Act 1:

Once upon a time…

The world’s most powerful man achieved total domination over all the humans on Earth. He dominated the Earth by inheriting a system which his ancestors created which harnesses all the best thinkers and scientists to achieve the goals the King’s ancestors wanted them to discover. Thus, over millennia, they built Plato’s ideal state: one highly efficient at achieving whatever the (“Philosopher”) King (at the time) deems to be the most important goals. 

Over thousands of years of intergenerational efforts by his ancestors, they built for him weapons to defend against meteors and to control the Earth’s weather and: earthquakes, tsunamis, and all the threats of disaster that nature has inundated mankind with for millennia. But more than just subduing threats from nature, King Bogia’s ancestors — and his living servants — had invented technologies to indirectly control, and/or subtly manipulate, any human on the planet, i.e., anyone the King chooses to target: be they malicious criminals, or rebellious individualists who don’t want anyone influencing the exercise of their volition – their ego. 

Besides dominating nature and men, the King also charged his servants with inventing and perfecting life extension technologies. Thus quantitatively, the King has had hundreds of years of life – but what about the quality of his life? 

Act 2: 

One day, the King and his lieutenants, courtiers, jesters, scientists, spies, et al, are busy doing what they do each day, i.e., dominate organisms of all varieties, plus reshaping inanimate matter to serve the King’s purposes; and a very strange woman comes up on the radar of one of the King’s top servants. This woman is astoundingly beautiful, but so have been many of the women the King has seen in his hundreds of years of life. This is not what causes her to show up on the radar. She comes up as the Quantum computers have been set to ferret out “Who is Public Enemy Number One.” The King’s servant sounds the alarm and a meeting is called for all the King’s top lieutenants (who are all related to him). 

They gather and submit their models and profiles of this woman: “Public Enemy Number One.” They seek to help the King determine the best way to deal with the threat to his person and his Kingdom that this woman represents. The King’s advisors, all except one, advise the King on ways to destroy the the woman. The King feels confident that any one of his advisor’s plans will crush his enemy. So, he sets off to deliberate and choose which method of extermination he wants to use on this difficult pest. Being a connoisseur of what he likes to think is justice, he calls for the entire profile of his enemy that has been amassed to date. 

In his war room, he studies her glamorous photos and reads of her background and history. He discovers that she is the progeny of another of his old enemies, yet another woman, one who he’d disposed of decades before. Her name was Alice and her knick-name was “Fluff” because she was so serious and so brilliant. Now seeing that the new enemy was a newer manifestation of “Fluff” he felt at ease with his ability to defeat her. 

He informed his lieutenants to get back to work and that the deserts he wants for this woman will wait. He and his servants went back to more important work, e.g., he was in the middle of strip-mining Jupiter and building some more rings around Saturn. 

One day the same advisor, who discovered “Public Enemy Number One,” discovered that she had made inroads that were not predicted by the King’s advisor’s modeling of her. Somehow, she had gotten herself tied in with, and influencing, some of the most valuable men in the Kingdom. These were men working on the state-of-the-art of domination technologies for the masses, otherwise known as metaethics, ethics, morality, dramatized morality, and psychology. So again, this advisor called her to the King’s attention. However, this time the King was busy with his favorite past-time: engaging in sexual activities with very young gorgeous girls (called “birds” in this Kingdom). The advisor knew not to disturb the King when a sign was lit in the war room that said “This bed is filled with baby birds.” 

So, together with his closest friend – another top lieutenant to the King – they decided to tag-team this woman into submission. They decided on the manner they’d deal with her and decided to pay her a visit. Knowing that the King was very appreciative of initiative, nonetheless, it was a somewhat risky strategy. But they felt it was necessary because the modeling of the enemy had already proved to be inadequate. 

Upon the first meeting, they were surprised to find that she was receptive, friendly, funny, and delightful to be around — truly “YAR.” But, despite their fondness for her, they decided to try to become trusted advisors to her and then steer her in a bad direction, a direction good according to the King’s value hierarchy. This was the normal, and very well used, method of neutralizing enemies throughout millennia. They were confident that they could use this time-tested method to subdue her. 

Many months, and then years went by. They felt progress was being made, but one day something happened which PROVED they were wrong. 

Despite relating very well and being very friendly with “FluffY” (the new nickname they gave her), and despite having given her some excellently bad advice which she has taken to her detriment, one day she stopped talking to them completely. She refused to meet them and refused to take their — high-tech — phone calls. Now, this was not totally surprising as they were in the throws of ramping up efforts to manipulate her. But they didn’t think that she noticed, nor that she would react by cutting off all communication, and thus cut their ties to influence her. Having again modeled “FluffY” incorrectly, the two advisors decided it was time to explain their failure to the King; who was still very engrossed in his projects to control the universe — plus his favorite pastime. Disheartened, the two advisors warn the King of her egoic escalation to do exactly what the King and his lieutenants feared she’d do: spread her methodology of ego-control to others. 

Act 3: 

Upon receiving his servant’s report, the King realized he had underestimated “FluffY.” Having an enemy who he could not easily defeat was a new phenomenon for the King. Although he was irritated, at the same time, he was fascinated by “FluffY’s” ability to defeat his ancient method of controlling the egos of others. It was said throughout the Kingdom that the King’s ancient and newer methods were: “the most wonderful method that has ever been devised to gain control over that unstable and willful thing, the soul of man.”

King Borgia decided to have a conference with his top lieutenants at an island retreat to brainstorm the best way to deal with the problem. Powerpoint presentations were made on the recurring theme that the King must resort to heavy handed tactics to gain the upper hand over “FluffY.” However, the two lieutenants who had already tried to subdue her, the ones closest to her and most aware of her strengths and weaknesses, disavowed this approach. A cloud of resignation and despair permeated the conference. The King and his advisors liked to think of themselves as “The Masters of The Universe,” and in many ways it was true. Yet, they had encountered a problem they didn’t have any means of dealing with — besides outright annihilation — which they were indeed the masters of. 

Strangely, for this bloodthirsty crew, none of them wanted to kill her, which was extremely unusual for this Kingdom was literally built on the casual and easy resorting to physical violence whenever anyone opposed the creation of, and perfecting of this Kingdom on Earth. 

What to do? 

The King decided to take matters into his own hands. He ended the conference and sent his lieutenants back to their posts to take up the daily maintenance and expansion of the Kingdom. The King’s servants on the Island set up his usual sexual faire with “Baby Birds,” but the King was uninterested and told his servants to send the girls back to wherever they came from. The King had a motto: “Impulsive by Nature; Deliberative by Choice” and he realized that “FluffY” was a serious problem to his Kingdom. If any person refused to serve and obey him – as she did – that set the worst precedent possible and would threaten to undermine his power. 

On the other hand, he noticed “FluffY’s” intransigence — even in the face of the subtle threats that had been made clear to her — and her ability to detect and outmaneuver his dominance made him feel alive for the first time in centuries. This was the strangest feeling the King had ever had. Affective elements of feeling invigorated, alive and hopeful were part of his emotional state, but he knew that there had never been a greater threat to his Kingdom. He knew his kingdom was built on the model of a ship where there is one captain and a strict hierarchy which is slavishly followed for the good of the voyage. 

The King brought to the forefront of his awareness the fact that there are many threats to ALL living organisms in their fight against entropy. In effect, his inherited Monarchical system was similar to a living organism and faced the same threats from entropy. He was the captain that was at the helm of steering this 4,000+ year old system to it’s climax of complete domination of Earth and then the rest of the Universe. Plato was right, he thought, there must be a MERIT SYSTEM for that system to endure. That means the person most qualified should lead — a fact that even “FluffY’s” mentor “Fluff” would acknowledge. He knew himself to be most qualified captain as the oldest, wisest, and most experienced in all things dealing with achieving human survival. In his contemplation he realized that his own physical survival was necessary, but what was the deeper meaning that he aimed his achievement of his pulse at. 

He knew he had his need for organismic COMPETENCE (Egoic-Work) met more thoroughly than any man who had ever lived; and that his need for organismic SOVEREIGNTY (Egoic-Maintenance) was met more fully as well. But, he wondered, what about his need for EGOIC-RELATEDNESS (Egoic-Reproduction)? He started to realize what his dilemma really was: What is the point of surviving well and for a very long time if for that long time one is not fully happy. Despite the fact that to allow any other person to have their egoic-autonomy and sovereignty threatened his system, he decided he should see if there was any way to keep his system flourishing, and at the same time, convince “FluffY” to join him. He wondered if he could change himself, his standards, his virtues, his values. Could he do the egoic REPAIR work needed to have a soul mate?

He knew that if the roles were reversed, he would react exactly as she did in response to Him and His system and that he felt she was his soul mate. He sat contemplating what to do, while looking at her photos on the screen on his wall. Given that he had already tried to destroy her sovereign ego he realized restitution was in order. Rightly, she was on guard and would block any remote or indirect attempts to influence her. It was a Mexican Stand-off.

The King decided to use his latest high-tech tool to read her mind, hoping maybe she had some notion of how to reach a detente between them. 

~*~*~

More coming when I think of a happy ending…

(1) Definition of YAR: Benevolent, charming, adventurous, kind, and fun.

OPENING SHOT (across the bow): ON A WARM AFTERNOON IN GALT, CALIFORNIA A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN DRIVES A 20I2 JEEP LIBERTY DOWN THE i5 FREEWAY LISTENING TO “SIRIUS” SATELLITE RADIO. WE HEAR A SONG PLAYING BUT CAN’T MAKE OUT THE WORDS. WE SLOWLY ZOOM IN TO HEAR THE FOLLOWING LYRICS CLEARLY: “Who do you think you are? Bless your soul. You really think you’re in control? I think you’re crazy.”

AS IF SHE’S HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE ELSE IN THE CAR — EVEN THOUGH SHE’S ALONE — SHE SAYS OUT LOUD

BEA: “Let’s test that theory!”

SUDDENLY SHE FLOORS THE GAS PEDDLE AND SPEEDS UP TO A MACK TRUCK IN FRONT OF HER SAYING INTO THE EMPTY CAR: I have this much control and my only problem is finding a way to kill myself without harming anyone else.” NOW OVER THE RADIO’S SPEAKERS — OVERRIDING THE MUSIC — WE HEAR A MAN’S VOICE CALMLY SAY: “Just ramming your car under this truck may not kill you and could hurt or kill the driver.”

BEA: “Good point.”

SHE SPEEDS UP TO A SPOT WHERE THE FREEWAY IS ON TOP OF A PASS-THROUGH WHERE THE DROP IS ABOUT 20 FEET BELOW. SHE IS BUSY CALCULATING THE IMPACT AT THAT HEIGHT IF SHE WERE TO PLOUGH THROUGH THE GUARDRAILS AT AN ANGLE. THE MAN’S VOICE SAYS:

MAN’S VOICE: “It’s not a high enough fall to kill you. Besides, there are workmen below.”

AS SHE ARRIVES AT THE POINT WHERE SHE’D HAVE TO LAUNCH THE JEEP INTO THE GUARDRAILS SHE SEES THE WORKMEN FOR THE FIRST TIME, AND SIGHS.

BEA: “I need height!”

SHE STEPS ON THE GAS AND GETS THE JEEP UP TO 120 MPH, AS SHE BLOWS BY THE OTHER CARS ON THE FREEWAY THE DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS LOOK AT HER AGAST AS THEY ARE DIALING THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL ON THEIR PHONES. YET, NO CHP EVER SHOWS UP. BEA HEADS FOR THE FOOTHILLS NEAR PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA.

BEA: “Yes, this will work.”

CUT TO BEA SPEEDING THROUGH A SMALL STATE PARK. THE PARK RANGER FLASHES HIS LIGHTS AT HER TO SLOW DOWN BUT SHE CONTINUES ON WITHOUT CHANGE. IT’S NOW DUSK AND THE LIGHT IS COPPER COLORED AS THE SUN SETS WHEN SHE REACHES AN AREA ABOVE THE SACRAMENTO RIVER WHERE THERE ARE CLIFFS 75 FEET TALL.

BEA: “This is perfect!”

IN HER MIND, SHE WORKS OUT HOW SHE CAN ANGLE THE CAR, PUT IT IN NEUTRAL, FLOOR THE GAS PEDDLE AND THEN BLAST OUT AT AN ANGLE TO SHOOT THE JEEP OVER THE CLIFF. SHE WAITS FOR THE MAN’S VOICE TO CHIME IN AND EXPLAIN ANY DOWNSIDE SHE MAY NOT BE SEEING. NO VOICE APPEARS.

BEA: “Hmmm, no critical comments?”

NOTHING IS HEARD OVER THE RADIO SPEAKERS. BEA DRIVES ON TO A GAS STATION NEXT TO A RESTAURANT SHE RECALLS HAVING BEEN TO — DOWN THE ROAD. AS SHE’S PUMPING THE GAS SHE ASKS IN HER HEAD:

BEA: “What’s your name?

V2K MAN’S VOICE — NO LONGER ON THE CAR RADIO’S SPEAKERS: “Adolfo.”

BEA: “Wow…you’re speaking inside my head but no one around me can hear you…this is some kind of amazing, new telephone technology!

BEA PAYS FOR THE GAS AND DRIVES TO THE RESTAURANT WHICH IS LOCATED IN A TREEHOUSE IN THE FOOTHILLS OF THE SIERRA NEVADA’S TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST.

THERE IS A FOLK ENSAMBLE PLAYING IN A CORNER OF THE ORGANIC RESTAURANT AS BEA IS SEATED IN A BOOTH THAT OVERLOOKS THE FOREST. SHE ORDERS A COFFEE MILK SHAKE MADE OF GELATO FROM ITALY AND A 100 PERCENT GRASS FED HAMBURGER — IT’S BUN IS MADE FROM AN ORGANIC GRAIN MILL WHICH PRODUCES NON-BROMINATED, NON-ENRICHED, HEIRLOOM WHEAT THAT THEY STONE GRIND.

~*~*~

Click to access 1973_voice_to_skull.pdf

(Part 2 is dedicated to the spirit of Alexander Dumas, the famous French HISTORIAN (see his first famous book which was non-fiction history called “The Crimes of the Borgias”). Dumas used fiction to impart his model of the world — especially in “The Count of the Mountain of Christ” (Monte Cristo) and in the full series of the “d’Artagnan Romances,” aka “The Three Musketeers.” Ask yourself why there are only three in the title when there are four great Musketeers in the book ~ “Who is Aramis?” and why he’s “The Count of the Mountain of Christ.”)

PART 2: “The Temptation of Angélique“

FADE IN: MARIGOLD WAKES UP IN A LUXURIOUS UNDERGROUND SUITE IN FRANCESCO’S BUNKER COMPLEX. SHE SEARCHES THE ROOM FOR HER OWN CLOTHES AND PERSONAL ITEMS. SHE’S WEARING A SILVER, RAW SILK GOWN AND SAYS OUTLOUD:

MARIGOLD: “Where am I now — and where’s Marc?”

CUT TO FRANCESCO DELLA ROVERE ENTERING MARIGOLD’S ROOM AND SAYING:

“You’re with me here in my underground bunker, and Marc’s in his own room. I have much to tell you. Please join me in the downstairs projection room as soon as you’re able.”

FRANCESCO LEAVES BOWING TO HER AS HE EXITS.

MARC, MARIGOLD AND FRANCESCO ARE DRINKING ORANGE JULIUS DRINKS FROM TALL GLASS CONTAINERS. THEY’RE IN A ROOM WHERE FRANCESCO SHOWS THEM A POWER-POINT PRESENTATION. WE SEE IMPORTANT IMAGES THROUGHOUT MARIGOLD’S LIFE — INCLUDING IN PART 1 OF THIS STORY — AND WE START TO HEAR FRANCESCO’S TALK WHEN HE ARRIVES AT HER FAMILY TREE AND HIS EXPLANATION OF THE POWERFUL INFLUENCE ON THE WORLD THAT THE HOUSE OF THE ESTES (Guelph/Welf) AND HOUSE OF BORGIAS HAVE HAD IN THE LAST 500 YEARS.

MARIGOLD: (Making a slurping noise) These drinks remind me of something called an “Orange Julius” from my youth. Mmmm…delicious!

FRANCESCO GESTURES A TOAST TO HER WITH HIS DRINK.

FRANCESCO: So, in summary, when Pope Rodrigo Borgia said to his son — the infamous killer Cesare — “We should turn the world into our own monarchy,” the Pope was deadly serious. And, in fact, this is the world we live in today: the first monarchy ruling the entire globe.

MARIGOLD: Are you saying that Julien is our global monarch?

FRANCESCO: No, he’s much too young! The oldest living male Borgia is, by my estimate, over 200 years old. Julien is a very important Borgia but he’s only 77 years old.

MARC: So, besides being related to them, what does Marigold have to do with these Estes and Borgias?

FRANCESCO: Her real name is Marie which is a version of Mary. The Borgias and Jesuits worship Mary. In fact, Loyola — who was a frontman for Pope Rodrigo Borgia’s great grandson FRANCIS Borgia who was the true creator of the Jesuits — was originally going to call the Jesuits “The Knights of the Virgin Mary”.

MARIGOLD: Marie my middle name…

FRANCESCO: Marie is of the House of Borgia and the House of the Este, as I said. The Estes married into the House of Borgia when Pope Rodrigo Borgia married his daughter, the infamous Lucrezia, to Alfonso d’Este in 1502. The Estes were known for being the most militarily powerful Duchy in the Papal States due to their use of high-technology — specifically cannons due to the Estes’ discovery of metal annealing.

MARC: That’s interesting. Do you know why Marigol… Marie was kidnapped and collared by Julien and why he’s been chasing us?

FRANCESCO: “I have a model of what he and his Borgia brothers want with her, but let me stress, I’m not certain. I think we should adjourn this discussion and we can revisit their question of their motives shortly. This is a lot for you both to process and I must man my battle stations for the incoming assaults that King Borgia and his brothers are in the process of leveling upon us. I know most of their tricks and tactics but my fortress has never been tested against them. So, we’re about to find out if my preparations have been sufficient. Try to not be alarmed by what you will see, hear, feel and experience during the King’s onslaught. I believe he has some special plans for Marie and he will, according to my best model of his motives, not want to destroy her.

A WORKER WAVES TO FRANCESCO TO JOIN HIM AND FRANCESCO WALKS TOWARDS HIM AND SAYS TO MARC AND MARIE:

FRANCESCO: My servants are at your disposal as is my library. I’ve selected several important volumes for your perusal and I’ll join you both again later. Buckle up we’re in for a bumpy ride.

FRANCESCO EXISTS.

MARC GRABS MARIE’S ARM AND USHERS HER OUT OF THE ROOM AND INTO THE HALLWAY. HE GESTURES FOR HER TO BE QUIET. MARC FINDS A CUBBYHOLE NEXT TO A JANITORIAL CLOSET AND THEY SHIMMY THEMSELVES INTO IT. THEN MARC BEGINS.

MARC: What’s Francesco’s motive for kidnapping you and bringing you to his lair — and for telling you all of this? Just accepting his story for the moment, you must be very important to him if he’s willing to risk the ire of King Borgia.

MARIE: You’re right, and continuing on the model that Francesco has painted for the moment, and given that King Borgia’s the world’s greatest killer and manipulator, I think it’s safe to assume that the King did something to Francesco and/or one of his relatives… Wait…. I recall a big fight between Pope Giulliano della Rovere and Pope Rodrigo Borgia.

SHE’S TRYING TO RECALL WHAT THEIR FIGHT WAS ABOUT WHEN AN EARTHQUAKE ROCKS FRANCESCO’S LAIR. MARC AND MARIE HOLD ON TO EACH OTHER. AFTER THE SHAKING STOPS THEY GET OUT OF THE CUBBY HOLE AND QUICKLY MOVE AROUND THE COMPOUND TO SEE THAT NOT MUCH DAMAGE HAS OCURED. THEY LOOK UP TO SEE A CONTROL ROOM — BUILT INTO THE SIDE OF THE VOLCANOES EDGE — WHERE FRANCESCO GIVES HIS MEN ORDERS. FRANCESCO SEES THEM AND SPEAKS TO THEM VIA HIS PA SYSTEM.

FRANCESCO: That was a 7.2 magnitude and my fortress can take up to about a 15 magnitude. The King creates these via his ELF waves (EXTRA LOW FREQUENCY) that are produced with his many HAARP systems around the planet. That’s all I expect for today but I must check out my systems. I’ll meet you in the dining hall later for dinner.

CUT TO MARC AND MARIE SEATED NEXT TO FRANCESCO. AS THEY ARE ALL FINISHING THEIR MEAL.

FRANCESCO: I’m pleased that my counter-measures held up. I have anti-HAARP waves emitting from the base, underwater and on land.

MARC: I’d love to know more about all these secret technologies!

MARIE: Francsco, please tell us what you think is the motive of King Borgia — regarding me!

FRANCESCO: Yes, yes, we’ll talk technology soon Marc, but Marie needs to know why she’s the focus of all this DRAMA. As you reflect and learn more about the events of your life, Marie, you’ll see that virtually EVERY IMPORTANT event has been delicately and deliberately ORCHESTRATED — by King Borgia, his brothers, and their minions, as well as by the King’s automation technologies. Understandably, your wondering why would he go to such trouble. Indeed, I too started wondering why when I first encountered you at that night club in Monaco. You were dating all those unfortunate wealthy men and now you can see it was King Borgia who was wrecking each of their fortunes as soon as you took up with them. Back then I came up with three distinct possibilities of why you were so important in King Borgia’s value hierarchy:

(A) He’s conducting an important scientific and/or psychological test that you are the focus of;

(B) There’s something he wants to know about the work you’ve devoted your life to, your benevolent, egoistic ethics;

(C) This is the least likely by far: It has long been said — amongst all three of our factions — that once we gain control of the entire globe, when a member of our bloodlines is Global King, only then will he finally marry. King Borgia knows this legend and expectation amongst our people but he’s under no obligation to enact it. He’s a moral agent unto himself and no such nostalgia could constrain him. Which is why I think it’s the LEAST likely explanation.

MARIE: You and I are also related, Francesco?

FRANCESCO: Yes.

MARC: What do you think is the more likely of the two plausible possibilities?

FRANCESCO: Between A and B, I’d choose A. One must understand our global monarch to understand his value hierarchy and King Borgia’s career and expertise is in wrangling humans. This art or skill is called “Social Engineering,” or Cybernetics. Plato discussed it 2300 years ago and called it kubernêtikê.

MARIE: I LOATHE Plato’s totalitarian philosophy and his dictatorial “Philosopher Kings.”

FRANCESCO: Be that as it may, the Borgias and Estes are part of a four thousand year long history of bloodline families controlling much of the world for that entire time. Plato is simply codifying what he learned about our system when he studied it in Egypt — which is where it really took off with the Hyksos and their infiltration of the Egyptians. For this entire time there has always been a top Philosopher King ruling our people and issuing orders to his top men and they to their minions — just like a captain on a ship. And all in secret.

MARIE: This “Social Engineering” is like the orchestration that was done in my life — but on a very grand scale.

FRANCESCO: Exactly.

MARC: It’s hard to imagine this being done to all humans on the planet without some kind of spectacular automation.

FRANCESCO: Automation indeed, Marc. The further back in time it was done primarily to small groups, mostly to members of our bloodlines and sometimes to important people not of our bloodlines. But that’s not scalable. With secret automation, and other technologies, that King Borgia has wrangled out of innumerable geniuses, now and for the first time, it’s scalable. (Admiringly) It’s Plato’s Cave writ large using Artificial Intelligence to generate customized stories creating automated “Jesuit Confessors” for all. It’s the end of the one-size-fits all stories to manipulate the masses, now with the collection of huge amounts of data that so many people put online, the profiling is magnificent. Just imagine, total, individual manipulation and control of EVERY human — as well as every other organism on the planet! It’s quite an achievement!!!

MARC NOTICES AND IS DISTURBED BY FRANCESCO’S SINCERE AND PALPABLE ADMIRATION FOR KING BORGIA’S MONARCHICAL ACHIEVEMENT.

MARC: Francesco, I’d like to know what YOUR motive is for seeking King Borgia’s ire by…

WE HEAR THE LAIR HAS BEEN HIT BY A HUGE LIGHTNING STRIKE.

FRANCESCO: (Yelling as he runs) Do not be alarmed if you have dreams tonight that seem out of character. The King can INDUCE DREAMS in anyone… remotely….

