Over and over again in the West, the message goes out that the parents must be allowed to decide the fate of their children:

• What beliefs to give them,
• To what school to send them,
• What values to instil in them,
• How to discipline them.

It is regarded as outrageous that the State should interfere.

But look at what's happening in the East, in China. It's rapidly becoming the world's top economy, and churning out entrepreneurs, mathematicians, engineers, musicians, and so on, of a fantastically high calibre - all within a centralised command and control system run by the Communist Party.

• In China, it's regarded as entirely natural for the State to set the tone, not parents.
• The State even decided how many children a family should have.
• Chinese parents have internalized the values of the State and, given the population of China, have realized the imperative of maximizing their children's talents.
• The phenomenon of the "Tiger Mother" - the mother determinedly pushing her children to achieve great things through constant hard work and practice - has now started to create waves in the West too.

China has, as yet, no privileged elite (other than those associated with the Communist Party) to ruin and corrupt it, but that will change over the next few decades unless the Chinese introduce enormous inheritance taxes to stop the new breed of multi-millionaires forming a future dynastic elite.

Historically, China has always seen the State as more important than individuals while the West, on the other hand, has championed the individual over the State.

• In fact Western individualism is regarded as one of the reasons why the West proved so much more successful than the East after the birth of Western science (before then, China was more advanced than the West).

The optimal solution is one where the purpose of the State is to create autonomous individuals whose talents and strengths have been maximized. Who is better able to accomplish the task?

• The family unit which has, typically, two mediocre parents as its controllers, or
• The State which has, potentially, the finest minds out of hundreds of millions of people to direct it?

To put it another way, since the State can assemble the nation's greatest geniuses to determine how to bring up children in the best possible way while the family can, at best, muster only two religiously brainwashed, academically average parents, which of the two alternatives is likely to know best how to produce the finest, highest achieving children?

You would need to be insane to trust the job to parents.

• And what about dysfunctional one-parent families,
• Families where the parents are working all hours,
• Parents who are illiterate and of subnormal IQ,
• Parents who are alcoholics, religious fanatics, drug addicts,
• Parents suffering mental health problems and so forth?

How can this disastrous range of parental types lead to sensible, optimised outcomes?

• Why should children have their futures ruined by inept parents?

But if all children are put under the full control of the State, they can all expect exactly the same maximised education, regardless of the failings of parents.

The sad fact is that most parents ruin their children's lives because they don't know any better.

• They do the best they can, but most are hopelessly inadequate.
• How many parents have detailed knowledge of the latest psychological and sociological research regarding how the mind and society works?
• Why are ignorant, stupid, religiously indoctrinated parents regarded as the fount of all wisdom? It's crazy.

It has suited the Old World Order, with their doctrines of "family first" and "negative liberty" - minimal State interference - to have the family as the central unit of society.

• That model has given them the power and control over society that they have always sought.
• The last thing the OWO want is a State full of supremely talented, autonomous individuals who will no longer tolerate being treated as second-class citizens.
• The OWO, as a matter of policy, have always undermined the power of the State.
• The Illuminati, on the other hand, as exponents of positive liberty - the doctrine that the State should seek to produce a perfect world - have always seen the State as the sole means of bringing heaven to earth.
• Stupid families will never manage it, nor selfish, self-absorbed individuals always looking out for No.1.

Hegel, one of the Illuminati's greatest Grand Masters, is often accused of "State worship".

• The Illuminati do indeed revere the State, but only the meritocratic State run by the finest minds - not the sort of monstrous State we see in America run by a privileged elite in Washington D.C., controlled by lobbyists and the super rich, promoting the interests of Zionist banks and corporations at all times.
• Such a State is an abomination, a catastrophe, an absolute inversion of the true meaning of the State.
• The real State can have only one function - to optimize ALL of the people.
• There can be no privileged elites, no two-tier societies, no "them and us", no "one law for 'us' and another for everyone else", no "looking after No. 1" and so on.
• The State must be seen to be acting in everyone's interests, and there should be no conceivable doubt about that. There can be no entrenched elite.

The anti-State, pro-family propaganda of right wing conservatives has been a catastrophe for the world.

• The State, not the family, is the sole guarantor of universal standards of fairness, justice and equal opportunity.
• The State is a fundamentally left wing conception while the family is invariably right wing.
• The family, as history has demonstrated all too clearly, is always preoccupied with its own interests.

The world of the family is a world of vicious competing units striving with all their might to climb up the status tree and push everyone else down.

• The Old World Order is the inevitable and logical product of a society based on the sacrosanct family.
• Inheritance is an intrinsically family-centric doctrine. It cares nothing for the Commonwealth.
• This is the central problem with the family: it is always seeking its own maximum advantage and cares nothing for others.
• In fact, one of the family's doctrines of success is that others must fail.
• All families secretly want other families to trip up so that they will then enjoy an advantage over them.

That's no basis for a healthy society.

The central philosophy of the State is that the best world is the one where cooperation between people is maximized, not minimised.

• If we all do our utmost to help each other, we all prosper.
• Your good fortune is my good fortune, and mine yours.
• We are not trying to cut each other's throats, as in the family model.
• Cooperation is imperative and critical. It must be ingrained in every fibre of society.

The best model for society is the scientific community.

• All scientists share and share alike. Each scientist is reliant on all of the work of other scientists.
• Every scientist wants to make a huge discovery of course, so an element of competition is always present, but every scientist knows that science would collapse if all scientists jealously guarded their research and never shared anything with their peers. Collaboration and sharing are essential to the enterprise.
• Science is optimized not through competition but through cooperation.

The right wing view of the world is that the best society is a product of brutal competition between families.

• Manifestly, this doctrine is wholly false, but no one intends to change it because it is perfect for the privileged elite.
• They have no incentive to change anything.
• The left wing view is that cooperation must be the bedrock of society, but left wingers have never yet come up with a viable model to supersede the family model.

But such a model now exists. It's the meritocratic model of the Illuminati. The key to this model is psychological profiling.

• The reason why all left wing utopias collapsed was that there's an inherent problem with the human race - personality types that are so different as to render them like warring tribes, seeking entirely different things from life and disagreeing with each other over everything.
• These tribes resemble the competing families of the right wing model of reality.

But psychology provides the answer.

• We can now tailor the world for the members of all the different tribes.
• We can separate those tribes that are likely to be in conflict with each other, and unite those that will cooperate.
• Inter-tribal conflict will be minimised and cooperation maximised.
• The left wing model of a caring, sharing, collaborative, cooperative, meritocratic society based on the Commonwealth can become a reality.
• We really can build utopia by using our knowledge of psychology and sociology.

The right wing "game theory" of life where ruthless units of self-interest savagely compete with each other but manage to attain a state of sullen, suspicious equilibrium - just as America and Russia did in the Cold War - has had its day.

• Now we must adopt the left wing view of life that reflects the strengths of the most successful group in the history of the world - the scientific community.
• We have the knowledge to achieve it. All we need now is the will.
• We can build a world of merit rather than privilege where everyone has an equal opportunity, and where we are surrounded by friends rather than enemies and we all want to cooperate with each other because we have finally grasped that we will all be much happier and more successful if all of our neighbours are happier and more successful.