A lot of you know about Terrence Mckenna. Whether he realizes it or not he is an illuminist. What he's teaching is nearly the same exact system as Mike Hockney (Illuminist) explains in his books. The only differences are that Terrence McKenna does not teach ontological mathematics and free will. I think Terrence was correct about the no free will thing. Whether or not he was privately aware of the concept of ontological mathematics... who knows?

I figured there would be mainly these personality types on this forum... intj, intp, infj, infp, entj, entp. These are also the personality types most likely to agree with Mike hockneys illuminism, hyperianism and Terrence McKenna's system. Obviously it's not that black and white but I would like to point out these...

1. The vast majority of illuminist's/ Ontological mathematicians are intj and intp. (Claims by Mike hockney)

2. A servey on the Hyperianism secret group shows that the largest percentage of hyperians are intj and intp followed by these... infj, infp, entj, entp. There are only one or two of anything else.

3. Terrence McKenna is clearly one of the mentioned personality types. (Imho)

4. I saw a post on this forum that shows that this forum may contain predominately these personality types. ( it wasn't a big poll or anything but as it stands, yes)

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=13986

Take the Briggs personality test if you want to know what you are although this isn't necessary. Other people might enjoy this info too

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Why am I pointing these things out? I thought that many people on this forum would be interested in learning of this grand system of everything. If you are into philosophy and trying to understand the nature of reality, I promise that you will not find any system more unique anywhere else. Its really a gem amongst the grime. There was a point where I had disproved ever single system I've came across. I was feeling disillusioned as I sometimes do. When I learned of illuminism and ontological mathematics, it blew my mind and I've never been the same ever since. I hope me sharing this information will change someone's life as it did mine.

Here are some key words you can search if you are curious what I'm talking about...

Mike Hockney
Ontological Mathematics
Hyperianism

To get a full understanding on ontological mathematics, it may be necessary to read some books about it. I recommend "the God Series by Mike Hockney". Other illuminist have written books about it as well such as Micheal Faust.

The creator of "Hyperianism" is not an illuminist. 'Morgue' has made lots of videos about it however which can be viewed on youtube. He has done a lot to get the word out about illuminism and ontological mathematics.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

One additional note... The illuminati that I am talking about is NOT the big bankers or elite. The illuminati wish to overthrow the elite (old world order) and replace the government with a meritocracy government. Meanwhile they have been the target of a constant smear campaign by the rich elite. The illuminati is a group of philosophers and mathematicians who want to put an end to the insanity of this world.

To know more about a meritocracy search... Meritocracy The Movement.
It's elaborated much better in The books by Micheal Faust, Adam Weishaupt and Mike Hockney however if you truly wish to understand it.

EDIT:

If you are a fan of Leibniz, you will definately like this information. Hegel, pythagoras and Neitzche fans may like it too.

Thanks for sharing the link below and thanks for introducing to hyperianism and all that.
Its curious, there are obviously a lot of speculations on the person of mike hockney - some claim that his books are a third grad illuminist initiation work, others say that it is the work of aleister crowleys son.
I came upon a website talking about hyperianism with a guy lokking like marilyn manson (is that you?)
Finally, i am personal getting tired of the claim to reintroduce systems of belief that already exists and giving them a new name. Hyperianism seems to be nietzschean Ubermensch-philosophy with a typical mathematical ground how you can find it all over from hermetic science to rosecrucians and newtonians, so whats new about it?
Mckenna is surely close to some of this ideas, especially with his iging-timewave zero explanations of time, but how i said: for me, there is nothing radical new in this beliefs and it seems to be some kind of mainstream thought in western occult philosophy.
But thanks anyway!

'Mike Hockney' is a psudenom. He has chosen to keep his identity private. That being the case, there is no evidence that he is Aleister Crowerly's son. (That I'm aware of) If there is, please source.

As for 'Morgue' he never claims to have come up with the system of thought he teaches. He sources the philosophers which the ideas for it came from. 'Hyperianism' was created for the purpose of getting illuminism and ontological mathematics out to a larger crowd. I don't see what's wrong with him calling his movement 'Hyperianism'. He has spent countless hours doing so. I think he should be judged based on the merit of his information and not discounted because he didn't say it first. Let's say I didn't like genetically engineered foods so I created a website called " I hate GMO'S". Let's say someone else made a website that spread awareness about GMO's before I did and called their website something else. Both people may be appealing to certain groups in order to bring information out to public awareness. The second person to create a movement is not necessarily less of a person for being second.