CUT TO THE NEXT MORNING AT BREAKFAST WITH MORE ORANGE JULIUS DRINKS.

MARIE: How long has the King been attacking you with dream induction, Francesco?

FRANCESCO: Me? Never. But my men, and friends, for many decades. And there are many other tortures that he bestows on them: He can remotely manipulate and control their limbs, speak directly into their minds without anyone else hearing it (this technology is called the “Voice of God” weapon or V2K for short). He can make them feel sexual attraction to their worst enemy, to a plant, or inanimate object. He can wipe their memories, plant thoughts and values, and induce any disease merely with the use of waves — the old model of germs and viruses is dead, although few realize it.

PAUSE TO SEE MARC AND MARIE TAKE IN THIS AWFUL NEWS.

FRANCESCO: But back to your topic of dream induction: it’s possible to induce the same dream in two, or more, people, incidentally. I think the purpose of it is to try to undermine one’s subconscious. To counteract that, no matter if the dream is pleasant or disgusting, I suggest waking up at unpredictable times, recalling as much of the dream as possible and dismissing the notion that the events in it have any meaning or importance in your life. The dreams can sometimes be very pleasant and if he induces them in you, Marie, that’s what I expect.

MARC: Why are you and King Borgia enemies?

FRANCESCO: The feud between the Borgias and Roveres goes back a long way to at least the year 1500 when Pope Rodrigo Borgia attacked my ancestor Giuliani della Rovere. Giuliani used to call Rodrigo a “barbarian.” During Rodrigo’s papacy he greatly reduced Giuliani’s influence as a Cardinal.

FRANCESCO OPENS A BOOK AND SLIDES IT TO MARIE AND SAYS:

FRANCESCO: Here’s a quote from Pope Giuliani della Rovere during his Papacy which was immediately after the papacy of Rodrigo Borgia.

MARIE READS IT OUT LOUD:

“I will not live in the same rooms as the Borgias lived. He desecrated the Holy Church as none before. He usurped the papal power by the devil’s aid, and I forbid under the pain of excommunication anyone to speak or think of Borgia again. His name and memory must be forgotten. It must be crossed out of every document ad memorial. His reign must be obliterated. All paintings made of the Borgias or for them must be covered over with black crepe. All the tombs of the Borgias must be opened and their bodies sent back to where they belong — to Spain”

A WORKER ENTERS THE ROOM AND WHISPERS IN FRANCESCO’S EAR.

FRANCESCO: I’m told the foliage on the island is on fire and two tornadoes are swirling just above this complex — just as I predicted. So, it must be about time for his Tsunami to hit us.

AT THAT MOMENT THE STRUCTURE IS SHAKEN AND PART OF THE BUILDING FALLS IN. MARIE IS SEPARATED FROM MARC AND FRANCESCO BUT SHE’S NOT INJURED. MARC AND FRANCESCO AND HIS WORKERS TRY TO DIG MARIE OUT OF WHERE THE RUBBLE HAS HER SEQUESTERED. AS THEY WORK MARC AND FRANCESCO TALK:

MARC: I’ve come up with a couple of models of your motive for bringing Marie here, Francesco, can we discuss this while we work?

FRANCESCO: Please…I’m curious to know what you’ve come up with.

MARC: Well, being that you’re spared some of the harassments your workers and friends are subjected to, it seems to me there is some kind of honoring King Borgia grants you. Perhaps in honor of you and your family being of the same bloodlines; or possibly just because you know so much about this ancient system; or even because he honors that the Rovere’s have been good enemies to the Borgias throughout the ages.

FRANCESCO: Yes, I think you’re correct — but there are limits to this.

MARC: Agreed. And that leads me to my first model of what you’re pursuing with Marie, which is you want to facilitate a detente with King Borgia by holding something precious that he wants and then giving it to him; but only after ingratiating yourself with Marie in case she holds any sway over him. If she does then she’ll campaign for your survival. And if Marie does not have any sway with the King then that leads me to my second model of your motive.

FRANCESCO: Excellent so far, Marc, please continue!

MARC: You haven’t spent as much time as I have with Marie but you likely understand that she’s a very remarkable woman.

FRANCESCO: Indeed!

MARC: I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone like her!

FRANCESCO: Nor I.

MARC: With all the education and orchestration the King has done in her life he’s created her to be what Aristotle called “A Great Souled Man.”

FRANCESCO: My evaluation exactly.

MARC: So, given that you’re a dead man if you can’t find a way to ingratiate yourself with the King; and assuming that the King does NOT want anything important from Marie; then you want to spend your final days — or hours — engaged in quality egoic intercourse with Marie.

FRANCESCO: Precisely, Marc. Congratulations. You’re quite wise, my friend. There’s one more important aspect you have not incorporated, understandably so, as you are not familiar with the relevant sciences. The King has to stay abreast any threats to his kingdom that are incoming — be they astrological, geological, and the like. I track these threats as well. According to my calculations, Earth is facing several dire and immediate threats. The King undoubtedly knows about these, of course. However, I think his timetable’s off. He’s modeling these threats as coming in later than I think they’re coming.

MARC: But how does this relate to Marie?

FRANCESCO: Excellent question. IF the King intends to marry Marie then I think he needs to get on with it as there’s not much time to loose! By taking her from him I hope this will motivate him to act sooner rather than later.

CUT TO FRANCESCO’S WORKERS PULLING MARIE OUT OF A CUT-THROUGH THEY MADE TO REACH HER. SHE’S DIRTY, WET AND SHAKEN BUT IN GOOD HEALTH — AND RADIANTLY BEAUTIFUL.

CUT TO THE NEXT DAY AT BREAKFAST WHEN MARIE SAYS:

MARIE: Francesco, what other types of assaults on your fortress do you expect from our King?

FRANCESCO: He has an extensive arsenal of geophysical and satellite weapon systems. Thus far, we’ve experienced his HAARP induced earthquake, tornadoes and tsunami and his laser based lightning and fire. He has several other geophysical weapons but I expect he’ll next turn to assaulting us more personally.

MARC: What an arsenal, the King has!

FRANCESCO: Yes, it’s spectacular. It’s particularly impressive to the ordinary person who doesn’t know that the true state-of-the-art of all science is intentionally kept secret. This has always been done — by all three factions. (PAUSE) We are all familiar with two of the factions from ordinary history. The Royal bloodlines who sat on the thrones of Europe — these are the Kingly faction; and their indisputable bosses from about 300 AD to about 900 AD — the priestly faction. The final and THIRD FACTION arose as an oppositional force around the 10th century; but officially with the Knights of Solomon’s Temple.

MARC: The Templars! Known as the world’s first International Bankers and they were disbanded by a member of, what you’re calling, the Kingly faction when King Philip the Faire of France attacked them on Friday the 13th in 1307.

FRANCESCO: Excellent Marc, you know some of this important history! Yes, the Templars were the manifestation of the same bloodlines. For a long time they were content to be the enforcers, or military might, for the other two factions. However, that changed in early 1119 AD when the third faction decided that the Priestly and Kingly factions were incompetent and were risking loosing the hard-fought-for ancient purpose of establishing a global monarchy.

MARIE: Basically, you’re referring to the history of Judeo-Christianity.

FRANCESCO: In a way, but it’s more than this one ethical system, as these same three factions are behind almost all ethical systems: From ATHEISTIC communism, to Islam, to the New Age Religion, and many other variations on the basic moral code of self-sacrificing ALTRUISM for the masses. At the top, however, it’s different, it’s PREDATORY egoism, which traces it’s lineage back through the many different secret societies and mystery schools — like Mithraism — and many other forms of Judeo-Cabala-related systems. It’s sometimes called “The Great Work” and goes back at least to the Hyksos who were proto-Hebrews. This predatory ethical system is still a centralized, comand-and-control system — like all monarchies. However, at the top, the Borgias, and their top minions, have a large degree of autonomy — which is needed for creativity and initiative.

MARIE: I was tutored in the “Occult” by Luis Martin and….

FRANCESCO: Martin’s another very high-ranking Borgia and he works closely with Julien and the the other high-ranking Borgias… Anyway, this is as far back as I’ve traced our bloodlines.

MARC: I’d like to know more about the Hyksos — especially their infiltration in Egypt!

FRANCESCO: In a word, Akhenaten. He was the first important Hyksosian ringer and pharaoh. But I must attend my battle stations now as more assaults are on the way. (WALKING AWAY AND THEN TURNING BACK) Marie, I have a wonderful surprise for you. It’s not all doom and gloom. Let’s talk later.

FRANCESCO EXISTS AND MARC MOVES TO BE CLOSER TO MARIE.

MARC: I want to go back to the library and read more of the books Francesco laid out for us.

MARIE: You go ahead and I’ll catch up in a bit.

CUT TO THE OUTSIDE OF FRANCESCO’S LAIR WHERE HURRICANE FORCE WINDS ARE BLOWING THE FIRE EATEN TREES TO SHREDS AND HAIL — THE SIZE OF BOWLING BALLS — IS FALLING DESTROYING THE GUARDHOUSE.

CUT TO FRANCESCO IN HIS CONTROL ROOM WHERE HE CAN SEE THE HURRICANE AND HAILSTONES OUTSIDE.

FRANCESCO (to a worker): How are the back-up power systems holding up?

WORKER: Very well.

CUT TO THE NEXT MORNING AT BREAKFAST.

FRANCESCO: Good morning! I expect you both noticed the directed hurricane and the giant hailstones… (TO MARIE) Now we know what it felt like to be in the Papal States under siege and attacked by our ancestor Cesare Borgia! Consolidating the Papal States was one of the Borgia’s first efforts at global monarchy via subjugating these independent duchies.

MARC: It’s an old-fashioned siege of the castle but with high tech weaponry.

FRANCESCO: Exactly. (PAUSE) One of the most famous of the historical genii who have enabled our bloodline’s press for global monarchy assisted Cesare in his consolidation of the Papal States.

MARC: Da Vinci!

FRANCESCO: Exactly — he built the world’s first tank for Cesare Borgia!

MARIE: Am I related to Cesare too?

FRANCESCO: Yes, in fact, according my research, even with the records being heavily guarded, I’ve concluded you come through Cesare’s sister’s lineage. Rodrigo Borgia married her to Alfonso d’Este in the early 1500s and she had, perhaps, eight children, one of which was your ancestor.

MARIE: Yes, I once looked at a painting of her online and I had a photo of myself behind the screen. As I compared our jawlines I stood up in shock that that our jawlines are so strikingly similar.

FRANCESCO: In her youth, Lucrezia was also remarkably beautiful!

CUT TO A LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM AT FRANCESCO’S LAIR. ABOUT 100 PEOPLE ARE SEATED. MARIE AND MARC IN THE FRONT ROW AS FRANCESCO ADDRESSES THE GROUP.

FRANCESCO: Attention…I’m sure you’re all wondering why you were invited — not to mention highly paid — to join us here. In a word your presence is valued by Marie.

FRANCESCO GESTURES FOR HER TO STAND AND TURN TO THE CROWD AND SHE DOES.

FRANCESCO: A few have but most of you have never met Marie but she knows about all of you. You are her inspiration, her life-life, her excitement in life.

CUT TO FRANCESCO IN THE SAME ROOM WHERE HE FIRST PRESENTED A POWER-POINT TO MARC AND MARIE. THIS TIME IT’S FILLED WITH ALL THE BENEVOLENT EGOS THAT MARIE LOVES AND CARES FOR (Including but not limited to: JOHN; KIKI; WHITNEY & MARK; DANIEL; MARK; ELIOT; ELIASS; JOSEF; DUBYNE; RANSOM; TITUS; MERCOLA; CHARLIE; CORBETT; MERYL; JOHN-JAY; PEGGY; JOSHUA; WALDEMAR; CATHERINE; DEACON; GREEN; CASEY; STEPHEN & MARIA; CHRISTOPHE; ELIZABETH; DREW; BOB; SALLY; APRIL; KRISTINA; ROBERTX2; PHILIP; PHILIPE; ONIKA; UNCLE JOE; AND HER FAVORITE COUSIN JOHN).

FRANCESCO: Let me explain… Each and every one of you has done something that Marie considers HEROIC! Marie shares your love of the sovereign, autonomous individual and each of you did something that Marie is aware of to fight for the rights of such human beings. You do not all share the same philosophy or ethics in details, but at some level, you are all champions of what Aristotle called “The Great Souled Man.” In your own nichey way, each of you has done something, Marie considers important, to defend the continued existence of this type of human being. And for that we thank you and we’ve invited you here to CELEBRATE our respective and collective achievements.

