How should Buddhists view usury?

What's a Buddhist to make of usury? Me, I think it's as wicked as a thing can be but what the hell would I know? I admit I am the world's dodgiest Buddhist, one entirely of my own invention. So never mind me, what do real Buddhists have to say on the subject? Or more exactly what did the Buddha say? In answer to this question it seems you have to take your pick between 'not much' and 'nothing'.


On searching, one very quickly arrives at the super-famous Noble Eightfold Path. The Eightfold Path is to Buddhism what the ten commandments are to Christianity, or Judaism, or whatever it was they pinched it from - the Book of the Dead was it? Anyway, the Eightfold Path is that variety of list-of-rules that I was trying to do away with when I came up with my genius continuum just up to the right here. But never mind, here is the Eightfold Path -

1 Right View
2 Right Thought
3 Right Speech
4 Right Bodily Action
5 Right Livelihood
6 Right Effort
7 Right Mindfulness
8 Right Concentration

For the record I'll state that whilst the Noble Eightfold Path urges one to ethical behaviour, it does so primarily to serve the Four Noble Truths under which it lies. That is to say that the Eightfold Path resembles societal rules but they are only so insofar as one following the rules will hopefully see all of his relationships as harmonious ones and from within this state more readily leave suffering behind ...kind of thing. Like I said, no great expert, me.


But nevermind the big samsara picture, I'm here to wonder at usury. And the part of the Eightfold Path where usury gets a guernsey is Right Livelihood.

5. Right livelihood (sammá-ájíva): abstaining from a livelihood that brings harm to other beings, such as trading in arms, in living beings, intoxicating drinks, poison, slaughtering, fishing, soldiering, deceit, treachery, soothsaying, trickery, usury, etc.

That seems pretty clear cut doesn't it? Not if you ask this Singaporean monk. His first stab at the subject goes through a handful of the great number of historical condemnations of usury (mostly Christian) but dismisses them on the entirely spurious basis that since some Christians spend their time condemning other silly things, then there's probably not much to it. Or something. Which is all very well but what if a Christian is standing next to a well and condemning it as poisoned? Um... do we drink up? Or not? He then takes up the subject again, this time focusing on the peccant word itself and wondering at its translation. It seems the precise translation from the original Pali is actually pursuing gain upon gain. To which one would have to ask, 'Yes, but what does that mean?' Says our Singaporean monk, probably not usury, it's probably just don't be overly greedy. Hmm... perhaps it's just me, but I find that all a bit soft and ploppy.


First up there's the nature of translations. Perhaps the phrase pursue gain upon gain is in fact the Pali for usury. It's possible. The Chinese/Japanese character for firework transliterates as flower fire. Okay, now picture that as a dead language for a culture that no longer exists and with us two thousand years removed. Then imagine an argument over the meaning of the following: During the Summer festival people would gather to watch the flower fires. Anyone declaring they knew what that was would be doing it on the merest of say-so. Mind you, our usury argument would be settled for sure if we knew the Pali for usury and could say that pursue gain upon gain is not that. But we don't - all we know is that in all of the texts usury/gain-upon-gain/whatever-you-want-to-call-it cops a single mention.

Not forgetting the flipside to this of course: Surely the speakers of Pali had a word for greedy, yes? It's a simple word well within the vocab of three year olds. So, if they wanted to say 'don't be greedy' wouldn't they just say, 'don't be greedy'? Why use some convoluted, ambiguous phrase rather than the obvious?

I ask the question about the translation here because when it comes to usury, confusion as to meaning is par for the course. For instance, what does usury mean in English? Is it (a la the bible) the charging of any interest at all? Or is it (a la modern dictionaries) the charging of too much interest? Webster's 1913 dictionary has the former as the first and the second meaning and the latter as the third. Curiously it's now the other way around. That publishers have chosen to alter its meaning over the decades may tell us about the nature of usury, or it may tell us about the nature of publishers. And what with precisely such an evolution taking place in the Oxford University Press's religion defining Schofield Bible, I'd put my money on the latter.


And then there's Islam. In Islam (cue the understatement...) they have a lot to say about usury. But here too things get curly. To translate usury into Arabic isn't as straightforward as one might think. Their word riba is usury ...but not quite. Technically it's defined as surplus value without counterpart. Does that make things clear? Hardly - arguments about what does and doesn't qualify as riba are endless. But regardless, here's one of the Quran's many proscriptions against usury -

Those who believe do not eat up riba doubled and redoubled (Quran 3:130)

Gee whiz. It sounds a lot like gain upon gain doesn't it? Otherwise, what is compound interest if not gain upon gain? No quibbling about the difference between interest and compound interest now - a single missed payment and the former becomes the latter.

