Thursday, July 2, 2015

The Link Between Sodomy and Usury



Robert Reich is in error.[1] Western civilization, in the sense coined by Charles Eliot Norton, has always (seemingly until the last few decades) linked sodomy and usury – and condemned both unequivocally.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle gives an argument "that usury was similar to unnatural sex [see Politics 1.10.1258b]... Thomas Aquinas ...argued that sodomy and usury were both 'sins against nature, in which the very order of nature is violated, an injury done to God himself, who sets nature in order.' Echoing Aquinas, Dante placed sodomites and usurers in the same circle of Hell [circle 7] in The Divine Comedy [Inferno, cantos 15-17]. In his 1935 tract 'Social Credit,' Ezra Pound ...argued that 'usury and sodomy, the Church condemned as a pair, to one hell, the same for one reason, namely that they are both against natural increase.'"[2]

The moral crisis of unrestricted greed is very real, but – contra Reich – it has much in common with "gay marriage" and abortion.

Greed-driven, predatory business practices are unnatural practices that seek profit at the expense of human lives, just as sodomy and abortion are unnatural practices that variously seek pleasure or economic advancement at the expense of human reproduction (and, thus, at the expense of actual or potential lives).

Sodomy opposes or obstructs familial, procreative increase; usury hinders natural, economic increase by – as Aristotle put it – having sterile money “breed” more money, without being tethered to productive labor.

Thus, the undercurrent of similarity – ignored by or unknown to Reich – is natural fruitfulness. This has been a Western staple since Genesis 1:22.[3]



[1] I am taking it for granted that the quotation is properly ascribed to Reich.

[2] Jeet Heer, Sweet Lechery: Reviews, Essays & Profiles, Erin, Ontario: Porcupine's Quill, 2014, pp. 19-20; archived online at <https://books.google.com/books?id=AyJgBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA20>.

Similar statements linking sodomy and usury can be marshaled from Philo of Alexandria and Sts. Augustine and Chrysostom, among many others. (See David Hawkes, "Sodomy, Usury and the Narrative of Shakespeare's Sonnets," Renaissance Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, Sept., 2000, p. 347, <http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Tvordi/engl3230jtSodomyUsuryNarrativeShakespFall04.pdf>.)

[3] I wish to thank Michael Hoffman. It is because of his work that I was made aware of the historic Western association of sodomy and usury. See, e.g., his book Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin That Was and Now Is Not, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho: Independent History and Research, 2012.

58 comments:

  1. Another commonality - They are among the Jews' favorite sins. They hate fruitfulness. They hate the God who commanded fruitfulness in the Garden. They especially hate the fruitfulness of One, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the fruit of Her womb, Jesus.

    It is very fitting that their sins match the malice in their hearts. And that they promote these sins and this malice to the rest of humanity.

    Roger Slemmer

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh my gosh, it is one of the gentiles’ favorite sins! Gentiles were the principal malefactors who revived usury in the Renaissance.

    Don’t let the guilty gentiles off the hook by focusing exclusively on Judaic perfidy.

    Michael Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hoffman Needs To Think Twice

      It's simply the natural, determinist, CYCLIC course of events whence the evermore corrupt following generations to original, heroic conqueror/founder generation of any empire indulge in evermore SUBJECTIVISM and hence moralism/Pharisaism--featured by Hoffman, as we see, pretending and insisting upon hereticalist "good-evil" and Pelagian heresy.

      Thus the Jews, sublime collectivists and satanists, most organized, MASTERS of subjectivism, first infiltrate, invade, and finally dominate the corrupt culture, leading it to final, ultimate death, taking advantage of stupid, dis-connected goyim, like Hoffman, who imagines it's okay to indulge in such idiot subjectivism/moralism as he does, so enamored as he is w. pretending to Pharisaic "good" and moralist virtue.

      No Hoffman, we're not going to let such hereticalist as u, "off the hook," at all, u may be sure--u imagining u're any better than Judeo-Christian (JC--see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo) traitors and hereticalists pretending Jews are mere versions/variations of Christians, who support terror-state of Israel.

      U preach against the holohoax lie, and some other selected lies by Jews, but the Pelagianist hereticalism and lie for u is okay--which then sets up ur lies about "usury." Heck no, u're not going to get off the hook--why would u think that?


      Delete
  3. I did not mean to let the Gentiles off the hook. Each man's sins are his own. But the power behind the institutionalization of these sins is profoundly Judaic. The attack on Christendom from the Sanhedrin to the Supreme Court, including along the way, the Renaissance, has its impetus from the Synagogue of Satan.

    My point is that the Jews promote their perfidy to the rest of the world. That Gentiles follow their lead just proves the success of their influence for evil. Would Gentiles fall to these sins anyway? They have, they do, they will.

    But the Judaics have established a culture of evil by design, laid a trap for the rest of the world, at the bidding of their master, to sweep as many souls into Hell for him as they can.

    They should be exposed for this, do you not agree?

    Roger Slemmer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Good for you Slemmer!
      Try this for a mindset of arrogance and what's "best" for all:
      http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/07/jenji-kohan-and-the-jewish-hyper-sexualization-of-western-culture/

      While we are at it, Michael, let's look at this:
      http://bit.ly/1GEnv6Q

      Delete
  4. I do not agree. I do not agree with any generalization about “the Jews” or the “the Germans” etc.

    The power behind the "institutionalization" of usury in the Renaissance was the papal Church of Rome.

