What is Secularism?

The Librarian says –
Hi there! You are currently
In the Reading Library—>
World Government section—>
S – Secularism.




What is Secularism?

By Virginia McClaughry

Yet another British Slavemaster subject…



You’ll see many propagandist writers using the terms “secular”, “secularist” and “secularism”. Some of them even try to backdate the term hundreds of years from where it actually first appeared.

The following is meant to be a brief primer on the term and what it was part of as an overall propaganda campaign of the British slavemasters*.

*What is a Slavemaster? – someone who insists that the bulk of humanity is their property to rule over. For a more in-depth discussion please see the Foreword of Mike’s book Scientology Roots.


200px-Holyoake2George Holyoake

George Holyoake is who first used the term “secularism” – in 1851. He used it as a catchall term for the previously generated propaganda heralding all the way back to Martin Luther – at the time of the rise of the British Slavemasters. (See The City of London – Rise of the Slavemasters)

Note: the use of the term “humanist” and “humanism” as it means today, constantly gets backdated by writers and historians to refer to things that were NOT called that, but were, its true, the same agenda.

Secularism was also used as an umbrella term for the later named “Freethought” societies and front groups.

The really interesting part of this, is that Holyoake invented the term “secularism” to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion.

Considering what is really meant by Anglican, and Darwinian Spiritualism, it’s obvious that this is just yet another way to hit the Catholic Church and its false dictatorship over the “spirits” of man.  Controlled Opposition…

Sort of a controlled opposition, if you will, which does tend to indicate that the Catholic Church is actually involved in this little exercise (sarcastically speaking).

Controlled Opposition, in my opinion,  is best described by two authors – one, more modern and the other, a former British Prime Minister.


“But that’s the way spooks play their games. If there’s going to be a social movement against whatever you’re doing, it’s best if you secretly create and orchestrate that movement against yourself right away so that it never does any unintended damage to your personal fortunes.”Steven Hager

 No Government can be long secure without a formidable Opposition. It reduces their supporters to that tractable number which can be managed by the joint influences of fruition and hope. It offers vengeance to the discontented, and distinction to the ambitious; and employs the energies of aspiring spirits, who otherwise may prove traitors in a division or assassins in a debate.

Book II  of Coningsby, or The New Generation, 1844; Quotes by Benjamin Disraeli, a later Prime Minister of Britain.
The whole book is also available at Project Gutenberg.

Particularly that last one, the first line, is coming out of one of the British Slavemasters core tenets that War is Good. War is beneficial. War is necessary to the progress of “civilization”.We love War
sayeth the Slavemaster



A later author named Correa Moylan Walsh, delivered perhaps one of the most unknown but most clear glimpses into the mind of a Slavemaster, in his book The Climax of Civilisation published in 1917. See Inside the Mind of a Slavemaster for much more information and an analysis of the book.

Here is just one priceless quote –

.. advance in civilisation has rested on something else than collaboration, at least than friendly collaboration.

…This is strife, contention, competition.

War, in other words.

[War] It serves the purpose of spurring on to greater effort not only by the sentiment of emulation, because of the dislike of being surpassed, but by the actual need of exerting all one’s energies to avoid being subdued.

Also it kills off those who lag too far behind, some times directly, generally at least indirectly.

Strife is thus the weeder-out of the weak and unfit.

War is good, see?

Now look again at what Benjamin Disraeli said – and I think you’ll more fully get what he means now.

No Government can be long secure without a formidable Opposition. It reduces their supporters to that tractable number which can be managed by the joint influences of fruition and hope. It offers vengeance to the discontented, and distinction to the ambitious; and employs the energies of aspiring spirits, who otherwise may prove traitors in a division or assassins in a debate.

Book II  of Coningsby, or The New Generation, 1844; Quotes by Benjamin Disraeli, a later Prime Minister of Britain.
The whole book is also available at Project Gutenberg.


One of the things the Slavemasters, be it Kings, Priests, or “leaders”, are most afraid of is being de-powered and having to rub shoulders with the “muck” of humanity – as they view the rest of us.

They do know that this is a weakness, and they do know that their ideas about “civilization” are both unnatural and unnecessary amongst thinking beings who are not animals. The problem is that they don’t care, this is how they want things and they aim to keep them that way.

Since they know all this, they know (or they think they do) what someone who wished to restore a more natural state for people to co-exist in, would most likely attack them on. So, they try and create that opposition in any number of forms, so that they can a: attract away “recruits” from their actual enemies and b: do a sort of a straw-man on the idea or subject and “win”.

By that I mean, that they can plant whacky people in it doing whacky things (discredit), plant ideas that can be later proven false (discredit) and generally try and “defeat” the attack they think might come. But, and this is important, this is ONLY a defeat by perception. They have not actually taken on their enemy, and actually, probably know they could never win if they did.

That’s why I call it a straw-man – they are “defeating in effigy”.

Otherwise known as –


Strawman argument - meaning

So, what then, is the point of their doing this controlled opposition tactic? What are they trying to achieve?

Well, the real point is trying to turn the rank-and-file AWAY from their enemy’s support when they do come.

Get it?

And, in the very best scenario (in their mind) they successfully fully recruit people into their little slavemaster cabal.

In this case, (secularism) their controlled opposition tactic is concerning rule-by-the-people (instead of them).

That is where both Secularism and its later word – Socialism come in.

There were two forms of this Socialism business – well expressed (but not clearly named) in Correa Walsh’s book.

One was the strawman – look how ridiculous this is, burn it down form (Russia is an example), the other was actually a form of Nationalism, but ONLY how the Brits thought it should be. Walsh specifically exempted National Socialism from his critique of socialism.

Quite tricky, actually, and National Socialism is a perfect term. It’s basically the same thing, modernized, as medieval fiefdoms. Imagine that worldwide, with lots more people and technology and you’ll see it staring you right in the face.

It is not socialism that the slavemasters are against, it is socialism that transfers the power to the people instead of the “elite”, that’s what they are against. They also call this same idea “nationalism” as opposed to national socialism (where they are in control) – just to confuse the issue even more. The truth is that it’s nationalism that THEY DO NOT CONTROL that they object to.

This is why they throw around as a slur, the word “nationalism” – while at the same time being members of one of THE most nationalistic places on earth, England.

And so, living in constant fear of their fellow man, they go through all manner of contortions and permutations of straw-men that they mastermind and control behind-the-scenes, to try and prevent their demise as rulers of the world.

For one of their religions (and I use that term sarcastically) to gain power, they know that it can only look “good” when compared up against maximum horribleness.

In other words, they and their religions and world government ideas only look good compared to something worse.

That’s not saying much for it’s merits, it’s like only giving these two choices…

not much of a choice

and of course, compared to a pile of shit the banana peel at least “smells” better, even though you now have to “slip and fall” on it. But see what I mean – they BOTH suck, just one looks LESS sucky than the other.

What you don’t see is the choice they don’t want you to have – which isn’t horrible for anyone but them.

See why control of both pro and con sides of “socialism” plus the controlled solution to this false dilemma of their “synthesis” (Hegel) of National Socialism? Which, by the way, they don’t call it that themselves – they call it “world government” or “religion for humanity” or “league of nations” or some such BS.

So, about our “new social order” embodied in the term Secularism. What, exactly is George Holyoake borrowing from?

I say that because Slavemasters are forever renaming things to try and prevent a straight-line view of the intentional and massive propaganda campaign that has been handed off by generation after generation of slavemasters.

This is not just “human nature” – what goes on around here – it is a completely dedicated and co-ordinated plan that has been being nurtured for over three hundred years. Naysayers who try and caw differently, are either outright slavemaster proponents themselves, or “useful idiots” – as the slavemasters call those of you that are easy to manipulate.

George Holyoake, was what was previously called an Owenite, or a Co-Operator.

What’s that?

