Art/Aesthetics · Human-ities · Philosophy · RESPONSES · Theory


……… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“Self portrait with a fur collar fragment” – Irene Caesar

Responses is presented to you by Sebastian Alvarez (Wanderlustmind.) Using the internet and this flat rectangular box that stores binary numbers and manipulates data, the objective of Responses is to establish a dialogue with remarkable individuals and collectives by posing them with a series of questions that allows them to describe their creative work, their lives, and the questions they are asking themselves. Contributors to Responses own the copyright to their original writing posted on this site and their posting is in effect an authorization permitting Wanderlustmind the electronic use of this material. In the event Wanderlustmind wishes to use the work in a print medium it will it will seek writen consent of the author.

The first questionnaire/interview in the series is with Irene Caesar, a conceptual artist, philosopher, poet and provocateur who puts to the test major concepts of the human civilization by creating absurd performances documented by photography. Irene has generously contributed her substantial knowledge (in subjects such as the New World Order, the catastrophe-model, The Skull and The Joker, Luciferianism and Christian Fundamentalism in the US, The Matrix, nano-chipping of the population, the DNA Phantom effect phenomeon, and much more) and some images from her most recent work, “People of Art as Objects of Art.”

Irene Caesar participated in the decedent movement against the communist regime, was invited to make a speech at the founding conference of the Free Democratic Party of Russia in the days of the 1991 Putsch, and, finally, after 10 years as an artist in Russia, she emigrated to the US in 1994 with a visa O of extraordinary ability on the invitation of Chuck Levitan Gallery in SoHo, NYC.

In the US, Irene Caesar transitioned from the traditional media to the digital media, and refined her conceptualist vision of art by getting a Ph.D. in philosophy in 2009 from the CUNY Graduate Center in New York. Her book ‘Why we should not be unhappy about happiness via Aristotle’ was published in 2010 by the Lambert Academic Publishing in Germany. She is also the author of the book of poetry ‘Confined Verse’ (St. Petersburg University Press, 2004). Irene Caesar lives in New York. To know and see more about Irene Caesar click HERE.

“Self-portrait as The Three Graces” – Irene Caesar.

Vitaly Komar contributes to Transhumanism” – Irene Caesar


1. What place does wrongness occupy in rightness?

The wrong and the right are the opposites. By asking me “what place does wrongness occupy in rightness,” you essentially ask me whether I accept dialectics, i.e., the unity of opposites within one and the same thing, which goes all the way back to Heraclitus of Ephesus with his notion of inner strife. I do accept dialectics, and I believe that its understanding is crucial, because the secret globalist power uses “controlled conflict” as a specific application of dialectics. Now we come to the point in human history when the question about dialectics becomes the question: should the historical dialectics remain under the secretive control of oligarchy, or should it become the democratic process? Essentially, it is a question: can it become a democratic process in principle?
The present point in history consists in the final realization of globalization, with one-world government, one-world money, and one-world socio-economical structure and ideology. The question is not simply whether each country can in principle deal with global problems locally; the question is whether humankind can make a global techno-logical break-through, for example, to venture beyond its earthly limits on a mass scale, without becoming one unified whole. Indeed, the approaching singularity, and the technological revolution of nano and biotechnology that we are going through right now makes globalization its necessary condition and inevitable consequence. The unfolding of globalization will be precisely the dialectical process of bringing together the different and even opposite national cultures into some one-world synthesis. The ultimate question is: will this synthesis happen as a democratic free and open discussion to establish a new constitution and financial one-world money structure, or will it happen as the staged catastrophe claiming millions and millions of lives? Will the end-result of globalization be oligarchy or democracy? Will it be the democratic confederation of diverse national entities, or will it be a Third Reich, the ultimate fascist totalitarianism, with the rejection of family, former national allegiance, and individual freedom, and based on the superiority of the white race? Or will it be a continuation of the present political paradigm – with a democratic facade hiding the secretive oligarchic one-world power-center? Can democracy in its present form handle the historical dialectics of globalization in principle? And does the ruling oligarchy understand the historical dialectics correctly, though it already uses it for centuries? As of today, how much wrongness ought we to accept in the rightness of the controlled conflict, secretively staged by the oligarchy?

Arthur Danto with Wise Puffy Cheese Doodles” – Irene Caesar

2. Can you define socio-political dialectics in more detail?

Here is the brief outline of dialectics in relation to human life, as I understand it. If you accept the necessity and inevitability of the inner strife, then you rise above the simple negation and rejection, as well as the primitive concept of progress, either personal or historical. You become aware that there are some fundamental features of human nature, and these features are ever opposed to each other, and are in the state of strife, either on the personal or socio-political level – objectively, notwithstanding subjective beliefs. You are forced to think of human life as the necessity of both finding a peaceful compromise between opposites at some times (so-called synthesis), and, at other times, aggravating the inner strife. Importantly, dialectics is the only way to become or to create a systematic whole: the systematic whole (sustēma) emerges only out of the unity of its constituting parts, with each part becoming determinate in its opposition to or differentiation from the other part. This is the role of wrongness in relation to rightness – the wrong does not exist without the right within one and the same thing. The compromise between the opposites is precisely the admission of some wrong within the right. That is, dialectics is not simply the strife, diversity and opposition – it is the synthesis which starts with the internalization of the extrinsic opposites, the acceptance of them into one’s own inner strife and, then, finding one’s own inner compromise via accepting the wrong within the right.
For the society as a sustēma, these opposites are elite / masses, capitalism / social-ism, libertarianism / egalitarianism, individualism / collectivism, left / right, conservatism / liberalism, globalism / nationalism, democracy / oligarchy, anarchism / totalitarianism, democrats / republicans among others. There can be only two prerogatives in the inner strife either on the personal or social level — not to allow the strife to become destructive, and not to allow the synthesis to become the enforced totalitarian unity of fascism, which suppresses democratic diversity (that is, the opposites and the strife as such – the very dialectics itself). As a recent example, the crush of the rigid Soviet socialism was surely followed by the crush of the rigid American capitalism, and the Chinese model alongside with Keynesian model became an attractive promise to unite the entrepreneurial initiative with the centralized planning, even of such intimate undertakings of human life as giving birth to children. It is clear that the society is a systematic whole if and only if all the above opposites are in the state of healthy non-destructive strife, and there is some geo-political body of power, which rules the society via arriving at the synthesis of all these opposites. It is truly ridiculous that, at the present moment, this geo-political body of power is kept a big secret, and is marginalized and even demonized for the wide masses by such mythologists as Alex Jones and David Icke. The latter undermine the dialectical vision of the masses, and, so, their ability of self-rule. At the same time, it is troublesome that, at the present moment, the globalist power-center demonstrates destructive tendencies towards authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Paradoxically, because both authoritarianism and totalitarianism suppress the dialectical strife within the society, they undermine the very ability of the globalist power-center to rule via separating.

3. How will you describe the interrelation between the dialectics on the personal level and the dialectics on the societal level?

Though the mythologies of Jones and Icke are regressive (in the Christian fundamentalism of the first, and the reptilian mythology of the second), their rhetoric has a grain of truth in it. Essentially, the synthesis of the socio-political opposites is possible if and only if men of power understand the correlation between the society and the individual. Both the society and the individual are inter-dependent systematic wholes: the macrocosm of a society is reflected in the microcosm of a man and viceversa. The societal opposites between the elite and the masses, etc., reflect the strife of the opposites on the personal level between strength / weakness, introversion / extroversion, independence / dependency, interconnection / self-sufficiency, profit / sacrifice, entrepreneurial interest / altruistic disinterestedness, etc. The populist resentment is simply the realization that when power loses this understanding, it becomes authoritarian, even fascist, and, as a result – inhuman and self-destructive. A good example is Friedrich Nietzsche, this exalted ideologist of oligarchy. He scorned weakness, dependency, illness, insufficiency, dysfunction on the societal level as the manifestation of Judaic values of resentment without any anticipation that one day he, Friedrich, would find himself completely deranged and cared for, first, by his mother, and, after her death, by his sister for 10 years. I guess that his mother and sister in their love were better dialectics than Friedrich himself. And I refuse to call their love of him simply “Christian Pity”.
I believe that those politicians, who refuse to sufficiently provide for their tribes-men in need, simply repeat the syndrome of Nietzsche. Even if most of them avoid the scenario of Nietzsche in their personal lives, they surely fail in arriving at the vision of their society as the systematic whole, and so, their personal success is a form of historical blindness – a primitive form of consciousness, almost on the level of a wolves’ pack. They do not understand that, as the individual life necessarily includes weakness, illness and death, so does the life of the society necessarily include dysfunction and failure. People ought to constitute a systematic whole of mutual support not only on the level of family or business partnership, but also on the higher level of national community, and, ultimately, on the global geo-political level. Those in power, who fail to understand this basic truth, fail the historical dialectics, and, so, have no part in history.

