What is it?
Are these books below from who they say they are? I don’t know. But it is plausible, given the uniqueness, quality, and breadth of the material; if they’re not the Illuminati then they might as well be the Illuminati.
The e-books below are the best critique and summary of philosophy, science, psychology, etc., that exists in the world and I am hoping to find other avid readers, and to promote avid readership, of the material and find some other rational minds to consider the material with (I will discuss the prerequisites for doing so below). You can get their books from Amazon and they are in e-format for e-readers only; it is worth the investment if you don’t already have one, or you can read them on your PC or your phone app. They write under the pseudonyms of “Mike Hockney”, “Michael Faust” and “Adam Weishaupt”.
This is Hockney’s page on Amazon:
Aside from the list of books below, it is very helpful to read these books in chronological order of publication date, because concepts and information is developed in sequence.
This is the first book from “Adam Weishaupt”:
The first book from “Michael Faust”:
The first book from “Mike Hockney”:
(which is a “fiction”).
The list below is their “God Series” (written by Hockney) which should only be read after reading all of the other books before them, and then in chronological order because they are an ongoing development of the concepts:
I read “The God Factory” first, before the earlier books from the other authors, and didn’t understand or agree with it very much, so I then read all of their other books in chronological order and came back to finish this “God Series”, and then it all made much more sense. Many important concepts and perspectives are developed and discussed in all the other books and so this is why it is important to have that grounding before finishing up with the “God Series”.
They have somewhere around 30-35 books (so far/Feb 2013) and it is some of the best critique of philosophy, science, psychology, etc., that exists in the world, at least that I have found and all in one place. They also have “coded fiction” works, which are the first four publications from Hockney, and which are very good, particularly:
This book is similar to Dan Brown’s style (author of the “Da Vinci Code”), but is much more exciting. Their four fictional books are said to be based on aspects of their actual philosophy and secret knowledge of history and Gnosticism, and also on “current events”. The “Armageddon Conspiracy” book can be read first for an intro, but just keep in mind that it is a fiction with embellishments, and is a sort of “mythos” account of their otherwise rational philosophy.
They also have a website, http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/, which covers some of the same material as from the books, and also makes for good reading. But the entire set of books are where you get the total package and I personally recommend going to them for reading, although the website is a good supplement.
They write in their books that most people will not enjoy them, because they’re “too rational”, and they psychologically break down and prove exactly why this will be so. Not many authors can do that! Luckily for me I love that sort of thing…
Now, I would love to have discussion of these books and topics in the comments below, but this brings me to the “prerequisites” of such that will be accepted:
First, I will immediately trash, without attribution, any comments that try to make the argument that rationality and reason don’t exist. It is amazing how many people will try to come up with a rational argument to prove that rationality doesn’t exist. Do you have any idea how stupid and self-contradictory that is? Of course, if rationality doesn’t exist, there’s no point in someone trying to make that point, is there.
Second, I will immediately trash, without attribution, any comments that argue from the scientific materialist’s perspective that mind doesn’t exist. Do you understand how stupid it is to use your mind to argue that your mind doesn’t exist? Arguments like this typically come from academic scientists, proving that the vast majority of academics are so incredibly, not just philosophically uninformed, but uninformed even of science itself. Most academic scientists are rationally totally incompetent, with even many physicists believing that matter and materialism is “real” and that matter is made up of tiny little balls of “material stuff”. It is so incredibly uninformed. For example, ask a physicist, what caused the Big Bang? They will probably reply that it was the result of a “quantum fluctuation”. A fluctuation IN WHAT you morons? Before the universe existed there was nowhere to have a quantum fluctuation. Or, ask them, where are the laws of physics, how or where are they stored, and why does matter obey them? They’ll answer with “they just exist, it just happens”, which, of course, isn’t an answer at all. You will literally see physicists run away, red in the face, and angry, when you ask them about the actual really important questions that everyone imagines science might answer.
