Divine Authority: Don’t you wish you had some?


The joy of Divine Authority is knowing you can never be wrong. Why, for commoners to even question the marvels of Divine Authority is to admit such powers are much too Divine for the common mind to understand… people who are peons and peasants working for money have no Right to question the Lordly Authority, over all things money period. Only the pious, priestly class can infer such qualities, as they are much closer to the Divine Realms, and thus, more suitable to dispense judgments over such matters, other mere mortals cannot comprehend. When Divine Authority speaks through that shiny crown, the commoner had best listen or have his ears removed… well punishments for turning a deaf ear have become less punitive… but not the spite.

Authority to be Divine must come from a Source untarnished by the human carnal mind. So all men are naturally sinners so perceived. Those who have claimed to be the sole ‘professors’ of the  unsullied ‘source’ have spent considerable resources erecting the dogma, just like bricks, to control the ‘activity’ and access from the unwashed masses. As if such powers actually needed such protections from anything less than its own Divine self. Such unnecessary dogmatic barriers have alienated the man from his Creator, to such an extant, mankind has lost that quality of himself which knows how to perceive that essential difference in conscience awareness. To blot out the moral function of thoughts and Will was not as easy as communism claims. Essentially, any one can claim they are in contact with the Divine mind, by the conscience, so long as the claim of consciousness fits a particular ideology; which is receptive to the audience so engendered, and such prophecy, will be  so considered as meaningful by such perceptions.

If not, the mere ramblings of such prophets will be met with derision at best and silence. If you are going to claim such an amazing connection to Divine source, one had better be prepared to prove to the more exceptional degree, the claims so attested. Predicting future events is one of the favorite categories, as a successful prediction adds that quantitative factor, which in turn involves time functions, to specific events, ordinary trend-cycles fail to satisfy. If for example, the Divine source allowed an individual so inspired to win 77 straight bets at the race-track, one can be quite sure the masses will be listening… “Man hears God and keeps on winning”  in order to secure for themselves a piece of that Divine providence.

On the other hand, what if the public just flat-out rejects what a Divine contactee  has to say on the state-of-the-world and simply ignores them like dust in the distant corner. One can surmise that being the bearer of bad news, like a street prophet holding up the end-of-the-world  sign, is simply not acceptable, thus ignored, by those who are looking for Divine guidance to enhance their mortal existence. The negative vibe of the doom and gloom style of prophecy does appeal to many, but usually as it is ALL about powerful forces, about to destroy all “those” other “guys”  thereby proving, they were in-deed the righteous ones after all.  If a comet were to perchance, strike out the heart of the innermost London enclave city… would the King of the British throne, finally be forced to admit usury was indeed damn evil… or would he just find another way to collect on the debt paper?

The topics of money and usury are as old as mankind itself and just as contentious.

——“The first of the scholastics, Saint Anselm of Canterbury, led the shift in thought that labeled charging interest the same as theft. Previously usury had been seen as a lack of charity.

St. Thomas Aquinas, the leading theologian of the Catholic Church, argued charging of interest is wrong because it amounts to “double charging”, charging for both the thing and the use of the thing. Aquinas said this would be morally wrong in the same way as if one sold a bottle of wine, charged for the bottle of wine, and then charged for the person using the wine to actually drink it.[34] Similarly, one cannot charge for a piece of cake and for the eating of the piece of cake. Yet this, said Aquinas, is what usury does.

Money is exchange-medium. It is used up when it is spent. To charge for the money and for its use (by spending) is to charge for the money twice. It is also to sell time since the usurer charges, in effect, for the time that the money is in the hands of the borrower. Time, however, is not a commodity that anyone can sell.

—–In condemning usury Aquinas was much influenced by the recently rediscovered philosophical writings of Aristotle and his desire to assimilate Greek philosophy with Christian theology. Aquinas argued that in the case of usury, as in other aspects of Christian revelation, Christian doctrine is reinforced by Aristotelian natural law rationalism. Aristotle’s argument is that interest is unnatural, since money, as a sterile element, cannot naturally reproduce itself. Thus, usury conflicts with natural law just as it offends Christian revelation. (see Thought of Thomas Aquinas).

