The Secret History of the Protestant Reformation
A Revolt Against Papal-Fugger Usury
and Catholic Nominalism
Michael Hoffman
“The heathen were able, by the light of reason, to conclude that a usurer is a double-dyed thief and murderer. We Christians, however, hold them in such honor, that we fairly worship them for the sake of their money…Whoever eats up, robs and steals the nourishment of another, that man commits as great a murder...as he who starves a man or utterly undoes him. Such does a usurer, and sits the while safe on his stool, when he ought rather to be hanging on the gallows, and be eaten by as many ravens as he has stolen guilders…
"Meanwhile, we hang the small thieves...Little thieves are put in the stocks, great thieves go flaunting gold and silks...there is, on this earth, no greater enemy of man (after the devil), than a gripe-money and usurer, for he wants to be god over all men...a usurer and money glutton—such a one would would have the whole world perish from hunger and thirst, misery and want...so that he may have all to himself and every one may receive from him as from a god, and be his serf forever.
"To wear fine cloaks, golden chains...to be deemed and taken for a worthy, pious man...Usury is a great huge monster, like a werewolf, who lays waste all...and yet decks himself out and would be thought pious...”
"To wear fine cloaks, golden chains...to be deemed and taken for a worthy, pious man...Usury is a great huge monster, like a werewolf, who lays waste all...and yet decks himself out and would be thought pious...”
— Martin Luther
Luther’s views were a loyal reaffirmation of the immemorial Roman Catholic dogma of all of the popes prior to the Renaissance, all of the Fathers of the Early Church, of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anthony of Padua. After Neoplatonic-Hermeticism invaded the hierarchy of the Church of Rome it succumbed to the modernism of the neo-Catholic Nominalist school, which made 5% usury respectable and fueled the Catholic Fugger usury empire (the Fuggers were the buccaneer-capitalists who banked the Renaissance papacy's indulgence loot).
Catholics excoriate John Calvin for supposedly pioneering the 5% interest rate in Christendom, but Calvin wasn’t even born when Nominalism and the “5% Fuggers" were first in the ascendant; and Calvin was a child when Medici Pope Leo X began the gradual derogation of the immutable Catholic law against profit on loans (which was sustained by all of his successors), beginning with his papal bull of May, 1515.
Martin Luther’s rage against the pope's incremental permission for profit on loans is one of the most tightly suppressed motivating factors of the early Protestant Reformation.
To this day, the world believes the propaganda that Rome stood against the money-gluttons, while it was the early Protestants who were the first to enable them. In fact, once the Medici put their “monte” usury banks into operation, the Money Power was in a position to buy ecclesiastical offices and choose personnel in the hierarchy of the Church. From the sixteenth century until now the Church of Rome has been under the suzerainty of money.
Many Catholics flee from these facts and our writings and videos on this subject are suppressed or ignored, eerily similar to Zionist tactics. No debate is undertaken (a lone, honorable exception was Anthony Santelli's review in Culture Wars).
We will not be silenced! The facts presented in our work on the roots of the Money Power in western civilization are not going to go away because papist thought-cops want it to be so. Modern-Catholic “silent treatment” methods will not extinguish the truth.
For further research:
Revisionist History Newsletter No. 65: Martin Luther and Zinskauf: The German Reformation in the Struggle over Usury. Luther’s early and later positions against greed and the Money Power, documented. So many lies have been told about Luther in this regard. No bull, just facts: where he erred and where he was right.
Order issue no. 65 here: http://revisionisthistorystore.blogspot.com/2010/03/hoffmans-revisionist-store-newsletters_31.html
_______________
"History of Catholic and Protestant Usury" DVD
In this college-level lecture in the theology of money given at Lansing, Michigan in April, 2015, historian Michael Hoffman summarizes his book Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not, and answers challenging questions from the audience. Digitally recorded in color in front of a live audience. Approx. two hours. All-region DVD.
Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not by Michael Hoffman
Softcover book, 416 pages, illustrated.
Both the book and the DVD are available for purchase here:
____________________
Posts
8 comments:
5% interest on a loan for money that was 100% funded by the loaner is not a big deal....and it allows the borrower to enjoy things that they might never be able to save for....
HOWEVER, when the money is 90+% created from nothing and the amounts are billions and trillions, it becomes thievery at the satanic scale
That is your view and you are entitled to it.
I am concerned with the history of western Christian civilization, in which any profit on a loan was considered a crime, in that it was parasitism. This extends from the Old Testament (Ezekiel 18) to the New Testament (Luke 6), and there on to the Early Church, and so forth.
Once any profit on a loan is permitted, the rate inevitably goes up. The greed factor is too enticing.
No force in nature, and no inventor, manufacturer or worker, can compete with the proceeds from compound interest. Once profit on loans is made legal and moral, the Money Power invariably comes to rule the nation.
Thanks for this, very helpful and informative.
@ The Truth will set you free: Question for you. If 1 million pounds is put into circulation within a small community and interest at 5% is charged, where does the additional £50,000 come from?
If you want the truth about the so-called "Reformation", this is the book I recommend.
https://archive.org/stream/ahistoryofthepro00cobbuoft#page/103/mode/1up
To MaryC:
The justly illustrious Mr. Cobbett makes some excellent points. Nonetheless, he was unaware of the Renaissance papacy’s role in the occult and in usury, so while his book was useful for puncturing a certain pompous Protestant disregard for the glorious medieval Catholic roots of England, his work does not deal with the early Protestant revolt in Germany against the papist Money Power.
Meanwhile, have you read my book, “Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not”?
If so, what is your evaluation?
If not, why not?
Michael,
You do err, not knowing the Jewish Scriptures!
GENTILES IN HALACHA
Foreword -- Daat Emet
For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha's real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva -- so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article "Jews Are Called 'Men'" by R' David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.
In this article R' Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards "Gentiles" in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:
"The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as 'man,' and a Gentile."
That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R' Bar-Chayim's work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R' Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs NOT on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.
@ Harry Worth
Jews are not men. Jews are hu-man beings - Hamitic Canaanites and not Semitic Israelites. 'Hu' from the Hebrew/Gaelic and Hebrew/Old English means 'Serpent' so a hu-man is a Serpent Man, not a Man.
John the Baptist:
Matthew 3:7 (KJV) But when he (John) saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation (offspring or race) of vipers (snakes or reptiles), who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Brackets mine)
Yashua Messiah:
Matthew 12:34 (KJV) O generation (offspring or race) of vipers (snakes or reptiles), how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. (Brackets mine)
Matthew 23:33 (KJV) Ye SERPENTS, ye generation (offspring or race) of vipers (snakes or reptiles), how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Brackets and emphasis mine)
Yashua Messiah once more to the Canaanite Jews:
John 8:44 (KJV) Ye are of your father The Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in The Truth, because there is no Truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Satisfaction of a want in the nearer future is, other things being equal, preferred to that in the farther distant future. Present goods are more valuable than future goods. Thus, in order for a lender to want to give up his present good (his money) in exchange for a future good (the return of the money) he must be enticed by getting something more back. This is fundamental. A rational lender would not only want his money back, plus something more, he would want to be compensated for any diminution of the purchasing power of the money returned due to his perception of inflation.
I'm shocked you would say, without evidence, "Once any profit on a loan is permitted, the rate inevitably goes up. The greed factor is too enticing. No force in nature.. can compete with the proceeds from compound interest. Once profit on loans is made legal and moral, the Money Power invariably comes to rule the nation."
Interest rates on mortgage rates have gone steadily down. In 2010, Freddie Mac chief economist Frank Nothaft said "For the year as a whole, 30-year fixed mortgage rates averaged just below 4.7%, which represented the lowest annual average since 1955 when the average price of a home was $22,000,". Today, jumbo 30 year fixed rates are now at 3.4%. Where's the rate increase you claim is inevitable?
It is the lender's responsibility to loan to those who can reasonably be expected to pay it back. It is the borrower's responsibility to figure out if he can pay it back. But all loans are eventually paid, either by the lender or the borrower. Your motivation seems to be denying lenders compensation for their time preference delay. In such case, lenders won't lend except strictly in sympathy to the borrower, and even then it will be very limited.
The writers of the Old Testament were wrong to deny interest. The Catholic Church was wrong to deny interest. It was only when "society" recognized interest performed a valuable function that the global economy truly thrived.
Now, I won't argue that borrowers at high interest rates are fools, but I can no longer stop a fool from borrowing foolishly than I can stop him from spending all his money on booze and lottery tickets. A fool must stop being a fool.
Post a Comment