Monday, September 17, 2012

Holocaust Amnesia


I am mostly consumed with finishing my book on usury. There is so much fascinating and undiscovered documents and material that I can't overlook them. I might as well make the book's documentation as strong as it posibly can be.

Today I found a passage from a twelfth century Catholic bishop who advised the lay people to "take up arms" against those who charge interest on money! I wonder what that bishop would have said about the "Christian-Republican" state of Idaho, where the legal rate of usury on a loan is 400%?

I am sustained, thus far in this book project, by donations received from approximately twelve wonderful people. Their donations are not for printing the book -- that will be have to be charged on credit (we have non-usurious credit with the printer), and then paid for by sales of the book in advance of its publication.

Current donations are keeping me going while I am writing - providing gas money for me to travel to university libraries, paying my household bills and offsetting the cost of hundreds of dollars in  books and primary materials I have purchased since August. Thanks to everyone who can help. (If you can't send something, please pray for the success of this project).


The 30th anniversary of the Sabra and Chatila massacre in Lebanon has passed with hardly any notice. Several hundred Palestinians were butchered by Israeli proxies in Lebanon on Sept. 16, 1982. Throughout July and August of that year, the Israeli air force, under the command of Ariel Sharon, carpet-bombed clearly marked civilian centers in the city of Beirut, including nursing homes, hospitals and apartment blocks. In August of 1982 the attacks escalated to terror bombing of downtown Beirut in a true holocaust (death by fire).

The Israelis commit war crimes and atrocities with impunity. They know that after the initial editorial outrage, their mass murder will never form part of a permanent collective ritual of commemoration similar to the eternal remembrance and teaching of the Nazi persecution of Judaic people under the rubric "the Holocaust."

No one can comprehend or fully account for this Zionist mentality of callous indifference toward the murder victims of the Israeli military without being conversant with Talmudic culture and ethics; at the heart of which is the concept of Judaic racial and spiritual superiority. That is the reason why the conscience-on-its-sleeve liberal media turns its back on the remembrance of the slaughter of the Arabs by the Israelis.

On the 30th anniversary of the Sabra and Chatila massacre the New York Times printed, with regard to the visit to Lebanon by Pope Benedict XVI, "Lebanon is still rebuilding from a devastating 1975-1990 civil war fought largely on sectarian lines..." (16 Sept. 2012, p. A14 print edition only; online edition has been bowdlerized).

"Civil war"? Was it the Lebanese who bombed Beirut from jets throughout the summer of 1982? Actually it was Sharon's aerial terrorists, but that fact is forgotten and covered up. The NY Times implies the Lebanese did it to themselves. How perverse.

Notice that the reference to "rebuiding" Lebanon is limited to destruction perpetrated during the years 1975-1990. No mention is made of the massive destruction Israeli bombs, rockets, missiles and artillery fire visited upon Lebanon in the summer of 2006 in the course of which hundreds of Arab children were killed and thousands of homes and businesses were destroyed. 

Just before the Israelis withdrew in 2006 they dropped tens of thousands of land mines all over the Lebanese countryside to guarantee years of crippling and maiming injuries, mostly of children who attempt to pick up the bomblets, thinking they are toys.

A question for the New York Times: is Lebanon "rebuilding" from the Israeli holocaust in 2006? Apparently not, because your timeline stops at 1990. The entire Israeli war in Lebanon of 2006 has been ommitted from the New York Times' remembrance.

In the same issue that makes these deliberate and flagrant omissions, there is an obituary for "Holocaust Survivor" Eli Zborowski, who is celebrated for supporting "Holocaust Remembrance." In his N.Y. Times' obituary we read, "In 2000, when the pope visited Yad Vashem, some criticized him for declining to comment directly on the church's silence about Hitler's crimes during the war...” (16 Sept. 2012, p. A25; [published online Sept. 12]).

Always these self-righteous accusations in the face of Judaism's own extraordinary hypocrisy!

What about the "silence" of the New York Times concerning Israeli crimes during the First and Second Lebanese wars of 1982 and 2006?

The explanation of the disparity between suffering remembered, and suffering dismissed, is that "Jews" are human beings, and deserve commemoration, reparations and remembrance. Whereas the Arabs are sub-humans who deserve obscurity, anonymity and ignominy. Or as the Talmud informs its followers: "You are called men, but the gentiles are not men" (BT Bava Metzia 114b).


Yet another plutocrat has stepped forth to help elect Binyamin Netanyahu's junior partner to the presidency: "A billionaire investor whose family owns the Chicago Cubs is pressing ahead with a multimillion-dollar pro-Republican political campaign...Joe Ricketts, the founder of what became online brokerage T.D. Ameritrade Inc., plans to spend $10 million airing ads supporting GOP nominee Mitt Romney..." (Wall Street Journal, 17 September, p. 1).

Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism's Strange Gods and the editor of Revisionist History newsletter.

Your support is critical to our Truth Mission. Please donate



Jason said...

Are you going to reference Porcius Cato's views on usury?

Michael Hoffman said...

Hi Jason

I do have Aristotle and Cicero in the book as representatives of the Greek and Roman disparagement of interest on money (Aristotle, as you know, makes a profound point), but I don’t rely very much on the pre-Christian philosophers to make the case concerning the mortal sin of usury.

Mine is a revisionist history of gentile usurers and the points of reference are almost exclusively Christian, for reasons that I hope will be clear in the book.

Dennis Spain said...

Interest charged on credit that is created ex nihilo is plainly wrong and fraudulent. But what about interest that is charged by a party lending out previous savings? It seems to me that this type of interest is ethical as the owner is foregoing its use for a specified period of time and can legitimately be compensated for that denial of present consumption. Do you agree?

Michael Hoffman said...

Dear Mr Spain

(This is a two part answer to your query).


Your argument is part of the "Lucrum cessans” theory of finance which is what was used to batter down 1500 years of usury proscription in the Church.

My book is titled 'Usury in Christendom,' and concerns Christian economics as opposed to any secular standard. While I do reference cognate objections such as that money is a medium of exchange, rather than a thing that should be allowed to breed itself, and that the sale of a medium of exchange is unnatural, along with the sale of time, which you don’t own, it would be more succinct to go directly to the crux of the matter, the Word of God.

Jesus in Luke 6:35 said 'Lend freely, expecting nothing in return,' and the Old Testament forbids lending at interest to a fellow believer. Upon those commands turns the whole of western Christianity's ban on any interest on loans, up until the eve of the Renaissance. (I deal with misapprehensions concerning Christ’s 'parable of the talents' in my book).

Non-Christians may argue that this is all so very unreasonable, irrational, absurd etc. The fact is, for those who care about western civilization in its Christian incarnation, as manifested over fifteen centuries, this is the legacy of that civilization during the majority of its existence. Before we dismiss it out of hand we might want to investigate further, which is the purpose of my book.

The notion that money can breed money was regarded by Christian civilization as unproductive parasitism and a shift of power away from producers and inventors toward speculators who would “financialize” the economy, leading to the ascendance of the pursuit of profit above all other considerations, i.e. the love of money as an legitimate standard of one’s existence, which the New Testament indicted as being nothing less than the root of all evil.

Here we come to the divide between the accomodationist Churchianity which we have today, which has made its peace with greed (despite hypocritical rhetoric to the contrary), and the separation from the 'ways of the world' as represented by the radical witness and counter-culture that is authentic Christianity.

Before we dismiss the latter as some life-denying morbidity, let us recall that much of the liberty, noble ethics and high culture that comprise western civilization emanates from the formative period of the Church. Archbishop Stephen Langton, an architect of the Magna Carta, was one of the pre-eminent medieval campaigners against usury. This linkage between the campaign against the power of money and the rights of Christian men and women is indissoluble.

In my book I am providing a heretofore hidden history of how the money power came to be ascendant within Christendom and why this violates the core values of our erstwhile Christian civilization.

People who are not believers will perhaps still be interested in the revisionist history I present; they will not, however, necessarily be impressed by the objections I marshal from Scripture, tradition, the Early Church, councils, popes and theologians.

Michael Hoffman said...

(Reply to Mr. Spain)


'"Usury in Christendom" pursues a question, does the truth change? Was the Church correct for 1500 years that charging interest on money damned one’s soul, and then suddenly wrong from the Renaissance onward? If the answer is yes, the doctrine has changed, and interest on money loaned is no longer sinful, then we have insight into the situation ethics which have subverted Christian dogma in other areas; for example on contraception and abortion, and Judaism and Zionism.

Inter alia, one loophole which apologists for usury in Christendom put forth is that interest on loans of money was never the basis of mortal sin, but rather “excessive interest.” Hilaire Belloc and others had another escape clause: interest on “productive “ loans was moral, but not on “unproductive” loans. The problem with these glosses on sacred doctrine is that the record shows that the Church did not recognize them. The definition of usury for more than a millennia was any interest on loans of money. There was no qualification based on the rate of interest.

The productive vs. unproductive loans notion was a mostly 15th century construct of certain canonists coming out of usury pestholes like Florence. It is a contrived distinction which, once again, was unknown to the Magisterium of the Church for the majority of its existence.

If you are interested in pursuing this field of study at greater depth, God willing, my book will go to the printer by the beginning of October and should be in print in early December.