So! In choosing which translation to go with, our Singaporean monk gives usury the benefit of the doubt. As do the people at the Buddhism A to Z page he refers us to. Says they, since it's legitimate to hire out one's ox, one's skills, or one's house, so it should also be legitimate to hire out one's money. Excellent! I'm sure those good people won't mind if I sink my teeth into this argument and give it a good chew will they?


Hands up everyone who can spot the odd man out amongst my ox, my time, my house, and my money. Sure enough the first three degrade with time. As more time passes there is 'less' of each thing: my ox is more arthritic, my house is more rickety, and me and my time? Gone - like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives, ha ha ha. Money on the other hand is magically possessed of eternal youth. It pains me to say this to a Buddhist authority, but the truth of all things must pass somehow fails to apply with money. I'll admit that with the passing of time money might buy less but believe it or not this isn't actually an argument against any of the above. Truth be known it's merely another usury-puncturing arrow in my quiver. But I'll come back to that.

Money is one thing, but money lent is another. Somehow debt is possessed of its own deathless voodoo. Contrived intangibles aside, everything that can be bought can pass from this world with the twinkling of an eye, but the money one borrowed to buy it with will remain as evergreen as the day it was minted. Financial armageddon can fall, with the value of everything turning to smoke, and yet somehow in amongst the carnage, debt and debt alone, magically remains inviolate. Indeed as more time passes after such an armageddon, debt, like some unholy thing from a perverse universe where time runs backwards, will only become greater.

Coming back to the ox and the house etc. where does that argument stand in the face of the fact that money is made out of thin air? When the privately owned reserve banks lend money to their respective governments (as is the case in every modern economy) they do not do so with money that they carefully saved over time and thus have sitting around waiting to be lent. Rather they simply declare that they have it (by entering the figure x billions into their computer) and they then 'lend' this sum to their respective governments. That may be hard to believe I know, but it's a simple cold hard fact. That is how it's done. Same-same when the IMF and World Bank provide 'bailouts' to various third world countries. Astoundingly each of these click-of-the-finger debts incur interest, which along with the principal must be paid in real world blood and treasure.

Oh, and that aforementioned devaluing of money? There's two strands to this. The first pivots on inflation wherein money buys less over time. Surely, one might ask, a lender needs interest in order to have the same purchasing power a year down the track when the debt is repaid? This will astound many people I know but this logic has the causality arse-about. Interest doesn't exist because of inflation. Rather inflation exists because of interest.

Think about it. Imagine a town without money - for the sake of argument let's presume they'd previously gotten by with a barter system. Now imagine a bank setting up in town with a thousand dollars that they then lend out in tranches of one hundred dollars. Assuming a ten percent interest rate at the end of that year the bank will be owed $1100. Excellent. But where does the extra $100 come from? It doesn't exist - the bank only lent out a thousand. Sure enough the bank will have to print it... and lend it. And there you are - welcome to inflation. Sure enough inflation can exist even in a non-usurous system by way of over-printing, but in no way is it an inevitability. A usurous system on the other hand, wherein money only exists if it is lent and what's owed is always greater than what's lent, can't not have inflation. It is 100% dead-set inevitability. Um... until it busts of course. And it will bust - it must. Here is a cold hard truth: usury = inflation and inflation = boom and bust. Truthfully, the only difference between usury and a pyramid scam is the time scale. In both of them a bust is as inevitable as the sunrise.

The second strand of the argument concerning a currency's purchasing power involves its value in comparison to other currencies. We imagine that this is due to some fault of that particular government's inability to manage their economy. Really? Who ultimately decides what a nation's currency is worth? Why was it back in 1999 that when I flew from Beijing to Tokyo I was unable to change my fat pile of Renminbi for yen? This was the official currency of a nation of a billion people and yet no one would touch it. Absurdity! The money changers at Narita Airport could have made a killing what with a zillion Chinese travelling through there daily and yet not one of them wanted to know about it. There was no way known that each of the individual exchange booths all arrived at the same prejudice. Clearly they were forbidden by a central authority from trading in Renminbi. As was, I was a penniless pauper reduced to borrowing from friends just to get out of the airport.

And then there's Zimbabwe. Who decided Zimbabwe's money was worthless? Why is it now not worthless? No mumbling about Robert Mugabe, something, something. Only banks may declare a currency worthless. Street traders and individual whomevers can only follow along. Fact is - the banks didn't care for Mugabe choosing not to borrow his nation's money from a privately owned reserve bank and so they set their exchange rate phasers to 'starvation'.


