External Excerpts – Markets and God

Undated – Unedited

You have asked very succinct questions.  I do not want to bombard you with a long post, so I tried hard to keep it short.  But I
failed. Please don't read if you are busy, and also, please don't read the last two questions if my reflections on religion bothers
you.  I appreciate your questions, and value them immensely, but I feel completely guilty about sharing them when I know they
are in some ways contradictory to your own beliefs.

"The markets can't go up for fear of another stimulus package (which would further erode the strength of the USD)" -
don't understand - what markets are you talking abt?

The market is a broad term, fair enough.  Specifically I meant the American stock markets.  In 2007, following the collapse of
the major banks, the US major stock indices (S&P, DOW, NYSE) went in to a massive tailspin.  Today's DOW, sitting at 12,000
roughly, actually dropped as low as 7000 by 2009.  The S&P 500, now at 1300, dropped as low as 680.  I followed these metrics
closely in these days.  Every day we'd see anywhere from a few dozen to a few hundred points dropped off.  This was the
'deflationary tailspin' that scared policy makers and investors alike.

These stock indices completely reversed their trend following the first QE (separate from Bush's first bailout of the banks).  This
liquid injection fueled stocks all the way up.  What also helped was the Fed dropping interest rates to near zero, allowing for
these companies to take out nearly free credit to fuel their rise.  Unfortunately none of this changed the fact that the entire US
economy both a) has toxic assets in their ledgers, and b) is built out of fundamentally speculative and unproductive wealth
expansion.  In order to prevent another massive tailspin, the US needs to continue to print money (constant QEs).  This doesn't
even include the money the Fed is loaning to corporations directly (because the Fed is not a gov't entity). 

But 'markets' can mean a lot though.  When the US stocks tail spun, so did global stocks (with the exception of Chinese stocks). 

"US government uses debt as a weapon in international politics" - how?

Like by helping facilitate the masking of debt to allow unstable economies to get in to the Euro union.  Greece, Italy, Spain,
Portugal, & Ireland for example, carried too much debt to qualify.  So the US govt as well as US corporations helped these
economies convert their debt into derivatives.  For the countries that were already in the Euro union, or just in the EU, the US
gov't as well as US corporations deliberately sold huge amounts of these derivative/speculative products while not disclosing the
true risk.  Every nation in the EU, with the exception of Germany and Poland, bought up these derivatives like mad.  It seemed
like free money was available everywhere.  But the caveat was these derivatives could not fail.  If they did, the entire house of
cards would come falling down.  (Which happened in 2007).  So, one could consider the deliberate sale of toxic assets to other
countries as 'using debt as a weapon'.  Another way to attack the Euro is to have US-based rating agencies and media center their
attention in a coordinated manner on a particular set of assets, say Greek assets. The newsletter you sent me hinted at this very
thing:

"In order to retain the confidence of governments, businessmen and ordinary folks worldwide, each time US$
dip to a certain level and US exchange index is down to a new low, US$ counterpart the Euro would be attacked. As
a prelude to attacking the Euro, the credibility of 5 debt ridden EU member countries: Greece; Italy; Spain; Portugal
and Ireland would be downgraded. US government can print currency notes to pay its debts; EU individual member
countries cannot do so, as only European Central Bank has the authority to print currency notes."

Who are the policy makers? Are they separate from investors? If so, why would they allow investors to get away scot-free
at the expense of the country? Why don't they burden the investors if it seems clear that the flip side (economy crashing,
recession etc) seems much much worse?

Policy-makers and Corporations are one and the same.  This can be explained by the fact that the US political system does not
have strict rules like it does in Canada that prevents or limits campaign donations from corporations.  Obama for instance, was
financed directly by finance firms.  Here's a snippit from The Center for Responsive Politics: 

"The Center For Responsive Politics informs us that of the top 20 sources of campaign cash for Obama, 11 were from either
investment banks or law firms closely tied to these financial institutions, and the list of big corporate donors – especially the
bundlers – is truly awe-inspiring. They include: John W. Roberts, of Ariel Capital Management (over $500,000), Jim Torrey,
Founder of the Torrey Hedge Funds over $500,000), Charles Lewis,Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch, Richard Leweke, Vice
Chairman of Washington Mutual Card Services, Seth Waugh, CEO of Deutsche Bank. Over $200,000: Louis Susman, of Citi
Investment Banking, J. Michael Schell, managing director at Citigroup, David Heller and Bruce Heyman, both managing
directors at Goldman Sachs, Michael Froman, managing director at Citigroup. Francisco Borges, chairman of Landmark
Partners a private equity real estate firm, bundled $50,000 for Obama, as did Todd Williams, a managing director at Goldman
Sachs and the Real Estate Council."

Obama's top contributors:

$1,591,39
University of California
5
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/who-financed-obama/
http://takimag.com/article/establishment_messiah/

One also only needs to point to the adage, 'the revolving door between Wall St. and Washington'.  Timothy Geitner, for example,
the current US Treasury Secretary, was president of the New York Federal Reserve, and was instrumental in facilitating the
bailout with Goldman Sachs (which claimed/boasted later that they didn't even need a bailout... for this quote, see my book).  He
is also a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (which I will get in to another time.. a bad guy advocacy group), and he
worked directly under Larry Summers, the architect of the deregulations of the late 90s.  Prior to Geitner, the Treasury Secretary
was Henry Paulson, who was Goldman Sachs CEO before his Washington post. 

Long story short, US policy makers don't care about the state of the American economy and don't care about American
joblessness.  All they care about is Wall St.  And regarding crashing, keep in mind that some insider companies (cough cough,
Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan), make bundles of money during crashes because they a) position themselves in a way so as to
not take as strong a loss as their competitors, and b) which allows them to buy up their competitors.  (For example, JP Morgan
bought up Bear Stearns for $2 a share, less than 1/10 its market price only days before, and which was at $170 a share a year
before)

"Meditation has brought about most of the world's greatest discoveries, such as Gravity itself" - are you saying isaac
newton discovered gravity through meditation?
That is exactly what I am saying. 

He spent days and nights in complete silence and contemplation.  He thought about the law of gravity through thought before
testing it.  There is a history about Newton that most don't realize (and it isn't even hidden).  He spent his entire final years in
complete silence, and eventually went mad.  Some close friends said it was because his discovery of Gravity proved Action at a
Distance, which was at the time considered blasphemy by the church.  By this count, he went mad because he was a devout
Christian, but couldn't cope with his discoveries.  He suffered many countless mental breakdowns.  Most are unaware he was
also a passionate alchemist.  His translation of the hermetical Emerald Tablet is amongst the most famous (although not my
personal favourite).  (Some suggest he got chemical poisoning from his alchemical tests).

One day, in the year 1666, Newton, then retired to the country, saw apple fall from the tree. Upon seeing this he went into a
profound meditation upon the cause and if this process is prolonged, it would pass very nearly through the center of the earth.
After researching this hypothesis he wrote the law of gravity.

http://targetstudy.com/knowledge/invention/8/gravity-or-gravitational-force.html
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html

He is not the only one.  Einstein, through what he called, 'thought exercises', discovered the theory of relativity before testing it
as well.  And Mozart, he claimed music came to his mind from pure silence and reflection.  He is famed for having never made
an error (apparently) in his drafts because the music was already created when he decided to start writing it down.

Please skip this section:

You have a strong faith that everyone just by thinking through things themselves can discover God. Are you sure? Don't
most people choose to follow earthly pleasures instead?  What about psychopaths or people who have inhibited
capabilities of thought?

But we don't have a moral system that teaches us from a young age to devote ourselves to reflection.  We live in a materialistic
world, and for that reason alone it is not surprising that psychopathy has become an increasingly documented phenomenon. 
Also, there will always be mentally ill people, nothing can change that.

But if someone is listening to God, through contemplation, meditation, reflection, prayer and study, then one is escaping the
earthly realm.  As soon as one contemplates about who they are in relation with others and in relationship with the universe, they
are no longer exclusively occupied with bodily thoughts and bodily pleasures.  If we all do this, we all learn bits and pieces from
God and from the universe.  We all learn about empathy, and morals, and goodness.  It is those who refuse to sit down and think
for a minute who become blinded by their own simply passions.  Again, the reason I think most people have difficulty at
discovering God is because we live in a world that does not properly teach us to do so.  Most are raised in more or less agnostic
environments, where meditation and contemplation is not valued.  And those who are raised to speak with God, usually do so in
a way that is ineffective.  Most are taught to try and speak with God, to ask him questions.  But this is idolizing God, this is
making him in to a human, with human empathies.  Even the bible has taught us that God no longer speaks through words.  And
his worldly actions are becoming increasingly difficult to interpret and detect.  I am starting to realize, thanks in a direct part to
the bible, that the only way we can learn from God is if we accept that he is the almighty, pure and holy.  The almighty cares not
about individuals. 

The next 'messiah' will take the empathy out of God.  God will give us earthquakes, and volcanoes, and pollution.  Not because
he is angry, but because we are not learning from him.  An engineer who ignores Gravity is bound to cause countless suffering. 
Similarly, when humanity continues to ignore God and the lessons of the Universe, we will stop paying attention to the damage
we are doing to our planet.  God will not strike vengefully.  But strike he will.

As history moves forward, and as the onus of truth becomes tougher and tougher (thanks to for example, scientific discoveries),
our interpretation of God improves.  What helped me see this was something you said.  God has never changed, only our
interpretation of him has.  Early prophets differentiated God from the pagan gods, such as Baal, by suggesting he was universal. 
But he was still human-like, he could be wrestled and talked to.  By the time of Moses, he was increasingly holy.  He was now
nameless, and angry at humans for thinking they can stand before him without awe.  By the time of the prophets, his voice had
turned to the whisper of the wind and the rolling thunder.  By the time of Jesus, he had no body at all.  No one could see God or
speak to him, so he sent his Son in his place.  I am seeing a trajectory.  God is the absolute, is the universe, and as we mature, our
understanding of the universe and of truth becomes such that we are finally starting to realize that he does not have any human
traits at all.  He is Gravity, he is mathematics.  He sets the rules, and defines our existence.  We learn from him by studying him. 
He will not speak to us, nor intervene in any particular life. 

But the 'end-times' are close at hand.  This is because our old interpretations of him are getting harder and harder to swallow. 
Atheism and fear of the end of the world are but symptoms.  We are a far smarter people than we were several thousand years
ago, not because our brains are bigger, but because our collective consciousness is enourmously larger and more complex.  We
know so much more.  We are more wise.  And like before, the 'human-like' God will be rephrased in to modern terms, and we
will get closer to knowing the real truths behind his power.  He will yet again be moved increasingly towards the absolute.  He is
the almighty, but he has no will.  Because will is something humans have.  Will is bodily.  We feel the need to give him a will,
because that would make it easier to understand him.  But this is laziness and folly.  Understanding God is not about finding the
easiest answer, it is about finding the true answers. 

We have to stop listening for him, and start searching for him.  This is what hermeticists have tried for thousands of years to
accomplish, by searching for the 'philosophers stone' or the 'arc of the covenant' or the 'holy grail' or 'solomon's temple'.  And all
of these metaphors imply the same lesson.  We must find truth through our own efforts and our own study.

Why can't Jesus have been sent by God? An idol is "An image or representation of a god used as an object of worship" -
but Jesus isn't an image/representation. He IS God/son of God.

Because the universe cannot have a son.  The universe is not a man.  Jesus might have been very much in touch with God, but to
be his son is hyperbole.  Consider this, eastern orthodox Christians don't even agree necessarily that he is God's biological son. 
Take the biology out of it, and what is he?  He is a symbol of God.  And so to is his cross.  I can't help but see this as idol
worship.  We will not learn lessons from God by worshiping a now long deceived prophet/son of his.  Worshiping the
catholic/orthodox saints is also idol worship, which triggered the protestant schism.  God punishes us, not vengefully, but
absolutely, for idol worship, just like gravity punishes the architect who does not listen to its rules and wisdom.  God is logos. 
Learning from God is to be wise.  And anyone can do this.  Some more than others, true, but that does not take away its
truthfulness.  Not having discovered gravity did not mean it wasn't there, and did not mean there was no wise man before
Newton. 

I deviate.  But I conclude with my conviction that our understanding of God has improved over time.  At one point it was
considered appropriate that a man could wrestle with god.  Centuries and several prophets later, this became an unheard of
conception, completely unacceptable.  One day, I suspect, we will also no longer accept that God could have a Son.