Checkmating the tactics of government to evade tax accountability

As reasonable citizens, we not only must have a healthy distrust or suspicion of our government, we have a divine responsibility to tame and control it. We should never see occupation of government office as a licence to steal and embezzle funds with no questions asked. Old habits die hard though. For too long, our public officials have seen the occupation of government office as a feeding trough for the occupier, his family, cronies and tribesmen.

 

Beyond the media criticism by some of this menace that is spasmodically aimed, we are pretty resigned to the idea of our powerlessness in terms of bringing our government to account.

We have lost the battle even before the declaration of war against secrecy, opacity and evasion of accountability in government…

 

To create a culture of transparency and accountability, a whistleblower protection policy had been put in place by the Federal government. But so far, no designated whistleblower law is available to protect citizens and employees from retaliation should they report corruption, crime or threats to public health.

 

One Joseph Ameh, an architect, narrated how he unexpectedly lost his job after he wrote a petition in 2019 to the ICPC over contract inflation and diversion in the institution where he worked. He was head of the physical planning division at Federal College of Education (Technical) Asaba.

 

He claimed that ICPC exposed him instead of protecting his identity.

Alleging that some ICPC officers are corrupt, he said: ‘When you blow the whistle, you have prepared food for the ICPC officials to eat.’

 

We have abundant natural resources to enable us wax very strong, wealthy and irresistible among the comity of nations: but our leadership deficit has made us a laughing stock. Yet our leadership deficit as a nation is not inevitable; it comes because of the citizens’ abject failure to restrain and tame their government. Those who manage to impose themselves as our rulers, being so abysmally ahistorical, think they are entitled to their impunity.

 

If the citizens fail to awaken themselves, shake off their stupor, seize the government by the scruff of the neck to straighten it, their mindless descent into unwanted anarchy is almost predictable.

They themselves must know what they want and not allow government agents to create enemies in imaginary wars to derail the focus, and dissipate the energies of the citizens.

 

A mindless descent into unwanted anarchy is just one part of a dreary scenario whereby the citizens are able to avoid the double jeopardy of what I term the ‘second slavery’ – for want of a better term – by Western powers.

 

It should be acknowledged that foreigners have sinister designs on Africa.

 

During his much-hyped presidential run that collapsed unceremoniously, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida expressed his concern to exterminate ‘the growing antisemitism in Africa’ if he was elected president. I scratched my head wondering where such evidence could be found for such absurd charge. When you realise it’s not out of place for some American politicians to fabricate ‘evidence’ in order to manufacture consent for war, it’s easy to dismiss such absurdity.

 

In a recent meeting on counterterrorism with some African heads of state, the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu quoted Theodore Herlz: ‘After I liberate the Jewish people, I will go to Africa to help liberate the black people.’ You had to be clueless about geopolitics, and the behaviour of Israel not to realise that is a code phrase for the ‘DISPLACEMENT of black people’ in Africa.

 

Recently again, Erik Prince, a Navy SEAL, billionaire mercenary, founder of Blackwater, the private American military company, had suggested in his podcast, Off Leash, the necessity of invading African nations all over again to counter the struggle they have with self-governance.

 

He held forth the opinion that if incapable leaders in Africa persist on the path of corruption and self aggrandisement, recolonization would be justified.

 

In his exact words:

‘If so many of these countries around the world are incapable of governing themselves, it’s time for us to just put the imperial hat back on, to say, we’re going to govern those countries … ’cause enough is enough…

You can say that about pretty much all of Africa, they’re incapable of governing themselves.

 

If you go to these countries and you see how they suffer, under absolutely corrupt governments that are just criminal syndicates, a lot of them deserve better.’

 

Was Mr Prince being altruistic? Besides, he’s not a government spokesman. Why should he be taken seriously? I think it’s the height of naivety to dismiss his tirade. He was only saying the quiet part out loud of what formed the secret conversations of Western powers. So there is no altruism in his speech, but a strategic venting to normalise a future event whose plan is afoot.

 

What do we really know about how our government is run? Is it organised crime pretending to be a government? Is our government organised around a false economic system? By what philosophical framework is our government run? Please remember: A bad government is equal to oppressive taxation. While a good government is equal to liberating taxation.

 

Unfortunately the brand of Christianity which Nigerians subscribe to in overwhelmingly large numbers is simply a disguised caricature of Jewish religion because it promotes a discredited concept of governance whereby a despotic benefactor is propped up as ruler who must be served by a supine, ignorant and dehumanised people.

 

To a people who have been indoctrinated to be unquestioning and uncritical, from the religious front, having to insist on building resilient institutions that can checkmate government’s tactics of evading accountability seems not only over-ambitious but abhorrent as an idea.

 

I want us to look at a story in the Bible whereby the elders of Israel demanded that Samuel should anoint a king to judge them like other nations: and also to fight their battles.

 

It is interesting that Samuel, who showed himself to be a man of integrity, was not able to resist the pull of nepotism. He had made his two sons to be judges over Israel. They proved themselves to be very corrupt as they took bribes, and perverted judgment. That means people were allowed to get away with crimes as long as they could offer commensurate bribes. And the innocents could be punished without compensation if they lacked money and connections to press their case. According to the elders, Samuel’s two children were not behaving like their father whom they respected.

But Samuel was displeased with the people’s request, and felt rejected.

 

Yet the LORD said unto Samuel in prayer: ‘Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee.’ Why? ‘For they have not rejected thee, (Samuel,) but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them…Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.’

 

Now it’s helpful to note that the LORD did not even attempt to impose His Will on Israel. This is consistent with the character of the Father. He only made Samuel to be aware that this situation of Israel rejecting the Kingdom of heaven was another instance of how the people had abandoned the Creator to serve other gods.

 

The summary of Samuel’s warning to the people is: The government of the king they chose would be despotic, oppressive and self-aggrandizing. That the excessive tax burden imposed on the people would be geared toward serving the king’s desires with little consideration for the people’s wellbeing. Because of the visceral contempt of the king for the people, whereby their oppression was inevitable, they would cry out when it was too late. Hear the conclusion of the LORD’S warning: ‘And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.’

 

In these exchanges of 1 Samuel 8, it is possible to glean the purpose of government, as being a place where you have fearless, uncompromised, impartial administration of justice, fair taxation instead of arbitrary taxation, debt-slavery is forbidden and outlawed, ignorance and insecurity are seen as anathema, money is subservient to labour, truth is prevalent, transparency and accountability are sacrosanct.

 

Having gleaned the purpose of government, we can also learn from the Bible that the Creator was fundamentally hostile toward the idea of earthly or hereditary kings. They are oppressive instinctually.

 

They are strengthened by keeping the people dumb, ignorant, fearful and insecure. They are threatened by well informed, enlightened people. They reject heavenly instructions, and they lack wisdom and understanding.

They behave as if the people exist to serve the kings. Whereas the reverse should apply.

 

So the Creator’s undeniable hatred toward earthly kings was well founded.

 

Hear what He said unto Israel in Deut. 7: 24: ‘And he shall deliver their kings into thine hand; and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven…’

 

When we hear that now, it is easy to see how Samuel must have been distressed concerning Israel’s request to be given a king who could judge them ‘like all the nations.’ They were yearning to emulate the earthly kings meant for erasure.

 

The Neglected Principle of Nation-building:

 

When it was time to make Rehoboam king, the people of Israel led by Jeroboam made it clear there was a little business of accountability to be settled before the occasion was allowed to proceed conclusively.

 

He was told that his late father, Solomon, had placed a yoke of arbitrary and oppressive taxation upon them which they found too grievous to bear. That if Rehoboam removed and discontinued the heavy yoke, ‘we will SERVE thee.’ (2 Chron. 10: 4)

 

Within three days, Rehoboam had to consult his old and young counsellors. While the advice of the old men was conciliatory, that of the young counsellors was scornful and intransigent.

 

Now hear what the old men said to King Rehoboam: ‘If thou be kind to this people, and please them, and speak good words to them, THEY will be thy SERVANTS forever.’ (2 Chron. 10:7)

It is interesting to note that culturally and doctrinally there was an unfortunate agreement between the people and the aristocrats about the people existing to serve the king.

 

Whether the king was benevolent or malevolent did not take away from the reprehensible conviction shared by all in Israel that the people existed to serve the king.

 

It was this unfortunate thinking that galvanised Rehoboam’s scornful behaviour.

 

He was sure the people’s request was an unprecedented impudence deserving of harsh punishment instead of amelioration. The king must have reasoned angrily the people had no right to challenge, scrutinise or censure the oppressive taxation imposed upon them. As he, the king alone had the divine right to determine what was right for the people. It never mattered if the unfair taxation was for the self-aggrandizement of the king!

 

Having a nation whose government offers a fearless, uncompromised, impartial administration of justice; fair taxation instead of oppressive taxation; an environment whereby debt-slavery, ignorance and insecurity are banished and outlawed, labour is superior to money, truth is prevalent, transparency and accountability are sacrosanct is more important to the Creator than preserving a nation in one piece whose government offers nothing but the promotion of ethnic identity, nepotism, injustice, self-serving religion, arbitrary taxation, debt-slavery, ignorance and insecurity, falsehood as propaganda, the supremacy of money over labour, secrecy and evasion of accountability.

 

It is by learning this principle of nation-building that one would understand why the Creator ordered and orchestrated the breakup into two kingdoms of Israel, a nation with the same progenitor, same history, same language, same ethnic identity, same official religion.

 

A principle whereby the king or governor is sure that his existence has relevance because he is passionately committed to serving the people, not out of pity or condescension but because he acknowledges that the people individually has sovereignty, autonomy and self-determination too – as kings and priests under one Creator.

 

It is by this same principle of nation-building that Christ said to the leaders of Israel: ‘Therefore I say unto you, The Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.’ (see Matt. 21: 43)

This principle of nation-building was HIDDEN to Israel and its kings, whereby the king or governor has relevance because he has the passionate commitment to serve the people, not out of lip service or PR stunt. The leaders of Israel, copying the template of governance from Gentile kings, were brought up to think the people were meant to serve the rulers. An attitude prodding the rulers to think they were benefactors dispensing favours when it was convenient to the people whom they regarded as beggarly, ignorant and inferior.

 

Having to challenge, resist and supplant a malignant government is how one exercises the faith that save his soul. We must force the Nigerian ruler or governor to become a servant in order to enjoy the benevolence of the people. This is a foremost religious duty to be pursued with fanatical zeal.

 

We should not have a weak mind that can be swayed easily. Our thinking should be resolute and resilient. We should quit thinking our so-called ‘constructive criticism’ is meant for the ears of our rulers who could implement, correct or ignore it at his discretion or benevolence. Whatever deficiency, infraction or dereliction of duty observed on the part of government, we must not only pray and speak about it publicly, we must also ORGANISE ourselves around our speeches and ideas. Late Ed Louis Cole, American preacher-writer, said: ‘The man with an organisation is better than a man with none.’

 

To organise and organise and organise around your speech and ideas is the key!

 

Noam Chomsky said: ‘It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies.’

 

Unfortunately, many Nigerian intellectuals are asleep. Known for their prevarications and equivocations, they speak with many tongues without clear direction. They are irresolute. Sycophants and supplicants on government altar.

 

But before all these. they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before *kings and rulers* for my name’s sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer. For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist…In your patience, possess ye your souls. (LK. 21: 12-19)

 

We cannot continue to run from our government, afraid to engage and correct it. We have been given a ‘MOUTH and WISDOM’ from on high. We must use it to stamp out wickedness from government at every level.