Well, Frederick J. Gould is who referred to him in that way. Gould would later form “modern humanism” together with Temple Emanu-El’s Felix Adler and Stanton Coit. Modern Humanism or “Ethical Culture” being simply another re-naming of this same… let’s-have-a-NEW-social order propaganda.

Frederick James GouldFrederick Gould

…the witty old Owenite and Co-operator…
cite: F. J. Gould’s The Life-Story of a Humanist, published by Watts & Co, London 1923, reproduced by the Leicester Secular Society.

What do these terms mean?

Well, they actually go together somewhat, in what they are referring to. But, especially easy to pass over and just think it means what it means normally, is the term “Co-operator”. You probably already passed right over the term, thinking it just means the normal use of the word. It doesn’t. This was actually a name for a political movement of the 1800′s.

To understand why Gould referred to Holyaoke in such particular ways – we need to back up here.

George Holyoake wrote The History of Co-operation, wherein he describes the discovery of a record showing that the first Co-operative Congress, at which Robert Owen had been present, had been held in Manchester on 26 May 1827. These “Owenite” Congresses stopped in 1835.

Understand where we are in time here, in relationship to the long-running Cecil Bloc agenda of how the world should be run (and by whom).

Andrew Jackson was President of America, at this time, and due to his clear adherence to the principles and founding sentiments concerning the British (as per Thomas Jefferson) he had been prevented from becoming President in 1824 under a cloud of spurious activities on the part of Anglophiles in America. But, Jackson won by a landslide in 1828, and again in 1832.

The whole time that he was President, he was systematically and inexorably engaged in taking down the Cecil Bloc choke-holds. Holds that had been ever so carefully (and stealthily) placed around the throat of the young nation. Starting, with tearing down the Merchants bank (British Cecil-Bloc bankers) called the Bank of the United States and finishing up with making America debt-free for the only time in its history.

Understand that from the very beginning, with the formation of the East India Company in 1600, the Cecil Bloc slavemasters used such “trading” companies to provide cover for their intelligence operatives.

They would go into a country and gather intelligence, then formulate a plan to take over first economically, then politically – ending up with them running someone else’s country and its people now  slaves to the whims of the British Empire.

With America, they had already well-engaged the first plan, and were hard at work on the second when President Jackson delivered a killing blow to these plans – setting them back DECADES.

The example that free America was setting, word of it was spreading like wildfire to the other peoples of the world in such far-flung areas as China, India, and Africa – ALL considered British Empire holdings in one way or another.

Thomas Jefferson described this phenomena well.

Before the establishment of the American States, nothing was known to history but the man of the old world…steeped in the vices which that situation generates….

– (p. 818)


The flames kindled on the Fourth of July, 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism ; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.

— To John Adams, vii, 218. (M., Sep. 1821.)


The light which has been shed on the mind of man through the civilized world, has given it a new direction from which no human power can divert it. The sovereigns of Europe who are wise, or have wise counsellors, see this, and bend to the breeze which blows; the unwise alone stiffen and meet its inevitable crush.

— To Marquis Lafayette, vii, 193. Ford ed., x, 179- (1820.)


The light from our West seems to have spread and illuminated the very engines employed to extinguish it. It has given them a glimmering of their rights and their power. The idea of representative government has taken root and growth among them. Their masters feel it…Opinion is power, and that opinion will come.

— To John Adams, vi, 525. (M., 1816.)


We have the same object, the success of representative government. Nor are we acting for ourselves alone, but for the whole human race. The event of our experiment is to show whether man can be trusted with self-government. The eyes of suffering humanity are fixed on us with anxiety as their only hope, and on such a theatre, for such a cause, we must suppress all smaller passions and local considerations.

— To Governor Hall. Ford ed., viii, 156. (W., July 1802.)


  Jefferson Cyclopedia pages 818, 352 and 353, and pages 775 and 819, respectively.


The eyes of the world were upon us and it was catching on. The British stood to lose their other holdings asThe British had a lot to lose… well, if they didn’t “change” their tactics and start trying to trick people into thinking they were free (when in reality, they were not).

