This brilliant documentary resonates loudly with me.

No puns intended.

Hat tip Vera

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 … .

Anonymous, Epistle of Discretion


Thou shalt not please Me
so well as thou dost
when thou art in silence,
and suffrest Me to speak
in thy soul.

A Short Treatyse Of Contemplation Taught By Our Lord Jesu Christ,
Taken Out Of The Book Of Margery Kempe, Ancress Of Lynn

Mysticism, Nature, Poetry, Time

*I* disappear

Mysticism, Nature, Time

Banks, Usury, and Doublethink in the Roman Empire – Part 2

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 (

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.

@DerorCurrency (Colin McKay)

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”.

“In the Knows”/nose – The Wizard of Oz

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)

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.

Zohar [זֹהַר; lit. “Splendor,” “Radiance”] 49a, (c. 1300 AD)

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)…

Heinrich Nollius, Theoria Philosophiae Hermeticae, 1617. © Adam McLean 1997-2017 ( Used with permission.

…and eventually gave rise to the proto alephbets (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.

It is found in the dark magic art of extispicy.

To the ancient Greeks, hepatomancy, and to the Romans, haruspicy.

The divination of omens.

By the examination of anomalies.

Lords of Time, forecasting the fortunes of future time.

In animal entrails.

Sheep livers, mostly.

(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.

Like getting your period, or having a wet dream.

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.

Isaiah 44:24-25

“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].”

Jeremiah 27:9

For the king of [Babylon] is standing at the fork in the road, where the two roads separate, about to use divination — he is shaking the arrows, consulting the household gods, examining the liver.

Ezekiel 21:26(21) (Complete Jewish Bible)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

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 Inquirer and Enemy) 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.


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].

Babylonian Talmud (Niddah 20b-21a)

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

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?

Babylonian Talmud (Niddah 20b)

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.”

Luke 8:43-48 (ESV), cf. Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-34

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.

Zohar (1:50b-51a).

Siebmacher, Wasserstein der Weysen, 1704. © Adam McLean 1997-2017 ( Used with permission.

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]


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.”

Genesis 4:1 (ESV)

The man had sexual relations with Havah his wife; she conceived, gave birth to Kayin [acquisition] and said, “I have acquired a man from Adonai.

Genesis 4:1 (Complete Jewish Bible)

That topic is animal symbolism:

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.

@DerorCurrency (Colin McKay)

– dogs

(Köksal Akın)

כֶּלֶב keleb, keh’-leb; from an unused root means. to yelp, or else to attack; a dog; hence (by euphemism) a male prostitute:—dog.

Outline of Biblical Usage

I. dog

A. dog (literal)
B. contempt or abasement (fig.)
C. of pagan sacrifice
D. of male cult prostitute (fig.)

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon



[1] Oppenheim, A.L., A Babylonian Diviner’s Manual, JNES Vol. 33, No. 2 (Apr. 1974), 197-220

[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

[14] Pearce, L.E., Secret, Sacred and Secular – Mesopotamian Intertextuality (CSMSJ 1, 2006), p.13

[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 in the 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)




Mysticism, Nature, Time

Banks, Usury, and Doublethink in the Roman Empire – Part 1

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.

“The Letter and the Law”, Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2008

Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.

Jesus of Nazareth, Luke 11:52

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.

Psalm 2:1-4

“The Finger of God”, Carina Nebula

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 caste the 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.

“Pisseth pisseth pisseth pisseth pisseth pisseth pisseth!”

“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]

Rabbi Schneur Zalman (1745–1812), Chabad-Lubavitch

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.


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.

(Complete Jewish Bible)

Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a riv (cause, lawsuit) to turn aside after many to pervert justice; …

(Orthodox Jewish Bible)

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?


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 doing 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”.

  1. We are right. (arrogance, Ego-blinded presumption)
  2. “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)
  3. We are the crowd. (i.e., majority)
  4. 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]

A truly ‘creative’ Lord of Time.

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”, “clotted blood”-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).
Heh ה (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 sheep or 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

Exodus 12:5, 12-13, Complete Jewish Bible

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 their own 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.”

Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 25:31-46)

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 neighbour kin-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 consciousness or 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]

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.”




[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 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:7-8The 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

Mysticism, Time

What Would Real Sovereignty Look Like?

The study of money, above all other fields in economics, is one in which complexity is used to disguise truth or to evade truth, not to reveal it.