4. How does the oligarchy use dialectics in your opinion?

It is a big secret that only people who have dialectical vision can undertake an impartial analysis of each opposite within a given duality, and, then, proceed to the manipulation of each opposite, and of a given socio-political duality as a whole. Unmistakably, the understanding of dialectics, money and power always go together, being a prerogative of oligarchy from time immemorial. Oligarchy became notorious for its secretive financing of every opposite within a socio-political duality. For example, the same financial center financed and controlled both Lenin with his dictatorship of the proletariat and red terror, and the surviving Russian imperial bloodline; or, the contemporary example, both the fundamental Christianity and Luceferianism in the US.
Machiavelli summed up this dialectical vision and manipulation in one sentence: atheism is needed where the church becomes too powerful, and the church is needed where atheism becomes too powerful. Oligarchs with the dialectical vision look at the panorama of the human life as if from the height of the birds’ flight – above the opposites, and above the dualities. That is why they can control both the strife and the synthesis. Their ultimate purpose is to become capable of manipulating and balancing in this way the entire geo-political structure of the world. Nonetheless, it is a really good question whether the laudable purpose of balancing the world strife systematically is in principle achievable in secret. Oligarchs claim that they possess the universal global human values and use them to balance the dualities. The universal global values are precisely the ability to see, accept and balance all the opposites within the global system. And it is another really good question whether the universal global human values can in principle be esoteric, available only through initiation and only to a few initiates. To what degree are we willing to accept the transformation of billions of people into stupefied tools of the initiated, who love humankind rapturously, but in secret? But it is a unfortunate fact that at the other extreme are people who do not understand historical dialectics at all. They simply belong to some opposite within this or that socio-political duality. Unfortunately, this is the majority of all the people in the Western world.

“What does it really mean to be homeless, dude? (portrait of Jay Oliver Sax; triptych)” – Irene Caesar

5. How would you define people who do not understand and accept dialectics?

People with no clue about dialectics are either willing or unwilling instruments or victims of the manipulation behind the scenes. Or they are simply the “cattle”, which oligarchs literally call “peasants”. Ironically, the contemporary Anglo-American philosophy with its law of excluded middle, and the Western culture, in general, are not simply indifferent to dialectics – they are aggressively opposed to it. And, most ironically, the very opposition to the secretive manipulation of the society by the oligarchs manifests itself as the opposition to dialectics, e.g., when nationalists reject globalization without understanding that globalization is the creation of the systematic whole for the entire planet, and not the destruction of the local communities. This shows the degree of how much “masses” and even the “non-initiated” intellectuals are incapable of the dialectical thinking, and, hence, of self-rule.
The rigid division into alienated political parties, fixed sexual orientations, rigid religious affiliations and incompatible art styles are some examples for the rejection of dialectics. The novel should belong to a specific genre to sell: biography, dark romance, fantasy, etc. Each opposite within the duality is a negation to its counterpart as being wrong or incompatible. People who do not transcend dualities think of identity only in terms of one’s opposition to one’s enemy. Their “right” should never get mixed with “the wrong” of their opponent. It is clear that dialectics remains the esoteric knowledge not open to the general public – a secret jealously guarded by the various esoteric schools of the elite, most importantly by Freemasonry. And it is clear that, in its present form, democracy is incapable of the dialectical geo-political thinking and acting. Modern democracy institutionalized opposition into parties (like democrats and republicans), which forcefully narrow the freedom of the individual self-determination, and so undermine democracy itself. Evidently, only a senator who calls himself “independent” can approach the flexibility of the secret geo-political power center in his/her compromises in between the political opposites.
The shocking truth consists in the fact that the secretive world-power is, by its nature, neither left nor right, neither radical nor conservative, neither elitist nor populist, neither socialist nor capitalist. People who do not understand its nature, for example, Alex Jones, call it both socialist and elitist, what is a true oxymoron. In his point-and-shoot conservatism and Christian Fundamentalism, Alex Jones is nothing else than the bait to make his fellow Christian Fundamentalists a more defined group for the purposes of early and easy detection and elimination, if they happen to constitute a hindrance to the progression towards the one-world polity. It is truly grotesque that the masses justify their opposition to the secretive rule of oligarchy by the most regressive forms of ideology, while the globalist oligarchy does evidently sponsor and control this opposition in its own attempt to further the progressivist creation of a systematic whole for the planet.

