Upon learning of his victory in the November 2013 federal elections, new Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is quoted to have first stated, “We are open for business”. What did he mean by that? Was he referring to the numerous entrenched problems mostly caused by successive governments since and prior to federalisation in 1902? Or was he the kiddie in a newly inherited candy store?
Look, let’s be fair, this is a really tough subject. There are no easy answers because so many have deliberately obfuscated meaning for, in some cases, noble or, in other cases, rogue agendas. Summaries are polled to islands of information that eternally collect moss. If only these giant stones would roll, perhaps the insane might find some sanctity.
Other posts, other writings, other writers have questioned value. Some have gone so far as to say, “Who sets value?” Of course the perpetual, bland “market forces” is always the answer. Yet, this suffers the same fate as causality and the preferred “problem, reaction, solution” response. Without impetus there was and could not be causality unless the mindless atheist excuse for logic is applied (i.e. planned randomness with universes popping into existence). Just as with existence, value must balance or it is of no value. The first step of intelligent interrogation is money. For simplicity’s sake, let us split money into theoretical dollars and real dollars. Let us suppose, in the spirit of this simplicity, there is only one standard unit of currency, which is the dollar. Someone once equated the land value of the three miles squared Tokyo, Japan’s royal grounds to the land value of London (which occupies six hundred and seven square miles). This was before Japan’s market and currency collapse and I do not wish to dwell on the comparison other than in terms of buying power. The point I am trying to make is, have real or theoretical dollars been generated to enable a potential transaction and did they match at the time of comparison? If London’s land value is now four times the price of Tokyo’s royal grounds what happened to the theoretical or real dollars of old? Remember a transaction has not actually taken place. I am merely speculating on the funding allocation to enable the transaction. Then there is the issue when markets or currencies simply change. Is the funding allocation provision dynamic?
This is a very serious consideration as, if everything everywhere had funding allocations, would there be sufficient theoretical or real dollars to cover all transactions notwithstanding market forces? While on this line of thinking perhaps we should consider street performers or theatre companies. Could there be an allocation for non-assets? The performer does his or her performance and there is nothing to on sell – no asset. Sure, they can produce a DVD or a tape, but that is a different market. It is not the experience. It is not the real thing. And even if it were, why would a populated DVD be more expensive than a blank? So quintessentially, for non-assets do theoretical or real dollars evaporate off the currency balance sheet? Next article I intend to do a shameless plug of my unfinished book Dimensions, Deceptions and Demons. Let us say I was looking for backers and set a price of four million dollars as the net return to me, how would that be accounted for universally? It is completely new but only sort of tangible. Who would assess its value and add theoretical or real dollars to the universal balance sheet? Of course, I understand the economists are jumping up and down screaming, “It doesn’t work like that”. Markets are driven by market forces which underpin the principles of Capitalism with highest bidder pricing. Nevertheless the economists can protest as much as they like, because they know I am right and the system is limited by the perception of itself and that is why it was only the invention of stock options and derivatives that stopped a spectacular market collapse. It is through their creation that everyone realises the books are well and truly cooked and that is why every second news (sic) article is prophesising doomsday. Ironically, this is one of the compelling motivators behind globalism and United Nations federalisation.
Governments are not adrift from these market forces. They are, in fact, the creators of them. Governments do have the power to abolish money and commerce but Capitalists (comprising an extreme core vocal Industrialist base) hiss this would mean the collapse of civilisation. However, the Capitalist system is uncivilised as it promotes disorder in its promotion of the market fittest. Joseph P. Farrell is not the only one to suggest it but his book “Babylon’s Banksters: The Alchemy of Deep Physics, High Finance and Ancient Religion” is one of the most comprehensive analyses. In fact, Farrell goes as far to say commerce (Capitalism) not only preceded government, but actually created the need for government. Therefore, if governments are merely instruments for industrialist masters why do they perpetually deceive to their electorates? Evidence that governments are instruments for industrialist masters can be found in the way they sell policy. However, most compelling are the burgeoning private charity resources which, in typical Capitalist fashion, used to occupy top or second place of the London Stock Exchange as the Custodian of Charities. Connected members of the old boy network were issued large sums of free money to “direct” certain institutional charities. Apparently they had connections (whatever that means) or were jolly nice guys.