John Kenneth Galbraith (1975) [1]

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?

Colin McKay (2011) [2]





  1. Misleading Parliament: Central Banks and New ‘Money’ Creation
  2. Seigniorage
  3. Usury – “Rose of Copper
  4. deror – Imagine a world with no banks


Le bon Dieu est dans le détail (“the good God is in the detail”) means that attention paid to small things has big rewards.



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:

CA Gov - BoCA - Original

Source: Library of Parliament, Canada

CA Gov - BoCA - CORRECTED_6000ms

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.

Comm Bank - Customer - ORIGINAL_8000ms

Source: Library of Parliament, Canada

Comm Bank - Customer - Liability_4000ms

Step-by-Step: How It *Really* Works

The authors of How the Bank of Canada Creates Money for the Federal Government: Operational and Legal Aspects, succeeded in misleading Parliament:

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 loans to 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].

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago [4]

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.

Investopedia [5]

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)

Comm Bank - Customer - Liability_4000ms

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

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago [7]

(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.)



There is no need to take my word for this.

Or, indeed, the word of the Federal Reserve Banks.

Professor Richard Werner D.Phil (Oxon) has published scientific evidence that it is true:

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 claims on 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.

Major L.L.B. Angas (1937) [9]



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.

John Maynard Keynes, Newton, the Man[10]

capital (adj.)

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

British Muséum, London,

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 red water 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: 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, ש shin (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.

capital (n)

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.”

Robert Fludd, Utriusque Cosmi Maioris scilicet et Minoris Metaphysica Physica Atque Technica Historia, 1617-1621

Robert Fludd, Utriusque Cosmi Maioris scilicet et Minoris Metaphysica Physica Atque Technica Historia, 1617-1621. © Adam McLean 1997-2017 ( Used with permission.

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 orfief” 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 covenanted flow 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.

Engraving from JA Siebmacher, Das guldene Vleiss, Nurnberg 1737

Note hands *and* feet: Wealth, Assets (left); Double Entry book debt, Liabilities (right) | J.A. Siebmacher, Das guldene Vleiss (“The Golden Fleece”), Nurnberg, 1737. © Adam McLean 1997-2017 ( Used with permission.

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.



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.

Nicole Oresme (1320-1382 AD) [25]

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.

John Maynard Keynes (1930) [26]


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, crystalline heptahydrate mineral of ferrous [iron] sulfate, FeSO4·7H2O. Also called green vitriol.

[Middle English coperose, a metallic sulfate, from Old French, from Medieval Latin cuperōsa, probably short for aqua cuprōsa, copper water, from Late Latin cuprum, copper]

French couperosé (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.

Roger Bacon from Albertus Magnus from Maier, Symbola aurea mensae, Franckfurt, 1617

Roger Bacon (c. 1220-1292), from Michael Maier, Symbola aurea mensae, 1617. © Adam McLean 1997-2017 ( Used with permission.

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’ 2000 times more interest than the top 10% receive, on average.

Margrit Kennedy chart graph

The interest usury 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.



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.

Julian Assange (2006) [31]

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.

Atul Shah (2018) [32]

A just system of currency has its foundation in equal rights. Equal rights are based on principles in harmony with the laws of nature.

John Whipple (1836) [33]


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.

Customer ONLY_3000ms

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:


CREATE (Double Entry). © Colin McKay 2011-2018

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:


SPEND (Single Entry). © Colin McKay 2011-2018


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 spent 3000 (above), you are now receiving a payment of 2000, which cancels some of your Liability:


EARN (Single Entry). © Colin McKay 2011-2018

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:

Balance (internal)_3000ms

BALANCE (internal). © Colin McKay 2011-2018

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.


POLARISED DEMURRAGE™. © Colin McKay 2011-2018

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.

PD redraw_1500ms

POLARISED DEMURRAGE™ (with redraw after 4 weeks). © Colin McKay 2011-2018

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.



[1] Galbraith, JK, Money: Whence It Came, Were It Went (1975), p. 15 – retrieved from Wikiquote August 2018
[2] McKay, Colin,, (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)


Italian Professors Confirm “Outright False Accounting” and “Double Nature” of Bank ‘Money’

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of 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.

George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four


Oh the irony.

Or perhaps rather, the karma.

From the birthplace of el modo vinegia (“the Venetian Method”) of Double Entry Bookkeeping, and the modern banking Usurocracy that it spawned more than half a millennium ago, comes academic confirmation of the “outright false accounting” and “double nature” of bank ‘money’.

Exactly as explained in my 2016 essay, Dishonourable Debt: Why Borrowers Are Not Legally Bound To Repay Bank Loans.

Professor of Accounting Massimo Costa, along with former international financial markets professor and current World Bank and IMF advisor Biagio Bossone, have confirmed that so-called “money of account” created by Double Entry Bookkeeping is a “systematically concealed” tool for extracting “seigniorage rent” from the labour of the human race.

In academic jargon, it is “a 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.”

In other words, the global banking system is an enormous parasite, and its parasitic method is fraudulent.

Their article relates to the heart of my essays (eg, here, here, here, here, here) on the ancient, alchemical philosophistry – the word ‘magic’ with numbers added – on which the ‘modern’ banking system is built.

According to Costa and Bossone (Monies (old and new) through the lens of modern accounting), banks are “hybrid institutions”, and customer deposits are “‘hybrid’ liabilities”:

More generally, absent adverse economic or market contingencies inducing depositors to convert deposits into cash, the liabilities represented by deposits only partly constitute debt liabilities of the issuing bank, which as such require [central bank] reserve coverage. The remaining part of the liabilities is a source of income for the issuing bank – income that derives from the bank’s power to create money. In accounting terms, to the extent that this income is undistributed, it is equivalent to equity.

This double nature of demand deposits is stochastic in as much as, at issuance, every deposit unit can be either debt (if, with a certain probability, the issuing bank receives requests for cash conversion or interbank settlement) or equity (with complementary probability).

This is exactly as I explained in Dishonourable Debt:

Despite the fact that they claim to have loaned us all this money, thanks to the magical paradox at the heart of double-entry accounting, they also claim, simultaneously, precisely the opposite to be true that we have actually loaned all that money to them.


Believe it or not, there is an explanation—albeit a perverse, morally abhorrent and unconscionable explanation—for this, and in turn, for how the creeping global preparations to legally steal the “deposit” assets of bank customers (refer above diagram) is able to be “justified” by the banks, the financial and political authorities, and the unelected, BIS-funded, Goldman Sachs alumni-chaired FSB.

At the heart of the matter is the ever-present paradox of perspective inherent in the Babylonian Duality Principle on which double-entry accounting is based.

Banks are able to create new (so-called) ‘money’ ex nihilo through the loan origination process. As this is recorded using double-entry accounting, every new loan results in a new Asset and a new Liability on the banks’ balance sheet records.

However, because banks act both as new loan (thus, new ‘money’) originators and as financial intermediaries, there is no way of disaggregating the Liability side of any bank’s balance sheet in order to clearly distinguish between those “deposits” that have arisen in consequence of that bank’s own lending (so-called), and those “deposits” that have arisen in consequence of that bank’s intermediation (i.e., ‘transfers’ of ‘money’ from one customer account to another customer account at the same bank, or, from the customer accounts of other financial institutions to customers of the bank).

Whether or not any particular unit of any particular “deposit” amount could truthfully be defined as ‘money’ loaned to the bank by a customer, or, loaned by the bank to a customer, is dependent on knowing with complete certainty how and when each and every unit came to be recorded in the customer account. The only customer account for which such certainty is possible, is a customer account created by the bank at the moment of first originating a loan, and, before any new entry for even one single fractional unit of the denominated currency has been either added to, or subtracted from that customer account.

There is one further exception – an account established for one of the bankers’ favourite clients—arms dealers, drug cartels, mafioso, and other criminal organisations such as the CIA—at the first moment of the client handing over real legal tender cash notes at the bank to open the account.

In any event, since even a ‘transfer’ of ‘money’ from one bank to another still has the same ultimate origin—an out-of-nothing creation of an electronic record of a mutual exchange of promises to pay—then from a whole-of-banking-system perspective it really doesn’t matter; all so-called ‘money’ on ‘deposit’ is simultaneously owned by the customers, and by the banks.