Religiously holding the government to account and making it transparent is the essence of our salvation as a people of faith.

 

We are both whistle-blowers and supplanters at the same time.

We are both agitators and resolutionists at the same time. Let’s be clear: we are not revolutionaries, but resolutionists.

 

Take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness; instead, rebuke and expose them. It is shameful even to talk about the things that ungodly people do in secret. But when the light shines on them, it becomes clear how evil these things are. And where your light shines, it will expose their evil deeds…

(Eph. 5: 11-14)

 

The Bible plainly commands us to not take part in the worthless deeds of corruption in our various offices: but to rebuke and expose them. Any shady thing done by ungodly people that cannot stand up to transparency and accountability, we have a responsibility to shine light on it. This is how we can function with a clear good conscience in our various office. Like Daniel in the Bible, our moral authority must be unimpeachable.

 

For the sake of the salvation of my soul, I should have no hesitation to be a whistle-blower against that embezzlement, looting or budget padding in any government agency. Some people say whistle-blowers are exposed to retaliation. Definitely, the risk is real, and cannot be easily dismissed. As an excuse for their abdication of responsibility in terms of whistle-blowing, some people say they are not ready to die for Nigeria. To that, I dare say even the Creator does not want anyone to die for Nigeria: as indeed, the idea of any man or woman having to die for Nigeria is ludicrous in terms of facing retaliation for their whistle-blowing or exercise of free speech. The blood of Christ shed once to bestow good conscience upon humanity is enough.

 

Debt-slavery: To Control the Minds of the People, Keep them under Fearful acquiescence, and prevent them from speaking the Truth:

 

King Offa ruled the Kingdom of Mercia from 757 to 791 AD. He established the first monetary system in England. This Christian king prohibited usury.

King Alfred the Great directed the property of usurers to be forfeited to the King: and that they should not be buried in consecrated ground.

In 1050 AD, Edward the Confessor passed a decree that any usurer in England be declared an outlaw, and banished for life, apart from forfeiture of his property.

 

Jews first arrived in England from Normandy in 1066 along with William the Conqueror. He had defeated King Harold at Hastings. These Jews were allowed to practise usury under royal protection. They had supported and financed the military invasion of England by William the Conqueror. This international conspiracy came with disastrous consequences for the English people. Indeed, one quarter of English lands were in the hands of Jewish usurers within two generations.

 

At his death, the Jew, Aaron of Lincoln was reputed to be wealthiest man in England. It was estimated that his riches exceeded that of King Henry 11.

 

At the start of the 13th century, many nobles faced the danger of losing their lands through taxation and usury.

Nobles had to register their mortgages on the Treasury Rolls, having borrowed from Jewish moneylenders, and from the King and his agents. As soon as it was noticed that a noble was in financial distress, King John (1199 – 1216) would move to buy the debt from the moneylender and seize the land for himself. In pursuit of this dishonest policy, the king was reckless. It was said moreover that the king was ‘profligate, incompetent and utterly beholden to his Jews.’

 

The nobles revolted against excessive taxation, and forced King John to sign the Magna Carta on 15 June 1215. Its principal purpose was to abolish usury and cancel the bonds of Jewish moneylenders. 19 of the clauses of Magna Carta affecting the Jews were revoked the following year after King John died on October 1216, and his 9 years old son took over as Henry 111.

His heir Edward (1272 – 1307) soon realised that if he failed to expel the Jews from England, he was in danger of being deposed from his throne. In 1275, statutes of Jewry were passed which abolished all forms of usury in England. Seeing that many of the Jews were unable to ‘earn a living,’ another statue was passed on 18 July 1290 which compelled the whole Jewish population of 16, 511 to depart from England, and never come back. Any Jew who failed to leave after 1 November 1290 was liable to be executed. This announcement was greeted with jubilation and joy across the land.

 

State debt was absent and taxes became moderate with the abolition of usury and banishment of the moneylenders. England enjoyed a period of notable prosperity and growth with tolerable taxes, zero state debt and no interest to pay.

