Exchanging energy via currency?

Currency is a recognized media of value (i.e. everyone agrees on its value) that we exchange our labor/energy for (just think electrical current i.e. Current-cy). Because of this agreement everyone is willing to accept it in exchange for their labor.

We expend energy through labor to create things (or provide direct services to others) that people want or need.

We are given currency (portable, transferable, stored labor/energy) in exchange for that labor, which we can then use to acquire goods and services others labor to produce; goods and services we provide or produce that others need or want but do not have the time, skills, or interest to directly produce or labor for. 

As a society, we can more easily benefit mutually from the skills, talent, and labor (and production) of an almost unlimited number of others without having to barter by using a universally accepted ¹medium of exchange - of portable and transferable energy (i.e.currency) - 

For example, if I am a dentist and you do landscaping, I can provide dental work for you in exchange for landscaping. This works fine but only if I need landscaping and you need dental work, i.e. barter is limited to the specific things we EACH offer or need at the time that we need it.

A currency, however, is a universally accepted media of transferring your and my labor/energy. This means everybody will accept it as payment for their labor/energy and also offer it to others for the goods or services their labor/energy produces. So the use of currency is not limited to any one particular service - such as dental work - or product needed, but is unlimited in how it can be transferred and used. 

When we give currency to another, we give transportable/transferable energy/labor through a media of exchange or currency the other party agrees to accept from us. This is a mutually beneficial transaction and relationship, i.e. what some call a "win-win" scenario. 

Our energy is expended and exchanged for transportable/ transferable currency, which they in turn can exchange for goods and services created by the labor/energy of others, which they can also convert to currency.

Currency is simply a universally accepted, portable, and easily transferable media of exchanging our energy/labor (and the fruits of it) with each other whenever and wherever we need to.

Who is in control?

Here's the part most don't understand. If a central authority, such as a government, issues and therefore controls the currency (money) - such as our current fiat currency or the proposed ³CBDC - this in effect is a means of controlling the people who labor for it. 

If no Central authority is necessary to verify the value of a currency but its verification is distributed evenly through a decentralized network that no one controls (or you could say the laborers "control" together via a network) then a central authority is no longer needed. 

But most importantly, central control is no longer possible. The verification of the value of the currency is now in the hands of "we the people" and not with any single central institution or person.

What about profit? Is it good or bad?

Legitimate profit is merely surplus energy created through innovation, efficiency, and hard work. 

Innovation occurs when the laborer finds an area of demand/need/want through their ingenuity/creativity and supplies that want or need more efficiently than others (or exclusively before anyone else does).  

The basic engine that drives commerce is supply and demand. The laborer/innovator supplies what others need, want, or demand. 

Commerce is nothing more than the exchange of goods and services - through currency - that are needed and desired by others.

To provide goods and services that are needed or wanted is not taking advantage of people but actually serving them. It is treating them with value/care. In short, productivity does not necessarily involve greed. It can be driven by a desire to serve others - to treat them as we wish to be treated; to love our neighbors as ourselves. In so doing, we are carrying out the 2nd greatest commandment in the Bible. 

When profit is generated through deception or abuse of resources, this is not a natural or inherent part of profit-making but the abuse of it. There is nothing inherently wrong with profit or making it (i.e. efficiently, diligently, and creativity meeting the wants/needs of consumers better than other competitors/ providers) but only the abuse of it. 

Often, legitimate profit-making and abuse of it are mixed together as if they are one and the same. They are not. To shut down profit-making because it is abused is not the solution to the actual abuse. It would be equivalent to docking a sailboat, which is more efficient than using a row boat because the sailboat captain is always drunk and constantly wrecking the ship, causing harm or damage to others. The sailboat is not the problem, the captain steering the boat is.

Any economic system or endeavor can be (and often is) corrupted and abused simply because humanity is broken, i.e. the problem is not necessarily the means of doing commerce. We must separate and distinguish the mechanism from the abuse of it. 

All systems are subject to abuse, not necessarily because this is inherent within the system, but because of human nature's inclination to take advantage of others solely for their own benefit, i.e. selfishness vs service.

Some systems are more conducive to abuse than others. Systems that have centralized power (such as ²socialism and communism) tend to be abused most because of the selfish inclination of humanity. As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

If you put the control of commerce in the hands of a centralized authority, abuse inevitably occurs because of our inherent inclination to selfishishness. The more power and control someone has - and the fewer there are who have it - the more likely this abuse occurs. 

This is why our system of government was set up with a separation of powers and various checks and balances. You could say power within our system is decentralized. The founders understood the corruption of centralized power firsthand through tyrannical British rule.  This resulted in the action and concern in the American colonies of "taxation without representation."

Large profits are not necessarily the result of this corruption but may simply be the fruit of greater energy, efficiency, and innovation (creativity) than others i.e. not necessarily or automatically the fruit of exploiting the consumer. 

To say it simply, the bigger and the better the job you do the more you are rewarded. Great profit can simply be that you have made a larger number of people happier by providing what they want or need better - more efficiently and less expensive- than anyone else.

The danger of centralized control.

When you can devalue the currency by creating additional currency out of thin air, you are in effect unknowingly (to the users of the currency) taking (stealing) people's energy to pad your own pocket by diluting the value of the currency others labored for e.g. to double the money supply is the equivalent of doubling the number of hours of labor required to generate the same earnings. Without an honest currency/money system, you have legalized theft. 

And as long as there are those allowed to steal from you without your knowledge and go unchecked, they will continue to do so by whatever means possible (through deception or keeping others in the dark, thereby controlling the narrative via information outlets on how money works) in order to maintain power and control over others, i.e. over our labor/energy/time etc. 

This is why the Federal Reserve system must be eliminated. It is taking the fruits of our labor/energy through deception and using it to advance the agenda of those who control the system - which is not necessarily or usually the consumers agenda. This is not only taking advantage of the producer/worker but increasing their control over others i.e. You and I. 

The media of exchange that best provides honest money is cryptocurrency. For a discussion on why click here.
_____________________________

¹One of the oldest and most common media of exchange has been gold and silver. Originally in America, we used gold and silver coins (A "dollar" was an ounce of silver. A quarter was a quarter ounce and a dime was 1/10 an ounce). The paper dollar was backed by gold or silver and could be turned in for the amount of gold or silver the "bill" designated i.e.  5 "dollar bill" or 10 dollars or a 100 etc. Eventually, we went to paper certificates of deposit that were backed by silver. Now it is merely currency by fiat (law) and backed by nothing (in fact our present currency is debt based). We use it because it is required by law i.e. it is legal tender, also known as fiat (money by degree or law).  

This doesn't mean we can not use other forms of exchange if we mutually agree. That is up to the buyer and seller of goods or services. We are free to pay each other with whatever we agree to. This means you only have to use "legal tender" to pay the government, i.e. taxes. And they will only pay you with it and not some other currency such as Euros, Yen, British pounds, or a ³true decentralized cryptocurrency, etc. 

A currency can be any universally recognized media. Because of the devaluation of the paper dollar through excess spending and printing more to cover the nation's increasing debt, more are turning to privately created digital currency known as cryptocurrency. ³True cryptocurrency has a limited number of coins created, resulting in them increasing in value against fiat currency through supply and demand, as their use becomes more widely accepted. A set number of coins does not allow them to be devalued (diluted) by constantly creating additional new coins (like we do now with paper money and every other "developed" country using fiat currency).

²those who promote such systems pretend benevolence (and maybe even naively believe it's more fair) when in fact they seek power and control (whether consciously or not… they argue someone has to run the show to prevent fraud.  Ironic when you consider the whole current fiat money system is legalized theft).

The appeal to the consumer is I'm promised I'll be cared for regardless of whether I work for it or not, by those who promote (and control) distribution. This promise is the primary way they keep us in the system and under their control. 

³CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) is not decentralized or has a set number of "coins" issued. It is therefore not true cryptocurrency. I would avoid it at all costs. There is a clear indication it will actually increase the central authorities' control over every part of our lives.

For a further discussion on the difference between controlled CBDC and true cryptocurrency click here.

For a further discussion on the difference between socialism and capitalism, click here.

For further discussion on the difference between a legitimate and illegitimate endeavor or business click here.

If interested in acquiring precious medals at 12 to 17% below standard dealers' cost click here.

To take advantage of the rapidly growing cryptocurrency market email us at bigdeal70@pm.me 

We are part of a rapidly expanding cryptocurrency exchange that is making it easier to interface our current fiat system with truly decentralized cryptocurrency. 

To get the shot or not

Some within the Christian community have encouraged others to take the vaccine (John Piper, who I otherwise respect - and others - would be high-profile examples). Their reasoning? It is the loving (unselfish) thing to do i.e. it is loving our neighbor.

However, the question isn't whether we should love our neighbor or not but how can we best do so. The answer is not as black-and-white as we might think or have been led to believe. There are several parts to this.

To be an expert in one area does not make one an expert in all areas. Pastors and theologians, like any other area of discipline, are generally trained and gifted in their respective fields of expertise but few of them are doctors or medical experts. We should all be careful therefore in advising people on medical decisions or areas outside our field of training. 

That's not to say they should never give advice outside of their training as long as they've done their due diligence in that area. However, I would not go to a pastor to fix my car or plumbing or ask where to invest my money unless he had expertise in those areas. The medical field is far more involved than cars, plumbing, and investments.

Because technical fields are so numerous and specialized most of us depend on experts in other fields. Unfortunately, even experts are not beyond the influence of those with less than noble intentions, where money is more important than serving our fellow man. There is a strong indication that strategic members of the medical community are influenced by an agenda. The advice given by some at the top appears to be heavily influenced by money more than hard scientific evidence. Many doctors or heads running these agencies appear to have greater loyalty to the pharmaceutical corporations than to science or the patient.

