Crytpo's and Alt-Crypto's.

When the East Coast banks went through their gyrations during and after the phase called in the American history books ' the free banking era' (1863 - 1865), was it ever the case that businesses and entrepreneurs actually made any profits...? Or was it simply that everyone lost money and eventually the currency notes issued by independent banks had to be stopped by the government and a national bank note substituted?

The question itself is flawed. Even the Wikipedia entry about the history of American banking mixes up ideas pertaining to the so-called 'backing of the currency' and losses of people holding bank notes.

These are two separate sets of facts which have to be looked at - and they pertain to entirely separate and different matters, although they are related. One item is the conducting (the action), ostensibly, of business and trade, and the other item is the means (money/currency IE the thing) via which trade (tangible sales) and business value exchange occurs.

The store of value feature of the currency in question is one thing, but the real physical sales and trade is completely a different thing!

What are these 'historians' trying to say? That the transcontinental telegraph never happened? That some of the most successful newspapers never were there at all? That iron bridges and intercontinental shipping never took place? That the railway never happened?

This is all simply ridiculous.

What happened was - all that happened was - that those people who didn't have a product or service to sell, failed, and those who had products and services that people didn't want to buy, failed. People who were not intelligent enough to handle the conditions of banking at the time, also failed.

People who were not intelligent enough to control the other side of their trade, failed.

You simply cannot make excuses about these things by sheeting all the blame home to the failure of a currency.

And in the same way today, ignorant people and those who permanently critique things, everything, all things, and are skeptics of everything, even of the proof they held in their hands yesterday and left on a shelf over night - believing it would fizzle into thin air suddenly while they were not looking - these individuals are making the same mistake about the recent vogue for 'all things crypto.'

For a currency to succeed for you, it is not necessary that it sit there in your top or bottom drawer for decades while you decide when you are going to convert that currency into the next physical set of actions and movements of value and hard things. It is only necessary for it to be liquid exactly at the point you require it to act as a medium  of exchange. People talk about intrinsic value or backing of money but there is no such a thing...

If you are using money tokens and a currency system as a holding pen for real things, products, or services, what you are doing is taking the risk that the 'security yard' that you have 'virtually' constructed for the real things is somehow immune from the same risks that a tangible, physical location has: flood, earthquake, fire, robbery.

Money is in fact always vulnerable.

And what people fail to understand is that the speed (instant liquidity) of transmission of nominal value of the real trade or sales, is entirely based on the strength of the two sides of the trade; not the money being used.

I can make the point by this example: if I want to sell a piece of real estate, and find a buyer, and then take some currency off that buyer, I am making myself financially vulnerable by thinking of the matter as just an asymmetrical affair - property sold for cash/the end. Wrong. That's only half the equation. The second half of the equation is - what do I want to do with the cash. If the answer is just hold onto it and wait awhile, then I am making my 'wealth' extremely vulnerable.

What I must do, is decide what I actually want to do, next; but if I think I 'want' to sit on currency then I MUST hold bonds because in the first place it is the only thing with a 'return of nominal capital guarantee.'

'Paper money' has no such guarantee; it only makes some pretense about you being able to exchange the thing for other things of the exact same nature, but not gold or silver or physical assets or physical capital.

The objection is always heard of course that say for instance, Bitcoin, will or might eventually 'collapse' - in other words, not function or be used any more as a currency at all.

This is preposterous nonsense. What 'might' happen is that the blockchain system doesn't function fully or efficiently - not that the 'Bitcoin' loses 'value.' It has no value! Except the last 'exchange' rate - same as any other currency!

No. Bad things will happen involving crypto-currency. Sure. And this is normal and happens with all currencies. And this only because silly people engage in silly behavior and do silly things all the time - not because 'the underlying value of' et cetera will disappear. There is no 'underlying' actual value in the first place; there is only the functioning idea of the blockchain system and the name or brand of 'crypto-currency' in question whatever it is. The usefulness of a crypto-currency crystallizes at the moment you contract a movement of a real good or service, for a sum in nominal 'price' or 'cost.' Because it is a creature of the digital and internet communications age, the only time a Bitcoin, for example, exists, is at the moment you contract and carry out a real physical transaction of some product, good, or service.

I mean 'critically exist,' not conceptually exist.

Bitcoins only exist in discrete packets of time, not continuously over all forward time itself to the final decay point or 'decline and withdrawal from use point' of 'Bitcoin' (and any alt crypto-currencies) and thus they are entirely unlike standard paper or bank money.

'Transport' equals 'Telecommunications'

Everyone's heard of the Panama Canal and some people realize that there always has been another potential route across the land barrier that cuts off direct shipping lines between the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans.