 

King Henry V111 relaxed the laws regarding usury in 1509. They were repealed subsequently by his son King Edward V1 by Act of 1552 whose preamble stated that ‘Usury is by the Word of God, utterly prohibited as a vice most odious and detestable.’

 

In 1492, large numbers of Jews had been expelled from Spain by Ferdinand 11 of Aragon and Isabella 1 of Castille accounting for their religious involvement in usury and ‘unethical’ business practices. These Jews had settled in Holland.

 

The Dutch had grown in importance as a maritime power at that time. Still the Jewish usurers in Amsterdam desired to return to England where the prospects for expanding the operations of their moneylending empire looked far more promising.

 

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1558 – 1603) small numbers of Marranos-Spanish Jews had converted to a sham form of Christianity, and settled in London. Many of them practised as goldsmith-bankers.

 

It was during the difficult reign of King Charles 1 that the Jews of Amsterdam found their man, Oliver Cromwell, who could help pave the way for them to legally return to England. Oliver Cromwell, a brutally efficient traitor, was a publicly professing Puritan. As a high Mason also, he was a member of the Grand Orient Jewish Lodge. The Puritan sect of Protestantism had largely been influenced by John Calvin whose writings endorsed usury in no uncertain terms. So it must be said, at least concerning usury, the Puritans and Jews were allies on religious terms. (By the way, Calvin had been outed historically as a crypto-Jew. He was claimed to have been of Jewish extraction, at a B,’nai Brith meeting in Paris, dutifully reported in the Catholic Gazette of February 1936. Calvin came originally from France where his name was spelt Cauin, a corruption of Cohen.)

 

Through the foreign policy misadventures of his close friend, the Duke of Buckingham, King Charles 1 was always in desperate need of money. But he could not raise any new tax without a parliamentary assent. When Parliament was in no mood to indulge the king’s request, he dissolved it – being a divine right absolutist. As it stood, when a king needed to raise a new tax, he would call the Parliament to approve it. The ‘long Parliament’ resisted Charles. He dissolved it again. This time, they defiantly refused to go home. Charles, convinced that he had the prerogative – being a firm believer in the divine right of a king – to rule without parliamentary interference, decided to pounce on Ship money. This was a tax that already existed for coastal cities: but Charles then applied it to everyone. He also imposed ‘forced loans’ upon the nobles. Generally, everyone was unhappy with Charles whom they saw as a tyrant.

 

Jewish conspirators led by professional agitator, Abraham Israel Fernandez Carvajal, began to stoke the fires of revolt. For instance, in 1640, this same Carvajal, also known as the ‘Great Jew’, organised an armed militia of about 10, 000 operatives. They were used to sow confusion, and intimidate the people of London.

 

A Sephardic Jew posing as a Marrano-Catholic, Fernandez Carvajal settled in London by 1632. He grew wealthy from the slave trade between Africa and America, and then back to the ports of Europe. With all the intrigues, and swirling conspiracies amidst the public anger at Charles’ intransigence, a civil war had ensued. The Royalists of King Charles versus the New Model Army of the Parliament were locked in mortal combat.

 

The New Model Army, made up of German mercenaries and local dissidents, was outfitted and provisioned with Jewish money flowing in from Amsterdam. This N.M.A., professional and efficient, was helmed by Oliver Cromwell.

In return for this generous assistance, Oliver Cromwell promised to rebuild the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. And also facilitate legally the readmission of Jews back to England and continue the trade for which they were known – moneylending.

 

With King Charles still on the throne, there was no hope in hell of Cromwell being in a position to bring these two promises to pass. A sinister arrangement was set afoot to bring Charles 1 to trial for treason. It was a Dutch Jew, Ebenezer Pratt, who drafted the charges for Cromwell to bring against King Charles for treason.

Charles refused to plead, but was found guilty and executed on January 30, 1649. When the procession approached the scaffold, large numbers of the crowd shouted ‘God save the King!’ The deed having been done, an enormous groan of anguish rose from the crowd.

 

As the Protector of England, Cromwell was not able to obtain approval for the large-scale immigration of Jew in a conference held at Whitehall on 18 December 1655. There was an overwhelming consensus among the delegates that the Jews should not be allowed to enter England. Despite the vigorous protests lodged by the committee of the Council of State which declared these Jews ‘would be a grave menace to the State and the Christian religion,’ on October 1656, the first Jews were secretly permitted to freely land in England.

 

Cromwell was not able to rebuild the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem for the Jews before he died on 3 September 1658. His son, Richard, who proved to be largely ineffectual, and out of his depth for the role left behind by his father, was allowed to rule for nine months.

 

Charles 11 was allowed to return from exile in Holland to take over the royal throne of England in succession to his father, the executed king, Charles 1.

It was Charles 11 who gave legal approval for Jews to be readmitted into England in 1664. He had enjoyed the support of Sephardic Jews from Amsterdam. He would be the last English monarch to issue money (bank notes) in his own right.

 

On his deathbed, Charles 11 converted to Catholicism. His successor brother, James 11, had never hidden his profession of faith as a Catholic. Having an openly Catholic king in a Protestant country proved to be a dicey, controversial situation. (By the way, Catholic religion was hostile to usury: so having Catholic kings to reign over England was inimical to Jewish moneylending empire.)

The reign of James 11 lasted three years (1685 – 1688.) He was a victim of vicious propaganda and pamphleteering which came largely from Holland.

 

A military expedition undertaken by Prince William of Orange from Holland deposed James 11. Prince William was married to the daughter of James 11.

James’ army was superior numerically. But he became discouraged from attacking after John Churchill, first Duke of Malborough (progenitor of Sir Winston Churchill – another Puppet of the Jews) deserted him without warning. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Churchill, for his treasonous conduct, afterwards received an annual stipend of £6,000 in payment from Solomon de Medina, the Dutch Jew. These huge sums of ‘blood money’ enabled Churchill to complete the construction of the massive Blenheim Palace at his death in 1722.

 

As it should be clear to discerning observers, William of Orange’s military campaign, like that of the other William the Conqueror in 1066, was financed by Jewish moneylenders. For their support in return, William 111 (1689 – 1702) surrendered the royal prerogative of issuing England’s money free of debt and interest, to a consortium known as The Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The Bank had a capital of £1,200,000. On 21 June 1694, its subscription lists were opened. Not long after, this amount was fully subscribed. The secret shareholders were Jews led by the Rothschilds.

 

The purpose of the Bank ostensibly was to lend King William unlimited sums at 8% per annum and enable the prosecution of war. Having to settle the conflict in particular against Louis X1V whose country France was not on the usury system was on the front burner. The Bank thus would receive from the Crown interest of £100,000 per annum, the additional £4,000 being administrative fee. The Bank acquired the right also to issue £1,200,000 in bank notes without gold cover.

 

Before its listing, the Bank’s byelaws had been carefully scrutinised by Creswell Levinz, Serjeant-at-Law, so as to ensure the Bank complied with its hidden purpose, viz ‘to fleece the English people in perpetuity by allowing the creation of the nation’s money and means of exchange out of nothing at interest. All this fake money was to be accompanied by compounding interest.’

Levinz was a crypto-Jew who served later as a judge. There was great opposition to the Bank’s establishment, but it never mattered.

 

The conquest of England – and by extension the world, through England’s colonial enterprise – by Jewish Supremacists as moneylenders was finally taking shape.

 

Fruits of a Nation prescribed by the Kingdom of the Creator:

 

By what fruits shall anyone know the nation that has received the Kingdom of the Creator – that was taken away from Israel? In order words, by what characteristics shall any discerning observer recognise a nation that has applied the prescriptions of the Kingdom of the Father?