If I were 'Morgue' I would be speaking in first person, but I'm pretty sure you know I'm not him.

You say that illuminism is nothing special and then compare it to Newton's Philosophy and that of Neitzche. Both of these people were very intelligent. Yes, it's true that Mike Hockney and Morgue both quote Neitzche. There are some minor similarities between illuminism and these two people. Illuminism has a completely different cosmogony than either one however. Newton and Neitzche are both Materialists and Empiracists. Illuminists are Idealists and Rationalists. These materialist empiracists and idealist rationalists couldn't be more different. It's illuminism's Rationalist Idealist cosmogony that makes it so unique. Further, while other rationalist and idealist systems exist, they are full of holes and contradictions. Illuminism is unique because it does not contain these contradictions. It's special because, while it does not claim to know all contingent details of reality, it is FAR more complete than any other system you will find.

Rocacrucianism is a little known about society. There is no evidence (that I am aware of) that rosacrucians hold the same cosmogony to the one described by Mike Hockney. It it thought that Rocacrucianism is an esoteric organization. Again the system that I speak of is not based upon esoteric 'truths' but rather rationalist truths which are necessary truths of sufficient reason. The only types of notable similarities between Rocacrucianism and illuminism are things such as... They want to bring about a golden age, their pursuit of knowledge and similar.

Hermeticism is similar in it's views on good and evil and in the view that we are all part of a system which is god. This is a completely different system than illuminism however. It does not have a detailed cosmogony like illuminism does. Again, illuminism's unique, compete and non contradictory system is what makes it so special. A cosmogony which by the way, I have never seen proven wrong.

You see, naming a handful of philosophies and religions with tiny similarities to illuminism does nothing to prove that illuminism is a knock off to previous systems. An Apple and a banana are both fruits. This is true but they taste nothing alike and they are not the same fruit.

The purpose of my post was not to convince you that Mike Hockney is in the Illuminati or that Morgue is teaching Illuminati doctrines. What the official title is of those who created this system is trivial. I made this post to share this unique cosmogony because I think it's true and the implications to it being true are enormous. It's the only philosophy/ religion that I can't disprove. This speaks volumes because I have disproved atleast 100 religions and philosophies. The only reason I can see that one would find this information trivial is if they believed that they had either disproven it or don't think there are significant implications to it being true. Do you think you can prove it wrong? If yes, then please tell me why you think it is false. Do you think there are no significant implications to it being true? If you don't think the implications are enormous, please elaborate.

It's pretty clear by your comment that you haven't taken the time to know what illuminism even is, what they think ect. That said, it makes no sense for you to have such a strong opinion against them. If there are some ideas in illuminism that you disagree with, that's fine but you haven't pointed out any disagreements. You've only attacked their character (and unfounded at that)

Thank you for your detailed answer, dmtprophecy!

First of all, I started to read about the concept of illuminism and hyperianism and I know well some of the older books about the Illuminati-Ideas of a society build upon reason.

(By the way, defining "reason" seems already pretty difficult. The REASON William Blake ist talking about is surely not the same of Immanuel Kant for example.)

I was a little bit bored of the arrogant position, Morgue takes in his videos. So, sorry for my previous post, I don't want to claim to know if Illuminism is "waterproff" philosophy, it just reminded me of several old systems of thinking. For the moment, I continue to read of Hockney and the others and will discuss further details with you if I am ready.

To your initial point about McKenna - you surely know his TimewaveZero - Project build upon a mathematical theory of the flux of time that started with the King Wen sequence in the ancient chinese book I-Ging?

I think that McKenna does have a deep influence of mathematical thinking and like he was near to alchemical ideas, it isn't impossible that for him too, the whole universe is based on mathematical principles.

In this video for example, he is speaking about a mathematical theory of consciousness

The dialogues of him with Ralph Abraham could also help to get a deeper understanding of McKenna's concept of mathematics. I remember briefly several approaches of him to Leibniz ans his idea of the "monads".

I compared "Illuminism" to several ancient belief-systems in my previous post and at least the guys from the "meritocracy party" seems to find analogues in Illuminism and Gnosticism (which is one of the most ancient inspirations for alchemical/hermetic/rosecrucian thinking), as they state out in their website. At least, it seems to be the continuation of a philosophical belief system that started several thousand years ago.

Is McKenna meritocratic in it's belief that politics should be exercized by an intellectuel elite that got their knowledge from psychedelic visions and thought? He claims this, in reference to Huxley, in several passages of his opus.

And of course, meritocratic systems "function" all over the planet, and maybe at least the internet, these mathematical and somehow "gnostic" form of human relation with all it's hackers and programmers is meritocratic at a high level.

The DMT-Nexus function like this as well. The concept merits further investigation but a basically sceptical distance for those ideas seems necessary to me to don't get influenced by political conclusions about relational systems. At least, Michael Young, the inventor of the word "meritocraty" is more than sceptical if a meritocratic society would be something desirable.

https://www.theguardian....tics/2001/jun/29/comment

Morgue is very egotistical. I'm not particularly a fan of his image and attitude. The crowd he is influencing is not necessarily the most intelligent of humanity. I know this because I'm in the secret group (which is planned to be made public soon) I'm glad that he has put in the effort for his movement however because he is influencing mainly the next generation. That generation is the future of our world so it's incredibly important. Mike Hockney can come off as arrogant at times but I do think you would like him better. Morgue is sort of an introduction to illuminism and ontological mathematics. Mike hockney and Adam Weishaupt (Psudenom , not original adam) go into more detail on the sources of the information and in select books the mathematical formulae. They have coded novels in addition to their other books too.

Back in the day, 'Reason' was more clear cut than it is currently. In a meritocracy, all rationalist philosophers would have a vote to choose an intellectual elite in that specific sector of philosophy. This elite would decide what reason is. Of course it must be 'Rationalist'. This means laws such as 'the law of non contradiction ' and 'the law of sufficient reason' must be upheld. If the intellectual elite goes against rationalist ideals, they will be voted out of their positions and a new elite will be put in their place. No one has a god given right to lead any sector of life in a meritocracy such as this. Only if they are meritous would they be allowed to maintain the position. What is considered 'logic and reason' is greatly influenced by well known Rationalist philosophers, especially Leibniz.

I'm not sure what definition you are using when you state that meritocratic governments are functioning in places around the world currently. I do know that it is often stated by people that the United States is meritocratic. No place that I am aware of is currently using a government system that fits the Illuminati definition or my own definition of a meritocracy. Some places are definately better than others. The illuminati and myself consider capitalism to be based on money, connections, popularity and manipulation. Again, it's better than other forms of government like feudalism but government still has a long way to evolve. The thing about meritocracy, is that it's impossible for it to exist so long as equal opportunities don't exist. The number of geniuses working menial jobs is appalling. All the while some of the dumbest and least meritous among us are in the highest positions of power. The only way to have a meritocracy, the only way for the true intellectual elite to get into their rightful positions in life is for everyone to have an equal chance to do so. As long as some people can't pay for their college, as long as some schools are far better than others, as long as family ties has any say in how well a person does, a meritocracy does not exist.

Again I'm using my own definition here for meritocracy. If we accept that a meritocracy exists currently them we have nothing to strive for. I've seen people blamed for their lack of success and it pains me. People do have a say in their life... I'm not saying they don't. They can work hard to achieve their goals. BUT, more than what some people realize, in this current system, a lot of it just comes down to luck.

I want to clarify this... The illuminati meritocracy is neither capitalist nor communist. It's an entirely new government system. It's untested except in secret societies and in small communities and groups. As a government system it's not been tried. It's also not libertarian or anarchist. It takes the best from the old systems and leaves out the negative. When one does an internet search, the word 'meritocracy' is thrown around and given different definitions. It's often used in a vague way and can be reffering to many different and even opposing ideas. In this case we are talking about a very specific government system however.

Yes, the timewave zero. I have heard him describe this. All of history is leading up to zero or the end of time. His concept of novelty and how he realized that the novelty tends to occur on certain dates is very interesting. This is one of the reasons he came to think that predestiny and lack of free will was true. I agree with him here. Mike Hockney and Morgue don't officially agree with Terrence here. I have often wondered if Mike Hockney truely does not believe in free will but thought it was a necessary lie for the common good. In general the Illuminati are devoted to illumination and snuffing out false doctrines. In this case however, IF he is lying about the free will and knowingly doing so, I can't blame him. I can see the possible implications of him saying that free will does not exist. Ultimately, illuminism is leading humanity twards greater knowledge and understanding. There is always the risks with moving too fast however. It's possible that they are just being caucious with that. It's also possible that he truely thinks free will exists. I will elaborate my thoughts on free will in a new post however as this could get lengthy quick.

Although Terrence came up with his system using psychadelics, he still had to apply logic and reason to his experiences. It seems that his experiences served as clues which he contemplated and then connected the dots. There is a big problem with using psychadelics to understand reality however. Many people will interpret their psychadelic experience through the lens of their culture. Either that or believe they are using intuition when they are in actuality using "feelings". Intuition is a divine knowledge that does not require a process of thinking. Unfortunately almost everyone has no real intuition. Those who have it, it is undeveloped. This is why religions are so vastly different. Everyone's 'intuitions' (which are really feelings) are telling them something different. This is why, even though intuition is divine, it should not be used as the basis of laws or society. Terrence is a big advocate of following ones intuition. I agree with him that a person should work to develop this intuition in their personal life. There needs to be more education on distinguishing intuition from feelings and the importance of checking the 'intuitions' to make sure that they do not contradict necessary truths and reason in general. Any 'intuition' which contradicts necessary truths and reason it's self, is automatically false. In this instance, it must be accepted that the intuition is truely nothing more than a feeling.

Sorry, when I say that meritocratic systems functions, I am not talking about politics. Look at the Internet and the use of forums in particular: someone with a several amount of posts and knowledge will be listened to while a troll stays a troll, even after 10000 posts.

I was always involved in self-organized community-projects in the countryside, where knowledge leads directly to decision - the moment you get involved and start to learn something, you participate in an activity. The gardeners garden, the carpenters build, the artists create...

I was talking merely this kind of stuff


I am okay with the presumption that equal access to education is the base of a wiser society, buy anyway we find different ways, not every hacker passed by the university. Not the most advanced underground chemist studied chemistry in some cases. So while the government is still debating for the right answers, people organise themself in this time.

In this reflections, I am probably closer to amarchist or libertarian ideas. I started reading Weishaupt and try to get deeper in their philosophy. Thanks for presenting these ideas.

The problem about making a difference between intuition, feelings, reason and so on had been treated with great humour in Robert Anton Wilsons "Prometheus rising". Real communication is just possible between equal persons. In the same tunnel of reality. I recommend highly this read.

People to tend twards the work they are suited for and are passionate about. I have become an expert in several fields on my own time. I would never be able to get a paying job in these particular fields of work without an official education. I feel disillusioned much of the time about this but it brings me some joy that I am able to use my knowledge and experience in the form of hobbies. I wonder how many chemists on this forum are self taught. There might be self taught chemists here more competent than those with a degree. It's a huge waste of talent. The fact that this is happening on a large scale is a huge burden on society. If the best of the best were able to use their skills for the betterment of society, there's nothing we couldn't accomplish.

No problem. The human language is insufficient in so many ways.

My views on government has changed many times throughout my life so i can see the point of view of several party affiliations. I was more of a libertarian some years back. Here are the issues that I find with libertarianism...

Certain rights promoted by libertarians take away other rights which should take precedence. One example is the right to pass on unlimited wealth to ones children. Passing on billions of dollars to ones child, puts this child at a massive advantage over other children. Plenty of which whom have greater talent and merit than that child. We can see a prime example of this in the fact that certain families have dominated and ruled over the rest of us for generations. These children have lost their right at an equal opportunity in favor of the right to pass on unlimited wealth. Illuminist meritocracy has a solution for this by taking away this 'right' and imposing a 100% inheritance tax at death to the common wealth. This would destroy the ruling elite in one generation and prevent the possibility of aristocratic families from taking root again.

I am all for rights. I don't think that ones personal life should be micro managed like we are seeing today. I can agree with the sentiments of libertarianism 100%. I do not think that libertarianism is the solution though.

In a libertarian government, the individual would have a say in what they personally think is right in the form of voting on countless different subjects. One problem with this, is that they are not an expert in every one of these fields. Even with the best possible education for everyone, people will still not vote well much of the time due to not having knowledge on the required subjects.

In an illuminist meritocracy, only the teachers will vote on issues which they have specific knowledge. Only scientists will vote on issues that they have specific knowledge. This would be the case in every sector of life. With equal education for everyone, one could become knowledgeable in as many subjects as they wish and therefore vote in many areas. Imagine a world in which those with knowledge and experience with DMT were the ONLY ones who were allowed to vote on whether or not DMT was legal? Each individual would be giving up a substantial amount of their power to vote in general. BUT it's also getting rid of a massive amount of harmful votes.

I found a free pdf of the book you mentioned. I'll post my thought on that once I've read it. It's nice to see someone who reads books. Not many people read books anymore.

Thanks for the response.

Another problem with libertarianism, is that there always will be a group of people who're just not that good at taking care of themselves. Libertarians resent the idea of a government stepping in to help people who're not in the position to help themselves. And because governments require resources to be able to function, they tend to see any government intervention as theft, as each such intervention would have required money.

What they forget, is that in countries whithout such government interventions, these people wind up on the street, causing a lot of problems for themselves as well as for others.

And ofcourse, people who're more than able to take care of themselves, are not going to live in a neighbourhood with a lot of these less well of folks. So naturally, the less well of people are all going to end up being concentrated in the same neighbourhoods.

So you end up having naighbourhoods with extremely high rates of basically every psycho-spcial problem you can think of.
And people who're not mentally stable tend not to respond very well when being confronted with violence, anti-social behaviour, suffering, substance abuse, etc.
So these neighbourhoods turn into a living hell. Huge prisons.

A libertarian is willing to let all of this happen. His own liberty not to give a shit about the rest of society, is more sacred to him than anything else. He does not believe in something like the common good.

I've known some libertarians like that. Not all are like that though. Here's some of my background on me being a libertarian a few years back...

Liberals often have a positivity bias.

Sometimes they think the things they are doing will reduce suffering when in fact those things increase suffering. One big example is with making laws which make vaccines mandatory. Any truely independent studies show it is false that vaccines are effective and safe. Organizations like the CDC and Department of pediatrics are NOT independent as it is often thought. They have monetary incentive that comes directly from the pharmaceutical companies.

Another example of this positivity bias is in the acceptance of harmful elements of culture. While I agree that many elements of culture should be tolerated, accepting some things are outright dangerous. I've read plenty enough from the Talmud and quaran to know that mixing these people together into a multiculture is a downright dangerous idea. Even at this point in my libertarianism I truely DID want a united monoculture but this is different than a multiculture which promotes murder, theft, ect of those who are not part of a person's religion.

A third example is the government wasting money. I saw the government as incompetent.

Besides these things, there is a misconception which I fell for which is that libertarianism is a way to fight the elites. This is utterly false. The elites DO get things done by manipulating the government however. BUT libertarianism also gives the elites the 'right' to do whatever they please.

But then I came to realize, it's not a liberal problem. Conservative stupidity has proven this. The actual problem is that people are not in their proper places in life where they are able to use their talents. This would solve literally all of the world's problems. It would solve all above points in this post.

Illuminist meritocracy is definately liberal so yes I'm a liberal The reason I'm pointing out why I was a libertarian in the past is to make a point how liberal right wing illuminism can appeal to many political parties depending on the reason they affiliate with the given party. This matters because it shows meritocracy has a good chance at being accepted by a large range of people and uniting us. If there is ever a political system that has the chance of doing this. .. I think that system is meritocracy. When it is accepted, it will change the world for the better and give humanity a common goal to unite under.

I agree with everything you said by the way!

The point of the meritocracy party about the 100% heritage tax still causes me trouble to understand. It is quite radical.

But someone like, say, Steve Jobs dies and all its money is going to the government, his corporation still exists because he is only the founder, but not the owner.

So, heritage taxes can avoid oligarchism and deep rich bourgeoisie families but can't effectively avoid powerful corporations that seems to me just as dangerous as oligarches.

Do you know some reasoning about this?

I see that meritocracy isn't against capitalism, but to avoid corporations taking the role of highly influencaln political acitivists based on personal interest (lobbyism), for me there is need to regulate this sort of problems, too.

Large estates and businesses would not be allowed to be inherited by ones children in addition to ones money.

I'm not sure if it's ever been stayed specifically what happens to that property afterwards... whether a person with the correct education to run a business would be given the company or if they would be expected to pay a fee. Most of my time researching illuminism has been directed twards their cosmogony rather than their political philosophy. There are some books devoted to the political philosophy if you are interested but I have not personally read them. The main details have been given in other books and so far I'm completely on board with the system. Even if I found something about the system that I was iffy about, it's a dialectical system, an evolving system which uses the scientific method to continue to improve itself. This means any problems with it would be quickly addressed by experts put to that task.

I remember that lobbyism would be illegal. It goes against everything meritocracy stands for. Decisions should be made based on the common good. Paying for one to make a law that would favor themselves is the least meritous thing a person could do. That would even be ground for losing a leadership position.

The 100% tax IS radical. It's going to take radical to overthrow the elites and prevent more from resurfacing. Every common political party and government system works in the favor of these elites. Trying the things which have again and again failed will never defeat them.

Most people want to pass on their inheritance because they want their children and future generations to be safe and happy. This is perfectly understandable. I myself have children and want these things for them. In a capitalist democracy, that's how things work... It's like a game where one family tries to get the upper hand over another family to ensure their families sucess. This upper hand is often to blame for the other families failure. Some of those families will ever live in poverty and inequality.

In a meritocracy, it's no longer about accumulating as much money and as many things to get an upper hand over others. If one works hard, they will earn more but up to a limit and they can't pass it on generation after generation. Humanity will be one big family instead of feuding smaller ones. Instead the focus will be on each individual becoming the best they can possibly be. One will have incentive to follow their passions instead of just doing something for the money. There will be NO risk of any child to live in poveety. Each child will be able to go as far as their effort and talent can take them.


Edit. I re read your post. I was just waking up

Thank you to take the time to respond in detail everytime!

I have seen that there is an option on the meritocratic party website to pose them some questions, could be interesting to figure out a bit more about their views on several topics.

Did you see any common points between Hockney\Weishaupt and Aleister Crowley-like magical thinking, since the slogan behind the Equinox-magazine had been "scientific illuminism?

I am a great reader of Crowley, Nema and others and would like to know if you came upon references in your lecture of their books?

The whole Illuminati-thing is quite disturbing since everybody claim to be part of the " real" Illuminati-movement - from Peter Carrol to Tim Leary.

Maybe they are all right in any sense. Or false in any sense. Or right and false in any sense.

At least, people like Crowley or Carrol doesn't seem to be political engaged like the Meristocratics.

The books ive read so far by Mike Hockney, adam Weishaupt and Micheal Faust have not mentioned him however it's possible that he could be mentioned in some of the books I have yet to read.

I read that Crowerly admired the original Adam Weishaupt. There are plenty of similarities between them. As far as magical thinking... It depends what you mean by that. According to the books ive listed, the illuminati that Adam founded was opposed to the notion of magic if you were to define magic as 'miricles'. Usually when I have heard someone define magic, they think that magic goes against the laws of the universe. Nothing can go against these laws. Everything happens for a reason and miracles are not possible is adams view. These are the claims from the books. If what you mean by magic, is not a miracle and does not oppose the laws of the universe, then the illuminati might agree with it.

I've read the goeta but am unsure if what Crowerly is saying is A. The spirits one summons are part of the mind and in summoning them one activates part of the mind or B. The spirits are individual beings. If you know what he thinks, i would love to know.

I've not seen proof that Crowerly's son has to do with the books I sourced but I wouldn't rule it out either. I think it's definately possible. Crowerly's teachings seem like they could be a rough draft for Illuminism as described in the books I sourced. I say this because of all the similarities between them. The big difference being that Crowerly's political views and that of reality is not nearly as complete. It could be possible that Crowerly was in the Illuminati society. Even if he wasn't in the official society, I would consider him an illuminist in the same way that I would consider Terrence McKenna one. I would consider myself one as well. It's also possible that Crowerly's son could have tried to finish his dad's work. In the hyperianism secret group, there has been mentioned the similarity between Thelma and illuminism. Im not the biggest fan of the stuff he writes in a poetic way so those books I've not read but some of his more straightforward books ive read.

There are a few things that I know for certain. The information supplied in the books by Mike Hockney, Adam weishaupt, and Micheal Faust is the work of several people. 3 people can not be credited with the vast information in the books. The second thing I can say for certain is that the people who wrote the books are highly intelligent. The third thing that is for certain is that the books were written for a benevolent purpose. It would be impossible for the system of reality or political views to be a trick or used malevolently. If these ideas become popular, humanity could become truely free.

For Crowleys definiton of magick, for him every intentional act is a magical act. Like he seems to understand the fact magick could be defined as the "Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will"

In his system "will" (thelema) is the primordial principle, getting success by magical rituals is as effective as someone saying "i want to plant that flower" and putting the seed in the ground.

In my opinion, he was one of the most skeptical occultists of the 20th century and there is to search why he named his system "scientific illuminism".

Not regarding his more poetic (and sometimes widely cryptic) books, he has written a handful of easy to understand, well explained titles about his ideas and som pratical advises. His whole opus is online. In my memory " Magick in theory and practise" and several essaies on meditation techniques such es Pranajama are really useful.

(Most of his books have only numbers for names so I need to look for further recommendations)

He was a really important personality for the development of newer occult movements and had a lot of influence in a widespread of freemason and occultism lodges.

I came upon the information (somehow synchronistic) that the order of the Illuminates of Thanateros, the UK based order founded by Peter Carrol works upon a system of "meristocratic magick".

I wouldn't be really surprised if they were behind the God series publications.

For Crowley, his system of belief was formed by the idea that we are turning to the "Aeon of horus" which would be a transformation of humanity to a more spiritual, responsible being. Finding similiarities between them isn't complicated at all.

I don't think that the idea that Crowleys son is involved is more like an inside-joke, just to claim the influence of some of his ideas in these works but the writing style is quite, quite different from a lot of Crowleys works and even from Carol, Phil Hine and other ChaosMagicians of our time.

I agree with you that it definately seems to be a group-work. What I don't understand is why they only publish via Amazon Kindle?

For me as declared enemy of corporations like this, I never would buy anything that is only available in their buisness.

I'm definately interested in learning more about Crowerly. His teachings seem benevolent from what I can see. There has been a lot of bad things attributed to him. I don't know how much of it is true or if it's just slander by malevolent forces. For instance some of his quotes makes it seem as if he doesn't have respect for women. One example is in comparing them to cows with utters. It's contradictory because at other times he seems to promote women's equality strongly. Its possible that he just had a strange way at reffering to the fact that women play the role of continuing the human race. I know he had a sarcastic personality and was known for dark humor. I am also this way so I wonder if some of the things he has said, has been used out of context? It seems that he thought it was humorous that people thought he was evil... Maybe he was just messing with them? People saying he murdered babies just doesn't make sense in a way due to his seemingly enlightened thoughts ( at least as far as I understand them). He could have even been a bit fucked in the head... I can't be sure. I'm still open minded about him though. As intelligent as he was I think there is plenty to learn from him.

His idea of magic is interesting. I don't see any opposition to that sort of magic in the illuminism books. Rituals are mentioned having been used by the illuminati. I don't know if it was something like blowing out candles on ones birthday (as said by morgue in 'book zero' or something more. Hyperianism has rituals to mark the significance of something. If illuminism is similar to freemasonry, they would have clues imbedded within their rituals so that the 'students' would have the chance to connect the dots and learn the hidden mysteries. It's important to point out (according to the books) that the illuminati is opposed to modern day freemasonry however. They say at one point they attempted to infiltrate freemasonry and use it as a hand of illuminism. They say that this failed and that modern day freemasonry had become a tool of the 'Old world order'. Soneone I know is trying to join freemasonry to learn the truth. Unfortunately women can't join so that's not an option for me. :/

I don't know who owns Amazon. I wonder why they chose to sell their books that way. I used to avoid biting things from the big corporations but not so much anymore. It's hard doing this because they own pretty much everything. It would be quite a task to avoid them completely unfortunately.

On meritocracy: in many fields it is not that easy to really define merit. Especially when it comes to professions that involve some kind of leadership role. This is because when it comes to leadership, it is hard to define success.
Often, the results of a chosen policy are not clear on the short term.

People in management positions think differently than most of us. They see relations that most people don't see. And sometimes they fail to see things that most people do see and take for granted.

A good example of this is the everlasting political debate on migration in Europe. From a management perspective, the sustainability of all kinds of public services, partially depends on the size of a population. This is one of the main reasons why so many European politicians have always welcomed migrants.
But citizens tend not to look at public services from an economical perspective.
So,many people really believe that migrationpolicies over the past couple of decades, where being motivated by controversial ideologies.
The idea of managing or sustaining the size of a population seems weird and incomprehensible to them. So weird and incomprehensible, that they rather believe that politicians where driven by anti-bourgeois sentiments, than by purely economic motives.

I think that you can say that the idea of immigrants, economically compensating for a declining population, has not been very succesfull. But we, ordinary citizens, on the other hand, tend not to look at the economic viability of government services, and things like hospitals and schools at all.

So if you want to have good and effective policies, you need the input from both ordinary citizens, as well as the manager type of people, who think in numbers and statistics.
You need different types of merit.
And decissionmakers need to take these different perspectives seriously. Merit in one field, often means a lack of merit in another field.