This is a continuation of the "Dry river bed" prophetic word posted earlier.

Then I am at this party, and it seems it is like at my [relative]'s house (though it is a different house). Many people are there. I smell the grill going and stuff, and I ask my [relative] if he has buns for the hamburgers and hotdogs. He said he did not, but it was alright; they had light bread. Then I began to panic. I thought, "Was I supposed to have purchased the buns and some other things? Did I forget?" I was searching my mind for information on what I was supposed to have done. Then I thought maybe I was a tight-wad or something and didn't purchase them. My purse is in the shanty. I began to search for this information that I am missing. I need to know if I am at fault or something. I keep searching myself to know what I had done. I am in a panic still. I am screaming in my mind, "THINK! THINK!" I couldn't figure it out. I gave up on wondering about it.

At this party is a fellow. Printed on his (black and white) T-shirt was, "Really Am God". I look again and it says, "Really am Dog". Then the word "God" and "Dog" switches around. (I am thinking God was calling him a dog even though the guy is saying he is "God").

The dream changes, and I am at a friend's house. She had invited me to swim in her pool. Her name is [Gorkya]. I stand in the pool, but I cannot see my feet. The water is a deep blue, but it is not clear water. I am thinking there is something wrong. She is on a raft in the middle of the pool, so I swim around and around the (round) pool. It is really deep, but I can't [see] under the water.

She gets out of the pool and into the house. I swim around to the backside (away from the house), and a portion of the wall falls down. The [water] gushes out, but the pool level is still nearly the same. I go out with the water. I see it fills up the whole bottom for a very long way, and I am so excited! I am exclaiming inside, "It is supposed to do that!" This mountain was at a distance, and the sun was beaming brightly on the side of it, and I am so excited about all of it. The water had changed color to a prettier blue as it left about 5 feet in front of me; it looked more like the pure pool water. I am like a cheerleader when I see all this.

(Now a few of my friends say that [Gorkya] and her husband [Volcask] are better than righteous people. They know everything, and have it together more so than others. I see this too, but I don't know what to say except I love them.)

Anyway, she is at the window and begins to fuss when she sees the wall had fallen. She says, ''Now I have to pay for the water to fill up the pool again [the pool is half-full still]. This is going to cost me money! (Blah-blah)".

Then I am in a car behind the guy with the black-and-white T-shirt. He is in a Hummer. He is very clean, like before. His hair is crew-cut, and he is cocky. I am thinking he may have been in the military, or something.

He pulls up in front of [Gorkya]'s house. I get out, and I follow him into her house. [Gorkya] and [Volcask] are sitting in the corner to the far left (my left facing them). Their house is full of people sitting in chairs. The guy goes straight across the room to this really large poster that was hanging and divided in sections like spokes on a wheel (it was a large circle). There was a wedge to the far left of the circle that said in black and white, "Really am God", and it would change to "Really am dog". I kept squinting to see which was correct, but it would change to the other.

This fellow says, "So there will be no question about this [he places his finger on the wedge of "Really am God"] from anyone -- that is who I am!" I was embarrassed by this stupid fellow's announcement. I looked at [Gorkya] and she hid her face behind her hair. She was terribly embarrassed by this fellow.

The guy has either a black T-shirt with white print or vice versa.

{Fellow believer, even though we have used university tuitions as an example, it must be said that the exorbitantly high cost of university education in America has a sinister cause that is related to the things that we share later on in this posting. The unrighteous roots that trigger these high tuition fees must be dealt with before America can develop into a wise, more productive, non-indebted society. Let him who has eyes discern what those sinister roots are and how they can be plucked out from America's educational system.}

The Lord commands us not to "give the holy unto the dogs" (Matthew 7:6), which, as we have studied before, speaks of making prophetic sacrifices for judgement-hating Canaanites. "Noble and praiseworthy" as our prophetic sacrifice may be, handing out prophetic grace to spiritual dogs (who will misuse it, soil it, and then turn it against us) will not garner any praise from God. Instead, it will gain us judgement from God for misusing our limited time and resources on individuals that are not worthy of it. "Grace" may be a voluntary, left-handed act of "kindness" and "mercy", but it still must be given out under right-handed conditions.

To summarise, these are the 3 truths that "spiritual leftists" ignore:

1. They believe that any available grace "magically" appeared somehow, without realising that it had to be produced by someone following right-handed laws and principles. You cannot make something out of nothing.

    

2. They do not understand that those producing "grace" for others must do so willingly. No one can be forced to freely produce things for others.

    

3. They fail to comprehend that, even when someone has produced the grace, and done so willingly, he or she must follow certain (right-handed) parameters in order to decide who that grace can be given to.

Lyin' mirage pie

Now that we have shared the 3 truths above, we can proceed to explain the "pie paradigm" that "spiritual leftists" operate under:

1. Because they ignore truth #1 and believe that grace "magically" appeared somehow, with no awareness of the right-handed process that produced it, they tend to see the world's goods as "simply out there for the taking". Since the right-handed production process falls outside of their consciousness, they tend to see the world's goods as a fixed and limited set of items, and, if any new goods do appear anywhere, they see them as items that suddenly appeared on the Earth, like manna that miraculously descended from heaven in the dark of night; as such, these new goods are "owned" by no one because they are not the product of anyone's effort. This is why spiritual leftists' notion of "rightful private ownership" is so weak.

    

2. Because they ignore truth #2, they believe that whoever is in possession of the limited set of the world's goods can be forced to share them. They see "sharing" as a sign of "goodness" and "grace". Therefore, the more people "share", the more "grace" and "happiness" there is in the world. It does not matter to them whether or not those doing the "sharing" are doing so of their own volition. To "spiritual leftists", those in possession of the goods have them by virtue of left-handed randomness; they just happened to be closest to the location where the manna suddenly appeared, and that is why they were able to gather more of it than others. Since they received it for free by an act of left-handed "grace", they can be compelled to share their toys with the other lads in the playground. "Freely ye have received; freely give" becomes their mantra as their subconscious foolishly misapplies Matthew 10:8, turning it into "Freely ye have received; freely shall we take it from you". The pie is of a fixed and limited size, and someone must find a way to even out the "luck disparities" and make sure that everyone gets an equal slice. If this means forcibly taking some of the pie away from those who stumbled upon a larger slice, you are actually doing them a wonderful good, for, by forcing them to give, you are evoking "goodness" and "grace" out of them and making them "better" persons. In other words, their mantra degrades into the sinister expression

   "Freely ye have received; freely shall we take it from you, and it shall be as if you had been the one who freely gave it because we can force grace to appear out of nowhere."

    

3. Because they ignore truth #3, they believe that the pie must be indiscriminately divided amongst all, without the need to apply any right-handed judgements. To "spiritual leftists", "grace is grace", and, if you start to apply any discriminating judgements to distribute it, you actually "cheapen" and "defile" the grace that you are distributing. Grace must remain purely left-handed, and, if you start introducing right-handed parameters to determine who the grace should be made available to, you are turning "grace" into "law", and you are turning something "noble" and "pure" into something "selfish" and "dirty". If you repeatedly pick a number between 1 and 10 at random, all ten numbers will ultimately be picked an equal number of times. Therefore, since randomness is left-handed and grace must operate by purely left-handed parameters, "spiritual leftists" believe that we must endeavour to accelerate the ultimate outcome of (left-handed) randomness: the equal distribution of grace amongst all.

As you may perceive from the above, the world of the "spiritual leftist" becomes a very sad, sad world. To him, the universe is one pathetic, static pie that must be sliced up and distributed amongst all. Since the pie is static, and any occasional growth is the result of happenstance beyond anyone's control, the "spiritual leftist" sees life as a "zero-sum game". If someone has a larger slice, it must have been at the expense of those who got a smaller slice. It is impossible for the "spiritual leftist" to see everyone getting a larger slice, since he is incapable of accepting the right-handed process of laws and judgements that produce all the things that he is so bent on distributing. This right-handed process implies pain; it implies accepting that an effort must be sown in order to reap new goods on Earth and that those who sow sterile seeds (or who sow no seed) shall reap no harvest. It implies accepting that things are not simply handed down from above by a "benevolent" higher entity that does not make judgements as to who deserves more or who deserves less, but simply distributes according to parameters based on fuzzy, left-handed emotions and not on cold, right-handed facts. This higher entity becomes empowered to demand "grace" from those with the larger slices, and, as it is, there is a collective surrender of personal dignity for the sake of a limited kingdom that is quickly divided up and consumed. The "spiritual leftist" surrenders to the "Korah temptation", which, as we have studied before, involves man surrendering control of the air to satan for the sake of kingdoms and goods on Earth below. As the follower of Korah accepts this offer, however, he becomes mired in a mirage, a pitiful delusion, for the right-handed "engine" that produces all the goods is slowly dismantled, and the so-coveted pie is eventually eaten up by Hivites consumed by a spirit of "entitlement".

The "spiritual leftist" believes in magic; the "spiritual leftist" believes that things happen "just because". The true son of God believes in process; the true son of God understands that there is a clear "causation" chain behind everything that happens and that, even in the spirit realm, spiritual laws must be followed and a process completed in order for things to happen and be manifested. The true son of God understands that the Reed Sea did not simply part open because Moses lifted up a piece of wood as he stretched himself awake. The true son of God understands that the Reed Sea would have never parted if it had not been for a long and conflictive 10-plague process, which was itself preceded by a dramatic encounter during which God threatened to kill Moses, which was in turn preceded by a harsh 40-year period during which God moulded the heart of Moses in the wilderness. The "Reed Sea" did not part open "just because". Even though it may have seemed like a "magical" moment to the ignorant mind, it was a consequence in the natural of a process many, many years in the making in the spiritual realm. When The Lovin' Spoonful ask, "Do you believe in magic?", the spiritual leftist replies, "Yes, hell yes", and the true son of God replies, "No, heavens, no", for "magic" is but an optical illusion; it is the simplistic explanation offered by the lazy matriarchal soul to avoid recognising the need to understand the deep wisdom of God. Like a 16th-century farmer watching images on a 21st-century television set, the matriarchal soul is quick to say, "Those images are magic", without realising the long and tortuous technological wisdom (developed over the course of many, many years) that made those images possible. The "it's-magic" explanation absolves you from the responsibility of seeking after and operating in the deep wisdom of God.