This is also part of why they “suddenly” chose to come out against slavery – it was a PR positioning. It was also an economical hit against the South, where both Jackson and Jefferson hailed from. The Cecil Bloc people didn’t care about the “atrocities” of slavery – look at the states of existence in India (under their helm) all the way to today!

No. What they cared about was losing control of the people in the rest of their holdings and they wanted America back in that position, be it overtly or covertly.

So, that is what is going on at this time of Robert Owen and his Co-Operator congresses – the British slavemasters stood to lose their ENTIRE empire if they didn’t change something. So, I wryly say – now they start talking about “co-operation”.

It really does become extremely very easy to see why the Brits suddenly went into such an accelerated and furious propaganda production mode during the 1800′s – covering both the apparently opposite bases of “new ideas” and “ancient teachings”. Controlled opposition tactic, in the flesh.

So, here in the 1827-1835 range, those Congresses that were referred to as both “Owenite” and “Co-operation”?

They were the baby of front man propagandist Robert Owen exactly when Jackson was tearing down the Cecil Bloc bank!

Now we’ll look at what were the ideas being presented at these Congresses, although I think you can tell that the Brits were trying to get people to “co-operate” with them in their world plan of domination – it’s just a minor detail that they don’t tell them the WHOLE plan.

They usually attempt to cover the stench of their plan by misappropriating words that have no business being anywhere near them and their crazy goals. Words like “freedom” and “scientific”, “rational” and “logical” – not exactly their strong points, sarcastically speaking.


Robert Owen (1771-1858)


Robert Owen was a Brit who tried to re-present the “blank slate” (tabula rasa in latin) idea around the turn of the 19th century. He pretended that it was a “new” idea, when in fact it was a fairly old one.

He presented that man had no personality, no character at all, and that on this “blank slate” so to speak, his character had been formed by circumstances over which he had no control – therefore no-one is to blame for their behavior as “he” (man) is not a proper subject either of praise or blame.

A real humdinger of wishful thinking.

These “principles” then led up to the practical conclusion that “the great secret in the right formation of man’s character” is to place him under the proper influences–physical, moral and social–from his earliest years.

This and more are in his first work, A New View of Society, or Essays on the Principle thof the Formation of the Human Character, which is the first of four essays that began appearing in 1813.

Note the date. This is in under thirty years from the American Revolution, and just after the American government had just killed the first Bank of the United States – the anglophile and british agent Alexander Hamilton’s baby.

See why they would now have to start paying attention to “the masses”? They had just lost one of their richest holdings – America – TO THE PEOPLE.

So, now it’s urgent – how do we control what the people think and act like.

Enter Robert Owen.

I’ll give you a few example excerpts.

Any character, from the best to the worst, from the most ignorant to the most enlightened, may be given to any community, even to the world at large, by applying certain means; which are to a great extent at the command and under the control, or easily made so, of those who possess the government of nations.

– Title page


And in preparing the way for the introduction of these principles, it cannot now be necessary to enter into the detail of facts to prove that children can be trained to acquire “any language, sentiments, and belief, or any bodily habits and manners, not contrary to human nature, even to make them, to a great extent, either imbecile or energetic characters.”

– page 10



– page 13


They direct that the governing powers of all countries should establish rational plans for the education and general formation of the characters of their subjects. These plans will be devised to train children from their earliest infancy to think and act aright…

– page 19

So, to be an “Owenite”, as George Holyoake was characterized, means that he was part of one of the next-gen plans of “socializing” man into the British New World Order agenda, in this case Robert Owen’s writings.

Owenites formed “Co-Operative” this, that, and the other thing based on Owen’s writings. Most of these were more than 50 years after he published his essays.

So what that means, is that the British Slavemasters, in approximately the 1870’s or so, decided to use Robert Owen’s writings to front for them, and their current phase of the take-over-the-world plan. This was the time of Cecil Rhodes, John Ruskin, Arnold Toynbee and other such “stellar” slavemaster propagandists.

In fact, another well-known “Co-Operator” was Cecil Bloc man – John Ruskin.

We have discussed elsewhere The Toynbee strategy as part of British tactics of war – thought war.

“He would gather his friends around him; they would form an organization; they would work on quietly for a time, some at Oxford, some in London; they would prepare themselves in different parts of the subject until they were ready to strike in public.”

John Ruskin was right in the middle of all that.

John Ruskin


Ruskin was a paedophile. Together with Lewis Carroll, they “valued” the innocence and lack of sexual being of young girls. Ruskin was seriously twisted in his views, and was very much into this whole “British rule the world” idea.

Ruskin had been unanimously appointed the first Slade Professor of Fine Art at Oxford University in August 1869, largely through the offices of his friend, Henry Acland. He delivered his inaugural lecture on his 51st birthday February 8, 1870, at the Sheldonian Theatre.

Imperial Duty was the subject of Ruskin’s inaugural lecture at Oxford, delivered to a packed audience  and its effects would be felt far beyond the shores of the British Isles. The lecture was published in his Lectures on Art (1894).

Cecil Rhodes (The Round Table) cherished a long-hand copy of the lecture, believing that it supported his matching views of the British Empire.

There is a destiny now possible to usOne kingdom; but who is to be its king?…will you, youths of England, make your country again a royal throne of kings; a sceptred isle, for all the world a source of light

And this is what she [England] must either do, or perish: she must found colonies as fast and as far as she is abletheir chief virtue is to be fidelity to their country…their first aim is to be to advance the power of England by land and seaThe England who is to be mistress of half the earth…

– John Ruskin inaugural speech

Well, that pretty much makes it crystal-clear where Ruskin’s head was at – and where it was wanted that other young British “heads” should be as well, whether they called it Owenism, or Darwinism, or CO-operators doesn’t matter. Just window dressing to cover their real agenda.

And, it should be a bit more clear why George Holyaoke, was being referred to as an Owenite.

So, Holyoake took Owen’s regurgitation of the same ol’-same ol’ slavemaster views, updated it for the next generation and renamed the whole idea secularism.

He also threw in that word nationalism we discussed, when the The National Secular Society was founded in 1866 with Charles Bradlaugh as President and Charles Watts Senior as secretary.

Ok, why do we know those names? Because in the library section covering the publishing of the Oahspe, Society for Psychical Research connections, we found out that the same publishing company (James Burns) that published the Oahspe also published as one of its first items? A book by Charles Bradlaugh.

We know the name Charles Watts senior as being the man that bought a press concern in Johnson’s court, and then turned it over to his son Charles Watts Jr., who hobknobbed with both Frederick Gould and George Holyoake making propaganda pamphlets for the “little people”.

So, now we can add yet another front group into the maze – The National Secular Society.

It combined previously existing societies into one group. Bradlaugh had been President of the London Secular Society from 1858 (that was Holyoake’s one) and had begun propaganda work of his own in 1860 when he became editor of the secularist newspaper, the National Reformer. This is around the same time that James Burns initially set up the London “seance” spiritualism center, which was part of the less public maneuverings of what would become the Society for Psychical Research.

The National Secular Society is a British campaigning organisation that promotes Holyoake’s secularism – this organization was explicitly created for those who reject the supernatural. Supernatural usually means “beyond human”, where human means the bodies capabilities or senses.

See how it ties directly into all the other “let’s make spirits equal to matter and having the same laws as matter” front groups?

Here is another clear example of controlled opposition, but one that reveals something quite interesting. Both the Catholic Church and these supposedly rational thinkers are united in their attacks against those “supernatural” abilities and the people who use them. Now why would they be united…


Something else that I find…

spock fascinating

The Holyoake based society also promoted that ‘this is the only life we have, and that we should work for its improvement’.

And that is another clear example of one side of this controlled opposition – this time against the concept ofCatholicism and Secularism? the immortality of a person in successive lives – loosely termed reincarnation.

Reincarnation is exactly one of those “sinful” ideas Catholicism had labeled derogatorily, so there they are united again with the “rational thinkers”.

Holyoake, Mr. Secularism, did not believe in God (of course) and was always on the lookout for new terms to describe himself and the other “rationalists”.

Particularly terms that obfuscated the truth of what they were up to – to the public.

For example, it was after the term “atheism” came to be regarded by the public as a negative word – that he invented the term “secularism” and that is why he invented it. Later on, Holyoake switched to the word “agnostic” when that showed up, and after “secularism” began getting a bad name as well.

First it’s atheist, then secularist, then agnostic – never changing the core plan or ideas, you understand.

See? That is three different times a new word was dreamed up to try and cover up the fact that it was the same ol’ idea. And then it became humanist and secular humanist later on!

As part of this continuing shifting around and inventing of new terms and front groups, in 1877 George Holyoake, John Watts and Harriet Law founded the British Secular Union, which remained active until 1884.

Also as part of that same shifting around tactic, just a few years earlier, together with Annie Besant and others, Charles Bradlaugh founded the World Union of Freethinkers in 1880.

That new Union, by the way, was an amalgamation of the National Secular Society and Charles Watts jr’s Rationalist Press Committee (later renamed Rationalist Press Association) whose members were Frederick Millar, Dr. R. Bithell, Charles A. Watts, and Frederick Gould.

These people are kind of the “next-gen” of slavemaster propagandists, whereas Holyoake was at the tail end of the previous generation.

This next-gen World Union of Freethinkers was simply yet another way to try and distance from the bad names (in the public perception) of the previous front groups, with new and different people saying the same core ideas, but using new words and more modern propaganda delivery vehicles.

Scientology is a nice, very modern and current example of this phenomena going on right now. There are “independent” and “ex” scientologists who are applying this technique as we speak. They are trying to update their little niche of the slavemasters so-called “enlightenment” plan, while also trying to distance from the now irrevocably slurred names of Scientology, Dianetics, and L. Ron Hubbard. This is all part of trying to keep the former core propaganda alive, and hopefully move it into the next generation.

Strangely enough, you will find these “modern” (former scientologists) spiritual thinkers doing the exact same other tactics that were done almost 150 years earlier. They “reject” dogma and cults, and so on. These are just updated terms, you see. They call themselves “thinking for themselves” which is exactly another way of saying the same thing as thie several generations back people did.

They called themselves “Freethinkers” and of course, these “Freethinkers” explicitly rejected all religion, and a Freethinker was defined as “one who rejects unverifiable authority in matters of religious opinion, accepts reason as the ultimate test and regards it as the right and duty of every individual to think things out for himself.” 2, 3,4

See what I mean? That is why you see these “evolved” Scientologists constantly going on about “thinking for themselves” – it’s just the same distracting tactic as the “Freethinkers” of the 1800’s. And that was done…why? To try and disassociate (in the eyes of the public) from the now busted previous front groups – while the core agenda remains the same.

Just a year before the publishing of the Oashpe (and the official formation of the SPR), on 6 March 1881 George Holyoake was one of the speakers at the opening of Leicester Secular Society’s new Secular Hall in Humberstone Gate, Leicester. The other speakers were Harriet Law, Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh.

Note: Frederic Gould, who was running the Ethical Culture Society headquarters, would shortly become head of the Leicester Secular society.

Annie Besant, who would soon play key roles in several other societies (including one with Helena Blavatsky) was smack dab right in the thick of all things propaganda for the Cecil Bloc “new order”.

And…that Leicester Secular Society place would be where Stanton Coit, Felix Adler’s ethical culture salesman, would meet up with Brit Frederick Gould – and form official Humanism.

This wraps up examining another part of the completely coordinated British Slavemaster agents network, and despite all the intervening centuries of smoke-and-mirrors and misdirection (and outright burying of the facts) – I think you’ll agree with me, that as I piece this all back together, the true view is growing ever more clear.


2. International Humanist
3. Time magazine article
4. IISG website

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.