FRANCESCO NOW GIVES THE GROUP A PRIMER ON ALL THE WEAPONS THAT KING BORGIA IS LIKELY TO UNLEASH AGAINST THEM HERE AT THE LAIR AND/OR GOING INTO THE FUTURE — NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE: V2K WITH WORDS (AND/OR MUSIC) RUN BY THE AI OR A MINION; DREAM INDUCTION; PLANTING THOUGHTS IN THEM; AND/OR PHYSICALISTIC DESIRES & AVERSIONS; LIMB CONTROL; STAGED STALKING WITH HIS THEATRICAL-MILITARY TROOPS; AND OTHER VARIOUS HARASSMENTS. FRANCESCO INDICATES SOME WAYS TO BLOCK AND/OR IGNORE IT. THROUGHOUT, THE CROWD MAKES NOISE INDICATING INDIGNATION.

CLOSE UP ON FRANCESCO’S DISPLAY OF A POSTER (ACTUALLY PUT OUT BY CISCO!) WHICH HAS A HUMAN WEARING AN ORANGE JUMPSUIT (INDICATING HE’S A PRISONER) AND A VR HEADSET THAT READS: “The Internet is about to change — are you ready.”

V.O.: FRANCESCO: As most of us here realize from our study of history, this is a new, high-tech version of Plato’s Cave — but now the stories that are generated are TARGETED to the INDIVIDUAL. Our global monarch’s profiling of humanity is so sophisticated that customized stories can now be generated to propagandize humanity to do his bidding — all controlled and done automatically with Artificial Intelligence. Going forward, reality itself will be constructed for the next generations who will have no outside references with which to challenge the narratives that our monarch will infuse in them.

THE GROUP WHO IS HORRIFIED AND SADDENED BY CONTEMPLATING THIS FUTURE.

FRANCESCO: Yes, it’s an incredibly bleak future humanity faces, my friends. But as I said, tonight we are here to celebrate our own — and each other’s — achievements in fighting for a better future for the autonomous individual. You have all fought hard to stop our Global Monarch’s nightmarish world! Marie and I thank you for your hard work and say “Well done” to you all!

FRANCESCO LIFTS HIS GLASS AND GESTURES A TOAST AS HE SAYS “Well done,” AND THE CROWD DOES THE SAME.

CUT TO A LARGE ROOM WHERE THE DINNER RECEPTION IS TAKING PLACE. MARIE’S CHAMPIONS ARE MINGLING. MANY KNOW OF EACH OTHER BUT HAVE NEVER MET. MARIE SITS NEXT TO PEGGY HALL AND HER HUSBAND.

MARIE: (to Peggy Hall) You have a phenomenal ability to see both the devilish details and the big picture! If this world were mine, so to speak, I’d want you to be my right-hand-woman (smiling).

BOTH LAUGH. FRANCESCO COMES UP TO THEM AND PUTS HIS HAND OF BOTH OF THEIR SHOULDERS AND SAYS:

FRANCESCO: It gives me great pleasure to see you enjoying yourselves!

MARIE STANDS UP AND TAKES FRANCESCO ASIDE TO SAY:

MARIE: Francesco, I am touched and impressed by your understanding of my valuing of these heroic champions and I want to express my deepest gratitude and respect for you bringing them all together here! I must say, your BENEVOLENCE surprises and impresses me PROFOUNDLY! The contrast you’re showing me to King Borgia’s assaults on your compound are helping me to see what kind of wicked ego the King really has. While he issues de facto threats and punishments, you celebrate and enable positive, benevolent egoic intercourse between all these heroic men and woman — for my benefit! Thank you for getting King Borgia to act like a TYRANT! No matter what happens in the future, you have my eternal esteem and appreciation for all you’ve done for me!

MARIE KISSES FRANCESCO ON THE CHEEK.

FRANCESCO: Your words have penetrated me to the core. I’m hopeful that we can find a way to persist in this hostile monarchy, but just know that my motive in seeking your friendship for the end of the world is not Platonic.

MARIE IS SURPRISED AND TAKEN ABACK BUT STARTS TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH FRANCESCO. ALL OF A SUDDEN, A MAGNIFICENT LIGHTING BOLT JOLTS THE COMPOUND AND TURNS OFF THE LIGHTS AND MUSIC, ETC. FRANCESCO SAYS:

FRANCESCO: (Loudly and to the crowd) Remain calm…In a few moments my back-up generators and power systems should turn on.

A STRANGE LIGHT STARTS TO APPEAR NEAR THE FRONT OF THE ROOM AND AN IMAGE OF A MAN WEARING A MAJESTIC CROWN IS ILLUMINATED VIA HOLOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY. IT’S THE HANDSOME FACE OF KING BORGIA. IN A REGAL VOICE HE COMMANDS:

KING BORGIA: “Let’s chat, Marie!”

INSTANTLY, MARIE DISAPPEARS FROM THE BANQUET ROOM AND THE PEOPLE ARE SHOCKED.

FRANCESCO: Don’t be alarmed, King Borgia has perfected the very same technology that Tesla was researching with “The Philadelphia Experiment.” He can move people and objects from one dimension to another.

WE SEE THE POWER COMES BACK ON IN FRANCESCO’S LAIR.

CUT TO THE NEW DIMENSION AND IN A STRANGE NEW KIND OF SOUND WE HEAR:

KING BORGIA: My name is John.

MARIE GESTURES SHE’S AMAZED THAT THE VOICE IS SPEAKING INSIDE HER MIND AND NOT IN HER EARS. IN A MOMENT SHE COMPOSES HERSELF BEFORE YELLING:

MARIE: (Angrily) Why are you doing this?! Why have you ORCHESTRATED my entire life?!!! What do you want from me?!!!

NO LONGER USING “Voice of God”/V2K THUS THE SOUND IS NORMAL.

JOHN: I want you to marry me.

MARIE: (Indignant) WHAT?!!!

MARIE STARTS TO PACE THEN STOPS AND STARTS PACING AGAIN AND SAYS:

MARIE: Historically, there are two kinds of marriage, one is pro-ego and the other anti-ego. You could very well be telling the truth if by marriage you mean the MITHRA-istic version of it, which is hostile and meant to make one person’s ego subservient to the other’s in a Master-Slave relationship.

JOHN: (Calmly) I want a marriage that supports BOTH our egos.

MARIE: With what kind of ego could you love me? For love to exist, both egos need to be constrained by the same standards, virtues, and values. But we do NOT share these!

JOHN: I am rational — like you. I am long-range — like you. I am objective in my reasoning and valuing — like you. I RANK my values according to my VALIDATED value hierarchy — like you. My ultimate end is happiness, as is yours.

MARIE PACES AGAIN, THEN STOPS AND SAYS:

MARIE: For the sake of argument, I’ll assume all this is true. There’s still an inescapable and fundamental difference between us that makes us egoically INCOMPATIBLE!

JOHN: What is that?

MARIE: (Yelling) BENEVOLENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MARIE: As the world’s greatest PREDATOR, the work that makes your ego healthy — and thus happy involved PREDATING on others. You are the world’s GREATEST KILLER and I abhor killing!!!

JOHN: I’m much more than the world’s greatest killer, Marie. I’ve brought more health, wealth and dare I say HAPPINESS to more people — throughout my 200 year reign — than any other monarch, or political system before me.

MARIE STOPS AND CONTEMPLATES THIS.

MARIE: Perhaps. But even granting this… what would a life together look like? Say, you come home from a hard days work, exhausted, and yet pleased and say: “Oh, I had a great day today, Marie. I had on my “to do” list slaughtering 100 million “Useless Eaters,” and I was able to kill off an extra 50 million.” What could I say to this? “Congratulations, honey, on all that extra slaughter!” All of your PREDATION BORE’S ME, PROFOUNDLY!

JOHN: There are things about our world… About the metaphysical make-up of reality… About our historical, astrological and geophysical context that you do not know…

MARIE: That justifies all of your PREDATION?!!!!

JOHN: (Calmly, but getting angry) Yes.

MARIE: I can’t take your word for that… I can’t trust you… You have not earned my trust… It would be arbitrary to believe you… no worse, it would be VARBITRARY!

JOHN: What is varbitrary?

MARIE: It’s the equivalent of the arbitrary in reasoning but in the realm of ethics, morality, values.

JOHN: I see. That’s a good distinction.

MARIE PACES FASTER BOTHERED BY HIS COMPLIMENT. SHE SHAKES HER HEAD AND IS VISIBLY DISTURBED AS SHE SAYS TO HERSELF:

MARIE: “No… this cannot be… No… (STOPPING AS THIS OCCURS TO HER) It could be worse, he could be telling the truth…

MARIE CALMS DOWN A BIT.

MARIE: (Quietly) Show me something benevolent!

JOHN: Do you have something in mind?”

MARIE: Oh no… (NOW SARCASTICALLY) I know benevolence is NOT your forte but let’s see what you can do on your own.

KING BORGIA/JOHN FLASHES A HOLOGRAPHIC IMAGE OF A BLONDE CHILD (GIRL) STUMBLING AROUND AS HER FACE HAS BEEN DAMAGED BADLY AND THE BONES SHOW THROUGH THE SKIN.

MARIE: Yes, that’s EXACTLY your style, INQUISITOR!!!!!

BOTH PAUSE BEFORE CONTINUING.

JOHN: I’m sorry. You know I could torture you.

MARIE: And you know I could kill myself…at least try…

BOTH PAUSE AGAIN.

MARIE: Again, there is one fundamental issue your cockamamie love story depends on: Your assertion that we are similarly constrained in our FUNDAMENTAL ethical standards, virtues, and values, and are thus egoically compatible. I have NO evidence that we are!!!!

JOHN: Would you allow me to tell you YOUR model of MY motivation?

MARIE: Go ahead. You can read my mind with your advanced technology so it should come as no surprise to you what I think your motives are.

JOHN: That’s correct, I do read your mind.

You know that the coin of my realm is not cash, or gold, or any particular weapon but deeper; it’s the source of all such weapons and tools: it’s the creative genius. As Marc mentioned, the genius Da Vinci worked for our relative Cesare Borgia to create the first tank. Nothing has changed since then. Because I need geniuses to power my global monarchy, and because most geniuses want to use their work to benefit all of humanity — indiscriminately — I have a dilema. I need to know how to wrangle the benevolent genii and the ethics you and Jack have codified will help me to do that. This is your most plausible model of my motive vis-a-vis you, i.e., that your work in ethics helps me to wrangle the benevolent genii to maintain and perfect my system.

MARIE: (Seated with her hands on her chin, listening intently) That’s a very good summary, John. It explains why I’ve felt relief at no longer working on codifying ethics for the benevolent, rational, happiness-oriented egoist. I’ve worried about Jack but I have not missed working on our ethics, ever since you had Julien kidnap me back in Paris.

JOHN: Please let me finish. You have another model of my motive but you consider it merely possible.

MARIE: Go on.

JOHN: You have seen the many steps I’ve taken to consolidate my power through the years you’ve been alive — but also from your study of history. You believe perhaps I’m using you as a Stress-Tester of my high-tech panopticon. You think that you may have some novel and important responses to it that I have not seen before which I need to incorporate into my panopticon.

MARIE: Yes, that too has occurred to me — as well as the combination of helping you genii wrangle AND Stress-Test your system.

JOHN: Just recently, you’ve been ruminating on another model but you have not determined its plausibility nor even formulated it in clear terms.

MARIE: Indeed…

JOHN: You think perhaps I orchestrated your life to create and then “Influence the Influencer.” That’s the phrase you use to describe this model. I’m now finished if you want to respond.

BOTH PAUSE.

MARIE: Do you deny that these are your motivations?

JOHN: Yes.

MARIE: Do you deny that these are reasonable models I have of your motivations?

JOHN: No, Marie. They are good models of my motivation.

MARIE: So, I repeat, with what kind of ego could you love me? Show me…PROOF!!! There is no way for me to determine that the seemingly kind and caring things you have done in my life — just judging from my birth to the day you had Julien kidnap me — were motivated by a desire for quality egoic intercourse with me.

JOHN: Since one of these seemingly kind and caring things I did for you was to give you an expert teacher in your 20s who taught you both the Enneagram and Aristotelian logic, you also know that the “Burden of Proof” is on he who asserts the positive, and that would be me with my assertion of love for you, Marie.

MARIE: EXACTLY!!!

JOHN: I will provide you with that proof — in time.

MARIE: (Standing up and dusting herself off) Well John, I think we’re done chatting until you provide it. (PAUSE) Can I go back to the celebration now and will you please stop harassing me and my friends — the champions of Benevolent SYMBIOSIS?

JOHN: Yes, you can go back but there are problems — that I won’t elaborate on now — that will not allow me to let you stay here in Francesco’s lair much longer. Please get ready to join me soon. I would have preferred to have you join me only when you are convinced of my benevolent motive towards you, but circumstances I can not control, prohibit that.

~*~*~

MORE COMING:

TO DO:

(*) RAND’S WRONG, THERE CAN BE INHERENT “Conflicts of Interest” AMONG *RATIONAL* MEN. IT’S AMONG *BENEVOLENT* MEN THAT THIS PRINCIPLE APPLIES. ALL ORGANISMS (NOT JUST HUMANS) MUST DO THE WORK (SEE DR. TERRENCE DEACON’S WORK) OF ACTING TO MAINTAIN, REPAIR, AND REPRODUCE (egoically and/or genetically) THEMSELVES — THEIR ORGANISM. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SYMBIOSIS AND PREDATION IS THE KEY TO RAND’S BENEVOLENT EGOISM VS. KING BORGIA’S PREDATORY EGOISM. IDENTIFY MARIE’S STANDARD OF PROOF OF BENEVOLENCE AND HAVE KING BORGIA ACT ACCORDING TO IT — AT THE COST OF SOME BIG VALUE TO HIM.

(*) IN PART 3 THEY ALL JOIN TOGETHER TO FIGHT OFF THE ONSLAUGHT OF THE GEOPHYSICAL, ASTRONOMICAL CATASTROPHE/(NATURE): FRANCESCO TO JOHN: “Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.”

(*) CAVEAT: BENEVOLENCE CONSTRAINS ME TO WRITE A HAPPY ENDING. THIS IS NOT MY MODEL OF ACTUAL REALITY.

Ayn Rand’s False Dichotomy of Whim Worshiping Subjectivism Versus Emotional Repression was caused by her inability to get affects into her theoretical ethics.

Potentially and ideally ethics is an objective guide which would be taken literally. Ideally it is a non-contradictory, unambiguous, unequivocal, understandable, practical, functioning, fundamental, and effective guide, to achieve happiness (for those who choose happiness as their ultimate end, needing no justification as Rand said in “We The Living”).

Most men’s lives are generally complicated. Just as humans are bombarded with millions of percepts and the Objectivist epistemology effectively guides us to forming thousands of concepts to simplify all of those percepts so we can grasp reality; similarly, a proper objective ethics would give a method for developing a constellation of objective moral values from countless affects and percepts. This is what is needed for an effective ethical guide to happiness.

However, the way that the “Objectivist Ethics” is currently and virtually universally understood, by those interested in her secular ethics, models that there are only a few objective moral values: only those ethical values that are universal. There are a few basic moral values (like reason, purpose and self esteem) and a few universal derivatives like a productive career. But in Rand’s “Objectivist Ethics” there is no method for developing personal objective moral values that incorporate personal desires. Instead, niche personal values are widely viewed as outside of the moral landscape because they are not universal.

Analogously, imagine limiting objective knowledge to a few basic concepts: existence, consciousness and identity, and a few others that Ayn Rand defined, and then saying that every other concept is not objective knowledge. That approach would be obviously absurd. Instead there is a method – reason/logic — that anyone can use to integrate their percepts to get new concepts and new knowledge.

But the “Objectivist Ethics” has no similar method of evaluation for the thousands of personal objective moral values needed for happiness. There is no way to validate that architect for Rand’s fictional character Peter Keating is objectively immoral, while the same career choice — architecture –is objectively moral for her fictional hero Howard Roark. Rand gives us no practical and technical ethical guidance for evaluating the myriad of personal values an individual’s happiness requires. Rand does give us her dramatized moral evaluations that Roark is moral while Keating immoral for choosing the same career but she does not give us the ethical manual for achieving the objectively validated moral value that Roark achieves by choosing architecture as his “Central Integrating Purpose.”

Further, the Objectivist Ethics actually excludes emotions from the process of objective moral evaluation. Rand conceives of objective moral evaluation as a type of epistemological objectivity. Therefore, since emotions are not tools of cognition — we agree they are not — it follows for Rand that emotions cannot be tools of objective moral evaluation either.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff states in his “History of Philosophy” course that there has been a 500 year long emphasis on epistemology over ethics. We approach this this issue from the reverse ranking, in other words, reasoning as a part of moral objectivity rather than (objective) moral evaluation as a type of reasoning,

For Rand the ethicist, emotions are seen as a necessarily distorting element and therefore in objective moral evaluation as well. For Rand the fiction writer dramatizing the proper moral conduct of her characters, they dramatize the opposite ranking of affects over conscious moral convictions at key places in her fiction.

Again, in Rand’s formal ethics she has no method of objectively validating moral values that include desires or affects because here, personal desires and personal (non-universal) values can be NO part of objective moral evaluation. However, Rand contradicts her technical ethics in her fiction. A few examples are the following: Rand dramatizes her morally perfect (according to her) hero, Hank Rearden acting on his desire to start an affair with the heroine Dagny, even though his reason told him an affair was immoral because he was married. Yet, in Rand’s fiction Rearden having this affair was the moral thing to do (as long as he continued to try to understand why he desired Dagny and not his wife). Tragically, there is no support for Rearden’s behavior in Rand’s technical ethics; which supports only moral condemnation for Rearden according to Rand’s “Objectivist Ethics” standard: “reason is one’s ONLY judge of values & one’s ONLY guide to action”

Echoing Rand, we read this from Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s book “Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” that we should conclude that Rearden should NOT have had the affair before he understood why it was moral: “I must add that anyone, for perfectly innocent reasons, may in some issue experience a clash between emotions and ideas. The rational course then is to DEFER ACTION on the issue until the clash has been resolved. First, one should discover where one’s error lies and correct it; then one can act — assuming time permits such deliberation. If it doesn’t, if some emergency requires an immediate decision, then the person in conflict has to act without full self-knowledge. In such a case, he must be guided by his mind, i.e., by his best conscious judgment of what is consonant with reality, even if his emotions protest. When the crisis is over, he can inquire into the source of his emotional dissent and reestablish mental harmony.” (OPAR, p. 229)

The problem is that if an objective ethical system and practical morality is to be sufficient guide to happiness it would have to incorporate personal desires into the objective moral evaluation process. How could you decide on a particular career, romantic partner, friends, art, or a myriad other values your happiness depends on without reference to your desires. Yet her “Objectivist Ethics” excludes desires on principle. Therefore it can’t be a sufficient guide to happiness as it claims to be.

~UNITING THE PERSONAL AND THE MORAL~

The undefined crutch-like term “Optional Values” is a widespread term used amongst many trying to practice Rand’s secular ethics to achieve happiness.

The choice between architect and painter is considered “morally optional” or an “Optional Value” because it is optional for mankind UNIVERSALLY — even though it is NOT optional for Rand’s characters Keating or Roark. In other words, according to this fallacious “Optional Value/s” approach, Keating’s choice of architect could not be morally wrong for him because it would NOT be a morally wrong for everyone, i.e., not wrong UNIVERSALLY. But in fact, it is not “morally optional” for Keating or Roark to choose architecture. Like most men, their personal happiness was greatly effected by their career choice, or “Central Integrating Purpose.” As dramatized in Rand’s “The Fountainhead,” architecture as a career was objectively immoral for Keating and objectively moral for Roark. However, the Objectivist movement’s official position says that anyone’s productive career choices is “morally optional,” thus, dispensing with “moral objectivity” in one fell swoop.

One of the essential reasons Roark’s career choice as architect was moral — and conversely Keating’s was not moral — was that Roark validly desired to be an architect. In part, without reference to one’s own desires (versus the desires of others like Keating’s mother) one could not justify the morality of Roark’s, or any personal moral choice. Though not an infallible guide — just as logic or reason is not an infallible guide — affects are part of an objective moral value. Specifically moral affects like pride, guilt, and romantic love and many others.

Not having a moral sanction for, or a method of objective moral evaluation — which includes personal desires and a means of validating them — the Objectivist Ethics is a prescription for emotional repression. It’s a protocol for creating Objectivist repressors of the kind that Rand writes about in her article “Art and Moral Treason.” And alternately and alternatively subjective hedonists or “Whim Worshippers” of the kind that Rand writes about in her body of work. One’s personal desires need to be validated, and without validation, just acting on emotions is indeed subjectivism, hedonism, “Whim Worship. Affects or moral emotions can be and should be objectively validated, but a process of reason alone is not the appropriate process for validating one’s emotions.

Rand herself criticized the duty ethics, like Immanuel Kant’s, for excluding personal desire when she wrote: “In a deontological theory, all personal desires are banished from the realm of morality; a personal desire has no moral significance…” (The Objectivist p 867) (Deontological means duty.)

The crux of the issue is that there needs to be a method of incorporating personal desires into the moral realm objectively, and Rand did NOT discover how to do this in her technical ethics, despite wanting to and actually doing it in her real life and in her fiction. How tragic that Rand’s secular, individualistic, egoistic ethics limits objective moral values to the values that are UNIVERSAL can be shared by the collective.

So what is the process for validating affects to make them a part of an objective moral value? That topic is the subject of our upcoming paper “Triumph and Tragedy: The Morality of Ayn Rand Versus the Objectivist Ethics” Part 2 by John Yokela and Brishon Martin.

LEONARD PEIKOFF: (“Objectivism” course 1976)

“Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.”

For instance, God, is supposed to be infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity (Aristotle’s). Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and its quantity: it is this much, and no more. ‘Infinite’ as applied to quantity does not mean ‘very large’: it means ‘larger than any specific quantity.’ That means: no specific quantity, i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the “Law of Identity.” …No argument can get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to leap from existence to super-existence.”

~*~*~*~

The following is my transcription of Peikoff’s radio show discussing the historically most common arguments for the existence of “god” and rebuttals (1999):

~THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN/COMPLEXITY~

PEIKOFF: (first summarizing the argument)

“The argument from Design” goes like this: “Look at the Universe, look how orderly lawful and regular it is. Look how complex it is and yet, look at the magnificent harmony of all the various parts all fitting into a smoothly functioning whole. Look at the purposiveness of all the parts, all meshing together to achieve an over-all design. Now such obvious perfection and design in the universe implies a designer, a powerful cosmic soul or intelligence which runs the universe for some ultimate purpose, which keeps all things orderly and lawful as a part of its purpose. And therefore, there must be such a cosmic intelligence, namely, “God.””

In essence, this argument assumes that existence, left to its own devices, in the absence of a designing SUPERNATURAL mind would become wild and chaotic. In other words, the argument fails to recognize that order, law, regularity means that the law of cause & effect (causality) it’s simply a corollary of the “Law of Identity” which is inherent in existence as such. And therefore, there’s no such thing as a possibility of a disorderly existence metaphysically, and consequently there is no need for a “God” to keep existence in line…

As to the idea that everything has a purpose — which is a different concept from everything obeys law… Purpose does imply some sort of conscious agent which has purpose. It’s a very different concept than law which does not imply a conscious agent… This “Argument from Design”… appears in “The Reader’s Digest” every six months or a year, under the title: “Twelve Reasons Why A Scientist Believes in God.'”

~*~*~*~

~THE ARGUMENT FROM “MIRACLES”~

PEIKOFF: (summarizing the argument)

“How do you explain the existence of miracles if there is no God creating them?”

PEIKOFF: (responding to the argument)

“..I reject the argument from “miracles”… The number of people who see what they want to see is enormous. None of the great supposed miracles are replicable. They happen on a one time basis and when scientific observers try to repeat it the mystics say: ‘It was God’s will and it just didn’t happen the second time.’ 

