Updated: May 24, 2021
HISTORY OF FINANCE:
We have lived in a financial system rooted in debt and its management. This systems has evolved over generations and in some cased has sought to bring getting levels of access while simultaneously expanding the financial sector through securities.
Lets take a moment to conceptualize the history of trade and finance. We started with a barding system, trading products and services for other needed or desired products and services. With population growth, each and every members means to generate resources, let alone the means of production became more constraint.
Lords/Kings/Emperors etc. have realized that supply one's people with resources is a strategy to prevent revolt, but it also is a means of motivation; driving behavior and leading to desired outcomes. With resource development and/or the means of production not accessible to every and all (greatest proportion), a need for greater access was to be conceived.
This new means of access was the creation of currency - finances. Now with currency having a creation root, there would naturally be a strong centralization of the resources needed for production, its means of production, along with its distribution.
This is where things get interesting and muddled. Religion being a major component to societies and leaders, the distribution became a fickle matter. How does one lend the means of access to others and recover the minimal requirement to cover production expenses. This is where the great dichotomy arrives.
Usury versus non-usury. First, usury is the ability to charge an interest rating on money(s) lent. Where as, non-usury, a lender in not able to apply any form of interest on money(s) lent.
When you look into the application of both system, one comes to quickly realize that non-usury is slave banking. If one is to request and be granted a loan, if this person does not have assets to put against the loan, he than becomes a resources that is to be used as collateral. If there is a forfeit on payment and you, as a person, are the collateral, what do you assume will be the outcome - forced labor markets.
Usury, is the tool that assumes debt begets reward - loan equals investment. Now no one can deny that sometimes investments don't convert. Sometimes investments are a consequence of one's eyes being bigger than one's stomach - greed. If payment is forfeited, it is not the individual who is collateral and as such there is no 'forced' labor market as consequence.
Jews historically have been exploited by leaders, both nationally and religiously, for their unique religious belief that usury is acceptable. There where families connected to houses and their sole role was to make a return on the leaders lending's.
This resources application of the Jews in European and Middle Easter houses, evolved into a new system with the onset of the Rothchild approach to lending. It separated the lender from the house and gained independence. That independence has broken a long history of the lender and house relationship straining and the house slaughtering the lender.
Jews historically have been exploited by leaders, both nationally and religiously, for their unique religious acceptation that differentiates them on a core principle and value from all other Abrahamic faith(s). The being their ability to apply usury on loaned money(s). There where families connected to houses and their sole role was to make a return on the leaders lending's.
Our contemporary system is what I have referred to as the Rothschild approach. A system rooted in debt as the means to generate value and in turn the necessity for the printing of bank notes.
Remember the distinction I made above regard usury vs. non-usury and you representing capital. I now ask you to take a moment and think about which demographic would feel this consequence the greatest?
I ask you to consider who would be the most affected and effected by the usury system because many claim our usury system is a slave system. A slave system be the same conditions that make it a system of the free.
Why would the faith that broke the chains of slavery seek out a means to put them back in those shackles? I would assume that is the opposite and the usury system facilitates freedom with greater access. To those who claim the requirement of debt for note creation is slavery. I retort by asking are you a slave to debt or are you a slave to consumption. Debt is merely the means to the end and it is the usury system that makes living beyond one's means possible. If you are the collateral, there is far greater risk and liability to borrowing. The real questions -
Does your debt related to consumption lend itself to future gains/investment?
Does your debt related to consumption speak to personal wants?
Does your debt related to consumption speak to personal needs?
Your answer to the above question should inform you to many notions of self and the state of society. - If your answer was (1) you conform to lenders expectations - the possibility of returns and recovery.
- If you answer was (3) that should ring alarms that society is failing its members and public response is necessary and required by all members of society.
- If your answer was (2) you are in opposition to the intention and means of debt. You are in a beer budget with Champaign dreams.
This is self destructive behavior that costs everyone and speaks to a much deeper issue. For example, your perspective of the usury system be a slave system. You perceive a slave as you master. So what needs to be asked is, what does that make you?
The question (what does that make you?) must be considered, especially considering that those who sit at the head table are attempting to transition global financing into a new era of non-usury.
Historically people, through religion, have been prevented from generating gains through usury. What if those gains where to be accounted and held in trust for the claimed purpose of aid. Under these circumstances usury is than accepted or so it is claimed - investing in tomorrow.
Within this new financial system the application of usury is dependent on the notion of aid, I ask how would such a structure exist is reality and not merely on paper. The only option would be to have communities as bank branches and the community leader as the liaison.
Community leaders liaising with executive staff from headquarters. The headquarters being large scale national and international organization. What might an organization like this look like?
The only organization that hold wealth and management at this level would have to be an NGO. With that in mind the structure would appear to have NGO's as the holder of wealth in the name of trust for the aid of interest groups. Interest groups acting as bank branches, distributing resources.
To go one step further when NGO's are negotiating wealth transference on a national level that mold their identity by referring to themselves as Civil Society or better yet, the 3rd branch of government:
Now we have individuals investing vast amounts of wealth in NGO's and you have nations transferring their wealth to Civil Society. The question that arises is what is their gain in transferring their wealth into holdings by a 3rd party organization in trust for interest group communities with the intention of distribution of resource.
Can anyone else see the pattern immerging - we are investing in opposition of our own interest. From a domestic population perspective, who is a member of an interest group community: women, LGBT, BLM...
Given this is the transference of resources into groups that stand in opposition to our own values and interest. Now all that is left to ask - are we and have we been funding our enemy? Have we been doing so through the centralization of national and international resources?
If I am not mistaken. International centralization of resources was the end game for the German Nazi regime. So why are we investing into self destruction?
Where does that leave the domestic population relative to access to this future financial system. Suffering and starving through attrition? We as domestic are now being ushered into a state of attrition as we no longer hold value to this future banking establishment and in turn are collateral damage in the transitioning into tomorrow.