This section on economics has been lifted verbatim from the manuscript that I mentioned will form a book to accompany this website. It was written some years ago and represents, in part, conversations which took place between me and a spiritual being (You don’t have to believe it) Toward the end there is a suggestion that I might like to challenge Tony Blair for his parliamentary seat. History will show that I didn’t but I am leaving the reference in because I have witnesses in the persons of David Bellamy and a man named Tyrone White who will vouch, I hope, that I did intend to do it. There is a spiritual message in this story (challenging Tony Blair) that will hopefully help to convince the sceptics that – well, whatever it takes to make them less sceptical. The dialogue is my wording of conversation recorded sometimes years after the fact.
Tommy is me –not my real name – and the person I am dialoguing with (bold lettering) is the Spirit. The vignettes about the Catholic Church (For whom I thank Peter de Souza and his book Vicars of Christ) make sense in the big picture of the entire book, I have left them in because they are interesting and break up what at times can be heavy reading.
So what are we going to do? I am stony broke, you are not going to give me any money and I don’t know where to turn.
Good. Now we are getting down to business. That’s why I am here. Tell me Tommy what do you think?
Me again?
Sorry Tommy that’s the way it has to be. You have to earn those stripes.
Well all right I’ll tell you what I think.
The world socio-economic order has been established by and inevitably on the principles of the Messianic Law. For this reason and because no one was aware that the Law existed, the socio-economic order is grossly unfair and inefficient. In other words it stinks. Am I on the right lines?
Spot on Tommy I could kiss you. Now what do you suggest be done about it?
We have to introduce another and better socio-economic system, forgive me I mean a new socio-political system. Economics suggests money and money in my view is the major cause of the problem so to find a solution we need to scrap the monetary system.
I’m with you Tommy, but do you mind if I suggest that your solution is easier said than done.
Now there’s an understatement if I ever heard one. The problems of this world, as everybody knows, are gargantuan and quite frankly not a single soul on this planet has, as far as I know, myself excepted, even a notion of an idea about how to solve them. There is however a collective view in the minds of many that some day and somewhere out there in the ether there is a solution waiting to be found.
The assumption is that this solution will come through the magic of either modern technology or the magic of Jesus who will appear on a cloud. But God’s scientific laws state quite unequivocally that the Jesus solution is a pipe dream, it cannot happen and the magic of technology is no more than the understanding and utilization of the laws of the universe that surrounds us.
Having said that, it is also important to note that though all technology can be explained in terms of physical laws it nevertheless is just as magical as anything expected of or by Jesus since nobody has the slightest inkling of an idea as to why the laws exist in the first place.
All I ask anybody to do is accept that they have not come about by serendipity, there is a great mind behind it all. This is all I ask people to believe and I do not even ask that without a reason. The reason for believing in this great mind or God is first of all because the existence of God is no less logical than the existence of oneself or of anything else in the creation – why should God exist is the same question as why shouldn’t He exist and the answer to both is, why not? The second reason for believing in God is because if we do then it is a short step to concluding that there is a purpose and from there to seeking out and discovering that purpose.
It is my contention that God has laid down a set of rules and it is my further contention that understanding these rules is the solution to our socio-economic-political problem and I believe I have found the key to the door behind which these solutions are hidden.
That key is the Messianic Law.
When we understand and accept this and only when we do, can we begin to plan for the infrastructure of our social system with the political system that the laws of God demand.
Cardinal Bellarmine in his book on the papacy wrote in the seventeenth century, “The Pope is the supreme judge on disputed questions of faith and morals - - - - -If the pope were to err by imposing sins and forbidding virtues the Church would have to consider sins as good and virtues as vices or else she would sin against conscience” Yet even Bellarmine who knew all about the Borgias agreed that Pope John XII was the dregs.
This is what I think you are trying to say, correct me if I am wrong: Out there somewhere in the “ether” there are a set of rules designed by God which when discovered and implemented will result in the establishment of Paradise Earth.
That is correct but we must be careful with the terminology. Paradise Earth or Utopia are not places where ones every desire will be met. The reality is that we live in the physical realm with all the problems of restriction inevitable in that realm. Paradise Earth is a physical realm of happiness where the agonies of poverty disease and hunger are eliminated or controlled. Once again this does not mean by the method of waving a magic wand but by understanding and therefore being in control of the forces of nature.
And this set of rules can be discovered in exactly the same way as the discovery of all scientific discoveries, which is; by examining the laws of nature?
Correct.
And you have discovered these laws?
I have discovered the key to the room that contains the plan.
And because of this you are the Messiah?
You said that not me. I don’t want the job.
You have to offer yourself Tommy. I told you why.
Tell me again I have forgotten.
The Universe operates according to forces. Behind everything that exists including the most apparently altruistic and democratic organisation there is force. No organisation, no institution no Church no political party can survive without force or the assumption of force to back it up. Religion is as good an example of this as any. They teach you that God loves you “infinitely” – the carrot, and if that doesn’t induce you to do as they say they follow up with eternal damnation – the stick.
Take a look into the solar system. In the centre of this system there is the sun. The sun controls the entire solar system by force.
What controls the sun?
After examining your solar system extend your vision to the entire Universe. What do you see?
Stars.
Those stars are suns also. And what are the suns doing?
You tell me.
They are travelling away from each other. Since there is no up no down and no sideways in the universe you can say they are going nowhere. They are just falling to nowhere. The suns it would seem are the only things in the universe that are not behaving according to forces. Yet even they must be acting according to forces since they are not travelling willy nilly, they are travelling all in the direction away from each other. Gravity is pulling them away from each other. If we begin to ask ourselves where does gravity come from we don’t have an answer so we can answer that question with God because our ignorance compels us at some point to start somewhere or else we shall spend an eternity going backwards and as a result never go forward.
“Our ignorance”? Are you including yourself in that?
Yes. I don’t know everything. I’m not God
Now Tommy the strongest force always rules. The creation and nature do not make provision for morality to rule. The Creation demands that the strongest rules and will not and cannot choose otherwise. There is one exception to this rule and the exception results from the sentient mind but even the sentient mind conforms to the rule except in cases where it miscalculates. If the sentient mind miscalculates that a weaker power is stronger than a stronger power, in that case and only in that case can a weaker force control a stronger force.
All humans let us exclude from this - for obvious reasons - the extremely mentally retarded, are sentient beings and they all operate according to the carrot and stick system. Imagine a horizontal line to represent a human life. Let’s be more specific and say your life Tommy. The length of the line is determined by the spectrum of human happiness. At one end you have total misery, you may call it Hell, the Catholic Church has declared it to be infinite torment for eternity. (The Catholic Church doesn’t mess about) personified by the devil and at the other end you have bliss, you can call it heaven personified by God.
You Tommy are somewhere along the line close to the middle and you can’t move until you are pulled or pushed by the force. The force created by the thoughts in your mind, thoughts that have evolved from the experiences of your life, thoughts that are completely determined by the program of your nature put into you by your Creator and those forces pull and push you in one direction only; toward happiness and away from sadness.
So what takes each of us back along the line toward sadness? The answer is circumstances and the calculation that to go forward you must go back. These are the only circumstances.
This is human nature Tommy.
I think fundamentally what we are saying here is that the human being doesn’t give a damn about anything or anyone in the universe but itself.
Fundamentally is one word you can use realistically is another. Do you have problems with that?
Of course I do. I was raised a Catholic, a Christian, I have been taught from the cradle that we humans should love one another. Now you are saying we can’t.
I am and I am not. Hard though it may be to accept Tommy, love is pure selfishness. The best example I can give for you to understand this is the love a man has for a woman. Is there any love stronger? Yes you say a mother for a child and I am not prepared to go into this except to say that it is a different kind of love and even that is selfish. For the moment I am using the example of man woman type love because it is often intense and can induce great passion.
“I will die for this woman. I will go to war for this woman,” says the man and he genuinely means it. Why? Because he loves her. Is it not true that such a man would do anything for his woman? It is isn’t it? - - - - - - - - - - - I wonder.
Will he let her go out and have a good time with an old boyfriend? No? Why not, wouldn’t that make her happier than all the jewellery he buys her?
The truth Tommy is that he wants her for himself and he is prepared to do anything to have her. This doing anything often means at times an unusual generosity which everyone confuses with selflessness but it isn’t selfless at all it is simply an example of the one step back two steps forward rule. Giving in order to receive more.
Now Thomas, when you appreciate that there is no one in the universe but you who are God you can conclude that there is nothing wrong with this selfishness, the only happiness in creation that matters is yours. However there is a problem. You do not just live in this body and in this “time frame” you live in all bodies and all time frames, so the happiness of all is as important as your happiness. It is all right therefore to be happy in this life at the cost of whomever you cause to pay for that happiness but unfortunately in another lifetime that somebody will be you. Are you with me?
I think so.
In a nutshell Tommy what I am trying to say is that the world needs a social system that is fair to everybody. With a political slogan that says, “All of us or none of us”
I’m sure there won’t be many people who will disagree with that idea in theory but it is a theory that is impossible to implement.
Do you really believe that Tommy?
No, but I thought I’d just throw it in for good measure or because that’s what everyone is going to say.
If you had told the people of 200 years ago about the technology of today do you think they would have believed you?
No, at least the majority would not have. Some will believe anything and anybody – millions believe that the Catholic Church is Gods institutional representative on earth for instance.
You’re at it again. The first step is to believe in the possibility of perfection and the rest is to strive. A journey of a thousand miles starts with what?
A single step? No, a thought a dream.
Spot on Tommy. Now where do you think we should start?
I think we should start by forming a political party that believes in the possibility of perfection and will not accept injustice or mediocrity unless God himself thrusts that mediocrity upon us.
What do you mean by that?
