Thursday, October 22, 2015

Identifying the Root, So That We May Strike It




In a recent post, Vox offered a short list of actions that need to be taken in order to reverse the decline of our civilization into the dystopian chaos of our Brave New World Order:

To begin restoring the West, straightforward steps are needed:
*  Restore Christianity to its foremost position in Christendom.

*  Drive back the Turk.

*  Replace representative democracy with direct democracy unhampered by judicial-branch vetoes.

*  Hard money.

*  End free trade.

*  Punish corporations that break the law with jail. "Jail" them by pulling their business license for the period of their sentences. A criminal natural person cannot work, so why is a criminal juridical person permitted to do so?

While all of these measures would undoubtedly have varying levels of success on reversing our current descent towards dystopia, I am of the opinion that it would be far more effective to address a single issue. It relates directly to Vox's first recommendation, restoring Christianity to it's foremost position in Christendom. I do believe this would certainly do the trick, if we're talking about the Christianity of antiquity and it's former widely understood and universally accepted prohibition on usury.

"Usury is interest on money, not ‘excessive interest’, which is the modern Orwellian Newspeak for Usury, but interest on money as it was always defined, until the Money Power got in control and then falsified it.

Interest on money was condemned as a mortal sin. It was put on a level at least as theft and sometimes compared with murder. And this was the consistent opinion of the church for at least the first millennium.

What we’re dealing with here is gradualism. There is no way the Money Power could have come in a truly revolutionary manner, at least until it captured the papacy. Once it captured the papacy, then you began to see the footprints of the revolution…..And then you came at the papacy of Leo X, the first of the Medici popes, and only then did you see this revolutionary gnawing away at Usury laws.

Nowadays you have these so-called ‘Catholic libertarians’ like Thomas Woods who openly say Usury isn’t a sin. This redefinition of Usury as ‘excessive interest’ is necessary for our modern mentality, which is immersed in money-getting, and in greed, it’s a part of all of our lives, it’s woven into our corrupt society, it’s the root of all evil, and we can’t even conceive of a society that says ‘interest on money’, the breeding of money from money, is a mortal sin that will damn your soul to perdition." - Michael Hoffman, Author of Usury in Christendom


 http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/michael-hoffmans-online-revisionist.html


Usury is the means in which all other corruption flows. It's the the primary weapon that THEY employ to wage their war of power and control on humanity. With the power of usury, all things THEY seek to inflict on humanity are made possible.

If we are to define hard money as the traditional Christian prohibition on usury, than I do believe we have indeed identified the root that needs striking.




Whether we live under a Representative Republic, or the under the tyranny of a despotic Monarchy, or a technology-feasible direct democracy that Vox advocates...I think a study of the history behind the rise of the international Banking system that rules our world, shows that whatever form of government that purportedly rules over us doesn't really matter. Once you allow officially sanctioned usury in the economic system of any nation, usurpation by financiers to control the Government for their own ways and means is inevitable.

As the most famous international Bankster in history notoriously boasted: "Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who writes the laws."


Of course, the mere mention of the name "Rothschild" typically brings about generalized dismissal as the ravings of conspiritard lunacy or the fevered rantings of neo-nazis clamoring for holocaust.

Yet that name of the Patriarch of the world's foremost usury cartel can be found in the annals of mainstream, conventional history, such as in the US congressional record. Former Democratic Party contender for the Presidency, Williams Jennings Bryan, asserted on the floor of Congress that America could not afford “...to put ourselves in the hands of the Rothschilds,” and that the U.S. Treasury “...shall be administered on behalf of the American people and not on behalf of the Rothschilds and other foreign bankers.”

Bryan later went on to give what became a rather infamous speech referred to as his "cross of gold" at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago on July 9, 1896; in which he stated: 

"When we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and that until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished."




King's, Queens, Emporers, Prime Minsters, Presidents, Dukes, Dictators, Parliaments, Senates, City Councils....none of them have true power if they are beholden to the tyranny of usurious usurpers that enslave the erstwhile rulers and their subjects through control of issuing interest-bearing money.

The longest serving Prime Minster in Canada's history had this to say about usury:

"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile." - William Lyon Mackenzie King, 10th Prime Minister of Canada



Dante consigned the usurers to his seventh level of hell. I'm thinking if he had lived to see the results of our present reality thanks to the machinations of the usurers, he'd have to reconsider that he'd let them off too lightly...


 


Aristotle wrote in his work Politics (Book One, part X): "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. . . Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural."





"It is too bad that today's pastors and Christians do not share Jesus' disdain for the current generation of moneychangers, because it is the moneychangers who are in the process of destroying these United States of America--and our pastors and Christians either do not see it, or, if they do see it, do not seem to care." - Pastor Chuck Baldwin






"All usurers are thieves and belong on the gallows." - Martin Luther




As long as we the sheeple accept and participate in the globalized usury-based economic system of They who are Too Big Too Fail, nothing else matters.




In my estimation, ending usury is the only way to strike at the root.

24 comments:

Arthur Isaac said...

Dmitry Orlov's work is good on this subject "5 Stages of Collapse".

I explain usury to folks in simple ("What Ever Happened to Penny Candy") terms.

If I had the only dollar in the world and loaned it to you are 1% interest and insisted you pay me $1.01 in a years time how would you pay me?

When Benjamin Franklin described the "marvel" of compounding interest he wasn't describing a wonder, he was describing a trap.

Joshua Sinistar said...

You have to wonder at the stupidity of fools who have armies that can level cities and yet tremble before a small goblin with a crooked streak and a coward's level of false courage. I could probably slap Baron Rothschild around like a little girl in person. That's why these stupid little shits hide in their own gilded cages in a prison they constructed in a world of enemies made through their endless greed.

Carnivore said...

Excellent book on usury which examines it with a broad historical scope is "Barren Metal" by E. Michael Jones. It's pricey and long to wade thru (1200+ pages) but well worth the effort.

http://www.culturewars.com/Reviews/BarrenMetal.htm

bob k. mando said...

the originally mandated Constitutional system of money defined a dollar as EITHER a certain quantity of gold OR silver.

also known as "bimetallism".

the purpose of this, is that a currency backed by a single commodity ( gold, for instance ) is much more susceptible to manipulation, production and market cornering games than a multi-commodity currency.

and, of course, the banksters LOVE wars.

because wars almost always require deficit spending.

and deficit spending is only possible when you can find someone willing to lend you the money necessary to deficit spend.

and when the bankster is charging INTEREST on all of that war time deficit lending to the government that he just made? he gets to be very, very rich indeed.

Black Poison Soul said...

A worthwhile book to read on this subject is "The Moneymaker" by Janet Gleeson. It's the story of John Law, a Scotsman, who 300 years ago beggared France and Louis XV. It touches on the South Sea Bubble, Dutch West India stock, the Mississippi company, etc.

In the end they (France) were publicly burning paper money and stock certificates in a strange attempt to reduce the supply of paper and increase the supply/value of silver and gold.

I am curious as to what our civilizations will do.

Robert What? said...

I'm a little confused. You have A who has lots of money. Now you have B who wants to build houses that he can sell. However he needs money to buy building materials and pay his workmen until the houses are sold. Normally he would borrow the money from A and then pay it back with interest. Without that, how does B build his houses? Is A required to lend B the money without interest? What is A's incentive? He makes nothing from it and he still has the risk that B won't or can't pay it back. What am i missing here?

Durandel Almiras said...

Robert, I'm not economically savy, but in what I have read they mention charging fees for the service of rendering a loan. It is similar to interest, but fees are a cost that are out in front while interest acts as a hidden cost. Behaviorally, fees cause people to be more cautious with spending while interest does the opposite. But hopefully someone here can better answer your inquiry.

In the case of construction, lack of usury would lead to houses only being built once the demand is already there. So a couple gets married, everyone gives them money to help pay for a home, and the home is built. Sounds expensive, but houses are priced higher because of the ubiquity of loans available. Prices on all goods comes down when purchases are made more in cash rather than with credit or with loans because of the needed shift in time preference.

Thomas Davidsmeier said...

In the Old Testament, Jews were commanded to loan money without interest to other Jews. Jesus goes even farther when he commands his followers to be perfect like the Father and loan money without expecting to be paid back. He then promises that the rewards for this behavior will be great and magnificent.

If the people involved in the building project are all actual believing Christians, then God's promise is the reward for the risk involved.

I personally think the investment in fellow Christians and their success and well being would be a huge part of the reward. Think of a society where everyone felt invested in each other, and truly wanted everyone else to succeed. It would be a much better place.

Ex. 22:25
Lev. 25:35-38
Luke 6:34-38

"34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. 35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.
37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.”"

Kidd Cudi said...

you guys seen zippy catholic's explanation of usury? Lending money at profitable interest is only usury if the loan is a full-recourse, or muutum loan.
should checkout his faq for an in-depth explanation of what usury is and is not.

https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-the-pill/

Arthur Isaac said...

@ Robert What, the thing you are missing is that money is created from nothing, so you are not actually loaning capital. At least gold and silver represent wealth (in that it cost someone to dig them up smelt and strike them into coins). What do little pieces of color paper represent? To you and me they represent work because we trade our labor for them, what do they represent to the person who can make as many of them as they want?

Arthur Isaac said...

http://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2015-10-13/China-The-Great-Depressions-1-2-And-Gold.html

Anon133 said...

Returning to hard money purges the financial parasites, which resolves almost everything. Unlike in the past, we have bankruptcy, so historical tragedies like debtors prison and debt slavery is not a concern. The only problem is the financial parasites could return to power. Since we're basing this on the assumption that Christendom has been restored, than we can bypass the issue of acceptable interest rates by simply holding a debt jubilee every seven years. We can also hard-cap interest rates at 5% if it really is a concern. But abolishing central banks and restoring gold and silver as legal tender already deals with the money masters.

ddddddd said...

So weird, I just started reading Michael Hoffman's Usury in Christendom the other week, great stuff.

I happened to get Fritz Springmeier's Be Wise as Serpents off the shelf and noticed he has a chapter about interest on money being recognized as verboten in all Christianity until the renaissance.

If people think tech/econ progress would be hampered by banning usury, remember Jesus didn't come and teach us how to build computers.

zippycatholic said...

Arthur Isaac:

Folks often think that fiat dollars are 'just paper', but that is not the case. If they were 'just paper' then no sane businessman would accept them as payment.

Fiat dollars are bearer options issued by the sovereign which entitle the bearer to the settlement of tax liabilities. Settlement of tax liabilities is valuable for anyone and everyone who incurs a tax liability -- though of course what kinds of taxes are or are not legitimate is a whole different discussion. (I have made several arguments myself that property taxes are intrinsically unjust, for example).

Fiat dollars have trading value for the same reason that any other paper title to something valuable has trading value. They are especially convenient for commerce given that taxed transactions have to be measured in them anyway; but of course there is no requirement to transact in dollars, and I myself have engaged in quite large non-cash transactions.

All:

Usury (interest on a mutuum, or personally guaranteed, loan) is usury no matter what 'currency' is used for the loan. A full recourse loan of gold for interest charged in gold is still usury. So the issue of 'hard currency', while a perfectly legitimate area of discussion, is independent of usury. In my view it is a disservice to both subjects to conflate them.

Cane Caldo said...

@Robert What

"I'm a little confused. You have A who has lots of money. Now you have B who wants to build houses that he can sell. However he needs money to buy building materials and pay his workmen until the houses are sold. Normally he would borrow the money from A and then pay it back with interest. Without that, how does B build his houses? Is A required to lend B the money without interest? What is A's incentive? He makes nothing from it and he still has the risk that B won't or can't pay it back. What am i missing here?"

One way to do this would be for A and B to form a partnership or corporation. For our purposes we're just talking about a simple contract where A agrees to provide the money (capital) and B agrees to provide the skills/labor. So the first thing that we see is that neither belongs to the other. They are cooperating and sharing the risk. A makes his money the same way B does: He gets a share of whatever profits are made from selling a house that was built with A's capital and B's labor.

If B stops building houses, the assets are liquidated and A goes away with whatever he can get from the liquidation, or he can retain what he bought with his capital and go in with C; who also wants to build houses. B goes away with his skill; which is exactly with what he arrived. Perhaps because of this, A would only enter partnerships where he (risking more because liquidated parts sell for less) stands to gain a greater share of the profits; say 60%.

Anonymous said...

"If I had the only dollar in the world and loaned it to you are 1% interest and insisted you pay me $1.01 in a years time how would you pay me?"

If there was only one dollar in the world, then other people would obviously be using other currency in order to buy and sell. If there was no other currency, there would be a barter system. So one year from now, I would pay you $1.01 with either another currency, the equivalent of $1.01 in barter, or the $1 back plus the equivalent of $.01 in barter.

There is a lot of economic confusion like this question. The question fails to understand that hard work and creative ideas can increase wealth. There is much more wealth today than there was 300 years ago, this is because the wealth which existed was put to productive use to create even more wealth than before.

"What, the thing you are missing is that money is created from nothing, so you are not actually loaning capital."

The second part of the statement is incorrect. It is the equivalent of capital even though money in a fiat system is all too often created from nothing. If people abandon the fiat money it will, of course, cease being the equivalent of capital at that time, but as long as it is exchanged for goods and services it will remain currency and the equivalent of capital. The alternative is the nonsensical position that I can buy an ounce of gold today with 1148 pieces of nothing and now hold an ounce of capital.

Miller Smith said...

Don't want to buy the money you want to use? Then do not buy money. Take money only that is given to you. Go from one person to another who has money, and ask them to give you money to buy a home for yourself. If they want to know why they should give you money and get nothing in return for the home you will have, tell them, "That's what Jesus would do."

zippycatholic said...

It is possible to buy a house with a reasonable down payment and a non-usurious non-recourse loan. I explain how non-usurious fractional reserve banking can work here:

https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2015/10/31/banking-castles-built-with-black-magic/

The OP is absolutely right that usury is at the heart of anti-realist modernism. But it is important to grasp it correctly, or else we'll get distracted by straw men like the comment of Miller Smith above.

Black Poison Soul said...

I believe that a large part of the difference between an up-front fee and modern usurious interest is that the up-front fee is fixed. It doesn't change upon whimsy, like (for example) the banks change their interest rates according to whatever arm-waving the politicians are doing in the instant.

As an example, back when I was young (in New Zealand) you could get 11% interest on money in the bank. How was this enormous amount possible? It was possible because of:

a/ Inflation was going through the roof
b/ The average mortgage rate was a tremendous 20.1% (!)

A very crazy time. In fact, my parents came unstuck at that point: they lost their house because they couldn't pay the insane rate that was being demanded. Too much stuff on tick, still being paid off, rather than owning it outright.

Back to the topic of H/L's post: you can attempt to do something outright, with (most likely a miniscule) chance of success. Or you can attempt to subvert and destroy them covertly.

In many cases, plausible deniability is a very good option.

Black Poison Soul said...

Correction: the average mortgage rate was 20.5% - remember, average. I have no idea what a high mortgage rate might have been.

At any rate, the "spread" between 11% and 20% illustrates the greed and actual value of inflation going on at the time.

Miller Smith said...

What up front fee does Jesus charge?
Or
What interest rate does the Son of God charge?
Or
Why would Jesus even care if you had a home?
Or
Why do you need money?

Anonymous said...

Money supply has to increase along with the growth of an economy. That's why hard money won't work

Anonymous said...

The US is trying to blame everyone for their ISIS creation getting it's but kicked. The Ponzi scheme (aka the Dow Jones) is propped up mostly by the Federal Reserve. Like Gerald Celente said. "When all else fails, they go to war."

Interesting, My brother is a JW and one of their halls was purchased with a loan from the head office in Brooklyn. Interest was charged of course, though it was nominal. Ignore the parts of the bible concerning interest to your fellow Christians. ;)

Shane Chubbs said...

I think, if you look closely at the Title Transfer theory of Contracts (of Murray Rothbard, one of Tom Wood's authorities in Austrian economics), you will see that it is only actual property that can be exchanged. So, to Zippy's point: if you have a loan, it must be collateralized with a real good.