The island of Biga played a vital part in religious life at neighbouring Philae. It contained part of the dismembered body of Osiris, and the source of the Nile was celebrated as springing from his left leg buried under the rocks.
– Lise Manniche
For the Egyptians pursue a philosophy of their own. This is principally shown by their sacred ceremonial. For first advances the Singer, bearing some one of the symbols of music. . . . And behind all walks the Prophet, with the water-vase carried openly in his arms . . . He, as being the governor of the temple, learns the ten books called “Hieratic” [ἱερατικά “priestly”]; and they contain all about the laws, and the gods, and the whole of the training of the priests.
– Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD), Stromateis Book VI
And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?”
But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest.
And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.”
– Gospel of Mark
REFERENCES
N. de Garis Davies (1943), The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Rēat Thebes, Vol. 1, Pl. V, Burial Rites (detail from the scenes on Pls. LXXXIII, LXXXIX)
Papyrus of Shemaynefer (17, OIM E2538972017), in Foy Scalf ed. (2017), The Book of the Dead: Becoming a God in Ancient Egypt
Lise Manniche (2012), Biga, Papyrus 32/2 (Ægyptologisk Tidsskrift)
J. Gwyn Griffiths ed. (1970), Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride
Lucie Lamy (1981), Egyptian Mysteries: New light on ancient knowledge, p. 5
James P. Allen (2014), Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, pp. 70, 474
Raymond O. Faulkner (1981 ed.), A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, pp. 57, 77
Heart mine which is that of my Mother, Whole Heart mine which is that of my birth, Let there be no estoppel[1]against me through evidence, let no hindrance be made to me by the divine Circle; fall thou not against me in presence of him who is at the Balance . Thou art my Genius, who art by me, the Artistwho givest soundness to my limbs. Come forth to the bliss towards which we are bound; Let not those Ministrantswho deal with a man according to the course of his lifegive a bad odour to my name.[2]Pleasant for us, pleasant for the listener, is the joy of the Weighing 𓍝 of the Words. Let not lies be uttered in presence of the great god. Lord of the Amenta.* Lo! how great art thou as the Triumphant one.
* amenta: the Duat or Underworld, hieroglyph 𓇽 ; in Neapolitan (Kingdom of Naples) dialect: “mint” (coins). Plural of āmentum: a sandal-strap (Egyptian 𓋹 “Life”), band or thong, especially on a missile weapon.
Compare the Pentalpha “star” (Egyptian 𓇼 dawn sun) engraved stone ring in the Testament of Solomon, for command over “male and female” demons.[4]
An alternate form of capital Omega Ω resembles an underlined superscript omicron: 24th and final Greek letter =Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew 15th letter ayin “eye”; Egyptian “eye” 𓁹 jr (ḏ+r), mA (m + 3); rs; mAj; schp or some forms of Latin Q (17th letter; =Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew pē, “mouth”, Egyptian 𓂋 “r” p(kh)ar).
A trader* who uses false balances, Who loves to overreach.†
* כְּנַעַן Canaan: “lowland”. 1. progenitor of the Phœnicians.
2. land west of Jordan river conquered by Israelites. 3. merchant, trader[5]
† wrong, violate, defraud, extort, oppress, get deceitfully[6]
* means weighed or shekel [7] †חַסִּיר (Chaldean): of weight, too light, deficient[8]
Today, the fourteenth (14) day of May in the year 2020 anno Domini (“In the year of (our) Lord”), is the seventy-second (72) anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of the nation state of Israel.[9]
An alternate form of capital Omega Ω resembles an underlined superscript omicron (15th Greek letter; =Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew Ayin “eye”; Egyptian “eye” jr (ḏ+r), mA (m + 3); rs; mAj; schp) or some forms of Latin Q (17th letter; =Phoenician/Paleo-Hebrew Pē, “mouth”, Egyptian 𓁹 “r”).
On 14 May 1948, the thirty-third (33) President of the United States, thirty-three (33°) degree freemason Harry S. Truman, was the first world leader to officially recognise the rebirth of “the Jewish State,” eleven (da’at: ‘intimate’ ✡ “knowledge”) minutes later.[10]
On the midnight close of that day, the British Mandate for Palestine formally ended. Thus began the 1948 (or First) Israeli-Arab War.
If we see that Germany is winning the war we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible… [11]
New York Times, June 24, 1941
Those with training in first aid will know the telltale signs that a living soul has deceased, or “passed on.” In absence of catastrophic damage or spilled lifeblood evidencing an act of violence, or fixed and dilated pupils suggesting that the “light of the eyes” has gone out, the most obvious is that their breast no longer rises and falls.
Yet another sign that their vital air ♦ or the “breath of life” has ceased “to go in and to go out” freely from the body’s “inner world” may be seen in the failure of their nostrils to “fog a mirror.”
“beautiful,” “good,” “perfect,” “fine,”
zero (0) in accounting, architecture, construction
In the Hebrew tongue, the word for this vital air ♦ is a feminine noun, נְשָׁמָהnᵉshâmâh, meaning breath, spirit, wind, the puff or pant of those who are angry; also intellect. It is derived from a primitive verb נָשַׁםnâsham, to puff or pant, used of a woman in labour; properly, to blow away, destroy.[12]
The Hebrew word for “living” and “life” is חַי ḥay, pronounced “chai.” It is derived from a root verb חָיָהchâyâh meaning to live; causatively, to sustain, preserve, restore, revive.[13] The letter hēה is a mater lectionis (“Mother of reading”); used as a suffix (as here) it denotes the feminine, the object to which men are directed. In Aramaic, the first alphabetical letter (אālap) is used to denote the feminine instead.
Chai (ḥay, “living”) in Ktav Ashurit (“Assyrian”) sacred script
There is another spelling for the Hebrew verb “to live” (חָיָה châyâh). Its letter forms and pronunciation differ only slightly. Indeed, the sole difference is a small vertical stroke downward, transforming the letter yod י into a vav ו. The word châvâh (חָוָה) means to breath, to live; properly, to breath out, to declare, to show, to make known.[14]
Stated another way, in the snake oiled salesman’s English tongue of ‘New Age’ gurus and Judeo-‘Christian’ televangelists, it means to ‘manifest’ … in particular, your ‘words of power.’
verb (transitive)
To show or demonstrateplainly;reveal
a. To record in a ship’s manifest.
b. To display or present a manifest of (cargo).
In Aramaic, the spoken tongue of common Judeans in antiquity—biblical ‘Hebrew’ being a sacred writing language reserved for the literate elite (c. 3%)[15]—this word is spelled חֲוָאchăvâʼ : the Mother letter hē ה replaced with an alephא. Its primary meaning is to show, interpret, explain, inform, tell, declare.[16]
An observant reader may notice that the Hebrew root חיהchayah (“to live, sustain, restore”) appears to contain the name of the biblical deity “Yah”,[17] prefixed by the eighth letter ḥet or chetח (“courtyard”). It is derived from the Egyptian hwt-(ḥut) 𓉗 (palace, temple or tomb), possibly via the Canaanite word ḥasir.
The deity’s name “Yah” is composed of the fifth (and Mother) letter hēה and the tenth letter yodי . It is derived from a Canaanite glyph for the word yad “hand”. This derives from an Egyptian hieroglyph for the uniliteral sign ayinꜥ “eye” (whence ancient Greek ninth letter iota, Latin and English “i”), depicting a forearm with palm facing up 𓂝 .[18]
The broad, broad realms of Lycurgus . . . where stretches icy Rhodope to Haemus with its shades, and sacred Hebrus drives his headlong waters forth.
— Ovid, Heroides 2. 111 ff.
Hebros (Hebrus), you flow, the most beautiful of rivers, past Ainos (Aenus) into the turbid sea, surging through the land of Thrake (Thrace)* . . .
— Alcaeus, Fragment 45a
* From Latin Thrācia, from Ancient Greek Θρᾴκη(Thrā́ikē), from Θρᾷξ(Thrâix, “Thracian”), from base of θράσσω(thrássō, “to trouble, stir”) and -ιξ(-ix), compare Φοῖνιξ(Phoînix, “Phoenician”).
In ancient Egyptian culture, there developed over three thousand years a highly sophisticated system of funeral rites. The renowned English Egyptologist, Orientalist, philologist and British Museum curator, Sir E.A. Wallis Budge, described these as consisting of “spells and incantations, hymns and litanies, magical formulae and names, words of power and prayers, and they are found cut or painted on walls of pyramids and tombs, and painted on coffins and sarcophagi and rolls of papyri.”[20]
No small injustice is done these by our lamentably brief summary. Time set aside for their study is commended as time well spent, and this not only for the appreciation of a culture whose extraordinary achievements have enthralled and—as we will see—shaped and influenced humankind for millennia. For in addition, the knowledge gained is sure to re-cast the brazenly deceitful claims of some to a divinely ordained “chosen”-ness, exclusivity, originality, superiority, a “promised” inheritance of “eternal” Levantine land rights, and a global ‘utopian’ slave theocracy ruled from Uru-šalim*, in a revelatory new light.
* from West Semitic yrw, “to found, to lay a cornerstone”, and Shalim, a Canaanite god of the setting sun and the Underworld. He is one half of a pair of deities—Dioskouroi, a la the Greco-Roman twins Castor and Pollux—named šḥr w šlm (Shahar and Shalim). Known as ‘the Devourers’ for their having insatiable appetites, “(one) lip to the earth and (one) lip to the heaven,” they represent the liminal (ambiguous, transformative) horned planet Venus ♀ in its opposite pair, dawn and twilight aspects: the Beginning and End of the life-light of day (ym ים “yôm”)†, the Morning and Evening Star. The name Š-L-M is the triconsonantal root of many semitic words and names, including Solomon, the biblical paragon of wisdom, and ruler of demons. It has a base meaning of “completion” (in the sense of death), sunset, well-being, safe, and wholeness, whence the greetings in Hebrew (“shālôm”) and Arabic (“salām”) — peace.[21]
† ymים “day”: Canaanite pictograph of the hand (yad) representing work, and another of rippling (troubled, stirred) water (מים mayim). It means “working water”.[22]
“Ten million” (yod ) plus “five more” (Mother letterhē ,
and Egyptian godḤeḥ 𓁨 “million”=“infinity”, “flood”)
=“Yah”, proper name of Canaanite copper ♀ serpent deity[17]
=Fifteen (samekh ): serpent spine, the Devil &/or Lust
In gematria, no. 15 is written with the ninth and sixth letters
(ṭēt + vav, 9+6) to avoid spelling the ‘ineffable name’
“Vesper. I do hope you gave your parents hell for that.”
Sorry for our length.
Also, for our volume and weight. Hopefully we are still able to command your attention.
We may have neglected to mention that the Egyptian royal cubit (meh niswt), a unit of length measurement, was represented using the same glyph as that adopted by the Canaanites for yad (“hand”), but with the palm turned down 𓂣 . Each ‘rod’ was seven (7) palms (20.61 to 20.83 in) long.[23]
In order to reach the Kingdom of Osiris, ruler of the Underworld in one’s afterlife, the Egyptian petitioner trusted in the cleverness of the moon-god, Thoth (later, Greek Hermes ☿ Roman Mercury), ruler of wisdom, writing, measurement, arts, sciences, philosophy, magic and trickery; an aggressive, overtly virile dog-faced baboon or ibis-headed deity, with the power of divine boundary-crossing.
Book I, XIV, Hieroglyphics of Horapollo, tr. Alexander Turner Cory, (1840)
To denote the moon, or the habitable world, or letters, or a priest, or anger, or swimming, they pourtray a CYNOCEPHALUS. And they symbolise the moon by it, because the animal has a kind of sympathy with it at its conjunction with the god. For at the exact instant of the conjunction of the moon with the sun, when the moon becomes unillumined, then the male Cynocephalus neither sees, nor eats, but is bowed down to the earth with grief, as if lamenting the ravishment of the moon: and the female also, in addition to its being unable to see, and being afflicted in the same manner as the male, ex genitalibus sanguinem emittit [Latin: “emits blood from the genital organ”]: hence even to this day cynocephali are brought up in the temples, in order that from them may be ascertained the exact instant of the conjunction* of the sun and moon.
The animal is moreover consecrated to Hermes [Thoth], the patron of all letters. And they denote by it a priest, because by nature the cynocephalus does not eat fish, nor even any food that is fishy, like the priests. And it is born circumcised, which circumcision the priests also adopt. And they denote by it anger, because this animal is both exceedingly passionate and choleric beyond others:—and swimming, because other animals by swimming appear dirty, but this alone swims to whatever spot it intends to reach, and is in no respect affected with dirt.[24]
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Before we continue, a digression, for words of caution.
This essayis written with a conscious intention. As indeed will others that, for considerations of length, weight, and volume[25] (pointed puns intended),must, God willing, necessarily follow. Our aim is to shatter the tempered glass foundational ceiling of main-streamed theologico-historical beliefs. Cryptic, pointed, paradoxical, mixed metaphors intended. Many have been promoted for millennia as truths beyond question.
There is a white irony in this.
Our intention is analogous to that of the reviled dukhifat or shamir, the “rock-splitter” of ancient mythology, and Jewish demonology: trying to reach its children, trapped under a plane of translucence by a cunning thief. Indeed, this very subject is one of many on which we will have reason to learn rather a lot more in future.
Solomon said to him: I need nothing from you. I want to build the Temple and I need the shamir for this. Ashmedai [Prince of demons] said to him: The shamir was not given to me, but it was given to the angelic minister of the sea. And he gives it only to the wild rooster, also known as the dukhifat or the hoopoe, whom he trusts by the force of his oath to return it.[26]
The shamir was the seventh of the ten marvels created in the evening twilight of the first Friday, and it was followed, significantly enough, by the creation of writing, the stylus, and the two tables of stone.[27]
Hearts, Chalices or Cups ♥ Spades, Swords or Athamés ♠
Clubs, Rods, Staves or Wands ♣
Diamonds, Pentacles, Coins, Discs or Rings ♦
“You Know My Name” sung seven (7 zayin) times in finale,
eight (8 ḥet, chet) times in total.
And while [Jesus] yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords ♠ and staves* ♣, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
* Ancient Greek ξύλον xýlon: ‘wood’; a cudgel or club; a beam or cross to which a prisoner is bound with bands or thongs 𓋹 ; fetters (‘bonds’, ‘stocks’) made from ‘wood’; bench, table, espec. a money-changer’s table.[29]
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
“undercurrent of sarcasm in her voice,” “Her beauty’s a problem,”
“any woman with half a brain,” “overcompensates by wearing
slightly masculine clothing,” “a somewhat prickly demeanour.”
Tarot (“rō′tāt”) Major Arcana traditional trump no.
8. Justice variable with 11. Strength
(pun intended) since late 19th century due ‘British’ influence:
Rider-Waite-Smith and Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
But not today.
In earnest and empathetic awareness of the risk of causing offence with informing criticism, our hope is that the reader will be drawn to carefully and prayerfully contemplate the material presented, with this thought held in front of mind.
However troubling you may find the content following, know this. There is a silver chord of pure, inspirational, joyous, divine truth, deeply buried, it must be said, and yet running still, through a truly colossal mountain of malodorous lies.
In seeking to shatter the frosted glass pane of word magicians—the thieves and concealers of truth—it is our intention to liberate the truth, in the bright light of day. It is hoped that others will find these and latterly elaborated discoveries to be faith affirming, rather than the opposite.
In the longue durée, despite our often ignore-ant, foolish, and yes, evil ideas and actions, it is evident that God exists. A Supreme, knowable power who, with a readily perceptible character of infinite Patience, softly and silently laboursto re-form, or re-shape, good outcomes (unity, harmony, order, peace, joy) from our self-created evil ones (division, disharmony, disorder, war, grief). And in this comprehension, we will perceive that the doctrine of an afterlife—of regeneration, or rebirth—rings true.
This we will also see in the progressive revelation of pathologically obsessive, narcissistic efforts to muddy our waters—puns intended—and so obscure this truth; stealing and hiding the keys to eternal life.
The concept of rebirth has appeared in many permutations and glosses throughout human history. The secret of its fruition is in a clear recognition, an understanding, and a humble acceptance, of whose power, judgement, wisdom, and free will choice it is that makes an individual’s regeneration, or re-form-ation possible.
A further re-cognition too, is necessary. In the long run, liars and cheats never prosper.
Contrary to all the sophistication and complexity of ancient Egyptian through Jewish Cabalist letter, “name” and number magic formulae—and notwithstanding aid sought from ‘good’ demons—no human intellect can outwit a Supreme Intellect. It is perhaps the ultimate manifestation of egotistical and foolhardy self-delusion to think oneself smart enough to deceive the Ultimate Judge with ‘magic’ wordplay. Especially when the destiny of one’s soul hangs in the balance.
For both Yeshua [Jesus], who sets people apart for God, and the ones being set apart have a common origin — this is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers when he says,
“I will proclaim your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise.”[a]
“Here I am, along with the children God has given me.”[c]
Therefore, since the children share a common physical nature as human beings, he became like them and shared that same human nature; so that by his death he might render ineffective the one who had power over death (that is, the Adversary) and thus set free those who had been in bondage all their lives because of their fear of death.
Alas, the religion of “God’s chosen people” has progressed not one whit—nor iota (but I repeat myself)—from ancient Egyptian hubris.
Let us consider the words of an exemplary case in point: the Kabbalist Who Would Be King of a New Jewish Monarchy in Israel. A rabbi described by a former student as a paradox: “On the one hand he is a brilliant thinker, an innovator, has a great sense of humor, wide knowledge of Kabbalah as well as the sciences. On the other hand, this person disseminates racist and violent preaching.” This ‘brilliant’ mind has yielded such pearls of wisdom and holiness as “the best goy is a dead one,” and “There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life”:[31]
The unknowable, superconscious head [Hebrew letter reish ר “head”, from the Egyptian hieroglyph 𓁶 ] of the first day of Rosh HaShanah is the secret of “‘for My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,’ says G-d, ‘for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’” These two verses precede the verse: “Seek G-d while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near…”
This is the secret of “lift up the head of the Children of Israel.” The root to lift up in Hebrew, נָשָׂ֣א *, means the power to bearthe opposites, the divine paradox of the unknowable head.[32]
This is the first of many examples of “The Power of Ambiguity”[33]—to wit, multiple meanings, often diametrically opposed—that is all-pervasive in the Jewish peoples’ supposedly ‘holy’ tongue; a brazen lie which, we will discover, lies at root of more lies than the Edomite and Israelite copper serpent deity’s “sand of the sea” promise.
* נָשָׂ֣א nâsâʼ he lifted, raised, carried, carried off, married, swept away, destroyed, forgave, pardoned; also he claimed a debt, and (Hiphil) he deceived, beguiled[34]
cf. נָסָהnâśâ’, nâsâh to lift up, bear up; Arabic (to occur, esp. to arise in the mind) نشا to smell, to try by the smell, to try, to prove anyone. 1 Kings 10:1, “the queen of Sheba came, לְנַסֹּתוֹ בְּחִידוֹת to prove him with hard questions;” to examine the wisdom of Solomon, 2 Chronicles 9:1.[35]
The letters “n” (נ nun) and “s” (סsamekh,alternates with שׂ shin) derive from Egyptian hieroglyphs of a resting snake (cobra), and the spinal column of the supreme deity.[36] In Jewish esotericism, these are associated with the reversal or inversion of nature’s laws. In occult sex magic ritual, and bank credebt ‘lending’ by double entry bookkeeping, they are associated with the ‘art’ of stealing the seed of the woman.
“As to the serpent cobra, it is the color of sand. If it bites someone, he will feel pain in one half [of his body] where he has not been bitten and will not feel pain in the half that has been wounded. [..] This is a manifestation of Sēth. The bitten does not die.[37]
Set on a late New Kingdom relief from Karnak
Set spears Apep, the dark chaos deity
In early Egyptian mythology, Set was a god seen in a positive light: lord of the red desert land, accompanying Rā (the Sun-god) on his nightly journey through the Underworld to repel the dark chaos serpent, Apep. Due to his adoption as the supreme god of the Hyksos or Shepherd-Kings—“asiatic” invaders who ruled lower Egypt in the Second Intermediate period—following the expulsion of the “asiatics” into Judea the Egyptians recast Set (pun intended) in a wholly negative light. He became the desert storm god of envy, trickery, chaos, destruction, disorder, who had killed his own brother Osiris, hoping to usurp the throne. Osiris’ death was avenged in combat with Horus, the son of Osiris. Thanks to the ‘cleverness’ of Thoth in the Judgement Hall of the Gods, Osiris became lord of the Underworld. Significantly, and worthy of note for viewers of Casino Royale, Set was defeated only after blinding Horus in one eye.
Endless volumes have been written on the nature and identity of “Jewishness”. In express context of the rebirth of “the Jewish State”, it is inarguable—by any person having even a distant relationship with honesty and objectivity—that the Jewish religion has played, and continues to play, directly and/or indirectly, a fundamental, essential role in the history, psychology, and behaviour, of all persons self-identifying as “Jews,” whether overtly or covertly, with good intention or ill.
To speak plainly and simply: in absence of the Jewish religion, with its claims to a ‘divine’ historicity, and a messianic ‘utopian’ futurity, there would be no Jewish identity.
As we will discover, the supposedly ‘divine’ history of Judaism is a colossal mountain of lies. From its Genesis onward.
The Hebrew bible is a classic example of history being written and re-written by the ‘winners’. The line “And I will replace you” in the Casino Royale title track could not be more apt.
Seen in holistic view, the entire biblical narrative pivots around the tales of brothers—often twins—in lineages purportedly tracing back to the first human parents. In the signature examples, one brother is clearly portrayed as envious, lying, cheating, deceiving, thieving, murdering; stopping at nothing in the quest to gain an exclusive monopoly on ‘divine’, and more specifically, hereditary preference. Revealingly, the most famous example depicts a younger twin conniving with his similarly dishonest Mother to trick their old Blind Father, and cheat the heir of his inheritance rights.
“And I will replace you.”
These fraternal conflicts, and the no conscience, amoral depravities portrayed, are arbitrarily disregarded, or worse, given ‘divine’ sanction by the alleged “blessings” of a deity clearly projected in its authors’ own image, and after their likeness. Indeed, the titular patriarchal hero and namesake of the “Jewish State” features as the exemplar of a demon prince masqueraded as an angel of light: Jacob (יַעֲקֹב “heel-catcher”, i.e., usurper, layer of snares), renamed Israel (יִשְׂרָאֵל “contender”).
So let us not mince words.
Judaism is the religion of the obsessive compulsive. The psychotic. The Cluster B and C personality disorder. The histrionic. The borderline psychotic. The narcissist. The psychopath.
It is the religion of the “homoerotic,” “misogynistic,” sexuality-obsessed, paedophilic ‘sage’.[38][39]
It is a religion that equates the Jewish penis and the tongue: the ‘divine’ organs of ‘creation’.[40]
Judaism is the religion of doublethink. In the words of George Orwell, a “vast system of mental cheating.”[41]
The God of Judaism is an “oxymoronic ‘male androgyne'”: a male form of supposedly formless deity, possessing all characteristics of, and having dominion over, both the female and male genders.[42]
For Judaism, all knowable and unknowable reality is divided into a binary: male and female, good and evil. This, an essentially gnostictheosophical worldview is contradicted by another non falsifiable abstraction—otherwise known as a fantasy or delusion—and a fundamental predilection of Judaism: the paradoxical insistence that all manifestations of reality, all forces, good and evil, originate in the one source, the Divine Intellect.
It would seem that the (little “d”) ‘divine’ intellects of the ‘Sages’ are unable—or perhaps, simply un-willing—to recognise, understand, and accept, that darkness and light, good and evil are not equal opposite forces, or ‘powers’. They are not +1 | -1 numbers on a double entry bookkeeping ledger.
Dark is the result of an absence, obstruction, or rejection of Light.
Evil is the result of an absence, obstruction, or rejection of Good.
The aspiration of Judaism is to become “like God”: to wit, the kind of “God” that its ‘Sages’ say is “God”. A ‘pure’ intellect. A “superconscious” Creator of all paradoxes. All ‘opposites’. All unreason, and illogic. All circularity. All stupidity. All chaos, and confusion. All conflict, disorder, anger, anomie, nihilism, and death.
In other words, the purpose of Judaism is to become as its ‘Sages’ imagine God to be: a ‘divine’ doublethink-er.
But not in the next world. In “the World to Come” right here.
Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat.
— Chief Sephardi Rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef [43]
[The] Kabbalists in Spain cultivated a violent, demonic form of magical Kabbalah intended to destroy the prevailing historical and religious order, including [especially – CM] Christianity, for the sake of bringing the Messiah.
As Rabbi Ginzburg, The Kabbalist Who Would Be King explains:
In Torah, both reward and punishment have the same ultimate aim—the rectification of the soul to merit to receive G-d’s light to the fullest extent.
Reward and punishment imply that a man is free to choose between good and evil. [..] The Rambam (Maimonides), in particular, places great stress upon free choice as being fundamental to Jewish faith. According to the Rambam, the World to Come, the time of reward, is a completely spiritual world, one of souls without bodies. On this point the Ramban (Nachmanides) disagrees and argues that since complete freedom of choice exists only in our physical world, the ultimate rectification of reality—the reward of the World to Come—will also be on the physical plane. Kabbalah and Chassidut support the opinion of the Ramban.[45]
The Egyptians believed Thoth, the lord of the Balance, to be not only the heart and mind of the Creator, but his clever tongue as well:
…he at all times voiced the will of the great god, and spoke the words which commanded every being and thing in heaven and in earth to come into existence. His words were almighty and once uttered, never remained without effect. He framed the laws by which heaven, earth and all the heavenly bodies are maintained; he ordered the courses of the sun, moon, and stars; he invented drawing, design and the arts; the letters of the alphabet and the art of writing; and the science of mathematics. At a very early period he was called the “scribe (or secretary) of the Great Company of the Gods,” and as he kept the celestial register of the words and deeds of men, he was regarded by many generations of Egyptians as the “Recording Angel.” He was the inventor of physical and moral Law and became the personification of JUSTICE; and as the Companies of the Gods of Heaven, and Earth, and the Other World appointed him to “weigh the words and deeds” of men. His verdicts were unalterable, and he became more powerful in the Other World than Osiris himself. Osiris owed his triumph over Set in the Great Judgment Hall of the Gods entirely to the skill of Thoth of the “wise mouth” as an Advocate, and to his influence with the gods in heaven. And every follower of Osiris relied upon the advocacy of Thoth to secure his acquittal on the Day of Judgment, and to procure for him an everlasting habitation in the Kingdom of Osiris.[46]
Spells and other magical texts written by Thoth for the benefit of the deceased were called “Chapters of the Coming Forth by (or, into) the Day.” These compositions were greatly reverenced, as they would “make a man victorious upon earth and in the Other World; it would ensure him a safe and free passage through the Tuat (Underworld); it would allow him to go in and to go out, and to take at any time any form he pleased; it would make his soul to flourish, and would prevent him from dying the [second] death.”[47]
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
In great papyri of the Book of the Dead such as those of Nebseni, Nu, Ani, Hunefer, etc., the Last Judgment, or the “Great Reckoning,” is made the most prominent scene in the whole work… The most complete form of it is given in the Papyrus of Ani… Since the heart was considered to be the seat of all will, emotion, feeling, reason and intelligence, Ani’s heart is seen in one pan of the Balance, and in the other is the feather 𓆄 , symbolic of truth and righteousness.
While his heart lies in the Balance, Ani repeats the words from the Book of the Dead quoted at top this essay.
Then Thoth, the Judge of Truth, of the Great Company of the Gods who are in the presence of Osiris, saith to the gods, “Hearken ye to this word: In very truth the heart of Osiris hath been weighed, and his soul hath borne testimony concerning him; according to the Great Balance his case is truth (i.e., just). No wickedness hath been found in him. He did not filch offerings from the temples. He did not act crookedly, and he did not vilify folk when he was on earth.”
And the Great Company of the Gods say to Thoth:
“This that cometh forth from thy mouth of truth is confirmed (?) The Osiris, the scribe Ani, true of voice, hath testified. He hath not sinned and [his name] doth not stink before us; Amemit (i.e., the Eater of the Dead) shall not have the mastery over him. Let there be given unto him offerings of food and an appearance before Osiris, and an abiding homestead in the Field of Offerings as unto the Followers of Horus.”
In all the copies of the Book of the Dead the deceased is always called “Osiris,” and as it was always assumed that those for whom they were written would be found innocent when weighed in the Great Balance, the words “true of voice,” which were equivalent in meaning to “innocent and acquitted,” were always written after their names. It may be noted in passing that when Ani’s heart was weighed against Truth, the beam of the Great Balance remained perfectly horizontal. This suggests that the gods did not expect the heart of the deceased to “kick the beam,” but were quite satisfied if it exactly counterbalanced Truth. They demanded the fulfilment of the Law and nothing more, and were content to bestow immortality upon the man on whom Thoth’s verdict was “he hath done no evil.”[48]
The Last Judgment or “Great Reckoning” (Papyri of Ani)
On successfully passing the Weighing of the Scales, and presentation before Osiris, the deceased “comes forth by day” as a living god in the Underworld (dwꜣtDuat); the abode of the sun that has set:
𓇽
Rā sets as Osiris with all the splendour of the Glorified and of the gods of the Amentafor he is the one, the marvellous in the Tuat, the exalted soul in the Netherworld, Unneferu who exists for ever and eternally.
Amenta: the Underworld, horizon where the sun sets, west bank of the Nile, place of the dead.
Look at me, ye blessed ones, divine guides in the Tuat; grant that I may receive thy glory, that I may shine like the god of mysteries [..]I am the heirof Osiris, I receive the nemmes in the Tuat.
Look at me, I shine like one who proceeds from you, I become like him who (praises) his father, and who extols him.
Look at me, rejoice in me, grant that I may be exalted, that I may become like him who destroys his forms; open the way to my soul, set me on your pedestals; grant that I may rest in the good Amenta, show me my dwelling in the midst of you, open for me your ways, unfasten the bolts.
I am the favouriteof Ra; I am the mysterious Bennu who enters in peace in the Tuat and goes out of Nut in peace.
I am the lord of the thrones above, traversing the horizon in the train of Ra; the offerings for me are in the sky in the field of Ra, and my portion on earth in the garden of Aarru; I journey in the Tuat like Ra; I weigh the words like Thoth, I march as I will, I hasten in my course like Sahu the mysterious one, and I am born as the twogods.[49]
“I”.
“I” “i” “i” “i” “i”.
Mmmm .
Good luck with that, moonshine
You may not get any more sympathisers if you draw a crook hand.
******************
REFERENCES
Omega/ˈoʊmɪɡə,oʊˈmɛɡə/ (capital: Ω, lowercase: ω; Greek ὦ, later ὦ μέγα, Modern Greek ωμέγα) is the 24th and last letter of the Greek alphabet. In the Greek numeric system/Isopsephy (Gematria), it has a value of 800. The word literally means “great O” (ō mega, mega meaning “great”), as opposed to Ο ο omicron, which means “little O” (o mikron, micron meaning “little”).
[1] Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems to prevent or “estop” a person from making assertions or from going back on their word. Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. The Legal Dictionary describes estoppel as “a legal principle that bars a party from denying or alleging a certain fact owing to that party’s own previous conduct, allegation, or denial.”
The verb estop comes from Middle English estoppen, borrowed from Old French estop(p)er, estouper, presumably from Vulgar Latin *stuppāre ‘to stop up with caulk, tow’ [coarse broken flax, Middle English, possibly from Old English tow-, spinning (in towcræft, spinning craft, spinning)], from Latin stuppa, ‘broken flax’, from Ancient Greek stuppē, ‘broken flax’.
Compare Matthew 12:20, cit. Isaiah 42:3:
A bruised reed [by impl. a pen] shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.
[2] See (e.g.) Book of Tobit (chapters 6-8), “13” secret ingredients of Temple incense. See Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (New York: Cambridge University Press 2008), p.89 on story in Book of Tobit, “probably written in the fourth or third century bce, perhaps by a Babylonian Jew”:
The technique itself consists of fumigating the heart and liver of a certain fish from the Tigris river (the fish’s gall also serves to heal Tobit’s eyes, but not by way of exorcism),* and Raphael promises the young Tobias that this will drive away any demon or evil spirit and keep them away forever (6.8, 16–17). Before the consummation of his marriage with Sarah, Tobias indeed places the fish’s liver and heart on an incense burner, and the resulting odors drive the evil Ashmedai all the way from Persian Ecbatana to Upper Egypt, where Raphael quickly binds him up (8.2–3).
*For Babylonian precedents, see von Soden 1966
[3] Sir Peter Le Page Renouf and Prof. E. Naville, The Egyptian Book of the Dead: Translation and Commentary (London: Harrison and Sons 1904), p.75
[4] Maria Carmela Betrò, Hieroglyphics: The Writings of Ancient Egypt (New York: Abbeville Press 1996), p. 179 Sandal –
𓋸 This hieroglyph represents a very simple form of sandal: a sole with two strips of leather or other material to keep the foot in place. They are present in tombs from as early as the First Dynasty at Abydos (the beginning of the third millennium B.C.). [..] The cosmetic palette of King Narmer, dating from the end of the fourth millennium B.C., shows a high functionary (perhaps even a vizier) immediately behind the king, carrying the king’s sandals. Shoes at this time were a status symbol: the wearing of sandals was an unequivocable indication of rank. In the Old Kingdom, sandals were still the prerogative of kings, priests, and high dignitiaries: everyone else walked unshod. [..] During the Middle Kingdom, sandals became quite common: for example, they were given to the members of expeditions about to cross the desert.
Narmer’s Palette from Hierakonpolis (end 4th millennium BC). Cairo, Egyptian Museum (source: M.C. Betrò, Hieroglyphics 1996)
p. 155 The Otherworld –
𓇽 A star (dwꜣt, morning, place where the sun is born) in a circle: this is the symbol for the otherworld. Initially in the Pyramid Texts, this sign stood for the place in the sky where the sun and the stars reappeared after having been invisible; then it began to represent the otherworld, whether celestial or subterranean. [..] When the destiny of the deceased began to be associated with the symbolic death of the god Osiris, the otherworld began to be envisioned as an underground space with an intricate and detailed geography. The dead moved through this subterranean otherworld with the help of funerary rites and the so-called “guides” to the otherworld… The circle of the Duat is a symbol of cyclical rebirth. Like other Egyptian metaphors for life in the afterworld, it is a closed internal space that is naturally associated with the image of the female womb, the point of departure and hoped-for destination.
For the Testament of Solomon (F.C. Conybeare transl.) see esotericarchives.com (online)
[5] Canaan (כְּנַעַן), Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) Hebrew and English Lexicon (online)
[6] ‛âshaq (עָשַׁק), Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) Hebrew and English Lexicon (online)
[7] Tekel (תְּקֵל), Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) Hebrew and English Lexicon (online)
[8] chassı̂yr (חַסִּיר), Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) Hebrew and English Lexicon (online)
[9] The Declaration of Independence, archives.gov.il (retrieved 10 May 2020)
[10] Recognition of Israel, Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum, truman.gov (retrieved 10 May 2020)
[11] Harry S. Truman: Decisive President, New York Times archives, (retrieved 10 May 2020)
[15] M.O. Wise, Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea: A Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents (New York: Yale University Press, 2015). Meir Bar-Ilan speculated c. 3% Jewish literacy in antiquity.
[17] Yah, proper name of God, for biblical refs see Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon (online)
[18] Brian Colless (The Origin of the Alphabet, Antiguo Oriente, volumen 12, 2014, pp. 71–104, a critical review of Orly Goldwasser theory)
[19] Herodotus, The Histories Book V (A.D. Godley, Ed.), perseus.tufts.edu (retrieved 13 May 2020)
[20] E.A.W. Budge, The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead (New York: Quarto Publishing Group 2016), p.3
[21] Shalem (Deity), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (online, retrieved 13 May 2020). Compare Karel Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. Van Der Horst, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (xxx: 1999 Second Edition), pp. 100 and 109-11:—
ASHERAH: Apart from mention in sacrificial and pantheon lists, the goddess also appears in two theogonic texts, KTU 1.12 i and 1.23, the former describing the birth of ‘the Devourers‘ to the handmaids of Athirat and Yarihu, the latter describing two wives of EI (seemingly Athirat and perhaps Shapsh) who consummate their marriage with him, and give birth to →Shahar and →Shalem, the →Dioskouroi. These texts have a bearing on several biblical traditions, such as Gen 16, 19:30-38, Ps 8 etc. (WYAlT 1993). The goddess’ name appears in the longer title rbt aṯrt ym, meaning perhaps ‘the Great Lady who walks on the Sea‘ (the name therefore apparently understood as ‘Walker’) . . .
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
ASTARTE: The divine name Astarte is found in the following forms: Ug ‘ṯtrt (‘Athtart[u]’); Phoen ‘štrt (‘Ashtart’); Heb ‘Aštoret (singular); Aštarot (generally construed as plural); Eg variously ‘sṯrt, ‘sṯrṯ, istrt; Gk Astarte. It is the feminine form of the masculine ‘ttr (‘Athtar’. ‘Ashlar’) and this in turn occurs, though as the name of a goddess. as Akkadian→Ishtar. The Akkadian Aš–tar-[tum?] is used of her (AGE 330). The etymology remains obscure. It is probably, in the masculine form, the name of the planet Venus, then extended to the feminine as well (cf. A.S. YAHUDA, JRAS 8 [1946] 174-178). [..] Both god and goddess are probably, but not certainly, to be seen as the deified Venus (HEIMPEL 1982: 13-14). This is indeed the case, since if the morning star is the male deity (cf. Isa 14: 12), then the goddess would be the evening star: as she is in Greek tradition. (The two appearances of Venus are also probably to be seen as deified, cf. →Shahar and →Shalem.)
Egypt. Astarte is mentioned a number of times in texts from Egypt. In one instance, her name is written ʼntrt. Even if this is simply a misspelling, as LECLANT (1960:6 n.2) suggests, it is still ‘revealing’ (but cf. ANET 201a n. 16). In the Contendings of Horus and Seth (iii 4), →Seth is given Anat and Astarte. the daughters of →Re, as wives. This is a mythologisation of the importing of Semitic deities into Egypt under the Hyksos and later, and the New Kingdom fashion for the goddesses in particular. Seth and Baal were identified. [..] Anat and Astarte are described in a New Kingdom text (Harris magical papyrus iii 5 in: PRITCHARD (1943:79]) as “the two great goddesses who were pregnant but did not bear“, on which basis ALBRIGHT (1956:75) concludes that they are “perennially fruitful without ever losing virginity”. He also asserts that “sex was their primary function”. Both assumptions are questionable, not to say mutually incompatible! As wives of Seth, who rapes rather than makes love to them, their fruitless conceptions are an extension of his symbolism as the god of disorder, rather than qualities of their own. In the fragmentary ‘Astarte papyrus’ (ANET 17-18; see HELCK 1983) the goddess is the daughter of →Ptah and is demanded by the →Sea in marriage.
[22] ym ים “day”, Ancient Hebrew Lexicon (online, retrieved 12 May 2020)
[23] Cubit#Ancient_Egyptian_royal_cubit, Wikipedia (online, retrieved 12 May 2020)
[24] Alexander Turner Cory, The Hieroglyphics of Horapollo Nilous (1840), (online, retrieved 13 May 2020)
[25] Sefer HaChinukh (“Book of Education”) 259 (Spain c.1255 – c.1285 AD):
The commandment of having just scales, weights and measures: To have just scales, weights and measures and to be very careful about them, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:36), “You shall have just scales, just weights, a just eiphah, and a just hin.” And the language of Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8:7 [is] “‘Just weights’ – justify the scales precisely” – meaning to say, that the scales be righteous. And the matter is well-known regarding scales that there are important adjustments to make, as it is possible to do many types of falsehood with them. “‘Just weights’ – justify the weights precisely” – also with weights, it is also possible to do many types of falsehood, and similar to that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Metzia 61b), “I will repay in the future anyone who submersed his weights in salt.”
Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Why do I need the prohibition that the Merciful One wrote with regard to weights: “You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measure, in weight, or in volume” (Leviticus 19:35)? It is merely another form of robbery. Rav Ashi said to him: It is referring to a seller who buries his weights in salt, in order to lighten them.
The Sages taught: The verse states: “You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measure, in weight, or in volume [uvamesura]” (Leviticus 19:35). “In measure”; this is referring to the measurement of land, e.g., this means that in a case where two people are dividing their jointly owned field, one may not measure the land to be given to one during the summer and measure the land to be given to the other during the rainy season, because the length of the measuring cord is affected by the weather conditions. “In weight”; this is referring to the fact that he may not bury his measuring weights in salt. And “in volume”; this teaches that one may not froth the liquid one is selling, creating the impression that there is more liquid in the vessel than there actually is.
[26] Babylonian Talmud Gittin 68a, William Davidson translation (online, retrieved 8 May 2020)
[27] Shamir, Jewish Encyclopedia 1906, Wilhelm Blacher, Ludwig Blau (online, retrieved 11 May 2020) —
This last account is Babylonian in origin, and both language and content prove that it was a legend of the people rather than a tradition of the schools, as is the case with the stories mentioned above. There were, however, learned circles in Palestine which refused to credit the use of the shamir by Solomon (Mek., Yitro, end). Others, however, believed that Solomon employed it in the building of his palace, but not in the construction of the Temple, evidently taking exception to the magical element suggested by a leaden box as a place of concealment, for in magic brass is used to break enchantment and to drive away demons (Soṭah 48b; Yer. Soṭah 24b).
[28] Matthew 26:47, The Holy Bible King James transl., (online, retrieved 12 May 2020)
[29] xýlon, Liddell-Scott-Jones and Thayer’s Expanded Edition lexicons (online, retrieved 13 May 2020)
[30] Hebrews 2:11-15, The Holy Bible Complete Jewish Bible translation (online, retrieved 13 May 2020)
[31] Natan Odenheimer, The Kabbalist Who Would Be King of a New Jewish Monarchy in Israel, Jewish Forward October 14, 2016 (online, retrieved 13 May 2020)
[32] Yitsḥaḳ Ginzburg, Avraham Arieh Trugman, Moshe Yaakov Wisnefsky, The Alef-beit: Jewish Thought Revealed Through the Hebrew Letters (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield 1991)
[33] Yehuda Shurpin, Why No Vowels In The Torah?, chabad.org (online, retrieved 12 May 2020)
[37] Maria Carmela Betrò, Hieroglyphics: The Writings of Ancient Egypt (New York: Abbeville Press 1996), p.113, cit. the Egyptian Treatise on Ophiology – “The strange observation about the pain of the bite finds no comparison in modern medical texts.
[38] Jay Michaelson, Kabbalah and Queer Theology: Resources and Reservations, Theology & Sexuality, Vol. 18 No. 1, January, 2013, cit. Elliot Wolfson, Circle In The Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in Kabbalistic Symbolism (New York: State University 1995)
[39] Elliot Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination (New York: Fordham University Press 2005)
[40] Aryeh Kaplan, Sefer Yetzirah, The Book of Creation (Revised Edition), p. 32
[41] George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (2003 Plume Centennial Edition), p. 218
[42] Jay Michaelson, Op. Cit.
[43] Marcy Oster, Sephardi leader Yosef: Non-Jews exist to serve Jews, The Forward, 18 October 2010 (online, retrieved 13 May 2020)
[44] Moshe Idel, Kabbalah in Italy (1280-1510): A Survey (New Haven: Yale University Press 2011), p.198 –
Although a proclivity toward magic was conspicuous in an important circle of Spanish Kabbalists during the 1470s,it took a totally different direction. Unlike the magia naturalis , accepted by Ficino, Pico, Alemanno, and to a lesser degree David Messer Leon, the group of Kabbalists in Spain cultivated a violent, demonic form of magical Kabbalah intended to destroy the prevailing historical and religious order, including Christianity, for the sake of bringing the Messiah. It was a redemptive rather than a natural magic, focused upon solving historical rather than personal problems
Lithograph portrait from 1905, captioned Friedrich von Schiller in recognition of his 1802 ennoblement
There are three lessons I would write, —
Three words — as with a burning pen,
In tracings of eternal light
Upon the hearts of men.
Have Hope. Though clouds environ now,
And gladness hides her face in scorn,
Put thou the shadow from thy brow, —
No night but hath its morn.
Have Faith. Where’er thy bark is driven, —
The calm’s disport, the tempest’s mirth, —
Know this: God rules the hosts of heaven,
The habitants of earth.
Have Love. Not love alone for one,
But men, as man, thy brothers call;
And scatter, like the circling sun,
Thy charities on all.
Thus grave these lessons on thy soul, —
Hope, Faith, and Love, — and thou shalt find Strength when life’s surges rudest roll, Light when thou else wert blind.
J.C. Friedrich von Schiller, Hope, Faith, and Love (c. 1786);
also known as “The Words of Strength”
Properly, upward, up, denoting motion from a lower place to a higher, rare in the N.[ew] T.[estament] and only with the accusative [case] (Thayer)
“the rarest [preposition] in NT” (Abbott-Smith); “ἀνά survives almost exclusively in the limited uses seen in NT” (Moulton-Milligan)
Prefixed to verbs ἀνά signifies
a.upward, up, up to (Latin ad, German auf) b. it corresponds to the Latin ad (German an), to (indicating the goal) c. it denotes repetition, renewal, equivalent to dēnuō, anew, over again d. it corresponds to the Latin re, retrō,†back, backward
† From re- + *-trō, probably taken from intrō (from intrā“within”: I enter, go into, penetrate; from earlier *interus (whence also interior), from Proto-Indo-European*h₁énteros “inner, what is inside”.)
When the Lamb broke the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.
σιγή : silence, “ready for sowing”; :
cf. P Oxy XIV. 1635.6 (B.C. 44–37) κατοικικῆς γῆς σπορίμου,
P Oxy I. 45.11 (A.D. 95) κατοικικῆς σειτοφόρου σπορίμου,
“allotment corn land ready for sowing,” (Moulton-Milligan)
†“souls” ψυχήpsychḗ (psoo-khay’): breath (Latin anima), i. e.
breath
the breath of life
the vital force which animates the body and shows itself in breathing
of animals
of men
life
that in which there is life
a living being, a living soul
the soul
the seat of the feelings, desires, affections, aversions (our heart, soul etc.)
the (human) soul in so far as it is constituted that by the right use of the aids offered it by God it can attain its highest end and secure eternal blessedness, the soul regarded as a moral being designed for everlasting life
the soul as an essence which differs from the body and is not dissolved by death (distinguished from other parts of the body)
For silence is not God, nor speaking is not God;
fasting is not God, nor eating is not God;
loneliness is not God, nor company is not God;
nor yet any of all the other two such contraries.
He is hid between them, and may not be found
by any work of thy soul,
but all only by love of thine heart.
He may not be known by reason,
He may not be gotten by thought,
nor concluded by understanding;
but He may be loved and chosen
with the true lovely will of thine heart … .
The signs on earth just as those in the sky give us signals.
Sky and earth both produce portents. Though appearing separately, they are not separate (becausesky and earth are related (.[1]
Babylonian Diviner’s Manual, c. 7th century BC
That wch is below is like that wch is above
& that wch is above is like yt wch is below
to do ye miracles of one only thing.
Hermetis Trismegisti (“Hermes the Thrice-Greatest”) Tabula Smaragdina (The Emerald Tablet) from كتاب سر الخليقة و صنعة الطبيعة أو كتاب العلل للحكيم بلنياس (Book of Balinas the Wise on the Causes), c. 8th century AD Sir Isaac Newton FRS PRS transl., c. 1680 AD (Keynes MS 28)
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
(If you have not yet done so, I urge you to read Part 1 of this series, before continuing with this Part 2.)
Let us take a leap back to the future from our summary introduction to banks, usury, and doublethink in the Roman Empire, with a visit to the ancient Mesopotamian empires.
To fully appreciate the esoteric influences in our ‘modern’ systems of philosophy, politics, religion and economics (but I repeat myself), we must come to see that our long and winding roads all lead back to Bābili(m) (Babylon: “Gate of God”, “Gate of the Gods”). Built “between the two rivers” Tigris and Euphrates, descending from the Creator’s legendary Garden of Eden (“Paradise”, “heaven on earth”) – the Mother’s Womb where some say all life was first born – feeding the waters of life into the fertile valley delta Δ of the Fertile Crescent – the “Cradle of Civilisation”.
Babylon in Fertile Valley delta; Iraq (32°32′11″N 44°25′15″E)
“Good is on the right, evil on the left,
but the supreme excellence is above both…”[2]
We must also come to see that it is all about sex, and ‘gendered’ war. More sex than you can imagine. Most cleverly concealed in a vast matrix of metaphysical allegories, metaphors, puns, euphemisms, colours, numbers, and symbols.
MAN-kind has never gotten over his deep-seated fear of the unknown, the mysterious, the changing, that which is beyond HIS *control* … as embodied in the lunar, and human female menstrual cycles.
There you go. I just summarised the past 5+ millennia of human history.
In order to better understand the hidden forces at work during the Roman Empire, in this and in subsequent essays we will closely examine the early development of these ‘magic’ systems of abstraction, manipulation, and concealment of information, knowledge and understanding by those “in the know”, and their weaponisation as tools of control over the majority who were, and are, not“in the know”.
Perhaps the most important of these clever symbolic systems is hidden in plain sight. It is found in the very forms of the letters in our aleph-bets.
It is disguised in the combinations of those letters, and in the sounds that their forms re-present.
“Why is this script called Ashurit [A-shur-i]? Because it ascended with the Jewish people from Ashur when they returned from their exile in Babylonia.” (Sanhedrin 22a:2)
Its God-like power to create, to destroy, to transform reality, by manipulation and persuasion, is manifested by magicians in the art of evocative, enchanting, Mesmer-ising, spell-bindingly ‘sexy’ language (speech), and writing.
The supreme exemplar of this magic is he who attains the Philosopher’s ‘Stone’ – the alchemists’ Pow(d)er of Projection.
“Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur
in conformity with Will.”
– Aleister Crowley, Magick in Theory and Practice
Know that all the souls come forth from supernal copulation [ziwwug elyon] from the drop of the five mercies and five strengths that are in the mind [da’at], as is known from the verse ‘And Adam knew his wife Eve’ (Gen. 4:1), for copulation is referred to as knowledge [yedi’ah] since the drop of the copulation [tippat ha-ziwwug] is drawn forth from the brain of the mind [moah ha-da’at].[3]
R. Ḥayyim Vital, Sha’ar ha-Pesuqim 3a (c. 1660 AD)
Source: Visualization of Colors, 1 – David ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid’s Kabbalistic Diagram (Moshe Idel, Ars Judaica 2015)
Source: Visualization of Colors, 1 – David ben Yehudah he-Ḥasid’s Kabbalistic Diagram (Moshe Idel, Ars Judaica 2015)
RABBI SIMEON answered and said: “The lower or passionate nature is always striving to imitate the actions of the higher, with this difference, that what is spiritual and pure it changes into the carnal and impure. The higher nature takes its origin from the right side of the sephirotic tree of life, but the lower from the left side, and is embodied in the female and becomes unified in it, as it is written, ‘His left hand is under my head and his right hand doth embrace me’ (Cant. ii. 6). Hitherto we have discoursed on a subject, exceedingly esoteric and unknown to ordinary minds, but now we will speak more clearly so that every one may comprehend and understand them.” On hearing this the student novitiates expressed their great desire to learn more of this mystery of sex.
Whether mainstream or alternative view, open or secret society, exoteric or esoteric doctrine, establishment or revolutionary power, beneath all it really is all about sex, and war. In one form or another.
“In the vigour of his age he married Gargamelle, daughter to the King of the Parpaillons, a jolly pug, and well-mouthed wench. These two did oftentimes do the two-backed beast together, joyfully rubbing and frotting their bacon ‘gainst one another.”
Rabelais, Gargantua and Pantagruel (c. 1532 AD)
Nothing has changed… in more than 5,000 years.
Or rather – if the carbon-dating of Palaeolithic cave paintings in Spain and France (that we will de-mystify in Part 3) is correct – in more than 40,000 years.
It really is time that humanity got over its adolescent obsessions, grew up, and started behaving like an independent, balanced adult. With a higher purpose in life than merely the maximisation of pleasuring our Self.
But we digress.
In recent years we have seen a leading accounting scholar identify the dualist (or “binary”) Input-Output principle of double-entry accounting in Mesopotamia’s clay token / bullae “envelope” record-keeping system of the 4th millennium BC:
[The] ancient people of the Middle East had record keeping systems, the basic logical structure of which was virtually identical to that of modern double entry.[4]
Schmandt-Besserat, “The Earliest Precursors of Writing” (Scientific American. June 1977, Vol. 238, No. 6, p. 50-58.)
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
The prehistoric clay token accounting system gave birth, first to pictograms, and then, to cuneiform (“wedge”) writing:
SAG (“head”) sign
Stage 1: c. 3000 BC. Stage 2: c. 2800 BC. Stage 3: c. 2600 BC. Stage 4: contemporary to stage 3. Stage 5: late 3rd millennium. Stage 6: Old Assyrian, early 2nd millennium, as adopted into Hittite. Stage 7: as written by Assyrian scribes in the early 1st millennium, until the script’s extinction.
Cuneiform incorporated what later became known as the alchemists’ “Rebis”, or phonetic “rebus principle” (multivalency; multiple meanings or values for the same sign or sound, i.e., puns)…
…and eventually gave rise to the proto aleph–bets (alphabets) of our modern languages.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
It is also here, in Babylonia during the 19th–18th centuries BC, that we observe more evidence for the dualist gnōsis (esoteric, mystical “knowledge”) – the philosophical (or rather, theosophical) principle underpinning the dark arts of doublethink, double-entry accounting, and credebt-based usury intermediation.
(n.) secreting organ of the body, Old English lifer, from Proto-Germanic *librn.
Formerly believed to be the body’s blood-producing organ [Claudius Galen, c.129–200 AD]; in medieval times it rivaled the heart as the supposed seat of love and passion. Hence lily-livered, a white (that is, bloodless) liver being supposed a sign of cowardice…
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for yourselves; for it is the blood that makes atonement because of the life.
Leviticus 17:11 (Complete Jewish Bible)
–––––––– SIDEBAR ––––––––
As with many biblical quotes, it is unlikely that ‘God’ ever said this to an Egyptian royal family adoptee named ‘Moses’. Even if so, there is a double meaning – an occult (“hidden”) reference to the female gamete (ovum, egg cell), “washed” from her body in conclusion of each monthly cycle, unless fertilised by the male spermatozoon. It is this “life in the blood” that alchemical magicians of the East and West have devised “silver-tongued” philosophistic ‘tricks’ to steal, both literally and analogically, in their pursuit of an “Elixir” of immortality, and the power of wealth, for millennia. The ovum is noteworthy for its Sun-like corona radiata. We will return to this in future, when we examine the Cabalists’ identification of the glans penis corona (“crown”) with the skull’s brain membrane as being female;[5] and, the alchemical ‘magic’ reversal of the natural “flow” of the male’s white “water of life”, whilst simultaneously stealing the female’s red “river of death”, containing her “life in the blood”. A circumcised tip for those who cannot wait: analogically contemplate the form and colour of the royal crowns of Upper (south) and Lower (north) Egypt: hedjet (white) and deshret (red). After reading the next few essays in this series, you may never accuse one seeming to play the fool of being a “dick head” ever again.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Les Vaisseaux d’Hermes: “The ‘Vessels’ / ‘Ships’ of Hermes”
–––––––– SIDEBAR ––––––––
Yes, seriously.
The theosophical, ‘magic’ operative principle of ‘modern’ double entry accounting-based financial credebt intermediation, as the means to make war, by deception, and the manipulation of desires (“La passion”), in order to extract ‘blood’ – life energy, life time; usury – from the many, for the gain of the few, is found in Old Babylonian divination of good or evil fortune, by the colour and position of liver defects.
Or, by the nature and position of foetal birth defects, known as Šumma Izbu.
Just coincidentally, this is also the true explanation for the ancient, purportedly biblical insistence of ‘Moses’ that only “unblemished”, “pure” creatures may be given to the priests at the Temple cult slaughtering yard of justice (Ḥēth ח, 8th Hebrew letter, from an Egyptian hieroglyph for “courtyard”).
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Modern Tarot divination card systems often reverse
#8 Justice (Hod, left ‘foot’ of Cabalist “Adam Kadmon”)
and #11 Strength (Da’at דעת “Knowledge”,
the “hidden” emanation).
The essential interchangeability of forms, including letters
and numbers, is fundamental to Cabalist philosophy and theurgy
since at least the first two centuries A.D. (e.g., Sefer Yetzirah)
We will learn more on this when we examine
Jewish gnosticism.
If a creature is clearly dis-eased on external inspection, then its entrails are unreliable as ‘divine’ prophetic reading tablets. The “blemished”, “unclean” animal is thus disqualified automatically from being acceptable for the Temple cultists’ blood ‘sacrifice’ ritual, to cancel / “wash away” the guilt of your endless list of heinous sins.
This is also the true explanation for why, under the Law that was, allegedly, personally written by The Finger of the All-Wise, All-Knowing, All-Understanding, All-Loving, All-Merciful God – twice – and handed down directly to ‘Moses’ – in the deshret, shortly after he magically divided the Red Sea with his priest brother’s magic alternating flaccid-stiff serpent-‘rod’ – your heinous sin of being born with a defect “in the stones”, or being “wounded in the stones” later in life, automatically disqualifies you from being a tzitzit-wearing, foreskin-deprived male (and thus, fully human) member of the pure and holy Chosen People.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Should you be tempted to react with emotions of resistance, perhaps ranging from mirth to knee-jerk rejection, consider that elite-school experts still practice this today, if only out of scholarly curiosity; or possibly, to be uncharitable, out of passion for personal publicity –
Ancient Mesopotamian Sheep Liver Magic Predicted Trump’s Rise:
The army of the prince will go on a terrifying campaign. An army will attack the prince in battle. The god Adad will flood the enemy’s land, or there will be confusion amongst the enemy. Whatever his circumstances, the gods will protect him. The prince will not return from the campaign he embarked upon. The king’s son or brother will flee. His army will not reach its goal. The days of the prince will be long. Dogs will become rabid.
Although it’s tempting to read some of these lines as ominous reflections of the way the Trump campaign played out, these predictions seem vague and even contradictory. [Dr Selena] Wisnom [DPhil (Oxon), University of Cambridge] doubts that they were meant to be taken literally, though. Instead to get your yes-or-no answer, you were meant to tally the number of good or bad omens—and in this case, the numbers came up Trump.
It is no coincidence that the Hebrew bible (Tanakh) is replete with references to divination of the liver (lifer), practiced not only by Babylonian god-kings and other Mesopotamians (e.g., Philistines) but by the Hebrews as well:
Here is what Adonai says, your Redeemer, he who formed you in the womb: “I am Adonai, who makes all things, who stretched out the heavens all alone, who spread out the earth all by myself. I frustrate false prophets and their omens, I make fools of diviners, I drive back the sages and make their wisdom look silly.
“You, therefore, don’t listen to your prophets, diviners, dreamers, magicians or sorcerers, when they tell you that you won’t be subject to the king of [Babylon].”
And she bore him a stout-hearted son, Atlas: also she bore
very glorious Menoetius and clever Prometheus,
full of various wiles…
And ready-witted Prometheus he [“wise Zeus”] bound
with inextricable bonds, cruel chains,
and drove a shaft through his middle, and set on him
a long-winged eagle, which used to eat his immortal liver;
but by night the liver grew as much again everyway as
the long-winged bird devoured in the whole day.
Hesiod (c. 700BC), Theogony (“birth of the gods”) 507-525.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Now I am alone. O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!
But I am pigeon-liver’d and lack gall
To make oppression bitter, or ere this
I should have fatted all the region kites
With this slave’s offal: bloody, bawdy villain!
Shakespeare, Hamlet (2.2.520, 550-554)
Go pricke thy face, and over-red thy feare,
Thou Lilly-liver’d Boy.
Shakespeare (1564–1616AD), Macbeth (5.3.10)
Do not laugh. The principles are perfectly rational. Provided that you never stop to contemplate the core assumptions. Just like doublethink, double-entry accounting, state-endorsed and -enforced, exclusively-privileged, covertly above-all-law corporate credebt-based currency intermediation, and “geometric progression” (i.e., infinite $ growth) on finite planet, consumption-driven capital-ism:
Ivan Starr [The Rituals of the Diviner, 1983] found that in extispicy an anomalous feature on the right or the left is related to an auspicious or inauspicious prognostication according to objective principles. The system reflects a familiar symbolic pattern. The right side of the exta pertains to the inquirer and is positive; the left side pertains to his enemy and is negative. In other words, the right constitutes the pars familiaris and the left the pars hostilis.[6]
A heads-up for any reader not paying careful attention to the details.
Where formerly, the good God (“Le bon Dieu est dans le détail”)[7] – and latterly, the Devil – is inclined to hide.
In the following illustrations, when (e.g.) a bad omen for the Inquirer is demonstrated, I have maintained consistency with the divinatory ground rule Right = Positive + , Left = Negative – , by changing the COLOUR of the Right-Left +/– “field” signs.
The LOCATION of the +/– signs (i.e., Right-Left, for InquirerandEnemy) does not change.
In extispicy the right/left duality serves to polarize a single divinatory context, the exta, into a negative and positive divinatory field. The anomalous features observed were further classified in opposing pairs with positive and negative values. A favorable or unfavorable prognostication is the compounded product of two factors – the positive and negative aspect of the sign and the context against which it occurs. A light colored mark on the right was propitious. If it occurred on the left it represented a sign favourable to the enemy and the resulting omen was inauspicious.
Conversely, a dark colored mark on the right was inauspicious. A dark coloured mark on the left is a double negative. It is detrimental to the enemy and the resulting omen is favorable.[8]
The definitive interpretation attributed to the presence of a given mark in a given zone of a liver part can be obtained by the quasi-arithmetic combination of the positive/negative value of the mark and the positive/negative value of the zone where it occurs: a hole on the right side might portend death for the king, whereas a hole on the left might portend death for the king’s enemy.[9]
In this system we obviously find the reflection of a pervasive symbolic pattern and an orientation that lies at the core of much divinatory practice. When we observe the division of the body into right and left we observe the symmetry that divides the whole into equal halves and the asymmetry that gives one side the edge.[10]
A fundamental, artifice-ial, egoic asymmetry that modern financial and economic doctors of philosophistry refer to by an uninteresting, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” euphemism.
Net Interest Margin.
The difference between the rate of interest paid, and the rate of interest ‘earned’, by the banking Lords of Time.
The stronger right hand and by extension the right side commonly attracts a wide array of positive associations. It is considered to be auspicious and it stands for a variety of positive moral and religious values such as justice, rectitude and purity. The left symbolizes antithetical values and stands for the inauspicious, the sinister, and the impure. The right often represents aspects of reality that can be clearly understood; it articulates what is unambiguous, certain and verifiable. The left can express perceptions more difficult to penetrate. It evokes the shady, the unstable, the mutable – the imaginative.[11]
We might note in passing that these ancient yet perennial associations of Right-Left dualism appear to be contradicted by modern scientific analysis, in one key area. Our brain activity. It is the left hemisphere that neurologists associate with logic, intellect, analytical thought (the ‘light’ of ‘reason’), and the right that is associated with the ‘shady’, ‘unstable’, ‘mutable’ aspects – emotion, imagination, intuition, creativity; the alleged ‘chaos’ of femininity.
In other words, it appears that, when it comes to R-L spatial attribution of the supposed ‘origins’ of human behaviour, the Babylonian dualist divination and philosophical system core assumptions are the exact opposite of scientifically measured reality.
Thus, they, and their philosophical descendants, also have the overarching binary classification categories – “dark” versus “light” – exactly inverted.
The Babylonian “I” – Mr. Intellect, Knowledge, Logic and Reason – assumed to be ‘Good’, is not on the right; he is on the left.
The assumed Evil ‘chaos’, and “enemy” of the Babylonian “I” – Mrs Intuition, Emotion, Holistic Thought, Imagination and Creativity – is not on the left; she is on the right.
In Šumma izbu the opposition right/left in the protasis is reflected in the apodosis as follows: opposition of subjects, opposition of verbal predicates, opposition “ego” vs “enemy”, opposition expressed by symmetrical inversion of syntactical structures, semantic opposition without syntactical symmetry.[12]
It hardly requires a rocket scientist then, to extrapolate the rather obvious conclusion, regarding which side’s characteristic behaviour or fundamental Strengths should represent the Good, and which should represent the Evil … if viewed purely in isolation, rather than holistically; (i.e.), a Balanced view.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
But we digress, from the ‘art’ of divining sheep livers.
This ‘magic’ duality system gets more complicated. At least, it appears to do so:
Does this system exist in any other form of Mesopotamian divination? Consistent patterns related to right and left also occur in Šumma Izbu [teratomancy: observation of malformed animal foetuses – CM], but at first glance the pattern appears to be reversed.[13]
Again, we note in passing the remarkable parallels with Roman-era rabbinic analyses of malformed human foetuses, miscarriage emissions, and menstrual blood. In the Babylonian Talmud (e.g., Niddah 19a through 26a), their shape (“form”), consistency, and colour – all corresponding to Old Babylonian divination and to the primary alchemical colours: red, white, black and (yellow-)green[14] – are the subject of detailed analysis and debate by Babylon-resident rabbinic “sages”.
The supposed purpose? In order to determine which of the binary categories “clean” (Good) or “unclean” (Evil) a woman should be classified as – and in consequence, subjected to or relieved from the punishments of ostracism, and economic penalty – by ‘reason’ of all that may emerge from her fertile delta.
Rabbi examined blood in the light of a lamp. R.[abbi] Ishmael son of R. Joseph examined it even on a cloudy day between the pillars. R. Ammi b. Samuel ruled: All kinds of blood must be examined only between the sunlight and the shade. R. Nahman citing Rabbah b. Abbuha ruled: The examination may be performed in the sunlight under the shadow of one’s hand.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
‘ONE LIKE DILUTED WINE’? TWO PARTS etc. A Tanna taught:
Sharon wine [diluted] is regarded as the Carmel wine in its natural undiluted state when it is new. R. Isaac b. Abudemi ruled: All these must be examined only in a plain Tiberian cup. What is the reason? — Abaye replied: Generally a cup that contains a log is made of a maneh {100 zuz} and one that contains two log is made of two hundred zuz, but the plain Tiberian cup, even if it contains two log, is made of one maneh, and since it is so thin [the colour of the wine can] be recognized better [than in any other kind of cup].
One hopes the significance of the card number is not lost on any fertile ladies reading. Gentlemen may have some catching up to do. Fear not, as Part 3 explains all. And offers some big surprises.
R. Johanan remarked: The wisdom of R. Hanina caused me not to examine any blood, for when I declared any unclean he declared it clean and when I declared it clean he declared it unclean. [..] R. Zera remarked: The Babylonian coinage was the cause of my refusing to examine blood; for I thought: If I do not understand the coinage system would I understand the nature of blood? This then implies that capability to examine blood depends on an understanding of the coinage; but did not Rabbah in fact understand the coinage system and yet did not understand the qualities of blood?
This great obsession of the rabbinic “sages” with female cycles, and their curious association of menstrual emissions with money, also sheds light on the story of Jesus (c.30–33 AD), and his healing of the woman suffering from an “issue” of blood, merely by virtue of her touching the tassles on the hem of his holy garment, with a heart full of faith:
And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians,[a] she could not be healed by anyone.44 She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased.45 And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter[b] said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!”46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.”47 And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed.48 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.”
We can only presume that Jesus, the poverty-embracing, debt Jubilee-proclaiming activist who had “no place to lay his head,” nevertheless somehow obtained tzitzit dyed with the rabbinically-prescribed, rare, Roman elite-restricted, more expensive than gold, 6,6′-dibromoindigo magic light-transformed dye – turning Tyrian “Royal” Purple if processed in the dark, or as-above-so-below, night sea-and-sky[15] Cabalist coal-fired flame[16]indigo blue if processed in sun light – made from the foul fishy-smelling secretions of “unclean” predatory sea snails with shell forms remarkably reminiscent of human female genitalia, and did not take the intelligent and wise approach of using perfect colour copies made from inexpensive, rabbinically-forbidden indigo vegetable dye, or else the magic may not have worked.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Rabbi Simeon said … Whoever wishes to understand the mystery of union with the Divine will do well to reflect and meditate upon the flame proceeding from a lighted candle or a burning coal, in which may be recognized two kinds of flame or light, one white and the other dark or bluish in color. The white flame ascends upwards in a straight line, the dark or blue part of the flame, being below it and forming its basis. Though these be conjoined together, the white flame is always seen clearly and distinctly, and of the two is the most valuable and precious. From these observations we may gather somewhat of the occult meaning of the thekheloth (blue fringes) mentioned in scripture. The dark or blue flame is connected and conjoined with that above it, namely, the white, and also below it with the candle or coal in a state of combustion. It becomes sometimes red, whilst the superior white flame never varies in color and remains invariably the same. Furthermore, it is noticeable that the dark or blue flame consumes and wastes the substance of the coal or candle whence it emanates, but the white pure light consumes nothing and never varies. Therefore, when Moses proclaimed the Lord to be a consuming fire [Deut. 4:24], he alludes to the astral fluid or flame that consumes everything similar to the dark flame that wastes and destroys the substance of the candle or coal.
On the other hand, maybe Jesus did use a cheap organic compound to counterfeit the rabbis’ (or rather, Rome’s) exclusive purple/blue dye, and so that is why the magic worked.
A profound metaphor there, regarding credebt, usury extraction, and exclusively-privileged, money and monthly time cycle ‘doctors’, for those with eyes to see. A touch of mystical in-sight helps.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
But again we digress from our main topic – divination of future fortunes, by ‘reading’ the entrails.
And the malformed abortions, or indeed, live births (Šumma Izbu: “If a malformed foetus”) :
A comprehensive analysis of the protases of Šumma Izbu and of their sequential arrangement reveals that in general the descriptions of the malformations fall into five categories:
A) Malformations resembling animal features
B) Absence of body parts
C) Deformed or incomplete body parts
D) Misplacement of body parts
E) Presence of excess body parts
For a given body part these types of malformations tend to be treated in sequence. [..] It should be emphasized that while it is known that malformed births were actually observed, the full range of malformations mentioned in the series .. includes physically impossible phenomena…
[T]he classification of malformations according to the binary opposition right/left is by the far most important and pervasive structuring feature in the series. [..] In addition to the dichotomy right/left, other common oppositions in the series include examples of spatial (above/below, front/rear, inside/outside) and qualitative (large/small, long/short) oppositions (as well as complementary pairs such as male/female, dead/alive, normal/abnormal), some of which can be combined with the opposition right/left in larger classification groups.. .
The corresponding apodoses fall into the opposing categories of favourable/unfavourable predictions, thus combining themselves with the protases to form pairs of omens based on a structure of symmetric oppositions. While this organizational principle is in evidence in all divinatory disciplines, in Šumma Izbu a malformation on the right side (normally the pars familiaris) is considered negative, a malformation on the left (normally the pars hostilis), positive. This is owed to the context of the observation: a malformation being eo ipso a negative sign, the normal meaning of the opposition right (“favourable”) / left (“unfavourable”) is inverted.[17]
Confused?
Cannot see how there is consistency of organising principle between Right = Good, Left = Evil (livers), and Right = Evil, Left = Good (foetuses)?
One must simply pay close attention to the difference in the details. The core assumptions, and the context:
It has been observed over and over that cultures express right/left symbolism consistently, although the values symbolized obviously vary [Hertz 1909, Needham 1973]. If one proposes the not so daring hypothesis that right/left symbolism is consistent in Mesopotamian divination and that a general system of interpretation is based on it, then the apparent discrepancy in Šumma Izbu must be resolved. [..] In a divinatory procedure which judges physical malformations to be either auspicious or inauspicious a defect on the right is bound to be considered threatening and conversely, a defect on the left, which leaves the right side unaffected, must be the auspicious component.
In the following omens one can see the standard right/left symbolic associations operating in spite of the superficial transposition:
“If an anomaly has no right ear – the reign of the king will come to an end; his palace will be scattered; overthrow of the elders of the city; the king will have no advisors; the mood of the land will change; the herds of the land will decrease; you will make a promise to the enemy.”
“If an anomaly has no left ear – the god has heard the prayer of the king, the king will take the land of his enemy, the palace of the enemy will be scattered, the enemy will have no advisors, you will decrease the herd of the enemy, he will make a promise to you.”[18]
It is interesting to observe that the act of making a promise is always considered a negative omen, for the person who is pre-destined to make it. Perfectly logical, really. It means that they are pre-destined to be in their enemy’s debt.
The system where double occurrences transform the prediction can also be explained. Double occurrences are based on additional features and augment the strength of the side on which they occur.[19]
Some examples:
“if a woman gives birth and (the foetus) has two ears on the right and none on the left – the gods (who were) angry will return to the land and the land will live in peace”
“if a woman gives birth and (the foetus) has two ears on the left and none on the right – the advice of the land will be unheeded”
“if a malformed foetus has a second ear inside its right ear – the prince will have advisers”
“if a malformed foetus has a second ear inside its left ear – the advisers of the prince will advise him badly”[20]
Thus a consistent principle of divinatory interpretation underlies both extispicy and Šumma Izbu. It is based on the analogical association of pairs of opposites, whose positive and negative values are well established. This consistent symbolic pattern reveals the binary nature of divination, in general, but does little by itself to elucidate the deeper imaginative patterns. The value of right/left symbolism lies neither in the validity nor consistency of its occurrence, but rather when the patterns are unexpectedly reversed.
In the omen series Šumma Alu, transposition of right/left occurs frequently. In general it is an auspicious omen when an animal crosses from the right to the left.
“If a snake crosses from the right of a man to the left of a man – he will have a good name.”
“If a snake crosses from the left of a man to the right of a man – he will have a bad name.”
“If a man starts out on an undertaking and a falcon crosses from the man’s right to the man’s left – his undertaking will be successful.”
However, when a man sees a crow on the right at the start of a journey, the journey will not achieve its goals. Because of this we are able to determine that the crow has a negative symbolic value as an ominous sign:
“If a man starts out on an undertaking and a crow hovers and caws on the man’s left – he will go where he is established, he will enjoy profit.”
“If a man starts a journey and a crow hovers on the right and caws – that man will not go where he is established, he will be unhappy.”
Reversals of right/left symbolism become an interpretive tool when they simply open our eyes to broader imaginative patterns. The sleep omens of Šumma Alu begin with omens based on the position of the sleeper. If he sleeps on his right side, it is inauspicious.
The unexpected reversal catches our attention and points to a larger pattern. Laughing in one’s sleep brings sadness. Muttering insults while asleep brings an outpouring of friendliness. If one speaks pleasant words, however, his days will be short. The whole tablet comes into focus: sleep is portrayed as the mirror world of waking.
The interpretation of sleep and the dream-world – the unconscious mind – as being the mirror (exact opposite) of waking, is depicted identically in the Babylonian Talmud (Berakhot), the Zohar (c. 1300 AD), and in Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams (1900). It is not only double-entry bookkeeping, bank credebt creation, and ‘Orwellian’ doublethink; the fundamental principles of ‘modern’ psychoanalysis too, are identical to Old Babylonian divination, and to Jewish mysticism and magic (see here).
Significant information derives from the reversals, but only by first establishing a consistent system are we able to apprehend their internal logic. The system thus established provides a solid, stable context against which the imaginative patterns work. The mutations of this system show that in many ways divination is left-handed truth.”[21]
The fundamental ‘logic’ or operative principles of double entry bookkeeping – and thus, 97% of bookkeeping credebt entry-based ‘money’, so-called ‘modern’ ‘sophisticated’ finance, and economics – is also “left-handed truth.”
As we have seen in earlier essays (e.g., here, here, here, here, here), it functions in precisely the same way, in service of the same male Ego-driven, hedonistic (i.e., pleasure-maximising), selfish ends.
However, in order to really ram (pun intended) the point home that double-entry principles are identical to Old Babylonian divinatory ‘magic’, here is a further illustration, in express context of ‘divining’ sheep livers, malformed foetuses, and snakes/birds/beasts appearing beside or crossing over one’s path:
Incidentally, we note in passing that this illustration highlights again – at least for yours truly – the failure of most modern economists to (a) think for themselves, and (b) do their job thoroughly, with intellectual honesty. Rarely, if ever, do economists imagining themselves to be modelling economic actions – including those using double entry bookkeeping to do so – take into consideration that every action has more than one, often un-equal and opposite reaction. There are both internal, and external, asymmetric ‘mirror’ reflections of every economic act, by every human being. Impacting on an-Other/s, and on Mother Nature. That is reality. Whether recorded, at all (much less correctly, by and for all affected parties), or not.
The reason why economists have such limited success in predicting the future, is because their academic discipline is based on fundamental principles that are identical to, and thus no more intelligent and rational than the divination of sheep livers, in order to analyse a system (the financialised economy) that is itself based on fundamental principles that are identical to, and thus no more intelligent and rational than the divination of sheep livers.
In concluding our review of Old Babylonian divination as being the theosophical ‘magic’ organising principle that ‘modern’ accounting, finance, and all post-Middle Ages economic theories are based on – particularly neoclassical economic ‘equilibrium’ “Greed is Good” theory, the core ‘rational’-isation for the fiscal and social policies of neoliberalism and globalist “free markets” – there is one further topic of note.
It has profound relevance for our essay series’ titular subject – banks, usury, and doublethink in the Roman Empire. The context is the Cabalist ‘magic’ system of gnōsis. Mystical “knowing”, or “knowledge”.
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten[a] a man with the help of the Lord.”
The symbolic values attributed to animal-like features draws on culturally conditioned notions that can also be observed in other genres of cuneiform literature. Here we just give a few examples:
Lion → the king, royal power and military strength
“if a woman gives birth (and the foetus) has the ear of a lion – there will be a strong king in the land”
“if a malformed foetus has the head of a lion – the prince will seize universal kingship”
[if] a malformed foetus has the eyes of a lion – the prince will have no rival”
Wolf → pestilence, discord and strife
“if a woman gives birth and (the foetus) has the head of a wolf – there will be massacres in the land”
“if a ewe gives birth to a wolf – there will be a plague in the country; madness; catastrophe for the land; disease of the herds”[22]
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
“if a goat gives birth to a wolf – pestilence (lit. “the god will consume”)”
Dog → pestilence, discord and strife
“if a woman gives birth to a dog – the owner of the house will die and his house will be scattered; the opinion of the land will change; pestilence (lit. “the god will consume”)”
“if a ewe gives birth to a lion and it has the face of a dog – (lit. “Nergal will consume”)”
“if a sow [pig] gives birth to a dog – there will be strife in the land”[23]
As we will discover in future parts to this series, “all Jewish spheres – the prayer book, the Talmud, and Jewish philosophy,” being rooted in “the official theology” of Cabala,[24] and derived from “old Chaldea” (Babylonia), are identically rational.
******************
Am reminded of hypothesis that leaped to mind recently, while reading an interdisciplinary academic study on several key cultures of antiquity, still having deep influence today. Rather interesting to contemplate, compare those which venerate(d) dogs, versus those vilifying them.
[2] Constant, A.L., Transcendental Magic: Its Doctrine and Ritual (A.E. Waite transl.), George Redway: London (1896), p.46
[3] Wolfson, E.R., Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination, Fordham University Press: New York (2005), p.549 fn. 58 cit. Ḥayyim Vital Sha’ar ha-Pesuqim, 3a (online, retrieved 22 Jan 2018)
cf. Kosher Torah School (online, archived from original, retrieved Feb 2, 2019) – “Sha’ar HaPesukim, Ezekiel, Secret of Cain Souls, Lesson 3 – Souls from the “head” of Cain, and those from the “feet.” Source of the souls of Hezekiah, King of Judah, and of Ezekiel the prophet, himself. Secret of the reversal of Gevurot and Hasidim, secret of the reversal of the Levites and the Kohanim. Secret of the rectification and the reversal to the true order in the days of the Third Temple. Secret of the Kohanim Levites, sons of Tzadok. Secrets of reincarnation and rectification. Summary of Rabbi Ḥayim Vital’s profound vision of the secret reality of human souls.”
[4] Mattessich, R., Accounting and the Input-Output Principle in the Prehistoric and Ancient World, ABACUS, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1989, p. 81 — “The significance of the input—output principle for double entry accounting is well recognized in the literature. For example; ‘The writer wishes to emphasize the merit that comes from understanding a double entry bookkeeping as an input-output system of data calculating the amount of capital charged’ (Kishi, 1984, p. 359).” (p. 77, fn 7)
[5] Wolfson, E.R., Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination, Fordham University Press: New York (2005), pp. 76, 133, 137, 184, 739 (online, retrieved 22 Jan 2018) –
To be more precise, the dimension of God that is, paradoxically, present in its absence is the corona of the phallus (ateret yesod). So prevalent is this idea, what I would call the ground concept of the tradition, that I could easily fill a chapter citing pertinent passages that illustrate the point.. . [..] Yesod itself is composed of male and female in the secret of the phallus [yesod] and the corona [atarah] that is in him. Yesod thus exemplifies a dual nature: it is disclosed as the locus of concealment, a disclosure, perforce, that preserves the concealment of what is disclosed.
The phallic gradation of the divine embodies what I have termed ‘hermeneutical duplicity’ – for the secret to be secretive, it must be hidden in its exposure, exposed in its being hidden. The duplicity is engendered by Kabbalists in a hierarchical way that we would expect from an andocentric and at times misogynistic culture: hiddenness, the more inward and consequently more valuable, is rendered as masculine, and exposure, the more outward and consequently less valuable, as feminine. But how is the phallus engendered as both male and female? The male is the shaft of the penis (yesod) and the female the corona (atarah). As Isaac of Acre articulates the matter, “You already know the secret of circumcison [sod ha-milah] alludes to Saddiq . . . and the corona that is revealed through the excision of the foreskin alludes to Atarah.” The identification of the corona .. as the locus of contemplative envisioning can be well expressed by the Lacanian dialectic of the signifier that is veiled in the unveiling of the veil, that is, the object of mystical vision is the phallic sign manifest in the exposure of its hiddenness. [my bold emphasis added – CM]
[6] Guinan, A.K., Left/Right Symbolism in Mesopotamian Divination, SAAB 10 (1996, 5-10), p.5
[7] Bartlett, J., Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations: A Collection of Passages, Phrases, and Proverbs Traced to Their Sources in Ancient and Modern Literature, 17th ed. (2002)
[8] Guinan, A.K., Left/Right Symbolism in Mesopotamian Divination, SAAB 10 (1996, 5-10), pp.6-7
[9] De Zorzi, N., The Omen Series Šumma Izbu: Internal Structure and Hermeneutic Strategies, Rivista di storia, ambienta e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico Vol. 8 (2011), p.54
[10] Guinan, A.K., Left/Right Symbolism in Mesopotamian Divination, SAAB 10 (1996, 5-10), p.7
[11] ibid.
[12] De Zorzi, N., The Omen Series Šumma Izbu: Internal Structure and Hermeneutic Strategies, Rivista di storia, ambienta e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico Vol. 8 (2011), p.52, n.38 (cf. Starr 1983, 6.)
[13] Guinan, A.K., Left/Right Symbolism in Mesopotamian Divination, SAAB 10 (1996, 5-10), p.6
[15] Sagiv, G., Dazzling Blue: Color Symbolism, Kabbalistic Myth, and the Evil Eye in Judaism (Numen 64 (2017) 183-208) –
The Talmud asserts that tekhelet is special among all colors, basing this opinion on a chain of homologies (Herzog 1987: 87–88; Scholem 1979: 90 n. 11), such as the following version of the Palestinian Talmud: “tekhelet is like the sea and the sea the grass, and the grass the firmament, and the firmament the throne of glory and the throne of glory is like the sapphire” (y. Berakhot I.2). This chain of homologies seems to be leading the worshipper from the tekhelet thread, through the sea, to the divine, thereby imbuing tekhelet with mystical significances. However, it should be noted that the word tekhelet can refer to various shades of blue. Just as tekhelet can be the color of a daylight sky, it can also be the color of the sky at night. In contradistinction to the spiritual promise of tekhelet, there are sources that introduce threatening aspects to this color. One characteristic of tekhelet, which has its origins inthe first centuries CE, associates the word tekhelet/ תכלת with the Hebrew roots klh/ כלה (denoting annihilation) and škl/ שׁכּל (denoting bereavement). Hence, tekhelet is an end, and sometimes even a divine power of destruction and death.7 In a similar vein, according to one Talmudic source, “all colors bode well in a dream except the color tekhelet” (b. Berakhot 57b).
(pp. 186-187; fn.7 “Sifre to Numbers associates tekhelet with the annihilation of the elder sons of the Egyptians and the sinking of the Egyptian soldiers in the sea (Neusner 1986: 178). The Onkelos translation of the Bible into Aramaic translates the Hebrew root of bereavement ( שכל ) as .תכל”)
[16] Blumenthal, D.R., Three is Not Enough: Jewish Reflections on Trinitarian Thinking (first published in Ethical Monotheism, Past and Present: Essays in Honor of Wendell S. Dietrich, ed. T. Vial and M. Hadley (Providence, RI, Brown Judaic Studies: 2001) 181-95), citing Zohar 1:50b-51b, modified from F. Lachower and I. Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, transl. D. Goldstein (Oxford, The Littman Library and Oxford University Press: 1989) 1:319-20. (online, retrieved 12 December 2018) –
Rabbi Simeon began by saying: There are two verses [that contradict one another]. It is written, “For the Lord your God is a devouring fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24) and it is also written, “And you who cleave to the Lord your God are alive, all of you, to-day” (Deuteronomy 4:4). We have reconciled these verses in several places, but the [mystical] companions have a [deeper] understanding of them…. Whoever wishes to understand the wisdom of the holy unification, let him look at the flame that rises from a glowing coal, or from a burning lamp, for the flame rises only when it takes hold of some coarse matter.
Come and see. In the rising flame there are two lights: one is a radiant white light and one is a light that contains black or blue. The white light is above and it ascends in a direct line. Beneath it is the blue or black light and it is a throne for the white. The white light rests upon it and they are connected together, forming one whole. The black light, [that which has] blue color, is the throne of glory for the white. And this is the mystic significance of the blue.
This blue-black throne is joined to something else, below it, so that it can burn and this stimulates it to grasp the white light…. This [blue-black light] is connected on two sides. It is connected above to the white light and it is connected below to what is beneath it, to what has been prepared for it so that it might illuminate and grasp [that which is above it].
This [blue-black light] devours continuously and consumes whatever is placed beneath it; for the blue light consumes and devours whatever is attached to it below, whatever it rests upon, since it is its habit to consume and devour. Indeed, the destruction of all, the death of all, depends upon it and therefore it devours whatever is attached to it below. [But] the white light which rests upon it does not devour or consume at all, and its light does not change. Concerning this, Moses said, “For the Lord your God is a devouring fire,” really devouring, devouring and consuming whatever rests beneath it…
The Zohar begins this passage in classical midrashic style by showing a contradiction between two verses, one of which speaks of God as a consuming fire while the other advocates cleaving to God. It, then, goes on to draw an analogy to the common flame which is attached to a dark coal, which it must consume in order to burn. The flame itself is composed of two parts — a blue-black center, which is attached to the wick or coal, and a white periphery which encompasses and rises above the blue-black center.
In this passage, the Zohar depicts the central sefira which is Tiferet as the white part of the flame. It rests upon the sefira which is the point of contact with creation, Malkhut, here depicted as the blue-black part of the flame. At the end of this passage, the Zohar calls attention to the invisible part of the flame — the zone of invisible heat which surrounds every fire — and interprets it as Keter (God’s ultimate ineffability).
Finally, the Zohar notes that the blue-black part of the flame, Malkhut (God’s ruling ability), consumes the coal or wick to which it is attached. The coal and wick are material; they depict creation, particularly humanity.
Above the white light rests a concealed light which encompasses it. Here is a supernal mystery and you will find all in the ascending flame. The wisdom of the upper realms is in it.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
[17] De Zorzi, N., The Omen Series Šumma Izbu: Internal Structure and Hermeneutic Strategies, Rivista di storia, ambienta e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico Vol. 8 (2011), pp.46-48, 52-53
[18] Guinan, A.K., Left/Right Symbolism in Mesopotamian Divination, SAAB 10 (1996, 5-10), pp.7-8
[19] ibid., p.8
[20] De Zorzi, N., The Omen Series Šumma Izbu: Internal Structure and Hermeneutic Strategies, Rivista di storia, ambienta e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico Vol. 8 (2011), p.53
[21] Guinan, A.K., Left/Right Symbolism in Mesopotamian Divination, SAAB 10 (1996, 5-10), pp.8-10
[22] De Zorzi, N., The Omen Series Šumma Izbu: Internal Structure and Hermeneutic Strategies, Rivista di storia, ambienta e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico Vol. 8 (2011), pp.61-62
[23] ibid., p.62
[24] Jewish Mysticism, Aleph Society Inc. (online, archived after original, retrieved 1 Feb 2019)
Citing a tale from the Talmud in which the rabbis tell God, “You gave us a document to interpret and a methodology for interpreting it. Now leave us to do our job,” (Harvard Law Professor Alan) Dershowitz sees a lesson for Americans.
Why do the nations rage[a] and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.”
He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision.
My mother has long enjoyed telling tales of my childhood exploits. This is one of the few that has never embarrassed me.
On the contrary, its retelling tends only to stir again a certain mischievous joy in that inner “naughty little boy” who, at age 32, succumbed to friendly pressure to go on a “just for coffee” blind date with an evangelical Christian lassie rumoured to be highly attractive and rather zealous, and so turned up in a T-shirt boldly proclaiming SATAN MADE ME DO IT out of curiosity to observe her reaction.
You see, when I was a wee lad, my parents were, for a time, members of one of the countless derivative sects of protestant Christianity. As with many others birthed in the Anglosphere in the 18th-20th centuries, this sect had its own founding “prophet”, who laid down a library of stringent rules for all aspects of one’s life conduct. A failure to observe any of these innumerable earthly rules risked the threat of Eternal Damnation, of not being counted among The Chosen in the Book of Life, and so not destined for heaven.
One of its most important rules derived from the biblical command of ‘God’ to pay the ancient Hebrew priest castethe church hierarchy a ‘tithe’tax not less than 10% of my father’s before tax income.
Quelle surprise.
One day, while still in kindergarten, this naughty little boy made a wonderful discovery. Right there, in the Holy Bible, was the parentally-forbidden word “piss”:
And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.
Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon (“shâthan” – make water, urinate)
Indeed, it turned out that this naughty word appeared in King James’ Version of the Holy Word of God on no less than 6 occasions. As you can imagine, I was beside myself with glee.
“Dad, may I be excused please? I need to go and pisseth.”
“I’m sorry (for not coming promptly when called) Mum. I was busting to pisseth.”
My ‘holy’ enthusiasm soon posed a growing threat not only to family discipline and decorum but also to the very fabric of order and piety in the wider church society. For naturally, I was zealously sharing the supporting proof of my licence to sin with all the other children.
At a loss to come up with a more persuasive argument against my giving voice, loudly and often, to the literal Word of God, my parents were left to fall back on a plaintive “that word is from olden times; it’s not nice to say it now” as their primary tool of discouragement until the novelty of horrifying the adults in the room wore off.
Curiously, by the time I reached high school, to casually pronounce that one needed to go and “urinate” or “defecate” provoked a similar response from authority figures, despite these also being the technically “correct” and “proper” words, as I took no small delight in pointing out.
Unlike yours truly at age 5, the rabbinic sages of ancient Rome were able to come up with far more sophistic-ated arguments for sin. Their legal debates and decisions on property and usury laws exhibit telling correspondences with the ‘modern’ banking system, and with the key words and definitions used in financial accounting.
Thanks in large part to more than a century of Western education and cinema indoctrinating multiple generations with a blind faith in a theory of nature’s, and thus, humanity’s, innate tendency to evolve (“progress”), from “simplicity,” “ignorance” and “superstition,” supposedly moving, inexorably, towards an ultimate, “advanced” state of “sophisticated” utopian apotheosis, and so encouraging us to place our hopes for the future in technology sans morality enabling Self-Deification (immortality), we tend to assume that, compared with ours, the great civilisations of past æons must have been quite “backward”. Like most things we have been led to believe, closer examination reveals that, in many respects, this is entirely false. While in other respects, it becomes increasingly apparent that the deification of “sophistication,” and the scorning of “simplicity,” is not necessarily wise.
The circa 1000-year ecclesiastic prohibition of usury in late-Roman through late-Renaissance Europe and Britannia has been widely portrayed as being the result of “medieval” Christian superstition. Rarely mentioned is the Roman Republic’s Lex Genucia reforms (342 BC) banning money-lending at interest, almost four centuries before Christianity was birthed. This is not to imply that the Romans succeeded in their attempts to regulate financial “sophistication”. History records a rather more nuanced, and enlightening picture. One must simply understand where, and how, to go digging for it.
During the Principate era (c. 27 BC to 284 AD) of the Early Roman Empire, banking was conducted mostly by private individuals and firms functioning very much like large banks today. As the Empire expanded, vast numbers of slaves and skilled artisans were both compelled and enticed to settle in Rome and near provinces, and in its key industrial and trading centres abroad:
It is very clear from all sources that debt existed and that money was loaned out. In fact, money-lending was perceived as the second most important form of ‘investment’ after land. As such, on average, if no land was available, or if it was not a good investment, the Romans would try to lend their money. This was a big business and it was conducted by all strata within the economy.
It was not only the rich who loaned their money: credit was bountiful and wide-ranging, and this was “indicated by the variety of sources for loans and the sophistication of their forms. Depending upon the client and his needs, credit could be obtained from aristocratic financiers, from the publicani [corporations], from entrepreneurs, from the state (at least in Egypt), from civic treasuries, from temple funds, from foundations, from bankers, from money-lending partnerships, from loan clubs, from pawn-brokers, from loan sharks, and from other individuals who might lend occasionally. Money-lending was sufficiently widespread for it to be a requirement to declare money out on loan in the census. In addition to advances of money, credit was to be had in shops. In the finance of overseas trade maritime credit continued to play its part alongside mutual associations (societates). Money loans or arrears are attested in rural areas in Italy and in some provinces. Rural debt in money, as well as in kind, was surely ubiquitous.” Furthermore, this readily infers that money-lending was also available to all strata of the Empire, which can also be measured by the extent of “the social advancement of some professional bankers. The bankers, who were predominantly freedmen, were able to purchase property from their earnings. Some reached the highest honours normally available to freedmen other than the richest of imperial secretaries. This was possible despite the fact that for the most purposes bankers were not used by the elite, whose requirements ran beyond the means of individual bankers, and who relied upon their social peers when in need. The betterment of professional bankers was thus in part a reflection of the use of credit by the likes of wholesale merchants, artisans, shopkeepers, and property owners below the elite.”
Temin wrote: “The surprising result is that financial institutions in the early Roman Empire were better than those of 18th century France and not too far from those of the 18th century England and Holland.” Once again, the sheer magnitude and sophistication of the Roman Empire is brought to the forefront: in essence, this underlines the fact that it took the Western world at least 1,500 years to reach similar levels of sophistication in the field of financial intermediation…[1]
The legal debates of the rabbinic sages that we will examine in what must be a multi-part essay are of particular interest when seen in light of their historical context: the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (c. 70 AD), the extensive depopulation of Judea (c. 136 AD), the Crises of the Third Century (235–284 AD), the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity (eventually becoming the state religion in 380 AD), and changes in what might, or, might not, depending on one’s motives, be honestly interpreted as “the laws of the gentiles,” at specific times and places, with regard to the practice of usury.
The Bava Metzia (“Middle Gate”) is a Babylonian Talmud tractate dealing with Nezikin (The Order of Damages). The Jewish Encyclopedia explains:
It treats of man’s responsibility with regard to the property of his fellow-man that has come lawfully into his possession for the present, and of which he is considered as trustee. The tractate is based on Ex. xxii. 6-14 (A. V. 7-15). In this passage four kinds of trustees are distinguished: (a) One who keeps the thing entrusted to him without remuneration (verses 6-8); (b) one who is paid for keeping the trust (verses 9-12); (c) one who keeps a thing entrusted to him for a certain time for his own use without paying for its use (verses 13, 14a); and (d) a trustee who keeps a thing for his own use and pays for using it (14b).
Before we penetrate the “Middle Gate”, it is a most enlightening exercise in mental gymnastics, viz. creative assumptions (b) and tortured definitions (“fellow-man”), merely to attempt a logical comparison of the above definitions with the plain meaning, implication, and spirit of the words actually written in the Torah (Old Testament Pentateuch) at Exodus 22:6-14 (cf. 7-15 CJB transl.).
Try. I’ll wait….
For readers who may be unfamiliar, a little historical background is necessary before we move on, so that we may better understand the context, and chronology.
Ever since the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in the Great Revolt – the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73 AD) – it has not been possible to perform the primitive agricultural society cult ritual of animal (blood) sacrifices for “cleansing” of sins. A truly epochal tragedy, for which wailing, gnashing of teeth, liturgical prayers, “Next year in Jerusalem” mantras, and for some, plotting and scheming, have continued for two thousand years. A world of “progress” toward hell ever since. And we, the goyim (Gentiles) – especially the “Romans” – are entirely to blame. For everything. All the evils of the world, are our fault alone.
Do not take my word for it though. Witness the central text of Jewish theosophy (mysticism) – on which we will have much more to elaborate at a later date – and, the holy founder of one of the largest, most influential Lurianic-Cabalist sects in the world; those nice, humble and harmless, mono-suited Men-in-Black hats often seen standing in large groups around the desks of presidents:
SAID Rabbi Abba: “‘Nephesh hahaya’ (living soul) truly denote the souls of Israel. They are the children of the Holy One and holy in his sight, but the souls of the heathen and idolatrous nations whence come they?” Said Rabbi Eleazar: “They emanate from the left side of the sephirotic tree of life, which is the side of impurity, and therefore they defile all that come into contact with them.[2]
Zohar (זֹהַר , lit. “Splendor” or “Radiance”), 13th century A.D.
Gentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever… Their material abundance derives from supernal refuse. Indeed, they themselves derive from refuse, which is why they are more numerous than the Jews… [3]
Why such seething hatred in the hearts of the rabbis?
Why such a hate-filled, Other- and Self-destructive, extremist, supremacist, racist, fundamentalist ideology, embedded in a “sexualised, divine” ‘magic’ theosophy?
You see, no longer could a Jew commit a sin against God, or against a fellow Jew – like, say, getting your period, or having a wet dream – go wait in a queue to buy an unblemished cow or sheep or pair of pigeons or turtle-doves from the temple thieves (after first getting raped at the currency exchange by the temple banksters), hand the poor doomed creature/s over to the pious, habitually de-sensitised, blood-thirsty rabbis dressed in tunics, pants, ephods (aprons), turbans and robes made from pure gold-threaded 6-ply “twisted” linens dyed with hillazon (“rare” and “expensive”) tekhelet (blue), scarlet, and Tyrian “Royal” Purple – even more rarified, a colour subject to Roman sumptuariæ lex restrictions since the Lex Oppia in 215 BC[4], whose dye the insanely profligate Nero (37-68 AD), said to have never worn his garments twice and to have fished with a gold net drawn by cords woven of purple and scarlet threads[5], confiscated Empire-wide[6] – a double-dipped (“dibapha”) linen which the contemporary Roman historian Pliny wrote (77-79 AD) “could not be bought for even one thousand denarii per pound[7],” more than its weight in gold, and “considered of the best quality when it has exactly the colour of clotted blood, and is of a blackish hue to the sight, but of a shining appearance when held up to the light; hence it is that we find Homer speaking of ‘purple blood'”[8]; a “blood” harvested from ‘unclean’, predatory sea-snails, resulting in Royal linen stinking to high heaven and needing to be aired out for weeks before use, driving a vast luxury perfume industry[9] to conceal the overwhelmingly fishy stench, and prompting Pliny to wonder how something smelling so bad (virus grave in fuco) could be so highly valued[10]; which “intrinsically holy” garments were not allowed to be washed, and so, on becoming “soiled” in the course of massive ritual blood-letting were shredded and used as candle wicks (hey, at least the Jewish priests maximised the utility of their bloody rags, right?), said priests waiting to slit your creature’s throat, butcher and holocaust it for you on their altar; then toddle off home, mindful not to step in the literal rivers of blood flowing from the Temple slaughtering area via “blood channels” designed by the Great Architect of the Universe, washed away by “sweet”[11] water from the Gihon Spring (מעיין הגיחון, Fountain of the Virgin) of Siloam (“Shiloh”, built on Zoheleth [זֹחֶלֶת “crawling thing”; Arabic زحل Zuhal: Saturn] the “Serpent Stone”, where king David’s son Adonijah held a great feast in an attempt to usurp the throne from his brother Solomon; from whence the occultist sex ‘magic’ Sleep of Siloam), with a clear conscience that ‘God’ had now forgiven you for blood flowing from your fertile ▽, or for waking up in a wet spot.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
We will come back to all that, gentle reader. On other days. God willing. It will take us quite some time to work through it all. Today is mere introduction.
The Talmud is a voluminous collection of writings with two main components: the Mishnah (c. 200 AD), a written compilation of the Oral Torah, that is, the “Oral Traditions” (lore) of the rabbinic sages up to c. 200 AD; and the Gemara (c. 500 AD), a compilation of rabbinical analysis (i.e., dialectical debate) and commentary on the Mishnah. The Gemara has two versions – the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds – each compiled in their respective geographic centres of rabbinic study. Of these, the Babylonian Talmud is considerably the larger, comprising some 1.8 million words.[12] The three centuries in between the Mishnah and Gemara, coinciding with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, are known as the age of Amora’im (“those who say”, “those who speak over the people”).
Babylonian Talmud, Venice, 1520-1543 (Printed by Daniel Bomberg; private collection)
During these three centuries the great rabbis, principally centred in Babylonia (in modern Iraq) and connected via trading routes with the Jewish communities throughout the Roman diaspora, permanently transferred the benchmark of Jewish religious and legal culture away from the Torah (Pentateuch of Old Testament), to a new one establishing the authority of the rabbinate.
Supreme Authority, that is.
Even over God Himself.
In the great Talmudic tale referred to by Alan Dershowitz of a fantastical and puerile legal debate between ‘sages’ over the religious purity status of an earthenware oven divided into segments with sand – the crux of which argument hinged on whether it is classified as a “complete” oven (cf. cooking the books: “For every credit there must be a debit, and for every debit there must be a credit.” – Voila! A “complete” ‘oven’) – the chief protagonist is claimed to have invoked a series of miracles, as proof that God was witnessing that his position was correct. All to no avail. Even when God Himself spoke from Heaven in support, the other rabbis still conjured up excuses to defy the argument presented. In the conclusion we learn from a new tale – a conversation between a rabbi and the divine fiery chariot-driving immortal Jewish prophet who just happens to possess the same magic powers as the alchemists’ god Hermes, to cross back and forth over divine boundaries at will – that even God has accepted that He cannot defeat the ‘sages’ in a legal argument.
Why?
Apparently the All-Wise, All-Knowing Creator of the Universe cannot defeat the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum (“if many believe so, it is so”; the “appeal to the majority”):
Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha [religious law] is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it. A Divine Voice emerged from Heaven and said: Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?
Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me.[13]
Rabbi Yirmeya’s circumcised ‘quote’ from Exodus 23:2, used as a rational-isation for the ‘triumph’ of a logical fallacy, and a rabbinic fairy tale of their victory over God – a defeat by His sons – is not what the verse actually says. It is an arrogant, circular, self-justifying inference, drawn from a category error. For the insightful, a very revealing one. As we will discover, it has had profound consequences for all of humanity, and Mother nature, ever since:
Do not follow the crowd when it does what is wrong; and don’t allow the popular view to sway you into offering testimony for any cause if the effect will be to pervert justice.
Now at first glance, you may think that Rabbi Yirmeya’s inference is quite reasonable: that the exact opposite side of the coin “Do not follow the crowd to do evil” is “Do follow the crowd to do good”; that this is really the same thing. You may then be tempted to think that the only logical error – and in context of the circumstances, one we might reasonably ignore – is the “appeal to the majority” made by … the Rabbi Yehoshua-supporting majority!
After all, that’s democratic. A con-sensus of opinion. And a democratic majority view must always be right … right?
Wrong.
Good and Evil are not relative concepts. They are not subject to opinion. They are not subject to “majority rules”.
Good and Evil are objective realities. Two distinct, opposite categories.
To choose, or to act, are also objective realities. To “do” and “not do” – i.e., to hold back from doing – are two distinct, opposite categories.
In the case of objective Good, a good person will view “Do Good” as the highest choice, and “Do not do Good” (i.e., do nothing; hold back, refrain from doing Good) as the lowest choice:
An evil person will view the same category (objective Good) in the exact opposite way: to “Do Good” is the lowest choice, and “Do not do Good” (i.e., do nothing; hold back, refrain from doing Good) is the highest choice:
The complete spectrum for doing or not doing objective Good thus looks like this:
When it comes to the separate, distinct category of objective Evil, a good person will view “Do not do Evil” (hold back, refrain) as the highest choice, and “Do Evil” as the lowest choice:
An evil person will view the same category (objective Evil) in the opposite way: to “Do Evil” is the highest choice, and “Do not do Evil” is the lowest choice”:
The complete spectrum for doing or not doing objective Evil thus looks like this:
If we mix together the two opposite choices (“Do” or “Do not do”) with respect to the two opposite, objective categories (Good or Evil), the complete spectrum looks like this:
Doing the right thing – objective Good – requires daily sacrifice. Of our Ego, mostly.
And do–ing that can be “bloody” painful at times, right?
So you see, the ‘triumphant’ rabbinic majority’s argument, that God Himself supposedly could not defeat, really amounts to an error of perspective. On Self. Blindness to the true state of one’s own Being.
The result is a mixing together of opposites – the objective realities of Good and Evil, and, of “Do” and “Do not do”.
We are right. (arrogance, Ego-blinded presumption)
“Do not follow the crowd when it does what is wrong” implies the same thing as “Do follow the crowd when it does what is right.” (category error; obfuscating reality of objective opposites)
We are the crowd. (i.e., majority)
Ergo, we are right. (“appeal to the majority”; our Selves!)
God is dead. Might is right.
Though unafraid of straying from his ostensible topic, Dershowitz never wanders far from his favorite subject: himself.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Rabbi Abba ben Joseph bar Ḥama (c. 280 – 352 AD), exclusively referred to in the Talmud as Rava (רבא), is a fourth-generation amora who lived in Maḥoza, a suburb with large Jewish and Christian communities on the west bank of the River Tigris, just across the river from Ctesiphon in Babylonia, the capital and “intellectual and religious center of the Persian Empire”:
The Sassanian Empire [224 – 651 AD] was a meeting point of religions and cultures. Although the official religion of the ruling dynasty was Zoroastrianism, Judaeo-Christian sects and Semitic pagan cults jostled with each other in splendid confusion in Mesopotamia. To these was added a strong Jewish presence in Babylonia and Adiabene… [S]yncretism was the order of the day, with Judaeo-Christian sects like the Elchasaites (among whom the prophet of Manichaeism, Mani, was raised), Christian sects such as the Marcionites, and certainly the Manichaeans and Mandaeans, all competing for converts. In some parts of the Empire, especially in the east, Buddhism was a factor.[14]
These sects did not exist in peaceful isolation. Some were at various times persecuted severely, especially the more orthodox Christian sects that were looked upon as natural allies of the Roman enemy. In 339, the catholicos, Simeon bar Sabbae, was martyred under Shapur II. A century earlier, the self-styled prophet, Māni, wore out his welcome at the court of Shapur I, and died in prison martyred by Vahram I (273-276). Mani’s influence continued to grow, however, including among the acculturated Jewish community of Maḥoza.
Maḥozans were wealthy, cosmopolitan, canny, and skeptical of rabbinic authority. Even members of the household of rabbinic authorities were not greatly informed about the intricacies of everyday halakhah [religious law]. Maḥozans had the reputation of being perspicacious and delicate, the women were pampered and idle, the men pursued still more wealth and the good life.
We can say this: the Babylonian Talmud was not produced in a ghetto, nor was it initially studied and transmitted in one. Its major figures, experts in Jewish traditions, were also very aware of broader currents in the general culture.[15]
Rava is one of the most often-cited rabbis, “the commanding local presence in the Babylonian Talmud, who is mentioned some 3800 times in the text.” His methodology for dialectical debate is said to have greatly influenced the stammaim (“redactors”), whose work “constitutes just over half of the total text of the Babylonian Talmud and which frames the discussion of the rest.”[16]
Out of hundreds of recorded disputes between Rava and his study partner Abaye (“Little Father”), “the law is decided according to the opinion of Abba ben Joseph in all but six cases.”[17] His yeshiva became one of the intellectual centres for the Babylonian Jewish community.[18]
Rava’s creativity was fueled by his cosmopolitan urban environment. For instance, he ruled that one who habitually ate certain non-kosher foods because he liked the taste was nevertheless trustworthy as a witness in cases involving civil matters. So too did he suggest that a lost object belongs to the person who discovers it even before the loser is aware of his loss, because it prevented the loser from resorting to urban courts to try to get his property back and eliminated the period of uncertainty of possession. It also led to the legal concept that “future [psychological] abandonment [of possession] when unaware [of the loss] is [nevertheless retrospectively accounted] as abandonment.”[19]
Remarkably, this great ‘sage’ informs us that the very same All-Wise, All-Knowing God, who supposedly could not distinguish between the rabbis fallacious mixing together of Good and Evil and “Do” and “Do not do” in the great debate over the purity of a “complete” oven, apparently can tell the difference between the drops of semen that distinguish a firstborn child from later children in the households of the ‘evil’ goyim (Gentiles):
Rava explains: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between the drop of seed that became a firstborn and the drop of seed that did not become a firstborn, and I killed only the firstborn. I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who attributes ownership of his money to a gentile and thereby lends it to a Jew with interest. Even if he is successful in deceiving the court, God knows the truth. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who buries his weights in salt, as this changes their weight in a manner not visible to the eye. And I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who hangs ritual fringes dyed with indigo [kala ilan] dye on his garment and says it is dyed with the sky-blue dye required in ritual fringes. The allusion to God’s ability to distinguish between two apparently like entities is why the exodus is mentioned in all of these contexts.[20]
Mixing together the money of the Evil with the money of the Good, in order to lend at usury to the Good, is Evil.
Cheating the Good, by invisibly altering your weights used for counting money and goods by weight, is Evil.
Using inexpensive vegetable dye to perfectly imitate a colour that “YHVH”, via the exclusively-privileged intermediation of Good elite rabbis, has declared to be compulsory for the common Good to wear on their compulsory fringes, and that must only be coloured using a rare, phenomenally expensive, Imperial Roman elite-restricted, magical light-transformed dye (6,6′-dibromoindigo), produced using secret gnōsis (“knowledge”), from the Good“old wine”, “clottedblood”-like secretions of Evil (“unclean”), non-kosher, human female genitalia-analogous, bottom-dwelling, predatory and cannibalistic sea creatures, by an independent city-state global maritime empire of Evil pagans… is Evil.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
What is the letter Vav?
He said: There is an upper Heh [5] and a lower Heh [5].*
They said to him: But what is Vav [6]?
He said: The world was sealed with six directions.
They said: Is not Vav a single letter?
He replied: It is written (Psalm 104:2),
“He wraps Himself in light as a garment,
(he spreads out the heavens like a curtain).”
Sefer ha-Bahir (“Book of Illumination”), c. 1176 AD[21]
* Vav ו (“hook,” “peg,” or “spear,” that “binds” heaven and earth;
the phallus; value: 6). Hehה (the Soul; five fingers of magic hamsa hand; “Hashem,” a Name for God; female “cup” / ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ “waters”; thought, speech & action; value: 5)
Good rabbinic authorities engaging this maritime empire city-state for 192 years as their “independent” central bank, issuing High-Powered Money (HPM) for the Second Temple blood ritual cult – a silver shekel expressly re-designed to bear the image of an Evil pagan god of sea*-dominating commerce and a dedication to his “holy city” of safe space (“refuge”) – to ensure that the “full value”[22] of the Temple cult’s accumulated assets (e.g., “Gold sheets to cover the Holy of Holies”), and annual wealth-extraction, both kept pace with inflation; using this HPM mechanism to rape the common Good with punitive, unjust exchange rates on “ransom for your life so “YHVH” doesn’t smite you with a plague” annual Temple taxes, payable only in Evil-‘transformed’-into-Good pagan silver shekels; enabled by a well-‘oiled’ system of insidious national propaganda based on the “scapegoat”[23] festivals of Evil Babylon (Sakaia) and Evil Rome (Saturnalia); unsubtly threatening the common Good population with involuntary seizure (“mortgage”) of assets if they do not pay up, every year, on the very morning after inciting them to drink until they “cannot tell the difference between” Good and Evil, while conjuring up legal exemptions for the Good priest class, all ‘divinely’ ‘justified’ by casuistries and pious sophistry… is Good.
(* “sea” – ancient esoteric pun, associating ‘waters’ of mother earth with Evil; primordial chaos, the female)
Bribing the disciple of an Evil Galilean activist who challenged the laws created by the Good elite rabbis to circumvent the Written Law commanding 7th-year debt cancellations – offering him a bounty of thirty (30) ‘holy’ safe space pagan city-state-issued silver shekels to betray his Evil master – and having him tried and crucified as a criminal for challenging the perpetual debt servitude-enabling Oral Laws (“traditions) of the Good elite rabbis… is Good.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
But wait!
Apparently this very same All-Wise, All-Knowing God, the one Who is “destined to exact punishment from” the Good (or is that Evil?) for cheating the Good – because even if the Good (Evil?) cheat can deceive a rabbinic court, he cannot deceive God, because the Good God knows the truth, and can even tell the difference between the drops of semen that distinguish a firstborn child from later children in the households of the ‘Evil’ goyim (Gentiles) – well, at exactly the same time, on His exact opposite hand, apparently this very same All-Wise, All-Knowing God can not tell the difference between the drops of semen that distinguish a firstborn child from later children in the households of the Chosen Ones, the ‘Good’ Israelites.
How so?
Because, as we are told in the Torah, the Israelites had to slaughter an innocent lamb .. or, a baby goat .. and paint their doorposts with the lamb’s or kid’s blood, so that their All-Wise, All-Knowing ‘God’ could see which households to smite (Egyptian) and which households to Pass over (Israelite):
Your animal must be without defect, a male in its first year, and you may choose it from either the sheepor the goats.
For that night, I will pass through the land of Egypt and kill all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both men and animals; and I will execute judgment against all the gods of Egypt; I am Adonai. The blood will serve you as a sign marking the houses where you are; when I see the blood, I will pass over you…
The Torah also informs us that from the largely, if not entirely imaginary (as we will discover) moment in time out in the Egyptian desert, when ‘Moses’ (allegedly) received The Law from God, twice, ‘God’ demanded a twice-daily, sunrise-sunset, dawn-and-dusk (Inanna-Ishtar-Virgin/Whore-Love/War-Lucifer-Venus morning-and-evening ‘star’), slaughter and holocaust of innocent lambs – but not goats – “forever” (תָּמִיד tâmîyd: “standing”, perpetual, from root “to stretch”). A primitive cult ritual practice ruined by the ‘evil’ Romans when, in response to a Jewish armed revolt against paying Roman taxes, the Roman army destroyed their Temple at Jerusalem, some 40 years after one Jesus of Nazareth tried to inspire a People’s revolt against the binding, usurious debt obligations legally-enabled by, and the payment of “ransom” taxes to, the rabbis’ Jerusalem-based Temple cult.
If you are gullible enough to believe the reams of ‘dialectical’ anal-ysis and “commentary” written by 3rd-5th century A.D. now-in-forced-exile from Eretz Yisra’el – again – wealthy cosmopolitan Maḥoza-resident Babylonian rabbis, retrospectively professing that their now-defunct Second Temple priest caste ancestors were not personally benefitting from what we will discover was an outrageous, mobster-esque, blood-thirsty extortion racket imposed on theirown people, one marked by disturbing similarities to our present-day systems of governance, jurisprudence and finance, then do I have a Santa Claus / Father Frost story and a mountain of minutely-detailed (pun intended) evidence for you.
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.
34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
A few words on this inspirational message, with regard to virtue-signalling hypocrites; also, those wearing bleeding hearts on sleeves, and/or, any of the well-meaning yet dangerously gullible who may be reading. Do not fall into the pilpul-wielders’ trap, cherry-picking Jesus’ message out of context, and using it as ‘divine’ licence, or endorsement, for acts of abject stupidity. Such as, visiting an island of known murderous savages, in spite of all warnings, and its being illegal to visit this island, to preach “the good news”; and going back again, the day after they greeted your first “loving” attempt to intrude on their community, with a hail of arrows. Or, welcoming hundreds of thousands of military-age men from cultures having entirely different values with respect to (eg) “expressing” physical violence against the physical person of others, just because your government, media, ‘celebrities,’ similarly-brainwashed religious leaders, and “the majority” of TV-entranced, logos-bereft, brain-on-autopilot gibbering fools all around you are preaching that “It’s the right thing” to do. They are wrong. Worse, many of them are not merely wrong. They are brazenly, malevolently lying. Jesus was teaching his followers – mostly common Jews; hungry, poor, sick, homeless, oppressed, financially raped and pillaged by their own legal authorities, the rabbis – to love and support each other. On the basis of correct context, and, in consideration of other statements attributed to him – such as, an initial refusal to have anything to do with a .. wait for it .. Syro-Phœnician woman, in the region of Tyre(!), asking for his help with her demonically-possessed child (this is seriously significant stuff, gentle reader; you have no idea, but will, in future essays) – my personal opinion is that Jesus would not have told his followers, especially the females and effeminates, to rock on down to the train station or the docks at Haifa to welcome with open arms, legs, and flowers, an Open Society-financed, rabbinically-endorsed invasion of doubtless lovely and genuinely desperate refugees from rabbinically-endorsed regime change wars abroad, blended with (say) Mongols, Hutu or Tutsi, or Bolshevist, Khmer Rouge, or ISIS-inspired, New York and London bank-financed, ne’er-do-well psychopaths from far-flung parts of the known world.
In other words, do not be like the rabbis. Do not slice-and-dice out of context, and twist a small piece of “the good news” to make it serve as ‘divine’ licence for elite interests, under the “I am such a good person, see? Look! Look at me!” blind guise of “love your neighbourkin-folk”.
A wholehearted, religious acceptance of both sides in logical “paradoxes”, irreconcilable contradictions, exact opposites, as being equal, and equally true, poses no intellectual, spiritual, or moral difficulty for Jewish law, philosophy, theosophy, and culture. Beginning in Genesis – even earlier than the Exodus tale, the foundation for halakha – this ‘Orwellian’ doublethink is embedded as the heart, mind, and soul of Judaism:
The Talmud strictly forbids a Jew, on pain of severe punishment, to take interest on a loan made to another Jew. (According to a majority of talmudic authorities, it is a religious duty to take as much interest as possible on a loan made to a Gentile.) Very detailed rules forbid even the most far-fetched forms in which a Jewish lender might benefit from a Jewish debtor.[24]
The vain cultivated the color purple.
He had precious notions about life, but was
often more cultured than humane.[25]
Since the time of the late Roman Empire, Jewish communities had considerable legal powers over their members. Not only powers which arise through voluntary mobilization of social pressure (for example refusal to have any dealing whatsoever with an excommunicated Jew or even to bury his body), but a power of naked coercion: to flog, to imprison, to expel—all this could be inflicted quite legally on an individual Jew by the rabbinical courts for all kinds of offenses. In many countries—Spain and Poland are notable examples—even capital punishment could be and was inflicted, sometimes using particularly cruel methods such as flogging to death.[26]
There is a significant volume of scholarly work, most notably that of Israeli academics, evidencing the same trend towards rabbinic theocracy recurring in the purportedly secular-democratic modern Israeli state since the 1982 Lebanon War, especially in terms of growing influence on both military and “settler” ‘ethics’.
David Shasha, director of the Center for Sephardic Heritage warns:
For those who have any concern with the Middle East conflict or with Judaism, what you know — or do not know — about pilpul is something upon which your well-being could depend. Ignorance of pilpul is a very dangerous thing, something that would allow your interlocutor to have the upper hand in ways that you could not begin to even imagine.
Pilpul is the Talmudic term used to describe a rhetorical process that the Sages used to formulate their legal decisions. The word is used as a verb: one engages in the process of pilpul in order to formulate a legal point. It marks the process of understanding legal ideas, texts, and interpretations. It is a catch-all term that in English is translated as “Casuistry.”
What this means for contemporary Jewish discourse is critical: Even though many contemporary Jews are not [religious] observant, pilpul continues to be deployed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to “prove” his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit.
In this context, the Law is not primary; it is the status of the jurist. Justice is extra-legal, thus denying social equality under the rubric of a horizontal system. Law is in the hands of the privileged rather than the mass.
What is thought to be the Jewish “genius” is often a mark of how pilpul is deployed. The rhetorical tricks of pilpul make true rational discussion impossible; any “discussion” is about trying to “prove” a point that has already been established. There is little use trying to argue in this context, because any points being made will be twisted and turned to validate the already-fixed position.
Pilpul is the rhetorical means to mark as “true” that which cannot ever be disputed by rational means.[27]
Remember Rabbi Eliezer, on whose behalf even God Himself, performing miracles and speaking from Heaven, was unable to defeat the doublethink and logical fallacy endorsed by the majority?
The Sages said: On that day, the Sages brought all the ritually pure items deemed pure by the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer with regard to the oven and burned them in fire, and the Sages reached a consensus in his regard and ostracized him.
And the Sages said: Who will go and inform him of his ostracism? Rabbi Akiva, his beloved disciple, said to them: I will go, lest an unseemly person go and inform him in a callous and offensive manner, and he would thereby destroy the entire world.
Withering gaze.
What did Rabbi Akiva do? He wore black and wrapped himself in black, as an expression of mourning and pain, and sat before Rabbi Eliezer at a distance of four cubits, which is the distance that one must maintain from an ostracized individual. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, what is different about today from other days, that you comport yourself in this manner? Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, it appears to me that your colleagues are distancing themselves from you. He employed euphemism, as actually they distanced Rabbi Eliezer from them.
Some would say he lied. The exact opposite of the truth. The student learned his lessons well.
Rabbi Eliezer too, rent his garments and removed his shoes, as is the custom of an ostracized person, and he dropped from his seat and sat upon the ground.
The Gemara relates: His eyes shed tears, and as a result the entire world was afflicted: One-third of its olives were afflicted, and one-third of its wheat, and one-third of its barley. And some say that even dough kneaded in a woman’s hands spoiled. The Sages taught: There was great anger on that day, as any place that Rabbi Eliezer fixed his gaze was burned.[28]
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Such is the infantile drivel that one must endure in order to examine the ‘wisdom’ of the world’s ‘holiest’ ‘sages’. 1.8 million words of it. What a legacy.
After several millennia of (supposedly) exclusive basking in the glory of ‘God’s’ Omniscient Light, there is no excuse for it:
{A}t least in one philosophical text, written sometime in the mid-thirteenth century, the anonymous Ruaḥ Ḥen, it is written: “And it is known that imagination will sometime err and Yeẓayyer [will draw] things that do not exist at all.” It is difficult to miss the negative connotation related to an act of imagination, which is prone to invent nonexistent things {..} A negative attitude towards imagination is found also in R. Abraham Abulafia’s writings, one that is equal to the imperative to “kill” it.
However, in the Kabbalistic texts we deal with here, the negative overtones have been removed and the instructions to visualize make no mention of the negative results that may be generated by imagination. This positive turn toward imagination is noteworthy for the history of Jewish mysticism.[29]
Imagine my surprise.
We will take a much closer look at Cabalist “mysteries” in future. And we will return, in detail, to the subject of rabbinic teachings on bank ‘deposits’, holding in trust, ‘clever’ redefinitions of usury, and relations with the Evil Other in the ancient Roman empire.
Since the time of Rome’s rise and fall, ‘imaginative’ doublethink has been embedded as the heart and soul of ‘modern’ accounting, banking, capitalism, communism, and most (if not all?) post-Renaissance economics theories.
97% of ‘money’ today ‘exists’ in the form of double-entry bookkeeping records. +1|-1, credebt entry null-ities. Used to legally counterfeit real, (formerly) sovereign, legal tender money (physical cash). This ‘money’ does not exist. It is an imaginary money, for an imaginary slavery.
Banks, debt, and money are modelled by economists as though they do not exist – which is actually true, from the higher perspective, for credebt – but the effects of their non-existence certainly do exist.
Although they are modelled as “effectively” non-existent, non-existent banks are simultaneously modelled as though they are a source of “frictions” in the economy – the exact opposite of the truth, as they are in objective reality the exclusive legal source of lubricant.
The economy – that is, the ‘forces’ of Supply and Demand, coming together to ‘negotiate’ an Exchange – are assumed to always be tending toward a state of Equilibrium; an ‘equilibrium’ supposed to be associated with Omniscient, Hedonistic, Luciferian consumers’ individual acts of perfectly-efficient ‘price discovery’. This might be the truth, if not for (inter alia) the objective reality that the operations of banks and central banks are designed to manipulate Supply and Demand volumes, and signals (‘data’), in order to deliberately create states of Dis-Equilibrium (asymmetry). Why? Because Dis-equilibrium, arising from manufactured ‘realities’ (perceptions) – such as, legally-privileged artificial shortages of credebt Supply for some, but abundance for others – is the basis for extracting (deceitful, unjust) profits. And so, in objective reality, this fundamental ‘modern’ economics axiom too, is the exact opposite of the truth.
The final word – for now – we leave to George Orwell, from his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four:
All past oligarchies have fallen from power either because they ossified or because they grew soft. Either they became stupid and arrogant, failed to adjust themselves to changing circumstances, and were overthrown, or they became liberal and cowardly, made concessions when they should have used force, and once again were overthrown. They fell, that is to say, either through consciousnessor through unconsciousness. It is the achievement of the Party to have produced a system of thought in which both conditions can exist simultaneously. And upon no other intellectual basis could the dominion of the Party be made permanent. If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality. For the secret of rulership is to combine a belief in one’s own infallibility with the power to learn from past mistakes.
Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary.
The official ideology abounds with contradictions even where there is no practical reason for them. [..] These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely. In no other way could the ancient cycle be broken. If human equality is to be forever averted—if the High, as we have called them, are to keep their places permanently—then the prevailing mental condition must be controlled insanity.
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest of arguments if they are inimicable to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating.[30]
Buch der heiligen Dreifaltigkeit, late 14th Century (Munich MS, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CGM. 598). Source: Adam McLean, alchemywebsite.com
M. brandaris
Let us be prepared then to excuse this frantic passion for purple, even though at the same time we are compelled to enquire, why it is that such a high value has been set upon the produce of this shell-fish, seeing that while in the dye the smell of it is offensive, and the colour itself is harsh, of a greenish hue, and strongly resembling that of the sea when in a tempestuous state?
Pliny the Elder
POSTSCRIPT: Before beginning this essay, I happened to mention my childhood “pisseth against the wall” mischief-making to my mother, who in turn mentioned it to my kindergarten teacher; her now-retired husband gives my aged mother physiotherapy. Her response? “He always was one for looking into things. I remember he used to read encyclopaedias.”
******************
REFERENCES
[1] Zgur, Andrej (2007) “The Economy of the Roman Empire in the first Two Centuries AD: An examination of market capitalism in the Roman economy”, pp. 34-35; cit. Temin, Peter (2002) “Financial Intermediation in the Early Roman Empire”, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Economics Working Paper Series, Working paper 02-39 (Oct, 2002) (pdf)
[2] Zohar, Vol I, Bereshith 47a (retrieved from sacredtexts.com 7 January 2018)
[3] Foxbrunner, Dr Roman A. (1993), Habad: The Hasidism of Schneur Zalman of Lyady, New Jersey, Jason Aronson Inc, pp. 108-109
[4] Lex Oppia, The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (2016) – “The Lex Oppia, passed in 215 bce and repealed in 195 bce, prohibited women from using more than half an ounce of gold, purple-dyed clothing, or carriages except during public religious festivals. The law has become a focal point in discussions of Roman luxury and women’s rights.”
[5] Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Book VI: Nero; Book Six: XXX His Extravagance, A.S. Kline translation (2010). (online, retrieved 7 January 2018)
[6] ibid., Book Six: XXXII His Methods of Raising Money, (online, retrieved 7 January 2018)
[7] Bostock, John & Riley, H.T. (1855), Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, Book IX Chapter 63. (.39) (online, retrieved 7 January 2018)
[8] ibid., Book IX Chapter 62. (.38) (online, retrieved 7 January 2018)
[9] Ruscillo, Deborah (2005), Reconstructing Murex Royal Purple and Biblical Blue in the Aegean, Archaeomalacology – Molluscs in former environments of human behaviour (Oxbow Books), p.105
[10] Bostock, John & Riley, H.T. (1855), Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, Book IX Chapter 60. (online, retrieved 7 January 2018) –
It is for this colour that the fasces and the axes5 of Rome make way in the crowd; it is this that asserts the majesty of childhood;6 it is this that distinguishes the senator7 from the man of equestrian rank; by persons arrayed in this colour are prayers8 ad- dressed to propitiate the gods; on every garment9 it sheds a lustre, and in the triumphal vestment10 it is to be seen mingled with gold. Let us be prepared then to excuse this frantic passion for purple, even though at the same time we are compelled to enquire, why it is that such a high value has been set upon the produce of this shell-fish, seeing that while in the dye the smell of it is offensive, and the colour itself is harsh, of a greenish hue, and strongly resembling that of the sea when in a tempestuous state?
[11] Siloam, Wikipedia (online, retrieved 7 January 2018) cit. Smith, Stelman. The Exhaustive Dictionary of Bible Names. Bridge Logos, 2009; cit. Josephus.
[12] Elman, Yaakov, The Babylonian Talmud in Its Historical Context, p. 19, in Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, Yeshiva University Museum (online, retrieved 7 January 2018)
[13] Bava Metzia 59b:5, The William Davidson Talmud (online, retrieved 7 January 2018)
[14] Elman, Yaakov, The Babylonian Talmud in Its Historical Context, p.25, fn.26 (cit. Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in Mesopotamia and the Roman East (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994), p. 25.); in Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, Yeshiva University Museum (online, retrieved 7 January 2018)
[15] ibid., pp.24-27
[16] ibid., pp.19, 26
[17] Rav (amora), Wikipedia (cit. fn 1, online, retrieved 7 January 2018)
[18] Elman, Yaakov, The Babylonian Talmud in Its Historical Context, p.27, in Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein, Yeshiva University Museum (online, retrieved 7 January 2018).
[19] ibid.
[20] Bava Metzia 61b, The William Davidson Talmud (online, retrieved 7 January 2018)
[21] Kaplan, Aryeh; Sepher Ha-Bahir or “The Book of Illumination”, 29-30
[22] Hendin, David (2015), Surcharge of the Money Changers, American Numismatic Society, p.2 cit. Rabbi Benjamin Yablok
[23] Rubenstein, Jeffery (1992), Purim, Liminality, and Communitas, Association For Jewish Studies Review, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Autumn 1992), pp. 247-277 –
“Frazier [The Golden Bough, 1935] noted the similarities between Purim and the Babylonian Sakaia and Zakmuk festivals. In the larger context, all these festivals are types of ‘scapegoat rituals’ often found in primitive agricultural societies. To ensure a successful harvest, these societies appointed a temporary king to impersonate the god of fertility and subsequently put him to death in the hope that he would rise again with renewed virility and power [a la the Phœnix myth, and alchemical allegory – CM].” (p.248 fn. 8).
[24] Shahak, Israel, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (1994, Pluto Press), Chapter 3 Orthodoxy and Interpretations (The Dispensations), p.39
[25] Faber Birren, Color, A Survey in Words and Pictures (New York, University Books, Inc.)
[26] Shahak, Israel, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (1994, Pluto Press), Chapter 2 Prejudice and Prevarication, p.15
[27] Shasha, David, What Is Pilpul, And Why On Earth Should I Care About It?, Huffington Post (22 May 2010), online (retrieved 7 January 2018)
[28] Bava Metzia 59b:7-8, The William Davidson Talmud (online, retrieved 7 January 2018)
[29] Idel, Moshe (2015), Visualization of Colors, I: David ben Yehudah he-Hasid’s Kabbalistic Diagram, Ars Judaica 2015, p.42
[30] Orwell, George (1949), Nineteen Eighty-Four, Centennial Edition (2003), First Plume Printing
In our ancient past, we traded between ourselves simply by drawing on our public reputation. We did favours for each other, and memorised — later, recording on clay tokens — the I Owe You. Our “currency” was our public Honour.
Today, bankers use the magick of double-entry bookkeeping to create IOUs out of nothing. These digital ‘tokens’ represent our IOU to the bank. Then — by a clever accounting trick — they let us ‘borrow’ their IOUs as ‘money’. Why don’t we all do the same thing, and just lend to ourselves?
Le bon Dieu est dans le détail (“the good God is in the detail”) means that attention paid to small things has big rewards.
MISLEADING PARLIAMENT
Imagine writing a paper for the Parliamentary Information and Research Service, correctly describing the Operational aspects of ‘money’ creation by the central Bank of Canada…
In practical terms, the Bank of Canada’s purchase of government securities at auction means that the Bank records the value of the securities as a new asset on its balance sheet, and it simultaneously records the proceeds of sale of the securities as a deposit in the Government of Canada’s account at the Bank – a liability on the Bank’s balance sheet (see Appendix A). No paper evidence of a bond, treasury bill or cash is exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Bank of Canada in these transactions. Rather, the transactions consist entirely of digital accounting entries. [..] By recording new and equal amounts on the asset and liability sides of its balance sheet, the Bank of Canada creates money through a few keystrokes.[3]
…but then showing the operation backwards:
Source: Library of Parliament, Canada
Step-by-Step: How It *Really* Works
Imagine describing and showing the identical (in law) process of ‘money’ creation by the Private Banking System, and getting that exactly backwards too:
Private commercial banks also create money – when they purchase newly issued government securities as primary dealers at auctions – by making digital accounting entries on their own balance sheets. The asset side is augmented to reflect the purchase of new securities, and the liability side is augmented to reflect a new deposit in the federal government’s account with the bank.
However, it is important to note that money is also created within the private banking system every time the banks extend a new loan, such as a home mortgage or a business loan. Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money (see Appendix B). Most of the money in the economy is, in fact, created within the private banking system.
A key similarity between money creation in the private banking system and money creation by the Bank of Canada is that both are realized through loansto the Government of Canada and, in the case of private banks, loans to the general public.
The legal reality is that banks do not lend money:
What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by [the same amount].
It is important to notice here that the “Loans (assets)” are not loans to the borrowers. The “assets” of the bank are the promissory notes (promises to pay) issued by the borrowers.
Homeowners usually think of their mortgage as an obligation to repay the money they borrowed to buy their residence. But actually, it’s a promissory note they also sign, as part of the financing process, that represents that promise to pay back the loan, along with the repayment terms.
Banks ‘purchase’ promissory notes (“securities”) from the public, and from the Government. Then, they record – not their payment, but their promise to pay – as a ‘credit’ (i.e., a ‘deposit’) to a customer or Government account at the bank.
These ‘deposit’ accounts are recorded as a Liability on the bank’s Balance Sheet. This means that the bank has not paid. The bank still owes payment* to the customer. The so-called ‘deposit’ is fictitious.
(* Legal tender: cash notes and coins)
Stated another way, the bank ‘buys’ our IOU, and ‘pays’ for it with … its own IOU!
Incredibly, the bank then claims that its IOU to us (‘deposit’) is, simultaneously, our ‘credit’ (loan) to the bank.
As ‘depositors’, legally, we are “unsecured” creditors of the bank.[6]
In other words, the bank did not really give us ‘credit’; we gave our ‘credit’ to the bank … and that record is what we use as money.
We are paying the banks “interest” for the privilege of using our own money.
Why don’t we all just give our own ‘credit’ … to ourselves?
Read this, and think carefully on the clever words, “in effect”:
In today’s world of computerized financial transactions, the Federal Reserve Bank pays for the securities with an “electronic” check drawn on itself. [..] The Federal Reserve System has added .. securities to its assets, which it has paid for, in effect, by creating a liability on itself…
(Keep that concept in mind. Drawing. A liability. On yourself. I will be showing you a revolutionary new accounting system, where everyone can do this. We could become our own central bankers, and begin to solve many global problems, sustainably.)
Source: kateraworth.com
There is no need to take my word for this.
Or, indeed, the word of the Federal Reserve Banks.
I produced the first empirical studies[8] to prove that in the five thousand year history of banking.
The law courts in various judgements have made it very clear, if you give your money to a bank – even though it’s called a ‘deposit’ – this money is simply a loan to the bank.
They invent fictitious customer deposits.
The banks create the money supply by inventing these claimson themselves, the fictitious deposits.
The modern banking system manufactures “money” out of nothing; and the process is, perhaps, the most astounding piece of “sleight of hand” that was ever invented. [..] Banks in fact are able to create (and cancel) modern “deposit money”, just as much as they were originally able to create, or call in, their own original forms of private notes. They can, in fact, inflate and deflate, i.e., mint, and un-mint the modern “ledger-entry” currency.
He was the last of the magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes as those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than 10,000 years ago.
Why do I call him a magician? Because he looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements .. but also partly in certain papers and traditions handed down by the brethren in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia.
Early 13c., “of or pertaining to the head,” from Old French capital, from Latin capitalis “of the head,” hence “capital, chief, first,” from caput (genitive capitis) “head” (from PIE root *kaput- “head”).
We the general public, and the governments of the world, are dupes.
The human race has repeatedly been duped by the “sleight of hand” and quicksilver tongues of temple scribes, silver merchants, goldsmiths, and bankers, for thousands of years.
There was already a grave problem with merchants creating and issuing ‘receipts’ for fictitious ‘deposits’ almost 4000 years ago. The sixth king of the First Babylonian Dynasty tried to stop it:
If any one buy from the son or the slave of another man, without witnesses or a contract, silver or gold, a male or female slave, an ox or a sheep, an ass or anything, or if he take it in charge, he is considered a thief and shall be put to death.
Hammurabi Code of Laws, Number 7 (c. 1790 BC) [11]
Hammurabi Code of Laws, c. 1790 BC. (Louvre Museum)
By the time of King Nebuchadnezzar I (c. 1124-1103 BC), the ‘smiths had a new trick to avoid being caught in this *cough* capital crime. They discovered how to create fake silver, and use it to counterfeit the royal standard ingots.
Perhaps they even called it “Full Reserve” banking?
Their “royal art” is now known as alchemy; the art of transforming comparatively worthless, ‘base’ materials – like copper ♀, vinegar, oil, flour, milk and honey – into ‘pure’ and ‘precious’ counterfeits:
“Do not be careless (with respect to these instructions). Do not [show] (the procedure) to anyone!”
The text obviously describes a method of producing a silver-like alloy from base metal ingredients — the “leukosis* of copper” of alchemistic fame. The purpose of the operation is to deceive and the final formula [“this (kind of) silver cannot be detected”] is to allay any possible doubts of the “chemist”.[12]
* whitening
In 290 AD, Emperor Diocletian ordered the destruction of all manuscripts in the economic crisis-stricken empire on the topic of alchemy. Two manuscripts from Egypt written in Greek survived, and these papyri make it easy to understand why:
Several of the recipes speak quite explicitly about the economic purpose of these processes. Such phrases occur as e.g. “(alloy) imitating silver* of such a kind that it cannot be found out”, “this will be… of the first quality which will deceive even the artisans”, or “the metal will be equal to true… so much as to deceive even the artisans”.[13]
* Rome’s traditional metal currency (silver dēnārius)
By the early 14th century, the discovery of how to create highly corrosive acids had placed new weapons in the alchemists’ armoury. The need for secrecy was now being met through a complex array of cryptic allegories, symbols, euphemisms, and double, triple, or even greater multiple (Orwell’s doubleplus?) entendres:
Luna [☽ silver] is also yellowed similarly with a solution of Mars [♂ iron]. The method of that yellowing which is perfected by vitriol [🜖 sulphuric acid] or copperas [🜨 green vitriol] is as follows… Then it should be dissolved into a redwater to which there is no equal.[14]
At the dawning of the Age of Reason, a recipe of the famous alchemist Basil Valentine – likely pseudonym of Johann Thölde, owner of a salt-works in Thüringia – offers us a glimpse of the “hidden” influence of alchemy on ‘modern’ systems of thought … and banking practice:
..in the bottom of the glass you will find the treasure, and fundamentals of all the Philosophers, and yet known to few, which is a red Oil, as ponderous in weight, as ever any Lead, or Gold may be, as thick as blood, of a burnt fiery quality.[15]
Book of Abraham Lambspring – Nicolaum Maium 1607
The sleeping Father is here changed
Entirely into limpid water,
And by virtue of this water alone
The good work is accomplished.
(Note the “hidden hand” (left), and the right hand making the sign of the 21st Hebrew letter, שshin (šīn). It stands for Shaddai, a name for God. In the Sefer Yetzirah this “Mother Letter” means King over Fire: “He Made Shin King Over Fire, And He Tied A Crown To It” .. “the hissing ש corresponds to the hissing fire”.)
Today, we are enslaved by what two Italian professors recently called “outright false accounting”:
Under current accounting practices, seigniorage is largely underappreciated, it is systematically concealed, and is not allocated to the income statement (where it naturally belongs), while it is recorded on the balance sheet under debt liabilities, thus originating outright false accounting.
If money is accounted as debt, instead of correctly being considered as equity of the issuing entities and wealth for the society using it, it inevitably introduces a deflationary bias in the economy…[16]
This trick is not new.
It is simply the ‘modern’, electronic, government-licensed version of the same trick that ‘smiths and alchemists have used for millennia, to extract a special kind of “rent” from the sovereign, and the public.
1610s, “a person’s wealth,” from Medieval Latin capitale “stock, property,” noun use of neuter of Latin capitalis “capital, chief, first”.
[The term capital] made its first appearance in medieval Latin as an adjective capitalis (from caput, head) modifying the word pars, to designate the principal sum of a money loan. The principal part of a loan was contrasted with the “usury” – later called interest – the payment made to the lender in addition to the return of the sum lent.[17]
The difference between the value of money (its “purchasing power”), and the cost to produce it, is called seigniorage. The word comes from Old French, meaning “right of the lord (seigneur) to mint money.”
Minted coins bear an image of the bust or head (capital) of the sovereign – the “lord” of the land – because he/she is the creator (issuer) and owner of the coins. In accounting terms, the coins are the equity of the lord.
And they brought Him a dēnārius [a day’s wage]. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “[The Emperor Tiberius] Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”
The lord ‘issues’ new currency into the community, by using it to purchase something of value from his/her subjects. No matter what substance it is made from – no matter what its real value, in any other context – the coin’s face (“nominal”: named) value, and the requirement to accept it in payment, is decreed by the authoritative Word of the “Lord” (“fiat”):
Legal tender is any official medium of payment recognized by law that can be used to extinguish a public or private debt, or meet a financial obligation. The national currency is legal tender in practically every country. [..] A check, or a credit swipe, is therefore not legal tender; it merely represents a means by which the holder of the check can eventually receive legal tender for the debt.[18]
Even though the citizens now hold the coin, and use it as currency between themselves, the “Lord” still owns it, and may demand its return at any time, (e.g.), in payment of a tax ‘obligation’ (debt).
In effect, at any moment in time, a citizen and the “Lord” both claim to own the coin. And we know what happens when someone tries to fight the will of the “Lord”.
If that seems rather unjust to you – even tyrannical – then you are not alone.
Nicole Oresme (1320-1382) was one of the first medieval theorists who did not accept the right of the monarch to have claims on all money. Standard excuses, such as a “budget emergency”, did not hold water (pun intended) with Oresme. He stated that any ruler who reclaims monies they have previously issued (spent) is a “Tyrant dominating slaves.”[19]
In the Middle Ages, when commodity (metallic) money was standard, seigniorage was a tax added on to the cost of producing coins by the mints. A customer (e.g., a prince or feudal lord) who wished to issue coinage for trade within their own feudom or “fief” paid this tax, often in the form of a percentage of the metal delivered to the mint for coining, which was then passed on to the sovereign (king, queen) of the land.
Today, the ‘sovereign’ government ‘earns’ seigniorage profits in a similarly circuitous manner. Its profits are routed – pun intended – via the “independent” Central Bank:
In Canada today, seigniorage can be calculated as the difference between the interest the Bank of Canada earns on a portfolio of Government of Canada securities—in which it invests the total value of all bank notes in circulation—and the cost of issuing, distributing, and replacing those notes.
After deducting the Bank’s general operating expenses .. the remainder is paid to the Receiver General for Canada.[20]
In the case of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, its twelve Member banks are owned by private banks. The Fed pays a ‘return’ (dividend) of up to 6%[21] to those banks, before returning its leftover profits to the U.S. Treasury:
[T]he Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund.[22]
The Private Banking System also ‘earns’ a form of seigniorage profit or rent, called “monetary seigniorage”. It earns this on 97% of the ‘money’ supply. It is the difference between what it costs to produce their fictitious ‘deposits’ (i.e, nothing), and the interest and fees that we pay them for the use of what is actually our own money:
Commercial bank seigniorage represents structural element of subtraction of net real resources from the economy, with potentially deflationary effects on profits and/or wages, distributional consequences, and frictions between capital and labor.. .[23]
Perhaps it is now becoming evident why bankers see themselves as “doing god’s work”. They have succeeded in becoming gods of the earth. It is they who now create and issue the ‘currency’ we all use. They can and do demand its “return” – pun intended – as and when it suits them; typically, in a “liquidity crisis”. Having long ago usurped the powers of sovereigns, replacing them with an illusory rule of the dēmos (people), it is they who now ‘earn’ the vast majority of seigniorage profits from ‘money’ creation.
Thanks to the sleight of hand and mouth of the alchemists – hidden (“occult”) knowledge, that has been passed down for millennia in sexual allegories and symbols – the global money system is a cunning inversion (or reversal) of sovereign ownership rights.
We the People are, individually, the true seigneurs.
We – not bankers – are the true creators, issuers, and owners of the purchasing power (re-presented by “money”) used in the economy.
Through word ‘magic’ – especially puns; double entendres – and the paradoxical doublethink embedded in Double Entry Bookkeeping, bankers transform our wealth (equity) into debt.
Through this trick, they are able to ‘earn’ (steal) vast wealth and power for themselves.
Bankers have transformed themselves into the new Lords of Time. Their business is buying and selling our life times.
The business of banking can be – and indeed, has long been – defined as a ‘satanic’ practice. According to one of the founders of humanistic psychology, David Bakan:
A major psychological feature of black magic is that it provides immediate gains without immediate payment. The payment is feared as “really” both deferred and excessive. Thus deferred and excessive payment for immediate gain is characteristically associated with pacts with the Devil. The aversion towards usury, in current times as well as throughout the history of Christianity, is not completely coincidental. For usury is exactly a social expression of the Satanic Pact, immediate gains and excessive deferred payment.[24]
We ‘sell’ (promise) our future life energies to the bank, in exchange for a fictitious, lump sum ‘deposit’, or high usury ‘credit line’, now.
The bank ‘earns’ a covenantedflow of income from our labour, provided that we remain willing and able to pay, and, so long as the ‘sovereign’ remains willing and able to enforce the bank’s right to seize our real world assets pledged as collateral.
Over the long term, banks slowly acquire legal ownership title to all of our value-able assets, using their fictitious ‘loans’. The price of value-able assets is first driven up, thanks to the immediate availability of abundant, lump sum purchasing power, created by banks with a few keystrokes. Then, their price falls again, when the flow of new purchasing power ‘dries up’. Those who bought at the higher prices, are trapped paying usury on the ‘loan’ taken at the higher price. They have just been “fleeced”. Not just of ‘money’. They have been fleeced of the most precious ‘commodity’ of all .. life time.
Like the ‘loans’ themselves, the so-called “business cycle” is consciously, willfully, artificially created, by bankers, for the benefit of bankers.
–––––––– SIDEBAR ––––––––
Das guldene Vleiss (“The Golden Fleece”) Alchimiæ encomium. Vera chymia licet mundo sapientia falsa,
attamen est divæ diva parens sophiæ.
This 1737 alchemical text purports to show an image, dated to 1607, of ‘Sophia’ (Greek: σοφία), symbol of Wisdom in Hellenistic, Gnostic and Platonic philosophy and religion. In Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity, Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia) is an expression for God the Mother in the Trinity (Θεοτόκος, Theotokos), and often for the Holy Spirit, or Divine Logos, as personification of Christ.
What is depicted, however, is the alchemists’ androgyne god Hermes, or Mercury ☿ , as evidenced by his traditional symbol, the winged helmet. About his head, a nimbus of ‘light’. Around his neck, a pendant in the shape of a ‘heart’, womb, or ‘Water’ 🜄. The wealth in his left (Asset) hand, is the symbol of Venus ♀ (Female, Love, Beauty, Nature, Nurture), inverted, and bound; around the cross is a crown of thorns. On the left (Asset) wrist, a chain, from which a lamb is hanging. At his left foot, a pot of money, and treasure chest. Chained to his right (Liability) ankle, a ball with Mercury’s (“equal and opposite”) ‘wings’, adjacent alchemist’s flasks. ‘His’ robe exposes a female breast. There are twelve decorations on the hem; it is prominently secured at the top of ‘his’ thigh with one more decoration, a 4-petalled ‘flower‘ (🝊 wax, created by ‘drones’, labouring for a ‘Queen’, from whence golden ‘honey’; also 🜨 green vitriol), for a total of thirteen (number of lunar-menstrual cycles per year). In his right hand, a book opened, with an ‘eye’ on the left and right pages, and a serpent coiled around his arm.
The inverted and bound Venus, or orb and cross 🜭 , is the globus cruciger (Latin: “cross-bearing orb”), used from the early 5th century to represent Christ’s dominion over the world. In alchemy however, it is a symbol for cinnabar, or Mercury Sulphide. This is the source of two out of the three primary elements in alchemical ‘experiments’, and philosophy: the double-natured liquid-metal, Mercury ☿ (the “Divine Fiery Water” of Kabbalah), and Sulphur 🜍. The third element, is ‘Salt’ 🜔. Of the Earth 🜃. “The Body”. The ‘Base’ Matter. That must be subjected to Putrefaction 🝤. Reduced to a massa confusa (“confused mass”). Ringing bells? Look closely, at all the symbols. What do you see? Cinnabar 🜭 is also represented by 🜓 , a symbol of great significance (e.g., associated with Jesus’ life span; number of years between natural alignments of the pure lunar calendar and pure solar calendar.)
–––––––– END SIDEBAR ––––––––
There are other grave problems caused by bankers’ quest for profit. Making excessive new purchasing power available for consumption, and that of an increasingly vast array of products manufactured with a profit-driven goal of ‘Planned Obsolescence’ – i.e., poor quality – has dramatically accelerated humanity’s consumption of natural (and often, finite) resources.
This accelerated rate of production and consumption has, in turn, accelerated the production of waste, and pollution of the natural environment. While Mother Nature has her ways of recovering and restoring herself, it can take tens, hundreds, or hundreds of thousands of years for her self-healing processes – driven by her grateful receiving of energy from the Sun – to return Nature to anything like her former condition.
Allowing bankers to usurp our rights, as the seigneurs of our own money, and lords of the expenditure of our life’s time and energy, has not turned out well for many of us.
Even if we accept the narrow argument that capital-ism has “lifted millions out of poverty”, the manner and speed at which this has been achieved has not turned out well for our collective home – Mother Nature.
USURY
Sometimes, lest worse befall and to avoid scandal, a community tolerates dishonorable and evil things, like brothels. Sometimes also, by necessity or convenience, vile business is tolerated, like money-changing, or evil business, like usury.
Perhaps it is not an accident that the race which did most to bring the promise of immortality into the heart and essence of our religions has also done most for the principle of compound interest and particularly loves this most purposive of human institutions.
I see us free, therefore, to return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue – that avarice is a vice, that the exaction of usury is a misdemeanour, and the love of money is detestable, that those walk most truly in the paths of virtue and sane wisdom who take least thought for the morrow. We shall once more value ends above means and prefer the good to the useful. We shall honour those who can teach us how to pluck the hour and the day virtuously and well, the delightful people who are capable of taking direct enjoyment in things, the lilies of the field who toil not, neither do they spin.
But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.
With the bankers’ system, our money becomes our debt, because we don’t spend it into existence; we ‘sell’ it to the bank, in return for a fictitious ‘loan’ from the bank, created out of nothing by the Word of the “lord”.
Instead of equity (wealth, purchasing power), our money is magically transformed into the exact opposite: our promise to re-pay the bank in the amount of their fictitious ‘loan’ … plus “interest” (usury).
On the other hand, the bank ‘deposit’ record created in our name is considered our loan to the bank, and the bank might pay us “interest” on it.
Unsurprisingly, the banks ‘earn’ a higher rate of usury on their Asset (our promise to pay them), than they pay on their Liability (their promise to pay us).
The difference in these rates is called the “Net Interest Margin” (NIM). It is key to how banks ‘earn’ so much ‘money’ in profit. It is the 24/7/365 reward for their hard labour, in taking our money, and then renting the use of their fictitious accounting ‘money’ back to us.
Book of Abraham Lambspring (1556)
I am told that the Danish, French, Germans and Italians do not use the words “Asset” and “Liability” as titles for Balance Sheet records. It would seem more than mere coincidence that they use their words for “Actives” and “Passives” instead.
How so?
In alchemy, the Active force is associated with the Male (Mars ♂, Fire), and the Passive with the Female (Venus ♀, Water).
copperas (n.)
A green,crystallineheptahydratemineral of ferrous [iron]sulfate,FeSO4·7H2O. Alsocalledgreenvitriol.
[MiddleEnglishcoperose, a metallicsulfate, fromOldFrench,fromMedievalLatincuperōsa, probablyshortforaquacuprōsa, copperwater, fromLateLatincuprum, copper]
Frenchcouperosé (adj., “blotchy”), from Latin cupri rosa, “rose of copper.”
Latin aes (“copper”) .. from the Latin form of the name of the island of Cyprus, where copper was mined (the alchemists associated copper with Venus).
Aes passed into Germanic .. and became English ore. In Latin, aes was the common word for “cash, coin, debt, wages” in many figurative expressions.
In the ‘modern’ money system, the Active (‘Male’) party is the bank. ‘He’ extracts usury from the Passive (‘Female’) party – the misled and deceived ‘borrower’.
Observe that even the usury that is ‘paid’ by the bank on its fictitious ‘deposits’, is recorded as if it were coming from the Passive (Liability, ‘Female’) side of its Balance Sheet.
Step-by-Step: How Banks Extract “Interest”
The fact is that from the earliest recorded times until the later Middle Ages even interest was forbidden by both canon and civil law, for interest then was synonymous with usury.
But the general detestation was diminished by 37 Hen. 8, c. 9 (1545) which, while entitled “A Bill Against Usury”, tacitly legalized it to a maximum of 10 per cent per annum. This statute inaugurated the serviceable fiction that usury no longer meant any interest, but only excessive interest.
The etymology of usury is from the Latin words usa and aera, meaning “the use of money”.
J.L. Bernstein, American Bar Association journal (1965) [27]
“Interest” (usury) is often called the “price” or “cost” of money. This cost is not just the price we pay for “the use of” the banks’ fictitious ‘deposits’. It is also a hidden cost, that is embedded in the prices of everything we buy.
Even those who imagine they have no debt, do, and are paying the price of someone else’s debt every time they go to a shop.
Indeed, even a ticket for “public” transport carries this hidden cost in its price.
Under this system, the bottom 80% of the population pay twice as much interest as they ‘earn’. The top 10% ‘earn’ twice as much interest as they pay. And the top 0.01% ‘earn’ 2000times more interest than the top 10% receive, on average.
The interestusury system is the Number 1 driver of inequality.
Little has changed, in 5000 years.
Professor Michael Hudson (How Interest Rates Were Set, 2500 BC – 1000 AD) informs us that usury “became the major force polarizing ancient society as credit passed out of the hands of public institutions into those of private households”:
The irony is the fact that the Latin term for loan interest was fænus. Its prefix (fe‑) connoted the idea of fecundity, much as the Greek word for interest/usury, tokos [“birth”]. Aristotle noted that unlike cows which reproduce themselves, metallic money lent out by usurers is sterile. This barrenness of metal is the central problem of usury: Interest is demanded on the basis of money-loans whose proceeds are not invested productively, much less at sufficient profit to pay the rates demanded by usurers. [..]
Creditors often broke up families by taking away their servant girls, daughters, sons or mother as debt pledges, while they themselves refrained from marrying in order to keep their own family fortunes intact. [..]
By classical Greek and Roman times, no palace rulers were left to cancel agrarian debts and otherwise keep creditor power in check. Thus, what seems to have begun as justifiable debt in third‑millennium Mesopotamia evolved into classical usury. Its corrosive dynamics polarized ancient society more than any other factor, destroying the archaic social balance between rich and poor, mercantile creditors and cultivators, despite the nominal decline in interest rates.
The power of creditors increased in the face of declining royal authority. Although the normal lending rate declined from Bronze Age Mesopotamia through classical Greece and Rome, creditors were able to render irreversible the forfeiture of land and personal freedom which debtors traditionally had been obliged to pledge as a condition for obtaining loans. In sum, what is first documented in Sumer is a revolutionary institution, revolutionary in that interest-bearing debt ended up by inciting populations to revolution at the end of antiquity, in the second and first centuries BC throughout the Romanized Mediterranean world.[28]
–––––––– SIDEBAR ––––––––
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
The discovery of strong mineral acids, particularly of HNO3, and aqua regia, had a strong effect on existing ideas about minerals, metals, and their chemical composition. For example, the discovery of aqua regia [“royal water”, 🜆] derived from vitriol* and sal ammoniac [🜹] robbed gold of its status as an indestructible metal, for now it could be dissolved, or “killed” as some alchemists would say. .. Indeed, green vitriol was often referred to as “the green lion” [“devouring the Sun”] in alchemical terminology, and the corrosive elixirs extracted therefrom caused it to be the subject of much secrecy, allegory, and interesting imagery in fourteenth century alchemical texts.[29]
* green vitriol 🜨 (iron ♂ sulphate), and blue or “Roman” vitriol (copper ♀ sulphate)
–––––––– END SIDEBAR ––––––––
‘People’s revolutions’ rarely occurred under the monarchies of ancient Mesopotamia. Their kings gained favour with the commoners by regularly using their royal authority to declare the people’s debts forgiven. All private debts were cancelled, family members sold (bankrupted) into slavery were free to return home, and any property forfeited was returned to the original owner.
This practice involved smashing the clay tablets on which the details of debt were recorded. Typically this occurred at New Year, and so the people were able to start over with “a clean slate.”
In the series Mr Robot, the hacker hero Eliot wishes to destroy the digital records of student debt held by EvilCorp. In accounting terms he is attacking the asset side of a bank’s balance sheet – destroying the digital records of what people owe the bank – but the same process could be applied to the data records of bank liabilities, the promises they issue to people, the ‘money’ we see in our bank accounts.[30]
In Sumerian, it was called ama-gi; in Akkadian, andurārum; and in Babylonian, mi’arum. The word meant the return of persons or property to their origin, or former status.
Readers of my earlier essays on the radically misogynous, predatory sex ‘magick’ principles in alchemy and banking may recognise a profound significance, and connection, in learning that the Sumerian word ama-gi derives from a noun ama “mother”, and the present participle gi “return, restore, put back”. Its literal meaning is “return to the mother”.
The same word in Hebrew (דְּרוֹר֙) meant “release”, “a flowing”, and “liberty”.
From an unused root (meaning to move rapidly); freedom; hence, spontaneity of outflow, and so clear – liberty, pure.
It is the word Jesus is reported as using in his first public sermon, when he stood in the synagogue and read from the scroll of Isaiah:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent Me to announce release (pardon, forgiveness) to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.
That word was deror.
DEROR
To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not.
If you think fundamentally, a banking licence is not given to everyone. It is only given to a certain organisation which fulfills certain criteria. So it’s a privileged licence.
Imagine a world where you could do exactly what banks do.
Pay with “an electronic check drawn on (your)self.”
Imagine if everyone could do the same thing – “create a liability” on themselves, and use it to buy goods and services from each other.
A world with no banks, and no usury.
The accounting is really quite simple. We need only to cut the banks out of the picture we have just been looking at, and internalise the same operations.
Imagine a world with no banks.
Unlike the banks, however, who “systematically conceal” the seigniorage value of the ‘deposits’ that they create out of nothing, cleverly taking that value for themselves (“seigniorage rent”), we will clearly show it, for everyone to see.
This can be done with an inverse public Honour rating, linked to both sides of your Balance Sheet.
In this accounting system, Single Entry is combined with Double Entry (SEDE). This means that most often, your “Balance Sheet” will not be balanced*. The amount on each side will be different. The side that is the largest determines your public Honour rating.
(* For readers keen on economic theory, this can be called a dynamic disequilibrium system.)
Let us see how it works.
Every time you draw a liability on yourself – that is, every time you create new purchasing power for yourself – your public Honour rating falls:
In this step, you have not actually used your new purchasing power (‘money’) to pay for something yet. You have simply created a matching Asset and Liability. Exactly like all the banks do. And your public Honour rating fell, according to the amount you created. Anyone you trade with can now see that you have “drawn” a liability on yourself, of 5%. The seigniorage value of the new purchasing power that you just created for yourself, has been publicly recorded.
(So, if you didn’t actually need to buy something right now, perhaps you should have waited, until you do? That way, the seller would see your perfect public Honour rating, at the Point-Of-Sale.)
When you do buy something, however, only the Asset side of your Balance Sheet is effected. Part of your new Asset is transferred to someone else. But your public Honour rating remains unchanged:
You created a debt (Liability), remember? In a real sense, that debt is not just a debt to yourself. Your creation of new purchasing power, out of nothing, bought you something (a benefit) that ultimately came from the natural world; consuming resources*, and/or human energy (life time). You need to give back – do something for someone else – to restore your public Honour.
(* Also, all human activities result in waste – pollution – in one or many forms. These real costs to the environment and society are “externalised” by current accounting methods. Some people profit – corporate ‘persons’. Everyone else suffers the costs.)
By selling something, or doing work for someone, you earn back purchasing power from others. Your debt (Liability) is reduced, and your public Honour rating rises.
In the following example, having spent3000 (above), you are now receiving a payment of 2000, which cancels some of your Liability:
As you can see, when you received purchasing power (i.e., a payment) from someone else, only the Liability side was effected.
That is because any payments received are first used to reduce any outstanding Liability amount that you have previously created, by drawing on yourself.
If you have no Liability – a zero (0) on the right side – only then will new payments received be added to your Asset side.
In other words, you must pay down your Liabilities; you cannot just accrue more Assets. In time, your worsening public Honour will incline others to refuse to deal with you.
Remember: your public Honour rating is determined by the largest side of your Balance Sheet. This means that simply building up more accounting Assets also harms your Honour rating. If you have them, it is wiser to spend them, which benefits someone else, as well as yourself. After all, you can always create more, when and if you really need it. In this way you can maximise your public Honour.
If you wish, you can transfer amounts internally – from your Asset side to your Liability side – in order to more quickly restore your public Honour rating.
For example, perhaps you have created more purchasing power than you actually need to spend right now. You can simply transfer your Asset, to cancel out some (or all) of your Liability:
This system is built on a set of rules that provide everyone with strong incentives to do the right thing. For themselves. For others. And for nature.
To use your seigniorage rights – that is, your individual sovereign right to create purchasing power – wisely, and sustainably.
By exercising self-discipline with your life’s time – by balancing your spending flow and your earning flow – you maximise your public Honour.
Alchemical symbol for Time (1 hour)
🝮
Alchemical symbol for Time (24 hours)
🝰
I-Ching, Hexagram 24 復 (fù): “Return”, The Turning Point, Renewal, Restore
Now, we all know that life can seem cruel at times. We make mistakes. And pay a price. Sooner, or later. Sometimes they are really big ones. And sometimes, despite our best efforts, things just happen to us.
We have accidents. We fall ill. Or someone we love does. The economy has a “downturn”. We lose our job. Our business fails. On it goes.
Many have tried to sell us the idea that “everyone is (born) equal” but let us be honest here, ok?
That is a plain, bald-faced lie.
For many, the ‘negative’ outcomes – at least compared to many others – begin before conception.
For some, extraordinarily ‘positive’ outcomes begin before conception.
I am confident, for example, that there are some who will read this essay – and many more who won’t – who are natural-born, genius intellects. Or at least, an awful lot smarter than I. And there are others, who are naturally gifted with an overabundance in particular drives, or aptitudes, and so will always be able to out-compete me, and you, in one way or another … and possibly in everything!
And that’s just fine by me. Personally, I cannot, and do not wish to imagine the bleak, colourless horror of a world without difference.
Frankly, I do not believe that mere imperfect humans are capable of conceiving a “perfect” system of exchange, that can ‘magically’ create a utopian outcome in a world of vast differences, and imperfections. To imagine that we can, I think, implies a degree of egotism that should encourage our caution.
I do believe, however, that after 5000 years of repeating exactly the same, fundamental mistakes when it comes to the design, and regulation of our mediums of exchange, that now we can design systems that are, at least, a lot more fair.
And, a lot more merciful.
This accounting system offers everybody exactly the same power to create purchasing power … coupled with exactly the same responsibilities.
So, it is only fair that it offers everybody the same amount of mercy.
And it gives this mercy – or grace – every week. Not once a year, or every seven, or forty-nine, or when a new king ascends the throne and wants to buy public favour.
Every seventh day, the algorithm cancels a percentage of the units from both sides of your Balance Sheet.
It restores your public Honour.
You might call it a small weekly Jubilee. Or andurārum, or mi’arum, or a return to the mother.
Or … grace. A little bit of forgiveness.
I call it Polarised Demurrage (“P.D.”).
It is a kind of “inverse” demurrage function, that operates the same way on both of the unequal and opposite “poles” of your Balance Sheet.
The following example illustrates how it works. To make it simpler (for me, to make the animation!), this only shows what P.D. will do with no new transactions by you, of any kind, over eight weeks.
Notice how both sides of your Balance Sheet reduce, and your public Honour rating climbs a little each week. It starts with you in the somewhat precarious position of only 60% Honour – because you are 40,000 in the red.
Any time you receive a payment, or, spend some of your Assets, or, create some more purchasing power for yourself, the algorithm will simply recalculate, and start the weekly forgiveness cycle over again.
The seventh day – the day that you receive some forgiveness – is determined by the date of the transaction that has taken you the greatest distance away from zero .. on either side of your Balance Sheet. Your personal “forgiveness day” will only change, if you exceed that number again, on a different day of the week.
Here is one more example, to illustrate how a new drawing of liability on yourself interrupts, and restarts, your forgiveness cycle. Again, you are starting 40,000 in the red, at 60% Honour.
After four (4) weeks worth of “forgiveness”, during which time you have (again) not made any new transactions of any kind, you decide to draw some more liability on yourself – another 3000.
The forgiveness cycle is shown continuing on for a further six (6) weeks, after your new “drawing” of 3000.
I hope that this has helped to show you that it is possible for us to eliminate the role of banks, and usury.
That it is possible to create a new system of ‘money’ and exchange, that returns our seigneur right to ourselves, and works fairly and equally for everyone.
An inversion, of their inversions.
It is not even a ‘money’ system, really. It is just a system for counting how much net benefit each one of us has gained, from the equal right to make withdrawals from other people’s – and nature’s – finite resources.
I think that a counting system like this would eliminate many problems caused by the greed of the ‘smiths and alchemists, and, provide benefits similar to those that many are now calling for – e.g., UBI, “living wage” – without having to beg banker-owned ‘sovereign’ governments for it.
Or trust that they will not abuse the increased power such regimes would give them, over our life times.
Or trust that we will not fall into ever more destructive habits of mind and action, as a result of increased dependency, without increased responsibility.
Perhaps you might wish to think about the pros and cons of this system, for yourself.
In future, I will write more on how this new SEDE accounting system embodies principles of what some believe to be ‘sacred’ geometry, expressing the Grace (Mercy), Nurture, Wisdom and Beauty of the life-giving Female .. or Mother .. Nature.
******************
REFERENCES
[1] Galbraith, JK, Money: Whence It Came, Were It Went (1975), p. 15 – retrieved from Wikiquote August 2018
[2] McKay, Colin, deror.org, (2011)
[3] Becklumb, P., and Frigon, M., How the Bank of Canada Creates Money for the Federal Government: Operational and Legal Aspects (10 August 2015) – retrieved August 2018
[4] Nichols, D.M. and Gonczy, A.M.L, Modern Money Mechanics: A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion (1994 edition), p. 6
[5] Investopedia: Promissory Notes – retrieved August 2018
[6] Financial Stability Board, Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions (2014 revision) – retrieved August 2018
[7] Nichols, D.M. and Gonczy, A.M.L, Modern Money Mechanics: A Workbook on Bank Reserves and Deposit Expansion (1994 edition), p. 6
[8] Werner, R.A., A Lost Century in Economics: Three theories of banking and the Conclusive Evidence (2014)
[9] Angas, Major L.L.B. (Lawrence Lee Bazley), Slump ahead in bonds (1937), Somerset Pub. Co. pp. 20-21. (cited in Wikiquote, Banking) – retrieved August 2018
[10] Keynes, J.M., Newton, the Man, (c. 1946) – retrieved from University of St. Andrews History of Mathematics archive, August 2018
[11] King, L.W., The Code of Hammurabi, The Avalon Project, Yale Law School – retrieved August 2018
[12] Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale. Given intention to publish a book revealing further evidences, the author apologises for not providing a more detailed citation.
[13] ibid.
[14] Karpenko, V. and Norris, J.A., Vitriol in the History of Chemistry, Chem. Listy 96, 997-1005 (2002)
[15] ibid.
[16] Bossone, B. and Costa, M., Monies (Old and New) Through the Lens of Modern Accounting (2018), VOX CEPR – retrieved July 2018
[17] Fetter, F.A., Reformulation of the Concepts of Capital and Income in Economics and Accounting (1937) in “Capital, Interest, & Rent” (1977). via etymologyonline, Capital – retrieved August 2018
[18] Investopedia: Legal Tender – retrieved August 2018
[19] Oresme, N., Treatise on the Origin, Nature, Lw, and Alterations of Money (De origine, natura, jure et mutationibus monetarum), cited in Woodhouse, A. “Who Owns the Money?” Currency, Property, and Popular Sovereignty in Nicole Oresme’s De moneta (2017-18). Speculum. 92 (1): 85-116
[20] Bank of Canada, Backgrounders: Seigniorage, March 2013 (pdf) – retrieved August 2018
[21] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Board issues interim final rule regarding dividend payments on Reserve Bank capital stock, Feb 18, 2016. – retrieved August 2018
[22] Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, FAQs – About the Fed: Who owns the Federal Reserve? – retrieved August 2018
[23] Bossone, B. and Costa, M., Monies (Old and New) Through the Lens of Modern Accounting (2018), VOX CEPR – retrieved July 2018
[24] Bakan, D., Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition (1958). D. Van Nostrand Company Inc. New York. p. 204
[25] Oresme, N., cited in Rolnick, A.J., Velde, F.R., & Weber, W.E., The Debasement Puzzle: An Essay on Medieval Monetary History, Federal Rserve Bank of Minneapolis, Quarterly Review, Fall 1997 – retrieved August 2018 (pdf)
[26] Keynes, J.M., Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren: Essays In Persuasion, The Future (1930) – retrieved September 2017
[27] Bernstein, J.L., The Checkered Career of Usury, American Bar Association Journal, Volume 51, September 1965. – retrieved August 2018
[28] Hudson, M., How Interest Rates Were Set: 2500 BC – 1000 AD (2000) – retrieved August 2018
[29] Karpenko, V. and Norris, J.A., Vitriol in the History of Chemistry, Chem. Listy 96, 997-1005 (2002)
[30] Scott, B., How to Burn Digital Money, 1 August 2018 – retrieved August 2018
[31] Assange, J., Conspiracy as Governance (2006) – retrieved Augsut 2018 (pdf)
[32] Shah, A.K., Big Four and the Revolving Door, Renegade Inc (2018) – watch online
[33] Whipple. J., The Importance of Usury Laws (1836)
This is in fact the formula of our Magick; we insist that all acts must be equal; that existence asserts the right to exist; that unless evil is a mere term expressing some relation of haphazard hostility between forces equally self-justified, the universe is as inexplicable and impossible as uncompensated action; that the orgies of Bacchus and Pan are no less sacramental than the Masses of Jesus; that the scars of syphilis are sacred and worthy of honour as much as the wounds of the martyrs of Mary.
..the existence of “Evil” is fatal to philosophy so long as it is supposed to be independent of conditions; and to accustom the mind to “make no difference”[1] between any two ideas as such is to emancipate it from the thralldom of terror.
The Magician should devise for himself a definite technique for destroying “evil”. The essence of such practice will consist in training the mind and body to confront things which cause fear, pain, disgust, shame and the like. He must learn to endure them, then to become indifferent to them, then to analyse them until they give pleasure and instruction, and finally to appreciate them for their own sake, as aspects of Truth.
Aleister Crowley, Liber V vel Reguli (Ritual of the Mark of the Beast) [2]
I will just say it.
The global accounting, banking, and ‘money’ systems, are Satanic.
All three systems are based on and operate according to fundamental principles that are identical to those in the philosophy and practice of satanism.
They are also identical to those in the “system of thought” that George Orwell described as doublethink.
An honest observer should be able to see this clearly, with a little thoughtful reflection.
According to a former priest in the (Anton LaVey) Church of Satan, the four main tenets of satanic ideology are:
Self-Preservation
Moral Relativism
Social Darwinism
Eugenics
These principles can be discerned in just one passage from the most notorious and influential Black Magician of the twentieth century:
We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit:
let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the
wretched and the weak: this is the law of the
strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.
Think not, o king, upon that lie: That Thou
Must Die: verily thou shalt not die, but live.[3]
This is emphasised by the Fraternitas Saturni (Brotherhood of Saturn) in an oxymoronic, ‘blackwhite’ expansion on Crowley’s dictum “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”:
Love is the Law, Compassionless Love.[4]
‘Art’ work allegedly owned by John Podesta. Note colours: ‘white’ demon (with Male, red-haired child) on Left; ‘black’ demon (with Female, white-haired child) on Right.
In Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None, nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche equated pity with self-annihilation.[5] For the satanist, or Black Magician, rejection of pity is “the magical equivalent of the rejection of self-annihilation.”[6]
In other words, to “emancipate” or “liberate” oneself entirely from the “bond” of compassion, of empathy for other beings, is seen as an act of Self-Preservation.
In our time compassion is even forbidden by science, as is already happening in England, where they have political economy.
‘Modern’ accounting, banking, and ‘money’ – the foundations of global finance, markets, economic and political life – all operate on the Double Entry Bookkeeping system.
Many historians and economists, including (eg) Werner Sombart, Max Weber, and Joseph Schumpeter, have traced the development of modern capitalist business practice to the Double Entry system, attributing to it the “pitiless” spirit of modern commerce in its “unending, systematic pursuit of profit”:
In [Schumpeter’s] view, double entry’s “cost-profit calculus” drives capitalist enterprise – and then spreads throughout the whole culture: “And thus defined and quantified for the economic sector, this type of logic or attitude or method then starts upon its conqueror’s career subjugating – rationalizing – man’s tools and philosophies, his medical practice, his picture of the cosmos, his outlook on life, everything in fact including his concepts of beauty and justice and his spiritual ambitions.” For Schumpeter, capitalism “generates a formal spirit of critique where the good, the true and the beautiful no longer are honoured; only the useful remains – and that is determined solely by the critical spirit of the accountant’s cost-benefit calculation”.[7]
Karl Marx – the 19th century arch materialist – stated that accounting is even “more necessary” for a communist system:
As unity within its circuits, as value in motion, whether in the sphere of production or in either phase of the sphere of circulation, capital exists ideally only in the form of money of account, primarily in the mind of the producer of commodities, the capitalist producer of commodities.
Bookkeeping, as the control and ideal synthesis of the process, becomes the more necessary the more the process assumes a social scale and loses its purely individual character. It is therefore more necessary in capitalist production than in the scattered production of handicraft and peasant economy, more necessary in collective production than in capitalist production.[8]
As we have seen in previous essays (here, here), Double Entry Bookkeeping was not created as a neutral, objective tool for value-adding producers or manufacturers to manage their costs. It was developed by merchants (traders) from the dawn of mercantile capitalism, as a tool whose real “use” value was to conceal their illegal practice of usury from Church-State authorities. It also served as a psychological tool of self-deception, enabling the merchant to convince himself that his actions were morally (thus ‘divinely’) justified – as “proved” by his meticulously-recorded and balanced books.
Merchants or traders have been condemned by true sages and religious divines throughout history and across many cultures, because their actions were seen as parasitic, and immoral; not adding to the common wealth of society, but merely taking from that produced by others.[9] The merchant is an intermediary, a middleman between producer and consumer, who aims to “buy low and sell high”, whether by fair means or foul (hello storytelling: advertising, marketing, “Public Relations”). He profits in whole or in part through taking advantage of what many today euphemistically call “information asymmetry” – which in other, more honest words, means the relative (to oneself) ignorance of others.
Double Entry embodies the satanic doctrine of Self-Preservation. The goal of the Black Magician is to become ‘as god’ – the Absolute, the One, the All, the Nothing, the ‘Divine Mind’ or ‘Pure’ Intellect – without sacrificing* his or her “individuated existence”.
(*The exact opposite of the Christian doctrine of self-sacrifice, and its ultimate aspiration of self-less union with, or complete self-annihilation in, the Divine; e.g., Matthew 16:20-25.)
Double Entry is a numeric and sophistic tool of control over the real or imagined events of the past, present, and future. It offers the possibility of becoming ‘as god’; of attaining Ultimate Power over the material realm (“Money Power”), which the magician equates with power over the imaginary (‘divine’ mind) realm as well.
This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of MAN, but HE who made Gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade ‘Know Thyself!’ and taught initiation. He is ‘the Devil’ of the Book of Thoth and His emblem is BAPHOMET, the androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection.[10]
According to Lewis Mumford (Myth of the Machine), accounting’s “concentration on abstract pecuniary rewards” – Profit (or Loss) – “introduced a driving motive into daily life, equivalent on its own base level to the monk’s search for an eternal reward in Heaven. The pursuit of money became a passion and an obsession: the end to which all other ends were means.”
Double Entry Bookkeeping also embodies the satanic doctrine of Moral Relativism.
The core of Crowley’s magical philosophy is the willed dissolution of opposites – “Let there be no difference … between any one thing and any other thing.” – in greater unity (agape, love).[11]
[As we have seen, ‘love’ in satanic doctrine is “Compassionless”, “pitiless”.]
Every single transaction recorded by Double Entry, is entered twice. The one action or event (real or imaginary) is dissolved or divided into two records which, in effect, cancel out or an-nihil-ate each other: a debit entry, and an equal and opposite credit entry.
Debits must equal Credits.
Negatives must equal Positives.
‘Evil’ must equal ‘Good’.
Black must equal White.
The union of both – the “sacred marriage” or “union of opposites” – equals Nothing:
I am God, I very God of very God; I go upon my way to work my Will; I have made Matter and Motion for my mirror; I have decreed for my delight that Nothingness should figure itself as twain… [two]
I am the None, for all that I am is the imperfect image of the perfect; each partial phantom must perish in the clasp of its counterpart, each form fulfil itself by finding its equated opposite, and satisfying its need to be the Absolute by the attainment of annihilation.
The World LAShTAL includes all this.
LA—Naught.
AL—Two.
LA … represents the Ecstasy of Nuit and Hadit conjoined, lost in love, and making themselves Naught thereby. [..]
AL, on the contrary, though it is essentially identical with LA, shows “The Fool” manifested through the Equilibrium of Contraries. The weight is still nothing, but it is expressed as it were two equal weights in opposite scales. The indicator still points to zero.
[“ShT” is “Fire” (Sh) and “Force” (T); it “expresses the secret nature which operates the Magick or the transmutations.” Abbreviation of “Shaitan”; Satan.][12]
The Fool, Thoth Tarot deck, Aleister Crowley’s Book of Thoth, Liber LXXVIII. (Source: bibliotecapleyades.net)
The Double Entry system embodies what George Orwell referred to in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four as “the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink [..] a vast system of mental cheating”:
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.[13]
The key word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.[14]
The Double Entry system also embodies another “essential” principle of Satanism, and applies it in the same way, for the same purpose: as its means to an end – the practice of Antinomianism.
The [left-hand path] practice .. often manifests itself in antinomianism, that is, the purposeful reversal of conventional normatives: ‘evil’ becomes ‘good,’ ‘impure’ becomes ‘pure,’ ‘darkness’ becomes ‘light’.
In [Crowley’s] “theology” the results of the application of this antinomianism are that opposites, such as the Beast and the Lamb (Rev. 13:8) and the Whore of Babylon and the Woman clothed with the Sun (Rev. 12:1) are only apparent, and that from a higher perspective they are unities or equivalencies (Beast = Lamb; Whore = Woman).
LaVey sees as natural [the] indulgence in all the so-called seven deadly sins of Christianity: greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust and sloth. Each of which he views as a possible catalyst for positive and natural human activities or attitudes … (See the Satanic Bible, ch. III). The fact that most people today, and the whole “western industrialized economy” is really driven by the desires of the masses to indulge in all of the seven deadly sins is a powerful argument for the presence of a Satanic Age.[15]
The capitalist scheme of values in fact transformed five of the seven deadly sins of Christianity – pride, envy, greed, avarice, and lust – into positive social virtues, treating them as necessary incentives to all economic enterprise; while the cardinal virtues, beginning with love and humility, were rejected as ‘bad for business,’ except in the degree that they made the working class more docile and more amenable to cold-blooded exploitation.[16]
Double Entry causes much confusion (“Babel”, from Hebrew בָּלַלbalal, Babylon), not only with beginners (‘novice’, ‘apprentice’) but even with experienced practitioners (‘adept’). The reason why is because its ‘logic’ is the exact opposite of what a normal person would naturally expect, based on the words used.
In common understanding, the word “credit” implies something Good. A positive. Something that adds to, increases, or improves. “Well done! That work is a credit to you.”
A “debit”, on the other hand (see etymology), is commonly understood to mean the exact opposite; something Bad. A negative. A loss, deficiency, or deficit. “On the biographical debit side there are the usual miscellaneous acts of thoughtlessness, rudeness and generally shabby behaviour.”
In Double Entry, however, the operating ‘logic’ is reversed. In its fundamental process – recording entries – words actually mean the exact opposite of what we normally understand them to mean.
A “debit” does not subtract (-) from an account. It adds to it (+).
A “credit” does not add (+) to an account. It subtracts from it (-).
(That is, for an Asset account. For a Liability account, the same words mean the reverse: a “debit” subtracts, and a “credit” adds. Doublethink.)
The satanic principle and practice of antinomianism – the deliberate inversion or reversal of values and conventions; the breaking of rules, laws, taboos – is embedded in Double Entry’s basic operation.
It is pitiful to see, how strangely some Men of Quality and Fortune, are to seek in Accompts; and how they are blinded and bambouzled by the Mists, that artful Men raise up before their Eyes, with Estimates, as they call ’em, and Representations of Values, drawn out of immense Books of Accompts, while the proper Judges know the Way neither into, nor out of them, and listen to the Jargon, as if it were Coptick, or Arabick.
Roger North, The Gentleman Accomptant, 1714
“For every debit there must be a credit, and for every credit there must be a debit” – Alas! How few consider that if this must be the case, the rule to go by, nothing is more easy than to make a set of books wear the appearance of correctness, which at the same time is full of errors, or of false entries, made on purpose to deceive!
Edward Thomas Jones, Jones’ English System of Book-Keeping by Single or Double Entry, 1796
The whole difference, and the only difference, between the two systems of accounting is in the fact that single-entry bookkeeping always uses literal language, while double-entry bookkeeping always uses figurative language except when speaking of persons.
In single-entry bookkeeping, cash means cash. Merchandise means merchandise. Interest means interest. Expense means expense. But in double-entry bookkeeping cash does not mean cash; it means the imaginary person who owes the amount of the cash. Merchandise does not mean merchandise; it means the imaginary person who owes the amount of the merchandise. Interest does not mean interest; it means the imaginary person who owes or is owed the amount of the interest. Expense does not mean expense; it means the imaginary person who owes the amount of the expenses. Net Capital does not mean net capital; it means the person (real in the case of an individual owner, imaginary in the case of a firm or a corporation) who is owed or owes the amount of the net capital.
Charles M. Van Cleve, Principles of Double Entry Bookkeeping, 1913
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Consider closely “The Fool” (‘0’) tarot card (shown above), as designed by Aleister Crowley. His exposition of its symbolism can be found here.
At some point in future, I hope to discover the necessary motivation to begin the task of elaborating on the colour green and its far-reaching symbolic significance, not only as the “colour of money”, but also in alchemy, Cabala, sex ‘magick’, human biology, chemistry, metallurgy, and in Hollywood movie ‘entertainment’.
UPDATE 8 June 2018: included clarification (in parentheses) regarding the opposite application of debits and credits for Asset and Liability accounts.
**********************
REFERENCES
[1] In the ‘Jewish’ festival of Purim, conventional normatives (such as social roles, e.g., teacher and student, adult and child) are reversed, and revellers are encouraged to drink until “he cannot tell the difference between ‘blessed be Mordechai’ [‘Good’] and ‘cursed be Haman’ [‘Evil’]. See Jeffrey Rubenstein, Purim, Liminality and Communitas, Association for Jewish Studies Review, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1992
[2] Aleister Crowley, Liber V vel Reguli (Ritual of the Mark of the Beast); retrieved 5 June 2018
[3] Aleister Crowley, Book of the Law, or Liber AL II: 21; retrieved 5 June 2018
[4] Gregor A. Gregorius, G. Mitleidlose Liebe (cited in Flowers, Lords of the Left-hand Path, 1997, p. 148)
[5] Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (cited in Flowers, Lords of the Left-hand Path, 1997, p. 149, fn 68)
[6] Stephen E. Flowers, Lords of the Left-hand Path: A History of Spiritual Dissent (1997), p.149
[7] Jane Gleeson-White, Double Entry: How the Merchants of Venice Shaped Modern Finance (Kindle edition, p. 169)
[11] Stephen E. Flowers, Lords of the Left-hand Path: A History of Spiritual Dissent (1997), p.144
[12] Aleister Crowley, Liber V vel Reguli (Ritual of the Mark of the Beast); retrieved 5 June 2018
[13] George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (2003 Centennial edition), Plume Harcourt Brace, USA. p. 220
[14] ibid., p. 218
[15] Stephen E. Flowers, Lords of the Left-hand Path: A History of Spiritual Dissent (1997), p. 144, 185 – “‘Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!’ is [..] a specific exhortation to indulge in those things which collective or mass culture may call sins – because by virtue of their very rejection by the mass they can be exalted as worthy aspirations for the individualistic Satanist.” (p. 186)
[16] Lewis Mumford, Myth of the Machine (1967)
[17] Joel H. Amernic and Russell J, Craig, Accounting as a Facilitator of Extreme Narcissism (2010), Journal of Business Ethics 96(1):79-93.
It’s not good for women to go through the procedure and have something living sucked out of your bodies. It belittles women… Every time a woman has an abortion, it just crushes her self-esteem, smaller and smaller and smaller.
This essay was prompted by an exchange on Twitter. An account named @LiveAction tweeted a paraphrase of the above quote, to which I responded with an excerpt from the Apocalypse of Peter (c. 2nd Century AD):
For those with eyes to see, the blue highlighted sentence revealed what was in my heart. The motive and intent.
Empathy.
A compassionate desire to give something, some small amount of consolation, of encouragement, of hope, to the heart of a stranger who, presumably, feels sufficient inner pain concerning the topic to have committed some part of their own life – Time, and labour energy – to public activism.
Perhaps little more would have resulted from this gesture, if not for a third party reply. An attempt at alchemical transformation; of extracting a more ‘pure’ essence from the base material – a ‘higher’, more ‘en-light-ened’ form of ‘knowledge’ – by the “royal Art” of philosophistry:
My interlocutor attempted to justify the killing of the unborn, based on the ‘logical’ reason-ing that a belief in the idea of the baby going to heaven “would arguably outweigh any bad thing about abortion”.
In doing so, he willfully ignored the majority of the quoted excerpt, detailing the punishments to be suffered by both women and men who cause their children to “be born untimely”; who “delivered us unto death”.
This perfectly manifests what is the reigning spirit – and mental-ity – of our times.
True Lords of the Left-Hand Path will .. identify with the cultural norms of ‘evil’ [..] The practice .. often manifests itself in antinomianism, that is, the purposefulreversal of conventional normatives: ‘evil’ becomes ‘good,’ ‘impure’ becomes ‘pure,’ ‘darkness’ becomes ‘light’. [Flowers, 1997]
Where have we heard that sort of inversion-of-values philosophistry before? In my previousessays, where I have explained the ancient origins of the ontological sex magick principles of Eastern and Western alchemy, that are deeply embedded in the ‘modern’ (neo-Babylonian) double entry accounting, banking, and credebtpromise-based ‘money’ systems:
[The third] justification for the “transgressions” of the Vajrayana consists in the Bodhisattva vow of Mahayana Buddhism, which requires that one aid and assist every creature until it attains enlightenment. Amazingly, this pious purpose can render holy the most evil means. “If”, we can read in one of the tantras, “for the good of all living beings or on account of the Buddha’s teaching one should slay living beings, one is untouched by sin. … If for the good of living beings or from attachment for the Buddha’s interest, one seizes the wealth of others, one is not touched by sin”, and so forth. In the course of Tibetan history the Bodhisattva vow has [..] legitimated numerous political and family-based murders, whereby the additional “clever” argument was also employed, that one had “freed” the murder victim from the world of appearances (samsara) and that he or she thus owed a debt of thanks to the murderer. [Trimondi, 2003].
The same perverse form of messianic, “heal the world” (tikkun olam) by practicing evil, utopian philosophistry, appears in myriad writings of philosopher ‘luminaries’ from the Hermetic Reformation (“Renaissance”, Fr. “rebirth”) and the En-Light-enment, through to modernity’s John Maynard Keynes:
I see us free, therefore, to return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue. [..] But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight. [Keynes, 1930]
Satanism is self-Deification; specifically, the deification of the supposedly ‘rational’ individual’s “Divine Mind” – the “Absolute Intellect”, or “Absolute Reason” – associated with the left hemisphere of brain activity.
The Left-hand path ideology identifies with the “eternal rebel” (and trickster) known variously through the ages as (among other names) Prometheus, Hermes, Mercury, Satan, and Lucifer.
The “Light-bringer”. Intermediary agent of the gnosis: the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The archetype of “absolute freedom” from all social, moral, and legal taboos; “unfettered” from all restrictions to the attainment of “ultimate sovereignty” in (or rather, over) the material realm.
On the path of jnana (knowledge) the practitioner is himself transformed into a being of the divine typos without sacrificing his individuated existence… [Flowers, 1997]
The eight “fetters” (does that number ring any bells?) that restrict the “liberty” of the witting (or unwitting) satanist – that hold him/her back from becoming a ‘god’ – are, in the Hindu left-hand path tradition of vamachara, “Sympathy. Delusion. Shame; the idea of sin. Fear. Disgust. Family, kinship, clan. Caste. Customary rites and precepts. As each of these bonds or fetters are broken the [initiate] becomes progressively more liberated.” (Flowers, 1997)
The phase of Blackening which usually marked the beginning of the work, was brought about either by heating the prima materia in the process of Calcination (the ‘dry way’ of the alchemists), or by the process of Putrefaction, a slow rotting or digestion over a period of weeks or months (the so-called ‘wet way’). The Black Crow or Raven was often associated with this Calcination, for on vigorous heating the calcined material would usually carbonise and layers would flake off and move like a crow’s wings in the flask. The Toad was a better symbol of the Putrefaction, the decaying mass slowly pulsating and shifting as gasses were given off, while the substance rotted down to a black mass. [..] The alchemists paralleled these experiences in their souls as a withdrawal into the darkness of their interior space, a darkness pregnant with possibility. [McLean]
The coat of arms traditionally attributed to Satan in European heraldry. In the book The Heraldic Imagination by Rodney Dennys (1975), this is traced back to the late 13th-century Douce Apocalypse manuscript, in an illustration to Revelations 20:7-10. The design is based on the “three unclean spirits like frogs” of verse 16:13. Green frogs on a red background contravenethe heraldic Rule of Tincture – presumably deliberately.
Removing these “fetters” necessarily means eliminating all feelings of compassion, empathy (“sympathy”), and most importantly, guilt (“shame”).
In other words, in order to become fully “free”, one’s own “ultimate sovereign”, and thus “divine”, one must become lawless (“Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”), and a psychopath:
He may have to participate in exercises of cruelty and other aberrations of social and religious norms as a way of placing himself totally outside of profane society. Thereby he is ‘unfettered’ from the bonds and tabus of society as a way of unfettering himself from spiritual bonds. [Flowers, 1997]
Satanism – or Left-hand Path ‘magic’ – seeks “liberty” from “the servitude of conscience.“
In essence, the Left-hand Path is an egocentric philosophistry of separation or “non-union”, that prescribes the willful deception, manipulation, domination, theft, and ultimately, the destruction of one’s Right side – the faculty of emotion, empathy, holistic thinking; the intuitive, compassionate, nurturing Female principle – the Mother Nature felt in us all – in order to attain apotheosis as an individual, Intellectual ‘god’:
[A] symbolic murder is hidden behind this. The black matter, a symbol of the fundamental feminine and of powerful nature from which we all come, is burned or in some cases vaporized, cut to pieces or dismembered. Thus, in destroying the prima materia we at the same time destroy our “mother” or, basically, the “fundamentally feminine”.
The European adept does not shy away from even the most crass killing metaphors: “open the lap of your mother”, it says in a French text from the 18th century, “with a steel blade, burrow into her entrails and press forward to her womb, there you will find our pure substance (the elixir)”. [Trimondi, 2003]
[T]he essence of the vamachara [Sanskrit: “left-handed attainment”] is the total transformation of the human initiate into something superhuman or god(dess)-like. This lies at the root of why antinomianism (inversions of all kinds of normatives) is so important in the methodology of … the left-hand path.
An eternal separation of the individual intelligence from the objective universe is sought in the left-hand path. This amounts to an immortality [divinity] of the independent consciousness… .
[O]n the leftward way one does not worship a god but rather one enacts divinity from a subjective perspective. [Flowers, 1997]
“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil.”
In the Genesis story, the archetype of Woman (Eve) was doomed to suffer “greatly multipl[ied]” pain and suffering in pregnancy and childbirth, in consequence of disobedience to God’s (cosmic, natural) law, and the resulting Fall from innocence: a pure, ‘god’-like state of being, of not knowing both good and evil.
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
The symbolism of the pear – having the form, or silhouette, of a woman with “child-bearing hips” – has important relevance in religious and alchemical lore.
The pear tree represents the Tree of Life. It is mentioned in literature and folklore connected with love and temptation. An aludel is a pear-shaped earthenware bottle, open at both ends, used as a condenser in the sublimation process, and so came to signify the end-stages of transformation. It is also called the Hermetic Vase, the Philosopher’s Egg, and the Vase of the Philosophy.
In Greek and Roman mythology, pears are sacred to three goddesses: Hera (Juno to the Romans), Aphrodite (Venus to the Romans), and Pomona, an Italian goddess of gardens and harvests. The ancient Chinese believed that the pear was a symbol of immortality. (Pear trees live for a long time.)
During medieval times, however, (if you will excuse the dreadful pun) the symbolism went pear shaped, and the pear, as a whole tree and fruit, then symbolised masculinity, which would seem extremely strange until one realises that the symbolism applied largely to the tree and not the fruit. According to Albertus Magnus, writing in the 13th century and accepting the ancient and orthodox view of his time, the pear is considered masculine because of “the hardness of its wood, the coarseness of its leaves and the close texture of its fruit.”
Sephardic Jews – in other words Jews who followed the Kabbalah and were thus part of the mystic groups, used a pear tree as their emblem.
The great Leonardo Da Vinci (1452–1519) reveled in collecting cryptic puns, aphorisms, fables, prophecies, jests, mottoes, and fantastic tales. Codex Arundel 67 contains several botanical fables including one involving the laurel, the myrtle, and the pear:
The laurel and the myrtle on seeing the pear tree being cut down, cried out in a loud voice: ‘O pear tree where are you going? Where is the pride that you had when you were laden with ripe fruit? Now you will no longer make shade for us with your thick foliage.’ The pear tree replied: ‘I am going with the husbandman who is cutting me down and who will take me to the workshop of a good sculptor, who by his art will cause me to assume the form of the god Jove, and I shall be dedicated in a temple and worshipped by men in place of Jove. While you are obliged to remain always maimed and stripped of your branches [while] men shall set around me in order to do me honor.” (Embode, 1987).
Earlier in the Genesis story, the Creator is portrayed commanding Adam and Eve to “Be fruitful and multiply” (1:28). In Judaism, this commandment (mitzvah) – the First Commandment, to the First Man and Woman – is called peru u’rvu (Hebrew: פרו ורבו).
Rabbinic lore, however, overrides this First Commandment, with an exemption:
Jewish law traditionally exempts women from the obligation of peru urvu [..] This is because pregnancy endangers her life, and one is not obligated to endanger oneself. Such an exemption strengthens the woman’s right to protect her health over that of a fetus that endangers her. [Grossman, 2006]
Rabbinic lore is replete with mutually contradictory exemptions – loopholes – devised by the Sages.
For example, the Sages teach that Leviticus 18:5 (“You shall keep My statutes and My Judgments, which a person shall do, and he shall live by them”) really means that “the mitzvot were given to provide life, but they were not given so that one will die due to their observance.” (Sanhedrin 74a)
Based on this interpretation, the Sages derived the precept that “protecting life” overrides all other commandments (Tosefta Shabbat 15:17).
(Example: the subjective, arbitrarily applied – according to self-interest – “Responsibility To Protect” [R2P] euphemism as justification for U.S. “interventionist” foreign policy.)
However, while pregnant women are not obligated to endanger their own lives for the sake of an unborn child, the rabbinic Sages also insist that one is obligated to endanger oneself rather than violate the commandments against murder (?!?), sexual violence (incest, rape, adultery), and idolatry:
The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. [..] With regard to all other transgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgress this prohibition and you will not be killed, he may transgress that prohibition and not be killed, because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah’s prohibitions. This is the halakha (rabbinic law) concerning all prohibitions except for those of idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them. [Sanhedrin 74a]
In other words, according to the ‘wisdom’ of the ‘Sages’, on the one hand, a married or betrothed woman must choose to be killed, rather than submit to rape:
[S]o too, with regard to a betrothed young woman, if she is faced with rape, she must be killed and not trangress the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations. [Sanhedrin 74a]
But, on the other hand, if she is pregnant, then she may commit murder of the unborn, if the reason given is that doing so will preserve her own life and “health”.
Notably, in Satanic lore, the first main tenet (principle, or doctrine), is Self-Preservation. The second tenet, is Moral Relativism.
True black magic is performed with the aid of a demoniacal spirit, who serves the sorcerer for the length of his earthly life, with the understanding that after death the magician shall become the servant of his own demon. For this reason a black magician will go to inconceivable ends to prolong his physical life, since there is nothing for him beyond the grave. [Hall, 1928]
Contrast the first principle teaching of Jesus of Nazareth: “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Both the Torah and rabbinic lore have much to say concerning the binary notions of Life and Death.
We have seen in earlier essays that Jewish mystical philosophy (Cabala) openly confesses its origins in “Old Chaldean” ontology – a worldview, or philosophy of being and reality, in which every thing in the universe is believed to be created from the sexual union (merging, mixing, fusing, binding, blurring) of exact opposites.
This is illustrated in the Cabalistic ‘Tree of Life’ or ‘Gates of Light’, where the ’emanations’ or attributes of God and Being are depicted as gendered pairs, joined together in a sequence of mystic, ‘sexual’, father-mother-son-daughter unions of opposites.
We have also seen that the ‘trick’ of alchemical sex magick, is the cunning inversion or reversal of the natural “flow” of the (pro)creative fluids, which are considered “energies” – the semen virile and semen feminile.
To reverse the left to right pattern, contrary to nature and cosmic law requires an exercise of the faculty of will. This is an act of rebellion against nature and against divinely ordained cosmic order.
Practitioners .. may often rely on what appears to non-initiates to be chicanery and tricks involving slight of hand.
What is important here is the left-hand path technique or philosophical model of inverting or reversing natural processes through the power of will and consciousness. By being able to reverse natural ‘flow patterns’, be they in the body (subjective) or in the world (objective), practitioners of the left-hand path demonstrate or exercise their independence from the natural universe – thus establishing that which is divine in their individualities. [Flowers, 1997]
In left-hand path sexual alchemy, rather than the male fertilising the female – which would mean giving his vital “energies” to her – he steals the female’s “flows” by a secretly-practiced sexual exercise, or (for the less skilled) by drinking them.
“After he has streamed forth,” Mircea Eliade quotes a text as saying, “he draws in and says: through my force, through my seed I take your seed — and she is without seed”. The man thus steals the seed of the woman under the impression that he can through this become a powerful androgynous being, and leaves her without her own life energy. [Trimondi, 2003]
The Mercurial Rebis: A Crowned and Bat-winged Hermaphrodite, Buch der heiligen Dreifaltigkeit, late 14th Century (Munich MS, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CGM. 598). Source: Adam McLean, alchemywebsite.com
This secret Tantric practice is tacitly affirmed in Lurianic Cabala:
[Isaac Luria’s disciple, Chaim] Vital describes how the face-to-face status of the Father and Mother [sefirot] visages was maintained by ‘feminine waters’ (mayim nukvim) emanating from the interior of the Mother. [Drob, 2003]
Naturally – or rather, un-naturally, since antinomianism (inversion or reversal of normatives) is fundamental to satanic practice – it is believed that the greatest power is obtained from internalising those things that have been traditionally considered impure, unclean, and thus off-limits or taboo.
The magical principle of transforming or ‘purifying’ any substance or experience to serve the purpose of the pure Will of the magician is typical at all levels of the left-hand path.
When discussing antinomian left-handed tantrism Renou states “… we observe the inversion of normal worship and common ethical principles. The fact that those objects are ‘worshiped’ is evidence that the stage has been passed at which they would be considered sinful.” So objects or practices which would normally inspire shame, hate or fear in the orthodox .. will be willfully worshipped and engaged in with a sublimated attitude of sacrality.
It is by breaking these taboos [incl. cannibalism and necrophilia] and going beyond the barriers of good and evil that the [initiate] attains new levels of power and ‘liberation’ (from his human limitations).
It is this third category, the libertines, which [Marquis] de Sade saw as the apex of humanity. Libertines, through active use of the imagination, transform themselves through acts of will… . For de Sade the greatest pleasures were to be found in overcoming things which may have at one time inspired fear or disgust. [Flowers, 1997]
This explains why left-hand path philosophers and practitioners throughout the ages and across many cultures have evidenced a peculiar obsession with the cyclical monthly “flows” of the female.
[E]very woman knows that she has two kinds of flow that come from her vagina. Ancient sources called these the River of Life and the River of Death, meaning the clear or white flow at the time when a child is more likely to be conceived; and the forbidden flow of menstruation, when it is most unlikely that a child can be conceived. [Lishtar, 2000]
Trimondi, The Shadow of the Dalai Lama: Sexuality, Magic, and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism (2003).
In the Hevajra Tantra the adept must drink the menstrual blood of his mudra out of a skull bowl. [..] As a tantric saying puts it, “What binds the fool, liberates the wise”, and another, more drastic passage emphasizes that, “the same deed for which a normal mortal would burn for a hundred million eons, through this same act an initiated yogi attains enlightenment”. According to this, every ritual is designed to catapult the initiand into a state beyond good and evil.
According to the tantric logic of inversion, that precisely the worst is the most appropriate starting substance for the best, the yogi need not fear the magical destructive force of the menses, as he can reverse it into its creative opposite through the proper method. [Trimondi, 2003]
“Bufo” (toad) “rubea” (red, reddish; feminine of rubeus)
at ‘base’ (‘Mother’ earth, prima materia) of Tree of Life
“Saturnus Plumbum” (Satan’s ♄ lead; transformation into ‘gold’)
This may also offer a deeper insight into, and explanation for, the Western Establishment’s “liberal” support for abortion … and the sale of body parts.
“Modern philosophies and political ideologies have fully embraced principles basic and fundamental to the left-hand path, almost all of which have become the accepted norm in the west.”
“It’s not good for women to go through the procedure and have something living sucked out of your bodies. It belittles women… Every time a woman has an abortion, it just crushes her self-esteem, smaller and smaller and smaller.”
– Dolores O’Riordan, The Cranberries
*****************
REFERENCES
Stephen E. Flowers PhD, Lords of the Left-hand Path: A History of Spiritual Dissent (1997)
V. and V. Trimondi, The Shadow of the Dalai Lama: Sexuality, Magic and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism (2003), transl. by Mark Penny
John Maynard Keynes, Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, Essays In Persuasion, The Future (1930)
Adam McLean, Animal Symbolism in the Alchemical Tradition (alchemywebsite.com)
Mark Passio, Natural Law: The Real Law of Attraction (2013)
Rabbi Susan Grossman, Mikveh and the Sanctity of Being Created Human (2006)
Sanhedrin 74a, The William Davidson Talmud, (sefaria.org)
Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages (1928)
Sanford L Drob, Towards a Kabbalistic Psychology: C.G. Jung and the Jewish Foundations of Alchemy (2003)
Lishtar, The Avenging Maiden and the Predator Gardener: A Study of Inanna and Shukaletuda (2000), citing Shuttle and Redgrove (1989)
“hand”. This derives from an Egyptian hieroglyph for the uniliteral sign 
(מ
) plus “five more” (
,
): 
times in finale,
times in total.
The vain cultivated the color purple.
PSALMISTICE 