Well, I am only five-feet-nine-inches tall, I would like to be six-foot-two at least. I suppose one could see that as an injustice but there is nothing one can do about it, so we have to accept it.
Don’t you believe it Tommy. Take my word; there is plenty that can be done but not just yet. In the future the science of virtual reality will be developed to a degree that every one will be able to live a life so removed from the reality that exists today that if I was to tell you now how it is going to be you wouldn’t believe me.
Try me.
Sorry, I can’t but it is not difficult to imagine and anyway all you have to do is ask the people who are working on this type of technology right now and from their answers you will understand that I am not being unrealistic.
So I could be six-foot-two?
If you so desire, but the trick is to remove that desire, after all, what’s the big deal about being 6 foot two, is it not simply social prejudice that creates the desire in you? If everyone can be 6 foot two just by requesting it, who’ll have the hang up about height that you seem to have?
So back to this political party that you talk about. That’s an idea; you have to start somewhere, so I presume there would have to be a manifesto.
Exactly. We need to convince everybody or at least the majority of people that there is a way to a better life for all of us.
Do you mean everybody in the world?
Of course I do. One world, one set of rules applicable to every one of us and no discriminatory laws.
And one governing body I presume?
What else? Take a look at the history of the world. What has been the cause of all the wars?
Religion?
Sure religion has been right there in the mix but what is religion? It is beliefs designed to influence and control people for the purpose of imposing opinions in the business of territorial disputes and disputes over possessions. God did not draw national boundaries man did that. We need to establish in the minds and hearts of the human population that the world belongs to everybody not just to a lucky few.
Are you talking about the nationalisation of property?
Nationalisation is a pejorative word you’ll be saying Communism next.
Well are you?
At some time or other I shall have to deal with the question of communism so I suppose I had better do it now. Communism has had a dirty press in the West for the past hundred years or so. This bad press is not fully deserved. It is true that communism could not work and I shall explain why it was doomed from its inception but I do not think it fair that a truly well intentioned philosophy should be condemned out of hand just because a handful of ruthless dictators abused it.
From the very beginning there were two innate flaws in the philosophy of Karl Marx that guaranteed the inevitable collapse of communism. The first flaw was Marx’s ignorance of the law of nature, which compels every human being to pursue his own happiness. This ignorance cannot be blamed on Marx since until now nobody knew of it, however it prevented Marx from appreciating that unless the new authority, which took power from the Tsar was compelled by internal structures within the new system to do otherwise then it too would eventually abuse it.
The second reason was that although the Revolution condemned Capitalism they were unaware that Capitalism is the system imposed on us by God or in their Atheistic way of thinking, by nature. They did not and to this day do not understand that it is as impossible to discard Capitalism as it is to discard the atomic structure.
The problem was not Capitalism and even today it is not Capitalism it is monetarism. Yet the Communists not only failed to deal with the enemy by destroying it but they even participated with its insidious survival and propagation. Ignorance of the system condemned communism to failure and as a result foisted onto the world of ignorance the delusion that because communism failed and Capitalism didn’t - or at least not so obviously - then Capitalism is the way things are meant to be. The “commies” knew in their hearts as do all thinking and caring human beings that there is something inherently wrong with Capitalism, but they couldn’t figure out what it was. Today I shall try to correct that anomaly.
Following John XII there were two popes one chosen by the Romans and the other by Emperor Otto. Cardinal Baronius in his 16 th century Ecclesiastical Annals, “the greatest history of the Church ever written” maintained that Benedict V was the true pope and Leo VII was the impostor, yet Benedict grovelled at the feet of Leo and declared himself an impostor. It is not clear if a genuine pope’s assertion that he is not genuine is an exercise in infallibility. The ruthless John XIII who tore out his enemies’ eyes and slaughtered half the population followed Leo and Benedict. Benedict VII followed John XII. He too met his end in the act of adultery at the hand of an enraged husband.
Almost everybody believes that the world cannot function without money yet money does nothing but create illusion. If it were just useless stuff the world would not be as bad a place to live in as it is, but it is not only useless it is insidious. Money eats away like a cancer at the very fabric of society and - as with cancer - the living tissue surrounding monetarism does not recognise it as the enemy and nourishes it whilst it sucks the life out of society.
Every year the world spends £1500,000,000,000 on armaments. It spends £240,000,000,000 on cigarettes and tobacco related products and it spends many times both of these amounts measurable in trillions on maintaining and sustaining the monetary system. This is the wealth of the world pissed down the sink. Forgive my vulgar terminology but I use it to grab your attention while I emphasise that all of this wealth is 100% wasted. Those are 1991 figures.
Let us start with tobacco:
Millions of acres of land that could be used for the growing of food to feed starving people are put under cultivation every year for the production of tobacco, which serves no useful purpose. Indeed it is grown and then set on fire, literally wealth that goes up in smoke.