Most are also not aware of the extent of influence and control over media that "big money" has. This ensures that the narrative big money (I call them banksters) wants, is maintained, and factual information contrary to the narrative is suppressed. 

The breakdown of morality in culture is far more invasive than many recognize, resulting in many being swayed by personal gains or desires more than by the principle of loving our neighbors. Unfortunately many in positions of influence or power love mammon (money) more than truth or God (I'm not referring to anyone specifically).

If the vaccine was effective and there was no other way to address this bug then the vaccine would be the loving course to take. However, as time has gone on it has proven to have minimal benefits and ¹substantial (sometimes ²deadly) side effects. Certainly enough to cause us to legitimately pause and ask questions. To be pressured to make such a decision as taking an experimental procedure is unloving at best. More and more information is coming out that the vaccine is not the best option and could also be ¹extremely harmful.

To mandate it also violates our freedom to address our health according to our conscience and responsibility as good stewards of the body God has given us. Especially if there are other equally (if not more) effective and proven treatments.

If the vaccine resulted in harm to you or me, impairing our ability to love our neighbor, not aid it, this is not wise or loving. The greater the harm the less I am able to love and serve others i.e. it would result in the opposite of loving my neighbor. 

The irony is the left side of the political aisle used to argue hardest for the right to choose what we put in us or have done to us and still do, but selectively.

The good news is there are other options (strengthening our immune system, herd immunity, various therapeutic or holistic treatments). But for some reason, these options - and those mentioning them - are either being suppressed, hidden (censored), or vilified.

Why is there such a huge effort made to discredit or hide these other options? The deliberate effort to suppress discussion or discredit information should alone give us pause as to why. To expect us to blindly accept the advice of those who have proven either to be wrong or outright misleading (not Piper but so-called medical experts) is not prudent or loving others well. 

It behooves us to do our due diligence when making such a significant decision or advising others to do so. As the saying goes haste (created by a supposed emergency which in turn creates fear) makes waste. On the coattails of fear deception often rides. The whole push for a vaccine is rooted in fear. Fear is rarely the soil out of which wise choices grow. In this case, what's at stake is far more significant than waste. 

It is becoming increasingly clear our health and possibly our very life - and that of our loved ones - are at stake. No wonder passions run so high on both sides and why sadly this has been such a divisive issue. 

For an excellent panel discussion between highly respected doctors (some highly published - and some have been vaccinated i.e. they are not "anti-vax") who are on the front lines of patient care and treatment, click here.

_____________________________

*A significant number of ADRs (adverse drug reactions) is listed on the WHO site.

http://www.vigiaccess.org/

To search VigiBase data go to the bottom of the page and check the box, then search for “covid-19 vaccine”

To see the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports 

Go to 

https://openvaers.com/covid-data or the main page at https://openvaers.com/openvaers

**  For an article on a study of the vaccine's effects on unborn infants click here 

How to fix fake news

We have all heard the expression “fake news” in the last few years. Who makes the assertion doesn’t really matter. The fact that it’s made at all tells us things must change.  

If we are ever to return to sanity in the news, getting to the truth must be our goal, not ratings or doing a favor for someone. The following are some items I find overlooked or ignored regularly that prevent this from happening. A clear list of standards in determining truth is vital and must be established to assess the accuracy of any report and restore confidence that when we hear a report, it is fact, actual news.

The ultimate guideline is laid out for us in the Bible itself. Here are at least two expressions of that standard.

Exodus 20:16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (which happens to be one of the 10 commandments). 

Matt 18:16 "But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses."

So what must be done to help us get to the truth in the news arena?

*First we must distinguish between reporting facts and an op-ed i.e. An opinion piece or opinion editorial. There is very little actual true reporting today on both sides of the political spectrum. What is usually promoted most are opinion pieces.

Though opinion pieces have their place and value, they don't always get to the facts. They interpret the meaning of certain events. They can be good to stimulate discussion in a healthier environment but in today's climate, it usually results in disagreement and division. True reporting is simply giving facts regarding an event, not some of them, or most of them, but all of them. A good reporter will even say, "this is what we know so far...As more comes in we'll bring it to you here at XYZ News. Tune in tomorrow for the latest update..." This was commonly used as recently as 30 years ago. Not so much today, if at all.

*The best facts are those that can be substantiated by an eyewitness i.e. those who have 1st hand knowledge of the facts or better yet confirmed by the source itself - though even a source is not always reliable e.g. They may be coerced to say something that is not true to avoid a greater consequence than their "report" or "confession" - such as torture, bribery or some other threat.