 

It is very helpful to erase or obliterate from our minds any conception that Jesus Christ shed his blood to raise another competing religion other than the permanent, unalterable REFORMATION of the Jewish religion. This permanent, eternal reformation of the Jewish or Levitical religion was required for immortals to arise in every nation that could form the governments of the earth. So, in short, Christ was raised from the dead to enable immortals form the governments of the earth.

 

As, according to the scripture: When the IMMORTALS i.e. righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. (Prov. 29: 2)

 

In such a nation – Unearthly Wisdom otherwise known as the voice of good conscience should be allowed to become the sole agency that determines the judgment and decision-making of a nation or person. Then money can easily be directed to become a HARMLESS, PLIABLE tool in the service of humanity.

It is not out of place to say King Alfred the Great of England, a Christian, caught on to something when he wrote:

‘Study wisdom, then, and, when you have learned it, condemn it not, for I tell you that by its means you may without fail attain to power, yea, even though not desiring it.’

 

First step to directing money to become harmless is by insisting that contrary to widespread speculation, the worth of our genuine faith as eternal inheritors is far superior than the commodity of gold that is perishable.

 

No wonder the legendary motor manufacturer, Henry Ford, said: ‘Gold is the most useless thing in the world.’ This Christian man of unassailable faith, one of the earliest billionaires that ever walked on the face of the earth during the last century, scoffed at the classical school theories of economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo concerning the necessity of capital formation. He refused to think ‘money was all that mattered: and that capital alone informed economic and social laws.’ Concerning any viable manufacturing concern, Henry Ford insisted that: ‘Products and people came first. Money would follow of its own accord.’

Of course, to the ears of Wall Street or international bankers, this peculiar doctrine was hostile.

 

Second step to prod money to become harmless is by intentionally destroying the illusion that money is a commodity, and instead making it FIAT backed by the power and integrity of the sovereign entity issuing the money. This way, money becomes simply a means to exchange value for service or labour rendered.

 

Adolf Hitler said: ‘I next argued that the gold standard, the fixing of rates of exchange and so forth were shibboleths which I had never regarded as weighty and immutable principles of economy.

Money, to me, was simply a token of exchange for work done, and its value depended absolutely on the value of work accomplished.

Where money did not represent services rendered, I insisted, it has no value at all.’

 

Hitler did not want to fall back into the interest-slavery of Jewish international bankers. Upon ascension to power, he immediately outlawed the debt-based system i.e usury by punishment of death. He created a new fiat money backed only by productive physical and intellectual German labour.

 

Having deleted the parasitic bankers from the equation, the German economic empowerment wasted no time to take off. Without borrowing from banks at interest, the government created a new monetary system called the Labour Treasury Notes. The German government issued money was not backed by gold, but it was backed by something of real value: it was essentially receipt for labour and materials delivered to the government.

The workers were paid by Labour Treasury certificates. Germany, under Hitler, had a stable, solid currency. No debt. Inflation was non-existent. There was full employment. Crime almost non-existent. No homelessness. No beggars.

 

How did a bankrupt Germany, a Post-Weimar monetary system become Europe’s strongest economy in less than four years? This feat was achieved without any colonies to exploit. Unlike what detractors liked the world to believe, this economic marvel was achieved before extensive military spending began.

 

Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist government created money in a studied and responsible way to grow their economy. Why is this fact ignored and neglected in economic textbooks?

 

When Adolf Hitler gained power, the German economy was in dire straits. The Treaty of Versailles had forced the Germans to make reparation payments that amounted approximately to three times the value of all German property. The 1929 global recession and the collapse in the German Mark by 1923 had savaged the German economy – destroying the national currency and private sector savings.

 

With little scope for both foreign lending and foreign investment, Hitler kick-started an economic recovery by using the government’s newly created fiat money to fund a large-scale infrastructure plan, which included building new extensive roads and highways, bridges, canals and harbours. To pay for this programme, the government issued Treasury Certificates. No new external debt obligations was undertaken to achieve this economic liberation.

 

Like Henry Ford, Hitler set out to prove that labour was not subservient to money. Raised a Catholic, Hitler saw his economic policy as a ‘Christian fight’ to liberate the German people from debt-slavery and economic servitude. Destroying the backbone of usury was an unavoidable step he had to take.

Hitler frequently affirmed publicly his Christian faith. In 1928, he stated the Nazis ‘tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity…In fact our movement is Christian.’

But the outstanding success of his monetary system was a major threat to the Jewish moneylending empire worldwide. As we all know, the victor gets to write history. That Adolf Hitler was smeared, demonised and painted as an ogre of gargantuan proportions should not come as a surprise to discerning observers of history.

 

Third step to making money harmless is by issuing it into circulation free of the encumbrances of DEBT and USURY.

 

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. (Matt.6:12)

 

To prosecute his long and expensive war with France as the enemy, a national debt was accumulated to provide the government of King William 111 with spending power beyond the scope of taxation. From 1689, with only one truce of five years, this war lasted for the next twenty five years.

 

During the war, royal ministers, sitting in the Common, created new innovative taxes which were paid without unrest because seeing the taxes originated from the Parliament, they were thought of by the public as being legitimate, if burdensome. At the end of the war, England had emerged as Europe’s leading power, the Monarchy had become a constitutional one, dependent on a powerful Parliament for its funding.

 

The increased parliamentary control of revenue through the establishment of the Commission of Public Accounts went in no small measure to ensure the enduring success of the Bank of England. For bondholders were confident that the risk of default was low. As their loans to the Government would be repaid through parliamentary taxation.

In all this, the illusion of a workable democracy was strengthened. But the real winners whose wealth kept getting fatter were the Jewish private owners of the Bank of England. Still this is the unspoken part. Why destroy the illusion? As famed Victorian banker, economist and writer, Walter Bagehot, wrote: ‘We must not let in daylight upon magic.’

Indeed. An economy running on the fumes of debts and usury comes with strings.

 

One basic characteristic or fruit of such a nation representing the Kingdom of the Creator is that its ruler has constitutionally reduced himself to become the passionate servant of the people. A people whom he individually acknowledges to having sovereignty, autonomy and self-determination as kings and priests under one Creator. Treating the citizens with undoubted respect instead of scorn and malignment, the ruler of such a nation cannot afford to be despotic, oppressive or self aggrandising. A ruler who attains transcendental legitimacy and authority has made himself from his heart the diligent servant of the people.

 

Another characteristic to look out for is that a fearless, uncompromised and impartial administration of justice is sacrosanct. In this wise, no law can be made that violates the natural order of creation. In that sense, anybody who has a proclivity towards violating the natural order of creation in his speech and behaviour is inherently banished from the status of enjoying individual sovereignty, autonomy and self-determination: that status is reserved for those who pursue immortality and holiness.

 

Another characteristic is that uncertain procedures for making money to be a harmless, pliable tool in the service of nation-building are enshrined in the Constitution. In this wise, the taking of foreign loans in the name of infrastructural development etc is banished and outlawed. Bankers are encouraged to look for other templates in providing efficient, profitable services for their customers without resorting to usury. No matter the enticing arguments put forward to advance its usage, it has been proven that usury is LAZY and HARMFUL to the development of human capacity.

 

Another characteristic or fruit to watch out for by discerning observers is that the government wages a tactical and unrelenting war against ignorance by giving FREE EDUCATION for every qualified student from primary to university level. This way, knowledgeable and skilled workers are supplied to work the industries. This is a corollary to a constitutional requirement necessitating the government to provide full, maximum employment for its citizens, hence discouraging laziness as well.

The lie by government apologists that this cannot be done is a lazy, unsustainable excuse..A reasonable government would find a way to execute this.

 

(To put together this writeup, I’m greatly indebted to this video documentary, titled: A History of Central Banks and the Enslavement of Mankind by Stephen Mitford Goodson. From which I took copious notes to aid my further research.)