BANNED BY YOUTUBE AND REMOVED AUGUST 26, 2019
Historian Michael Hoffman gives a talk in a private home concerning the thesis of his new book, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not.
Historian Michael Hoffman gives a talk in a private home concerning the thesis of his new book, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not.
This video is 34 minutes and covers some of the main points that Hoffman is most passionate about, including his belief that we will not begin to restore God’s Church or heal western society of its many ills, until we begin to obey the law of God in the crucial matter of the mortal sin of charging interest on debt.
Currently the world is ruled by the Money Power -- by our love of money as that ungodly lust is made manifest by the demonic engine of compound interest -- money breeding money -- a depraved act of human perversity that leads to every other form of iniquity, criminal politics and crimes against nature.
***
Posts
48 comments:
Excellent video! It's inspiring to be in the presence of a master intellect who so deftly cuts through the obfuscation that endlessly billows from the mouths of the moral munchkins currently ensconced in the seat of religious and cultural power. You speak the truth. Kudos to you, Sir!
Curtis Simpson
Right on the dubious situation ethics of modern theologians, wrong on economics. Maybe Jesus was or would have been, if pressed for an answer, against free trade, too? His condemnation of usury was quite simply fallacious, just as the equivalent teachings of other prophets both religious and secular. Obedience to these teachings has entailed economic misery for much of mankind.
The money system is our state religion.
Thank you so much for this helpful video. I would love to have a download of this video. I will buy your book. I have been studying this issue of usury for a while. I have several CDs of an ISOC.ws of speakers like E. Michael Jones and others speaking about usury. I am reading a book by Jack Cashill - Popes and Bankers. And I hope to read E. Michael Jones soon to be released book on Capitalism. But what you have said on this video is most clear. Jones says capitalism is state sponsored usury.
All sin about money is a perversion and it is idolatry and a sin against the first Commandment. (Same sin of Lance Armstron. Same sin as artificial contraception. All putting the love of something of the flesh above God.)
The Satanic brilliance of the Talmudists has always used or weaponized man's lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and pride of life.
Yes, this evil infiltrated and took over the Catholic Church a long time ago. I am glad to identify exactly when that happened. Still Christ said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church, so while we do not conform to the outward manifestations of the Church as it exists today, we cling to the Word of God made flesh.
I think it is important to show that charging someone else interest as well as paying someone else interest is equally a mortal sin. That means we all have to get rid of all buying on credit.
I suppose there is a place for the discipline of economics but I think they have contributed very little to the right use of money in our world. The use of money involves the indiviudal will and choices of each person and is therefore a moral matter that popes should comment on, but that has not been done properly for a long time.
I equate "free trade" with "globalism" or the New World Order, or with what I call the one world death and slavery system. All of Austrian economics is Talmudic and from the absolute pit of hell. I am not sure at all that America was founded as a "Christian" nation, as the founders all seemed to be in the thrall of the Enlightenment philosophies and Freemasonry (Talmudic Luciferianism).
Thank you again and
God bless you in the Name of the One Who said He is Truth
To Jeannon Kralj
You write, "Jones says capitalism is state sponsored usury.”
Interest on debt is Renaissance and post-Renaissance Church-sponsored usury.
It begins in earnest with a Fugger banking house stooge, the Catholic theologian Eck and the nominalists; followed by Medici Pope Leo X’s usury-for-a-good-cause: the Monte di pieta, so-called “charity banks” operated in the Renaissance in the name of the poor.
Read “Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not."
Specifics, Solpiz?
Also would like to reference Clark Carlton's "Faith and Philosophy" podcast from 8/20/11 called "The Naked Public Square Part 5: The Marketplace" in which he expounds on how Capitalism and Socialism have become essentially the same thing as practiced here. He specifically references stock ownership and so-called private property as similarities between the two systems.
I'm currently reading "Usury in Christendom," and am loving it. I noticed that you, Mr. Hoffman, reference the illusion of today's private property as well. Mr. Carlton uses the term "legal fiction" to describe it. Listening to him I can't help but think he is familiar with your work.
Jason, if no interest can be charged, no (or hardly any) investments and thus no (or hardly any) economic progress will be made. Simple, really. Hoffman tacitly accepts this when he points out that the concept of usury was abandoned during the Renaissance. Well, that of course was the time when the economy of Europe started to pick up again after centuries of stagnation. As to the high-interest payday loans alluded to by Hoffman in his talk, check out the article "Payday Loans" by Thomas Sowell who, succinctly as ever, clarifies the matter.
Usury is lending REAL money and collecting interest on it.
REAL money has been abolished.
Federal reserve notes are worthless paper backed by nothing.
Fractional reserve lending as practiced by nationally chartered banks in the U.S.A is not usury. It is FRAUD.
Superstition is the opposite of morality. PHilosophy and morality are one and the same thing. Real relationships with real people are a form of responsibility. Pretend relationships with imaginary people like Jesus are a delusional excuse for immorality. Christians don't want the responsibility of maintaining a form of civil government because they are going to live in heaven. Christians do not need real responsiblities to their fellow citizens because they love their imaginary friend Jesus.
Our public treasury has been abolished and replaced with a private bank which they call a public treasury. The same with public courts and public elections.
This is a direct result of the cowardice and delusion of Christians who owe no allegiance to their fellow citizens or to our posterity.
What is the position of the various Eastern Orthodox sects on Usury?
Sulpiz, so what would you say of the current situation in Europe and the US? Would it not be simply the culmination of all the post-Renaissance "economic progress"?
Jim, I'm sorry, you don't understand Christianity but that's not your fault. As for the real money requirement, is usury not simply interest charged on the unit of exchange?
Novus Ordo Joe, from what I understand EO doctrine does not accept usury as they're based on the Church Fathers. However, it remains a mystery to me as to how this is practiced by some of the larger Patriarchates like Russia and Asia Minor.
Jason, are you suggesting that the collapse of the "sub-prime" mortgage business or the fact that Greece can't repay its national debt somehow nullifies the economic progress of half a millennium?
I just wanted to say thanks and tell you i am a little envious. you hit it out of the park with this lecture and would that i lived out there, try to get to all your lectures. its exactly what i have come to believe since starting to educate myself on what the truth is in this life, but my envy is over the fact that you can articulate almost perfectly in words, the simplicity that the truth really is, and i cant. once again i make a better reciever than transmitter so this comes up short, but, this lecture resonated with me in a profound way. the good thing is i know it doesnt matter if one can wax eloquently because it really does come down to each one of us walking the walk, and not talking the talk. thanks again.
Sulpiz,
I'm betting we have a different definition of what "progress" means, and by extension a certain philosophical disagreement on life itself.
With that in mind, yes, there has been material progress in Europe. As an outsider looking in, it appears this material progress is in direct correlation with spiritual regress. The question then is, is this material progress the cause of - or response to - spiritual regress? Hoffman's book lays out a case to confirm it is the cause. Whether or not Greece's ability to payback debt, or subprime mortgages will nullify half a millenium's progress remains to be seen.
Excellent video & courageous words. I think the only religion today that seems to challenge the current status quo that and that on the face of it rejects the usuary Mr Hoffman talks about is probably Islam.
Jason, you are no outsider to the progress I am referring to. You would be tilling a field behind an ox if you were. If you believe that kind of occupation might bring you closer to spiritual happiness, try it out.
"Interest" was partial ownership in a business or enterprise. If the business or enterprise prospered your interest grew, and could be traded or sold. This word was misappropriated to replace "usury" because people learned to read.
How do you explain to people that paying usury is assisting others to [in] sin?
Progress? All depends what is meant by 'progress' - technological advancement yes but at what price? More mental illness, more suicide, more depression, obesity, homelessness,the normalisation of sexual deviency & perversion, dumbing down of information, news & media, less happiness, more pressure, more distractions, less ability to maintian focus & concentration (ADD), less chidren, more senility, more reliance on debt, addiction to 'over- stimulation' of our God given senses, over-reliance on drink, drugs & welfare and less on family, society and community.
Sulpiz, thanks for the chuckle this morning. Never claimed to be an outsider, just not a Progressive cheerleader.
What do you think the goal of all of this progress is?
Sulpiz is representative of the withered vision that is a product of our blighted times, imagining that without the financialization of God’s creation we would be fated to ploughing with oxen.
God’s creation is naturally abundant if we cooperate with it as stewards of the land. Agriculture is a source of immense wealth.
Moreover, the magnificent medieval Gothic edifices, from monasteries to cathedrals, were built without usury.
Much of the best in western theology, civil law and philosophy was formed in the centuries before usury became predominant.
Saxon England on the eve of the Conquest was usury free and stands as a template of a Christian commonwealth to this day.
Furthermore, what does the “wealth” of the empire of usury consist in today? Surely not the most fundamental spark of life, the reproduction of one’s own species. The people of the West are self-extinguishing under the reign of the dollar sign: negative birth rates, self-slaughter, pandemic levels of abortion. Measured in terms of the most fundamental yardstick of what it means to be “green” - fertility - and our modern society is little more than a glittering death watch.
Concerning the ones who defy His Law, God said, “All those who hate me love death.” (Proverbs 8:36).
I finished reading this book and I loved it. This book is chock full of new material and insights about the sin of usury. For almost 1,500 years all usury was sin just like murder. I will now read this great book again. This book needs to be in the hands of every pastor and priest in America. One of the best facts brought out is that long before Calvin and Luther were born, usury was already established in the Church to "help" the poor. You need this book. I repeat. You need this book. This book is a revelation. Thank you Bro Hoffman! Frank from NJ
I am trying to figure out where a hypothetical person who wants to avoid usury should keep his or her money. I would like to know what those who read this blog think, for educational purposes only. If you keep your money in a bank, the interest rate that you receive is below inflation at the moment, but you contribute to usury because the bank lends it out. Bonds pay interest to bondholders. Gold is not a good option because the central banks can manipulate the price down anytime they choose. Keeping cash in a safe deposit box, and keeping just enough money in a bank account to pay revolving bills may be one option I guess. How tainted are the stock markets with interest on debt? I guess one can choose stocks of ethical companies and hold them for the long-term, receiving dividends, thereby not using the stock market as a gambling casino. I am not an investment advisor and this is not intended as investment advice. It is for discussion purposes ONLY!
Never saw a miracle of science that didn't turn into a curse. Progress? Not so sure there is any such thing.
We develop methods to feed more people, then they reproduce at a higher rate and more starve than ever. We develop personal transportation and get the curses associated with oil, geopolitics, pollution, etc. But nobody really goes anywhere except in circles. We develop "miracles" of medical science and keep people alive long past the time they should be dead, so they suffer even more degenerative disease and drive up the costs of medical services. We import species to new places and wreck the ecology. Create labor saving devices, and throw people out of work, free women from housework, and destroy the family. Create credit cards and snare everybody into debt.
Where's the benefit? I am in agriculture myself. I'd rather, if necessary, use oxen in my work than to work in a cubicle, tapping away at a keyboard or making telephone calls, pushing stuff on people they don't want or endeavoring to rip them off, or even worse, writing comments that nobody pays attention to because they are so vapid.
That overrated judaist Einstein called compound interest the "eighth wonder of the world". Only a self-chosenite would believe that, much less say it. Yes, usury is satanic and at the heart of the West's downfall as a technique.
Where's the value of such progress?
ASE-BALT --- I go with precious metals, silver and gold and platinum. You can store it or it can be stored for you. I bought mine a while back and hung on to it when it skyrocketed. Who needs an interest-bearing savings account on FRNs? Not me!
As a youngster I attended a Jesuit high school and recall in religion class 'usury' was brought up. At that time it was argued by the priest that the definition of usury is charging excessive interest. This made no sense to me - at that time I recall thinking it is actually like abortion: either it is good and correct in all circumstances and at all times or it is never good, never correct and must be avoided in all circumstances.
Simply it is impossible to draw a line and claim: anything on this side is good and honorable but should you charge even 1/10th of 1 percent more, and cross this line, then your action is evil and corrupt and sinful.
I purchased your book online last weekend and look forward to receiving it and reading what you have to say, Mr. Hoffman.
Jones says capitalism is state sponsored usury.
Hoffman responds interest on debt is Renaissance and post-Renaissance Church-sponsored usury.
NorthPole comments
Yeh, and some good guys decided to reform this evil institution and invented protestantism :)
As everybody knows this grassroots movement :) was morally motivated and consisted in rejecting the outrageous practices of the Church. The history of America ( genocide of the Indians,
theft of their land, slavery, usury :)) shows that they succeded :)
Only in "Gods Economy" can we find the "win win" answer to lifes vexing questions.
To ASE-Balt:
I am reluctant to advise individuals on the best way to avoid usury. I don’t mean to say that I would fail to counsel a lender against charging interest. Certainly I would.
I would be loath, however, to advise an old lady to take her nest egg out of the bank and put it under her mattress and then have it be lost or stolen. I can’t make those decisions for people. In “Usury in Christendom” I wrote a history of how God’s law on interest on money was first derogated and then abolished. For the individual who has money in the bank it is a crisis of conscience.
What we should be trying to organize is a usury free financial co-op where deposits are cautiously invested in businesses that produce something useful and a return on the investment is very likely, though not entirely risk free. We need to create a God-honoring financial system which will offer Christians an alternative to the current system and which helps to transfer wealth from usurious parasites to inventors, farmers, mechanics, educators and manufacturers.
If I may ask this question about something that seems related or at least has the same unsavory smell.
Was the "corporation" also a talmudist creation? It seems to have similar qualities to usury and the multinationals have spearheaded the globalist juggernaut with them. The way corporations have aspects of an individual such as owning property, for example. The connection to the stock market whereby they put profits above ALL else.
Sure seems to be another talmudist contraption.
To Jeff
Corporations are not a creation of the Talmud.
Neither did the spirit of usury first arise with the Talmud.
Human beings, including people who are not of Judaic descent, have an inclination toward evil. This cannot be blamed on the Talmud, which did not exist in its initial Mishnaic form, until the first few centuries A.D. and was largely unknown to the majority of the gentile world, until relatively recently.
The fault lies first and foremost with our unregenerate human nature which, without the light of Christ, will continue the all too human record of iniquity.
The Talmud exacerbated something that was very ancient long before the rabbinic ideology of Hillel and Shammai were ever committed to paper.
Thank you very much for your reply.
I reckon it originates with the enemy as with all sin. Perhaps no human being is really clever enough or subtle enough to conjure up such confusing schemes.
Jeff
Well done Michael! I enjoyed the analogy you used of whorehouses and prostitution with banks and usury. So true! It's tragic that the American founding fathers instituted laws based on Bible principles, such as establishing gold and silver as lawful money and the outlawing of paper money (or bills of credit) in the Constitution. Sadly this has been slowly reversed over time starting with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. If only they had outlawed usury too! And moreso that we'd repent and reestablish the timeless principles embedded in the Bible and Constitution for then we'd surely spare ourselves and future generations of the evils to come due to these banksters and bureaurats who deserve to be lynched and hung for their treason. Indeed it's like Esau selling his birthright for a mess of pottage as we've sold our own and posterity's future for the mess of Mammon and all its woes.
Yes, Mr. Hoffman, has done it again. First JSG, and now Usury in Christendom.
I've had the idea for years that a usury free credit union is needed. I guess-timate there to be at least a million sincere Christian patriots out there who'd be willing to pay a yearly membership fee of $100. That's $100,000,000 in usury free assets. But good luck trying to find a few sheeple of means and/or influence to help get that credit union off the ground.
Anyone here know the revisionist history of the S&L scandal? I wasn't into politics and religion back then. Perhaps they were they taken down by the banksters b/c they were unwanted competition?
I read your book and I'm reading it again. I spoke with a well know Christian that most people would know and he said this when I told him that Mr. Hoffman's book shows that usury was started by the Roman Catholic Church 100 years before the reformation.Here's what he said,"I think Mr. Hoffmann is referring to the monti di pietas which got founded in Italy. The church did not allow usury. It charged a five percent administrative fee to keep the monti in operation. Some contended that this was taking interest but before the issue was resolved the state of Florence took it over and turned it into a state bank. There was plenty of usury at the time. The monti was an attempt to get away from it. I would like to hear what you have to say about this comment. Thank you. Frank from NJ
To Frank
If you read my book then you know how evasion clauses and loopholes were used to introduce usury into Christendom —trying to make it palatable through the use of doubletalk and euphemisms.
Claiming that the usury allowed by Pope Leo X in May, 1515 for the monte di peta banks, was an “administrative fee,” is an insult to our intelligence. This Medici pope desired the lucrative proceeds from usury for his Medici gangster cronies who just so happened to be running “the state of Florence.”
The claim that that the papally-sponsored monti di pieta usury bank was an attempt to get away from usury, is about as self-deluding as it gets.
What is "churchianity"?
To Russell:
The true ecclesia (“church”) is the vehicle by which the Truth of Jesus Christ is brought to the world.
Whenever the Church becomes like the Talmudic synagogue — captive to the will of man rather than the will of God — it becomes similar to Judaism, which nullifies the Word of God with man made traditions.
The phenomenon under consideration nullifies Christianity; substituting for it a man-made degeneracy, Churchianity.
To detect and warn against Churchianity is to preserve and defend Christianity, and the True Church founded by Our Lord.
Michael Hoffman
the comment on the great progress europe has made through free trade is a misunderstanding of ||||||||||"free \Trade" which it is not,it is opposite.they form free trade anmongst themselves and against everyone who doesnt belongmethods against include wear and everything that goers with it,,the comment on using a bank to stow your moneyyou are particuipating in it because banks loan your money out. banks do not loan your money outwhn you go in for a loan they justy mark you down on a ledger and poof you are in usurous debt up to your eyeballs. |I put 2000.00 down on my mobile homeincluded all the add on fees and chicken poop,loans was for 13,000 131.00 a month for 15 years approx 24,000,they just cut themselves in and we voluntarily get it up the backside.|I could have saveds the money up then bought but |UI have a excuse that |I accepted the deal and am not bright.if people saved up then bought it be better all around and you dont need the banks cuting in to screw you they work off our lack or fiber when ou want to buy a big item on credit do the math and it should discourage you. and dont ask what would happen to auto industry and housing it would either shrink quit or oprices wouldfall. or they would offer loans at no interst like they should and is not usury.
Mr. Hoffman's book looks really interesting, I'll have to purchase a copy.
Question, what about rent-to-own, like TV's and so on, wouldn't that also be usury?
You cannot play by the enemy's rule book to win your battle. Using the Bible and its offshoot religions to argue points against its authors will only serve to hopelessly entangle one in specious points of minutiae. The Bible, especially the Torah, is a book of law - Jewish law. In fact, the word “Torah” has a dual meaning of “legal” and “instruction.” There are none better at arguing Biblical law than the Jews. For an outsider to quote their Torah as a basis for an opposing argument is a truly hopeless endeavor. The only way to succeed in these arguments is to reject anything and everything religious Jews have written, along with everything its two ugly stepdaughters overlaid on those original principles espoused by ancient Jews. The Jews know who their God of the Old Testament actually was; remember they wrote the book. This knowledge explains why so many religious Jews embraced secular communism. The god of the Old Testament was those who spoke for him, i.e. the priesthood and its representatives, Moses, Abraham, Jacob et al. Today, the priesthood representing the Jew's Yahweh, is the house of Rothschild. Modern Judaism and its high priest Rothschild, is naught but a secular morphing of the original priesthood described in their Torah as "god." This explains why the Old Testament god uses subterfuge and subversion when dealing with more powerful, advanced cultures like Nimrod’s Babel and Pharaoh’s Egypt, but resorts to brute force when confronting weaker opposition like those of Sodom and Jericho. Then too, one might consider what was written in Genesis 2:11, "The name of the first (river) is Pison: that which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold and the gold of that land is good". So not only does one find a description of gold at the very beginning of the narration, but the fact the gold is graded as “good.” And who owns all that gold that is good? The god of Eden. Remember the golden rule? “He who has the gold makes the rules.” What more explanation is necessary?
To Arch Stanton
I regret to say that you know nothing about Judaism. You have accepted as completely true the Talmudists’ own narrative abut their supposed relationship with the Bible.
If you had read my book “Judaism’s Strange Gods” you would know that the religion of Judaism despises the Old Testament and its patriarchs. They regard Noah as a low character — a sodomized drunkard.
The religion of Judaism says that Abraham and Isaac were infected with a “lustful strain.”
According to the Babylonian Talmud, God’s Old Testament prophet Isaiah was justifiably killed for daring to say that Israel had unclean lips.
The Old Testament is the foundation of the creed of Jesus Christ, which is one reason the rabbis despise the Old Testament (though not in public or in front of gullible gentiles).
Jesus and His disciples quoted the Old Testament hundreds of times. Like the rabbis, you undermine Christ when you undermine the Old Testament and preposterously conflate it with gold worship and the House of Rothschild.
Jesus pointed to the Roman soldier as the highest type of human being, saying of him, “Greater faith than this I have not seen in all of Israel."
After Jesus’ departure the Pharisees and their rabbinic successors never stopped hating Christianity. This is expressed through vitriol in the Talmud about Jesus Christ that is extremely offensive and not worthy of any religion. The same hatred was adopted by the Khazar converts, and the old Judeans now had the help of their much more numerous co-religionists in fighting and subverting Christian lands and the Catholic Church wherever possible.
One way of fighting and submitting the Christian enemy was through usury or interest on money loans. The Jews knew that usury is an immoral concept, their own Torah forbids it among themselves - Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother. But for non-Jews, who are cattle according to the Talmud, usury was permitted, even encouraged, as it was a strategy to submit other nations.
Usury is a predatory system in the sense that interest takes a bite out of the borrower with each loan. The lender only lends and releases the principal amount of the loan, but never the interest, which has to come out of the borrower's own substance. For this reason the Jews call it "neshek" or bite. Out of all loans, the total amount of the interest is never given by the lender and doesn't really exist, so to speak. That means there is a shortage of money in the market - by the aggregate amount of the interest – to liquidate all loans. That assures there will always be some borrowers that can’t find enough money to liquidate their loans.
Precisely that is the purpose of the usury game, to seize and foreclose on a number of properties that is assured to default. Carrying on this lending game long enough will put more and more properties into the lender’s hand. Mathematically it cannot end any other way, it is in the nature of interest. That was precisely the reason why usury was not allowed among biblical brothers - it’s an unfair system with a hidden purpose.
Interest is immoral precisely because it dispossesses so many – there is historic proof for that. The lesson from this is that lending at interest is not a legitimate economic system, it’s a predatory scheme which is neither equitable nor sustainable. It has a purpose and an end, not unlike the table top game Monopoly. Unfortunately, the world has been running on this wrong track for a few hundred years and is well advanced on it.
Lending should never be done against interest on the capital. The profit of the lender should come from a share in the proceeds of the project - winning or losing - for which a loan is given. That would make the project more characteristic of a joint-venture than a loan. It is fairer that way and allows both parties to live in an environment that is sustainable. But sustainability was never the purpose of the usury system we now have. The purpose was the conquest of Christianity, and since the Jews were a minority without military, they chose this sneaky fight they were armed for. Why people of today can’t recognize this abuse and still consent to live with it is 100% attributable to ignorance. The predators will certainly not repent or go away on their own, whether or not they are still doing it for religious reasons today.
To Peri1224
Thank you for your comment and insights.
However, it is by no means just all about “the Jews.” In fact, usury really commenced in earnest in the West when gentile usurers scapegoated high interest Judaic usurers and then got their gentile usury approved because it was low interest usury.
Please read my book to understand the enormous role of gentiles in usury.
I didn't mean to imply there was no non-Jew lending in history or today. Of course, there was and is, starting with that pope in 1515. My focus was on who introduced the system and why - as sneaky form of warfare - which is very rarely investigated. That highlights the illegitimacy of the system and the need for something better. If it was better understood, some might start to see a need for reform. Awareness is the first step toward change.
As to the amount of lending from Jews and non-Jews, most big banks in the West are Jew owned or controlled (Rockefeller??). That leaves the retail business and smaller commercial amounts for the non-Jews, which makes everything worse but doesn't change the principle. Interest is not a legitimate economic system. In the 21st century we should be advanced enough to comprehend that, but we are still falling for that same 2,500 year old bloodsucker game.
But usury or not, in almost 1700 years the Jews, joined by their numerous Khazar brethren from the 10th century onward, had not won their war against Christianity. They made some progress but also had many setbacks by getting kicked out of one country after another during centuries of bloodsucking activity. And they may never have won that war with interest alone, we’ll never know now. The reason for that is the game changer that came in 1694, paper money.
This new money system allowed more efficient preying than usury - on Christians or anyone else – and it is no surprise that our usurers were among the first to go for it. The new system involved the printing of fake paper money, and it was the perfect complement to usury. It was even better than what the old alchemists had always attempted to do. The alchemists at least had used a substance, iron or lead, which they tried to transmute into gold. The new paper system created fake money out of nothing - or out of thin air. It was more abusive and predatory than usury and gave the money changers/usurers the winning edge and advantage that carried them to the top of the world – and now to the end of sustainability.
To Peri1224
Your use of the term “bloodsucking” activity in connection with so-called “Jews” in general is a reflection of 1930s type of “Jew hate” which failed miserably and which alienates many of the best and brightest people who could be in our ranks if we approached the subject of Judaic people with love and compassion, rather than a reversion to a self-righteous group libel, which is in its essence Talmudic, in that this is what Orthodox rabbis say about us, and you are doing it to “Jews.” This is guaranteed to get you nowhere.
You wrote, "most big banks in the West are Jew owned or controlled.”
Please provide documentation for this enormous assertion. If you can’t, then you shouldn’t put forth a stereotype like this, which puts responsibility for most of the West’s usury-evil in the lap of “the Jews.” This is how gentile usurers distract attention from themselves.
The David Duke-type of Right Wing seems obsessed with imposing an ineradicable stain of perfidy on the so-called “Jewish race.” This is a mirror image of rabbinic doctrine, which posits the same ineradicable evil for the goyim.
I am not Right Wing; nor do I wish to endlessly replicate an opposition to Judaism which in truth is no opposition at all, but rather a mirror image of it.
Certainly that’s what Hitler saddled the German people with — self-worship — the same iniquity rabbis use to harness their followers.
It’s the 21st century — time for a fresh, humane alternative to both deadly dances.
I am for the liberation of all people, including “the Jews.” If you are not, then we have precious little in common.
By all means, let them be liberated and welcomed, if they repent. For the stubborn hardcore, though, that hasn't happened yet in 2,000 years, so you might be better off waiting for Godot.
To clarify the point about "the Jews", it's by no means all of them that have been abusing us, therefore it's not a racial thing, and my criticism is strictly limited to the bad guys that actually have been abusing us, whatever their motivation, Talmud, Zionism or pure money making. Because of money's reach, they are directly responsible for the bigger part of all evil on earth today. And I'm not irrationally extending that accusation to all Jews or those that are not guilty, so no "1930s type of Jew hate” or anything of the sort. It's very specific and well founded. Neither am I absolving or go softer on our own traitors that do the same. But we hadn't gotten that far yet.
Feeling loathing for what abuses you and subverts your way of life is a healthy and normal human reaction to whatever causes it, unless you are pumped full of fluoride and bromide. Even Jesus Christ wasn't so touchy feely when He called the Pharisees all those names. He wouldn't have agreed with
what you term "opposition to Judaism which in truth is no opposition at all". Jesus displayed nothing but full opposition to the true center of evil, which hasn't changed until today. Jesus was angry when He whipped the money
changers out of the temple. If you think you can or should try to be better than Jesus, good luck. But He never considered appeasement, his opposition to the recalcitrant ones was always 100%. Reading your comment one could even get the impression that you also accuse Him of self-righteous group libel, not only me or others who honestly express their resentment about getting ripped off, abused and "kulchured" away. And then you throw in Hitler and David Duke type right wing. All this over a little disagreement in style?
What happened to the substance? We are dealing with big issues here, and usury has already become the lesser of the evils. Bigger ones are unlimited money printing, wholesale economic manipulation and theft, and with the money and power they have been getting out of these, subversion and destruction of Western culture and religion. If you want to overlook that in favor of political correctness and style, I'm perplexed, as your work seems to be nothing but opposition to their evil. Lumping theirs with the evil of our own traitors helps veiling it and making it less transparent for most people. It's
precisely the lack of understanding that has allowed the evildoers to go on for so long. So if we have to err, better err on the side of style. I can take censure about that, but not at the expense of substance.
Having said all that, the door is always open for those who repent.
To peri1224
I thought we were focused on substance: reckless use of the term bloodsuckers ,which is basically a tired trope of 1930s style Jew hate, whether you deny it or not; and a request for documentation concerning your statement, "most big banks in the West are Jew owned or controlled,” which I have still not received.
Jesus Christ was born a Jew, to quote Martin Luther, so Jesus' situation is different from yours. His followers were mostly Judeans (Jews). He spoke against a spirit, not a race. This is the clear distinction.
As for appeasement, I don’t follow you. Jesus never reflected the Talmudic mentality. So He didn’t become what He opposed, such as many on the Right do when they behave like rabbis in using group libel against judaic people, as rabbis use it against the goyim. It’s “appeasement” to point this out?
“...subversion and destruction of Western culture and religion” is mostly our fault, due to our transgressions, weakness, stupidity and cowardice.
Usury only became transnationally all-encompassing when gentiles adopted it. Nothing could equal the power of the Renaissance Church of Rome and latter-day Protestantism (post 1700) in spreading the curse of usury throughout the West.
Yet for the Right wing it’s mainly about “bloodsucking” Judaics.
Rejecting that insanity is not “appeasement"; quite the opposite — it is a path to victory, by turning the tables — first on our own cobwebbed habits of mind and cherished preconceptions, and then on our enemy's expectation of how we will act.
So it was that terrible word "bloodsuckers" that got your dander up. Well, you can classify it as whatever you choose. I don't know anything about "tired trope of 1930s style Jew hate". But I'm sure the avaricious usurers have been called worse in their centuries of squeezing blood out of stone. Possibly even in your book? It's a word that actually describes the activity quite accurately, and it's choice is definitely a question of style, not substance, no matter how much you like to turn it into that.
Then you say that Jesus Christ was born as Jew, according to Luther. But I remember an old proof/argument from you that He was not a Jew. (By the way I have recently also written an essay about that, very clear and the most thorough I've ever seen, covering all aspects of it that leave no ifs or buts). One of the reasons I remember from your writing was that "Judean" was a geographical term. That you would now go against your own word and cite the opposite from somebody else, even if it's Luther, just to defend your previous uncontrolled remarks and condemn mine, appears a little not so ok with me.
Your tone since that offending word has turned a tad ugly, too, and for that reason I will not continue this back and forth, lest it become even more ugly.
Outstanding analysis and commentary throughout this page Michael, and thank you for such an insightful video presentation. That was refreshing to listen to, also your interview with Morris on Judaism was outstanding. Quite excellent, and I praise God for allowing me to finally hear the truth that will set us all free from the fraud and CON of the current system we labor under, and which so GLEEFULLY robs us of the fruits of our labors!
You might find some more interesting information at this site here (for those visiting this site to post comments, I'm sure you're already quite aware of it Michael):
1215: Usury Forbidden by Magna Carta until 1694 when Private Bank of England Chartered by King of crooks…..
http://theflippintruth.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/1215-usury-forbidden-by-magna-carta-until-1694-when-private-bank-of-england-chartered-by-king-of-crooks/
Post a Comment