The Panama Canal itself has a storied history and the other route across, the 'Nicaragua Canal' route is a story which has not yet ended, of course.

Let's say I have access to a filing system of strategic capital projects around the globe - well, these 'canal' projects in recent times all have one single common thread running through them (ahem, sort of pun). 

And that common factor is that every single major investor or proposer with serious financial backing, who ever either got actively involved, or spent real money scoping the ideas - is or was a telecommunications company.

Hutchison Whampoa, the Chinese Investment Bank, which now owns the rights to manage the ports on both sides of the Panama Canal, is a telecommunications giant, and very possibly the biggest telecommunications company in the world. And that is really saying something, given the other players in that arena.

As we all know nowadays, if you want to control the communication to the White House to any part of the rest of the world, you really need to control the Pacific Undersea Telecommunications Cable.

This is a pic of the actual section of an actual battle group, actually sailing
down to the Antarctica in the actual 'Ark of Gabriel' war games maneuver

Which is of course why today, there are all these 'secret' or clandestine operations going on out of New Zealand to the Antarctic and to various military bases in the Antarctic. It has got nothing to do with the mythical 'Ark of Gabriel' that the Russians floated as a piece of fiction to pretend they were running a 'war games' exercise down there. The 'Ark of Gabriel' was supposedly an artifact found by the Russians in Saudi Arabia, and for some mysterious reason that created immense speculation in the 'ancient alien' circles and those kinds of places on the internet - had to be transported securely and in secrecy to the Antarctic.

And that was the actual story the Russian Navy itself put out but covered itself by also saying that this was simply the premise of a war games scenario.

The fact that actual maneuvers took place over quite some time led to hyperventilation in the 'ancient alien' set, naturally, and the speculation came to be that indeed, some mysterious object or artifact was actually taken off to be securely sequestered in some vault in the Antarctic.

But what is the truth?

What on Earth is the point of ever asking or answering any question in this day and age that contains the word or the phrase 'the truth' in it?!

'A' truth, for anyone who could care less, is that the Five Eyes Secret Surveillance Grouping, spiked the Southern Hemisphere Undersea Telecommunications Cable in at least three different places, one of them being some spot off the coast of New Zealand, via a permanent mission base deep down at the Antarctic.

Now the Southern Hemisphere Undersea Telecommunications Cable itself is actually 'maintained' or even 'owned' by some shady British 'company' registered in Bermuda.

One of the subsidiaries of this company is 'Iron Sands Offshore Mining Limited' which is registered in New Zealand and run by MI6 operatives (I'm not sure if this is breaking any law by me saying this... Anyway...)

It's just acting, dude - if I'd have really hit you
I would have killed you, Neil...

Iron Sands has had involvement, strangely enough, with ye olde James Packer. And James Packer, recently made some overtures to the government of Cuba for permission to develop hotels and resorts in Cuba. Of course we must not forget that Packer is the owner of one of the biggest casino groups in the world.

So, let us contemplate getting involved in say, the Nicaragua Canal Project, which superficially has been said to have faced a delay on account of the recent China Equity rundown, and thus some limitation on one of the major financial backers. Meanwhile of course, crypto-currencies have been doing remarkably well and there is no shortage of a bull market there, with the Chinese leading the fray.

...Fcuk me, though; I'm an old man now. The last time I karate'd (he whinged to his boss that I was 'a karate expert' - which I am not) a MI6 operative, sending him to hospital briefly, was at least seven or eight years ago!

So, Jesus H, Muhammad! I'd need some fair incentive to get back into that game with some skin in it.

How'm I doin' on this so far? 


  

Why 'Cavern' of Treasures?

There is an apocryphal (Christian) text around that is titled Solomon's Cavern of Treasure. It is variously also called, just - 'The Cavern of Treasure' or in modern published versions 'Cave of Treasures.'

I mean there are just too many arguments even between legitimate scholars to say what the correct translation ought to be, and the whole story itself comes from ancient legends about God having directed Adam and Eve to some 'cave' to live in after they had left the famous - or infamous - Garden of Eden.

Manu Zain - 'North.'

These ancient legends say that God stored a variety of important items in the cave that Adam and Eve and their descendants for quite some time, were able to draw from and use.

In early times it was very clearly understood that the sultan of genies that Solomon was able to command, accessed this same very 'cave of treasures' from whence all the original wealth and material possessions of Solomon came.

If you look upon ancient religious narratives as possibly a kind of space opera, with 'god' in reality being a person or some people from different, much more advanced, worlds, then it is conceivable that a storage facility of some kind could have been made on Earth that was accessible to early humans - or, as the usual 'ancient alien' narratives tend to suggest, early human-alien hybrids.