Nevertheless, the best source for accuracy comes from the party involved in the event or action, coercion aside. It doesn't matter if this is a willful admission or unintentional. Documentation of an event, either in writing, audibly, or visually, acquired or disseminated by a 3rd party - e.g. WikiLeaks, or OMG (O'Keefe Media Group, formally of Project Veritas) - is still an admission by the party committing the act even if an unintentional admission. 

*Reporting only some facts, not all of them - and often withholding other facts, can totally change the understanding of an event.  What they share may be true as far as it goes, but it doesn't cover everything relevant to the issue. Partial reporting of facts may give the appearance of being truthful, but it is often the most subtle form of lying. This is what we call a “half-truth.” These kinds of reports usually contain information taken totally out of context so that what is reported is not interpreted correctly. When you tell only part of the story, you can claim someone said pretty much anything you want to.

*A witness that openly and willingly identifies themselves is always far more reliable than an anonymous "source" whose identity or motive cannot be confirmed. A witness who openly identifies themselves has "skin in the game" i.e. Their reputation is on the line - or sometimes far more - making it far more likely they are telling the truth. If they're not willing to put their neck on the line, their testimony should carry far less weight, if any at all.

*Multiple witnesses are far better than a single one. But they still must produce evidence for their reports/claims e.g. 10 liars are still liars. One person with hard evidence trumps (no pun intended) an unlimited number of liars. More liars in agreement in their report doesn't make it more true. Just because several are making a claim, without hard evidence, we can't assume it's true. But this is often the method used today to mislead us. 

*Facts are facts regardless of who reports them. Many good facts are promoted by outlets or individuals with opposing views, but are often ignored simply because those outlets or individuals have been discredited by their opposition or competitors through false accusations and personal attacks. This results in others never considering the facts themselves. If all the facts are given, they stand on their own merit, regardless of who presents them. We should never be afraid of facts, only cautious of the reporter.

*It helps to keep in mind that the "news" is also in the sales business. The more sensational the news, the more viewers it draws, which brings in more revenue from advertising, truth be damned. I'm not saying advertisement in itself is necessarily bad as long as integrity is a priority. Strong advertisement revenues should be the fruit of doing a good job and not what drives the story.

In conclusion, I find it best to wait 48 hours after an initial report so it can be scrutinized more closely before I assess its accuracy. Those who rush to put out a story may be motivated to set and control the narrative. News stations wish to be the first out of the gate with a story, but premature opinions on events, before all the facts are in and reviewed, can have incredibly negative consequences and are highly irresponsible. When all the facts come out contrary to the early views pushed, it's too late. Misinformation that goes out first tends to stick as fact. The following clip of a police cam on the Floyd arrest is a recent example. Even if there is a retraction - which rarely happens - the damage has already been done. Worse yet, the bad initial reports still circulate indefinitely even after the facts prove they were completely wrong. This happens way too often – especially with police-related matters - and is why many official news outlets have lost their credibility and seen their ratings drop significantly.

These are things I always look for when assessing any "news." These all may seem obvious and common sense but they are ignored regularly so I felt it was worth raising. Many things that are put forth today as facts do not pass a rigorous application of these tests, if they are applied at all.

Even the so-called fact-checkers often don't pass the "test" of this list. I have seen many reports by "official" news sources that turned out to be garbage after being scrutinized more closely. Long-established outlets often depend on their "official” status as a reputable source or on self-proclaimed "fact-checkers" instead of actual facts to persuade the public. As a result, they often do poor work… in many cases, very harmful work.

Last, the above list should be something everyone agrees on, regardless of your political bent. This is not a list that favors one side over another. It favors getting to the truth, which everyone should want and agree to. Truth is always better than lies.

For a discussion on the history behind fake news click here. 

 

 

Conspiracy Theory, good or bad?

Most don't know, but "conspiracy theory" was a label created by the CIA to discredit facts exposing an "official" story. It was 1st used back in the 60s to debunk questions around the Kennedy assassination. Now that some of those documents are public, some of those theories have turned out to be facts.

Conspiracies are real, theories are just conjectures yet to be proven or disproven. A conspiracy theory is not necessarily bad or wrong, it is just unproven. A theory is a supposition (best guess) made based on the facts at hand. A good theorist doesn't stop there, however, but uses a hunch to see if it can be backed up with solid proof. If it can't, it is set aside. Once it can be proven, it is no longer a theory but a confirmed conspiracy.  Regardless, it is a necessary part of determining the truth. And this is important. Labeling something (or someone) as a conspiracy theory (or theorist) is an attempt to shut down investigation so the truth cannot be discovered.

Investigation, however, is the normal and required procedure for any investigator, whether a detective or a journalist. It is so common, several popular shows were based on it. You'll likely remember popular detective shows offered over the years, such as "Law and Order", "NCIS" or "CSI." There's even a game based on investigation called "Clue." 

Most of us like mysteries and solving puzzles. They are always engaging.  Yet we never hear of these being labeled "conspiracy theory" shows or games, do we?

Conspiracies are very real and have been around for a long time. Judas Iscariot - who betrayed Christ - would be a conspirator you might be familiar with.

Whenever someone is quick to use the conspiracy theory label, it should raise a red flag. It is often used to shut down discourse and exploration of the facts.  Instead of shutting down investigation, it should make us ask what exactly are *they hiding and why? 

We have seen a ton of this of late with social media, such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the like by censoring information and even shutting down entire accounts in an attempt to stymie investigation and questions regarding "official" narratives. Not a good thing. All sides of a debate need to be considered so folks can think for themselves and make their own choice. If you stymie one voice, you can stymie another, and that other could be yours. Without the free exchange of different views, we have "group think" aka "1984."

The strategy of deceivers is to discredit their opposition (truth-seekers) by labeling them as something other than what they really are. This is the classic ad hominem attack, i.e. an attempt at character assassination. It is only necessary to use when facts and truth are not on ¹their side.  If you can draw attention away from the facts by assassinating someone's character, the facts no longer matter, regardless of how significant they may be.

We should never be afraid of discussing facts. This is how we collectively come to the truth. Rarely does one person have all the facts. Others will often have a piece of the puzzle we don't. Without discussion, you may never discover the full picture. 

But isn't that the point? Those who try to defame someone by labeling them as conspiracy theorists don't want you to know the truth. How do those hiding the truth address this? Never discuss the facts. That is dangerous and could result in the discovery of truth. Facts must be avoided at all costs...even if it means lying about someone or something. Their only concern is to discredit the truth by smearing the character of those who share the truth i.e. ad hominin attack

If someone ever tries to label you a conspiracy theorist, thank them. This likely means you are a truth-seeker and "over the target." Nothing bad ever comes from discovering the truth... unless you are the one lying.

For those worn out by the back and forth between truth-seekers and deceivers, this is part of the strategy. If garbage (aka lies) is thrown out often, and long enough, some start believing the lies or worse - many grow weary, shut down, and quit seeking the truth. This is the goal, and it has significant consequences. When this happens, deceivers win by default. 

Truth matters and lies matter. We often make life-changing decisions based on what we are told, good or bad.  As an example, the Patriot Act was the fruit of the 9/11 event. If what occurred is something other than the "official" narrative, it was unnecessary to give up the freedoms - significant, life-altering actions - imposed on us by the Patriot Act, most of which is still in force 25 years later. 

For further discussion, I recommend the following thought-provoking article on the nature of a "conspiracy theory" http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=14945

Be prepared for a deep dive. 

______________________________________________

Footnotes:

¹To make the truth seeker look silly and discredit them (and make themselves look wise and superior), someone will sometimes self-righteously ask who exactly are "they" or "them" i.e. the conspirers? The simple answer is anyone who seeks to deceive and keep you from discovering who "they" are or what "they" are trying to hide.  

increasing our desire for God

When our passion for God is greater than our desire for other things, the appeal of other things, fades. This enables us to turn away and not seek them as our chief thing - i.e. as our God.

But how do we increase our desire for God? We must start with faith. 

Other things are usually more alluring and give greater immediate gratification than pursuing God. However, when we ¹believe God is superior - even if He doesn't feel like it in the moment - this strengthens our desire for Him i.e. our desires and actions fall in line when we pursue God by faith. Stepping out in faith on the ²promise of partaking in more of His love, beauty, wisdom, integrity, power, etc increases our passion for God, reducing the need to experience these before we step out. We are told on five different occasions "the just shall live by faith" for good reason.

But to do so takes ³incredible faith. To take up our cross and deny ourselves is difficult because it is contrary to our natural feelings and desires. We are asked to walk away from anything we normally derive a sense of pleasure, meaning, purpose and love from in the belief that God is greater. A Cross is painful. It feels more like death than life. 

And it is. It is death to self-gratification and self-salvation. But this is where God best meets us, and we experience His power most. As Paul stated, when he is weak - in his natural strength - he is strong in His dependence on God and his actions for Him. We can deny ourselves something we desire more at the moment, if and when we believe God is ultimately a superior pursuit - even though the allure of something else feels greater and God may not feel superior at that moment.

In short, if our faith is ³great enough, it will carry us forward in obedience, stirring in us a desire for more of God. If we are having difficulty in obeying God, we don't redouble our efforts, we must feed and strengthen our faith. 

Recap and summary

We can deny ourselves something we desire more than God when we believe He is a superior pursuit - even though the allure of something else feels greater and God may not feel superior. When we believe God is superior - even if He doesn't feel like it at the moment - it increases our desire for Him - i.e. our desires fall in line with our actions of pursuing God by faith. Stepping out in faith on the integrity of His character, love, power, wisdom, beauty for us, etc. versus our feelings often results in a greater passion/feelings for God. 

However, taking up our cross and denying ourselves is not an enjoyable feeling. A cross is painful. It feels more like death than life. But it is also where God meets us and we experience His power. As Paul stated when he is weak - in self-reliance - he is strong in his dependence on God.

A recap.

So the question becomes, how do we increase our faith? We are told faith comes by hearing. Hearing what? The word(s) - ²promises - of God. Promises of what? About ⁴who God is; that God is for us, not against us and loves us with infinite boundless love. The greatest evidence of this is what Christ did to restore us back to His Father. If God gave us that which we needed most - removal of our condemnation and shame so we would be restored back into good standing and relationship with the infinitely loving and beautiful God - how much more is He willing to give us everything else necessary to know Him more? We must remind ourselves of all that God has done for us to strengthen our trust in the promises of what He has yet to do for us. 

For a discussion on how God addresses our two greatest needs through Christ, click here.

For a further discussion on self-denial, click here. 
_____________________________________________________________________

¹There are various kinds or levels of belief. I am not talking about belief-faith on a casual level but at the level we would stake our very lives on. That is the belief God calls us to. 

A story to illustrate. 

Jason was laid off from work unexpectedly. After a few weeks, as hard as he tried, he couldn't find anything. So he ran an idea by Chad while working out one day - they were formally on the same high school gymnast team and regularly worked out together.  

Jason said, "since I have always been athletic with a great sense of balance, and also want to launch out with a business of my own, I was thinking I could walk across the small canyon on a tight rope pushing a wheelbarrow. You know the one just outside of town. I'll use the publicity to launch myself as a personal trainer and build a clientele. What do you think? Do you think I can pull it off?" 

Chad said, "You were the state champion, so if anyone can do it, you can Jason. I think you should go for it. " 

So Jason began training. Chad had some media experience and contacts, so he offered to reach out to his contacts to promote the event. Chad believed in Jason that much, and Jason trusted Chad would do an outstanding job. 

As things progressed, Jason would periodically ask Chad, "do you really think I can pull this off?" Chad always replied, "Absolutely. If anyone could do it, it's you." Being encouraged by Chad's support, he continued.

Finally, several weeks later, the day of the big event had come. As they set everything up, the crowd and the local media started showing up to capture it all. They estimated there were at least 1000 people there. 

Jason and Chad were excited but nervous. As Jason positioned himself on the rope with the wheelbarrow, he looked over at Chad one last time and asked, "do you really think I can do this?" Without hesitation, Chad said,"absolutely," to which Jason replied, "Great, get in the wheelbarrow." 

There is a difference between saying we believe God and getting in the wheelbarrow. When God asks us to trust Him, He's saying get in the wheelbarrow. 

²And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. Heb 11:6 

What is the nature of our reward? It is experiencing more of God who is the source of life, love, and all things. For more on this click here.

³And incredible faith occurs when we see more and more of how huge, loving, wise, etc. God is. If you have small faith, it is only because your understanding of God is small. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you more so your faith becomes greater. 

⁴This is why it's vital we go to God and his promises regularly. Call it quiet time, or a time of worship or devotion. What it's called doesn't matter; what occurs during that time does. 

This is also why meeting together with fellow believers is vital. It stirs our faith and helps us see God in action in the lives of others. All these things remind us of God's faithfulness and stir us to greater faith.

How "End times" teaching aids Globalism.

The following history behind Dispensationalism is part 4 of a 5 part paper at 

https://thotsaboutgod.blogspot.com/2010/02/doom-and-gloom-of-dispensationalism.html 

I am posting it as a separate article for those who may not be interested in the weakness of the biblical foundations behind the "last days" or "end times" teaching. After reading this part below, you may wish to read my entire discussion on dispensationalism. To do so you can click here or the link above. 

4. The history behind Dispensationalism

(Dispensationalism teaches the world will be destroyed by God but before it is, a rebel to God - the Antichrist - will rise up and set up a one-world government where you can do nothing economically without His permission or his mark i.e. 666 or the Mark of the beast).

The first 3 sections of the complete paper (linked here) dealt almost exclusively with various scripture passages on why the Bible does not teach this widely held view (commonly known as Dispensationalism). 

Now we will see if the history behind this teaching can shine any light on its problematic rise and influence. 

The promotion and expansion of Dispensationalism appears to have had considerably more to do with the political views of Zionism, than with the teaching of scripture. A little-known document called The Blackstone Petition or Blackstone Memorial called for the re-establishment of the State of Israel almost 120 years ago, in 1891. It was submitted by a lay minister/real estate developer named William Blackstone (not to be confused with the British attorney who wrote “Commentaries” on Common Law in the 1700s).

http://www.jewishmag.com/146mag/brandeis_blackstone/brandeis_blackstone.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Eugene_Blackstone

Blackstone was a “student” of John Nelson Darby’s teachings, who was considered the “Father of Dispensationalism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby

Even though most of us have likely never heard of Blackstone and his petition, it was not an insignificant document at the time, considering some of those who signed it. For example, J.P. Morgan, John D., and William Rockefeller, who were signers, also happened to be key “players” in forming the *Federal Reserve System implemented in 1913 under which our country’s monetary system now operates. (For an excellent book on the issues regarding the Federal Reserve I highly recommend http://www.webofdebt.com)

If the involvement by these signers seems unimportant or irrelevant, you may also wish to read

http://web.archive.org/web/20090503204211/http://www.taxtruth4u.com/money.htm which addresses our current monetary system. This will help tie this part together. NOTE: The link immediately above is from the Internet Archive, known as "The Wayback Machine" because my original site no longer exists.

Is it merely a coincidence these particular gentlemen were signers of this petition? If you understand the destruction and deception of the Federal Reserve System as discussed in the links above, this simple fact alone makes their - aka the "banksters" - early support and promotion of the dispensational system highly suspect. And this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If the connection is not apparent at this time, I encourage you to do your own research. The links above will be a good starting point. If you really dig around, it gets even more "interesting." To understand why I say this, be sure to read the article on Blackstone on the above link and also linked here for convenience.

It should be pointed out of the 413 signers of this Petition only a total of 15 were either rabbis or of Jewish or Hebrew descent. That is less than 4% of the 413 signers. In addition, one of the Jewish signers happened to be a banker and President of a bank called “International Bank.” Yet this petition was supposed to be about bringing Jews back to their “homeland” not about finance or politics (the more you dig, the more you will discover how "big money" and corrupt government have been connected for well over 100 years in the USA via the Federal Reserve. To read this list of signers, you would think this petition had more to do with some corporate business venture instead of a spiritual/religious effort.

The rest of the signers were a mixture of Protestant clergymen, representatives of several major national newspapers (early promoters of fake news?), politicians, government workers such as postmasters, judges, clerks, and even some collectors of revenue, along with a variety of businessmen. The whole list can be found at

http://web.archive.org/web/20080515083850/http://www.amfi.org/blackmem.htm (Also no longer on a website but from the internet archives). Considering the apparent nature of this petition to reestablish Israel as a nation, this was a curious mix, wouldn’t you agree?

The rabbit hole goes even deeper when you consider that J.P. Morgan and its interests also purchased controlling interest of every major newspaper - 25 in all - at that time (1915) in order to control the information going to the public to protect “their interests” but not necessarily to report the truth.

The banksters (the private banking system called the Federal Reserve) realized when they pushed through the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 that to pull off the control of the newly implemented money system they would need to also control the information to the public via the news. This would allow them to divert the public away from and hide this subtle but very significant takeover of commerce of the entire country through a totally corrupted money system, which is exactly what they did over 100 years ago.  

To the shock of anyone learning this for the first time, the mainstream media has actually been controlled by the "banksters" since that time. This is not "conspiracy theory" but documented in the Congressional Record of 1917 on page 2947. If you wish to see a photocopy and discussion of this in the actual Congressional record, click here. 

As a further indication of the influence and control of the media, I offer you these additional quotes.  

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my' paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes. 

-John Swinton, former chief of staff, The New York Times, in a 1953 speech before the New York Press Club 

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries".

-David Rockefeller, in an address given to Catherine Graham, publisher of The Washington Post and other media luminaries in attendance in Baden Baden, Germany at the June 1991 annual meeting of the world elite Bilderberg Group. 

"We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with".

-Richard M. Cohen, former Senior Producer of CBS political news

 "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have" 

-Richard Salant, former President of CBS News

"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity"(i.e. disbelief)

-Marshall McLuhan, media 'guru'

Comments in (  )’s and or with emphasis mine.

Why take so much time to address the news media in a paper on the teaching of Dispensationalism? If you get nothing else from this article, please understand this: the current political and monetary system has subtle but clear connections to a system that is far more encompassing than simply a particular theological worldview. For this financial/political system to survive, we must remain ignorant and apathetic to the true nature of events related to the "banksters" activities and the corrupt monetary system they set up and use to control all financial transactions, and therefore the necessity and importance of controlling the information ("news") outlets. Truth, care, and action by you and me are the globalist "banksters" biggest fear. That’s why any exposure of this information is often aggressively attacked with considerable effort to discredit it. If you have read this far, you are apparently neither apathetic, and you can certainly say you are no longer as ignorant. 

But it is our fault as the church as much as anyone’s (maybe more so) on why this monetary/political system has thrived and exists to this day.  And it is also our problem to solve. Politicians have proven they are not interested in truly addressing this corrupt banking system. In fact, they helped to implement it - either directly or indirectly - benefit from it, and allowed it to continue unchecked by turning a blind eye at a minimum.  

