What’s Up With The Economy?

  • 1. ‘Economy’ defined
  • 2. How did it start?
  • 3. The Four Big  Mistakes made with money
  • 4. A historical overview in brief.
  • 5. Problems with perspective.
  • 6. Our solution- seeking creativity!
  • 7. No need to fear.

“Economy” is an invisible noun.  In language, when we find a noun that is not a place, person or object, but the name of something invisible, we are made aware that it is a creative construct of human imagination.

 The economy is a fabulous example for an earlier writing, of our own creativity getting the better of us.  Definitely also an example of where we need to reign it in, and make the necessary adjustments to our own invention with our wiser and wider perspective.

A reminder of vocabulary, that  ‘nouns’ are places, people and things, and ‘proper nouns’ are names of these.

Making people reliant and subservient to money is something that was done historically by force.  It is something that was not planned in the long-term, with the long-term in mind, or with a picture of what the long-term may become.  It was done in a narrow and focussed way, in a way that would build a perceived strength of an individual country.  It was done without consideration of any consequences.

The largest sums/gold were mainly for exchange of arms.

To make people dependent on earning an income, they were forcibly evicted from their own homes and lands, unless they began to pay ‘taxes’ to the ‘crown’ or declared head of state/ruler, equivalent to our ‘rent’ and ‘rates’ words used today.

Mistakes with the Invention we call money.

1. the first mistake made with the invention called money or currency, is that it was given no use-be date.  I consider it a brilliant idea, to have a convenient form of exchange or trade, if you did not want my oranges, or I your beans.  Then to be able to exchange this ‘token’ for goods, and with a use by date clearly indicated.

2. the second mistake  made with money was when it was able to make its own money.  When it was given ‘interest’ making ability. This idea was a solution as it was wanted by others – who didn’t ‘own it’ to be used, and to attract more others to let them use it also.

3. the third mistake  made with money, was when things were ‘floated’ and sold off or privatized.  As money was wanted and needed even more so to be made available.

4. the fourth mistake made with money but linked to no. 3, is that money now makes money faster that a human can.

The economy was not designed  so that it could last as it is, and quite simply, it cannot.  It was designed without any forethought to consequence.   

It was designed and implemented by men, fully focussed on a project, and without an ability to ascertain consequence.  This is something someone in the form Man cannot actually do so well as  a Woman, and he is not designed to.   Man is the problem solver in the immediate here and now.  

Determining consequence is way easier for a woman to do, as her form enables her this. (See my series of writings on Men & Women Explained*.)

In some other cultures, such as Native American Indian tribes, those in the form of Woman decided/voted after the men, as it was considered that their job was to foresee and determine for the future generations.  

At this time historically, no women were involved in any of the decision processes in our predominantly English ruled society.  Or if there were, they were doing so more as a what I call a female- man*, or a woman figure-head only.

There was not the understanding of ourselves,as Human Beings and our abilities, as there is available today.  It was a society ruling and living in fear and suspicion and mistrust.  It was not a society capable of determining what was best all-round for all individuals and the organism earth as a whole.

There was intention to take in the larger picture, and an awareness that it was a good idea, but it was not humanly possible for these men to do.  The ‘largest’ picture they were able to comprehend, was that of the state – their own ‘state’.  Legislation by these men clearly indicates they wished for this , as representative of the very largest consideration possible to these people.  At this time in history, it was still unimaginable what the scale of the world was and if it was flat or another shape altogether.

The way I see it, bringing the largest perspective into it, that is easier for me in my form as a Woman, and with my knowledge of all that we are as Humans, I say let’s declare there is a problem, so that we can involve our solution-seeking creativity to sort it out.  While we are still fiddling around and trying to pretend to “balance” it, we can’t come to a real and proper solution.

There is nothing that we cannot do, to bring about a solution to something that came about, as a result of our own creativity.

To Be Human Is To Create.  It is where we are at our absolute best.  

As many of us already know, we attract things to us, as the vibrational energy beings that we are.  Wealth and abundance are not limited to our money invention, and nor is a state of lack.  Having the faith that we will attract to us, that which resonates with us, and keeping ourselves emotionally and energetically in good health, will see us through any perceived challenging time.  It is only ignorance (without knowledge) that has some people assume  the human invention ‘money’ is the only wealth there is!


So How Did The Racism Concept Start? What Is It?

 In this writing I concentrate on British historical reasoning mostly, but  other countries and language groups have been involved in ‘racist’ perception and activities.   Europe was very interconnected at this time by a want for new lands and almost all are ‘cold country creativity’ creative-solutions, or done to out-do the British, so British historical focus is  applicable.

There was never any such thing as ‘Race’ or ‘Human Race’, this was just a new overused word that year in Victorian vocabulary deficient English. Seriously.

The only race that was really on was the race for ‘new’ lands, albeit someone else’s;) between Britain and France mostly, as the solution-seeking creativity to assist poverty, misery, and ill-health problems. And it was on this desperate race, the word ‘race’ was then always referred to. : )

‘Race’ was a simplistic way of classifying human beings into four groups: ‘Caucasian’, ‘Negroid’, ‘Mongoloid’ and ‘Asian’, according to physical appearance. 

There are many variations within a ‘Race’, and  I find that we are ‘Breeds’ rather than a race of four.   Breeds that are determined largely by language groups.

Certainly there are greater physical similarities between humans breeds found within those classification categories called ‘Race’, but on its own ‘Race’ is not adequate or sufficient.

To expand upon and improve the current classification order with Human Beings /Home Sapiens, I suggest in addition to the standard:

Kingdom; Phylum; Class; Order; Family; Genus; Species  we add: Breed; Language.  ( I don’t feel it even necessary to include ‘race’  though it could fit between ‘species’ and ‘breed’.)

When I meet someone I like to know their blood lines (heritage) on both side and their ‘home’ language.   I find this the most helpful information to know more of someone, and it has proven reliable and consistent.

I have known, dated or befriended, all races and many breeds of humans.  We Humans bond because of our vocabulary, not our language.   We are bonded by our energetic resonance, that governs our word choice – or vocabulary – within a language.  Just because two people speak the same language, this does not, at all, mean they use the same vocabulary.

I do not think a greater effort of classifying Human Beings was seriously entered into, as the motivation for it, came from fear and insecurity, rather than a position of ‘loving curiosity’.;) 

Classification was carried out with the intent to make possible, the justification for theft, of land, inhabited by people already.  

An outcome was desired, and then a reality contrived to make it possible.  People were found to be not worthy of consideration, because of their appearance.

Historically and traditionally, the British used ridicule or derogatory language words to ‘bring down’ those they feared, or felt threatened by.

It is a known strategy also within the military.   It has been demonstrated that a ridiculing, rather than a respectful or honourable way of treating people, leads to a more successful occupation or victory.

We know now in science, how it is important to be impartial when conducting studies.  My own scientific background taught me that studies undertaken objectively and with no attachment to the result, makes for the better , more reliable, and trustworthy result.

The concept of ‘Race’ to describe other breeds of humans came about from a need, not an objective observation.

The use of judgement words, such as “superior” and “inferior”, that are ‘solution- seeking creations’, demonstrate a very strong attachment to the result.

Definitely the ‘Race’ concept was brought into popularity at a time when another ‘race’ was on, the race to take over the rest of the lands on earth. 

To get the land that became ‘Australia’, Britain was in a competitive race by sea with France in the 18th century, which Britain ‘won’. 

Was it with such a fixed determination, that the word ‘race’ was so impressed into the minds of these folk, that they used the word ‘race’ here also?;)  Quite possibly.   

Maybe it was even a ‘slip of the tongue’ and they were referring to the ‘race’ to obtain lands in competition with another language group/breed.  Maybe it was from the British like, to ‘make life easier for yourself’, to use this new, common and frequently used word, ‘race’, to help name the other Peoples that had been discovered.

Historically, the English have always been, very fixated on physical appearance, how things look, and how things ‘appear to be’.

We must remember the “Might Is Right” British jargon of the time, to validate a situation taken by force.  We know now, that it isn’t necessarily right at all, or clever to think so.

Using the invader’s common strategy of ridicule, it would be far easier, and upon seeing the advantage – coming quite naturally to them also, given their propensity for this, and also of ‘complaining’ – to discredit an entire populus, than to do it one at a time.

Much easier to dis-empower a race of people, than to deal with these strapping, stronger, physically in better shape, ‘Equal Men’ one at a time!;)

How clever to then be able to make use of these people as a free workforce, at a time when Britain was in such economic uncertainty.  They justified slavery, removing people to free up their land, then forced them to work , all the while justifying how it was for “their own good to be fed and given a place to live out their days.”

With their academic ‘superiority’, British upper classes stated that these native people were dying out anyway (argument used in Australia) so it was only a matter of time before the land was available.

The English language is much more ‘word thick’ today than in the 18th century, and quite likely this is as complex a thinking process that occurred:

“Oooh golly…LOOK!!!.  Look at his spear… and he’s not wearing any clothes…”

Then:  “Spear?  No gun?   Not very smart.   He’s not wearing any clothes….must be a lesser man than we.”

This sight would have been an enormous shock, and enormously threatening.  Familiarity at this time was to react from a place of fear, as the Britain they had left behind was a cold, poverty-stricken, gruelling place of ill-health and misery. 

It would have been overwhelming for them to see such a healthy, naked man so comfortable in his own skin, with such blatant sexual acceptance, when they were not allowed to mention their own body parts in polite company.;)   

A more ‘conscious’ (and intelligent?;))  group, given the same sight may have gone “Wow, how beautiful..look at their comfort with themselves and natural living skills.  What fine specimens and how fortunate to be able to live so freely in such a climate…”

Many of the English words to describe other people of differing breeds and origins have been banned popularly as they were found Internationally, to be derogatory, insulting and nonsensical to use.   (The energetic injury we get from words I go into in another writing.)

My mother was Caucasian, the Race that classified the others, putting itself at the top.

At five years old I knew from my mother, that I was only half English, and that I was half Caucasian,  and half Mongoloid race.”   The tone of voice she used was derogatory, and in judgement.

She would look me over with narrowed eyes telling me my eyes were “too Chinesey”, my backside and face shape “too negro”, my head shape “too asian”.  She insinuated I was of lesser worth, because I had these ‘throwback’ characteristics.

Consequently I bonded with the world;) and I drew strength from all Peoples experiencing oppression, to add to my fairy tale and Dicken’s characters.  I considered myself an Albino Negro and Nelson Mandela became my hero.;)

 My mother said  “the only thing you have going for you is the hair on your head”  referring to my blonde hair, while the rest of me she considered to be an evolutionary slip-up as I did not meet her specifics.

As we know more, other words have been introduced  in our categorising, such as ‘hispanic’, and we are such a mixture now, we naturally use other words as descriptions such as African-American. 

But still this is a physical description, without reference to language spoken.  I  describe myself as Anglo-Hungarian-Australian, which is far more useful than just ‘Australian’,  in determining who I might be.;)

As breeds of humans – as with breeds of dogs – we may have a propensity /natural aptitude/tendency, not occurring in other breeds of us,


I find that starsigns/ natal data, and language group/home language spoken, far more helpful in determining someone than their ‘race’.

“Love the skin you ‘re in!”   Absolutely, and also love your home language!  : )

%d bloggers like this: