Ever the eternal knowledge junkie, I belong to what has to be only a handful of people who have “drank deep” from both the FDR and Illuminati springs. Consider me the “synthesis”. For FDR people, I believe it is worth exploring the Illuminati publications when you are ready for something “completely different”. If you think what Alex Jones rails against day after day is the real Illuminati you will be shocked to discover how wrong you are. You can get your feet wet at the armageddonconspiracy.co.uk website. Any true rational mind should be hooked after the first few chapters of “The God Game”. I am grateful to the Illuminati for releasing to the public some of the rational philosophical arguments they must have been refining for 2500+ years as they claim. It is intellectually pleasing to me to now possess a consistent rational metaphysical framework for approaching the “big” questions where the laws of science break down: namely the big bang and consciousness itself. The Illuminati write about much more than metaphysics – it probably takes at least a few months of dedicated self-study to begin to understand what they are about (no different from anarchism). Their description of the “meritocratic state” is perhaps the most convincing argument to save politics from itself that will ever be devised – just not quite convincing enough for this anarchist. My primary critique of their material is that they do not approach their ethics with the same degree of rational argument from first principles as their metaphysics. As a result, they just assume some degree of institutionalized violence is justified without questioning why that power always seems to gravitate to the most sociopathic human predators in society. They propose a state far superior to the most advanced democratic republics that exist today but which will still eventually corrupt itself due to the same fatal ethical premise all states are founded on. I would love to see an Illuminist response to UPB and I’m sure Stef would read and respond to it in a podcast – as long as it didn’t consist of (1) “anarchism has never been tried” (neither have philosopher kings) and (2) ad homonyms about the general type of person interested in “anarcho-capitalism” (most of which are spot on but of course irrelevant to the validity of the arguments put forward).