Science might answer these questions, but not without a shift in paradigm to “Philosophical Rationalism“, away from this contradictory literal belief in “material stuff” and external sense-based perception; quantum mechanics has already proved, long ago, that matter does not actually exist as any type of solid “material stuff”. The books from the Illuminati explain exactly what that shift will look like, and what the results will be. The first step of the process is, actually, in simply acknowledging mathematics; why is science successful only in so far as it is mathematical? Comprehend the profundity behind that and you are on your way to comprehending the nature and basis of reality. Do you really want to understand why reality exists and what created the Big Bang? You can, and you’ll be going far past the limited materialist paradigm in comprehending the rational answer (in fact, you’ll comprehend that you can go to the absolute limit beyond!).
Any comments which are trash-worthy may be kept for display of how incredibly stupid they are, and I may even take the time of verbally disabusing stupid comments of their stupidity simply for the rationalists to enjoy.
This is not to say that I expect anything anyone writes to be super-intelligent or impervious to error – it is just specifically that if you say things which debase the worth of your own mind, your own reason, and your own existence and that of others, then I will take the liberty of doing what you request. You argue that mind doesn’t exist? Fine, you’re a mindless idiot! You argue that rationality doesn’t exist? Fine, you don’t even have a hope of not being stupid! You argue that humanity isn’t worth anything or isn’t cosmically important? Fine, enjoy the gas chambers (so to speak)!
Please, argue with some damned worth behind yourself, would you? That’s the only thing I’m asking here: value yourself, your mind, your reason, and acknowledge that you and they exist, for goodness’ sake. If you can’t do that, why do you make the bother to not do it? Why hold the value in bothering to argue for your lack of value? It’s a sick self-debasement, a societal remnant of original sin, that you have no contract to inflict on others other than enjoying witnessing your destruction of the good.
The whole fraud of climate alarm is, of course, specifically based around vilifying human existence and instituting another form of “original sin”, and the moronically idiotic scientific materialist paradigm plays right into it. Scientific materialism is an actively intellectually offensive premise, and the whole faith in it. A rational person simply considering the premises of scientific materialism becomes actively intellectually annoyed.
The basic premise is that reality is rational. If it wasn’t rational it wouldn’t exist, because it would be “all over the place”, or even non-existent. For reality to exist it has to be rational. This might called “the primary Rational Prerequisite for Existence”, or the first RPE.
Prerequisites for Existence:
- It is rational. If it wasn’t rational it could be anything at any time and would never have to be consistent, and it could even not exist, and this would be a contradiction. This relates to Leibniz’ most profound question: why is there something rather than nothing? Another way of stating this RPE is that “it exists”.
- It’s basis must be indivisible. If the basis of reality was divisible, then it wouldn’t be the basis of reality.
- This basis must be uncreated. If it was created, then it wasn’t the basis, because the thing which created it would have to be the basis and we would have to ask what its basis was.
These RPE’s can only be answered mathematically. Of course, the obvious corollary is that the mind is also rational. If you don’t acknowledge mathematics, you can not satisfy these RPE’s, and this is why people literally run from identifying what satisfies them, and is why they prefer to take the defeated position of denying that rationality or mind exists at all. Because they can’t figure out what must satisfy those RPE’s, and given that they’ve thought about it and couldn’t solve it, they conclude that their failure to answer them means that rationality doesn’t exist! Perfectly circular and egotistical logic. Sorry, it only means that you couldn’t solve it, not that rationality or mind doesn’t exist. At the very least, if this has been your defeated conclusion, then you should have no reason not to be perfectly happy at the prospect of discovering and comprehending the rational answers you were originally seeking!
Of course, for the traditionally religious, rationalism doesn’t matter or factor in because “God did it”, and, “please ignore number 3”, i.e. “there’s this thing we call God and it always existed and it did everything”. This does not explain what God is, and any lack of explanation is no good for a rationalist. It is also an answer which which is always based in emotionalism (security, fear, etc.), and comes attached with all manner of irrational emotional desires and satisfactions – it is all about mythos and mythos is always the entire point of this “answer”; it is always about feelings, not logos rationalism.
I’ll leave the answer to be discovered by the readers of the books, but perhaps in the future I’ll write out a short summary.