Carter Ratcliff contributes to Deconstruction” – Irene Caesar

6. Does the oligarchy have a correct understanding of the socio-political dialectics?

The question is: can the progress be really made towards the creation of the systematic whole of the planet if the financial resources are predominantly allocated for the purposes of social and political aggravation, for encouraging hatred and destruction, and for the technological sabotage – all so passionately professed by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged ? Does the catastrophe-model really work? At the present moment, NWO (New World Order) is introduced to the public via the fear-mongering “YouTube revolution” and hatred-spitting Alex Jones, while it is clear that YouTube anti-NWO hits and Jones’ iconic place on the YouTube front page are sponsored by the globalist power-center itself. Why not spend the same money to educate kids in a more friendly manner about NWO? Both my daughters graduated with honors from prestigious American universities, and they never heard of “NWO.” Who will build the NWO? Will it be the super-rich themselves, the two percent of the population, who can allow themselves the luxury of hiding in the cliffs of Colorado in Atlas Shrugged? Was Ayn Rand too forgetful of her petty bourgeois, very middle class background? Her father pharmacist surely would not have fitted between the cliffs alongside with the Rothschilds.
Atlas Shrugged scenario brings us to the realization that the socio-political dialectics of the secretive oligarchy posits some major paradox. I will call it the paradox of The Pyramid. The Pyramid of the Freemasonry is the ultimate justification of the oligarchic hegemony. It is understood as the hierarchical ladder up to the more dialectical under-standing, money and power, but by fewer and fewer men, so that up the ladder, there is only a handful of people who have true understanding and true power. The ladder up is commended as a gradual development in order to become a better man. But one can look at it as the gradual dispossession of understanding and power. That is, the closer we get to the top, the more and more people are alienated from power and understanding. Essentially, The Pyramid is a visual expression of the belief that the strength manifests itself in its opposition to weakness, and a few strong men are always opposed to the multitude of weak men, and inevitably rise above them as shepherds above the cattle. This belief is precisely the inability to think systematically, that is, the inability to envision one’s society as a systematic whole, which is analogous to the inability to envision one’s body as a systematic whole. Is it absurd to believe that man has strong mind only if he has weak legs? By establishing the opposition of a few strong men to the multitudes of weak men, The Pyramid simply destroys its own foundation, which consists of men on the bottom. This is the paradox of The Pyramid.
Rand’s Atlas Shrugged is the most grotesque expression of this paradox of The Pyramid. Atlas Shrugged is precisely the description of how the top of The Pyramid destroyed its own foundation. It was psychopathology when Rand professed that a strong man is entitled to destroy a masterpiece of art if he does not want to share its aesthetic appreciation with others. The secrecy of Freemasonry or any initiation mystery cult is in fact analogous to this childish avarice and pathological miserliness – it destroys master-pieces of knowledge for multitudes of the uninitiated. This miserliness reflects the underdeveloped economy, which can sustain education and well being only for a handful of people on the top. Currently, we are going through the technological revolution of nano and biotechnology that can provide the best for all, instead of providing all for the best as it is in The Pyramid. To adhere to The Pyramid as the paradigm of socio-political vision is to blindly ignore this humanitarian promise of the present technological revolution, and to hinder its unfolding. It is clear that the catastrophe-model should be abolished, and all the esoteric knowledge should enter the public domain to be reevaluated from the point of view of new technological realities. The Pyramid should be turned upside down.

7. What about those few privileged men on the top of The Pyramid? Do they get the Light promised by Lucifer?

The air up there evidently gets thinner. By the very logic of The Pyramid, the higher man gets up the ladder, the more he ought to believe in the inevitable alienation of the true vision, even from the very few people on the top. This belief can be wrapped in the mysticism of Gnosticism, or in the cynicism of Agnosticism, but it is essentially the realization of the inability of the three men on the top to control the world – to rule the masses, which via the alienation of power and understanding are transformed into almost inhuman devices and tools. It literally produces moral blindness in rulers who, in their ivory tower, believe that the end justifies the means. Consider, for example, to how and why the father of Illuminati Adam Weishaupt generated Jacobinism. It is important to understand that the very principle of the secretive and selective illumination allows the crude political tricksterism, the betrayal of both enemies and allies, mass deception, and mass murder.
With Adam Weishaupt, the true power player revealed himself as a Joker, a willing political prostitute who shall sell everything and everybody individually, as a social group and political party, and as an entire nation for the sake of political utility. Indeed, we should put the blame for the blood produced by Jacobinism and Leninism not on Jacobins and Leninists, but on people who inspired, sponsored, and moved them as marionettes on the historical stage. The Hat of The Fool lies next to a skull and bones in a black-velvet room without windows. It is precisely the symbol of the acceptance of a foul play – the acceptance of dark horrific means for the sake of the allegedly illuminated end. With Weishaupt, The Pyramid revealed itself as the ultimate alienation of the end from its means, and the alienation of the Light from the Illuminated ones. The Pyramid is inability to understand that The Light is present in its entirety – eternity and infinity – in every point of the being. Thus, the opposition of Adonai to Lucifer is as absurd as the opposition of the Hell to the Heavens. There cannot be two absolutes. There is only one absolute – The Light (Lux). Lucifer (The Light-bearer) cannot in principle bring man The Light, because man, any man, has already the unconditional and free access to The Light. Lucifer is simply a mirror-invert of Adonai. The story about the alienation of The Light is darkening and destructive to one’s mind, whether it is the Christian story of The Fall, or the Freemason story of the Ascension up the ladder.