    Don't change thy subject to defend your position. I am specifically referencing usury, not a laundry list of evils related to “the attack on Christendom.” The rise of modern usury banking as it was initiated in the Renaissance was mostly a gentile phenomenon based in Italy and Germany. It then spread to England with the arrival of Eck in 1525 and the Bonvisi bank immediately after him; and to Spain with the usury- indebted monarchs Charles I and Phlilip II.

    Your point that "Jews promote their perfidy to the rest of the world" and gentiles only "follow their lead," helps to make excuses and alibis for gentile evil. Were Adam and Eve Jews? How about Cain? What of the Fugger, Bonvisi and Medici bankers?

    Evil gentiles promote their perfidy to the world, thereby enabling Talmudic evil.

    "Judaics" in general have not "established a culture of evil by design". Many Judaics suffer as a result of rabbinic and Tamudic/Kabalistic/Zionist evil and they oppose it. Evil Judaics do those things.

    The failure to distinguish between good and evil Judaics precisely fulfills rabbinic propaganda conveyed to young Judaic children: that they are hated just because they are Judaic and nothing can redeem them in gentile eyes.

    Making an enemy out of an entire nation of people, at least some of whom are innocent victims of the rabbis and potential allies of ours, is a calamitous blunder; the same blunder that dust-covered characters from the 1930s like Hitler and Henry Ford fell into; which is partly why they were defeated.

    Make room in your Weltanschauung for good Judaics and by that means cultivate the loving Gospel of Jesus Christ and the practical business side of the war of ideas by cultivating counter-intelligence assets inside the camp of God's adversaries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hoffman Guilty Of Gross Heresy And Mis-Representation

      Hoffman merely expresses his usual hereticalist Pharisaism, pretending to fallacious/delusionary "good-evil" which doesn't and could not exist in an objective, God-created reality wherein there is no perfectly "free" human will, this non-existence of perfect freedom confirmed by two saints, Augustine and St. Paul. For humans are sinners, always have been, always will be, as creatures of will and hence self-interest. To err is human, after all.

      Next Hoffman sets himself up, again in his Pharisaist manner, playing lawyer for Jews, followers of Pharisees and/or Talmud, or genetically related therewith, including the Reform Jews who yet practice "midrash," even if not exactly Talmudic--Talmud being merely one version of midrash.

      For there is no good Jew any more than there's good Christ-killer, good psychopath or good child-molester. And as Jews have declared war on humanity, Christ, reason, and God's objective reality, Jews bring-on themselves the necessary consequences of rightful self-defense of Christian soldiers.

      And it's just tough tarantulas that some un-witting Jews genetically-related to fellow Jews who are avowedly anti-gentile in Talmudic fashion must fall as casualties by the Darwinian way-side in the just war Christians and humanity must wage against the Jews in self-defense.

      Such is life in the City of God in despite of Hoffman's typical, usual, objectionable Pharisaism pretending to compassion for anti-Christ Pharisaics, this in his usual self-righteous and Pharisaic contempt for justice for gentiles, victims of Jews and their anti-human warfare. It's ok for Jews to wage war on Christians, but Christians have no right to retaliate or defend themselves according to Hoffman the Pharisee and hereticalist, so solicitous of Jew anti-Christs.

      And don't forget, regardless of Hoffman's heretical imagination, Christ = TRUTH (Gosp. JOHN 14:6) above all/any other precepts. Pharisees, Sadducees, et al. didn't conspire to murder "love"--they conspired to kill Christ = Truth. And it wasn't "love" that resurrected on Easter; it was TRUTH (= Christ).

      "Think not I came to bring peace; rather, I come to bring a sword" (Gosp. MATT 10:34). Hoffman ought to have some compassion for truth and gentiles for once in his conflicted and hereticalist life.

      But let us not stop here just for Hoffman's contempt for, and treason against truth, justice, and gentile humanity in face of Jew monstrosity which he excuses in his Pharisaism. Let's consider Hoffman's complete and total mis-representation of what he pretends is USURY.

      First, note Hoffman fails on basic scholarly level for simple DEFINITION of the word, "usury," which he mis-represents as charging-of-interest, and notice also Hoffman preposterously pretends to knowledge of science of economics--this is a DOUBLE FRAUD on Hoffman's part--and I don't use the word, "fraud," lightly here.

      For "usury" is a word which comes fm ancient usage and sources w. no clear definition--but Hoffman illegitimately wants to besmirch the great achievement of the Renaissance heroes, including the merchants who thus streamlined the economic practices and understanding of the time. Hoffman pretends thus to ascribing a FALSE definition to this word, "usury," which he cannot justify or validate in any meaningful way, especially for science of economics, not to mention history, which defies Hoffman for his false-hoods


      ----------[SEE BELOW-COPIED FOR PART TWO TO ABOVE]----------

      Delete
    2. ------------[HERE'S PART TWO TO ABOVE]-------------------

      For the only truthful thing(s) we KNOW for sure about this "usury" is by description, and that description refers to what today we call CENTRAL-BANKING--the issuing of replicated receipts for real money which "money" must be commodity w. intrinsic value, the best sort being gold or silver. Thus gold or silver stored in a bank or warehouse was accounted for by means of receipts, and it's these receipts which were illegitimately and fraudulently replicated which always gave rise to the horrific effects described by the word, "usury."

      Note then, the charging-of-interest for issuance of these fraudulent receipts was mere ancillary and side-issue, quite irrelevant to the PRIMARY fraud and CRIME of COUNTERFEITING--the illegitimate concoction of the replicated receipts w. no real money (gold or silver) to back it.

      It thus cannot be too much emphasized the GROSS, deliberate FRAUD of Hoffman who pretends then the problem of "usury" is in the charging-of-interest and not the fraudulent replication of receipt money which is now called "currency."