And then of course, at some stage, the goods in the storage facility or 'vault' might become depleted altogether.

On the other hand, if you were to say the story is all about actual Divinity, as per definition of Divinity, nothing from Divinity as the real source will ever 'run out.'

Solomon's Cave of Treasures, if from actual Divinity... ...is still 'there.' ...Somewhere.

Solomon's Magic Secrets

Folklore and common traditions create in the mind of ordinary men unshakable opinions that resist even solid facts.

A tradition is already something that comes from the 'outside' of a private rite or ritual or set of important actions; they are just 'traditions' - they don't functionally work, or achieve anything practical flowing from their actual mechanisms of action. Somebody relays to somebody else: 'this is what is done; the way to do things...'

And folklore is what people tell each other - not what an authentic prescription for some causative procedure literally is. Because then it would become science, and a 'manual of operations.'

A Sabaean, a Persian, and an Egyptian 

Solomon - a name that means 'Man of Peace' - was a leader of his people, and born a leader. It may be that what happened to Solomon, and what he himself did, was on account of his being someone through whom knowledge was expected to be passed to a larger number of people than just a single person; namely, not just to him himself - to 'Solomon' only.

His story is not merely something designed for us to read as distant history and be entertained or enlightened by, or to learn moral lessons from - no, Solomon was king of his people in his day. While he lived he served an active and direct purpose doing things, and teaching things directly to others.

So what we can learn from Solomon is about doing things. And since he exists in a single line of narrative theme, we can learn too from the later part of the narrative: 'Consider the Lilies of the Field, they toil not neither do they spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his glory was adorned like one of these.'

Hmn, so - great wealth and power come not from toil...

To a great leader it may be that one must be seen to perform whatever acts of apparent magic are done that affect the lives of people. But to the private individual, things have no such requirement. 

We are all private individuals around here and so we may simply know, and do, quietly, and even in a clandestine fashion.

Solomon's title was 'Lord of the heavens...' He was one of several who had that title - Genghis Khan being another. It's possible that Cyrus the Great also was called by this title although today, the history books say 'God of the Cosmos.'

'Of' = 'from' the heavens...

Although however an astute and rational person like Cyrus the Great would have presumed to have been all over the Universe and been a ruler across its vast expanse seems implausible to me. No, he was just 'Lord of the heavens.' Or maybe - a 'lord of heaven.'

Solomon, you will recall, managed to get some kind of beam of light to come down from the sky and set fire to the golden bowl in his temple... And this was in the presence of many.

Someone like Solomon is a leader for the purpose of giving moral teachings to a large number of people - and his wealth may thus have had an ethical justification in the 'eyes of heaven,' as it were. That is, if we continue to adopt this understanding (which is contained in the authentic written narrative) that there is a numinous dimension to these things.

But is there any ethical prohibition to private wealth from such 'magical' means...? And let us address the question in terms of the authentic narrative in the first instance; this would seem a logical way to proceed, and I'll show you why presently.

You see, it appears to have eluded most people's sensibilities, that the implication of the words of Jesus Christ which I quoted ('the lilies of the field...' et cetera) is that he - Jesus, 'God' - is actually teaching ALL listeners, and in a private direct message way (he is speaking to whoever hears the Gospels personally) that individuals may have greater than the adornment and wealth of Solomon, and may have it without toil, since the lesson of the lilies is that they do not toil, nor spin.

'In all his glory.' LOL

Now you can be a curmudgeon and say well oh, but Jesus Christ either did not exist or was not in actual history the same exact person as he is depicted in the religious accounts to be... But this will prevent you from testing the hypothesis about 'the heavens' being able to make you wealthier than Solomon was in all his glory - as is the suggestion by Jesus in the accounts. 

The continuation of what Jesus says is that 'God provides for the lilies while they are alive, and he will do more for you by a great scale because you are more important than the lilies - and you must seek in order of priority the kingdom of god and these things shall be yours as well...'

The passages that deal with this subject end up focusing on the idea that many rich people - particularly the legalistic ones (IE Pharisees) have made their money by extortion. (Extortion is the actual word used in the Gospels). And then the passage goes on to say one may expunge the moral problem of having made money by extortion, by giving away money to the needy, once you realized that extortion was not the ethical way to make money as far as Universal moral codes go.

And then, contained inside the passages is another reference to Solomon and how the Queen of the South observes that while she traveled far to hear the wisdom of Solomon today's men take no notice of someone even greater than Solomon.

And so the lesson here is that there is something about wisdom, that leads directly to wealth.

As I said at the beginning, common tradition and folklore regularly prevent us from perceiving what is going on. 

Ptolemy II Philadelphus ordered the translation into Greek of the books of Solomon - and let us note that one of those books was NOT the so-called 'Testament of Solomon' (that's the one full of names of demons and weird beings and magical sayings and so on) - and although this translation is preserved to us down to this day, many of the most important writings of that era and before it, and a little after it, were destroyed in the fire that Julius Caesar set to the great Library of Alexandria when he managed his slippery escape from otherwise certain death and defeat.

Like Jesus I will point to a single lesson in the Caesar story - namely, that Caesar's point was that human beings are alive, while books, no matter how important, are not themselves 'people.' People can re-make books. People cannot be re-made once destroyed. Now you can destroy people in many ways, not just by killing them.

And so in the tricky game-play of great strategies unfolded on the field of actual human affairs, moral justifications in accord with the Great Law of the Heavens, sometimes elude the mentality of the common human mind.

Caesar behaved not only ethically, but morally, and in accordance with the Divine Mind. He placed the highest value on human life, while accountants place a higher value on their books.

And so I will challenge you: understand this, without understanding, or without 'underlying basis' (for that is the correct translation of what is recounted in religious texts as 'Oh men of little faith') then you cannot receive wealth by the same 'magic' of Solomon. But with the requisite underlying basis of accord with the heavens, you will be given immense wealth.

The mistake in the common narrative of the Bible is that when the seventy ancient scribes translated the old books, they apparently (I say 'apparently' because that is how it is rendered in our modern English translations from the Greek) translated 'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh' as 'Ego Eimi Ho On.' Which appears to say 'I Am Who Is...' When of course, this omits the second 'Ehyeh' which when included makes the correct translation: 'I Am The One that is the I Am.' 

Which is a sentence that expresses the direct idea that 'Divinity' is conscious, alive, and present.

So a conscious alive and present Divinity (I choose 'Divinity' because that is what is really said in the most ancient texts, not 'he' or 'she' only and definitely not the royal 'we' as many Muslims try to suggest) will - according to Jesus Christ - give you enormous wealth and physical adornment, greater than what Solomon had in his glory which impressed everyone and featured as a narrative icon of wealth down to this day, instantly you 'seek the kingdom of Divinity.'

But what is this 'kingdom...'

Going by the slips and slides of translations and misunderstandings everywhere, we cannot be sure the common tradition knows what it is, and certainly not any common religion knows it either - otherwise we'd all be wealthy, replenished on the Monday after we went to Church on the Sunday, having lost our money at the races on Saturday.

Next 'epistle' - we shall indulge in a search for the 'kingdom of the Divine' and I propose we shall find it. 

The Magic Of Solomon

There are two completely different and regularly conflated strands of folklore regarding the occasions of major 'unnatural' or supernatural and thus also 'occult' proceedings of power used by a well-known leader of people in the Western Judaeo-Christian tradition: 

Solomon, and

Nebuchadnezzar.

Babylon was adorned with a lot of lions

Even if you throw in there the British folklore of Merlin and King Arthur, this is really still a continuation -  at least in the handed-down literature - of the Judaeo-Christian series of legendary accounts.

Islam has a completely self-contradicting and upside-down version of it, in which Solomon alternately either has power over and uses the magic of thousands of genies, or he has power over them and suppresses any use of such magic, because 'doing magic is haram.' Islam says this is all to do with the 'angels' (or at least 'beings,' because Islam does not actually use the term angel in the way it is meant to be used in all other traditions) 'Harut' and 'Marut' who came down in Babylon at the time of the tower of Babel and Nebuchadnezzar and taught the people there magic. Now this would be impossible chronologically speaking in terms of any of these mythical narratives, because the life of Solomon (maybe around 1000 BC) occurred a lot earlier than the existence of Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar (maybe 560 BC)...!

Even so, all the way up until the invasion of Spain, Muslim occultists have been producing ideas about magic and the use of genies to work wonders and supernatural magic. In almost every single instance of such books and the ideas contained therein, the proposition is that magic has the primary role in medicinal healing - first some named genie causes an illness, and then some incantation and some herbs procures the cure. The most extensive book of this kind is an archetypal 'grimoire' first produced in Spain, called ' The Book of Deadly Names.' And this is not actually all that much different in the Jewish occult texts.

This is acknowledged as the basis of the so-called 'Law of Moses'
It is very old - maybe 1800 BC
This is from the FIRST Babylonian Dynasty  - this is where Islam gets its 'Harut,' which
is really, a contraction of  'Hammu' (father of) 'Raput' (healers). 