In other words, the global Usurocracy’s rent-extracting ‘money’ system is based on the arbitrary, subjective, relativist ‘logic’ and philosophistry of Cabala, or what George Orwell called doublethink – “the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Also related is cognitive dissonance, in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance—thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

Thanks to 503 years of “progressive” regulatory capture – amounting to nothing less than a thinly-concealed regime of state-sponsored Usurocracy – it is the banks’ exclusive privilege to ‘earn’ compounding usury on all the self-annihilating, +1|-1 Double Entry ‘money’ units that they create out of nothing:

Owing to double nature of commercial bank money, a relevant share of the deposits that banks report in the balance sheet as ‘debt toward clients’ generates revenues that are very much similar to the seigniorage rent extracted by the state through the issuance of state money (coins, banknotes, and central bank reserves).

Costa and Bossone confirm that it is precisely this “double nature” of bank ‘money’ that enables banks to hide the reality of their extracting “seigniorage rent” from the labour of the human race. How?

By not recording the value of their imaginary accounting ‘money’ – supposedly “equivalent” to, or, in more honest words, a counterfeit of, real physical government legal tender cash notes and coins – on their Income Statement:

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.


As I extensively evidenced, this fraudulent system is actively aided and abetted by the “secretive”, tax haven-registered, “private” corporations of the international accounting standard-setters; a fact also confirmed – tacitly – by Costa and Bossone:

The stochastic double nature of bank money is consistent with the principles of general accounting as defined in the Conceptual Framework of Financial Reporting, which sets out the concepts underpinning the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). In light of these standards, demand deposits are a hybrid instrument – partly debt and partly revenue. The debt part relates to the share of deposits that will (likely) be converted into cash or reserves, while the revenue part relates to the share of deposits that will (likely) never be converted into cash or reserves. This share of deposits is a source of revenue.

Buch der heiligen Dreifaltigkeit, early 1400s_HD_Munich_Image33

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,

Albertus Magnus from Maier, Symbola aurea mensae, Franckfurt 1617.jpg

Albertus Magnus (c. 1200-1280), from Michael Maier, Symbola aurea mensae, 1617. © Adam McLean 1997-2017 ( Used with permission.


What Costa and Bossone (conveniently?) neglect to mention is that the share of so-called ‘deposits’ that “will (likely) never be converted into cash or reserves”, and that is thus “a source of revenue,” is around 97%.

Maier, Atalanta Fugiens series_AF01

Michael Maier, Atalanta Fugiens: Emblemata Nova de Secretis Naturae Chymica, 1618. © Adam McLean 1997-2017 ( Used with permission.


Rather like the banks conveniently neglecting to mention the same 97% on their Income Statement.

Apparently it is sufficient to describe what is in reality the vast majority as merely “a relevant share”.


In “Dishonourable Debt” we saw that effective July 1, 2009 – in the middle of the global banking liquidity crisis known as the “GFC” – the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) introduced Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) §305 Cash and Cash Equivalents. This new standard effectively sanctioned – and further concealed – the banks’ misleading and deceptive conduct in renting their electronic records of promises to pay physical cash under the guise of so-called ‘money’. As I observed:

The FASB has ex post facto codified that banks may consider bank ‘credits’ (a record of a promise to pay cash) as actually being “cash” for accounting purposes; that the customers’ perspective of bank ‘credits’ “shall” be that those ‘credits’ are (literal physical) “cash”, and, that they are not amounts owed to them by the bank…

Pure Orwellian doublethink.

This should help us to understand the real reason why, for several decades, there has been an accelerating drive by the international banking system to ‘normalise’ numerous forms of electronic banking and ‘money’ – including crypto currencies – and more recently, to actively discourage and even to incrementally (“Boiling Frog” strategy) restrict or outright ban the use of physical cash.

Contrary to all propaganda, this carrots-and-sticks drive towards a global economy reliant on pure abstraction, rather than real physical currency, has nothing to do with improving “convenience” for the public, or “efficiency” in the banking system, much less with “fighting crime” or “the black market”.

Real physical cash – State legal tender – is perhaps the weakest link in the Usurocracy’s “golden chain” of Double Entry ‘magic’ enslaving the human race.

Real physical cash is what the Usurocracy is counterfeiting, using +1|-1 Double Entry nullities, and then “systematically” concealing by not reporting their counterfeit ‘cash’ on their Income Statements.

Once physical cash is eliminated, the promises-to-pay ‘money’ system will be fully “unfettered” and “independent” from the real, tangible world. It will exist solely in the abstract, “imaginary”, ‘magic’ paradox-riddled, counterfeit world (pun intended) of Double Entry Bookkeeping controlled by the Usurocracy.

“The bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.”

Do read and share this outstanding resource compiled by Urunu:  The Cashless Society.