Not only that, but the effects of tobacco are well documented and devastating. There are over one thousand illnesses that are caused or exacerbated by smoking. Millions of hospital beds hundreds of thousands of doctors and more nurses are wasted on the business of caring for tobacco patients. Add to this the factories, labour, machinery and equipment and the vehicles wasted on this harmful product and it is obvious that to rid the world of it is an absolute necessity.
Is it possible?
It is very possible and quite easy to achieve with the desire to do it and the right attitude. Before I tell you how though I would first like to dispel the myth often used to justify the continuation of this dirty business. The justification is that it creates jobs and brings in taxes.
Jobs? What is the point of a job that is non-productive? Would it not be better to pay the people to do nothing than to do harm?
Where would the government get the money to pay the people if they don’t get it from the taxes of tobacco? That’s your next question isn’t it?
You can’t begin to imagine how mad that argument makes me. This entire business of where will the government get money is nothing but a big confidence trick designed and perpetuated by so-called capitalists to keep themselves in the driving seat and the rest of mankind or at least the majority of them in a state of permanent dependency.
Imagine if you will that the tobacco industry is in full flow. Well let’s not imagine it there is no need, it’s a fact. There is money in society, which the industry taps for its produce. Where does it come from? It comes from the Exchequer, from the government from the mint. And what law of God determines how much of this currency is in circulation? None. There is no law. The amount of currency in circulation in any country is determined by the subjective opinions and decisions of mortal men.
What is it that controls the decisions made by these mortal men with the introduction or withdrawal of currency from their “economy”? The Messianic Law, nothing else 100% the Messianic Law, I’ll explain later. For the time being let’s go back to the business of the money in society being used to keep the wheels of the tobacco industry turning.
For arguments sake we’ll assume that the tobacco industry is completely closed down , all the people working in it become redundant. What has happened to the money, which was being used to oil the wheels of this industry? Is it not still there within the economy, somewhere, mostly in people’s pockets? Is it not better in peoples pockets ready for use in purchasing something more useful than cigarettes, than in the hands of tobacco barons who will use it to generate inefficiency, carcinogens and other harmful effects? And when the money is spent on more useful purposes won’t those useful purposes generate tax revenue?
Surely it is better for people to be unemployed than employed in the business of destruction and production of noxious substances. As for this all-pervasive claim that the government needs tax money in order to execute its policies, it is the biggest lie ever perpetrated in the history of the entire economic illusion:
“The government needs money for - - - - - ”
That quotation induces into the minds of ordinary people the idea that a national government has a need for money and has a struggle to find it, which is directly proportional to the struggle everyone else has. “We need to raise taxes because - - - - health, education, etc.” This delusion is the first that must be dispelled.
If a government needs 10 times as much money as is already in circulation, what must it do to get it? Print some more or add a zero to all the notes before circulating them. Simple isn’t it?
You can’t do that. Inflation will go through the roof.
Everybody thinks that and everybody is wrong. At least they are wrong if they think there is no solution to the ever-pervasive thought that printing money is the root of all economic evil and if they think that printing money has to cause inflation. You are talking to a man who lives in a country that regularly has an inflation rate of well over 100%. I hear in Argentina the inflation rate at one time was over 1000%. The reason I mention this is because in countries like Britain with “stable” economies where inflation rarely rises above 5% the people think the world is coming to an end if inflation rises by more that 1% over the 5.
Don’t you think the facts speak for themselves? This country is bankrupt (referring to the country Tommy was living in at the time) both morally and economically. It is held together with handouts from the World Bank and the IMF. It can never pay off its debts. Isn’t that a sure sign that printing money to solve their problems and the resultant inflation is the cause of those problems?
What would you say is the value of a glass of water?
You are no doubt going to tell me.
It has a value somewhere between nothing and the entire creation both inclusive.
All right, I’ll buy it.
You are drowning in the river. What will you give me for this glass of water?
I see your point.
You are dying of thirst in the desert. What will you give me for this glass of water?
What does it matter if a loaf of bread costs £1 or £50 so long as you have 50 times more money to buy the second loaf than you have to buy the first one?
If I have nothing in my pocket and the government decides to solve its economic problems by printing money and doubling the amount in circulation how much have I lost with the inevitable inflation? Nothing. Only those with liquid resources can lose through inflation and the loss is directly proportional to the amount of money that one has. Great tax collection system don’t you think?
There is nothing wrong with inflation and it can in fact be a great asset to a nation but unfortunately - and this is the reason why the people with vested interest in maintaining the status quo propagate the myth of the evils of inflation – an inflationary system eats away at the wealth of parasitic members of society who think they have a God given right to a hedonistic lifestyle at the expense of the working classes.
Printing money does not have to cause inflation. Unfortunately in developing countries printing money is a solution to the revenue problems of an inept government whose policies fail to produce wealth. People in these countries are hoodwinked into believing that the printing of money is the cause of economic problems, “We have had to print money because we couldn’t raise enough revenue from taxes to meet the needs of government expenditure” is the excuse which alludes to the taxpayers inability to create the wealth that the budget requires, thus shifting the blame from the government to the people.