“David Gibson contributes to Abstract Expressionism” – Irene Caesar

“Easter Sunday of AD Coleman” – Irene Caesar

8. But is there any way to convince people on the top of The Pyramid that it is in their own best interest to throw away the Skull and the Hat of the Fool?

The recent (2002) experiments of Russian scientists Peter Gariaev and Vladimir Poponin with DNA revealed a DNA Phantom Effect that scientifically explains the extra-sensory, paranormal, and psychic phenomena, for example, the impediment of body, mind, and the entire life-path, one’s own and of the descendants, by one’s moral transgressions; the locations with negative energy; and, more generally, the ability to influence physical phenomena by psychic phenomena. DNA Phantom Effect reveals that DNA is immediately responsive to any vibration, including emotions, and that DNA leaves its imprint on the quantum field (as info-matter and holographic crystals of vibrations) even after DNA is not present there any longer. The present technological revolution of nano-biotechnology gives a promise of eternal youth filled with uplifted well-being, but it is beyond doubt that genetic engineering will be useless for mass murderers because they will not be able to avoid the destructive DNA Phantom Effect produced both by their victims and by their own moral insensitivity. It is clear that on the quantum level, the DNA Phantom Effect will influence the artificial and bionic intellect as well, and any what-so-ever self-conscious forms of energy.
Pain is sensitivity to the environment, and the most important mechanism of fit-ting into the environment and, so, survival. Compassion to the pain of others is the most sophisticated and refined sensitivity, and the most effective mechanism of survival both on the individual and on the societal level. Compassion is not simply the immediate reaction on the pain of the other man. It is precisely the ability to “read” the emotional and intellectual vibrations of the present and past experiences, or in other words, the receptivity to the DNA Phantom Effect. The Darwinian survival of the fittest as the most self-centered does not account for the DNA Phantom Effect at all. Darwinian materialism is incapable of recognizing that any suffering inflicted by a person directly or indirectly is the immediate and catastrophic detriment to his own DNA. All the suffering in the world is not simply a gruesome movie on somebody’s screen. It is the energy of destruction that penetrates through the walls, poisonous to everybody. And the suffering of the innocent is most destructive. It is the vengeance that nobody can escape.
I suggest peaceful technological revolution that has just started! I fear that any aggravation will postpone and even deprive us all of the only way that there is for humans — Love and Light.