And here's the crunch - even when it's not imaginary, money is not a thing. It is just a means of exchange. As such, it is necessary that money be understood as utterly unlike anything else. Instead of viewing it as a commodity or a product, it needs to be viewed as a non-commodity, a non-product. Money's utility as a means of exchange only comes by way of enabling people to exchange real things (which money is not). This money-enabled exchange of real things is a useful activity which will feed, clothe, and house a people. Inversely, tying up the means-of-exchange in the amassing of ever greater sums of that non-commodity is the very opposite of this useful activity. And that is the ultimate truth of usury.

Or as John Whipple, an American Lawyer, wrote in 1836 -

If 5 English pennies... had been... at 5 per cent compound interest from the beginning of the Christian era until the present time, it would amount in gold of standard fineness to 32,366,648,157 spheres of gold each eight thousand miles in diameter, or as large as the earth.

Which is silly of course, but that's the whole point. And that point stands as inarguable: when the medium of exchange is treated as its own commodity it has no future that isn't insane. Never mind 32 billion earths made of gold, long before that point is reached there will be more debt than there is stuff in the world to pay for it with, people as chattel included.

I understand the desire to stick up for interest. Part of it is the temptation to view ethics, or right behaviour if you like, as a democracy, ie. if everyone does it, it can't be wrong. And who wouldn't want to defend such a pretty thing, singing such a pretty song? "I'll grant you something for nothing", it says. "All you need is enough money and you become your own planetary body with your gravity pulling in guilt-free money for the rest of your life." But the singers are sirens and their song a false song, a song of the self.


Besides which there's the simple question - why should someone who already has more than he needs (by definition a lender) be rewarded by someone who didn't have enough to begin with (by definition a borrower)? Best not to argue since there is no argument against the obviousness of this that doesn't end up tripping over itself.

May I make a humble suggestion? In amongst nitpicking arguments over manifold rules, what if we were also to couch that discussion in terms of the simple continuum at the top of the page? Just as a back-up, kind of thing? Would that be objectionable? Or might it be helpful? Then how might we view usury? Would it fall at the right end of the continuum or the wrong end?

How now usury? In a world where everything equals money, and money equals usury, what is a man who wishes to abstain from bringing harm to others to do?

Anti Assimilation Land™ - the explanation for everything

What is Israel? If you listen to Xymphora, Israel is, cue the fanfare... Anti Assimilation Land™. This is a phrase of Xymph's own creation and he's clearly very fond of it. Says Xymph, Israel exists on account of Jewish people's keenness for some kind of genetic purity. Or is it cultural purity? Whatever it is, Israel is the means whereby Jewish people can hang on to their treasured Jewishness.

What with Xymphora's propensity for peremptorily banning people from his comments, it's difficult to know but I ask the question regardless: Does Anti Assimilation Land™ as a description of Israel make any sense to anyone? Really? What is it?

I'll admit I can understand the need of Jewish people to battle assimilation. It's a war they've been losing for over 2000 years now. From the Marranos in Spain, the Donme in Turkey, and all those Sabbateans throughout the capitals of Europe, all exemplified by individuals like Shabbatai Tzevi and Jacob Frank through to Adam Pearlman and Joseph Cohen - it's just been one long nightmarish haemorrhaging of the Jewish identity. Honestly, it's a wonder that there's any Jews left at all.

Fatuousness aside, Jews are about nothing if not anti-assimilation. And it was always thus: us-and-them is, was, and always will be, the alpha and omega of their DNA. It's all that they are. There is nothing that a distinct homeland like Israel can bring to this equation. Besides which, all the identity sapping Hollywood drivel that the Jews foist on goyim outside of Israel is all right there inside Israel. They even have their own skinheads who like to beat up Jews. As for genetic assimilation... ha ha ha - everyone may feel free to roll their eyes. Up at the pointy end of the pyramid, the once-were-Jewish Sabbateans who founded Israel and choose not to live there, can look after their genetic material perfectly well thanks very much. They don't need a country for that. As for the dispensable hoi polloi, who cares? As long as they serve their masters, the masters don't care if they're black, white, or piebald.

Now that I think about it, the only rule is that wherever Jews live, they must look and sound just like everyone else. I know Jewish guys in China and Japan who married the locals and whose kids will be perfect Jewish chameleons. A jewish mother? All that persnickety shit? When it comes to the crunch none of it matters.

Xymphora's description of Israel is nonsense, and specious nonsense at that. I don't know where he's leading people with such rubbish but I think the expression 'nowhere useful' should pretty much cover it. As far as Xymph is concerned the world is very simple. There are Jews who love Israel to a greater or lesser degree, and there are goyim. And that's pretty much it. Banking is neither here nor there. The Protocols of Zion are a forgery. Apart from declared structures like AIPAC and the Bilderbergers etc. there are no structures that count. The pedophocracy doesn't exist. Satanism? The stuff of movies. As to why the American ruling class seems to constantly betray its own interests, Xymph is stumped. And 911? A very tricky beast for Xymph, one which he approaches very warily - best not to go there really.


With such a worldview nothing but gibberish can result. And so it is with Xymph's latest piece, some rubbish about Planning for a Post Israeli Warworld™. Apparently Jews have provided the Pentagon with Wars For The Jews™, ie. our current wars on Muslims, and what with Israel due for destruction any day now (no explanation as to why - it just is) the Pentagon will be stumped.

Folks in the Pentagon aren't dumb. Withing ten years, Jewish Israel won't exist. What then for the generals? How will the Pentagon transition to a world without Wars For The Jews?

No wars! Disaster! The world's biggest military - running around like heads with no chickens.

But it's good news apparently. Whilst the Jews do control the media, that's not enough to control the Pentagon/MIC who are just too strong. So once Israel is gone, the Pentagon won't need it to gin up wars for them and thus they can drop Israel. And then Israel, which was gone to begin with, will really be gone. Circular Logic - my favourite sort. Sure enough, without Israel as the only reason for Jewish control, America will be free at last, free at last! Or something like that. Either way, it's good apparently and we should all be pleased.

Yeah. You'd have to wonder what the Pentagon did before the Israeli lobby took over US foreign policy. What were all those other wars? Why was the US in Hawaii, the Philippines, Central and South America? Were they to be homelands for the Jews? I'll admit that it's possible that all of those were Wars For The Jews™. But how could they have been, without Israel in the picture? Perhaps it was an anti-assimilation policy by way of a global thousand-points-of-light?

Keep in mind that in Xymph's world there is no such thing as privately owned international banking, certainly none with any power to achieve anything. Adam Weisshaupt and his Rothschild bankrolled Illuminati friends played no role in the French revolution. No one backed Napoleon nor played both sides of the Napoleonic wars. No one bought the Bank of England. The first world war was some variety of well-what-do-you-expect. There were no bankers at Versailles. Stalin wasn't bankrolled by anyone, nor was Hitler, well, not beyond some free beers at that beer hall that time. "Who wants the free beers?" "Just putsch them right here thanks barkeep!" hyuk hyuk.


Whatever. I just made all that up. Xymph doesn't really do history. No need since it's easier to dismiss banking as playing any role in anything. According to Xymphora, it's all about Israel as ultimate be-all-and-end-all to Jewish aspirations with the ultimate tier of power in this enterprise comprised of The Jewish Billionaires™. These billionaires are not bankers but rather some variety of the owners of the means of production. Xymph is down with Marx in declaring 'Bankers? What bankers?'

Meanwhile here at this infinitely less famous blog, where we groove on a slightly more nuanced view of the world, let's see if we can't paint a more sensible picture of Israel. In thinking that Israel is doomed, Xymph is actually correct. Israel is to be destroyed but not in spite of the best efforts of a handful of give-us-Israel-or-give-us-death billionaires. It's to be destroyed because it, like Elvis and Michael Jackson, will have become more valuable dead than alive. And its founders who eat billionaires for breakfast won't shed a tear. This on account of the fact they are perfectly cynical bastards who are as devoted to the Jewish cause as Walmart is to all their staff for whom they bought life insurance policies.

The people who founded Israel have ambitions way beyond the Shitty Little Country. They look at the world and think, 'Why not?' Go read the Protocols. Tell me it isn't a blueprint, and a good one at that. And as if people with ambitions at that scale, along with the global-banking means to achieve it, are going to baulk at one crummy bit of real estate in a waterless DU dusted hellhole and all pivoting on a religion that they no longer believe in.

Israel was not founded to be a sanctuary for the Jews. This was just a cover story like WMD's in Iraq was a cover story. We know this because the Nazi's efforts to send the Jews of Germany to Israel were viewed by the Zionists not as any kind of gift horse but rather as an opportunity for protracted dental inspections. Besides which the Holocaust wasn't re-imagined as, and named after, a variety of sacrifice for no reason.

Israel was just a vehicle, a geographically based means of utility, and all to the truly grand purpose of achieving the long sought after New World Order. The fact that the entire population of Israel fell for the lie that it was all about them was, well... what do you expect from the self-obsessed? Like they were ever going to believe otherwise.


And then there's Xymphora. I'm not saying don't read him. For everyone who lives in that world with no banking elite, free of satanists, organised paedophiles, and other such chimeras, and with the Jews solely in orbit around nothing but their Anti Assimilation Land™, he's entirely peerless. Meanwhile back in the real world, I wouldn't give you tuppence for him.

Saving the good Israelis from the bad Sabbateans

In floundering about attempting to figure out the puppets, the masters, those who are both, and who's at the end of the trail of strings, I vaguely arrived at the phrase 'once-were-jews'. It's looking like this was correct but not quite correct enough. It seems the missing word was 'Sabbatean'.

I don't need to explain Sabbatean do I? Everyone reading here will already be up to speed thanks to the great work from the marvellous AP at Twelfth Bough (and here and here) and the saucy schoolgirls at Aangirfan, yes? If you're shuffling your feet and looking guilty, shame on you. These two are turning into the best tag-team partners since Brute Bernard and Skull Murphy. (Hee Hee, and no, you may not ask which is which. Dreadful)


In amongst the aforementioned (non-wrestling) duo's various links to Henry Makow etc. are also links to assorted Jewish sites wherein Sabbateanism and its founder, Shabbatai Tzevi are discussed in a, how shall we put this? ...in a 'confidently shy' fashion - a bit like Madonna singing about being a virgin, ha ha. Extraordinary statements will be uttered in the most matter-of-fact way without any hint of surprise, wonderment, or what-does-it-all-mean. The fix is in and they know it.

Clearly Sabbateanism as right up there with the USS Liberty, the dancing Israelis, the contents of the Talmud (etc. etc. ad nauseam) in terms of 'things to be swept under a Jewish rug'. You're not meant to know. Actually do they have Jewish rugs? Perhaps they have Jewish rugs like they have Jewish falafel and Jewish kaffiyeh? Who knows? Either way, it may be discussed, just not amongst the goy.


But then you come across oddities like this at Rense. It's a longish article by Barry Chamish explaining the wickedness of the Sabbateans but from an Israeli point of view. Almost as good as the article is the introduction from another Israeli fellow, Shulamit Greenberg.

Dear Mr. Rense,

I read with interest the excellent article you posted today about the Zabbateans plan for a Jewish holocoust (sic!) in Israel. http://www.rense.com/general66/dweyb.htm

You Americans should be aware that the Zabbateans, in the opinion of many Jewish scholars today, are now in total control of your White House. They are always installed strategically in Washington as 'advisors', 'spokesmen', 'consultants', 'experts', 'institutes', etc.

I would like to inform you that their name is usually spelt as Sabbateans. I am enclosing an article below about them by Barry Chamish who is the best investigative journalist we have in Israel.

http://www.barrychamish.com/html/kerry.html

I am congratulating you for understanding the importance of this article, the Sabbateans plan to destroy Israel is the key to understanding evil today. By posting this article you proved again how much you care about us in Israel. These articles about the Sabbateans hold too, the key to understanding the evil behaviour of your current White House.

Since many of us in Israel are Listening daily to your radio programs audio-archives, may I humbly request, if it is possible for you to interview someone on this shocking subject, maybe Barry Chamish again.

I would like to thank you for being the best information website for Israelis, your wonderful Jewish staff seem to work relentlessly to bring us the REAL news.

Sincerely,

Shulamit Greenberg Tel Aviv Israel

I didn't really need to post all of that but the relentless self-obsession was irresistible. Self-obsession aside, is it just me or did we all just step through the looking glass here? An Israeli is concerned about the White House being taken over by Sabbateans and how these Sabbateans wish Israel harm: sorry, should we be laughing or crying? I'm a bit confused. Is our Shuley here really trying to pretend that Israel isn't the tail that wags the US dog?


Or is there some other Israel that I don't know about? Perhaps there's a good Israel that isn't the most murderously psychotic shit dribble the world has ever seen? It's either that or Ariel Sharon was confused when he said, "We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

The thing that pisses me off about the chosen is how they perpetually insult my intelligence. They imagine that I'll fall for any shit lie that trips from their lips. Clearly Greenberg didn't think about what he's saying here - he just says it and since it's him that's saying it we'll all fall down and believe him. He really must think we're stupid. If the US is Sabbatean, then Israel must be Sabbatean. Israel was founded by Sabbateans for Christ's sake. Besides, the article he's introducing says so. And what? Is he expecting that we'll vaguely imagine that somewhere along the line Israel came good? How many times have we been told that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? Okay so which bits of Israel's history are plebiscite-ratified expressions of non-Sabbatean Jewish will, and which bits are anti-Jewish Sabbatean trickery? For instance who owned the recent slaughterfest in Gaza? Was it the good Israelis or the bad Sabbateans? I just have to shake my head at someone who thinks they can get away with such shit.


Perhaps this was what Orwell was on about in his use of 2+2=5? Could it be that 2+2=5 is not just a discussion of what we can be made to believe, but also of the truly deep stupidity of Orwell's lies-is-all-they-got ruling elite buddies? It's the Fabian Socialists as Python's four Yorkshiremen.

Back to our Shuley now: it's not any sort of simple stupidity we're talking about - that could be forgiven - rather it's that variety of stupidity that imagines itself as really clever. With a bigger-than-all-outdoors sense of shamelessness to go with it. Were we to somehow bale him up, I expect that our Shuley here would be perfectly happy to pile lie upon lie, each more pathetic than the other, to really epic proportions, and all just so he wouldn't have to concede that he'd bullshitted us. Other people do this too but no one can hold a candle to Jewish people. They're really something. And sure enough, (and provided no goyim were watching) they'd read that and nod. And smile.


And from Shuley's one-off effort to Jews broadly discussing Sabbateans publicly - I expect that there will be very few discussions of this nature to be found. This particular piece dates from 2004 and I'd be prepared to bet that Shuley and Barry would have been on the receiving end of a pretty impressive shut-the-fuck-up. Sure such a conversation was never going to go mainstream and get published in the NYT (God forbid) but here at the edges of the net (ie. on Rense) it was never going to fly either. Not when the audience is already familiar with the talmud. Thus when Chamish declares in his article -

The initial financiers of Labor Zionism and Theodore Herzl were barons of the Rothschild clan. Their goal was the creation of a state in the image of their Sabbatean beliefs: that is, anti-Torah, anti-Talmudic, anti-religious and anti-Jewish.

- does he really imagine we'll meet this with anything other than guffaws? In what fashion are the Sabbateans anti-talmudic? They're uber talmudic surely? They are nth-degree-talmud-plus. Sure they are more Jewish than Jewish.


It seems Chamish and his buddy Greenberg are confused. Boys! Let me help you both out. The Jewish us-versus-them mindset could more accurately be described, certainly on an individual basis, as me-uber-alles. Do you get it? Inherent within such an us is me. And you both seem upset that amongst the Jews there are those for whom me has superseded us with alles now including, um... you. Ha ha ha ha - well, what did you expect? Did you not ever figure out that 'honour amongst thieves' is a con? It only exists until someone decides that it doesn't. You tell me - isn't Judaism the perfect breeding ground for such an individual? The talmud, wherein the simple truth that we're all in this together is discarded in favour of obvious nonsense about being chosen by God, with everyone else to be used and abused, was always going to produce monsters. Never mind your bleats of 'but I'm chosen too...' Monsters eat their own and they don't give a shit.

Besides which, you want us to battle the Sabbateans do you? And the Sabbateans differ from you how, precisely? Aren't you all just a gang of bank robbers with you now pissed off that there was a gang within the gang? And what? You've now found out that after all those bank robberies and all that murder, you've been gypped - there's no loot and you're to be handed over to the cops. Well gee whiz, we should join you in condemning that wicked gang-within-the-gang. The thought of them treating you so poorly! You poor things - why don't you put your collective feet up and have a cup of tea and an iced vovo?


Whether you're that stupid, or you think we are, either way just spare us. Whatever you imagine the audience to be, we ain't that. This isn't the MSM and nor are we any dizzy race-hate nazis waiting to be led by the nose. As much as you'd like us to be clueless, we ain't, and we're getting less so by the day. I'll admit that we don't know it all, not like you do, but we know that between you and the Sabbateans any difference only exists for you. For us, it's all much of a muchness.

"Oh, hewers of wood! Oh, carriers of water! Save us from these wicked false Jews who would enslave us!" Um, okay! We'll promise to help you swim to safety if you promise not to sting us to death. Do you promise?


Ha ha ha ha ha, oh man... let's break out the beers.

Pyramids - the right way up and otherwise

Have you ever wondered at pyramids? I've been wondering at them. Clearly the death cult thinks that they're a big deal. They like them so much they whacked one on the number one piece of paper, the US dollar bill. Sure enough whenever there's some illuminati symbolism going on there'll have to be a pyramid in there somewhere. We are that, they say.


First up, let me declare that 'pyramids' here refers to those of the Egyptian variety - four-sided, pointy topped, and classically dimensioned. Whilst I expect that the death cult would have grooved on the blood sacrifice, they otherwise seem uninterested in pyramids of the American variety. Hmm... perhaps that's as good a starting point as any: Why is the death cult so taken with the Egyptian pyramids but not with the American ones?

First up there's the antiquity. The Egyptian pyramids date from over 4500 years ago to 3500. The American ones started just over 3000 years ago and continued through until 1200 years ago. Whilst this might seem like a who-cares, those who've declared themselves chosen by God (Jews, royals, etc), perhaps hounded by a well-what-did-you-expect insecurity, have always chosen to make a big deal of such things. Certainly there's the inevitability of what passes for pissing contests amongst the kiddy-raping elite, but perhaps there's also a Big Lie function to it? Since there is no argument to support such an absurd proposition (ie. chosen by God) there is only one technique to squelch doubts brought about by objections, and that is: restate the claims bigger and louder. Oh, and kill whomever made the objections, ha ha. Anyway biggest equals best and loudest equals 'most true'.


Apart from the great antiquity, we shouldn't forget that America is just the wrong part of the world. With the absolute tippety-top part of our pyramidal death cult comprising a series of families who allege themselves descendants of Abraham, the New World was never going to get a guernsey. Meanwhile back in the Old World, let's not argue over Egypt, Babylon, Judea, whatever - let's just say that the Middle East (otherwise self-servingly known as the 'cradle of civilization') was always going to be 'it'.

Back to the pyramids now. Or more specifically back to the look of them. American pyramids are visually cluttered. They're busily stepped with an extra wee building on top. Clearly they're examples of 'form follows function'. Even a know-nothing could figure the function out - climb the steps and um... nice view, lovely spot for lunch don't you think? Egyptian pyramids on the other hand are a cypher. What is the function of their form? If there's no access in or out is there any function at all? Confusion reigns.


And there you have it. The function of the Egyptian pyramid is to inspire bafflement. These 'edifices' weren't built for anyone's 'edification', if you can dig it. They were made so that a single self-obsessed individual could remain as touch-me-not in death as he was in life.

May we place all this under the topic heading 'sneakiness? In Egyptian pyramids all the action is hidden. In American ones, none of it is. In fact for a majority of American pyramids the interior is merely earth with a stone facing - they have no hidden interior chambers. What you see is what you get. Egyptian pyramids on the other hand go beyond the facade and actually take 'hidden' one step further - half of their hidden passages and chambers are false ones. Truly they're the perfect symbol for the death cult - the truth is absent, all is hidden, and half of that is false as well.

And all of it a monument to hubristic self-regard. Perfect.

---

There's more to pyramids than that of course. There's also pyramids as metaphors, as in 'a pyramidal structure' - which is to say, a paramount leader at the top, under him or her: 2IC's, 3IC's, and so on and so forth all the way down to the lumpen masses.


Curiously enough, the death cult's beloved Egyptian pyramids do not function in this fashion at all. There is no chamber at the top. The pyramid as such is merely a dead end tomb - nothing goes on within it. Furthermore, the only chamber that isn't bullshit is in the centre of the pyramid: a place that in the metaphor is possessed of no great significance. But since pyramids are, above and beyond all else, all about misrepresentation this should come as no surprise.

Hmm... time for a brief detour into 'tension and compression'. Apologies to those completely familiar with the subject but since the next bit of this piece pivots on this concept I think I should lay it out. In construction, all materials function as one or the other - tension or compression (or both, as is the case with steel, which is why it's such an amazing material). Stone on the other hand is all compression. You can pile tons of weight on it and it will not fold up or flop about. Its opposite, tension, is best exemplified in rope or cable. You can hang things from them and they will not snap in a brittle fashion. Sure enough, there are no tow-cables made of stone, and there are no pillars made of rope.


Never mind the idiot non-examples, the classic construction operating under tension principles would have to be the suspension bridge. And (the topic at last) the classic example of compression construction is the pyramid. An Egyptian pyramid doesn't have a single tensile member in it. Nada. It's just a pile of rocks, one on top of the other, and each holding up those above it. And what with being unable to topple over, pyramids make Stonehenge look flimsy.

What does this have to do with pyramids as metaphors? Our metaphoric pyramid functions as a command structure - everything comes from the top down. But let's not forget that the actual pyramids were for no other purpose than to protect privilege and wealth: and so it is with metaphoric pyramidal structures. Power equals wealth and privilege, and all flows upwards.


'All flows upwards'. It does? What a strange thing to say. How does anything 'flow' upwards? It can't obviously - nothing flows upwards. Things only flow down. Or 'trickle down', if you prefer, ha ha ha. Hmm... what's going on here? Trickle down is a con and we all know it. Here we are in the greatest transfer of wealth in history and there is no trickle down. The wealth only 'rises'. I ask the otherwise foolish question - by what means does this take place in a compression structure? If we are the stones in a pyramid how is our wealth pulled upwards? Stones giving blood is one thing, having the blood defy the law of gravity is another.

Unless there's something wrong with the metaphor? This may sound stupid but are we stones or aren't we? This is an ancient Egyptian pyramid yes? Surely in the metaphor we are held in place because of gravity acting upon us and upon our neighbours, each of which, by way of friction, prevents us from going sideways. At the risk of stating the complete bloody obvious, humans aren't stones. We are bipedal mammals - We've got two legs from our hips to the ground, and, when we move them they walk around (thank you Terry Jones). Or to put it another way: we are capable of going many places not least of which is 'away'. Okay, so if our death cult pyramid is so hateful, why don't we?

It's true that we are to some extent possessed of a compression-like gravity-influenced inertia and this will hold us in place. But really isn't this immediate discussion one of bondage? What's bondage about, if it isn't ropes, fetters, and chains? And these are the very definition of articles of tension, surely. Okay so how does that square with a pyramid entirely free of tension members? It doesn't obviously. And besides, what logic is there to pyramid built with chains? The whole idea is silly: it wouldn't stand up for starters.


But! It's only silly if we believe that the death cult's pyramid is what they say it is. And more fools we, since we know that the death cult lie like they breathe and that the Egyptian pyramid was only ever about misrepresentation anyway. Why not take that obvious step and reject the death cult's symbolic use of the pyramid, as a complete sham? To hell with their pyramid reaching to the heavens with its eye of Horus seeing all of creation. A pyramid made of chains with wealth and power trickling to the pointy end cannot exist as the death cult declares. It can only work in a fashion that, as sure as night follows day, they'd have to misrepresent.

Do you get it? A pyramid of chains with all wealth flowing to the pointy end cannot stand 'up'. It cannot reach to the heavens. Hell, it doesn't even get to see daylight. The death cult's pyramid is in truth an inverted pyramid. It hangs down into an abyss. The pointy end is not the top but the bottom. Does trickle-down make sense now? Which is all very well, but what is trickling down exactly?

---

Just a moment. That's weird - are we in yin/yang, light/dark, good/evil territory here? Is it possible we can lay this on the continuum? That would be nice because it's been ages since it scored a mention. (It's at the top of the page by the way). So! What if a pyramid is neither good nor bad without selfishness/selflessness making it so? A selfless pyramid might reach Olympian heights with whomever has shed the most, and thus disencumbered themselves for the climb, arriving at a point where they can see all manner of distant marvels, the whole of creation laid out before them. Tell me that that doesn't make sense. Those at the top who've shed desire and are uninterested in sucking blood give no one below any cause to leave, with gravity no great oppression.


And then there's the death cult. Their pyramid is made of chains and hangs down. It reaches not to heaven but to hell. The eye of Horus is in truth the arsehole (no seriously, it is). Their view from the arse-end of their upside-down pyramid is horribly limited. Looking up, all they can see is people's nether regions - their world a shit-stained skyscape of puckered pink wrinkly bits. Perverse anti-sexuality is all that they see and all that they know. Not forgetting the 'trickle-down' constantly obscuring their vision. The trickle-down is of course, shit and piss and blood and tears. Or it's wealth. Whatever... it's all good to the death cult. They'll take whatever's going. Not forgetting satanists' predilection for human waste products...

Besides which, wealth is also subject to its own duality and may absolutely function as shit. Whilst the death cult's symbols and metaphors are lies to fool those of us not in it, what they don't understand is how they've fooled themselves first and foremost. The shit wealth that flows down and accumulates with the Rothschilds and their very good friends doesn't so much free them of the chains that everyone else is forced to wear, rather it stands in for them. Every drop of this golden shit equals a drop of fear. Drop upon drop calcifying into an ever thicker armour. And God knows they'll need it since the more they have the more there is to fear.


Gee whiz, that's the death cult for you isn't it? An eyeless pallid waxy corpse entombed in an upside-down pyramid of shit-encrusted chains, the pitch black mistaken for daylight, the fetid stink for perfume, the screams for cheers - everything turned arse-about, a Potemkin world for the self. The only certainty is change is met with a snort of derision, a flash of anger, a twinkling of fear. Their dead eyes rove their arse-about world and they rejoice in their own hype about the pyramids of elsewhere - built of stone, lasting forever, so reassuring...