The Catholic Church of today claims “with the utmost consistency” that the “pope is the head of the Church on earth, Vicar of Christ, Rock on which the Church is built, bond of unity, preserver of faith and morals against which the gates of hell will not prevail”. Not only Baronius but also the entire population of Rome would have laughed at such theological nonsense. For them the gates of Hell had already prevailed. There was never any question in their minds as to how popes would save the Church since it was already and clearly lost. The only question of any significance that remained was “how the pope would save his own soul?”
During many decades of tempestuous events, Morozio (the mistress of one pope and mother of another – who imprisoned her)remained in prison. She was reduced to a withered heap of bones wrapped in rags. In her mid nineties neglected but never forgotten Pope Gregory V her grandson, aged twenty three and his cousin Emperor Otto III fifteen, took pity on the old lady, sent a bishop to exorcise her demons, lifted the sentence of excommunication, absolved her sins and then executed her.
Chapter 22
The dialogue continues.
Economists earn their living in an atmosphere of confusion, not knowing where they have been, where they are going or why. They take contemporary data and statistics, juggle them in order to impress or perhaps confuse lay-people and as a result obtain advantage. It is a glaring truth that the economy of this world is lop-sided and unfair. Yet instead of committing their lives to the correction of this anomaly, economists, throughout the ages, have operated from within its confines to perpetuate its insidious nature.
Suppose one man has all the nations currency in his bank account and it is his legally. The country would grind to a halt. Why? Would the wealth not be there in the country? The answer is no, money is not wealth. Like oil that has no value without machines to lubricate, money is useless without an economy. The man with all the money could be compared to a teacup with the Pacific Ocean as its source of liquid supply.
Greedy as he may be a man’s capacity to utilise his wealth is limited to the size of his stomach and the number of backs he has to put a shirt on. No country can support an industry to cater for one man’s needs so in fact there would be nothing to purchase with the vast wealth in the bank. What is it worth then?
A nation’s wealth or its ability to create wealth is to a large extent determined by a government’s willingness to distribute its assets among the people. Take a look at the nations of the world and compare the rich with the poor. The rich have welfare states, free education, free medical facilities, and unemployment benefits. The poor have mud huts, starvation and the right to survive if that right does not conflict with some despot politician’s ambitions. “That’s because they have the money and we haven’t,” say the poor countries. But they are wrong.
A man in the United States of America digs a hole two metres by two metres by two metres deep. It will take him one day and for his effort he will be paid two hundred dollars (a rough estimate). In Africa the same size hole with the same amount of effort can be dug for 50 cents, 20 if you are prepared to wait a little while for a mug or somebody who is more desperate than the rest.
Why can the Americans afford to pay so much for exactly the same thing yet have their economy booming whilst the African economy stands in ruins? Where do the Americans get all their money? The answer of course is simple. They get it the same way that countries in Africa get theirs, they print it, and they mint it. So why don’t the African countries do the same and print as much as the Americans?
Developing countries are dependent on developed countries for almost everything including and I suppose most importantly know-how and education. The know-how includes Western-style economics, which is influenced by long dead men. The logic of this economic theory – to me at least – seems to be: “Get the people to work for as little financial consideration as possible. In this way you will accumulate wealth. The more you pay the people the greater access they will have to wealth and thus their participation in it will deplete the store.” The logic seems sound and therein, partly at least, lies the world's downfall. It is not sound it is fallacious.
Take out your history books and look up the history of the British Empire, the richest empire ever to exist upon which “the sun never set” and yet throughout the tenure of that empire the majority of British people were living in a state of squalor. Their lives were not worth living, especially during the winter months. When did the lot of these unfortunate people begin to change? It began with the advent of Trade Unionism. Britain is no longer the richest country in the world but oddly enough almost everybody there is better off today than at the pinnacle of its empire days. Why?
It all has to do with the business of spreading wealth. Restrict it, confine it to a few individuals and like the engine with too little or no oil the economy will labour inefficiently or grind to a halt.
In Zambia twenty percent of the population is not involved in the economy with no access to the local currency. Add to this a large part of the workforce ( Zambia has 95% unemployment), which labours for slave wages; less than ten pounds per month. Is it any wonder the economy is collapsing?
In the nineteenth century Britain had the mineral wealth of half the world at its disposal. Unfortunately it was not at the disposal of all the British people but just a handful, namely the aristocracy, the landed gentry, the Royal family which I like to group together under the title of “the Parasite class”.
Now suppose you are one of these lucky people and suppose you came into the possession of, shall we say, a copper mine. What use would that copper mine be to you if there were none but a few dignitaries to buy the copper?
Industry depends not only on buildings, machines and raw materials but also and most important of all on a market. Capacity to consume or in other words a population is the primary and most important requirement for an industry and an economy.
What happened in Britain at the beginning of the 20th century to transform the lives of working people so profoundly? Labour strikes. The working people went on strike. “More money or we don’t work,” they said.