      Thus Hoffman commits gross fraud and mis-representation when he pretends to this economic knowledge, of which he really knows NOTHING whatever, insisting as he does that usury denotes the act of charging-of-interest.

      For it isn't charging-of-interest which causes any economic damage or hardship--another economic mis-representation of Hoffman. What causes the economic disaster is the INFLATION of prices which is caused by the increase of the amount of fraudulent receipt-money, currency, now also known as "fiat-money."

      For as the monetary inflation continues, the natural loaning activity of the currency continues also, BUT the inflation must at some pt. be halted due to the continuing increasing of prices--leading eventually to "hyper-inflation"--as happened in Weimar Germany of early 1920s, for example, which wiped out and impoverished the middle class.

      When the inflation of the currency ceases in order to stop the hyper-inflation of prices, the resulting DEFLATION so reduces the available currency to the pt. that now the loans which had been increasingly contracted, along w. the increasing amount of currency, CANNOT BE PAID-BACK, resulting in bankruptcies, un-employment and loss of collateral, including then practically all the assets of the middle class.

      This resulting economic recession, unemployment, bankruptcies, and despoiling of the people's assets by the criminal inflationists posing as "bankers" is what causes the economic damage--NOT the charging-of-interest, though to be sure, charging-of-interest is a complicating factor.

      ------------------[SEE BELOW FOR PART THREE TO ABOVE]---------

      Delete
    3. -------------[HERE'S PART THREE TO ABOVE]-----------------

      For note the recession, bankruptcies, and loss of assets would occur in any case, REGARDLESS OF THE CHARGING-OF-INTEREST--even if no "interest" were ever charged on the loans--for it's lack of circulating currency and money which defeats the ability to pay-back the loans.

      Hoffman has not even the slightest idea about these economic factors and processes, merely mindlessly, in typical Pharisaic fashion, insisting upon his FALSE and entirely improper definition of "usury" as mere charging-of-interest in the stead of what it REALLY must be, the legalized COUNTERFEITING and replication of receipt-money.

      And note I carefully, pains-takingly, and repeatedly explained this economic process to Hoffman SEVERAL times. But Hoffman prefers to rail against fellow human beings in his characteristic and sanctimonious manner, insisting FALSELY that "usury" means charging-of-interest when it COULDN'T merely be that.

      So note Hoffman must needs be taken to task for his gross mis-representations, heresy, and Pharisaism on several fundamental principles regarding meaning of Christianity, worship of TRUTH TRUTH TRUTH above all--NOT MERE "LOVE"--and then upon the simple meaning of words, as "usury." And as TRUTH (= Christ) crucially depends upon the God-created OBJECTIVE reality as necessary criterion, there is and can be no perfectly "free" human will, humans necessarily and forever sinners who require God's grace and mercy for salvation. Thank goodness for this blog as means of making these facts public.



      Delete
    4. And let me here hasten to add for REFERENCES to my economic exposition upon process of inflation, central-banking, and fiat-money, these to be found at LewRockwell.com, Mises.org, and RealityZone.com. One can also ck vids on U-tube by such "Austrian" economists as Ron Paul and Peter Schiff; others who might not specifically invoke the "Austrian school" are G. Edward Griffin, Jim Rogers, Max Keiser, Mark Faber, and Gregory Mannarino.

      Delete
    5. Interesting info re age of warehouse receipt scam. But your references are too broad. Do you have specific references that deal with the warehouse receipt scam being much older than is generally known?

      Delete
    6. Ho ho ho--a "(specific) ref. older than generally known"? For if there was such a ref., then it automatically enters "general" knowledge, wouldn't it? Ck aforementioned G. Edward Griffin's work, "Creature fm Jekyll Island" and/or the ref.s he gives (RealityZone.com). David Astle's "Babylonian Woe" also notes the archaeologic remains of the fiat-money receipts in form of clay tokens.

      It shouldn't be too diff. feat of imagination to grasp the relatively simple concepts for fiat-money and money-substitutes which must arise once a system of banking (warehousing) arises. "There's nothing new under the sun." Humans are sinners, always have been, always will be.

      Delete
    7. I understand there's a recent work by Joseph Farrell, "Babylon's Banksters," which covers this subject of clay tokens as receipt money, then replicated to fiat-money.

      Delete
  5. I apologize. I do tend to paint my generalizations with a wide brush.

    I am reacting rather emotionally to what I see in current events, and in history, for that matter. Evil seems to be overwhelming everything everywhere, and at the bidding of crypto-elites. It can no longer be said that the US and most of the world is slouching toward Sodom. Compulsory citizenship is here and now.

    Only Satan could be the author of this script. Are evil Judaics involved? I say yes. Are they the only ones? No. Do my own sins contribute to the progress of evil? Absolutely.

    All that seems to be left to us is prayer and penance and sacrifices for the conversion of sinners. What else will stay the anger of a good God?

    But someone should still be able to stand up and call a lie a lie, to expose the manipulations and the manipulators. To resist and push back the evil.

    You do that, and I thank you for it. Better than I, because you have a more balanced mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Dear Mr Slemmer,

      I am most impressed with you: one of a very rare breed, a blog commenter who will listen respectfully to a charitable correction (from Mr Hoffman), not get upset and respond with a righteous tirade, but think about what was said and respond with intelligence and humility.
      God bless you.

      Tony Broad

      Delete
    3. Roger: u were right in the first place--Jews are foremost satanists, just as Christ noted at Gosp. JOHN 8:44. And Jews dominate because they're most organized, "connected," and collectivist subjectivists, originators of bolshevism, hence satanists, able then to dominate and command far more numerous satanist, subjectivists among gentiles, as gentiles are characteristically "individualists" for their hubristic style, dis-united, and far less organized. Don't be impressed by such as Hoffman who sets himself up as "lawyer" for those arch-satanists.

      Delete
  6. There is no question that there a good and evil Judaics. Unfortunately, the good ones are not always expressly excluded when talking about the evil ones, which means the money printers and the rabbis that spread the hatred in the Talmud. But such omission is very common, and innocents of any particular group are always thrown into the same basket as the bad ones that perpetrate a great evil. Even Jews themselves do it. They smear ALL Germans with their hate and guilt forever propaganda, including the totally innocent ones and even those that helped them.
    But granted, let's make sure to exclude the good Jews from the heinous crimes that the evil ones engage in. No reasonable man would include innocents anyway, even if that is not always loudly shouted prior to mentioning anything the bad ones do.
    Having settled this, one could almost get the impression that you want to absolve the Jews from guilt in the usury racket in your quest to highlight that Gentiles were also involved, which no one denies.
    But usury didn't start with the Renaissance, and it was the Jews who institutionalized it long before a corrupted Catholic Church followed suit.
    Your little detour into separating good and evil Jews could almost lead one to think that the Jews were not the age-old principal usurers, although there were always also Christian usurers.
    You say that the usury starting in the Renaissance was "mostly a gentile phenomenon". What happened to the Jews, did they fade away? Are there reliable numbers about Gentile and Jewish lending, or can you put a rough percentage on it, and are crypto-Jews counted in the right column?
    Stressing that there are also good Jews does not make the evil of the bad ones one iota better, so emphasizing that point sounds a little like changing the topic, of which you accuse the other poster. So by all means, let's focus on usury alone. Who did it? When? And how much?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the famous Jew historian, Bernard Lazare, author of "Antisemitism," 1894, the Jews were most sublime specialists in what Lazare calls "usury," at early time, pre-dating the Renaissance:

      "Only towards the end of the eighth century the activity of the Western Jews developed. Protected in Spain by the Khalifs, given support by Charlemagne who let the Merovingian laws fall to disuse, they extended their commerce which until then centred chiefly in the sale of slaves. For this they were, indeed, particularly favoured by circumstances. Their communities were in constant communication, they were united by the religious bond which tied them all to the theological centre of Babylonia whose dependencies they considered themselves up to the decline of the exilarchate. Thus they acquired very great facilities for exporting commerce in which they amassed considerable fortunes, if we are to believe the diatribes of Dagobert, and later those of Rigord,.... Indeed, with regard to this wealth of the Jews, especially in France and Spain, we possess the testimonies of chroniclers and the Jews themselves,....

      "Parallel with the general advance we really see this preoccupation with wealth grow among the Jews and their practical activity concentrating on a special business: I mean the gold business.... It has often been said, and it is repeated still, that the Christian societies had forced the Jews into the position of creditor and usurer, which they have for a long time kept....

      "Nevertheless, they came soon enough to specialize in the money business, for which they have been so bitterly reproached ever since, and in the fourteenth century they constituted quite a coterie of changers and lenders: they had become the bankers of the world...."

      Delete
  7. Dear Mr. Slemmer

    What a wonderful rejoinder. Not one in one hundred would have the decency and moral fortitude to say what you have said in your preceding statement.

    There is still hope and by your example that hope is extended. May we all be granted the humility which you have exhibited.

    Michael Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hoffman: u ought to try some of that "humility"--as well as a little HONESTY, dedication to TRUTH (= Christ).

      Delete
  8. PERI 1224 WROTE:

    “There is no question that there a good and evil Judaics. Unfortunately, the good ones are not always expressly excluded when talking about the evil ones, which means the money printers and the rabbis that spread the hatred in the Talmud. But such omission is very common, and innocents of any particular group are always thrown into the same basket as the bad ones that perpetrate a great evil. Even Jews themselves do it. They smear ALL Germans with their hate and guilt forever propaganda, including the totally innocent ones and even those that helped them. “

    HOFFMAN REPLIES:

    Very true indeed.

    PERI 1224 WROTE:

    “...one could almost get the impression that you want to absolve the Jews from guilt in the usury racket in your quest to highlight that Gentiles were also involved, which no one denies.”

    HOFFMAN REPLIES:

    No, not at all. I only want to remain faithful to the documentary record, of which so many who pride themselves on their alleged historical knowledge are completely unaware. The love of money, which is the root of usury, has existed from the Fall of our wayward parents. It is neither Judaic or gentile. It is the condition of the human being who will not submit to the saving grace of Jesus Christ and his Word of Truth as elucidated Luke 6: 34-36.

    Western civilization beforet he Renaissance was blessed with knowledge of and fidelity to the word ofGod. Whereas rabbinic Judaism, direct heir of the murderous, lying Pharisees, was burdened with the Pharisaic evasions of God’s law, such as Hillel instituted with his infamous “prozbul.”

    As a historian I must adhere to the facts: as Christian societies heavily obstructed the rabbinic impulse to wage war against the goyim with usurious loans, the Judaic lenders were increasingly marginalized to the point of near extinction. At the end of the medieval period and the dawn of the Renaissance gentile banks (Fugger, Medici, Bonvisi, etc. ad nauseum), a gentile pope (Leo X) and famed gentile theologians (such as Johannes Eck) launched the template of modern usury banking. Shall I apologize because history treaches that Judaics had almost nothing to do with this, at this stage in history?

    The rest of your astute questions are answered (I hope), in my book, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not (softcover, 416 pp.). An index to the contents is online free of charge here:
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwg8nmLrvOTjU1VJaDNVc2p1cVk/edit

    Michael Hoffman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's book review of Hoffman's work I wrote-up 2 yrs ago:

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      Book Review: "Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that was and now is not," by Michael Hoffman
      (Apollonian, 30 May 13)

      Michael A. Hoffman II is a noted author--I've actually read some of his books, and at least a couple of them (like "Judaism Discovered" and "Judaism's Strange Gods") are genuinely great stuff--ck his site at RevisionistReview.blogspot.com. But his latest, "Usury in Christendom," Independent History and Research, Idaho, 2013 (416 pgs, Appendices, Index, and Bibliography), is just embarrassing ignorance and Pharisaic nonsense--in truth, it's quite idiotic, but still useful, like for the history he includes.

      For Hoffman (a) wants to go off about how "moral" he is, as if he knows all about it, this while calling others "Pharisees." (b) Hoffman also wants to demonstrate his pretended understanding of Christianity--just another version of Pharisaism, of course. (c) And specifically, Hoffman wants to imagine he knows all about "usury," saying it refers to the charging of interest--which is false.

      But fact is that "usury" is not fully defined in the Old Testament, where it essentially originates for purposes of Western history, though it can entail the charging of interest--it may be ONE of the elements, though certainly not the only thing or even the main thing (it has to do w. COUNTERFEITING the money supply, THEN charging interest on the various waves of new money issues). And modern word, "usury" comes fm the word, "usufruct," which is a legitimate word, BUT the charging of interest being mere co-notative, ancillary meaning/definition.

      Hoffman's book is not a total loss/waste as there's a lot of genuine and interesting history involved as the ancient and medieval Church of Rome struggled w. the definition, meaning, and use of the "scriptural teachings" regarding usury. For note, at the very beginning of the rise of the West in Renaissance Italy and Florence the understanding of usury and charging of interest had to be treated and understood in order to accommodate simple trade and economics which led then to the rise of the definitive middle-class.

      Note that even today, most people are so totally mystified by the subject of money and banking--including especially Hoffman who is yet sooooo eager to babble and chatter upon the subject as it gives him opportunity to demonstrate his pretended Christianity and moralism/Pharisaism, though he pretends he's NOT Pharisaic, oh no.

      Even the ancients, as noted, weren't clear upon the subject of money and banking--how money MUST be commodity, hence finite in quantity, even though adjustable in value.

      For charging of interest surely seems to make it difficult for paying back loans when the issuing of fiat money is necessarily curtailed due to the ever-faster rise of price-inflation. Thus the (legalized) COUNTERFEITING and inflation is complicated by charging of interest which then is made-out to being primary problem, covering then for the COUNTERFEITING, i.e., issuing of non-commodity money-substitutes, either paper as nowadays (or even digitalized on computer screens), or clay as back in Babylonian times.

      -----------------[END OF PART ONE; SEE PART TWO, BELOW]------------

      Delete
    2. --------------------[HERE'S PART TWO TO ABOVE]-------------------------

      For even without interest being charged for loans, it becomes difficult and then impossible to repay when the money supply is constricted or "deflated.". The ancients seem not to have clearly understood bank receipts (now used as money substitute) for gold/silver commodity money held in bank vaults must not be proliferated beyond the actual amount of commodity money to be redeemed by those receipts. For eventually the receipts must ultimately be converted back to the real thing, the commodity money.

      Assuming the rational conduct of money and banking--hence no excess receipts (money substitute) for static commodity money (like gold & silver) in banks--the charging of interest is simple matter of contract btwn individual parties--the charging of RENT for the use of the money. Hoffman would surely not object to the rental of things other than money, and he'd surely agree it's simple matter of right of individuals to undertake such contractual agreements.

      But Hoffman, along w. so many others, doesn't understand money in first place, how/why it must be finite in quantity, hence commodity-based--thus Hoffman fails to distinguish btwn the money-substitute receipt-money and the real thing, ultimately always gold and/or silver.

      So much for the subject of money. As noted, Hoffman's work is useful for the history he recounts, for it is true the West had to go through a period whence business and commerce advanced to the capitalist stage entailing robust banking and financial activity. And there was much controversy regarding the Church dialectic upon the economic and monetary subject.

      One extremely interesting pt. taken-up by Hoffman regarded sociologist Max Weber's thesis upon capitalism and the famous Protestant ethic. Hoffman pt.s out the Catholics were vigorous capitalists long before any Protestants appeared in the Reformation (a), and (b) that many Protestants objected to the liberalized attitudes upon lending and charging of interest.

      In conclusion, one must observe that given Hoffman's gross prejudice and strange ignorance, he yet produces useful and informative historical account for subject of Western commerce and charging of interest. Even if much, if not most, of his commentary is extremely wrong-headed and mis-conceived, yet Hoffman's errors are truly and usefully instructive nonetheless. It is well to remember so many people, even to this very day, are so utterly clueless regarding the money and banking subject, and that it required quite an evolution in thought and culture for the charging of interest to be understood as it is today in such matter-of-course and business-like manner. Hoffman deserves some credit, at least, for his genuine attempt at historical exposition upon a central and crucial concept in economics, including for the specific matter of the charging of interest.

      Delete
  9. Yes, Robert Reich is very much in error in saying that the moral crisis of our age has nothing to do with gay marriage or abortion.
    He wouldn't say that if he factored in the money printing subversives that use the promotion of abortion, gay marriage and a host of other evils for the purpose of dividing and conquering Western society. That dividing and conquering started with the Marxist proletarians against the bourgeoisie and its initial purpose was only to protect the money printing racket from abolishment they feared a unified citizenry would soon attempt.
    But when the money printers found out how powerful their Marxist garbage proved to be, they aimed a little higher, to take the whole world. That will be proven when the big one comes, i.e. the financial crisis finally blows up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The following was written by Dutch anti-usury campaigner Anthony Migchels:

    Robert Reich, as a leader of the Left, is oblivious to the fact that he is closely aligned with Big Business, the EU, the UN, the Government and Banking in saying sodomy and the ripping apart of defenseless babies in their mother's womb has nothing to do with today's moral crisis.

    The Left has for decades destroyed all serious opposition to banking and plutocracy (Usury) with their heinous anti social policies.

    They're also keen on calling anti Usury activists 'antisemites'.

    They suck even much, much, much, MUCH more than the warmongers and worshippers of the wealthy on the right.

    Anthony Migchels
    realcurrencies@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. Everything in this post is 100% correct, but unfortunately, it doesn't mention that Migchels is not only an anti-usury campaigner but also a greenbacker, meaning he merely wants to switch the control over unlimited money printing by the present private racketeers to the government. Not much of an improvement, unless he can guarantee that only saints, angels and higher will manage the money supply.
    Real money is not something that can be printed. If there is hope for the world, it can only be with a return to honest money and by getting rid of the hateful supremacists, warmongers and culture destroyers that have taken over in the early 20th century.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. COUNTERFEITING Vs. Diversionary Non-Essential, Charging-Of-Interest

      U make excellent observation on Migchels who is much of charlatan in economics, in my humble opinion, as Hoffman is. But u miss one important pt., that having to do w. charging-of-interest.

      For Migchels and the other frauds, like Ellen Brown and the guy at MoneyMasters, Bill Still, insist, like Hoffman, that problem is charging-of-interest in addition to the origin of the COUNTERFEITING, i.e., whether it's public (gov.) or private.

      But charging-interest is mere matter of private contract in accord w. natural freedom of contract for anything else, and to infringe upon that freedom in one instance, like charging-of-interest, is infringing upon the entire right, regarding anything/everything.

      Further, note also, the charging-of-interest is literally RED-HERRING diversion fm the real crime and fraud, the legalized COUNTERFEITING of the receipts for real money, the commodity, gold and/or silver. Thus the Jews and other frauds try to excuse the COUNTERFEITING by saying the only problem is the charging-of-interest.


      Delete
    2. There's just one other pt. that ought to be covered--and that is COUNTERFEITING (fiat-money) in time of war--it's justified as it's necessary for last-ditch defense of life and people--in same way as setting up fortifications upon someone's private property, etc.

      But in case of war, such legalized COUNTERFEITING (fiat-money) must be seen simply as TAXATION. See how complex this issue of money can be?

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ... he merely wants to switch the control over unlimited money printing by the present private racketeers to the government. Not much of an improvement, unless he can guarantee that only saints, angels and higher will manage the money supply. Real money is not something that can be printed.

    ----

    Elected representatives, in contrast to 'private racketeers' are (at least in principle) accountable to their electorate. Perhaps we can agree that it's better to have an accountable party in any given position of responsibility than one with no accountability with the caveat that the electorate does in fact hold the party accountable for its performance.

    Also, it's unclear what bearing the exchange medium (specie vs. fiat) has on the honesty of a person. History is replete with examples of catastrophe in both specie and fiat currency systems. The money-men can work their evil in both systems if they are allowed to. Better to have accountable individuals responsible for the volume of a currency that can easily expand or contract to represent the true value in the economy. A physical commodity which must be dug out of the ground, is in demand for many purposes other than currency and therefore subject to additional 'market' forces is less than ideal in this regard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "History is replete with examples of catastrophe in both specie and fiat currency systems."

      This is TOTALLY and absolutely false statement, above, and I CHALLENGE u to substantiate ur assertion w. specific citations. All fiat systems fail because they're criminal frauds, and the criminals destroy the poor fools who allow it--and history so demonstrates.

      But all strict specie systems ALWAYS thrive and succeed--and that's precisely why there are so few and short instances in history, for, as in the American system, the success of the system leads ineluctably to CORRUPTION--in perfect CYLCIC fashion according to the great historian and exposition of Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West." And all history demonstrates this afore-mentioned principles, all empires beginning w. specie systems, but then collapsing and degenerating in fiat systems--the Jews always infiltrating, then taking-over, and presiding over the death, Jews being FOREMOST liars, criminals, satanists, etc. (Gosp. JOHN 8:44), Jews being most collectivist, organized, "connected" criminals.

      Delete
    2. Specie systems historically switch to fiat systems when there is not enough specie available to represent the value of a growing economy, which is one of the many inherent problems with the specie system.

      Again, if the people running the system are not adequately skilled and held accountable by the people, both systems lead to catastrophe for the people. This is an all too often overlooked, fundamental issue.

      Delete

    3. Basic Principles MUST BE UNDERSTOOD

      Again, ur note, just above, is TOTALLY and absolutely false, demonstrating ur complete lack of understanding of economics and money. For there is NO SUCH THING AS "not enough specie available..."; this is utterly ridiculous.

      For if the amount of circulating specie in an economy goes down (as has actually happened in recorded history, it always fluctuating, and not un-common phenomenon) then THE VALUE and buying-power of the remaining specie in circulation GOES UP UP UP--in perfect mathematical relation, and as common sense would manifest--and as abundantly demonstrated in history.

      Note then the increasing value and buying power of specie thereupon ENCOURAGES that hoarded or saved specie to be spent back into the economy--which always happens naturally for most economic equilibrium.

