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?
Capitalism created the need for government. Wow. It come as no shock that governments take their orders from corporations, though I never conceptualized capitalism creating government, tho’ a valid position.
I know your jabs regarding atheism are not directed at myself, nor do I take them as such. But I feel a word about my beliefs in order: My atheism extends only to the fashionable gods created by man for the means of their own ends, down to the lowliest parishioner who has god for no other purpose than to forgive his sins. Furthermore, this disbelieve in god(s) is not a disbelieve in the possibility of god(s). Nor is it endorsement of either creationism or evolutionism, or as you recently stated hybrid-ism. I simply don’t know. I suppose my position best stated as an Agnostic Atheist, although I sense a power in spirits, as yet I’ve been unable to confirm or benefit from whatever it is.
Regarding elections, you might find it curious that the State took it upon themselves to register me as a voter (I haven’t registered for decades). I didn’t oblige them the opportunity however.
On the subject of money, I ran across this the other day, for what it’s worth: http://www.ithacahours.org/
As to your last question, I would contend that all governments approve of genocide–tho’ how to implement it.
I look forward to your book.
You can call yourself anything you like, Peter. The truth is always in the heart and this is reflected in the soul (electromagnetic body). I understand what is and, I guess, that makes me different to many but the same as everyone. For the little I know of you; you are someone that thinks and, as such, are beyond “labels”.
Governments are running scared and I believe if sufficient numbers did not “vote”, the system would commit fraud to avoid “civilization” [sic] colapse. There are many barter/green money systems but all eventually end up merely “value adding” real money sales.
Genocide, Peter, is a “sound bite” – nothing more, nothing less. Governments have a problem with people that fall outside or will not conform to their plans. When considerable numbers [of the electorate] are armed with lethal weapons, the problem is magnified. It is the allegience to “order” versus the allegience to God.
When You get down to it, there IS a solution to the need for charity, as well as to a corporation masquerading as a government (virtually all “governments” are corporations on this planet).
That solution has everything to do with ending the need to exchange to survive (economics). Because Some have life&death control over Others, the need to exchange to survive is a powerful control avenue.
How would We eliminate this need? To answer that I wish to serve up a bit of My copypasta:
Let Me take You down to the foundations of why We exchange to survive (economics). When We first began acquiring and creating things with Our meaningful energy expended, the product of that expenditure was valued (and represented that energy, with the meaning setting the value) because We did not have the time/energy to acquire and/or create all We might want. We bartered and traded and work exchanged to fill all the gaps.
Eventually, these modes of exchange became cumbersome, and We began to agree on tokens to represent Our meaningful energy expended. Shells, beads, sticks notched and split. These also included coins of precious metals, and then bills when hauling metals around in large quantities became cumbersome too. Then the debt system, creating tokens through loans, eventually emerging and enhanced by a shift from paper entries to electronic bits.
The foundation of all of it still rests on the effectively scarce amounts of energy to be meaningfully expended.
The question becomes, do We really NEED to exchange to survive? What if We added free energy (and I personally know We have such deep in black projects)? What if We added robots in necessary work no One WANTS to do? We Humans will do things We WANT to do for merely the social currency We receive – thanks, appreciation, love, respect, reputation, lauds, name recognition, fame, Self satisfaction – IF We are not concerned about how We will meet the basics in life.
So Let’s look at adding free energy. Suppose We spent taxes to build and retrofit everything with free energy. The costs of energy would be removed – all down the line. Products become cheaper and cheaper – initially in any markets with high amounts of competition, but eventually in all aspects as pressure comes to bear.
So now, We can spend taxes on filling positions We NEED with Those who love the work, and robots to take up slack. At this point, the need to exchange is extinguished because, since 100% of the cost of EVERYTHING is energy, and We have removed the cost of both external and Human energy, everything becomes free. The amount We spend is irrelevant, for with the removal of money, all financial debt becomes moot.
Many of the industries We see today will vanish, being unnecessary: banking, insurance, Wall Street, advertising, accounting, sales, and cashiering (and what percentage of These that hold such jobs LOVE what They do and would not prefer to be doing something else?).
Along with these We will see also no more poverty, oppression, wage/debt and outright slavery, and biggest: profiteering. War profiteering (no war: “If You want peace, take the PROFIT out of war.”), prison profiteering, pharma profiteering (and thus the suppressed cures will emerge), medical profiteering, chemical profiteering, food profiteering, water profiteering, air profiteering.
It also pulls the money rug out from under the psychopaths that have matriculated to the top of the money/power heap (ALL money systems promote the most ruthless and psychopathic; They are the Ones who are willing to do ANYTHING to get, and keep, money/power over Others). They become equals with all the rest of Us, accountable as Individuals, as are the rest of Us.
If You would like details, I direct You to My work at these links:
The Plan: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum1/index.php?topic=5626.0
Also, I offer a 10 minute nutshell here, wherein to focus on the ideas, I remain anonymous:
For Us to choose to eliminate the need to exchange to survive, the ideas need to hit the tipping point – about 10% – and then it will seem everyOne is talking about it and 90+% will know about it. And THEN…
We WILL create better on this planet.
Thank You for Your time, and I hope to hear Your thoughts.
“If the universe is made of mostly Dark Energy…can We use it to run Our cars?”
“The LOVE of money is the root of all evil; remove the soil in which the root grows…”
“If You want peace, take the profit out of war.”
The problem is you are following the template of “traditional thinking”. Things did not evolve in the way you say, but there are undoubtably elements of truth. This actually goes far deeper than the problems of man. Indeed they stem from the colapse of the Satan Star, which enabled the creation of our reality, for had the Satan Star not colapsed there would be NO dark matter. Those who have the power to reach bliss will understand about the crystaline structures which appear as doorways. Management of duality has always been the problem. I have read your solution. Prime Law simplifies things further. Plus, what is property? Haven’t you just invented “commerce”? You are thinking on the right lines. However “those that care” usually have “agendas” and it is the conflict of agendas that has caused all global tryanny. Lance Hart produced a poorly written book called “Roll the Bones, Spin the Wheel” based on information given to him by Cetians (Black Aryan Human ET’s). Wheelism (as he calls it) is similar to your idea. Look up http://www.earthfixnow.com/. I will respond with my own ‘solution’ given time.
“Property” = things We have accumulated in Our lives, and the land We occupy. And no… ALL solutions to date have presumed We MUST exchange to survive. And yes, the path from the first exchange to survive to this point is a bit more complex – the introduction of money was a control move… But regardless, the foundation is still the accounting for meaningful energy expended.
Regardless of whether there were “metaphysical” aspects, because I cannot prove, and therefore cannot base a solution upon, these metaphysical things, I have spent 50+ years understanding and devising a solution within the mundane framework.
And no, I have NOT devised “commerce.” I eliminate it and all the legal BS attendant with it. No One HAS to add energy – but We WILL when We want to, either because We are impacted by a problem or because We CARE.
And agendas are driven by money/power over Others. What agenda could Those who care have with no profit motive? No power over Others?
As for ET… I firmly believe Some here are in contact, Others are ET Themselves. Be that as it may, I am not One to hope ET will come along and “save” Us. I figure that if We pull Our collective tail end out of this mess on Our own, We will be met more positively.
Property is very much the problem. Immediately you accept someone has the RIGHT to own a possession it has a threoretical value. Whether by “barter” or by tokens, this sets up the possibility for trade. What about if my “possessions” included 84 mansions houses, 453 luxury cars and, sorry, do I include my slaves as well? Do I have a right to steal any “unused” property? Do I have the right to profit? The only functional social order must be free of property, free of possession other than “that which you use”. Because you use it does not make it “yours”, but by permission of mutual love and respect of the social ORDER. As humans are naturally parasitic and greedy, it could not possibly work. However, the solution must be on the basis on zero ownership for a functional social order.
If I may interpose, thank you for the video, your proposed solution of which is well spoken, and The Three Laws. But if I may ask that if you truly seek a unifying solution (peace) why in your three laws introduce the noun human? Is this a simple oversight? Or is it a suggestion that the violence of killing other beings, damaging another being’s property (ecosystem), or defrauding (enslaving) other life forms is acceptable? Surely, any global solution worth considering would include all planetary inhabitants. Or perhaps all these “global solutions” and “the greater good” philosophies are doomed to fail—from the start—when they exclude other sentient life forms that we share, or should lovingly share this planet with.
Then again perhaps I’ve just misunderstood you, if so, please accept my apologies.
BTW, I love the wisdom of, “If You want peace, take the profit out of war.” It’s a great starting point provided we include the war on all life forms.
Thank You, Peter, for Your response. Firstly, the issues of cruelty are more a function of personal powerlessness – a “lashing out” as it were – than that of Humans in basic nature. In what I offer, We all have full power over Self (with no power over Others), and such behavior will be reduced radically.
Second, the cruelty in the CAFO’s (confined animal feeding operations) and other industrialized meat production is strictly for profit. Remove profit motive and We will not tolerate such cruel practices. It is because the 96% of Us that are NOT psychopathic will have sway, unlike now where the psychopaths have matriculated to the top of the corporate/commercial world and are out to make profit by any means, having the money/power over Others to do so.
But the true reason I did not mention the non-sentient, non-sapient beings has everything to do with the idea that Some eat animals – a natural thing, based on Our physiology – and I do not see it as My place to define for Others what They may eat (removing Their personal power/choice in favor of My preference). And who would enforce such an edict?
You may be interested in this:
Thank you, Amaterasu Solar. Sorry Ozzie, it was not my intent to hijack your post, so I will at this time withdraw.
Can’t seem to reply directly to You, Oz.
About property… Truly, when One can go to the interweb and order virtually anything One wants, “ownership” becomes more important in a keepsake sort of way. The three Laws become quite readily compliable because there is no motive to defraud, take or damage what Others are attached to, or really to murder – except in the odd case where a jealous lover chooses poor behavior. So “ownership” has no where near the importance it does in today’s scarcity paradigm.
Also, if there is WAY more than We can use/want on this planet, why NOT choose to see possession as “ownership?” If a friend paints a picture and gives it to You, are You supposed to let Others who appreciate it hang it on Their walls because it’s “all community property?” Not logical.
The whole “community property” of everything is a concept born of scarcity, and We are living in a time when We can shift into the abundance paradigm (and not that new age creppola that was put out to obscure My work).
As for Your mansions… You can have them, as there’s plenty for Others to have the same. Not sure why One would want so many – the care headache seems beyond worth the effort. And if You are not occupying one or more on a regular basis, what’s the point of claiming You own it? If You’re not doing anything with it, it is merely so much waste.
As for slaves? These would have to be People willing to pretend They are Your slaves. Can’t literally enslave People when They can order homes and products and services for free on the web. How would You even enslave Them, eh?
And it turns out We are NOT “naturally parasitic and greedy.” First, “greed” is a function of scarcity, and in abundance has no meaning. Define “greed” when We each may have as much or as little as We want. We LEARN “parasitic” behavior as a method of surviving in this world that accounts for meaningful energy expended, and all the emergent issues inherent.
So, I state that You are having difficulties grasping this because You have not yet shifted paradigms. You are still presuming scarcity issues and behaviors in an abundance of everything needed to support Our bodies, minds and spirits.
My comments are too subtle for you. Therefore, you can’t see it. You can’t comprehend it. But I will tell you this, you are doomed to fail as your system, if it ever “replaces” the existing one, will turn into what we have already. I need to move on…..keep an eye on future posts!
I will watch for future posts, but *I* say You’re wrong. There is no subtlety I am missing. You are pointing to things that have no motive in abundance. You speak of “slaves,” yet there is no power over Others to enforce slavery, no money to pay toadies to keep slaves so You would somehow have to be the “enforcer” all by Yourself.
You speak of “owning” many more houses than You could live in, and the only point to such behavior in this scarcity paradigm is to “have more than” anOther, to “one up” Those around One.
In a system where One may have all One wants, the “more than You” syndrome promoted in scarcity becomes moot. It is no longer a sign of “success.” What WILL determine “success” is what One contributes to the betterment, whether it is happiness, in the sciences, in the arts, or in solving problems.
Again, You have not shifted paradigms.
There is room for one final comment.
In the early days of the most ancient times, it was believed that all that were assigned roles would fulfil them. Education was not “growth through discovery”. Instead, students were programed using brainwashing techniques, such as repetative learning (sic). The problem was those assigned the worst roles bucked the system and, ultimately, nobody wanted to make any sacrifice.
Then someone, in most ancient times, well before Zoroaster decided that there were independed decisions. The body was guided by forces of “good” or “evil” and pschologists held the key to the spiritual compass. The most modern version of Zoroastrianism is Islam (a “version” of Judaism). According to Islam the ONLY way to be enlightened is to follow the Qu’ran by rote.
The alternative, and there was one only, was Buddhism. That asserted the growth of the body through discovery as there is NO good or evil. It was a new type of education where stiudents controlled their own destinies and they could REJECT the teachings of their masters if they could not live them. That wasn’t to say the teaching were bad. It is to say the teachings were not suitable for some students.
Your teachnings will perennially fail. I have begun to draft a solution which should be ready within three months.
I will persist in My work on this planet, awaiting Your work. Given that what I offer is a complete departure from how this planet is run since the history We have, I am unsure how the ideas can “perennially” do that, but My mind is open and I will see. [smile]
Thank You for entertaining what I offer.
Pingback: Support and Charity | ozziethinker
Pingback: Christmas Cash | ozziethinker
Pingback: Inheritance, the Prodigal Son and Interest in “Interest” | ozziethinker
Pingback: When “Belief in the Saviour” Teases Corrupt Zeal | ozziethinker
Pingback: A Crisis of Social Grooming: Fear and Manipulation at the Root | ozziethinker
Pingback: After Contemplating the Evidence; was Jeffrey Epstein Guilty? | ozziethinker
Pingback: The Sirius-Israel Connection | I am Exopolitician, iXossana reincarnated