The limited-job-market fallacy

It is sadly ironic that the "magical" explanation insinuated by the libertine leftists actually turns the world into a limited little pie whose slices must be fought over like a carcass during a hyenas feeding frenzy. It is sadder, still, that most in America who claim to be immune to the "pie mirage" are not as immune as they think they are. Consider, for example, the "red-blooded" and "patriotic" conservative Americans who oppose illegal immigration in large measure because it "takes jobs away from Americans". Such an argument makes sense only if we see the job market as a fixed and limited pie whose "slices" (i.e. job positions) must be fiercely contested because the hiring of one man somewhere implies that another man will not be hired anywhere. Based on this logic, the American economy should dread every graduation day at every university across America because it represents the influx of fresh, new workers that will somehow take jobs away from currently employed Americans. Most "red-blooded" conservative Americans might then say, "But I am OK with that, because those are Americans taking jobs away from other Americans". However, such a dunderhead answer, patriotic and emotionally-soothing as it may be, does not explain why the yearly influx of new university graduates does not lead to massive layoffs and increased unemployment year after year, given that such an influx increases the number of candidates competing for the "same number of jobs". Some dunderhead conservative might reply, "Well, them young folks are replacing the older folks who have retired or gone to be with the Lord", but that answer would only make sense if the number of young people born into new generations is the same or fewer than the number of people born into previous generations, which, as you know, is generally not the case. Hence, the same dunderhead conservatives who espouse the limited-job-market argument against immigration would have to agree that abortion is a good thing for the economy. Why? Because it definitely helps to reduce the number of young people entering the job market in future years, which then means that fewer Americans will be laid off, thus reducing unemployment!! When an economic argument inadvertently turns abortion into a "good thing", you must be willing to admit that there is something "amiss" with the logic behind the argument.

From the above, we can glean that, even when espoused by "right-wingers" when condemning illegal immigration, the limited-job-market argument hides very deceitful left-wing "pie" principles. The fundamental flaw behind the limited-job-market argument is that it ignores truth #1 listed above. In other words, it ignores the fact that goods and services are produced by the injection of work and the application of talents by individuals. An employee is not a "child" being supported by "mummy corporation" as long as he pretends to be doing something with his time. On the contrary, an employee is like a productive agent that is "inserted" into a "company structure" that coordinates and optimises the talents of each of its employees in order to produce a new good or service that is of benefit to society. The company, therefore, acts as the integrating agent of the many "sub-products" produced by each of its employees. When capitalism is allowed to operate with relative freedom (and is monitored by certain basic parameters), the wage system ensures that each employee will be recompensed according to the value that he or she has added to the company's production process. In other words, wages are made possible by the actual good or service being produced by the employee, in the same way that a restaurant makes income possible by producing food that people want to consume; just as the restaurant sells food, an employee is, in essence, a "seller" to society of his or her services. In a general sense, therefore, we can safely say that, the more people are added to a society, the more "production agents" it will have, which will lead to the availability of a greater number of goods and services for both the new production agents and the people originally there.

If a person is truly productive, his or her injection into the economic system can only bring benefits, and eager investors who recognise these benefits will be quick to create (or expand) company structures that will  organise all these newly-injected production agents in order to take advantage of the benefits they produce. Why? Because these production agents will produce more than what they consume, and society will inevitably benefit from their presence. Paying a "wage" to a productive agent is not a burden to society if that person is actually producing new goods and services that outweigh the wage invested in him or her. Yes, there is always a period of adjustment as new production elements are introduced into a system, but an economic system not restricted by artificial, left-handed parameters will eventually adjust and thrive as a result of the new production. The increased supply of goods and services generated by the new production agents will lower the monetary price of these goods and services, which will be a reflection of the fact that society is now spending fewer resources to produce those goods and services and is now able to allocate the "excess" resources in other endeavours, which means that employment opportunities will be generated in other areas. Let him who has spiritual eyes discern how a healthy increase in supply leads to lower prices, which, in turn, leads to more employment. In other words, the injection of production agents in one segment of the economy will lead to the need for production agents in other segments, at least in an economy unfettered by artificial, left-handed paradigms.

It is also worth considering that many of the injected production agents will be able to start companies of their own without having to depend on others providing them "employment". Why? Because they have something to offer society, and, unless society is too foolish to recognise their talents, they will be able to show society that they produce more than what they take in, which will allow their companies to thrive, and, as those companies thrive, they will create employment opportunities for others, and production will multiply even more, making that society wealthier because, the more real goods and services are produced, the wealthier a society becomes.

Generically speaking, the only case where the introduction of new production agents will lead to scarcity is if the new agents are so inefficient that they do not produce more than what they are taking from society. However, if the economic system is not perverted by artificial regulations, these inefficient new agents will be filtered out and rejected by the society they entered. Why? Because the society will have no incentive to "hire" them (i.e.- to insert them into its collective production process), since it will be able to find more productive agents from its original population. In short, what the LJM (limited-job-market) believers fail to understand is that, the more people there are, the more productive agents there will be, and the more can be produced for the benefit all.

{Fellow believer, it is important to note that the above paragraphs are by no means a justification of illegal immigration but rather an illustration of the false limited-pie-job-market argument that is used even by those who claim not to believe in the pie paradigm. Illegal immigration into America, especially the one carried out by Hispanics from Latin America over the last 5 decades, has brought with it destructive spiritual elements that override any potential economic benefit it may generate in the short-term, given that it is a type of immigration that is not fostered by a love for America or its culture or its Japhethite value system. When the spiritual and moral elements of a society are eroded through a certain type of economic activity, the overall prosperity, both economic and spiritual, of that society is bound to decline, regardless of the short-term benefits that activity may produce. Why? Because that economic activity adds a negative spiritual value into the society that will eventually be manifested in lost productivity in multiple areas of that society.}

The anti-automation fallacy

Another aspect that the limited-job-market believers fail to comprehend is that the average wealth in a society is increased when that society finds ways to become more productive, i.e.- when it finds way to produce more output with less input. This is why the comments recently made by a certain idiot (named "barack hussein obama") regarding "ATMs" (or "cash machines") are so stupid and laughable. As you may be aware, the (cursed-by-God) jackass-in-chief said in a nationally televised interview in June 2011 that the current unemployment in America is caused, not by his policies, but by "structural" problems within American society such as the use of "ATMs", which lead to bank tellers becoming unemployed. What smug, high-IQ (i.e.- high Idiocy Quotient) intellectuals such as b.o. fail to understand is that, when cash machines came on the scene, they allowed society, as a whole, to perform certain financial operations more efficiently, without consuming as many resources, both in terms of time and money. Because of cash machines, people could now withdraw cash from their bank accounts at more convenient hours and without waiting in long queues, which freed up their time for other productive and leisurely activities. Obviously, as cash machines were introduced, some human tellers started losing their jobs because the banking services that they were offering society could be performed more cheaply by the cash machine. However, as these unemployed tellers were freed up from their menial banking chores, they could now employ their time and energy producing other goods and services that society desired. The money once used by society to pay these tellers was now available for new "production" enterprises, meaning that a new investor could now appear, round up all the unemployed tellers (along with people unemployed from other enterprises), and form a new company producing new goods for society, all without society having to invest any extra effort or energy. Surely, the introduction of the cash machines would create a temporary "unemployment jolt" to the banking structure, but, when capitalism is allowed to operate in a healthy way, society is able to adjust to the newly freed-up resources in order to channel them into more profitable enterprises. This adjustment period is equivalent to what companies sometimes go through when they replace old, manual methodologies with new and more efficient software systems. Undoubtedly, the introduction of the new software system will cause growing pains (and many "old-crab" complaints) within the company, especially in those who "just can't let go of the past". But, once the adjustment is made, the company becomes a "leaner, meaner production machine", allowing it to churn out the same goods and services at a cheaper rate, which ends up benefitting all. Left-handed people who focus on grace and blessings are inherently resistant to any type of transitional pain that is brought on by right-handed wisdom and judgements. As you grow in wisdom, what was once judged to be "good enough" can no longer be called "good enough", and you must transition towards the higher level the new wisdom is making available to you. The transition requires painful adjustments, but the pain of those short-term adjustments pales in comparison with the long-term blessings reaped from them.

As society is able to produce more and more goods and services with fewer and fewer resources, it becomes wealthier, and, if society is not hindered by political and moral corruption, the wealth being produced will be naturally spread out across all the productive agents of society. A person who is truly productive cannot be hurt when the society around him or her becomes more productive. On the contrary, that person will be able to contribute to society by tapping into the new wealth that is being created around him or her. The reason why most European and many Asian nations have been able to prosper and thrive economically is because they were able to find ways to increase their efficiency. As they were able to devise new technologies and methodologies, they were able to produce more and more wealth, and, as a result, all the members of their societies were able to benefit from the new wealth around them. As you may have noticed, the arguments to disprove the anti-automation fallacy are not too different from the ones to disprove the limited-job-market fallacy discussed in the previous section. The basic difference between the two fallacies is that one fears new technology, whilst the other fallacy fears new people, but both share in their fear of new production agents, and both share in their ignorance of the new wealth these agents create.

Intellectually challenged fools such as barack hussein obama might want to argue that, as new wealth is created, that wealth becomes concentrated in the society's oligarchs, without ever "trickling down" to the "masses" (cursed are the bastards who refer to precious human beings as the "masses"). The problem with this idiotic statement is that it only makes sense if you see the world from the perspective of "Middle Age" Europe. In such a world, the only "corporations" one could "work" for were inefficient little farms known as "manors" that operated under a feudalistic paradigm. Due to the spiritual blindness that enveloped humanity at that point in time, societies were unable to visualise any truly productive activity other than the harvesting of food and the manual knitting of clothes. Those who were somehow able to break away from the tedium of manual, agricultural labour would spend their lives as artisans, but, because of the few technological tools available, the production of each "artwork" would involve a massive investment of time and effort, all of which made for very expensive items that were limited to a very small market and which provided very little "profit margin" for the artisans. To produce one of these "artworks", society had to support an artisan for an entire month, for example, which reduced both the number of items that the artisan could provide for society and the number of people who could enjoy the item. All of this was compounded by the spiritual shackles that feudalism and serfdom placed on the minds of people. Once and again, people were preached, both through deeds and through words, that humanity was divided into two basic castes, the "noblemen" and the "peasants"; peasants were "inherently inferior" to their "noble" masters, meaning that, if you were born a "peasant", you would be a presumptuous fool if you ever expected to break from the "plantation" and make something of yourself in the outside world. Those who would dare to buck this trend would quickly face the wrath of an oligarchical system where a privileged few had exclusive access to those who held political power and who could therefore block the rise of anyone "less worthy". Under such a shackling paradigm, people had little incentive to be creative and to find innovative ways to increase their productivity. There was no reason to seek higher wisdom because you were "doomed to fail" from the get-go. Any impulse to prosper was quickly aborted by a Perizzite spirit that was quick to declare that there was an entity out there (a false version of "God") that decided a priori who would be given grace and who would not be. Again, the focus was on the idea that wealth was a "grace" handed to people through left-handed, arbitrary parameters, as opposed to something that could be produced through right-handed processes and principles.

Even as Europe remained in the grips of this stifling feudalism and cronyism, there was a small bastion in which the concepts of human equality and basic fairness began to grow and flourish; that bastion's name was Britannia. Because of the apostolic right-handedness of its people, Britannia began to develop systems of "equality under the law" that emphasised the value of the individual and de-emphasised the importance of social castes. It is within this atmosphere that absolutist, monarchical rule became increasingly "despicable" and a more democratic parliamentary system began to flourish. It is also within this atmosphere that men such as Newton felt emboldened to discover universal laws that governed the physical world, and it is within this atmosphere that men such as James Watt, Samuel Crompton, James Hargreaves, Richard Arkwright, and Henry Cort felt motivated to devise ingenious technologies to "produce more with less". As wisdom deepened and flourished in Britannia, agricultural methods became more efficient, which allowed the British to supply all the food that they needed without requiring every British family to invest time and effort in farming. They could also "offload" food production to more agriculturally fertile countries by offering their new products in exchange for food. As a result, people once trapped in a perennial life of menial farming could now coalesce around the burgeoning technologies and work in the mass production of new goods and services. As all of this happened, those who belonged to the "wealthier classes" began investing more and more of their wealth in the new production methodologies, and the wealth that was once stagnant and used for banal purposes was now being put to work to form new companies. As innovators began to produce goods on a massive scale, people who were once on the fringe of wealth were also able to become very wealthy without needing to be born into a "noble" family, all of which led to the massive breakdown of the subtle class system that had gripped society for so long.

As can be seen from the above, the idiotic comment by barack hussein obama claiming that cash machines exacerbate unemployment is based on the assumption that society is organised under an agrarian model where food production remains inefficient and where wealth remains stagnant within the "upper classes" because there are no significant technologies outside of farming that can motivate investment and spur the efficient creation of new goods and services. Hence, the "yes-we-can" chanter must assume a backward society with little social mobility, a society where the majority are stigmatised into thinking that they are inherently inferior to an elite minority and that they have no hope of ever making something of themselves. Evidently, the "yes we can" slogan was nothing but a political ploy, for his view of America would prompt anyone to shout, "No, we haven't; no, we can't; and, hell, no, we never will unless it is handed to us". In truth, when the bastard came up with the slogan, "Yes, we can", he was actually thinking about himself; as he heard the crowds chant "yes we can", what he heard on the inside was, "Yes, we can get duped by you, become your little serfs, and crown you the lord of our manor ... yes, we can", and, to America's shame, "Yes, you did".

Mrs. G's hoover

If the limited-pie paradigm is false, and if a relatively free society should be able to pool resources to form new corporations and absorb the unemployed, the question then becomes, "Why are there periods of prolonged unemployment such as the one being experienced by America at present?" To understand the answer to that question, we must first mentally remove a component of economic activity that tends to cloud both the source of the problem and the nature of the solution; that component is money. As you know, money was created as a "quantifiable" way of measuring the "value" of items. It is important to emphasise, however, that the reason behind quantifying an item's value is not for the sake of knowing the value per se; instead, it is for the purpose of easing the exchange of that item for other items. In short, money was created for the purpose of exchanging items. Hence, when money is exchanged during a transaction, what is actually happening is the exchange of goods and services that have nothing to do with money per se. If you are a software developer making £16 an hour, for example, and you pay £4 for a Big Mac meal, society, in a sense, is deciding to gather the necessary ingredients and prepare a lunch for you in exchange for one fourth of an hour (i.e.- 15 minutes) of your software development. In other words, society believes that the benefits it derives (in terms of organisational efficiency, entertainment, informational value, etc.) from 15 minutes of your software development merits you being fed for one afternoon. The person at the cash register who received your £4 may not have been aware of this, and neither may the people in the kitchen who prepared your hamburger, but that is only because money allows for the "objective depersonalisation" of the exchange taking place.

Once you begin to see economic activity in terms of the goods and services being exchanged (without the money that acts as a mere intermediary), the presence or absence of economic activity becomes clearer. Once food and basic clothing becomes abundant enough that only a very small segment of the population needs to focus on it, the great majority of society can spend its energy and time producing and exchanging a wide variety of goods and services (including "trivial" goods such as music and sport). Therefore, if we assume that most people in a society are hard-working and productive, the only significant reason (in "natural" terms) that could lead to economic paralysis is if society has collectively invested a great deal of its resources in useless goods and services. There are two basic reasons why this could happen. One would be if the members of that society have collectively bought into certain practices and traditions that are inherently destructive. Just to illustrate this, consider a silly society where people have the tradition of burning their homes every two years in order to "drive away evil spirits". In such a society, people would be forced to invest a great deal of their resources building unnecessary houses that add very little value to the society compared to their cost. All the energy and resources used by that society to support all the people dedicated to construction could have been used to build cars and televisions, as well as more "intangible" items such as music and films. Many people with the talent to make music, for example, would not find anyone to "sponsor" them whilst they made their music because everyone would be too busy working to pay off all the unnecessary home builders. Silly as this example may seem, many societies, including American society, have for years engaged in practices that, upon closer examination, are almost as ludicrous as this example. Once you remove the external layers from the recent housing crisis in America, you will see that this silly example is not as "unrealistic" as it seems.

The above hinges on a great number of people individually engaging in unproductive investments, all of which add up to a massive resource drain. Therefore, a second (closely-related) reason why such a massive and unnecessary resource drain could happen is if a great number of people surrendered a significant amount of resources to an entity which then proceeded to waste the pooled resources in massively unwise "investments". Just to illustrate this point, consider all the naive people in America who were so easily duped by Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. These people were convinced into thinking that Bernie Madoff could somehow produce supernatural returns that no reasonable person should have ever expected to be possible (but this is what happens when you forget truth #1 above and expect "something to come out of nothing", with no need for a painful, right-handed process). Even though each individual investor was not technically pouring his money into bad investments, Bernie Madoff was, since he was using that money to support his lavish lifestyle and to pay out unrealistic returns that kept the fantasy alive. In Madoff's case, only a relatively small group of wealthy investors were defrauded. The question therefore becomes, "What type of entity would be able to pool a large amount of society's resources and dump them in the sewer of "unwise investments"?" As you can imagine, it does not take a doctorate in economics to determine the type of entity that most commonly answers this question: GOVERNMENT.

With very few exceptions, only government has the ability to pool together and waste an amount of resources significant enough to produce a massive unemployment shock on the economy, and only government has the ability to "coax" a massive number of people to channel their resources towards unwise investments, something that it generally does through artificial legislation that ignores right-handed reality and pretends as if wealth can simply be decreed into existence by a liberal and benevolent Mother Government. This type of left-handed "coaxing" had a great deal to do (in the natural realm) with the collapse of the American economy in 2008. Unbeknownst to the many tunnel-vision idiots in America who blame the ongoing recession on George W. Bush, the collapse of 2008 was actually triggered by the home-lending practices of hell-bound Democrats such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who manufactured legislation and regulations that pressured banks into issuing home loans to people who were not fit to receive them, all in the name of "affordable housing for the poor". The legislation promoted by these sons of satan (eternally cursed are they) was but the culmination of a legislative process started by Democrat president Bill Clinton and exacerbated by worthless, hell-bound opportunists such as the bastard James Johnson (cursed is he) at Fannie Mae.

As we have shared before, George W. Bush made efforts to stem the home-lending tide that led to the eventual collapse of 2008, but the Ammonite liar and moral pervert Barney Frank only used the opportunity to accuse Bush of preventing the poor the "right" to acquire the homes that they "deserve". Bush's fault lay in not persisting in the fight to expose what the Democrats were surreptitiously doing to the economy. Due to his pseudo-Christian belief in remaining "civil" and "staying above the fray of petty political squabbles", Bush lacked the leadership required to make the American people aware of the problem and to rally them against the Democrats' destructive agenda. Instead of "naming names" and exposing these rats' actions to an American public that is generally not aware of the convoluted legislative process, Bush preferred to "act like a gentleman" and not call them out, something that sounds "nice and noble" on the surface but which quickly loses its "praiseworthiness" when it comes at the expense of your country's economy going to Sheol. Without realising it, Gedaliah Bush allowed "political courtesy" to trump the well-being of the American people, and, in recompense for his left-handed generosity, the very Democrats he had been courteous to ended up savaging him à la Ishmael, like dogs tearing at the holy sacrifices thrown at them. In the process, the American economy also ended up going to the Canaanite dogs.

{Fellow believer, if you are not acquainted with some of the details mentioned above regarding the home-lending crisis in America, we recommend that you read the book entitled "Reckless Endangerment" by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner. Many of the facts detailed in that book, publically available as they are, remain unknown to the large majority of Americans, and the Republican Party have proved themselves utterly inept at explaining these facts to the American people. Outside of a few "voices in the wilderness", Republicans and "conservatives" act and speak as if America's current crisis was the result of "happenstance" or the typical "ups and downs" of the market; this casual understanding of what happened reveals the spiritually-stifling effects of "conservatism", a mindset that is bent on preserving the status quo and is inherently suspicious of radical changes in the current thinking or circumstances; this renders "conservatives" incapable of forging any type of significant changes, even changes that benefit them.}

When government causes the waste of money (either through inefficient projects or through artificial legislation), it is actually consuming society's time and resources. At present, around 27% of the U.S.'s GDP goes into paying taxes, according to wikipedia.org. This percentage, however, is deceitful, because it does not consider the money that the government is spending outside of what it collects (money obtained by borrowing). Even when the taxpayer is currently not paying this extra amount, it is still money being allocated to government activities, and it is money that the taxpayer must somehow come up with and pay up in future. Considering that b.o. and his congress of fellow baboons have singlehandedly pushed budget deficits to a staggering rate of US$1.7 trillion per year (as shown on wikipedia.org), the percentage of GDP being spent by government rises 11 percentage points, from 27% to around 38% of GDP. If you add the unfunded obligations in the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programmes, the percentage becomes even more staggering. As indicated on usatoday.com, in 2010 alone, the U.S. government added US$5.3 trillion of new financial obligations in these programmes; this is money that government has promised to pay out in future but which is not in its coffers. Money coming into these programmes is being spent in things other than the programmes themselves, meaning that the programmes are being left unfunded in the future; this would be equivalent to money being set aside for a "college fund" that is actually being used for other things (unlike a "college fund", however, the government's "trust funds" amount to legal obligations that the government must find a way to pay somehow; if the college fund is wasted away, the young lad is simply deprived of the privilege of attending university, but he has no debt hanging over his head).

Adding the $5.3 trillion in yearly unfunded obligations to the total, it turns out that the U.S. is actually allocating around 76% of its annual GDP to both current government spending and future government obligations. If we take away the "money" component and see this number not as a "dollar amount" but as "goods and services", it becomes evident that Americans are investing 9 months out of every year and 3 quarters of all their natural resources into the "goods and services" that government produces. Since government does not produce any computers, hamburgers, clothing, or films that the taxpayer can consume and enjoy, the investment of 3 quarters of the population's time and resources into government activities becomes a disproportionate amount. If we consider that government's basic role is to provide security and create an organisational structure so that society will not descend into chaos, we can say that America's economic scenario is equivalent to a store that must spend 75% of its gross revenue in security guards and accountants, leaving just 25% to invest in the activities that the store was intended for.

Just to give you an idea of the waste machine that the American government has become, consider the fact that the U.S. government has promised an average of over $700,000 in pension and health benefits per retired civil servant (according to usatoday.com). Considering that the average American household earns around $50,000 per year, the $700,000 figure means that the American society is investing (or shall we say, "flushing") 14-years worth of the goods and services that would be produced by an average household to support the leisurely activities and the healthcare of ONE retired civil servant. Since a retired civil servant has, by definition, "retired" from producing new goods and services, you can only imagine how fruitful the return is on this massive investment on a single retiree. If you add the fact that most of these civil servants did not produce much for society when they were "working" in the public sector to begin with, the investment of such a massive amount of goods and services to reward them in their even-less-productive retirement years becomes all the more painful. Fellow believer, we pray that you will have noticed from all of the above how the truth behind economic activity is revealed as you begin to remove the "money veneer". When you begin to see economic activity in terms of real goods and services being exchanged, the lunacy of many economic decisions becomes evident.

From all of the above, we can safely say that government is the entity most capable of derailing resources towards unproductive activities, leading to periods of chronic unemployment. After providing a basic structure of order and stability, government can do little but provoke unemployment and stagnation because it "homogenises" massive amounts of resources (from millions of people), resources that can then be wasted all at once on massively unproductive ventures. When these resources are allowed to remain in the hands of multiple private individuals, all of whom have different talents and ideas, the diversity and richness of the goods and services produced multiplies automatically, and the unproductiveness of one failed venture is cancelled out by the productiveness of other successful ventures. When the resources are spread out amongst multiple investors, society can adjust more dynamically to the methods that work, leaving behind the ones that do not. Also, since these investors are generally investing their personal success or failure on their ventures, the likelihood of them squandering the investment on fruitless endeavours is reduced; this contrasts with government, where bureaucrats and politicians are in effect playing with other people's resources. If a massive venture fails, they can still collect their paycheque and go on with their lives as if nothing had happened. In other words, once the resources have been removed from personal ownership, they belong to "everyone" and to "no one" at the same time, meaning that they enter into a limbo zone where they are easily sucked up by a massive hoover pushed by an impersonal beast known as Mrs. G (" Mrs. Government").

As we saw above, even though "only" 27% of America's GDP is visibly being spent on ever-so-productive government activities, the actual percentage is around 76%, since there is an additional 11% of Americans' production being promised to foreign lenders, as well as a staggering 38% being promised to future American retirees. Since this additional 49% (= 11% + 38%) is simply being "kicked down the road", the American economy has been able to "survive" under its debt weight for several decades. The scary thing, however, is that this unseen portion of the debt is now being accumulated every single year at a 49%-of-GDP rate. In other words, every 2 years, the American society is practically promising one more year's worth of goods and services to future generations. Hell-bound bastards such as Chucky Schumer, Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and little barry obama play political games with this 49% that is piling up year after year, using it as a tool to portray Republicans as "merciless" and "uncaring", and they can do this mostly because the American people have shown themselves extremely receptive to the "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" message. May God's judgements weight heavily on all the Americans (and their families) who have voted for these men and entrenched them in power. God's terrible judgements shall be upon those who have willingly allowed themselves to be manipulated by these men. Forsaking right-handed truth and "living for the present", those who have empowered these men to carry out this destruction shall be judged harshly by the God of Israel, even more so in these latter days due to the amount of wisdom and evidence that they are now being exposed to, a wisdom and evidence that was not available to previous generations of Americans.

Hoover 3, Reagan 2

This resource-allocation problem has been dramatic ever since the 1980s, when a Republican president, Ronald Reagan, once again, lacked the ability to explain the nature of the problem to the American people and to focus Americans on electing people to Congress that would finally deal with the problem. Reagan-worshipping conservatives may be quick to point out that the debt explosion of the 1980s was not "Reagan's fault", but, if they were intellectually honest, they would have to admit that Reagan's two landslide victories, including the massive 49-state landslide of 1984 did not translate into the election of more fiscally conservative people into Congress. Throughout Reagan's presidency, the spend-like-there-is-no-tomorrow Democrats maintained tight control of Congress, and Reagan was unable to get the American people concerned about the debt cloud looming in the horizon. He was too worried attacking the problem from the revenue side through tax cuts and too busy fighting the Soviets to truly deal with America's internal problems. When Americans voted overwhelmingly for Reagan over Mondale in 1984, they did so because they liked Reagan's personality and the economic good times that they were enjoying, not because they had been sold on his conservative message or were at all concerned about the growing debt. When one hears Reagan's inspiring speeches from the 1960s and the 1970s, one can only wonder what would have happened if he had been that bold as president. One can only wonder what would have happened if he had not been softened up by the Republican establishment and allowed himself to be duped into thinking that "diplomacy" and silent "cordiality" towards your political opponents are what define a "good" president. If Reagan had not been influenced by the "regal" paradigms that have crept into the office of the American presidency, he would have effected fundamental structural change in American society beyond "lowering taxes for the rich" and spending the Soviets into bankruptcy. But, then again, conservatives cannot produce such radical change because "change" is fundamentally abominable to them. They love "returning to the past", not "changing from the past", flawed as that past may be.

If anyone reading this is doubtful about these comments on Reagan, just consider the man that he chose as his vice-president, the same establishment-backed man who at one time called Reagan's policies "voodoo economics" and who, as president, returned to the tax-and-spend policies of past administrations and did little to truly reduce the size of government. Consider also the Director of Communications that Reagan hired, a man by the name of David Gergen; a man of such "pale pastels" would have never been able to remain within an administration of "bold colours" more than 15 days, yet he remained comfortably there for years, all of which reveals the subtle spirit of compromise that had crept into the once young and dynamic Ronald Reagan when he finally became president. It is ironic to consider that it took the feisty Texan Ross Perot to finally awaken America to the growing size of government debt in the early 1990s, which laid the foundation for the Republican Congressional victory of 1994 and the brief shrinking of government's growth during the mid- to late- 1990s. Can you imagine what a communicator such as Reagan would have been able to do had he not been afraid of appearing too "political" and "confrontational" as president of the United States?

Yes, Reagan was able to reduce government a little; he was able to reduce the "suction level" of the government's taxation hoover, and, in a sense, he was able to "start the conversation" (amongst a few circles) on the need to reduce government and free up America's resources and creativity. Unfortunately, most of those in the "general public" who were drawn to his message were drawn to it because of its optimism and because they liked the message of black-horse independence and personal gain. Most of them wanted lower taxation and economic prosperity, and nothing more, with the national debt and the systemic problems within government being nothing more than minor nuisances that could be swept under the carpet. This is why all the Reagan worshippers can look back on Reagan's 80s and see nothing but "unadulterated success". None of them ever talk about the fact that the national debt literally doubled during Reagan's first term, or that it had literally tripled after Reagan's 8 years, even as tax revenues doubled (due to the counter-intuitive but real effect of lower taxation). It is sad to me that the "doubling of the revenue" is always remembered by Reagan-worshippers but the tripling of the debt is always "forgotten". What makes it worse is the fact that, when the tripling of the debt is brought up, Reagan-worshippers simply shrug their shoulders and say, "But that wasn't Reagan's fault". However, true as that may be, is that the answer of someone who truly understands and cares about what has been going on for decades? Even when the growth in the debt was not technically Reagan's fault, I must sincerely say that, had I been Reagan, I would have left the White House in 1989 in a deep state of despondency. After 8 years, despite all the short-term "success" that tunnel-vision conservatives focus on, I would have looked back and said to myself,

"I did not fundamentally change the structure of America's government or its debt. I was unsuccessful in fostering a political climate in which the believers in big government could stand no chance of getting elected. I did not leave the country with the impression that there was something deeply flawed with the American economy and that there was a hidden enemy that needed to be dealt with ASAP before it corroded the fabric of American society beyond remedy. I did not even come close to reforming America's decrepit educational system, and I wasn't even able to put a significant dent on the reverse racism, the class paranoia, and the inherent lack of faith in the American system that remains alive and well in America's subcultures."

Not only did Reagan not solve all these problems, he did not even sound the alarm to warn those coming after him that the problems remained unsolved. Clouded by the fleeting prosperity of the 1980s, all that Reagan and his worshippers could do was pat themselves on the shoulder and say, "Job well done. We got ourselves out of Carter's malaise, and that is all we cared for." Fellow believer, I am certain that what we just said here will make no sense to any diehard conservative reading it, since conservatives are "hardwired" to make it no further than the black-horse stage, for which reason the higher language of the green horse is as foreign to them as the current owners of America's national debt.

Black-horse riders are very good at denouncing the shackles of "taxmaster" Cain and espousing the principles of "independence" and "personal freedom". Beyond that, however, they are unable to look beyond themselves, direct their eyes towards the horizon, and set their hopes on a grand vision, a radical, transformative vision that accepts no compromises, a vision whose fulfilment would unleash a potential as never before in previous history. Because of these inherent limitations in black-horse riders, the score at the end of Reagan's administration was Hoover 3, Reagan 2. Reagan was able to score a couple of stunning goals on the massive government hoover, but the cursed hoover was always able to remain ahead in the match, "sucking up" Reagan's 2 goals and scoring a match-clinching goal of its own. All of this is symbolised by the fact that revenues to the government doubled during his administration, all whilst the national debt tripled.

As a parenthesis, it must be said that the 1987 stock-market crash that happened towards the end of Reagan's administration was a prophetic sign from God to symbolise the systemic failure that remained beneath the surface despite the 7 years of apparently roaring success. Despite this warning shock, most of America remained oblivious to what God was declaring in the spirit realm, and both America's politicians and its people went on with business as usual. 21 years later, in 2008, a second Wall Street shock occurred, but, this time, it was not a stern warning from God; instead, it was a deceitful event allowed by God that led America to foolishly elect b.o., propelling America into a dramatic sinkhole, all of which has led America to where she stands (or should we say, "lies") today.

The Cool(idge) conservative indifference

As you may know, the economic event that opened the door for the Big Government agenda in America was the stock market crash of 1929, and the destructive Big Government measures instituted by b.o. and his cohorts were enabled by the stock market crash of 2008. In both cases, the crash came after years of either conservative or semi-conservative government. Those who say a prayer to St. Reagan and the virgin mary every night before going to bed are quick to extol the virtues of both Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the American presidents between 1921 and 1929. Coolidge is especially revered among them, so much so that he is on the verge of being canonised by the SCSC  (the "Staunch-Conservative Sainthood Council"). It is always interesting to this writer, however, how those who praise Coolidge are so oblivious to the fact that the 1929 crash was birthed a mere 9 months after the 67 months of unadulterated laissez-faire conservatism of the Coolidge administrations. Even the 9 months after Coolidge's departure cannot be blamed for the crash, since they were overseen by a man (coincidentally) named Hoover, a fellow Republican who simply continued the policies of his predecessor. In fact, this writer would be so bold as to claim that the 76 months of Coolidge and Hoover up until the 1929 crash represent the strongest and longest period of unhindered government conservatism in American history. If economic conservatism is such a healthy and effective philosophy, how could 76 months of it have acted as the preamble to the 1929 crash? The answer is twofold.

On the one hand, as we have shared before, both conservatism and the Republican party in America have a strong Girgashite nature to them. With an emphasis on "tradition" and the status quo, conservatism and "Republicanism" see the world from a very mechanical and impersonal perspective, which prevents them seeing the invisible currents and issues flowing below the surface in a society or culture. As long as a basic external order is established, and as long as some basic protocols are blindly respected, society should operate like "clockwork", and any "social problems" should automatically work themselves out as "prosperity" and "peace" fill the land. It is ironic, therefore, that, even though conservatives are so "right-handed" and "down-to-earth" when it comes to visible economic issues, they actually are very "left-handed" and "magical" when it comes to things that fall outside of the visible realm, given that they are convinced that society's moral and spiritual issues will magically work themselves out if you just leave the market to itself. This is why Coolidge was so oblivious to the spirits of moral decay and greed that were penetrating America during the "Roaring 20s". These are the spirits that prompted people to "run" to Wall Street (like greedy Girgashite pigs) to "invest" their money and reap a quick benefit from the "booming economy", and these are the spirits that created the (Canaanite) lawlessness and (Hivite) hedonism that younger people engaged in as they broke away from Cain's Victorian legalism. As these spirits began to pollute the land, (Amorite-Girgashite) racism grew at an alarming rate, as evidenced by the rise of the KKK during that time (as indicated on digitalhistory.uh.edu), and (Amorite-Canaanite) mobsters began to take control over entire cities, as evidenced by the rise of Al Capone in Chicago. As indicated on digitalhistory.uh.edu, the 1920s were a time of "cultural civil war", a time of moral extremes competing for control of America, as evidenced by the conflict between those who upheld the prohibition of all alcohol and those who promoted a life of excesses devoid of moral restraints. As all of this happened, the "dynamic" presidential trio of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover stood silently, concerned only about preserving economic conservatism and visible prosperity, showing no leadership in the more invisible arena of cultural issues, doing nothing to warn America about the spiritual cliff she was racing towards. In typical Balaamite fashion, all that these conservatives promoted was the enjoyment of spiritual grace for banal purposes. Since Balaam is the antithesis of God's remnant in the black-horse stage, we can say that, in the 1920s, America descended into a dark, dark period of black-horse stagnation. Even as America prospered technologically and economically in the midst of its black-horse independence, a dark cloud was looming in the horizon, a black cloud that manifested itself in the Wall Street crash of October 24 thru 29, 1929. It is no coincidence, therefore, that, as we have shared before, barack hussein obama is the spiritual equivalent of Warren G. Harding. Despite the fact that, on the surface, these two seem to be on opposite extremes of the political spectrum, they are spiritually very similar. Just as the election of Harding in 1920 marked the beginning of a dark, dark black-horse period, so was the election of b.o. in 2008 a message from America to God that she was determined to stay "black" and would in no way "go green", which has led to the dark, dark black-horse period America is presently in.

Because Coolidge and Hoover were indifferent to the cultural decay and chaos that was enveloping America during the 1920s, they were unable to see the speculative greed with which Americans were investing in the stock market. They simply saw it as a sign of "good times", as a sign that their governing policies were working; this is why the market crash of 1929 took them completely by surprise. This blindness to the importance of invisible cultural and spiritual issues when it comes to "governing" a nation is one of the reasons why the 1929 stock market crash happened even after 76 months of unadulterated conservatism. The second reason goes to the very nature of Wall Street, a sinister nature that almost all Americans are utterly oblivious to; and, even when a few Americans do become aware of this sinister nature, they interpret it in a completely misguided way.

Making and sending

If you view economic activity from a foundation of right-handedness, you will value economic activity in terms of the useful goods and services it produces for society, and you will want an atmosphere where those who actually produce more are recompensed with greater wealth. By contrast, if you view economic activity purely from a "capitalistic" perspective, you will value economic activity in terms of what produces greater monetary profit. Even though most proponents of capitalism would be quick to claim that the quest for monetary profit maximises the production of useful goods and services, this claim is not as irrefutable as it appears on the surface. As Adam Smith famously declared, it is true that there is an "invisible hand" guiding economic activity that tends to cause society to benefit as a whole even when its individuals are pursing self-benefit. In other words, there is some truth to the fact that society as a whole will "unintendedly" benefit from economic activity even when that activity is carried out by people with no interest in "benefitting others". This, however, is not always true, even if economic activity is left unfettered by meddlesome government intervention. To understand why this is the case and how it relates to Wall Street and the crash of 1929, consider the following:

When a factory produces a new item at a direct cost, say of £15, it is "only fair" that the factory charge a price higher than £15 for it. Imagine that the factory charges £20 for it. This would seem like a fair price, given that the factory would be able to recover the £15 that it directly invested in creating the item, leaving it a profit of £5 to cover overhead costs and to slowly recover the investment in infrastructure (machinery, research and development, installations, etc.) required to produce the item at a price of £15. One thing leftists have a hard time understanding when they talk about the "evil" of "corporate profits" is that those profits make it possible to pool large amounts of money together that can then be invested in expensive machinery and other infrastructure that makes production more efficient (which, as we shared above, causes society to become wealthier). These "evil corporate profits", therefore, are a way for society to "invest in its future". In some cases, the money to invest in the infrastructure is not obtained from previous profits but, rather, from money injected by wealthy investors who have already pooled this money from previous successful activity. In these cases, it is "only fair" to allow the massive investor to obtain a small profit from each item produced by the infrastructure that he made possible. Leftists boil with vicious envy when they see the investor pocketing "millions" from the items being sold, without realising that, in many cases, it will take years and years for the investor to recover the millions of pounds that he put upfront to buy the infrastructure that allowed the items to be produced more efficiently, which then allowed those very leftists to buy the item at a cheaper price as they whinge about the "greedy investors" who are "becoming wealthier and wealthier" on the "backs" of the "lower classes" that buy their items. Whether spiritually-retarded leftists may want to admit it or not, profit accumulation allows for economies of scale, which in turn allows for more efficient production and greater wealth for society as a whole.

{In my spirit, I can hear spiritually-retarded leftists arguing that greater efficiency may lead to the production of more goods, but that the additional production is gobbled up by the "bourgeoisie", with nothing left for the "poor". Such idiots must be reminded, however, that, in non-medieval societies where wealth is not acquired through "inheritance" alone, the rich generally become "rich" by tapping into the "proletariat masses", offering them an item that they can afford. By producing the item in an efficient way, they can reach a wider and wider market, which allows them to pile up their "evil millions", one quid at a time. By allowing the item to be produced, say, £4 cheaper, they can pocket £2 in extra profits and lower the price of the item by £2, which will give them a greater market share and even more "evil wealth". In turn, the "poor little proletariat" who can now buy the item £2 cheaper can now use those £2 to buy himself a hamburger that he would have otherwise not been able to afford. In other words, the poor "proletariat" suddenly became £2 wealthier as a result of the greater production efficiency, even if the "evil investor" became immensely wealthier at his so-called "expense". Yes, as shown by this example, when society is allowed to produce unhindered by artificial impositions, wealth does indeed "trickle" down, and it not only "trickles" down, it "pours" down, in buckets, and it all happens because society is now able to produce more goods and services with the same amount of resources.

If your leftist friend is still unconvinced by all these arguments, you should stop thinking of him as a "friend", but, before you part ways with the fool, remind him of how expensive personal computers and mobile phones were just a few decades ago. As investors continued to pour billions into more efficient technologies, computers and mobiles became not only cheaper but more powerful, to the point that owning a mobile phone is in no way a "luxury" as it was, say, some 25 years ago. Even in poor, "exploited" countries, owning a mobile or a laptop is not as much of a "luxury" as it was years ago, all because those "evil imperialist powers" have been able to make their production more and more efficient.}

In our factory example, the factory was able to produce each item at a direct unit cost of £15, selling it at £20. This item must now somehow make it to the end user. Let us assume that the factory sells this item to 3 big retail stores of a given city where the residents of that city can purchase it. If the average shipping cost from the factory to these stores is around £1 per item, the items would be getting to the store at a unit price of £21. The store must now keep the item in its inventory until it is sold, meaning that it will incur inventory "holding costs". Considering this, plus the profit that the store needs to make to cover its own overhead costs, the store might add £4 to the item's price, making it £25. Notice how the price went up from the original direct cost of £15 to a factory price of £20, and, then, to a retail price of £25 (ignoring any VAT or sales tax). The £5 that were added to the item after it came out of the factory were not at all related to the item's production. What, then, justifies those £5 being added to the item's price? The answer is "distribution". Contrary to left-handed, magical thinking, the item will not get from the factory to the end user "for free" by simply saying "Shazam!". Society must expend resources to get the item to the end user, and this requires middle-men distributors. Resources must be provided for the personal sustenance of the driver of the lorry that takes the item from the factory to the retail store, petrol must be put in that lorry, and electricity and other resources need to be used in order to keep the item in the store until the item finally reaches the consumer's hands. These costs are all real, so it is "only fair" that the item go up in price from £20 to £25. This simple example illustrates the fact that, when it comes to producing a new good or service, there are two types of costs:

1. The costs of production

    Spiritually speaking, these costs correlate with the apostolic and the prophetic anointings, which produce through apostolic, right-handed wisdom and prophetic, left-handed creativity. There may also be teacher and pastoral contributions in the "production process", but they play a supporting role.

    

2. The costs of distribution

   Spiritually speaking, these costs correlate with the evangelistic anointing, whose "expansive" nature can conquer new "markets" for the "goods and services" produced by the apostolic and prophetic anointings. There are also pastoral and teacher contributions in the "distribution process", but, again, they play a supporting role.

If you run a thought experiment on any item, you will find that absolutely all costs fall into one of these 2 categories. These categories represent the two types of "sub-goods" or "sub-services" that add legitimate value to an item as it goes from "conception" to "consumption" (even marketing costs fall into the second category, though, in some cases, a real "production" value is also added by certain types of marketing). As items (whether they be "goods" or "services") are produced and delivered to the end user, they must go through an "assembly line" of "intermediaries", each of which adds some "production" or "distribution" value to the item, which causes the item's price to increase and allows these intermediaries to reap a "profit" that is justified by the value that they added to the item. It is worth noting that any "production" value added to the item is "intrinsic" or "essential" in nature, meaning that it stays within the item and cannot be removed. By contrast, "distribution" value is "extrinsic" or "non-essential" in the sense that it can be minimised without the item losing any of its functional value. In other words, a television set is no less functional simply because it cost less to ship it from the factory all the way to the person who ended up watching it. An item's raison d'être is the end consumer, and all the distribution intermediaries between the item's factory and the end consumer are "necessary evils", shall we say, which means that, the fewer of them, the better. The more the price of an item is determined by its end consumer, the better. The more the price is affected by the distribution intermediaries, the more distorted it will be.

The distribution contribution

Because of the above, we can safely say any "distribution intermediary" must be judged by how much it actually contributes to the delivery of the item to its final consumer. In the case of the big retail stores in the example above, a great deal can be said to justify their presence as "distribution intermediaries", even if they appear to have "unnecessarily raised" the item's price from £20 to £25. If the retail store did not exist, someone wishing to obtain the item might have to travel from his home all the way over to where the factory is located. If the factory is in a different city, or even a different county, the trip could represent a significant investment both in terms of time and petrol, and it would require that the factory hire employees dedicated to serving the customers arriving at the factory, which would eventually force the factory to set up a customer-service infrastructure very similar to the retail stores'. The fact that the factory would become the central distribution point for customers from various cities would only force the factory to establish control mechanisms of greater size and complexity than the ones each of the retail stores would need. Slowly, the factory would be forced to divide its resources between producing the items and selling them to a large and scattered number of individual consumers. Even if the factory could manage to handle the distribution bottleneck and create some savings through economies of scale, it would still not be able to overcome the "distance hurdle". No matter how low the factory could drive down its "distribution costs" whilst selling the items "on-site", consumers would still have to deal with the issue of getting into their cars or taking some sort of public transport to get from their homes all the way to the factory site. If the trip to the factory represents a great deal of expense and inconvenience, you will lose interest in acquiring the item, no matter how cheap the item is once you get to the factory. If you have to spend £25 to get to the factory to purchase the item at £21, you will have actually spent £46 for it, even if you were able to keep that "evil retail store" from "stealing" your £4. Thus, purchasing the item at £21 instead of £25 becomes nothing but a pyrrhic victory.

Viewed from a "resources" point of view, the above can be said the following way, "It is more expensive resource-wise for society to have 1,000 people individually travel from distant and scattered places to the factory than to have 1,000 items travel together to a distribution centre that those 1,000 individuals can travel to much more easily". This begs the following question, "If it is cheaper to make the items travel than to make the people travel, why not simply get rid of the middleman and just ship the items directly from the factory to each of the consumers' homes?". "Logical" as this reasoning may sound, this creates the same problem, only in reverse. Instead of having 1,000 persons travelling individually (and at different times) from their homes to the factory, you will have 1,000 items travelling individually (and at different times) from the factory to each of the homes, and you will once again burden the factory with the full responsibility of managing the distribution of all the items it produces. The factory will also be forced to deal with the inventory "holding costs" that the retail store has to deal with. Even though it is possible to make this scheme work, it only will work for certain types of items and under distribution models that can create huge economies of scales in the delivery process, even if it is delivering thousands of individual items in "optimised" delivery routes. This explains why retail stores have not been driven to extinction, even in the modern era of online shopping, and it also explains why the growth of online shopping has depended in large measure on the rise of large distributor websites such as Amazon and eBay that can focus their full attention on sale and distribution schemes that maximise the potential for economies of scales on the "distribution" side of the economic process. Besides these economies of scales, retail and virtual stores also provide efficiency through the "division of labour" principle. By specialising in the distribution elements of the economic process, they can create a streamlined distribution infrastructure, a "distribution motorway system", that reduces society's distribution costs and benefits all.

In conclusion, when the retail store in the example above increases the price from £21 to £25, it can "fairly" do so because it is providing a benefit to the item's end consumer by reducing the inconvenience and expense associated with acquiring the item. Based on all of the above, we will now be able to understand the spiritual issues behind the 1929 Wall Street stock crash and behind Wall Street per se.

The Wall Street toll booth

Unlike a real-life factory or a contractor company, Wall Street does not produce any "tangible" good or service that adds to the well-being of final consumers in society. Instead, Wall Street offers the service of buying and selling "pieces of paper". Since people cannot eat paper or wear it (unless you are an eccentric celebrity), the "paper", so to speak, that Wall Street produces is worthless unless it can be proved to somehow lead to the production of a "real" good or service that would not have been produced had Wall Street not been around. To prove or disprove this, we must dig into the type of service that Wall Street provides.

As you may know, stock markets such as Wall Street's NYSE allow companies to raise money quickly by enabling the purchase of company shares by the general public in an environment with high liquidity. Once a member of the public purchases shares in a company, he or she can quickly turn those shares into cash again by selling them to another market investor. This differs from the traditional investment scheme, where the investor "sinks" his money into a company and must patiently wait as the company uses his injection of capital to increase production and/or profits. If the company uses his investment to buy and install a new machine, for example, the investor cannot simply walk in a couple of days later and ask for his money back. This means that, under a "traditional" investment scheme, the investor not only invests his money but is forced to invest himself into the enterprise. By turning his money into assets within the company, he is, in a sense, sowing "a part of himself" into the company, meaning that he will not only be cautious about making the initial investment, but he will also become deeply interested in the long-term health of the company. By contrast, a buyer in the stock market will tend to invest in the stock itself and not the company behind the stock. Though he may be somewhat interested in the company's health and long-term prospects, he will be way more concerned about the short-term public perception of the company. Because selling his share in the company is so easy, he will be more interested in the profits from selling the stock than in the profits resulting from the stock's dividends, which are a more realistic (i.e.- a more "right-handed") measure of the investment's wisdom.

Even though stock markets are praised for their ability to raise quick capital for a company, they also possess a capital-raising flaw that most people seem to ignore: Once the company releases its stock into the public, it never "sees" any cash from that stock again. In other words, if the company sells a stock to the public at a price of £15, it will see those £15 entering its coffers, but it will not benefit if that stock's price goes up to, say, £20. The extra £5 will be pocketed by the stockholder and by all the scavenger traders that live off of the incessant exchange of stock "paper" (through trading fees and commissions), but the company will still have the same £15 in its coffers. Some might say that the stockholders who work within the company will become "wealthier" as a result of the stock going up in price, but that benefit will only be "personal", not "corporate", in nature, benefitting the individual stockholders but not the company per se. Thus, when the stock price goes up from £15 to £20 and is sold by stockholders, society suddenly finds itself pouring resources (represented by those extra £5) into the stockholders themselves, even when the stockholders have not created a single new good or service, and even when most of those stockholders have not so much as contributed a single idea to make the company more productive or beneficial to society. As these resources are poured into the stockholders (and traders), the actual engine of production, the company, is left without receiving a single penny of new resources.

The above is exacerbated by the incessant intermediaries produced by the stock-market paradigm. When an item comes out of a factory, it may be handed to a courier, which in turn hands it over to a retail store. In some cases, the item might go through the hands of an intermediate wholesale distributor or two before reaching the retail store. Once there, the retail store hands it over to the item's intended end user. As we shared above, there is a beneficial purpose behind this "changing of hands" that the item goes through because the item is being pushed through a distribution chain that gets it closer and closer to the person who gives the item its raison d'être, its consumer. By contrast, a stock spends its "life" changing hands from one speculating investor to another, and with each exchange, an intermediary (generally the "broker") charges a commission or fee. These extra commissions are actually increasing the price of the stock, but, unlike what would happen with a television set, the intermediary commissions are not reflected in the stock's "sale price", meaning that they go under the radar and become just another resource that society wastes in an activity that produces no new wealth. Thus, the stock market becomes like a toll booth that a car goes through once and again without actually going anywhere specific. Imagine, for example, a car in Weehawken, New Jersey going through the Lincoln tunnel toll booth and into Manhattan, NYC, only to aimlessly travel a few blocks inside Manhattan before turning around and going through the Lincoln tunnel back to Weehawken, New Jersey, aimlessly driving around Weehawken for a few minutes before repeating the loop again. Each trip across the Lincoln Tunnel would represent a useless "donation" to the New York Port Authority that achieves no purpose but to drain the car driver's resources.

What makes this worse is that stock trading does constitute a zero-sum game. The trader who makes the £5 profit in the example above is getting those £5 from another trader's pocket, not from any value that he may have added to the stock before trading it. Some might naively argue that the stock market is not a zero-sum game because of the stock dividends that flow into it from the companies that are actually creating society's new goods and services. However, such an argument would ignore the fact that those dividends would be flowing in regardless of how frequently (or infrequently) the stock was traded. Hence, stock trading per se is unquestionably a zero-sum game. In fact, it is safe to conclude that the stock-trading industry is like a parasite that feeds off of the companies participating in it. As dividends flow into the stock market from the true wealth creators, they are used by traders to purchase another "promising" stock instead of being used to buy something useful for the stockholder (or instead of being reinvested into a wealth-creating company). In that sense, therefore, the stocks' dividends act like a soft-hearted mother that supports the gambling addiction of her non-productive son. This can also be compared to a player who hits the jackpot at a slot machine and then uses the money he just made to play at that same slot machine for another two hours. A player at Vegas knows that he will more than likely come out on the losing end when he is done gambling, but you can argue that he is, in a sense, paying for a perverse "benefit": the thrills that come with gambling. Stock traders, however, do not go to the stock market to pay for "gambling thrills", which makes the resources flushed down the "trading slot machine" all the more pointless. Some may simplistically declare that, if Wall Street was such a losing proposition, it would have shut down a long time ago. Logical as this may sound, it is equivalent to a family living in Norway that refuses to insulate their home, using as their defence the fact that they have been able to afford the high heating bills for many years. To continue with a fruitless habit just because you can absorb the losses it generates is as silly as flushing £2 down the toilet every night simply because "you can afford it".

We pray that you will be able to see from all of the above how the stock market is in no way the right-handed "wealth creator" it purports itself to be but is, instead, a left-handed "wealth re-distributor". It is no wonder, therefore, that so many people in Wall Street are diehard Democrats and why most in Wall Street support barack hussein obama (at least until one of b.o.'s many destructive policies hurts their finances in a very personal and direct way).

Komodo demand

At the heart of the resource-draining nature of Wall Street is the fact that it creates a culture where people are constantly trading in items that have no "final consumer". Imagine, for example, a group of people who trade in shoes day and night, with none of them ever wearing the shoes that they are exchanging. This causes a disproportionate amount of resources to be invested in the aimless "distribution" of the item across multiple hands. As we saw above, distribution only makes sense and adds value to an item if it gets it closer to its final consumer. Hence, in any environment where people are trading items that have no "final consumer", absolutely all distribution is an utter waste of resources. Since the distribution chain is arbitrary and aimless, it has the tendency to create prices that are artificially high or low, not only because of the unnecessary "distribution costs" but because of the random and arbitrary demand it enables, which renders the commonly-used "supply-and-demand defence" moot. Consider, for example, what happens so frequently in the "commodity market".

Two thousand years ago, anyone with 1,000 barrels of crude oil in his backyard would be as "excited" as a man with 1,000 bags full of ordinary dirt. Why? Because crude oil in those days produced no tangible benefit to society. By contrast, any person with 1,000 barrels of crude oil in his backyard today would consider himself a "lucky fellow" due to the tangible benefit that society is now able to derive from oil. The value in a barrel of oil lies not so much in the fact that it is "oil" but in the fact that there is someone out there who can power his car or light up his house at night through that barrel of oil. In other words, it is the oil's final consumer who gives oil its ultimate value to society. The more that final consumers can derive tangible benefits from oil, the more they will demand it, and the more they demand it, the higher its price will be. This is "only fair", given that the higher consumer demand is an indication of the large benefits that society is actually deriving from the item. The commodities market, however, fosters a perverse demand that is not fuelled by the commodity's actual consumer but by people who have no interest in either consuming the commodity or getting it to its final consumer. This is why it is common to hear that oil prices have gone up simply because of rumours that a certain oil-producing country might become politically unstable a few months from now. As the traders in the commodity markets hear that oil might become a bit scarce several months from now, they start to buy tonnes of oil, not because they suddenly need more oil to power their cars but because they salivate at the opportunity of "making money" when the price of oil goes up and they can unload the oil that they purchased at a lower price. As can be clearly seen, these traders did not get the oil any closer to your local petrol station. They simply "transported" the oil into their virtual "warehouses", returning the oil to its original "location" once they sell it a higher price a short time later. Society derived no benefit whatsoever from their "participation" in the distribution chain, yet society is forced to reward these traders with a profit once they sell the oil (which they never intended to consume) at a higher price.

It is worth noting that, in the above scenario, even when the amount of crude oil in stock has remained exactly the same, and even when society is still consuming the same amount of oil, the price that the actual consumers (in this case, the oil refineries) have to pay goes up. If the supply of actual oil has not decreased, and if its consumer demand has not increased, why does the price of oil go up? Because the commodity traders injected an artificial demand into the market, a demand driven not by the benefits of oil but by the benefits of selling it. As refineries are forced to pay more for the oil that they refine, they are forced to increase the price of the petrol that they produce, which translates into car owners paying higher prices at the petrol station, even when the amount of petrol in the market has remained the same, and even when absolutely no one is buying more petrol. If the instability rumours that caused the price hike end up not materialising, the oil demand in the commodity markets will return to its previous levels, and both crude oil and petrol will return to their original prices. What happened, then, to all the extra money paid by car owners at the petrol station during the price hike? The oil refineries did not keep this money because the increase in their petrol-sale revenues was used up buying the more expensive crude oil, and the petrol stations did not keep this money because the increase in their own revenues was used up when they had to pay the refineries a higher price to fill their pumps. The only ones who actually "benefitted" in this sinister zero-sum game were the commodity traders who managed to "buy low and sell high" as the instability rumours began. In other words, the millions of petrol consumers who paid higher prices at the pump were actually pooling together their hard-earned money in order to reward people who had no role whatsoever in the petrol's production and who did absolutely nothing to move the petrol any closer to the petrol station. Society did not benefit one iota from the artificially-induced scare. Society did not produce any real goods or services as a result of the scare, yet a group of traders became richer. Since this new "wealth" enjoyed by the traders had to come from somewhere (a right-handed fact "lefties" forget), it is safe to conclude that these traders became richer by making the rest of society poorer. This is what commodity traders do every day, and this is what Wall Street does to America day after day after day. The massive national debt America currently "enjoys" can be spiritually traced to the silent resource drain caused by Wall Street, not only because of its fundamental uselessness but because it has fundamentally distorted the saving, lending, and investing culture of America (as is very briefly described on wikipedia.org). Industrialised nations will not emerge from the mounting debt they have been sinking into until the stock-market system is fundamentally reformed (and until the internal nature of public companies is rectified), amongst many other things. The Wall Street toll booth must be dismantled before the American economy can be healed from its cancer.

{The exact details of how the Wall Street toll booth must be dismantled and reassembled in righteousness falls beyond the visible scope of this posting, but we believe that this posting has laid down enough principles for anyone with the mind of Christ to put together the right blueprint for America's (and Britain's) financial system. We pray that this posting will some day reach the hands of a generation that (unlike this one) will know what to do with it.}

It is no coincidence that, in mid-September 2011, shortly before the Lord had us write this posting, New York City chose to drastically increase its tolls for New Jersey commuters, as indicated on nj.com. This is America's way of digging its "toll trenches", waving its fist at God as it shouts, "You will have to take us in body bags from here!!". The Komodo trading dragon will not go down without a fight to the death.

The missing crowd

As the Lord had me writing this word, I became deftly aware that it would be one of the most rejected words on this website. Amongst the already-low number of people who visit this site, many will simply dismiss this word midway through it, with some of them wondering if this website has finally "jumped the shark" (for the origin and meaning of this American idiom, you can go to wikipedia.org). Others will begin to scroll frantically down this lengthy word, quoting Clara Peller all the way down and wondering if the "spiritual beef" will finally appear at the end. A few others will brave through this tortuous word more out of a sense of duty than out of thirst for understanding, wondering as they do if they will ever get back the 2 hours of their lives that they just "flushed away" reading this word. A few others will brave through this word and reach this point in the posting in a state of internal confusion, with a certain desire to accept what they just read, but yet harbouring a growing scepticism that slowly begins to nullify everything they have absorbed, as when an army of termites devours through a piece of wood. If you are one of these few, please consider the following questions before the scepticism "termites" finish with your "piece of wood":

Sceptic, as you consider the first two questions above, remember that the leftist-enabling crashes of 1929 and 2008 came after years of economic stability and conservative policies. Most forget that, before the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 (by the choice of "idiotised" Americans), Bush's years had been years of low unemployment, consistent growth, and, in some cases, a dwindling budget deficit. Even though Bush 43 was by no means a "repeat" of Coolidge and his economic conservatism, he did promote policies that were clearly conservative, pro-business, and pro-growth. Therefore, if Wall Street's spiritual nature is inherently consistent with "fiscally-conservative, pro-growth capitalism", how could it stumble so poorly after years of conservative policies? If you are still sceptical, consider the crash of 1987, a crash that came after 7 years of Reaganomics? As we said above, these crashes reveal both the incompleteness of conservatism (which is unable to see the relevance of "invisible" forces moving within society) and the inherently evil nature of Wall Street. With these thoughts in mind, the Holy Spirit urges you, sceptical "believer", to scroll back up and re-read what the Lord has had us share here regarding the internal nature of Wall Street and why it runs counter to the righteousness-foundation paradigm of God. You may not heed this exhortation, sceptic, but I am compelled to make the exhortation so as to heave upon you even greater judgement when you stand before God's presence on the day of your judgement, for the truth was made available to you time and time again, and you time and time again said, "No, thank you; I have better things to do".

As we have shared in a video, the Lord inaugurated His latter-rain cycle in May 1998 with a 7-year "awakening" period that culminated in May 2005. After that, the Lord began an intense 7-year "preparation" period during which the Lord intended to rally His troops together, instructing them and training them up for the massive Joel-army assault that would begin in May 2012. Unfortunately, America proved herself stubborn as a goat, especially as the second 7-year period (2005-2012) was about to begin. In His mercy, the Lord delayed His move for 4 years, patiently waiting for the American Church to awaken from her senseless stupor. The 4 years came and went, but the American Church remained "drunk as a sailor" who had forgotten that his ship was about to sail. Over the next 328 days, the Lord kept waiting, but the patient died on 4 April 2010, and the entire latter-rain cycle that had started in 1998 was aborted. Had America chosen to cooperate with God, we would currently be in the midst of last-minute preparations before the mighty outbreak of 2012. As this happened, the Lord and His remnant would have been busy dealing with many fundamental spiritual issues that have been deeply entrenched in the American spirit realm for decades and decades and decades. One of these issues would have been the Wall-Street parasite that has done so much damage to American society (both the literal parasite and the spiritual one from which it grew). This means that around this time in 2011, a massive spiritual crowd of believers would have been gathering on Wall Street to tear down that spiritual stronghold so that God's economic system (both the literal and the spiritual one) could be established. Around this time (October 2011), the spiritual atmosphere around Wall Street and the Lower Manhattan area would have been thick with God's presence. People working and walking through there would have been aware that "something" was "going on", and people would have become increasingly conscious and concerned that the financial paradigms being upheld on Wall Street were somehow amiss and needed to be fundamentally transformed. People moving about that part of NYC would suddenly have become overwhelmed with a deep sense of sorrow and regret, with some of them bursting into tears in the middle of the street "for no reason at all". Regrettably, America failed God big time, and, instead of being filled with God's Glory and the presence of a mighty spiritual crowd, Wall Street became "filled" with an overwhelming emptiness, an emptiness that the Lord made this writer experience one cold and dreary Sunday morning in the winter of 2005-2006. It is the emptiness embodied in the huge hole that remained unfilled at nearby Ground Zero even 4 years and 11 months after the 9/11 attack. As "icing on the funeral cake", America chose to fill that hole with a meaningless "memorial" building. Instead of refilling that huge hole with two new Twin Towers that would celebrate life and symbolise the resurrection of the 2 fallen witnesses, America chose to "eternalise" the tragedy of 9/11, turning Ground Zero into a site of perennial (but politically correct) wailing and mourning.

As the spiritual gathering intended for Wall Street was cancelled, and as a woeful emptiness filled Lower Manhattan, the enemy eventually came to "fill" this emptiness with a crowd of its own. Since the crowd of Americans that God had called to fill Wall Street failed to show up, satan was able to call its own platoon of "transformers" (retards in disguise), and the "Occupy Wall Street" movement materialised. It is no spiritual coincidence that this movement choose "Zuccotti Park" as their "base of operations", for the name "Zuccotti" points to the 7th and final feast decreed by God in Leviticus 23, the feast of Sukkot, also known as the "Feast of Tabernacles" (Leviticus 23:39-43). As evidenced by the Lord through Zechariah, the Feast of Tabernacles speaks of the latter-rain days when the Glory of God shall dwell or "put up His tabernacle" amongst the nations of the Earth, establishing His unquestionable Kingship amongst the sons of Adam:

"¹⁶ And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. ¹⁷ And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. ¹⁸ And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. ¹⁹ This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. ²⁰ In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar. ²¹ Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts." (Zech 14:16-21)

Thus, when satan's crowd chose to take over Zuccotti Park, it was as an act of mocking irony against God's remnant. Instead of America's avant garde believers tearing down the Wall Street stronghold and making the final preparations for the breakout of Sukkot across America in 2012, America now has a loud group of parasitical, anti-Israelite anarchists taking over the Wall Street area, setting up their tents (i.e.- their "tabernacles") and urinating on Zuccotti Park as their ringleader satan triumphantly celebrates the fact that it was able to stop the manifestation of God's Sukkot Feast across America. A few of these anarchists have a sincere notion that there is "something" wrong with the Wall Street paradigm, but satan has made sure to distort their understanding so as to make them interpret their distrust of Wall Street the wrong way, which, ironically enough, strengthens Wall Street by making any opponent of Wall Street look like a radical fool to those who actually have some power to regenerate it.

Besides the name "Feast of Tabernacles", Sukkot is also known as the "Feast of Booths". Hence, it is ironic that, instead of God's spiritual "booths" being established across America, the Wall Street toll booth has dug in its heels, boldly proclaiming that it shall not be uprooted. This defiant Wall-Street behemoth has reason to celebrate because a crowd of harmless-to-it leftists showed up at its doorsteps instead of the huge green-remnant crowd that God had convoked, a crowd that remained notoriously absent. God's judgement hangs upon all those who ignored the Lord's trumpet call. Whereas the Church continues to wait for the "Beam-me-up-Lordie" rapture trumpet, the trumpet call that truly counted (Joel 2:16-17) was completely ignored, and the very few who heeded the call were forced to scatter and "go each to his own house".

{Fellow believer, if you look at Wall Street's history, you will see that it has been an important place in American history. As indicated on wikipedia.org, it was the Federal Hall building on Wall Street, not Washington, D.C., where the 1st ever American presidential inauguration took place in 1789. Wall Street was also the place where the Bill of Rights was passed. Interestingly enough, the cemetery of Trinity Church on Wall Street is the burial place of Alexander Hamilton, America's first Treasury Secretary and the man who some consider to be the "architect of the early United States financial system". Hence, Wall Street is a place strongly related to the foundations in America's political and economic systems. This is why it is such a spiritually relevant place, and a place where many spiritual issues need to be resolved.}

Looks right, is left

As indicated on wikipedia.org, Wall Street is an 8-block-long stretch that starts at South Street and goes diagonally northward and westward, ending on Broadway. If you look at a map of the street, you will see that its main financial sites lie on the western end, meaning that they lie on its left extreme (if you look at the map with the north pointing up). This emphasises the often unseen "left-handedness" of Wall Street. Celebrated as it is as the epitome of both "free-market capitalism" and "right-wing greed", Wall Street is actually a left-handed parasite that disguises itself as a right-handed institution. It operates on a left-handed "something-from-nothing" paradigm that believes in "profit with no added value", i.e.- in people making a profit from the economic process without adding any real value to it. As revealed by the Lord in a vision to a very dear sister in Christ, when you begin to "walk up" Wall Street, it looks very right-handed, dry, and Girgashite, especially because of its workaholic nature and its focus on visible, material prosperity. However, as you continue your walk up the street, the left-handed "enchanter" nature of the street becomes more and more evident. Therefore, Wall Street is actually a very Canaanite place. In fact, it represents the type of spiritual structure where the two distorted "female" ministries (the Girgashite teacher and the Canaanite pastor) work together in a powerful way to create an anti-God Amorite stronghold. Hence, it is no coincidence that, as you finish walking by all of Wall Street's major financial centres, you reach a church, "Trinity Church", which lies on Broadway, where Wall Street ends. Wall Street is a physical manifestation of all the spiritual systems that operate within the matriarchal Church and give it its parasitical "staying power". Therefore, as you were reading down this posting, you were actually reading about the spiritual fallacies that operate within the Church, even if it may have seemed to the Girgashite eye that you were reading non-spiritual, economic "mumbo jumbo".

{As a parenthesis, it is no coincidence that Trinity Church is on "Broadway", given that the matriarchal Church operates on the wide-gate paradigm that takes believers on the broad path to spiritual perdition (i.e.- the loss of their eternal inheritance). If the American Church were operating under God's paradigm, the name "Broadway" would speak of the broad path prepared for the entrance of the King of Kings into the spiritual atmosphere of the Earth.}

Many, many decades ago, Trinity Church was the epicentre of a mighty spiritual awakening started by the Lord in 1857 through Jeremiah Lanphier and a small crowd of remnant believers who did heed the trumpet sound calling them to gather on Wall Street and pray (as you may read at greatawakening.blogspot.com). Fellow believer, the anointing left by these prophetic intercessors is still there, buried deep beneath the ground like Elisha's anointing, but it can be clearly felt as you walk up Wall Street on a silent Sunday morning. It is therefore sad and ironic that, instead of representing the 3 "male" anointings of God, the word "Trinity" in the name of Wall Street's "Trinity Church" currently represents the union of 2 spirits, the (weaker) Girgashite and the (stronger) Canaanite spirits (Daniel 8:3), that forges the power of a 3rd spirit, the Amorite spirit. This is how the Canaanite-dog spirit can rise to Amorite heights and proclaim itself as "God", just like the fool in sister Crystal's dream, and it all happens through the mirage of the left-handed pie paradigm. This is why the fool in sister Crystal's dream proclaimed himself as "god" as he insistently pointed to the wedge that was "to the far left of the circle".

The winds of change were blowing across America and Europe as 2005 dawned upon the land, and the anointing to "tear down this wall" was strong. This is why sister Crystal saw the fallen wall in her dream. God was calling the Church to tear down the Wall Street stronghold, but the Church had too many vested interests in that stronghold to ever tear it down. This is why God has decided to tear down this generation instead and to heap its rubble on the Mound of Ignominy, where it shall be remembered forevermore as the generation that said, "No, I won't, even if you give me all the tools to do it".

When the feast of Sukkot finally comes, this present generation shall not be allowed in to share in God's Glory, for no Canaanite dog shall be allowed in the House of Jehovah Sabaoth:

"²¹ Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts." (Zech 14:21)