a great and noble man and that aristocratic families and rich elites should run the world then you should line up against the Illuminati. If, on the other hand, you think that every person should be given a fair chance and should go as far in society as their talents warrant regardless of the wealth, status and social connections of their parents, and that there should be no masters and no slaves then you should support the Illuminati.


Yes, we seek to establish a New World Order. Yes, we seek to overthrow tyrants. Yes, we want to smash networks of privilege. Yes, we seek to abolish diabolical religions such as Christianity. That has always been the mission of the Illuminati. Do you think that aspiration is evil? The Illuminati’s enemies are the evil ones, the ones conspiring against the people. The Illuminati seek to liberate the downtrodden and oppressed. Anyone who does not share that aspiration is an enemy of the people. Those who speak out against the New World Order and the Illuminati are the poodles of the privileged elites. The establishment of a New World Order is a dialectical certainty. Freedom will triumph in the end. The elites are doomed. These are their twilight days. It is time for the ordinary people to step into the sunlight. The Old World Order is the axis of evil. In particular, the ruling class of America and Britain are those who must be pushed aside if the people are ever to be free.





* * * * *



How 6,000 people can rule the world


Just 6,000 people control the world. How is that possible? What factors must be in place for so few people to have so much power?


1)    The 6,000 people must have a common outlook and a common purpose. It would be a disaster for them if they continually fought with each other. The Old World Order are united by their insatiable desire for money and power. 6,000 is the number that allows them to share vast wealth. If there were too many - 600,000 or 6,000,000, say - their wealth and power would be massively diluted. Also, dissension amongst their ranks would be enormously more likely.

2)    The 6,000 people must exploit the threat of force to keep everyone else in their place. The army and the police provide this element of force.

3)    The 6,000 must be able to spy on everyone else. The secret services provide this function.

4)    The masses must be given the illusion of political choice. Democracy performs this role.

5)    The masses must believe they are free. To this end, they are provided with negative liberty. This is freedom from government interference (providing the people do nothing to challenge the government).

6)    The masses must have plenty of choice. Consumerism meets this need. People have endless products from which to choose. They confuse the ability to choose consumer objects with genuine choice.

7)    The masses must be fed and entertained: panem et circenses - bread and circuses - as the Romans put it. Supermarkets provide abundant cheap and convenient food and drink. TV, movies, theatre, music, nightclubs, bars, playstations etc provide abundant entertainment.

8)    From time to time, the masses must be able to disappear into an altered state of mind where they can temporarily put their daily problems behind them. Drugs perform this function. Alcohol, cigarettes and sedatives are the legal drugs provided by the authorities. The authorities also ensure that plenty of illegal drugs are available. (Ultimately, it is the 6,000 who reap the benefits of the international drugs trade.)

9)    The masses must feel they "own" something significant. Property is the means chosen. Many people practically worship their homes, seeing them almost as extensions of the self and essential to their identity. "An Englishman's home is his castle."

10)    The masses must believe that their grievances will be addressed. The legal system provides this function.

11)    The masses must believe that "wrongdoers" will be punished. The prison system serves this purpose.

12)    The masses must have some hope of an afterlife. Religion achieves this function.

13)    The masses must have hope of a radical transformation of their fortunes. Lotteries, gambling and the "American Dream" satisfy this need.

14)    The masses must have an intimate, loving, support system. Family provides this.


These 14 elements provide the basis of a stable society that can be automatically controlled by a small number of people without direct daily involvement. Above all, the masses must respect the 6,000 as the source of legitimate authority. They must fear the consequences of disobeying the 6,000.