—–The Roman Catholic Church has always condemned usury, but in modern times, with the rise of capitalism and the disestablishment of the Catholic Church in majority Catholic countries, this prohibition on usury has not been enforced.

—–Usury (in the original sense of any interest) was at times denounced by a number of religious leaders and philosophers in the ancient world, including Moses,[22] Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca,[23] Aquinas,[24] Muhammad,[25] Jesus,[26] Philo [citation needed] and Gautama Buddha.[27] For example, Cato said:

“And what do you think of usury?”—”What do you think of murder?”

—–The pivotal change in the English-speaking world seems to have come with the permission to charge interest on lent money,[8] particularly the 1545 Act, “An Act Against Usurie” (37 H. viii 9) of King Henry VIII of England.”—-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

Perhaps the real test of Divine authority is not what can be proclaimed, but what can be stopped. Apparently, the prohibition against usury, was just one of many possible condemnations which the Divine authority no longer had any direct social effect on. The ease of which the money class refutes such authority gives rise to the very ridicule which further erodes any respect which might be still clinging to the claim itself.  For it is the want of happiness that drives a man to dream of a better life. When confronted by the inequalities of life what is Divine when compassion or mercy is missing? The lack of mercy does seem to be the cardinal rule of money lending. And when it comes to predatory practices the banking syndicate operating out of that worm, riddled bank has never known any other purpose but to enrich itself. Compassion does not make profits and is of no utility value worth measuring. Which is no doubt why making money and criminality are often twins cut from the same cloth.

If one has the time and energy to peruse old books on Google, some interesting information can be found:

—–“The rapidly increasing Subjects of taxation throughout the country is  an additional guarantee  of the prospective ability of each State to maintain its credit. Even in Arkansas and Mississippi, where public credit, has sufficiently appreciated great stress, as laid upon their financial position, is a strong one.


M. Sismondi has observed that while the monetary system of Europe was abandoned to the depredations of sovereigns, who continually varied the title and weight of coins, the republic of Florence maintained during the whole period of its existence the gold florin that measured all other values in the state at precisely the same degrees of weight and fineness [Cab. Cyc.: Hist. Ital. Rep. p 85] That Athens and Florence, republics whose histories exhibit so many other striking points of resemblance, should each have held out— the one to the ancient, the other to the modern world, a solitary example of integrity in this respect, is certainly a remarkable coincidence, but one which may, perhaps, be explained by the fact, that the leading members of both communities were merchants, whose capital periodically reverted to them in the shape of coined money, which it was, therefore, their interest to maintain at its full standard value.

In reference to the monetary systems of the ancients it may be worthy of remark that they appear to have been fully acquainted with the principle upon which paper money is founded although they never made use of it in that form perhaps because the only *paper they were acquainted with (made from the papyrus) was too fragile to bear passing frequently from hand to hand. [*conjecture based on a guess.]

—–Mr. Loftus the traveller alluded to while engaged in superintending excavations in a city of Mesopotamia called Warka, the ancient Erech, supposed to be the Ur, of the Chaldees, found a large collection of tablets of baked clay, carefully arranged, each one which was covered with minute characters. These he subsequently submitted, to Sir Henry Rawlinson, who upon deciphering them, pronounced them to be of two kinds: one resembling our commercial notes of hand—” the tenor of the legends being apparently an acknowledgment of liability by private parties for certain amounts of gold and silver.”  The more formal documents however seemed to be notes issued by the Government for the convenience of circulation representing a certain value, which was always expressed in measures of weight, of gold or silver, and redeemable on presentation at the royal treasury.

The date of issue specifying the day, month and year of the king’s reign, is given in each document and Sir Henry succeeded in finding the names of Nabopolassor, Nabokodrossor, Nabonidus, Cyrus and Cambyses ranging from 626 to 522 BC. Travels in Chaldea Lond., Nisbet, 1857; p. 221.

Another entry was extolling the virtues of the English system making the following argument:

—–Until the termination of the sixteenth century, the prejudices of the moderns against money lenders envenomed, as they were, by the bitterness of religious fanaticism, were infinitely stronger than those of the ancients. The early Christian Fathers adopted as universal injunctions, the texts of Scripture already quoted, forbidding the Jews to practice usury except with strangers, and this interpretation was strenuously adhered to not only by the whole Roman Church, but even by many Protestants long after the right of private judgment had been vindicated by the Reformation. In— A Small Treatise against Usury, by Sir Thomas Culpeper, reprinted by Sir Josiah Child, ad 1693 it is boasted, that before the 37th Henry VIII usurers were in the class of excommunicated persons, as they could make no wills, nor were allowed Christian burial.

It is needless to go into a refutation of doctrines, so unanimously condemned by the opinions and practice of mankind, doctrines not really founded upon any scriptural authority, but upon a dogma attributed to Aristotle: “That money is naturally barren and to make it breed money is preposterous, and a perversion of the end of its institution, which was only to serve the purposes of exchange and not of increase.”  [Blackstone’s Commentaries ii 453]

Certainly nothing, but the reputation of its supposed author, could have induced Bentham to take the trouble of confuting such a contemptible deceit [Defense of Usury Letter x] and it is a memorable example of human absurdity, that texts of Scripture should have been perverted, and the lessons of the Divine founder of Christianity set at naught, to maintain the authority of a heathen philosopher, in respect of an opinion, utterly ridiculous in itself, which it is doubtful that he ever entertained. [Quite a set presumptions.]

Doctor Paris, in his life of Sir Humphrey Davy, has suggested as a curious subject of inquiry, the influences in retarding the discovery of sound principles in natural philosophy of the celebrated phrase, derived from the doctrines of Aristotle, “that nature abhors a vacuum.”

A similar inquiry might well be undertaken to determine the effect of the pseudo Aristotelean theory, that money is naturally barren. Upon economical science the first step in which was the recognition, of the principle, of allowing interest upon loans, just as the first step in natural philosophy was a correct appreciation of atmospheric phenomena. There can be no doubt the results of such investigations would afford striking evidence of the evils, caused by a blind deference to authority, by proving to what an enormous extent, the opinions, real or supposed, of a single individual had obstructed the real progress of two sciences to which the civilized portion of mankind is indebted principally, if not wholly, for the astonishing advances it has made in recent ages.


The term mortgage is derived from mortutim vadium or dead pledge, as distinguished from vivum vadium or living pledge, by which an estate charged with a loan remained only in the hands of the lender, until the rents and profits amounted to a sum sufficient, to discharge the debt. When interest could not be received, a lender had no inducement to enter into such a transaction, because he could never obtain by it more than the return of his advance,without any profit;  but it was otherwise with the mortutim vadium, by which he entered into possession of the estate, charged and retained it in perpetuity, if the borrower neglected to repay the loan at the time appointed. [Blackstone’s Commentaries book ii chap x]

Still more entries along the same lines:

—–“Are not the people satisfied? They see that the banks are sound. They can get on demand a gold, or silver dollar, for every paper one they have. Bank checks on New York are selling in Savannah, at one fourth of one per cent premium or less—– property, lands, negroes, horses, mules and cotton, keep very well up—- provisions are gradually going down. Will the people of the upper country continue to war upon the banks of Savannah?  That city can proudly say there was never a bank in it that became insolvent. Whilst the middle and Upper portions of the State have been cursed, such misfortune has ever befallen Savannah.

—–“In other words—- gold that has been hoarded as immutable—- prized for its intrinsic value—- sought for at any cost and made the money of the world; the greatest of all powers for its rarity and constant production is getting common. It has proven to be the widest spread metal of any, save iron, and is found in almost every country in the world, while silver, with which its production has hitherto been an intolerably fixed proportion, has been yielding, but a comparatively scanty return.