As everybody knew, giving the working classes more money would ruin the economy so the “Gentry, the Tories, the ruling classes” declared war on the working classes and the war has waged on ever since.
Now you may believe that Britain’s fortunes have sadly slipped because of the power and greed of the unions. Most people in Britain thanks mainly to the one-woman national disaster Margaret Thatcher actually believe that, the opposite is nearer to the truth.
The Working Classes went on strike for more money. If the parasite classes could have forced them back to work without paying it to them they would have done just that but fortunately they failed to get their way and the working classes were given more money. Where did that extra money come from? It came from the mint and it devalued the money in circulation that was mainly in the hands of the parasites. Shame wasn’t it? It did not however devalue the wealth of the nation.
The money that was reluctantly given to the working classes was potential wealth that the ruling classes wanted back, so they were compelled (or more realistically they compelled the Working Classes) to think up new ways to tap it. The result was more industry more commerce and a better economy. So despite their own greed and their desire to keep the working classes in a perpetual state of abject poverty (so that they could be abused as cheap labour) the entire nation - including and especially the same parasites - became richer.
Didn’t the unions eventually become too powerful and almost destroy the nation with their unreasonable wage demands?
That’s another myth rooted in half-truth, which has been successfully promoted by the Parasite-class to keep the Working - class in their place. “Divide and rule” is a term, which every schoolboy knows is the policy of colonial powers. What they are not taught is that it works right up to this day in Britain and all over the world. Tony Blaire the current Prime Minister is a puppet of the Parasites and not only that but the Parasites have managed to convince Working-class people that they – the Parasites lackies - are Socialists, they have turned the Working-classes against themselves. Margaret Thatcher is working class but never in the history of that class has there been such a traitor to her own people. And the worst thing about it is that in her wildest dreams Maggie cannot understand that she is a traitor. I am straying from the point.
According to The Messianic Law capitalism was designed by God, it is the policy of nature. Whatever and whenever a human being does something he first must calculate that he will make a profit from doing it. No profit no action. Whether you like it or not that is capitalism. Monetarism however is an all-together different kettle of fish. Monetarism is not capitalism yet most people do not understand this. Perhaps it would be best if I try to explain the concept of monetarism so that there is no confusion.
Benedict IX elected in October 1032 aged eleven was chief legislator and ruler of the Catholic Church. By the time he was fourteen a chronicler recorded that he had surpassed in profligacy and extravagance all who had preceded him. An observer wrote of Benedict, “ A demon from hell in the guise of a priest has occupied the Chair of Peter.”
Many of us have no idea how the monetary system works. We hear about stocks and shares, bulls and bears, the value of the dollar against the pound, interest rates, the stock market crash, recessions, Third World debt, and haven’t got a clue what it is all about. It is as if there is intrinsic value in money. We look upon it with awe, seeing it as the source of many great problems and assuming its value is equal to the problems that it creates or solves.
This ignorance is the first obstacle to finding the solution. Let us see if we can overcome it.
Let us unequivocally establish the true value of money.
A dollar bill, a five pound note is a piece of printed-paper. That’s it. No more, no less. Why is it important to understand this? One reason is; so we can appreciate that the claim by an individual that he doesn’t have enough money is not the same as the same claim by a government. In the case of a government the claim is simply not true. The government decides how much money is to be printed and provided it has paper and ink and a press on which to do the printing it can have as much money as it wants.
There is of course the little problem of inflation. Do you remember the story about people in Germany after the War taking deutchmarks in wheelbarrows to buy a loaf of bread?
Yes I heard that story. Was it printing money that caused that situation or was it the war? Do you remember the analogy of the glass of water that is worthless to a man drowning in a river but worth the entire universe to the man dying of thirst in the desert. If the man in the desert had a wheelbarrow full of money he would gladly swap it for a glass of water don’t you think?
The story of the wheelbarrow comes I think from the First World War but I’m sure it could be equally applied to the Second, toward the end of which the American and British bombers flew at the rate of 1000 sorties per night and dropped bombs on German cities. The bombs destroyed virtually everything, there was nothing left to buy so the currency was worthless, quite literally.
Difficult though this may be to understand and even more difficult to accept money serves no useful purpose. Let me rephrase that since for sure somebody will say, “Give me fifty quid and I’ll find a useful purpose for it.” Money is a hindrance to the progress of society its value is negative. If we can find a way to get rid of it, then the world will be a better place to live in.
Even if we accept that as the truth and for the time being I do not, getting rid of it or finding a way to get rid of it sounds like a tall order to me.
I didn’t say it was easy but I already have a plan.
Which is?
First we must convince the majority of people in the world that this is the best way to progress. The problem is The Messianic Law. It is not difficult to convince poor people that we have a better plan, any plan for them is better than what they have at the moment but unfortunately the plan must be propagated in a monetarist world and the leaders of the monetarist world have vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
I understand that problem and I agree it must be a huge hurdle to overcome but for the time being can you explain this theory of yours regarding the uselessness of money.
Certainly I can. First consider the injustice and the inefficiency of the monetary system. It is unjust and it is glaringly unfair and yet nobody, be it politician or church leader seems to give a thought toward the eradication of this injustice. They accept it as inevitable because the system has been around for thousands of years and quite frankly they believe there is nothing that can be done about it.
There is in England a man known as the Duke of Westminster said to be the richest man in the country. He owns property in London from which he “earns” £400million pounds per year in rents. The property was acquired by his ancestors’ way back in the 16 th century.
You are going to say, “Its not fair. Why should he have so much of the British cake without working for it, but he didn’t steal it. The property was acquired legally”. Are you jealous?
I am not saying it is unfair, fair is a relative term, his opinion of fair will be different to mine which will be different to the next man’s. And I am not jealous either since I don’t know him personally, he has done me no harm, however what I am saying is that the system for which he is not responsible is unfair and must be changed. I’ll try to explain.
In the last world war my two uncles, one, my mother’s only sibling and the other, one of my father’s two brothers were killed at the ripe old age of 20 and 19 respectively. They died to among other things, protect the property of the Duke of Westminster. For certain, if Hitler had won the war Westminster would not now be the beneficiary of the rents that pour in from “his” property in London. Indeed is it not also reasonable to assume that had Hitler got his hands on Westminster’s aristocratic family, they would not be alive today, much less milking the nephews and nieces of the men who with their lives saved his ass.
What benefit have my uncles or their remaining relatives gained from the sacrifice they made on behalf of the Westminster family? The answer is none. Who built the properties from which Westminster now collects rent? Was it not working class people? And who cleans the windows and the rooms who repairs the plumbing the lights and the brickwork? Is it Westminster? In every case it is not. So why is he the one collecting the rents?
There are “Pop singers” who earn more money in an hour than some of our finest engineers, surgeons and inventors. They would sing for nothing yet some people decide to pay them huge amounts of money that inevitably comes out of the pockets of working class people. Not only that but the queen even showers them with honours.
If they don’t want to sing let them stop singing. If they can’t appreciate that God has blessed them with a talent that gives them an easy life then let them discard that talent and go down the mines, into industry or sweep the streets in order to make their contribution to society. It is absolutely not necessary to pay singers fortunes to induce them to sing, they will do it for the glory. So why do we?
Again the fault lies within the system. People with no talent arrange for the singers to make fortunes so that they can dip their own snouts into the trough. The more the singers earn the more rake off they themselves get and the more the working classes are relieved of their genuinely and hard earned income.
Whilst we are on the subject of systems, let’s now take a look at the main element within the inefficient social system that epitomises the injustice of monetarism, namely - the banking system.
Try not to be taken in by delusions created by bankers (rhymes with) to justify their own existence. Delusions which among other things have most people believing that banking is an esoteric business understood only by highly intelligent initiates without whose dedication and commitment the wheels of industry and commerce will come to a grinding halt. Cobblers; is the one word that best describes that nonsense.
Banking is easy to understand so long as you accept it as an institution designed, maintained and sustained purely to steal money legally. And if you say that legally and steal is a contradiction in terms then I will say, “You are entitled to your opinion.”
I didn’t say anything. You are being emotional but on the whole, I tend to agree with you. Let’s hear your explanation.
Before I go any further let me point out that when I talk about bankers I am not talking about the exploited members of the working classes who keep the system in motion, I am talking of the parasites who do nothing but harvest the profits.
A bank is a shop that trades in money the one difference between them being that a shop is generally unable to sell goods they don’t possess. Let us say that a bank has one thousand million pounds with which it sets up business. They also have 100 banks, which are simply buildings or shops in which they do their trading. One thousand million divided by one hundred is 10 million pounds per bank How does the bank make profit? By lending out its money.
Mr Smith comes into the bank with a great business idea for which he needs a loan. The bank considers his proposal from the point of view of its own profit.Banks care not one jot about the success of their customers and less about the community in which they live. All that matters to the bank and no one should ever be misled by the banks continuous protestations to the contrary, are the banks profits. A bank is the number one parasitical institution.
When the bank has determined from its own criteria that it will make a profit from investment in Mr Smiths proposal it will agree to give him the loan he asks for. Eventually the bank lends out all the £10million of its liquid cash and then collects interest, finders fees, bank charges and anything else they can think of throughout the period that the unfortunate customers is in its debt.
Mr Smith did what with the money he borrowed? He spent it at hardware merchants, the builders and the electrical contractors. What did these people do with the money? They put it in the bank. And the bank lent it to someone else.
Who says the builders, hardware merchants and electrical contractors will put Mr Smith’s money in the same bank that he borrowed it from?
It doesn’t matter which bank they put it in because all banks eat from the same trough.