Miracles are impossible in principle — by their very definition. Now, remember that a miracle is not simply an unusual event. If you have twins that is unusual. If you have octuplets that’s extraordinarily unusual, but it’s a perfectly NATURAL event… But if you — as a human being — were to have twin elephants, that would truly be a miracle; because a human female having twin elephants is not simply unusual, it is counter to the laws of nature… counter to the nature of the entities involved. A female human being does not have the capacity or the size to give birth to elephants, and if that were to happen it would be a contradiction of the metaphysical nature of the entities involved. It would be a violation of the laws of nature itself — which is an impossibility.

Therefore, I would say, there is no use haggling over whether the report of a given miracle was or wasn’t credible. Unusual things happen all the time. Even unexplained things happen all the time, but the fact that they’re unexplained does not mean that you can point to a supernatural source and logically say: ‘Ah-Hah, there must be a supernatural being behind this unexplained thing.’

The steady growth of human knowledge is growth toward a continuous understanding, but even if we went a long time without understanding something we wouldn’t add any understanding by saying: ‘Something we don’t know about caused it.’

As to the “Faith healing” part of it, remember placebos, these are ordinary inert sugar pills that have the most fantastic, “wonder cures” that they produce. How do they do it? People believe in them. And it’s an established fact that your mind is interconnected with your body and if you have a conviction that something is going to cure you — (in many cases though not in all) — it will have a dramatic physical effect. That simply shows that we humans are one psychosomatic total. It shows nothing about a supernatural being intervening. “Faith-healing” is like placebos, it’s not a “miracle,” it’s a psychological phenomenon…”

~*~*~*~

~THE “Sixth Sense” ARGUMENT~

PEIKOFF: (summarizing the argument)

“…The argument from the “Sixth Sense” is that some people claim to have direct experience of “God” and how can you — as a person who does not have that experience or sixth sense — ever deny it? Just as a blind person can’t rationally say to you as a sighted person: “There are no colors because I don’t see them.” Similarly, how can you as a person without this supposed sixth sense say to the man with the supposed sixth sense: “There is no God because I can’t experience “god” directly?”

PEIKOFF: (responding to the argument)

The person claiming to have a “Sixth Sense” would have to prove such issues as: Where is this “Sixth Sense” located? What is its shape or form? How does it operate? What are its means of perception? To say there is a “Sixth Sense” and not be able to answer these questions… makes it an ARBITRARY claim that should be discarded without further consideration.

We, as sighted people, can tell a blind man exactly what physical organ and what physical mechanism we utilize in our vision but the “Sixth Sense” advocate can’t say a word about his supposed special organ… Sighted humans can prove to a blind man in terms that he can verify with his four senses, that we have a fifth sense, because we can say to him: “Take three steps and you’re going to hit a certain surface and it’s going to feel rough against your forehead, and then there is going to be a turn.” And the sighted can do this time and again. What the sighted predict, the blind can verify with his own four senses. And that’s why there is no organization of blind people who say that sighted people are maniacs claiming ridiculous visions. Over and over we show that the sighted can cope with reality better, and the blind can verify it in terms of his/her other senses.

This is completely not the case with the claims about the mystical “Sixth Sense.” On the contrary, not only don’t we confirm what the “Sixth Sense” advocates tell us, it directly contradicts what our five senses give us because this supposed sixth sense gives us something that is supposed to be beyond our mind’s ability, inconceivable to us, and something that tells us the opposite of everything we know from the five senses… “Sixth Sense” claims are completely mystical and arbitrary…”

~*~*~*~

~THE ARGUMENT FROM PREDICTION~

PEIKOFF: (summarizing the argument)

Often the Bible or the Koran etc., make predictions which some religionists claim we now know to have come true. This could only be so if these texts were written or inspired by an omniscient being, i.e., “God”… The religious person will then ask how can these predictions by religious prophets come true — Nostradamus is the famous case — if they are not divinely inspired, because their knowledge extends beyond anything that could be human?

PEIKOFF: (responding to the argument)

…The predictions referred to are so vague that they can be interpreted as predicting anything… The predictions that hold out across time are the ones that give you nothing specific. They say: “A cataclysm will befall you in the fullness of time in the Northern climate.” This could be anything in the world, from…having a cold in the third millennia in Canada, on. There is no evidence at all of such prophetic predictions that are specific and consistent.

And of course, there’s a thousand people who say they can predict. They have a dream, and the dream tells them: “Number 7 is going to come in at Belmont race track tomorrow in the third race.” And they rush and put their money down on that horse. Then one of the thousand people who predicted such a thing wins, and 999 don’t win and they remain silent. The thousandth one goes around, he’s in the newspapers where he claims “He has the power of pre-cognition, he is the voice of deity because he had this dream.” If you keep the full picture, or context, the “Argument from Prediction” simply does not hold up to logical scrutiny…”

~*~*~*~

~ARGUMENT FROM AN OTHER-WORLDLY REUNITING~

PEIKOFF: (summarizing the argument)

Some argue that the belief in “god” tends to lend some comfort to those who have suffered a horrible loss because it gives you the idea there is an after-life where you can reunite with your loved ones. This is commonly said. It’s the idea of a supernatural life as consolation for misery here on earth. It’s a fantasy that you’ll one day meet the people that you love in “Heaven.”

I remember Ayn Rand saying once that this is a horrible, sadistic argument because it amounts to saying: “There is a person that you love intensely that died, but that person is there in “Heaven” waiting for you, and all you have to do is kill yourself and die and you can join them.” It’s like an invitation to suicide. She went on to say that people don’t commit suicide because they don’t really believe it. She said that if she loved someone and they died, and *if* she believed in a supernatural dimension where they were waiting for her, she would go and join them by killing herself. Which is, basically, what the people in “Heaven’s Gate” did. They took it seriously and they committed suicide.

~*~*~*~

~THE ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY~

PEIKOFF: (summarizing one version)

“There is no way to be MORAL if you don’t look to God. Morality exists only because of God — that’s what morality means — being closer to God. Without God there would be no morality.”

ANOTHER VERSION:

“God is required to give life meaning.”

ANOTHER VERSION:

“If there’s no God to determine what is right and wrong, why would right and wrong even matter?”

ANOTHER VERSION:

“Why should or how can we have morality if there is no God?”

PEIKOFF: (responding to these arguments)

This argument, in all its variants, is evidence of the fact that religion, throughout history, has had a monopoly on morality. A lot of people have assumed the choice is to be moral through believing in “God;” or reject “God” and become…immoral. Of course, I reject that falso choice (false alternative) entirely! I believe that morality is a necessity of living a happy life on earth.

Strong, absolute moral principles are crucial to guide us toward the achievement of the highest moral purpose of the pursuit of happiness, but… those principles have to be arrived at logically, rationally, scientifically not by *FAITH*. I believe that we have to arrive at the principles of morality, and that we can do so, exactly as we arrive at the principles of physics or math. That is, by observation, induction, reasoning; and that we can prove what the proper standard of morality is, namely each individual’s life *AND HIS HAPPINESS* here on earth; and we can prove the virtues he should live by in order to achieve and fulfill his life including: rationality, independence, productiveness, justice, pride, honesty, benevolence, integrity, etc… Right and wrong — in other words morality — do not come from supernatural commandments any more than math or physics comes from supernatural commandments.

This argument assumes that someone has to decree what’s right and wrong… However, actions are right or wrong because of how those actions effect man according to man’s nature and his chosen ultimate end or purpose… The fact of the existence of and need for ethics, guidelines, moral maps for man does not show that there must be a supernatural being… Even at a simple level, we need a map to drive across the country because any randum turns would not get us to our chosen destination and this need for guidance in no way implies the need for a supernatural creator.

~*~*~*~

~THE “ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY” WHICH HOLDS THAT IF THERE IS NO “GOD” THEN LIFE IS MEANINGLESS AND PURPOSELESS~

PEIKOFF: (responding to the argument)

…When you say “meaningful” or “meaningless” the question is begged “Meaningful to whom?”

Something can be entirely meaningless to one person and highly meaningful to another. Those who say they need “god” for meaning are essentially saying their life is meaningless… it’s purposeless, that they have no purpose and thus they want the fantasy of some other “transcendent” consciousness to give them a meaning, and… a life purpose. I think that shows a defect in anyone who holds this view, it’s a deficiency to be in that position. I think it’s part of a man’s responsibility, as he grows up, to find a particular passion or purpose that will give him an outlet for his mind, for his creativity, give him a means of achieving happiness, and to create his own meaning, so that he can say: “I started as a tiny little lump of tissue but I have made myself into an end-in-myself, I know why I’m living, I know what it’s for. I am the author of my own purpose. I love myself and I am happy!” 

I think it’s… sad and pathetic when people don’t find meaning or purpose in this life…

~*~*~*~

~THE ARGUMENT FROM JUSTICE~

PEIKOFF: (summarizing Immaneul Kant’s main argument for “god”)

“…We have to believe there is a God because when justice is compromised in this world we would go crazy if we did not believe that in the next world justice would prevail. Justice can’t be done in this life, but in a moral world justice must be done, so it must be done in Heaven… We do not know if monsters (like Hitler or Stalin, Mao) received justice, or if heroes receive justice in this life. So God must exist so he can give us all our just deserts after death.”

PEIKOFF: (responding to this argument)

I say justice is done in this life! If a man commits evil — no matter to what extent he gets away with it in public terms — he pays the price in his soul or ego in the *QUALITY* of his life on earth. His hell or his punishment is not in some “next life” in “heaven” but in the misery that he necessarily experiences in this life. The fact is that he subverts his faculties, he subverts his ability to enjoy life, he undercuts his self-esteem, if he’s a killer like Hitler or Stalin. He has to spend his life running from and hiding from  pursuers. I wouldn’t take the state of ego or moral character of those people for a trillion dollars including a deserted island on which I could luxuriate because it would be such misery to have the moral character of an evil man. So, don’t ever fear that a perpetrator of evil is getting away with it. In essence and in the long-run, justice is always done. We don’t need another dimension in which men receive their just deserts. 

~*~*~*~

~PASCAL’S WAGER~

PEIKOFF: (summarizing Blaise Pascal’s Wager)

“If I believe in god and there is a god, when I die I’ll go to heaven. Or if it’s all a big hoax, at least I’m not worse off by believing in god all my life. On the other hand, if I don’t believe in god and it turns out there really is a god, when I die I’ll go to hell for not believing in him. So, on purely pragmatic grounds we should believe in god no matter what. If he’s there he’ll reward you, and if he’s not there, what have you got to lose — you’re just dead and that’s it. So, bet on god because you can’t lose.”

PEIKOFF: (responding to Pascal’s Wager)

“…If you believe in “God” and there isn’t one — which is my view — you have lost something really profound, that is, you’ve lost your happiness earth. You have given up the ability of your mind to clearly understand the world, by that I mean, your ability to logically understand the objective requirements to achieve your chosen ultimate end. In other words, you have let faith in a pack of contradictions take over and you have thus given up your self-esteem because you have placed the ideal in a fictional other dimension and the result is that you always have to feel you are flawed, low, weak, imperfect. How much more can you lose than the confidence in your mind and the esteem of your person? That’s what you give up when you place the ideal in an unknowable supernatural. So, if you’re willing to take Pascal’s Wager…you lose, you lose big time.”

~*~*~*~

~THE APPEAL TO AUTHORITY~

PEIKOFF: (summarizing the argument)

“Einstein believed in God so there must be one.”

PEIKOFF: Using this as your own basis for ethics is a formal logical fallacy called “Appeal to Authority.” There can be times when appealing to a trustworthy authority is proper — say our trusted car mechanic — but it’s improper in the case of choosing your fundamental philosophical worldview. 

~*~*~*~

~THE HUMILIATING OF MAN~

PEIKOFF: (Discussing Ayn Rand’s views on atheism)

“Let me tell you what Ayn Rand’s reason was for not believing in “God.” She, of course, considered the various arguments…and didn’t see any validity. She rejected the belief in “god” and she said: “If you believe in a supernatural being that’s supposed to be perfect, where does that leave man? Man then…is imperfect and puts his ideal beyond his reach.” She thought the concept of “god” was a slap in the face at any human being because instead of saying to him: “You’re innocent, you have the whole world before you, you can achieve the ideal, you can achieve perfection, you can be great and noble;” religion and mysticism teaches: “As a human being you have to fall to your knees, grovel, obey and place your ideal in a dimension beyond your grasp.” So it amounts to saying: “You are nothing, you are low, you are weak.” And this is formalized in Christianity in the idea — (in Catholicism especially) — of original sin… Ayn Rand thought that man was great and that each man, as an individual had that potential to be great. But to take…this wonderful potential, this great capacity to think and know and achieve and create; and tell man: “Place your ideal above yourself, in something (anything) “Higher than yourself,” in another world and accept your inherent imperfection and inadequacy;” Rand thought this was a monstrous “sin”…

She said the concept of “god” is not only an attack on the stature of man, it is an attack on his mind as such, because, she said, if you ask people what they mean by “god” they will tell you — in one form or another — this is something beyond man’s ability to understand, to grasp. Every attribute that’s ever given to “god” is something which ends up in a contradiction and therefore ungraspable, illogical.

A few examples of such contradictions:

[CONTRADICTION 1:]

“God” is supposed to be infinite. Well, nothing can be infinite — infinite means bigger than any quantity — but any quantity means a thing has to be that quantity and no more. The actual infinite — as Aristotle (the “Father of Logic”) showed long ago — is impossible! It designates nothing!

[CONTRADICTION 2:]

“God” is supposed to be omnipotent, all-powerful, that means he can make anything do anything, including make things act contrary to their nature — that’s the whole idea of “Him” being able to violate natural law. But natural law is inherent…in the things that act, it is in their very nature, it is impossible for them to act contrary to their nature.

[CONTRADICTION 3:]

“God” is supposed to be all good, incapable of evil. But then there’s the question of “THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.” And we’re not talking here just about human evil (which of course, you couldn’t blame anyone else for) but the so-called “Natural Evil.” What does “God” do about Earthquakes and Tidal-waves and Volcanoes and Plagues and so on, that afflict the innocent? Now, if you recognize the absolutism of the natural world…there’s no problem, you don’t expect to be protected from nature. But if there’s a supernatural, omnipotent being who wants to protect the innocent, why does he let these things go on? Religious mystics have no logical answer and that’s why it’s called “The Problem of Evil.”

[CONTRADICTION 4:]

“God” is a creator” and when we ask “how does he create” we are told by the faithful: “We can’t know.”

[CONTRADICTION 5:]

When we ask the mystic, “How did “god” create the universe?” The Religionist claims “God created it out of nothing (IN LATIN) Ex Nihilo). But how can nothing become something? The mystic answers: “We can’t know.”

[CONTRADICTION 7:]

Well, why did “god” do it? In other words, why did he do all these things — from supposedly creating the universe to killing innocent children in natural disasters, etc.? The faith based answer: “He has a plan but we can’t understand it.”

[CONTRADICTION 8:]

Three does not equal one, yet we are supposed to believe — according to the Christian holy trinity — that “god” is three different beings; yet at the same time and in the same respect, he’s just one being.

[CONTRADICTION 9:]

“God” is supposed to exist, but he’s nowhere to be found in this world, in reality. Every time you pursue a question of what is “God,” how does he operate, the answer, sooner or later…is that it is beyond our capacity to grasp. Which is an assault on our mind’s ability to grasp the supposed most important thing in reality which is what “God” — according to the mystics — is supposed to be.

The very conception of “god” is an assault on reason and it means whatever your argument for believing in “god” you can’t honestly say that you have reason on your side. You can only say: “I have faith.” But then don’t try to dress your faith up in the concepts of reality-oriented reason and logic. Don’t say you have proof, don’t say you have argumentation — your faith is in the same category as everybody’s faith (in anything), and that is not science; that is not knowledge; it’s just an irrational, illogical subjective belief.

(Footnotes to be included in future version)

By Brishon Martin

(This article was originally written in 1999 in rebuttal to (CFR member and NeoCon/NeoLib) Daniel Pipes’ book: “Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From.” Updated 3.29.22

~*~*~

AYN RAND: “From Plato’s Republic onward, all statist-collectivists have looked longingly up at an ant hill [or bee hive] as at a social ideal to be reached. An ant hill is a society of interdependent insects, where each particular kind or class is physiologically able to perform only one specific function: some are milch cows, some are toilers, a few are rulers. Collectivist planners have dreamed for a long time of creating an ideal society by means of eugenics—by breeding men into various castes physiologically able to perform only one specific function. Your scientists [technocrats/”philosopher kings”] place, in such a society, would be that of toiling milch-brains, of human computers who would produce anything on demand and would be biologically incapable of questioning the orders of the anthropoid who’d throw them their food rations…[or carbon credits]… That dream…has already been achieved politically and intellectually…intellectually, in the mind of any man who accepts the science-ethics dichotomy. I believe that many of you were attracted to the field of science precisely by reason of that dichotomy: in order to escape from the hysterical mystic-subjectivist-emotionalist shambles to which philosophers have reduced the field of ethics—and in order to find a clean, intelligible, rational, objective realm of activity. You have not found it—not because it doesn’t exist, but because it cannot be found without the help of a clean, intelligible, rational, objective philosophy, part of which is ethics. It cannot be found until you realize that man cannot exist [as a happy and benevolent non-predator] as half-scientist, half-brute—that all the aspects of his existence are, can be and should be subject to the study and the judgment of his intellect and that of all human disciplines, it is ethics, the discipline which sets his goals, that should be elevated into a science. No man and no class of men can live without a code of ethics. But if there are degrees of urgency, I would say that it is you, the scientists, who need it most urgently. The nature of your power and of your responsibility is too obvious to need restatement… It is obvious why you should know—before you start out—to what purpose and service you choose to devote the power of your mind. If you do not care to know—well, I would like to say that there is a character in Atlas Shrugged who was dedicated to you as a warning… His name is Dr. Robert Stadler… If a professional soldier were to accept a job with “Murder, Inc.” and claimed that he is merely practicing his trade, that it is not his responsibility to know who is using his services or for what purpose—he would be greeted by a storm of indignation and regarded as a moral psychopath. Yet at his bloodiest worst, he could not perpetrate a fraction of the horrors achieved by any haughty ascetic of science who merely places a slip of paper with some mathematical computations into the hands of Khrushchev or Mao Tse-tung or any of their imitators in America… Accept…the moral principle that one does not surrender one’s mind into blind servitude to thugs, and one does not accept the job of munitions-maker for Attila’s conquest of the world; not for any Attila, actual or potential, foreign or domestic…”

~*~*~

What is a Platonic Philosopher King? Ayn Rand’s protege, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, has this to say by way of description of Plato’s Philosopher Kings: “…Plato has three broad classes of men: the men in whom reason is the dominant element, that is, the philosophers; the men in whom the spirited is the dominant element, that is…the military class; and the men in whom the appetites are most developed, namely the masses… businessmen and laborers… The question of politics for Plato is: Which group should rule?… The group that has to receive the ruling power in the state is the philosophers. They are the only men of reason… And…the philosophers must have unlimited power in the state. Philosophers, in a word, must be KINGS, absolute rulers… “Education, says Plato, must be wholly controlled by the state. We must have a thoroughgoing censorship of literature, music, philosophy, and science… We will allow people to hear only those ideas that are “good” for them, as judged of course by the authorities, the philosophers. We will tell people “noble lies,” that is to say, lies that are for the “good” of the people, as and when it turns out to be necessary. In other words, we are going to engage in out-and-out brainwashing. Thus, in Plato’s state, the ministry of propaganda and public enlightenment and its complement, the ministry of CENSORSHIP, are of the first importance… Plato is an ardent state-worshiper, and advocate of the view that individuals should systematically sacrifice themselves to serve the state.” Other names for this very ancient philosophy are: “The Babylonian Mystery Religion;” “Mithraism;” “Gnosticism;” “Masonry;” “Secret Societies;” “Zoroastrianism;” “Cabalism;” “Catholicism;” — with minor variations on the theme of the individual sacrificing to a man-“god” or King. I would argue, incidentally, that Plato is simply codifying the Babylonian Mystery Religion.

The definition of conspiracy from Oxford Languages is: “the action of plotting or conspiring,” and “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.” From Wikipedia “A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking.” Combining those definitions, a “conspiracy theory” should be a “rational type of abstract thinking about a” “secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.” By that definition, a conspiracy theory doesn’t carry the negative connotation of the irrational. Yet, in our modern cultur that negative connotation is widespread. How did this happen? In practical terms this article gives you a lot of information aimed at answering that question:

The Term “Conspiracy Theory” — an Invention of the CIA

~Weaponizing Language~

As Peikoff said in the quote above, Plato coached his progeny to gain TOTAL CONTROL and thus, TOTALITARIANISM. This totalitarianism, in the realm of education, culture and language, results in a range of terms which function as form of psychological warfare. These terms stigmatize and stifle any debate about the models of reality that the terms are meant to represent. A sampling of these weaponized terms range from “anti-vaxxers;” “anti-maskers;” “extremists;” and the grandaddy of them all is the all-purpose smear: “conspiracy theory,” or “conspiracy theorist.” If you have heard these smears aimed at a person or group and felt primed to dismiss some theory, some person, or some group, as de-facto irrational, and thus unworthy of consideration because their views are outside the mainstream, or if you have been afraid to express your views on a controversial issue because you fear being stigmatized with one of these smears; then you have experienced your mind under assault. Further, if you have used these terms as pejoratives against others — without extensive investigation — then you have succumbed to the attack and have become a perpetrator you sling this kind of weaponized language (perhaps without realizing the harm you do to yourself and others).

The term “Anti-concept” was introduced by novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, in her article, “‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing” and she stated in this article that anti-concepts: “consist of creating an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept – a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a ‘package-deal’ of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a ‘package-deal’ whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. This last is the essence of the trick.”(*) The ‘package-deal’ or trick, with the anti-concept “conspiracy theory” is that it packages together conspiracy with irrationality implying that it is irrational to believe in the existence of conspiracies. However, it is not intended to smear all theories involving conspiracies. There are some conspiracies, or NARRATIVES, that the creators and knowing pushers of this anti-concept want you to believe – their own.

People’s models of the conspiracies that groups engage in can be rational or irrational. “Conspiracy Theory” is aimed at obliterating non-elite promoted, yet TRUE, valuable, or legitimate and thus rational models of a conspiracy/s. The smear “Conspiracy Theory” functions to demotivate and undermine consideration of those who challenge the official mainstream narratives of the elite Internationalists/Globalists, “Technocrats,” aka the Philosopher Kings.

The goal with such weaponized language is to get the average consumer of them to: (1) Dismiss NON elite/Globalist approved narratives; and (2) uncritically accept elite/Globalist approved narratives. A rational narrative supporting those who don’t embrace vaccines (or untested gene therapies); for those who don’t embrace wearing masks; for those who oppose “Digital IDs/Vaccine Passports” is possible but the Philosopher King’s language assault is meant to get you to believe otherwise. If the smear “conspiracy theory/ist” stands in your mind as meaning a de-facto irrational conspiracy theory then what room is left for a rational conspiracy theory? Motivated by fear and unconstrained by knowledge, anti-concepts undermine one’s motivation to create objective models, narratives or theories.

Besides being an anti-concept as it is widely used today, “Conspiracy Theory” is often accompanied by a battery of logical fallacies including: ad hominem; appeal to authority; and the argument from intimidation. The intended and widespread effect in popularizing this all-purpose smear is to make people dependent on “leaders;” governments; mainstream media; the United Nations; and on other globalist-controlled “authorities” (including willing or compromised “leaders,” “doctors,” “scientists,” and technocrats like Gates, Faucci, Biden, Schwab, Kissinger, etc.) to determine which conspiracies are within the bounds of reason and which are not. In fact, we hear a chorus of highly paid and/or deeply compromised (a la Epstein like compromise programs) globalist propagandists assuring us that if we doubt the mainstream media, or “authorities,” then we are “crazy tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists.” In “Plato’s Cave” it’s critical that the Philosopher Kings control the programming but let’s here it from the horse’s own mouth. David Rockefeller gives us an indication with this quote from 1991: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” The “plan for the world” Rockefeller is confessing here is a global government which has many names: “New World Order,” “Technocracy,” “Global Governance,” “Internationalism,” “Globalism,” “Ecumenism,” etc.

Rockefeller’s “Supranational…intellectual elite” are essentially the same as Plato’s “Philosopher Kings,” and Rockefeller is again, quite open about where the elite Philosopher Kings are leading humanity (from his 2003 autobiography): “Some even believe [the Rockefellers] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I’m proud of it.” While I don’t generally trust the words of those from the Philosopher King PREDATORY class, in this case I won’t argue with him.

Rockefeller is not the only Philosopher King to let the cat out of the bag about their end-goal. Through the years the Philosopher King’s marching of humanity toward world government has been an open secret for those with the time and inclination to investigate their own organizations and documents. I have been so inclined since at least the publication of Dr. Peikoff’s 1984 book “The Ominous Parallels: the End of Freedom in America,” where he argues that America is going FASCIST. I concur. In fact, I maintain that humanity is witnessing the end game of a transformation from relative freedom (at leaset in the West) to global fascism. The transition to fascism could not happen without a secret conspiracy because most humans would resist it. Thus, SECRET plotting and machinations by the predatory Platonic Philosopher Kings, who are conspiring against our rights, is a vital part of this transformation.

While my goal here is not to promote or demote any particular alternative theory, model, or narrative about important historical events that have taken place – events which usually led to wars or totalitarian laws or both — I do want to cite some examples of how going against the mainstream globalist narrative can bring on the “Conspiracy Theory” charge, a charge which strikes fear in the hearts of many particularly journalists, academics and politicians. This charge works as a disciplinary device that has been effective in defining certain events as off limits to inquiry or debate. This unchallengeable, or off-limits, nature of raising legitimate questions about official narratives destined to inform the public’s opinions, worldview and narratives include:

(*) The 1963 JFK assassination and the CIA-informed Warren Commissions conclusions with its “Lone Gunman” theory;

(*) The 1964 “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” which was used as the Casus Belli for expanding the Vietnam War;

(*) The events surrounding Israel’s bombing of a Naval ship the USS Liberty in 1967 thereby killing 34 US soldiers;

(*) The events surrounding the US Government’s actions at Ruby Ridge,” “Waco,” and the Oklahoma City Bombing (events which set up the now being cashed-in-on narrative that nationalists and constitutionalists are de facto racists and “domestic terrorists”);

(*) The government’s theory of a conspiracy surrounding the events on 911 and the official report on this event, and questions like why Kissinger, a friend of Bin Laden’s family, was originally put in charge of the investigation, plus why was “The Patriot Act” already written and enacted directly in the wake of 911 (Has the US National Security Act (1947), or the USA Patriot Act made us more or less secure? Here, the ACLU says less:  https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security );

(*) The (now acknoweldged) problems in the government’s claims that Iraq had WMD and why it was attacked by the US, despite no ties to the events of 911 and the same with the war in Afghanistan etc.

(*) The US government bailout of banks which set up the sub-prime mortgage crisis and who compromised the ratings agencies;

(*) The last two years of the Corona/Covid justified medical martial law that was enacted in virtual “LockStep” around the globe.

As human beings, we have evolved in a context where our very survival depended on belonging to, and being accepted by groups. Feeling hesitancy, or fear, about believing or doing things which might get us abandoned or attacked by the group is commonplace. Expressing skepticism with our social group(s) can be threatening and may indeed subject us to an increased risk of abandonment or attack. Social groups typically have a kind of immune system to help them survive, sometimes at the expense of individuals in them. Like Plato (also the father of collectivism) Platonic Philosopher Kings embrace collectivism for the masses, (while practicing a form of MONARCHY amongst themselves), which overtly sacrifices the individual to the agendas and will of the Philosopher Kings — particularly to the top Philosopher King. I think it’s obvious that those predatory Philosopher Kings willing to sacrifice the lives of other humans will have no hesitancy in engaging in weaponizing our language/s. That this weaponizing of language has taken place is not benign or accidental but rather it’s a type of strategic control, a form of mind or ego-control.

Back to the issue of weaponizing language for a moment, as the article above notes, the popularization of the smear of “Conspiracy Theory/Theorist” goes back to the CIA (and its notification to its bureaus) about how to deal with the fact that many Americans were questioning the official narrative about the events in Dallas in 1963 and the Warren Commission’s “Magic Bullet Theory.” The CIA itself informed the Warren Commission.“ To quote: “Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the ‘New Right.’ Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively ‘weaponizing the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings… the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question… CIA Document 1035-960 was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request… The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”(*)

The gist of the CIA’s strategic counter-attack against individuals coming up with alternative narratives, models or theories of what happened in Dallas was to weaponize our language with “Conspiracy Theory” and it was not the only time the Platonic Philosopher Kings weaponized language. In Rand’s 1971 article “Credibility and Polarization” she further states about “anti-concepts” the following: “The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate… One of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad, undesirable, socially destructive — evil. It’s something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It…serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits…of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country – which is supposed to make one’s opponents retreat… It is doubtful…that one could get away with declaring explicitly: ‘Let us abolish all debate on fundamental principles!‘… If, however, one declares ‘Don’t let us polarize,’ and suggests a vague image of warring camps ready to fight (with no mention of the fight’s object), one has a chance to silence the mentally weary. The use of “polarization” as a pejorative term means: the suppression of fundamental principles. Such is the pattern of the function of anti-concepts.”

Objective standards of trustworthiness (as high as those that apply in an honest court of law) should apply to any “leader,” politician, billionaire, government official, the United Nations, or to their frontmen. And these very people have been caught lying and/or being engaged in corruption countless times in order to gain and keep power. Just in the US, recall the Watergate break-ins scandal from the Nixon era; Iran-Contra “guns for rebels” and “No new taxes” from the Reagan-Bush era; continuing the Bush dynasty such whoppers as “Weapons of mass destruction” and “Mission Accomplished;” then the bald-faced, and televised, lies and courtroom testimonial evasions with Clinton, and his ties to pedophile blackmail ringleader Epstein (ties shared by Trump, Gates and many others). As for the narratives: “Covid came from a bat” not from illegal and immoral research labs funded by Pope of Science Fauci; “Untested shots are safe;” “Protestors are Domestic Terrorists;” “Health/Green/Digital Passports are for your safety;” keep this historical context of deceits in mind when weighing the credibility of any claims coming from the Philosopher King’s stable of minions.

Instead of being intimidated, or appealing to an unreliable, untrustworthy authority, when trying to suss out the cause of a political event or agenda, we should ask: (1) Who has the motivation – who benefits?; (2) who had or has the opportunity; (3) who has the means; and (4) who has a historical track record of doing similar things — especially when it comes to a track record of seeking global dominance. Could the groups that benefited the most from an event or agenda, who had the most opportunity, greatest means, and best track record, have conducted it themselves as a “False Flag” or enabling “Catastrophic, Catalyzing” event?

With the the Covid “crisis” magnificently dove-tailing with the “Great Reset,” “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” Gate’s “Decade of Vaccines,” “Green/Vax passports,” and “having no private property,” large numbers of people are waking up to our Philosopher King’s war against us. Their unifying and global government agenda has been pushed for decades by: the United Nations; its NGOs and “Public/Private” [FASCIST] partners; globalists of all stripes; their organizations and foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum, Davos, Bilderberg, CFR, RIIA, and many other institutions including the Catholic Church and Silicon Valley’s fascist and heavy-censoring high-tech Guilds or Cartels. Just recently 20+ world leaders called publicly for a “new global settlement.”

In sum, the Platonic Philosopher Kings, their functionaries, and even unwitting dupes, are weaponizing language in an effort to make us confused, fearful and above all OBEDIENT in order to make themselves globalist totalitarian masters of the “New World Order”(George Bush Sr.). They are using weaponized language to advance their agenda of “One neck for one leash” as Rand puts it. One of their predatory battle tactics is an insidious abuse of language and communication which goes beyond propaganda and truth suppression, to the prevention of wayward and unapproved thoughts; accusations of mental illness; and charges of “Domestic Terrorism” all reminiscent of the Church’s INQUISITION. As the brilliant investigative journalist Whitney Webb reports: “It is important to point out that such initiatives, whether HARPA [the new federal agency…that would work with the Department of Justice] or [former Federal Attorney General] Barr’s newly announced program, are likely to define “mental illness” to include some political beliefs, given that the FBI recently stated in an internal memo that “conspiracy theories” were motivating some domestic terror threats and a series of questionable academic studies have sought to link “conspiracy theorists” to mental illnesses. Thus, the Department of Justice and “mental health professionals” have essentially already defined those who express disbelief in official government narratives as both a terror threat and mentally ill — and thus worthy of special attention from pre-crime programs.” Seems the Emperor feels like disrobing in toto.

If there is an honest and benevolent desire to stem a supposed rising tide of irrational theories going against government narratives there is a supremely effective way to stem such irrational theories: end the secrecy; open up the archives; declassify all the relevant documents and evidence; and stop destroying evidence. But when this has been suggested the answer is that secrets must be kept for the purpose of “national security.” In other words, the GLOBALIST Philosopher Kings hide behind the fig leaf of protecting THE NATION-STATE’S SECRETS, while actually protecting their global monarchy. When and if the secret archives are opened up and independent and honest historians are allowed to study and publish their findings we will get much better history and narratives. For example, “Tragedy and Hope,” (by Clinton’s mentor Carol Quigley) came out of the “Council of Foreign Relations” (CFR) opening their archives to Quigley. Similarly, “The Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Committee of 300” came out of The British government’s archives being opened to historian Dr. John Coleman; not to mention Antony Sutton’s excellent work on the West creating the Bogeyman of the USSR with the “Cold War.”

As it is NOT the security of any nation but rather the security of the Globalist Technocratic Platonic Philosopher King’s system that is being protected by all this secrecy, instead of smearing “Conspiracy Theorists,” do yourself, and other autonomous, independent, BENEVOLENT freedom lovers, the honor of expecting the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I highly recommend the work of both Whitney Webb (Unlimited Hangout) and James Corbett (the Corbett Report) for true journalism.

The need to come up with theories to model reality is necessary for all humans in order to function in reality. Smearing us as crazy, mentally ill, or “Domestic Terrorists” does not change or address that need. Appealing to the fallacy of “Ad Hominem” (name-calling) and the use of anti-concepts are what one would expect from someone who is guilty and who seeks to hide their crimes and predatory motives. When asked to open their archives, if government’s balk tell them what they tell us: “If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.” Putting a finer point on it: JAMES CORBETT puts it like this: “Although we live in a time when it is possible for nebulous government agencies [and fascist cartels] to know every detail of our life…we are also living in an age of unprecedented ignorance about what our own governments are actually doing… Somehow we’re expected to go along with the sophomoric sophism that if we ‘have nothing to hide then we have nothing to fear.’ Yet, at the same time we are asked to believe that the government must keep all manner of information secret from the public in order to carry out its work of “Protecting” the public.”

In view of the unprecedented positions taken in regard to Communism (“social justice”) and state coerced acceptance of shots by our first ever Jesuit Pope, here’s Dr. Leonard Peikoff tying in humanity’s current decent into global tyranny to the historical masters of Platonic Philosopher King Totalitarianism: PEIKOFF: “…It is instructive to observe that PLATO is the father of Western RELIGION and the father of Western COMMUNISM and that both of those are beautifully integrated in his philosophy to form one coherent whole. This is a very helpful identification when you observe that the two branches of his decedents [COMMUNISM & CHRISTIANITY] pose as warring antagonists…” For more on Pope Francis’ Platonic totalitarian politics see this excellent article by Stephen Hicks and Maria Marty:

The Pope’s Four Big Mistakes About Libertarianism — article published

And finally, Ayn Rand understood the true ultimate end of the Vatican and state’s it in the quotes below:

(1967) “The Catholic Church has never given up the hope to re-establish the medieval union of church and state, with a global state and a global theocracy as its ultimate goal…” and:

“(Requiem for Man) …The encyclical insists emphatically on only two political demands: that the nations of the future embrace statism, with a totalitarian control of their citizens’ economic activities—and that these nations unite into a global state, with a totalitarian power over global planning. [Rand quoting the encyclical] “This international collaboration on a worldwide scale requires institutions that will prepare, coordinate and direct it… Who does not see the necessity of thus establishing progressively a world authority, capable of acting effectively in the juridical and political sectors?…” and:

“The Vatican… is an institution geared to a perspective of centuries, to scholarship and timeless philosophical deliberation…”

In other words, long-range planning is the two thousand year old Church’s specialty. Now as the world’s first global monarchy reveals itself, to those of us able to see its unmistakable totalitarian (Platonic) essence, I recommend that benevolent, autonomous, freedom-lovers enjoy the time they have left as they are primary prey in the crosshairs of our predatory global monarch, his top officers, and his minions.