Are we better off?

Giammaria Ortes was a Venetian who's been seen as a kook and yet his ideas have filtered down to Klaus Schwab and others and have become policy direction internationally or to use another word - globally.  Such ideas included:

1) All economies are closed systems;

2) All economies are static systems, that is to say, no new technological innovations can be envisioned which recreate new mechanisms for wealth creation; and hence,

3) All wealth accumulation is also wealth privation: there can be no creation of wealth, all wealth involves debt.

One of his ideas was that the earth can only support a certain number of people, an idea long preceding Malthus.  Very popular with oligarchical families.  At the same time, the so-called illumined are essentially these patrician families who benefited hugely from the Venetian-Arab trade monopolies. 

What we do know is that the centre of operations shifted to Britain and there are many things written about the City, the Crown, Scotland etc.  There is a strong connection between the ruling families of Britain, Venice and sympathy or a working relationship with the Arabs.  There were Jews in Venice in ghettos. The key word for Europe here is Welf.

Usury is hardly the exclusive baby of Venice but the systematised finance across Europe, something also attributed to the Templars, who were present in the Holy Land, many of those being Merovingian-origin Franks, it had been Franks who'd sacked Constantinople - the Fourth Crusade was a critical time for that finance.

Whomever you sheet the avarice and usury to - Arabs, Venice, Templars, European dark nobility, point is that this was no longer trade, this was an extortionate ripping-off system and it reflected an unholy view of humanity - do as thou wilt, asset stripping etc.  

I've heard the analogy of war - that moderation in war is imbecility and yes it is - but to equate business with war does, I'm afraid, stem from this cabalist mindset - wealth without the slightest principle, hence the drug trade, slavery, the sex industry.

That's lightyears from my concept of business - which is to make a certain amount of profit to plough back into the firm or dividends, also to diversify.  And ruling all of this is "fair dealing".  Generally, 10% profit has historically been the upper limit of non-exploitative dealing.

In the money market, that does not apply as the money market is a voluntary thing and you go in knowing you can be burnt - the skill is in knowing when to do what. I've no real opinion on the money market.

There's always been this two-headed face to business, money, trade - the ravening, unholy wolves, the usurers such as payday lenders who can only operate when the numbers don't add up in the first place, the ambitious and avaricious punter ... and then the sober and cautious trader. 

I'm pointing out that this is far from just two sides to human nature - there is a long, long tradition of the ravening, unholy approach to all sorts of dealings - thus it would be nothing to bring down the Twin Towers, nothing to run false flags, nothing to introducing HIV, nothing to running the Covid scam since 2018.  It’s also behind two current cases of the state making a plea deal, then reneging on it as a trick.

Are we better off?  Compared to when?  Compared to whom?  Compared to the C17th is one thing, compared to WW2 is a horrific truth about WW2,1965 is another thing. We can look at conscription, sheer murder on slaughter fields and say that's the worst and people's lives materially improved by1965 but in 1965, there was also usury-beyond with cards starting and grotesque interest rates.

To quote from a comment sent to me:

And it speaks volumes about ignorance of the privations people used to suffer not too long ago when potholes are regarded as one of life's big problems, alongside complaints about a health service when not too long ago we didn't even have a health service, and teenagers were being conscripted to fight raging worldwide wars, and life expectancy was so much shorter than now, and, foreign travel was affordable only to the wealthy few (unless travelling to fight the Nazis and the Japanese of course, that was thrown in for free) etc and etc and etc. 

Now I'm not clicking through that comment, nor a reply to it for reasons of fairness and also acting to protect this blog*.  Suffice it to say that while things materially improved, while Big Pharma provided drugs which meant many conditions were eliminated, there was still the issue of Big Pharma itself, plus increasingly insane loans to own one's home, while the same people had been inflating prices since rationing for example.  Give with one hand, impoverish with the other, requiring more lending and debt.

Look what the NHS has become, exacerbated by the silent mass invasion which has overloaded the system and has created massive housing issues.  There was a cut-off point at which the advantages of materialism balanced the cost of it in heavy debt, plus the encroachment of the govt and it's masters.  Past that point, the NHS for one and the nation for the natives went down below the acceptable line.

 

A sign of this is the falling away of ethics, the increase in rage drimes, callous attacks.  As I wrote the other day - in the days of Profumo, a minister resigned.  Now they hang on and we get the calibre of Bercow and Blair in parliament.  My feeling is that the watershed year was maybe 1997, after which the disadvantages started to outweigh any potential advantages and once the Covid scam started, that altered the whole game - the collapse accelerated.

That's why I'm saying yes, we were materially better, postwar decade after postwar decade ... but behind the scenes, bad things were happening.  My father told me at the start of my 20s - do not get a credit card, no matter how tempting.  I heeded for a long time, I heed now, but in the middle years, I did not heed him.  My mother did not heed him and lost much in the crash.

But that's just the material face of it.  Regular readers know what's being done to kids now, it's a theme here - it always was to a point but now it's a torrent.  Nothing accidental about any of it.  Elderly dying off or being "died off" - none of it is lies,  There was a point, a year, at which the game was no longer worth the candle.

Now all that matters is our reaction to it, while it's clear there are still many who have not yet woken up. Nothing to do with "agreeing with me" whatever, as there are so many now waking up and taking what measures they can.  This I continue in comments*.