Why Economics Needs Repentance, Not Reformation

The only way for economists to earn public faith in their profession, is to repent, and cease from practicing cabalists’ magic.

One year ago, economists were trusted far less than hairdressers, and the ordinary man or woman in the street.

Today, as the curtain closes on a tumultuous year Two Thousand Seventeen of the Common (until recently, Christian) Era, and the portents of war, of financial, social, ecological and civilisational collapse, and the gloomy dawn of a new Dark Age ruled by a small cabal of neo-feudal globalist oligarchs hang ominously in the air, the economics profession continues to do what it does best.

Bicker in the piazza. While all around, Rome is burning.

Case in point.

A recent protest by rebel economists invoked the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s fabled[1] 95 Theses. In reply, the hierarchy issued a pontifical bull defending their “unhealthy intellectual monopoly” (my emphasis):

It has become routine to assault the “dismal science” with a dismal ignorance of what economics actually involves. Writers, students and even some social scientists from other disciplines who have very little exposure to what economists do are quick to point the finger and declare economics as a veil for vested interest, and dismiss it as a way of thinking that is fossilised in numbers.
Sometimes, though, the criticism can even come from within the economics bubble itself.

Oh the irony.

Economic theory has always been a veil for vested interest: the interest of the Usurocracy.

Economists’ “way of thinking” has been fossilised in numbers since the thirteenth century rise of cabalist theurgy: the magic equilibrium numerological ‘science’ of angelology and demonology.

Economists exist in a bubble of historical ignorance. They broadly fail to search outside their prescribed textbooks for knowledge and understanding of the true origin of the fundamental ideas and beliefs within their own discipline. Heterodox economists calling for a Reformation, or revolution in economic thinking, are just as endarkened as the orthodoxy.

Consider a singular example often cited by a leading economic rebel:

Economics doesn’t need a Reformation: it needs a scientific revolution, similar to that triggered by Copernicus’s publication of “On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres” in 1543. [..] This was the first great scientific revolution, and it inverted our understanding of the Universe: rather than the Sun orbiting the Earth, the Earth orbited the Sun; rather than the stars being nearby, they were far away; and gravity, not God, told the “Heavenly Bodies” how to move. [..] The revolution in astronomy that Copernicus triggered with his fundamentally different paradigm took over a century. Galileo played a key role here, by building the first serious telescope and observing four of Jupiter’s moons… [..] This revolution didn’t come peacefully, and it wasn’t led by the Ptolemaic astronomers themselves, but by new entrants to the field — including, crucially, Isaac Newton, whose equations of motion provided a mathematical explanation for why the orbits of planets were elliptical rather than circular.

Let’s unpack this. Historical context is vital.

In the Battle of Ideas between ‘science’ and ‘superstition’, as always, it’s about money:

Then, as now, all wars are bankers’ wars.

Copernicus spent many years in Italy. Evidence suggests that ‘his’ idea crystallised while studying at the University of Padua.[2] This was the seat of libertas scholastica (academic freedom) near Venice: the fertile ground for ideas and schemes offering ‘utility’ in the confrontation, or subversion, of political or religious threats to the Venetian Republic’s profits and power. Its first offered subjects were law, and theology. Copernicus himself is said to have attributed the discovery of heliocentrism to the ancient Greek astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos.[3][4]

Galileo was a paid agent and likely dupe of Paolo Sarpi, chief of the Venetian intelligence and philosophical ridotto (think tank) networks. The controversy between Galileo and the Church was masterminded by Sarpi — his trial represented “one of the greatest public relations successes of all time.” Galileo’s status as Europe’s premier scientist followed the publication of ‘his’ astronomical findings. Sarpi was the “advisor, author, and director” of the entire project. In March 1610 he wrote that a telescope had been found in Holland two years before (my emphasis):

Once this was found, our mathematician [Galileo] of Padua and some of our other people who are not ignorant of these arts began to use the telescope on celestial bodies, adjusting it and refining it for the purpose….”[5]
Paolo Sarpi (Source: Wikipedia — Mezzotint by William Dickinson, 1777, after F. Zucchero, 1777)

The fame of alchemist and cabalist Isaac Newton and his alleged “discoveries” was also engineered by the Venetian “Deep State” network, for financial and political gain, in context of Anglo-French rivalries. The mastermind was Padua native and member of the Venetian nobility, Antonio Schinella de Conti, the duplicitous intermediary in the Leibniz-Newton calculus controversy.[6][7]

Père Conti of the French Mission in Rome, caricature by Pier Leone Ghezzi, 1674–1755. (Source: Artnet.com)

The Church hierarchy may have been empirically wrong in upholding the geocentric model of the Universe. However, the weight of emphasis given to these key historical events by modern academia abjectly fails to identify the vested financial motives underpinning the ‘scientific revolution’.

Throughout the Renaissance — also known as the Hermetic Reformation[8] — the immensely powerful Venetian oligarchy employed its sophisticated pan-European network of agents in active promotion of any ideas convenient to its financial interests. Its chief opponent, and perennial on-again-off-again antagonist or ally, was Europe’s moral and financial regulatory authority: the Catholic Church.

The Church’s teachings on usury, and a spiritual kingdom — in essence, a moral paradigm of patient endurance in suffering, and of doing good in the service of others in this life, in anticipation of spiritual reward — were anathema to a usurious patrician nobility and merchant oligarchy possessed of centuries-old envies and aspirations for earthly rule, through money and the sword.

Modern science did not begin with rare enlightened “free thinkers”, armed with reason and experimental evidence, courageously challenging the authority of superstitious obscurantism.

Nor did economic ‘science’ develop as a result of “physics envy”.

Modern science — including physics, and the ‘science’ of economics — began with thirteenth century cabalist theurgy.

Black (under cover of “white”) magic.

While the Church promoted God as the invisible force telling the Heavenly Bodies how to move (“by the Word of God”), the Venetian oligarchy promoted cabalist theurgy as the means by which man could gain control over the “spirits” controlling the motions of the Sun (gold), Moon (silver) and the planets Above. These heavenly “powers” were the key to the universal order of creation, including the world Below.

Rather than God as the invisible, personal force who could be humbly petitioned to grant requests for health and wealth “according to His will”, cabalist theurgy promoted the idea of acquiring power to command the invisible, intermediary forces responsible for health and wealth.

The secret gnosis (knowledge) of how to do this, was the Art of magic words — magic letters, embedded with magic numbers.

Magic mathematics.

The Duality Principle embedded in the double entry bookkeeping of medieval Italian merchants, and in the “rational”, pleasure/profit-maximising, magic equilibrium assumptions and equations of modern economists, is the “Enlightened” modern gnostics’ scientific title for ancient Babylonian occult philosophistry.

Story-telling, with numbers added.

As proponents of black magic, the Venetian Usurocracy was initially hostile to the flourishing development of empirical science in rival Florence during the early Renaissance. Around 1600 however, the Paolo Sarpi network began rebranding the Venetian Republic as the embodiment of the most advanced and sophisticated science, representing the highest expression of scientific values.[9]

Over ensuing centuries, the Usurocracy’s network successfully smuggled its cabalist theurgic principles into all areas of modern science, promoting formalism, reductionist materialism, and in a supremely ironic example of cabalist-derived Orwellian doublethink, the fetishism of institutional (i.e, academic ‘expert’) authority.

Economists have an immensely important role in shaping the policies, regulations, and values of modern society. Few, if any, have the faintest clue that by conflating biological, material, and moral values using the balance sheet ‘logic’ of double entry, the Venetian Giammaria Ortes, and subsequent luminaries of the British Radical liberal philosophical school such as Jeremy Bentham, cleverly eliminated the “moral element”[10] from their ‘scientific’ discipline: one that was once called Moral Philosophy.

Those who do not study history, or who restrict their search for knowledge and truth to within safe reading and thinking distance of academically-approved, textbook lines of inquiry, will never discover the true origin and sign-ificance of the ideas, and (amoral) values that they practice and preach.

One wonders if St. Peter may not have been forecasting the coming of modernity’s neo-Babylonian economic theurgists, and not merely pseudo-Christian theologians, when he wrote his Second Epistle warning against false teachers:

These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption…
St. Peter the Apostle

************

Published 31 December 2017 at psalmistice.com

************

FOOTNOTES

[1] E. Michael Jones, “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History”, Fidelity Press (2008), p. 257 — “On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther sent 95 objections to the Catholic Church’s doctrine on indulgences to Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz. According to legend, he also nailed the theses to the door of the Schlosskirche in Wittenberg.”

[2] Jerzy Dobrzycki and Leszek Hajdukiewicz, “Kopernik, Mikołaj”, Polski słownik biograficzny (Polish Biographical Dictionary), vol. XIV, Wrocław, 1969, p. 6 (cited in Wikipedia, Nicolaus Copernicus In Italy, fn. 55; online 31 Dec 2017)

[3] Owen Gingrich, “Did Copernicus Owe a Debt to Aristarchus?”, Journal for the History of Astronomy, vol. 16, no. 1 (February 1985), pp. 37–42. (cited in Wikipedia, Nicolaus Copernicus, fn. 6; online 31 December 2017) — “Copernicus was aware of Aristarchus’ heliocentric theory and cited him in an early (unpublished) manuscript of De Revolutionibus (which still survives), though he removed the reference from his final published manuscript.” (note A)

[4] George Kish, “A Source Book in Geography”, Harvard University Press (1978), p. 51 (cited in Wikipedia, Aristarchus of Samos, fn 2; online 31 December 2017)

[5] Webster G. Tarpley, “Against Oligarchy: How the Dead Souls of Venice Corrupted Science”, The American Almanac, January, 1996.

[6] Richard S. Westfall, “Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton”, Cambridge University 1983, p. 771ff (cited in Wikipedia, Antonio Schinella Conti, fn 1; online 31 December 2017)

[7] Webster G. Tarpley, “Against Oligarchy: How the Dead Souls of Venice Corrupted Science”, The American Almanac, January, 1996.

[8] James D. Heiser, Prisci Theologi and the Hermetic Reformation in the Fifteenth Century, 2011

[9] Webster G. Tarpley, “Against Oligarchy: How the Dead Souls of Venice Corrupted Science”, The American Almanac, January, 1996.

[10] John Ruskin, “Unto This Last” (1860), E.P. Dutton and Company, 1921 Edition, Essay IV Ad Valorem, p. 89.

Like what you read? Give Colin McKay a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.