—–“Of Bank Expansions and Contractions their Cause and their Remedy

The great outstanding defect in our banking system is its undue conversion of its own credit into currency. This transmutation or  [this ingenious device for making money— was first resorted to by the Bank of England and our system has been grounded on the same principle]  magic like change, takes place when ever a bank discounts, in excess of its capital, and it takes place, to the precise extent, of the excess for every dollar thus discounted, becomes currency in the form of a debt due from the bank to the community for circulating notes or deposits.

If the bank give its own notes, in exchange for the securities discounted, its credit is transmuted into currency— in the form of circulating bank notes; if it merely inscribes a credit on its ledger to the party for whom it makes the discount, as is generally the case; in our city-banks its credit becomes currency in the form of deposits in banks; and although these deposits are a pure fiction—- having no tangible existence—-anywhere— for neither the bank nor the depositor really possesses them, they nevertheless perform the office of money just as effectually as coin, or bank notes, held in actual possession.

In truth these ideal deposits, these inscriptions of credit, on bank ledgers, which are placed there in exchange for the securities discounted, and which represent nothing, but those securities, and the credit of the banks, are the chief reliance of our commerce in effecting the purchase of property and the payment of debts. They constitute at the present time five sixths of the active currency of this city.

The law confers upon banks this privilege of creating fictitious currency, by loaning its credit at interest, and properly so, for without it they could not exist. It constitutes their only source of profits, independent of interest on their capital, which it is evident might be obtained as readily, and more securely, through individual efforts of the shareholders, without resorting to the expensive machinery of banking. It is not therefore to the moderate and prudent exercise of this privilege that your committee objects. They believe it may be carried to an extent that will render banking both profitable and useful without endangering the stability of the currency and without detriment to any other interest. But in view of the fact, just shown, that every dollar of bank credit loaned, creates a dollar of active currency, it is obvious that this privilege should be exercised only within proper limits and that it should be subjected to strict legal restraints.

Seeing then that the reckless enlargements, and consequent degradation of our currency, through the excessive loaning of bank credits, are of most pernicious tendency, and that neither the system itself, nor the law establishing it, contains any principle, or provision, capable of preventing these excesses, it is surely the part of wisdom to provide the needful restraint by legal limitations. But where shall we apply for relief;  Shall it be at Washington, or at Albany? If we go to the General Government and say the establishment and maintenance of a sound currency are among the most useful prerogatives of Government, this power, it is believed, the Constitution has conferred on you, and we ask you to exercise it, the Government will be likely to give us this response:

“We agree with you, that the framers of the Constitution, intended to place this power in our hands, but the State Governments at once usurped it, have always exercised it and will not yield it.  You must therefore look to them. We have exercised, the only power over this subject, that remains with us in excluding from our own monetary transactions everything but gold and silver. This answer would be as forcible, as it is true, and although your committee think, as will be seen presently, that something more remains for the General Government to do; it shows conclusively that our main reliance must be upon our own Legislature. It is there that the evil originated and it is proper that we should there ask for its removal.”

II—– The Repeal of the Usury Laws

It was reserved for the present century to witness a complete revolution in the laws of civilized communities relative to the interest of money. Usury laws have now been repealed in nearly all the leading nations of Christendom. It had been the policy of governments from the earliest ages either to prohibit interest altogether, or to limit its rate.  Money was made the object of special laws as to the rate of hire which should be given for its use, while in the case of other descriptions of property, no law was deemed requisite, but that which naturally arises from the influence of supply and demand. No one questioned the propriety of rent, pay or hire, for the use of houses, lands, or other property.  Money, the measure by which the transfers of these is now regulated, was held to be something different, of a peculiar and mysterious character. Education, scientific research, the diffusion of knowledge and alterations, in the condition of society and the uses of money, have introduced new views of money. Or it may be said the uses of money are in modem times are different from what they were in previous ages.