At all times there is a certain amount of money in circulation. Banks assume and with good reason that most of it, one way or another, will end up in their vaults. The physical money that leaves the banks is just pin money that people use for petty purchases. A great deal of money loaned and charged interest on doesn’t even exist.
That can’t be true.
Did you ever go into a bank, ask for and be given a loan?
Did you?
Of course I did.
So did I.
And did you walk out of the bank with the cash in a carrier bag?
No.
You didn’t physically see the money did you? They just gave you a chequebook or a credit card and you paid with those?
Yes that’s what happened.
So now what we have is just credit and debit entries on a computer. The banks charge hand over fist for money that doesn’t exist.
Surely that’s illegal.
Why should it be illegal? If there is no apparent victim why should the lawmakers - politicians many of whom are benefiting from the banking business- enact laws to prevent the accumulation of profit if there is no apparent crime no apparent victim and no one is complaining?
But what if everybody withdraws their money from the bank and by doing so exposes the racket that the banks are lending money that doesn’t exist?
Have you ever heard of that happening?
There is such a thing as a “run on the bank”
In the movies. It happened in Zambia because the big boys wanted certain uppity little banks to collapse.
What happens to cause a run-on-the-bank?
Usually a rumour spreads that the bank in question is about to go under – the rumour usually has some substance to it – and the customers rush to take out their deposits before it goes under. Such was the case in Zambia if I remember rightly.
Do you think those small banks in Zambia would have gone under if the big banks didn’t want them to?
You tell me.
No you are in the driving seat, let’s have your explanation.
There was a bank called the Meridian, owned by a Greek Zambian named Andrew Sardanis who became extremely rich as a result of his friendship with erstwhile president Kenneth Kaunda. The Meridian bank was international, with its shares quoted on the London Stock Exchange and it was up to the eyes in business dealings, which were so obviously shady that no “respectable” bank would have dared interfere with the process of their imminent collapse. But there were a couple of smaller national banks that could have been saved.
The Capital Bank was one such bank, which loaned money – much of it to its own shareholders – that it didn’t possess. Capitol Bank was - perhaps unfortunately – the bank of Kaunda’s most powerful opposition party and it was for this reason that the big banks allowed it to go to the wall.
When there is a run on a small bank it is usually if not always because small depositors lose confidence in it and dash in to withdraw their money before there is none left to withdraw. Those depositors have to put the money somewhere so it usually ends up in the accounts of the big banks. The big banks in turn send the money right back to the small bank that is experiencing the run until the panic has died down. Seeing that the small bank did not run out of money during the run the depositors assume that the rumours were unfounded and redeposit their savings with a new confidence.
A sort of party game you mean? If the big banks decide not to cooperate the small ones go under?
Exactly.
Why do the big banks allow the small ones to operate if the small ones are just stealing their business?
That’s a very important question, but a more relevant one would be, “Why do the parasite class allow some of the working class to get rich? Is it because of Christian ethics or an inherent decency streak in their nature?
Yes that sounds like a fair question.
I think the best way to answer that question would be through the understanding of the business of stocks and shares so I will do it that way but first of all I need to once again introduce the nature of man so that we are not deluded into believing that the parasites are good Christian altruists with nothing more than the interests of the human race at heart. I am saying this because you injected into your question the possibility of Christian ethics which if not dealt with will mislead people into believing that this world operates according to these ethics when in truth religious ethics are no more than a tool of our parasitic nature.
It is very important to understand that all religion is human concoction designed to control people (inability to prove otherwise is proof of this) I am not asking anyone to religiously believe that statement but I am saying that until people come to terms with it, real social progress is virtually impossible.
Karl Marx was correct in his assumption that religion is the opiate of the people but he was in error if he persuaded his followers that the solution to the world's problems was to destroy religion and all those who practised it. He was also wrong to conclude that because religion is the opiate of the people, there is no God.
Forces control the universe. Only in the case of sentient beings is a weak force able to control a strong force and religion is the manifestation of this fact. Thousands of years ago men applied their knowledge of it to control other human beings. Because of this control they became rich and because of their wealth they acquired power. Through the ages they passed down their knowledge and wealth through their descendants.
Do you honestly believe that these people advised their descendants to be conned by the same methods of religious persuasion that they themselves used to gain power in the first place? They did not, they were ruthless people, who did not fear ethereal forces because they ‘knew’ that the only ethereal forces in existence were created by their own minds to keep the Working Classes in abeyance.
Are there people who will stop at nothing including the use of religion in order to get there own way? Mafia? Don’t they go to mass on Sundays and confession on Saturdays?
Is it possible that the descendants of these people imbued from the cradle with the same code of ethics that they themselves practise, would lose their wealth and power through the ages? People who have no scruples whatsoever about murdering whomever might get in the way of their own desires?
These people, the parasite people and I don’t mean Maggie Thatcher or the Queen of England who are just pawns in the game, are here on this planet and as of always they control the world. If your lot in life is all right thank you very much then that is because your status is necessary for theirs and if you think they give a fig if you end up in hell tomorrow you are wrong.