In Freemasonry, there is also a standard tradition that is somewhat similar to the Islamic versions of events, in which Solomon and the king of Tyre, Hiram II, are identities who work magic - and this would be historically sound enough but for the inclusion of the same Babylonian elements which are complete anachronisms. 

Yet this doesn't stop today's Illuminati from miss-labeling things like the Arch of Triumph of Palmyra as 'the Gates of Baal.'

Now in the first place 'Babylon' actually means 'the Gate of Baal.' And it is therefore eye-brow raising to wonder why it is that today's usual suspects when it comes to all things occult, are bent on employing the Babylonian connection all the time.

I suppose in this Blog it is not much point me saying 'in my view' since I do actually know, the full answer... And you know that I think I certainly know.

Part of the answer is that things that are really kept hidden by actual leaders, can actually truly remain hidden and therefore outsiders often make up what they speculate, is inside the mystery: hence the usual grimoire-style formula which finds its way into the public. In other words these grimoires are false. In that they do not record actual occult matters but speculated occult ideas and 'spells.'

One simple commonality of the narratives of Solomon and Babylon is that both kings there in the accounts looked upwards to 'high places' to consort with whatever was presumed to be 'up there.' So this part is not false.

And it applies also in any Egyptian narratives about the sources of magical power; they all 'come from above.'

Today we have an entire academic industry, as you know, about Egyptology (and counter-Egyptology!) and there are massive bodies of so-called academic work employing translations of hieroglyphics - and these are all perfect nonsense (including the counter viewpoints). It must be remembered that the Rosetta Stone was related to a much later period than when hieroglyphics were first invented and the Egyptian hieroglyphics recorded on the Stone are quite a different style of text than the ancient hieroglyphics albeit visually similar superficially. Some ideas of course are correct but these are few and far between.

In terms of the Babylonian connection, the Babylonian Empire succeeded in overturning the pre-existing order and it was a wealthy and successful militaristic Empire - which is reputed to have indeed based its success on magic; and that is also what today's occult believe.

But as I say, it is not what made Solomon wealthy. Solomon was wealthy because he was wise.

And he was wise because he knew things as fact and not because of the magical pronouncements of fantasy beings.

There are real magical things, certainly. That is, things that are far from the usual - but none of them are unnatural, albeit they will seem to be. The real chronology of such magic goes like this:

1. The god Theuth - brings writing and early 'higher' civilization to Man.
2. He engenders Solomon
3. He, 'Theuth,' is also the source of the Egyptian kings - also known by the incorrect terminology 'Pharaoh' which simply means 'big House/Dynasty.'
4. Solomon causes great cities to be built including ancient Tamar - which the Greeks called 'Palmyra.' The Greeks called the god that Solomon worshiped 'Hypsistos,' and the Temple at Palmyra is correctly called the Temple of Theos-Hypsistos. Or Dion-Hypsistos. The main thing about Solomon's 'temples' (plural) is that they were sanctified by some means - the Greeks used the description 'dion' which means 'holy.' And we need not go too much further about it because it will cause a lot of trouble if I went on much further.
5. Some of the ideas of Theuth are preserved in the writings of early Greek and Roman (standard, well-known) mathematicians and thinkers. 

Everything that I have said is featured as stone relief artwork on all of the major 'consoles' attached to the stone-work of the main temple structures at Palmyra.

In ancient times the surface artwork was adorned with lazurite and other very colorful stones and semi-precious gemstones.

Lazurite was one of the ingredients the god Theuth used to develop the 'ink' and the pigment used for writing and coloration of early types of 'paper.'

Lazurite - often contains pyrites, and sometimes, real gold

It is the key ingredient of the purple color used by the Venetian State in the Renaissance. And there it was mixed with the particular sea-urchin extract (Tyrian) to manufacture a unique type of blue or purple color. Once again, to outsiders, this legend about the so-called 'Tablets of Hermes' is a speculation, about what Hermes (Theuth) taught to his actual followers. When outsiders found out that a colored stone base was used by the followers of Theuth, they presumed it to have been emerald - which was often confused in early Greek writings with other bluey-green stones like lazurite - and they further presumed that whatever was written down over the stone tablets, was magical.

But let me leave you as to no doubt whatsoever - even the mathematics and literary ideas in the real writings of Theuth (David, in the Hebrew) are as magical of things as you will ever encounter... And they certainly do contain ideas about how to become incredibly wealthy and they are 'magical' in that they consort with 'higher powers' of which we have little idea from any of the common legends or narrative accounts.

And I may, give out one or two, quite directly, in the next missive.