Am I saying the "banksters" created this theological system called Dispensationalism? Not at all. I do think, however, that they saw in dispensational teaching a perfect ²opportunity and vehicle to heavily influence the church to aid in implementing a one-world system aka globalism, and gain the support of the church to advance their deception. The "banksters" no doubt realized if the church could be convinced that the Bible predicts the coming of a one-world system under some diabolical opponent to God Himself (i.e. the "Antichrist"), then to resist it is futile (remember the Borg in the Star Trek TV series?). The globalists figured no good Christian would go against what the Bible predicts is inevitable. A clever, highly deceptive, and effective strategy. As a result, a very large portion of the church universal has bought into Dispensationalism to this day. 

Though our understanding of the subject of this paper must be formed primarily from scripture (which I address here) the political/ historical/ financial roots of Dispensationalism play a far greater role in the promotion of this teaching in the church than many may realize. Since the focus of Bible students is mainly on understanding what Scripture teaches regarding the “end times” this lack of awareness of its historical roots is understandable. However, I believe knowing the history behind the promotion of this doctrine is of no small significance or consequence and should be considered more closely by all students of the Bible. Therefore, I have taken the time to address this side of this rather involved subject of Dispensationalism (which can be read here).

I believe it is the intention of globalist "banksters" who seek to rule us (whoever they may be) that we buy into the pessimistic mindset fostered by Dispensationalism (we address this pessimism in part 5 “Two World Views…”). The result is we unintentionally (on our part, not theirs) look to our "rulers" for solutions to our problems and not to God. -- I believe this also in part explains why Futurism (how the world ends) and particularly Dispensationalism is such a widespread and popular notion among many non-Christians as well. No other teaching -  purportedly based on scripture - is more widely accepted by non-Christians than this “end time” doctrine and apocalyptic view of the world's future. 

This in itself should raise a red flag about the validity of this teaching. Are not the things of the gospel normally foolishness to the world? Christ’s words “broad is the road that leads to destruction…” may be very appropriate here. I believe those who wish to rule over us count on the church, doing just what we are doing, which is next to nothing when it comes to infusing the culture with the gospel and advancing God's kingdom here and now (His reign over the hearts and minds of all who look to Christ as their king) and speaking out against the corruption at all levels, especially within ³Government. The pessimism and passivity created by the belief in an inevitable future destruction of earth taught by Dispensationalism aids the advancement of a one-world government and plays right into their hands -- after all, according to Dispensationalism, a one-world government headed by a political figure called “The Antichrist” is predicted in the Bible so why waste time to resist it. 

I think if the establishment and promotion of Dispensationalism were not expressly to create a passive church - which indirectly aids the advance of one-world government - it has certainly been cleverly utilized toward that end.

I also think attempts to label ³a Preterism as anti-Semitic - yes, believe it or not, it’s true...labeling someone as a racist of any kind is a common and effective hot-button issue. It is a convenient diversion from discovering the truth. And if you understand that Satan is ultimately behind anything that neuters or distorts the truth, the church’s effectiveness on culture and government, and the advancement of God's kingdom in the world, all of this is not beyond reason but in fact makes perfect sense. If you further study the history behind Dispensationalism, if it isn’t already apparent, it will become more apparent how all of this is connected as you dig in. 

________________________________

¹Some believe Zionism is the main player behind globalism. I have concluded it is merely a useful tool of the real players - i.e. the "banksters" (Rothschild - the founder of the central banking system in England - being an Ashkenazi Jew) 

- Zionism is a diversion used by the banksters to promote globalism (one world government). Globalism is about power, money, and control, not a particular religious view or system. Making it about a religious view (with racial implications) also aids them in creating division within the church. For a discussion on how Zionism helps promote identity politics and racism, click here. One of the strategies of globalists is to accuse their opponents of the very things they are most guilty of. 

²Possibly they saw and sincerely believed this teaching was justification for one world government. 

Most centers of influence and power, such as the church (media, government, and other major centers of influence such as entertainment, social media, sports, and the like), start out well but are infiltrated and commandeered to advance the "bankster" aka globalist agenda in one fashion or another.  This is a clever but diabolical strategy because these institutions are centers of influence for a reason - i.e. they've gained the trust of so many and are far less likely to be suspected of anything nefarious. They are perfect "candidates" to gain control over the minds and lives of others and culture and society as a whole because of the trust they gained in their beginnings.

³For those who raise the question of obeying the authorities discussed in Rom 13, keep in mind Christ’s most scathing criticisms were against the Pharisees who were the religious authorities in Israel during Christ’s time on earth. If you care to read more on this click here.  

³a which teaches the "end times" the Bible speaks of was a historical event, not in the future.

For a look at what the bible really says about the promise to Abram (later named Abraham) regarding the nation of Israel, click here. 

This is only part 4 of a 5 part paper. If you wish to read the rest of the paper this current post is taken from click here.

For a further discussion on what promises God actually made to Israel click here

If you wish to discuss any of the points addressed in this article or have any questions, message me at  

thotsaboutGod@gmail.com Ask for Jim. God Speed