9. Why do you think it is important to realize the fallacy of The Pyramid?

Recently, in my private conversations with somebody involved in creating one-world digital money, I have been introduced to a vision of the geo-political unity (NWO) as a dictatorship by the Cyber Dictator / Artificial Intellect (AI) similar to the scenario of the Sky Net in the Terminator movie. Let me call this man Mr. John Doe. John claims that only the inhuman AI can rule the world, because it is more powerful than humans in its power of calculation, and impartial – above human egoism. For those who still think that this is science fiction, I suggest reading Ray Kurzweil on singularity – the approaching event when computers will overrun humans in intellectual power. John explains that AI will rule the world via processing information from the billions of people, and, then, calculating the most beneficial decision for what should be done. John suggests that the process of decision-making will be democratic in its initial stage — the AI will gather socio-economical and political input from everybody to arrive at the impartial decision. Nonetheless, John insists that two conditions should be observed: (1) there will be created the elitist power and money pool out of the wealthiest people in the world (one hundred and something plus families) who will literally back up the creation of one-world digital money with their personal fortunes; and (2) the inhuman AI will ever reserve after itself the right of the final decision and will override the input of humans if it inhumanly calculates to the contrary. John defines his model as monarchy.
It seems to me that the scenario of the Cyber Dictator is precisely the ultimate realization of the Illuminati Pyramid. Pun or not, but AI (artificial intelligence) ruling the world is precisely the AI = all-seeing eye of the Masonic Pyramid. Via nanochip (aka nanobot) technology, the ruling AI gets absolute access to the minds and bodies of its human or half-human-half-cyber subjects – the power of immediate genetic change, surveillance, control and execution. This all-seeing eye of the inhuman super-intelligence is higher than any three men on the top of the Masonic Pyramid. It is the absolute and final alienation of understanding and power – even from the oligarchy itself. In the technocratic utopia, The Masonic Pyramid inevitably brings men as the entire human species to dispossessing itself of understanding and power. I agree with the message of the Termnator movie that The Sky Net scenario of this technocratic utopia inevitably implies the submission and the destruction of human kind by the super artificial intellect.
If someone were to say to me that this technocratic utopia is unrealistic, that it is a grotesque extreme that has nothing to do with the all-loving Light delivered to the initiated by Lucifer, the Light-bearer, let me answer this: I strongly believe that this is a very realistic, and I would even say, the inevitable scenario if The Pyramid is not destroyed, and the entire mythology of Adonai versus Lucifer is not rejected alongside the Christian mythology, or any other mythology of creationism, emanation, duality of absolutes (that is, the absolute good vs. the absolute evil), hierarchy of essences, and the like. Isn’t it clear that the Cyber Dictator will sooner or later treat humankind precisely as the “rudimentary species”, as “useless eaters”, as “inferior race”, and will apply to humans the above mythologies of hatred verbatim? Ridiculously enough, because only the elite has the true individual freedom bought by its economical independence, it is the elite itself, which loses under the all-seeing AI its most precious possession — freedom. So, it is in the interests of the elite itself to offer some paradigm of NWO other than The Masonic Pyramid with the all-seeing eye on the top. Ultimately, the Matrix ruled by the inhuman super-intelligence is a totalitarian hive-mind with no individuation, no freedom, no privacy, and no escape. It is in the interests of the globalist power-players first of all to destroy The Pyramid.

Dan Cameron contributes to Suprematism” – Irene Caesar

10. Where do creativity and destruction emerge from?

I believe that, on the individual level, creativity and destruction come respectively from the ability or inability to think dialectically. To think dialectically means to realize oneself as a systematic and organic whole in the state of permanent inner strife between opposites. To think dialectically means to reject fundamentalism (of Christianity or Freemasonry), that is, grasp that no opposite in one’s inner strife is the absolute evil or the absolute good. Friedrich Nietzsche rejected human weakness and pain. And because he did not accept all the opposites of his human existence, his life and ideology were completely destructive and self-destructive. Thinking dialectically depends also on one’s ability to see oneself as a microcosm, reflecting the macrocosm of the society, and more widely, of the universe. There are no problems in your society that are not your own intimate problems, concerning your physical, financial, and psychological well-being, down to your most private affairs of health, sex, love, friendships, etc. Wealth and fame do not make man immune to this law. Friedrich Nietzsche rejected his self-identification with the problems in his society, and that is why his life and ideology were completely destructive and self-destructive. On the societal level, thinking dialectically goes in the other direction: society is creative or destructive depending on its ability to reflect in its macrocosm the microcosm of man, that is, on its ability to care for its every citizen, analogously to man caring for every part of his body.
Ancient Greeks defined this correlation between man and his continuum as the unity of cosmos, polis, and psyche (universe, society, and soul). Creation or destruction is rooted in the consonance or dissonance between cosmos, polis and psyche. This concept is simply another wording for the inter-dependence between physical and psychic phenomena, i.e., the DNA Phantom Effect on both individual and social level. You can influence the cosmos by the state of your psyche, e.g., invoke a storm by your despair. And you will not be able to get rid of your despair if you live in the oppressive polis. That is why any man, including an artist, is first of all a citizen to take care of his polis. Man should disinterestedly care for the cosmos and polis, because in caring for cosmos and polis, he cares for himself first of all. I believe that the mission of art is precisely to investigate and express the inter-dependence between physical and psychic phenomena (the DNA Phantom Effect) on both individual and social levels. In comparison with so-cial science, art can actually visualize the existential outcome of ideology — the creative or destructive force of ideas, enacted via psychic states on the individual and mass scale, even if no physical action is undertaken. Ultimately, the role of art consists in revealing and building the consonance between cosmos, polis and psyche via creating DNA Phantoms of The Light.
I have recently made a conceptual image “Self-portrait as The Three Graces,” which depicts me in embrace with two women, who do not satisfy the elitist criteria of beauty or success. “The Three Graces” is a famous concept and image from the Ancient Greek culture, re-appearing in the history of art over and over again. Ultimately, it refers to Plato’s tripartite structure of the soul with its three major functions (each one with its excellence or grace (ἀρετή). The poignancy of the concept “The Three Graces” consists in the projection of an intrinsic quality to the outside world so that it becomes a living person. This idea also goes back to Plato, with his division of the initial soul into two parts. We long to love because we long to find our missing half. This idea implies the unity of cosmos, polis and psyche. Every person in our society (polis) is the missing part of our own souls. You are the missing part of me. I am the missing part of you. Your pain aches in me. Mine — in you. We are all brothers and sisters in The Light. If my sister or my brother is destroyed, deformed, suppressed — the part of me is deformed, suppressed, and dead. Ancient Greeks argued that without this understanding, we are animals, which is equal to “natural slaves,” incapable of knowledge, practical wisdom and happiness.

“The Exaltation of St Orville (portrait of Orville Robertson, the Ghost Photographer)” – Irene Caesar

11. What role does suffering play in your work?

My artwork is the encyclopedia of human emotions, including suffering in its many variations and degrees of intensity. It is my protest against the American culture, which demonstrates the inability to express sophisticated emotions and the utter indifference to human suffering. In fact, it trains people to be deft and blind to the suffering of others. American pop-culture reminds me of the bloody entertainment in the Roman Coliseum, where the laughing and chewing plebs were enjoying for hours how men were battered and killed. The so-called high culture, for example abstractionism or serialist music is even more debt and blind to the suffering of men. It is simply the more intricate gladiator entertainment — a veiled form of sadism, which is the most extreme form of sadism in its total indifference to suffering. Francis Bacon, even after his death, was considered to be too dark in his depiction of human despair to be acceptable in the corporate collections. You see on the news the thousands and thousands of mutilated children, and then you page through the “Art in America,” and there is not even one painting, drawing or sculpture that relates to tears and groans of pain.
This indifference to the pain of others is a very troubling feature of the American culture. It testifies to the infantile level of its development, and points to some grave problems in the American ideology in general, including the handling of political and social issues. Sensitivity to the suffering of others – compassion – is the only true criterion of whether the society is a systematic whole (sustēma). American culture indicates that in America, there is no consonance between cosmos, polis and psyche. I agree with Aristotle that the entire society is nothing else than the more or less intimate friendships, so that you contemplate your friends and your fellow citizens as yourself. You become a citizen only when you see your own suffering in the suffering of others. You become compassionate to yourself only if are capable of being compassionate to others.
Art is an important aid in the restoration and cultivation of this contemplation of others as oneself. In this function, art creates the very fabric of inter-personal relations, and the very substance of the civic society. Or, more exactly, art reveals and preserves the human energy fields or the DNA Phantom Effect on the individual and mass scale. I believe that art is capable of this only if art does not destroy the human form. For a real compassion, there should be a real human being to arouse it – a unique man with a reddened face and salty tears dropping down on a hairy chest. I feel disgust towards “meta-physical expression” of suffering in the abstract painting. Sorry, but the vectors of energy are inhuman – they do not cry. This means that art should necessarily be representational, realistic in its core. So-called non-objective art, like abstractionism, minimalism, and serialism, is nothing else than dehumanization.
But realism should be of a specific kind. I believe that contemplation of others via art is not possible by direct documentation. It is possible only via the creation of vis-ual ideograms. Ideograms differ from the simple visualization or documentation by the ability to visualize not only the emotion but also the idea behind the emotion in the con-text of the ideological struggle. I am an ideological fighter who shows the enactment of an idea in a conceptual situation or event. It is the idea that gives the necessary structural condensation of the image. It is the idea that causes pain or joy. To be truly compassion-ate is to reveal the destructive or constructive nature of this or that idea. One can argue for hours to prove the absurdity of the dualism inherent in Christianity or Freemasonry. But an artist can create an image that will make this absurdity immediately self-evident.

12. So far, you have insisted on the necessity to abolish the social Darwinism, the controlled conflict model, the ideology of The Skull and The Joker, the fundamentalism of Christianity and Freemasonry with their duality of the absolute evil and the absolute good, and the hierarchical pyramid. You also insisted on making all the esoteric knowledge public, and on its revaluation from the point of view of new technological realities. You offered the constructive and mass-scale introduction of the public into the coming reality of NWO. And you pointed to the importance of teaching fellow-citizens to think dialectically and in terms of systematic wholes. If you were powerful, what else would you do?

There is only one question: whether to further the necessary establishment of the global government via the series of controlled conflicts and one major final conflict, or via the peaceful negotiation, writing a one-world constitution and establishment of one-world money. The latter means that the globalist power-center should abandon its secrecy, and go public.
I strongly believe that major aggravation in the US is highly undesirable, because it will devastate economic and financial resources, along with manpower, hampering the technological revolution we are going through this very moment. The focus should move from the climate change to the peak oil and nano energy. Nano and biotechnology can solve the problems of overpopulation, demographic imbalance, and the exhaustion of natural resources without the need of violence or foul play. In fact, this new technology will make the Keynesian model of economy inevitable.
The population should be prepared to accept the new realities of genetic engineering and nanobot microbiology. The one-world constitution should be a completely new contract between the government and the individual, negotiating the individual freedom in the new reality of the loss of privacy, surveillance and control on the level of injected nano-chips, government controlled genetic engineering and birth control.
Mostly important, the New World Order should not become totalitarian. What the point of preserving the “genetic diversity” of “the wild life,” if we are not preserving family, the unique flavors of local communities and regional beliefs, and the individual freedom itself. There is only constraint — compassion. Globalization should happen not via the totalitarian ways of suppressing the unique individuals by the artificial regularity of any sort, but via making religion, art, sex, gender-identification, even the economic and political identification unique — the choice of this or that free unique individual, family and small community. It was already done in the First Rome and the Second Rome. It should be done with better success in the Third Rome.
The important part in the destruction of The Pyramid is the encouragement, pro-motion and support of the art that expresses humanity of any member of the society, from the upper class to the lower class. The American indifference to pain is now leading to the creation of cyborgs who will lack pain in The Matrix ruled by the inhuman super-intellect that is capable of calculation, but not compassion. I believe that this model is open to cyber mutations, because pain and compassion are nothing other than sensitivity to the environment, and the mechanism of survival. These cyber or bionic mutations will lead to the destruction of the human race, and any sentient civilization on the planet Earth.

13. If a non-human life (of your choice) could understand your words…what would you say?

I believe that we are essentially vibrational or wave beings. Our DNA is a bio-logical internet, data storage and communication system superior to any artificial one. Human DNA is antennae for the vibrational energy fields — gates between corpuscular and wave forms of life — receiving and transmitting, and immediately responsive to the emotional vibration. It is organized into a systematic whole with its own inherent semantics, syntax and grammar, analogous to spoken language. A person is a holographic crystal of the vibrations that he transmits and relieves. The universe is also a holographic quantum crystal with matter accounting only for 3 to 4%. A person either coincides with the crystal of the universe or not. The level of understanding depends on how success-fully the person can coincide with the universe. There are some semantics, syntax and grammar rules of how it can be achievable for the person.
Essentially, these rules are reducible to the three basic laws. The first law is: mind is identical with its object: the human brain produces waves of energy in order to grasp this or that object, and, in the moment of cognition, these brain waves become liter-ally identical with the holographic wave structure of the object. The second law is: the mind is not properly “human”: when a man thinks of infinity, the mind is literally identical with the quantum infinity. I agree with Aristotle that we can call sentient only the form of life that is capable of thinking of infinity. In this, my mind is identical to any other mind thinking of the infinity. That is why, the question “what would I say to the inhuman sentient form of life?” is irrelevant, because strictly speaking, my mind is itself the inhuman form of energy, and it is the same for all the sentient beings in the universe.
The third law is: my self-conscious thought of infinity is the only God that there is, and this thought is indestructible, it has no beginning and no end. This infinite self-conscious energy is what produces our brains on the corpuscular level. The idea of the hierarchy and emanation simply falsifies this omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience of the self-conscious wave infinity – The Light. Yes, humans differ in their ability to coincide with the universe. Yes, there are vibrational beings that coincide with The Light more efficiently, or, I would say, more lovingly, than many of us, humans do. All the minds in the universe communicate with each other, using the same semantics, syntax and grammar rules they use to coincide with the holographic crystal of the universe. This is true when they communicate inside the same dimension and inter-dimensionally. To the minds that are dimmer, than mine, I would say: Light and Love to you! And to those minds that are brighter than mine, I would say: Light and Love to you!

Liz-N-Val contribute to the Red Big Bang” – Irene Caesar

14. How would you like to die?

I was never created and will never die. I am an indestructible monad, though my body might perish or change. In the case I do not live till the age of a bionic man to ac-quire the immortal body, I would like to die with my beloved lying upon my body with his eyes to my eyes, his hands to my hands, and his lips tightly next to my lips, so that my last breath enters him.

Post Scriptum: The questions here were developed together by Sebastian Alvarez (Wanderlust) and Irene Caesar.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s