In WWII, the SS guards in the Nazi concentration camps performed relatively few tasks. They did not get closely involved in the daily routines of extermination, other than dropping Zyklon B canisters into the showers. Nearly all of the work was left to the Jews themselves. The Jewish ghettoes that the Nazis established in many cities were allowed to be led by councils of Jewish elders. These councils allocated food, drink and medicine, decided who would get on the transports to the death camps, appointed police enforcers to keep order, handed over subversives to the Nazis etc. It all worked smoothly without any direct Nazi involvement. The Nazis got exactly the results they wanted via work done by Jews, the very people they were exterminating. It could be argued that an entire people colluded in their own destruction out of sheer terror of what would happen if they disobeyed. But look what happened anyway. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we are in a similar position to the Jews: colluding in our own humiliation while our masters get on with enjoying the good life. We do the dirty work for them, police ourselves and hand over the proceeds at the end of the day. They sit in their luxury restaurants, sipping the finest champagne and laughing at us.


Hierarchies are based on implied force. If you disobey your superiors in the hierarchy, sanctions will be imposed on you. It is essential to the success of the Old World Order that everyone should accept their position in the hierarchy. Once the people have placed themselves in the pecking order then those at the top of the hierarchy - the Old World Order themselves - are safe.


In the book The Last Bling King, the uprising against the Old World Order relies on the people freeing themselves from the hierarchy. When the hierarchy is no longer acknowledged it ceases to have power. The hierarchy is intimately related to the master/slave dialectic. Slaves naturally fall into line and obey the chain of command. The society of the slave is the society where a rigid hierarchy can be perceived at every turn. Ours is such a society. While the hierarchy is maintained, the masters can wield unlimited power.


What is the Illuminati's alternative vision of society? Most of the details can be found in one of the most influential philosophical works of all time: The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Although Rousseau was not a member of the Illuminati, his political views were virtually identical to those of the Illuminati. Robespierre and Saint-Just, the two greatest Illuminists of the French Revolution, relied on The Social Contract. Rousseau's political thinking will be discussed in another section.


In the Korean War, the Chinese realized that it was a waste of resources to build prison camps for large numbers of POWs and to carefully guard them all. What they did instead was to identify all of the prisoners with strong personalities - the leaders, whether officers or not - and separate them from the others. They guarded this small number (approximately 5% of the total) and left the others to their own devices. None of the unguarded prisoners attempted to escape. Without natural leaders to inspire them and urge them on, they were like sheep. They wandered around aimlessly causing no trouble, waiting for the Chinese to feed them.


The Old World Order employ similar tactics. They identify the leaders of the masses - the 5% - and they deal with them in one way or another, either by bringing them on board in the lower levels of the OWO, or jailing them or even eliminating them. Without leaders, the masses are like the Korean War prisoners, wandering around directionlessly. Most people idle away their time in pointless activities. The OWO are never concerned about such people.


The other element upon which the OWO's empire is built is the expert manipulation of the so-called seven deadly sins, plus three other sins. The full ten sins are: avarice, wrath, envy, sloth, lust, pride, gluttony, cowardice, selfishness and vanity. The OWO are the masters of knowing how to identify which sin applies most to which person and then using that knowledge to destroy them or render them harmless.


History consists of two forces. It is dialectically moving in the direction of ever increasing freedom, but at every stage on that journey it has to battle through sin in all of its forms. Sin is the brake on the advance of freedom. Sin is the perpetual antithesis. Sin is the arena of human weaknesses, frailties, failings, vulnerabilities, impulses and desires. The OWO try to hold back freedom via sin. They are grand masters in the use of sin to suit their own ends. The world they have constructed is a masterpiece of deception. The illusion of freedom is extremely powerful, yet the world is a huge prison camp. Only the OWO themselves are free. The masses are relentlessly manipulated according to their sins.


In the book Prohibition A, the concept of "Sin for Salvation" is discussed. That is a subject to which we shall return. The masses must redefine their attitude to sin. Only then can they take the decisive step towards true freedom. The OWO view "sin" as a weapon to be used against the people. They construct religions that emphasize sin, all the better to control the masses. Christians, Jews and Muslims are obsessed with sin. That is why they will never be free. What is the most effective prison? The one you carry around in your own head. What is sin? Your portable prison.





* * * * *