No man borrows money to hoard it. It is borrowed for use. What the borrower needs is the money’s worth or its services. He invests for profit or to anticipate income. He improves the “talent” or money, according to his judgment and he returns it, as he would surrender hired houses or lands, paying rent or interest to the owner or lender. http://books.google.com/books? id=HVomAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA292&lpg=PA292&dq= “An+Act+Against+Usurie&source=bl&ots=0lW6hImU8s&sig=GSEAyI4tnTEHx8KMXZWxNksb680&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VcckU-7sCMTG2wWS1IGYCQ&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBw#v= onepage&q=%22An%20Act%20Against%20Usurie&f=false

—–“The matter of a uniform discount rate was discussed and settled at Jekyll Island.”–Paul M. Warburg 1——-

“Another proposal advanced by Paul Warburg at Jekyll Island was the manner of selection of administrators for the proposed regional reserve system. Senator Nelson Aldrich had insisted that the officials should be appointive, not elected, and that Congress should have no role in their selection. His Capitol Hill experience had taught him that congressional opinion would often be inimical to the Wall Street interests, as Congressmen from the West and South might wish to demonstrate to their constituents that they were protecting them against the Eastern bankers.

Warburg responded that the administrators of the proposed central banks should be subject to executive approval by the President. This patent removal of the system from Congressional control meant that the


6 Nathaniel Wright Stephenson, Nelson W. Aldrich, A Leader in American Politics, Scribners, N.Y. 1930, Chap. XXIV “Jekyll Island” p. 379

Federal Reserve proposal was unconstitutional from its inception, because the Federal Reserve System was to be a bank of issue. Article 1, Sec. 8, Par. 5 of the Constitution expressly charges Congress with “the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof.”. Warburg’s plan would deprive Congress of its sovereignty, and the systems of checks and balances of power set up by Thomas Jefferson in the Constitution would now be destroyed. Administrators of the proposed system would control the nation’s money and credit, and would themselves be approved by the executive department of the government. The judicial department (the Supreme Court, etc.) was already virtually controlled by the executive department through presidential appointment to the bench.

Paul Warburg later wrote a massive exposition of his plan, The Federal Reserve System, Its Origin and Growth of some 1750 pages, but the name “Jekyll Island” appears nowhere in this text. He does state (Vol. 1, p. 58):

“But then the conference closed, after a week of earnest deliberation, the rough draft of what later became the Aldrich Bill had been agreed upon, and a plan had been outlined which provided for a ‘National Reserve Association,’ meaning a central reserve organization with an elastic note issue based on gold and commercial paper.”

On page 60, Warburg writes, “The results of the conference were entirely confidential. Even the fact there had been a meeting was not permitted to become public.” He adds in a footnote, “Though eighteen [sic] years have since gone by, I do not feel free to give a description of this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy.“——-http://www.whale.to/b/m_ch_1.html—

Mr. Warburg proved once again a bad deed is never punished when your the one holding all the cards. By planning an unconstitutional “central bank” to go hand-n-hand with an equally unconstitutional direct mass-capitation tax, contrived as “A TAX” on Incomes, upon all those who were AND under the international jurisdiction thereof, the pieces came together in 1939 to be further entrenched by the social security act and with-holding regulations so that by 1954 the re-organized “Code” was in place to extract from the citizens of the U.S. now named U.S. citizens by semantics only, the full force of that worm, eaten bank.

When the Law becomes nothing more substantial than rules and regulations like noodles simmering in a giant pot— when the Law becomes nothing more than the tool of the criminals operating as Pirates upon the people, it is no wonder the law is held in such disdain, for it no longer protects people, but instead, fashions yet more chains in which to imprison them. While the 14th and 16th amendments barely pass constitutional hair-splitting, the actual result of their use as tools of false enforcement— to subjugate the People, to remove from them their Rights to the Property of their Labors, while the three branches go along with the subterfuge, thereby allowing the crime to manifest itself, the People are left with no choice but to defend themselves as best they can from the crushing wheels of tyranny.

Where is Divine Authority to be found, when those who claim its extraordinary privileges are but silent upon the question of the wrongs so assailed? Why are such men so recognized by pomp and circumstance mute, deaf and blind to the very evils such predatory, debt enslavements have upon the People of this Nation and so many others just the same? Here they are with such pronouncements waving a feeble stick and nothing else? When did the Creator of All become such a coward, so destitute of a single principle, that it cannot choose the wise or the strong to defend itself against the tyranny of the evil men pompously claiming they own the whole of the earth and all things of its purpose therein? I guess that old Creator is easily fooled by the false glory sung in its praise— why just throw around fancy beautifications and such, and all the other things simply vanish into the dim corners. Any church that made money by selling forgiveness for sins no longer had any claim to superior moral virtue. However, the circus plays on, but no one is really home.

When no man speaks for Divine Authority, in Truth, then that power is silenced where it once flourished. Like an old river bed no longer flowing with the waters of Life it is but a reminder of a day long since passed. Many people, claiming such modernisms, now do the ‘atheist dance’  upon the grave of such men, filled with false pride that they too have silenced their own conscience for nothing more than a paper promise, that only Bankers can determine the course of mankind.  We now live upon lands owned by the Super-Bankers, who are the real Super-persons, by which all lessor mortals are to be measured. Why any day now they shall levitate far above the common crowds indeed like Gods, oblivious to the pain and suffering their toils exact upon the masses. And meanwhile, that humble voice of injustice finding no shelter in the super-sized governments, required for carrying  out the super-sized orders, to be enforced by super-sized, quasi-military-police-agents-officers, whom are proud to serve their super-masters, bring home the fatal reality that if you are NOT one of them, you are indeed their enemy and the voice of conscience is silenced.

What kind of world do you want to live in? My gut instinct tells me that bankers paradise looks just like a prison with a Disney facade to lure the unsuspecting and the greedy just the same. That is the problem with evil today— it is a fools journey into all things made easy. By the time you realize the fun is missing you might very well be already just another dead-man walking.

As for the argument of Aristotle: Might it very well be observed that a coin fashioned by a man, has no other use, but to serve that man in his daily needs; and as such, has no other purpose, but to fulfill his will in commerce to other men not unlike himself. When governments coin money for the purposes so endeavored, by their collective wants, the purpose over-rides the need for scrutiny of the value so possessed. When bankers found they could fool the eye with the pretense of riches the game was on. And what a game it is… to derive rules by which the game is played is to remove the coin from its natural qualities and to place such money into an artificial existence, where no natural law can destroy its inherent defects.

The defect of paper money has not changed one iota in a thousand years and no amount of sly pronouncements of its wounded character can return it to a state it has never known. The bank syndicates found truth only in the answers required to make their “ownership” of the process the “only” game in town, or city and across nations. Any natural quality to the simplicity of money has long since been banished from sight and has vanished from the public perceptions of their 1st Rights to the Money, justly created by themselves.  The game is simple: outlaw any form of money or credit not issued by the Centralized banking syndicate. Call any such quality external to them as no good, forbid its distribution, forbid its untaxed use and destroy any man who dares speak above a whisper such a Right can exist at all.

Money is communication, and as such, it is an Unalienable Right of every man who speaks his own mind. Which is why the Federal Constitution recognized that every man has the Right to Contract in the employment of his Labors, unfettered by the demands of an indifferent body— that would be Congress Assembled. Or men become slaves by any name by such an Authority to exercise their own Wills and thus conscience. Money has no mind of itself, has no intrinsic or unique molecular substance so defined and thus is and remains a pure abstraction made real by the necessity of its use.

“That which has no Mind to speak of its own thoughts, is Forever inferior to that which does.”

My observation is: The Creator of all —does not and never will— suffer fools lightly.

And upon that fateful morning the sun simply stopped shining….. and the day of mankind was over.


Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: