Hello again,
I’m taking a break from the evil empire and I’m back in the woods for the festive season. 
Although I’m a Christian Gnostic, this post will also draw from my *secular upbringing and love of philosophy–the wisdom of Sophia. Let me be clear on this point: the usurious central banker’s control over the nations is the exact opposite of wisdom. It’s foolishly evil. What this post hopes to do is reground Christians in first principles about how we should live. Or, to borrow a phrase from a meta-crisis site: the “democratization of enlightenment, sanity, and psychological sovereignty.”
synopsis
I understand that the positive structural changes we need as outlined in the blog would never be allowed by the powers that be. Control of a night’s sleep and a day’s food is the primary source of the banking mafias power and they will not relinquish that control voluntarily. Nor will they voluntarily stop printing money charged to the commons at interest. But I write this for any future investigators so they could see there were some sane people on this earth at the beginning of the 21st century who had clear spiritual insight. What humanity has to decide at this point is if they want the Central Bank crack dealers solving the problem of usurious crack currency because if this is what they choose they are choosing their enslavement. This blog suggests avenues away from a worst-case scenario on this issue.
I guess I should unpack the above. Where are we at in the 21st Century, from a Christian Gnostic view, when it comes to the economics of ‘Satan’s Majestic Domain’ here on earth? As soon as humanity agreed to put homes (a night’s sleep) under the control of the usurious mafia it was, in fact, the end of any culture that could properly be called civilized–at least from an accurate spiritual view. Add to this the intentional stripping away of society, and the groups that make society, from being responsible for their food supplies (having a direct relationship with the land), which has, in effect, created a civilization of dependency. Furthermore, the intentional indebtedness for higher education puts a heavy yoke on citizens right out of the starting gate…and well, it ain’t a pretty sight, when it takes until 40 to pay off education debt as a prerequisite to owning a home. And the god/s forbid you get sick in many of our usurious banker-owned countries–you will pay dearly to get treated. And say you’d like to procreate? Well, the central banks have that one covered for sure: it’s going to cost you a small fortune to have a child today.
All of the recent century’s economic shenanigans will reach a ‘vanishing point’ by the end of this century as there will be nowhere left to outsource and no country cheap enough to escape to. It now comes down to who decides the fate of humanity…Do we allow the oligarchs to commit mass genocide in an attempt to save themselves or do we find a way to live economically on this earth where everyone gets a partial win? The suggestions here are a chance for that compromise. My views offer up the most voluntary choices for humanity while not dismissing class structures or differences in human ability. These ideas offer capitalism an avenue of survival and acknowledge what it does well while unapologetically aiming to eradicate what is extraordinarily bad (and evil) about it.
My views on homes align with ‘property rights for all’ which addresses the notion that all people need a home. A large part of my thinking here goes to solving the obscene amount of homelessness in our current era. So although I suggest ^250 S/F parcels of land as a human right I am in no way saying all people must live their lives with that allotment. If one is happy with that allotment for their entire life then so be it but the COMMERCIAL economy gives the choice of larger houses and more property– although with necessary limitations that will prevent the hoarding of real estate we are now witnessing.
Humanity has not been able to solve the problem of money and I’m not seeing any healthy solutions in that regard today so what I’ll attempt here are avenues of mitigating the carnage it can cause. And although all people could investigate and embrace some of my ideas this blog is directed towards Christian communities and nations.
Here is what Aristotle thought money needed best to work and to my knowledge, no money ever emerged that satisfies these qualities.
- Durable- the medium of exchange must not weather, fall apart, or become unusable. It must be able to stand the test of time.
- Portable- relative to its size, it must be easily moveable and hold a large amount of universal value relative to its size.
- Divisible- should be relatively easy to separate and put back together without ruining its basic characteristics.
- Intrinsically Valuable- should be valuable in of itself, and its value should be independent of any other object. Essentially, the item must be rare.
I should note first that ideally I agree with Aristotle that money would be best used as only a medium of exchange but I also agree this is incoherent from the perspective of teleology as a kettle can be used as a paperweight so things can and do have more than one purpose. However, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. A baseball bat can be used as a weapon to murder someone…
I think if Aristotle were alive today he’d be horrified that we now live with the economics of pyramid/ponzi schemes and grift all founded on usury. Add to this that countries like Canada only work on one primary premise now which is all things must proceed as the moneylenders want them–in the early 21st Century that would be economic rent-seeking and monopoly. In other words, make it **illegal to build a useful widget and base your economics on the passive income grifting of usurious speculation–‘money earned while sleeping’…Add Bitcoin to that list as it’s another currency based on speculation. The Central Bankers are making moves that will effectively make it impossible for you to have shelter if you do not meet their credit score standards–this is truly economic obscenity from a spiritual point of view.
The problem with money being a store of value is one of hoarding so this is primary to address. It’s not so much that a store of value is a bad idea but we should implement policies (laws) that prevent the few from hoarding all the money–and the self-selected few who control its supply. We’ve seen this again with Bitcoin and entities like Blackrock, and billionaires, in general, having gamed the casino and bought out huge amounts of it; we are also seeing the hoarding impulse work its way into private property with entities like BlackRock buying up huge percentages of available real-estate. I’ll address this later. We see both Bitcoin and housing run primarily as speculation for the casino owners.
The question that arises, I think, is at what point does this monetary hoarding trespass against the ‘common law’? We are well past that point, IMO. And, please note again, this isn’t a treatise against capitalism, but an avenue of exploration away from its worst impulses and tendency towards fascism (the corporate hoarding/takeover of nation-states); nor is it suggesting communism as a solution because free people do not want the State controlled by ***Jewish Elites (WEF Rothschilds) who then create a renter society of slaves. No no no! We must not hand over the earth to Hebrew delusion in any form.
I should mention here that Republics for the people end when billionaires seize control of the political sphere; and again, we are well past that point. The Rockefellers ended any attempts at a Republic and turned America into an empire for Israel. The State’s role should be allotting minimal property rights for all as explored in this blog and issuing a means of exchange that is not charged at interest to the commons via private banking cartels. Implementing the RESIDENTIAL economy as outlined in this post will set up the conditions for a spiritually healthy COMMERCIAL economy–at least to a certain degree.
So this paper assumes that money in itself cannot solve the many structural problems plaguing civilization although the focus here is on Western nations and especially Christian culture. So this paper will explore ways to solve this money problem without money itself to the degree possible. The problem in our world today in developed nations is that poverty in our era is directly linked to not having enough money. There is lots of food but there is a problem if you have to get it from a food bank, via theft, or credit cards. Our streets are now littered with ‘humans as societal waste’ because of capitalism’s toxic elements. The solutions suggested herein are large-scale-full-spectrum Anti-Trust type laws that make it impossible to hoard money or homes and housing along with making it illegal for the fascist corporatocracy to buy out all our mom-and-pop small business enterprises.
It should be said before I go further that modern capitalism succeeded (generally speaking) in ^kicking humanity off of the land (I understand it was a feudal system) and privatizing ownership into the hands of the elites who used the land as and for their crown corporations. It was a dual-mode gambit that ended any self-sustaining livelihood for the masses and was instrumental in taking away options about how to live while making the masses of humanity dependent on the elites for homes and food. In other words, extremely coercive and implemented via imperial violence–especially against all First Nations.
A major retooling of economic structuralism is needed, though, and in this regard, I’m suggesting two parallel economies because of the failure of anyone to solve the money problem/crisis (see above). The base economy I call the Residential Economy which consists of humanity’s four basic needs of
food, housing, education, and healthcare.
All other commerce would take part in a second economy that I call the Commercial Economy–it covers all areas of marketplace economics that are not part of the basic needs economy.
I concede this is likely more than a tweak but rather revolutionary in its scope. But the ONLY way to solve the money problem is to have property rights as a human right and I’ll use ^19 years old for this blog. In the base RESIDENTIAL economy, available land would be divided up into 250S/F livable sections and this would be the minimum universal right of land ownership. The material needed to buy the Tiny House would fall under the COMMERCIAL economy, so yes…people would have to work to buy the products needed to build the house but two primary points are crucial here: there is no debt incurred with the basic minimal 250S/F property for life (for all people) and people can move into the COMMERCIAL economy and ‘grow bigger’ and own larger pieces of land and property up to TWO assets per person. Think of this as Anti-Trust laws specifically directed at homes and real estate.
It’s here where the ideal of voluntarism kicks in as anyone can choose to live their whole life on their 250S/F property and TINY HOUSE but are not forced to. But those who do choose to live like this will help create the steady state economy we so desperately need. People are free to move into the commercial economy which will offer them the possibility of working to own larger but no more than TWO pieces of private property–again Anti-Trust laws within the sphere of home ownership.
To implement such structural change would require a retooling of the primary school system which would add in courses that taught all children about basic economics and basic building knowledge so they can build their Tiny Homes within the base RESIDENTIAL economy. Another aspect of the primary education system would be to teach basic home food production so that everyone can learn to grow, at minimum, small portions of their food supply–or as much as possible. This retooling of the primary school system aims to teach the masses how to live sustainably within what is called a‘steady state economy’ at the basic needs RESIDENTIAL structure.
NOTE^ I hear Alex Jones ranting against the idea of small parcels of property but I never hear him cough up solutions to the vast amounts of homelessness we are seeing.
NOTE^ The mercantile elites succeded in removing humanity from a relationship with the land and the outcome of that thinking is an A.I. interface trapping humans in further simulation.
NOTE^ I’ve picked numbers that are somewhat arbitrary in this blog as the age of land ownership could be decided by those who implement the laws; as well as such things as how much land per person should be the birthright (maybe they decide 333 S/F per person). The minimum basic need land ownership could be thought of in the same manner as the Basic Personal Exemption within the income tax domain–the same type of idea (universal in that everyone gets it). The primary residences in the RESIDENTIAL economy would have legal size limits but for COMMERCIAL enterprises there would be concessions for larger lots when commercial businesses (and not personal residences) ‘prove’ that larger land lots are necessary for their enterprises–say, commercial farming as one example.
The only exception here is when someone is mentally incapable of taking care of their small property rights. Physical disability could likely be managed via skillful means. Also, when people get married they could merge their properties when possible and build in larger sections as children are birthed. The idea that individuals and families could once again learn to live comfortably and healthily within smaller dwellings should not be met with irrational hostility as humans up until this century did live in smaller type dwellings on aggregate.
So humans, if they choose, can enter the commercial economy and become billionaires and the COMMERCIAL economy would allow them to buy up to TWO properties with lots allocated for larger homes. But I do think there should be reasonable limits on how much land and how big of a house (s)these people can buy and own. Maybe a 33-acre limit with 3300S/F as a limit for size. No one truly needs a 33,000 S/F house as that is simply a self-serving vanity project. Again, ANTI-TRUST-type laws on land and homes. I see that Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC also attempted anti-trust type laws by limiting land ownership (laws against hoarding).
NOTE* the West is no longer Secular in practice (in my view) as it is now run by high-level occultists.
NOTE** I’m being facetious here but the suggestion isn’t that far off. This goes to the question of who stole the ability of Hobbits to own their means of production. There is only one correct answer to this and only one religion that teaches this as a primary tenet.
NOTE*** The left is forbidden to talk about the Jewish Question as they know their income stream will be deleted if they talk about it. This reinforces the fiction promoted by Hollywood that the Jews are simple humble honest merchants who just want to mind their own business. Moreover, they create a complete omission within the societal dialogue that it’s the Jews who own and control America and that finance capitalism, premised on speculative usury, has absolutely nothing to do with the ‘Jewish-owned nation-state’.
THIS blog on antisemitism will be appropriate here.
Previous blogs on this theme are HERE and HERE…
A fitting end for this year’s blog:
I see that Elon Musk took a democratic majority rule vote on the issue of bringing Alex Jones back onto Twitter. I’m suggesting that about 2 million Christians be asked a question (in a YES or NO only answer) if they think God provided enough land on earth for all Christian people to have a home as a birthright. What say you Christians? Yes or no only, please…This is not a trick question.