The point being is if a government’s prima facie is to serve the people, the emergence of any charity is evidence of a dereliction of that duty. There are an estimated one hundred million global charities. I will say that figure again. There 100,000,000 worldwide charities. That is the state of federal dereliction of duty. When asked who I vote for [in government], that is why my answer is always no one. To do that, I would be a traitor. The worst type of traitor wilfully deceives humanity. When the number of global charities is zero, then I will be compelled to vote but not before. This is not to say I would vote once totalitarianism was in place, but, anyway, if that were the case, voting would not be necessary as those who control would control and those who serve would serve. The idea of slaves and masters is an extension of the, can I call it, conspiracy evoking trading Capitalism and its servile world governments. Christopher Knight and Alan Butler’s work “Civilisation One: The World is Not as You Thought it Was” puts a case that all modern weights and measures stem from a much broader prehistoric standard. Global monoliths such as Stonehenge and Baalbek satisfy a near perfect global linearity modelled on the sexagesimal or base-60 calculation which approximates the distance light travels from sun to Earth. Even the Earth’s mass conformed to these calculations. Thus others have drawn conclusions that biblical “Gods”, such as the Yahweh (or, more correctly, “Beruzdia” type) and Elohim, were none other than trading extra-terrestrial visitors creating trading platforms on Earth and cultivating or creating human serf slaves. [“Clay” in ancient texts is better translated as “culture”. Christian & Barbara O’Brien “The Genius of The Few” speculate the God’s did not shed but gave blood]
As these Gods have not measurably revealed themselves for millennia, humans have stepped into to their void [as parasites] and parroted their ways, partially due to the numerous different types of hybrid. Initially there was the conflict between and subsequent exploitation of the gold (First World) and silver (Indo-China “Old World”) standards. Although, interestingly, the most ancient (ignoring the copper alloy at least 200,000 year old “Pittsburg Penny”) measure of currency (in human terms) appears to be the Aryan cuts of silver, now only the “abolished” gold standard remains hinting at the inevitable globalisation of commerce and federalisation of world government. The problem this, frankly, evil world government (in its current “sectionalised” form) has is the people are waking up. This has nothing to do with New Age Cosmic Christ [sic] or David Icke’s battle cries against a deafeningly phantom Reptilian conspiracy. It is to do with the fact all governments are covens of crooks. Any investment is for industry which might include feeding the slaves between labour requirements (social security) but certainly stops well short of social enablement of the serf classes. Occasionally a diminutive humanitarian gesture is made to fend off a potential revolt, but the ravine between what could be provided and what is amount to window dressing. The Industrialist masters are that sure things could quickly disintegrate into pandemonium; they have built numerous FEMA concentration camps and are trying to engineer civil war on their terms (Occupy Wall Street and other less public movements). This makes particularly interesting reading. Nevertheless the people, in their unstoppable slumber, refuse to take the bait. There will be interesting times to come as many fringe journalists are noticing a tightening of the noose of the Rosicrucian (Annunaki) “grand vision” of enlightenment. Oh yes, Hitler’s NAZI ideals were all part of that vision. The attack on the middle classes and non-global enterprise is relentless, but unsuccessful. No sooner than a vacuum is created, a new shanty town springs up in competition. Have they been beaten by their own game?
For those who cling to freedom, there are three major concerns which are being played out as I write. The industrialists are the justice (sic) system. They are the banking system. They are the police and the military. Therefore, by either categorising critics or provocateurs as mentally ill or terrorists their wishes or, rather, dictate will be upheld. Governments have grabbed all the land. For anyone who doesn’t agree with their tyrannous masquerade, there is now nowhere to live free. Those who camp on public land clear of the ills of industrial society can and will be rounded up, displaced back into industrial society or jailed or “suicided”. Eventually all with be chipped. Freeholders, landlords and tenants are held to ransom by a system that can pounce if the industrialists choose that it is so. If they desire it, it will be. Finally, and possibly most importantly, the modern version of the whip master is the recruiter. Realtors can blacklist tenants ensuring permanent homelessness. Recruiters, more despicably, can blacklist workers ensuring slow starvation. Imagine what will happen to those critics and provocateurs if all employment was filtered through recruiters. I shall cover immigration, the greatest assault on human existence and the forced use the banking system in future articles. Simply, for this entry, identification for work legality has empowered recruiters. Trade without banks would be tedious. Therefore, critics and provocateurs that boycott the system become dysfunctional to the point of inoperability. Only those with significant “cash-ets” can beat the system. The catch22 is a fait accomplis for if any individual had sufficient cash for perpetual survival, he or she must be an industrialist. For those that do not, will supermarkets have the right to permanently ban patrons? What of those who are extricated from the system?
The critics and provocateurs know that Christmas is just a crock of commerce, for who needs a “day” to be good? Tradesmen have not ceased to charge fees to turn up to unfixable engineering or electrical problems. Machines, of course, are built with redundancy, but surely a government for the people would supply a complimentary task force to assess what is fit only for the dumpster and what is not? To be fair, it is hard to be good. Because, as I outlined in “Who Sets Value and What Is the Meaning of Love” to truly demonstrate love, as opposed to infatuation or duty, you must support those that repulse. So there is place for deeply religious events beyond the crass commercial. In particular, the Christian Christmas is a time of indiscriminate giving to all. Governments should use that as their template if they really want to be for the people.
The deeper question is, under their terms of social disenfranchisement will the needy critics and provocateurs be supported by non-government “charity”? If not, does global federalisation approve genocide?