      And there ARE NO "inherent problems w. the specie system"--this is just MORONIC Jew propaganda to excuse and justify their typical lies and criminal fiat systems which are designed to despoil the people.

      And I'm disappointed in u, Mr. Pinay, that u can't see through the lies of the Jews and criminals for their attempts to make excuses for the criminal legalized COUNTERFEITING system which is the "fiat" system. U need to do some simple, basic reading of material easily obtained, for example at Mises.org.

      If u don't use honest money--SPECIE, as u call it (perfectly understandable)--THEN U'RE GOING TO GET the fraudulent proliferation and replication of the "fiat" money--and this is the plain and consistent lesson of history.

      GET A CLUE: specie money is HONEST money--"fiat" money is criminal fraud, always, an easy, hard and fast rule of thumb.

      Delete
    4. Mr. Pinay: just clk on https://mises.org/search/site/fiat%20money. This page comes fm the search topic, "fiat money," and u'll quickly enough see the numerous articles and items available for quick info on the subject.

      Delete
    5. I'm familiar with the 'market'-centric, anti-Christ 'Austrian school' and saddened by its influence in conservative Christian circles. Even Joseph Sobran was enchanted by it.

      Delete
    6. Christian Duty Of TRUTH Above All

      Mr. Pinay: u say u're "familiar"--BUT do u actually KNOW ANYTHING about it?--I doubt it. U don't seem to know much of anything about economics in general at all, whatsoever--no more than Hoffman, gross charlatan and one who mis-represents.

      Mr. Pinay: note this charge I make about Hoffman's mis-representation is EXTREMELY SERIOUS charge. "Mis-representation" is just a fancy word for another word that could be used. And one must note Hoffman's very fundamental Christianity is at issue.

      Ur allegation about Austrian school being anti-Christ is not only false, but I must remind u it's EXTREMELY serious in itself. I caution u that u should understand what u're saying.

      And note what I say about "honest money," just above--it's thus the ONLY sort of money appropriate to the Christian society, for the reasons I give and have sought to make clear for u. I thus urge u to read-up and LEARN what the Austrians teach about such honest money. It is imperative u make such effort to learn and find out.

      Delete
  14. In contemplating the observations of the authorities cited I don't hesitate to say that sodomy is satanic 'in essence' or, perhaps it's more correct to say that sodomy, like usury, is one of the purest satanic acts. Sodomy negates the manifest will of the Creator in the very act of creation.

    Short of a supernatural act, could there be a more effective means of entirely eliminating (and sending to Hell) God's greatest creation, man, than by all mankind negating the creative, reproductive act through sodomy? Man would entirely die off in one generation or less (expecting rampant disease).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part 2
      Thomas Jefferson also believed that national credit rightfully belongs to the people. If so, credit could also be issued directly to the people usury free to purchase homes, to pay for an education, as front capital in business ventures, etc., etc. Again, with usury free credit the prices for goods and services are not infected as leaven permeates bread.

      As a backdrop for Luke 6:34 take a look at Exodus 12, Exodus 22, Leviticus 25, Deuteronomy 15 and Deuteronomy 23. Afterward tell me that usury was not domestically prohibited in all of ancient Israel and I will forever hold back further discussion. In fact, in both the ancient Hebrew text and in the ancient Greek Septuagint completely different words were written into the text that allowed usury for a special case against outlandish and hostile foreigners. (This can be proven in the ancient languages’ lexicons). Careful analysis will show any intelligent scholar that even though this one allowance existed in those days, the domestic prohibition remained in effect for those who were born Israelites and for resident aliens. Now enters the New Testament with an instruction from our LORD’s mouth with a commandment to end usury altogether. How did North miss this one Apsterian? Who is the real heretic?

      But let’s get to what should be the core of these kinds of discussions. All the Apsterians of the von Mises Institute are blinded by a couple of Bible verses which call for the institution of gold as money, while they neglect or ignore all of the remainder which speak to the issue of usury. The specie advocates of course do know there not enough gold in the world to give us a stable money supply for commerce. Moreover, with gold owners as the only ones with a right to create our currency, we should ask them where will their gold be locked up as they issue receipts for circulation: in a vault where no one but they have access?

      Apsterian quoted only two Bible passages in his replies, neither of which addressed the Biblical teaching on usury. After how many years of writing on ?Christian Economics? has Gary North ever written about the details given in the Bible on this? I wonder if North ever quoted the following verse: James 5:3 "Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.” Or did he ever carefully analyze the five Old Testament chapters I cited above. At least with Hoffman, he referenced not just the Bible passages that apply, his dissertation left nothing our from the first fifteen years of church history. From Hoffman’s narrative we find included in the prohibition against usury the four Lateran Councils, the Nicene Council and a few others. He also covered early Puritan American history in which the first settlers of Massachusetts Bay Colony at first set up a usury free government.
      Daniel S Krynicki, pipefighter2@wowway.com

      Delete
    2. Part 1
      At the outset here it is worthwhile to mention that the main reason for me to enter this discussion is that I spent about ten years following Rockwell, Rothbard, Gary North and Ron Paul. It abruptly ended when Hoffman published Usury in Christendom in 2013. I did make one purchase of Paul’s book End the Fed. Reading it was almost useless, except for the little history he cited. So we will surely get to Apsterian herein shortly. But first a couple of misconceptions others have in this discussion should be cleared up.

      Let’s begin with Peri1224’s comment about Migchels. I have found Migchels is indeed a competent economist. His Wordpress articles have been delivered to my inbox for about five years now. Peri1224 wrote: "Migchels is not only an anti-usury campaigner but also a greenbacker, meaning he merely wants to switch the control over unlimited money printing by the present private racketeers to the government.” Two aspects of Peri1224’s observations should be discussed here. Migchels has repeatedly distanced himself from identifying with the greenbackers. He fears, as the Mises people do, vesting this power to create money into the hands of a government bureaucracy will be a disaster. I have replied to him that if currency is created only to pay for the costs of government and public infrastructure - and created usury free - then the beneficiaries of this money creation are primarily the people. A money supply is thus established ; and the need for myriad taxation evanesces. Oh yes, there will be corruption to weed out ; but usury free money creation will also provide two benefits for the people that no usury capitalist system will deliver. The first is the elimination of taxation to fund both the costs of government and public infrastructure. The second is that prices for goods and services will not have the systemic usury permeating them. So Apsterian’s objections in no way divulged these details.

      Migchels has lately been all over the map with recommendations. When bitcoin first appeared, he wrote about it several times until he saw it play out as another scheme for a few who could manipulate its outcome. He eventually wrote as such. I did write to him that with usury outlawed we will have fewer problems with government issued greenbacks than we’ve had with privately issued usury based currency. For five hundred years now privately issued currency has been mostly the norm. We can only find a few historical examples of publicly issued currency. Lincoln’s greenbacks was just one example. There were a few others. But the greenbacks served their purpose and circulated for some time after the Civil War.

      Delete
    3. Money MUST Be Commodity, Necessarily--Otherwise It's Catastrophic

      Good gravy Daniel, but all u do here is to babbling nonsense, dropping a few names, making a few citations fm Biblic literature, repeating the same unfounded platitudes, and then pretend u've actually said anything of substance--which u haven't.

      U don't understand money, what it is, why it must be what it is, and u don't understand "usury." And u merely repeat mindlessly the fallacy Mr. Pinay held to effect there isn't enough gold to serve as money.

      But money is just a commodity itself, NECESSARILY, hence FINITE in amount--WHICH THEN CANNOT BE COUNTERFEITED, meaning it can't be replicated or proliferated arbitrarily by ANYONE, private or government.

      AND THERE'S PLENTY OF GOLD, silver, and any other commodity, if and as it be needed to serve as money's function, (a) medium of exchange, (b) unit of account, (c) store of value. As I explained to Mr. Pinay, if amount of gold in circulation is reduced (which happens all the time, as it ALWAYS fluctuates in a free market), the buying-power and value of it just simply goes UP UP UP, and this increase in buying-power, relative value, then is what induces more gold then to be spent back into the economy.

      And u don't even understand "usury"--which is never precisely defined fm the ancient sources, ONLY DESCRIBED for effects, this then corresponding w. CENTRAL-BANKING, as I explained.

      Fiat-money is criminal fraud, PERIOD, and it always, without fail, brings destruction and catastrophe upon people and civilization. And it doesn't matter WHO commits this fraud, private or public (government); neither does it matter whether interest is charged or not--these are both just RED-HERRING diversions to fact that fiat-money is fraudulent criminal enterprise, as I noted--LEGALIZED COUNTERFEITING.

      If u remove honest money which is commodity-based, hence gold/silver being best, u've established a criminal enterprise in guise of illegitimate monopoly for issuance of the currency--AND U'RE GOING TO GET INFLATION, GUARANTEED, which inflation is the purpose of the criminal enterprise in the first place, legalized COUNTERFEITING.

      Daniel: u've got to face-up to the fact u're extremely ignorant person who doesn't understand the true facts. Quit ur foolish babbling and nonsense and THINK for once in ur life.

      Delete
  15. "I do not understand what money is", you say. You also wrote,"But money is just a commodity itself”. By arbitrary choice you demand that it shall be regarded as a fungible. But out of the mouth of Jesus in Luke 6:34,35 we are commanded to regard it only as a medium of exchange. You are the one who resists the commandment of God. Your are therefore the heretic not Michael Hoffman.

    Apsterian: "And u don't even understand "usury"--which is never precisely defined fm the ancient sources,” From this I gather you have no intention to search out the five Old Testament chapters I recommended. There are also the three letters Thomas Jefferson wrote, which I also recommended to you ; but you have no intention to look into them. Jefferson was not a committed Christian. He, consequently, erred in several of his best analogies ; but at the same time he provided the committed Christian with basis to search out the Biblical teachings on money and usury. It’s in there but you refuse to look into it seriously, believing other heretics who have corrupted the Word of God.
    Volume IX: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t6833nn2f;view=1up;seq=9

    You accuse me of the following "making a few citations fm Biblic literature”. From this I now understand that you do not regard the Bible as God’s Word. Well Jesus Himself, according to Peter's testimony written the Gospel of Mark chapter 7 referred to it as God’s Word, "9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
    13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” It is a simple matter for me to believe words out of the mouth of Jesus Christ rather than Apsterian.

    The difference between you and me is I don’t worship gold as Nebuchadnezzar did at the Plain of Dura. All those who regard money as a commodity (fungible) fall into a category so named by St. Paul, “the love of money is the root of all evil”. Once we know these things, it’s a simple matter to believe Jesus showed us the way to escape the grievous damnation that will accompany the practice of usury.
    Daniel S Krynicki
    pipefighter2@wowway.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lies, Pharisaism, Pelagianism, Heresy, All Built On Subjectivism

      Daniel writes: "From this I gather you have no intention to search out the five Old Testament chapters I recommended."

      No, Daniel, it's not my obligation to make sense out of ur nonsense and lies. If u have something to say, then u should say it urself, not relying on others to make sense for u. If u pretend to know what usury is, then say it w. subject and verb, and give ur source--why is that so difficult for u without demanding others do ur work for u?

      And Daniel, as God is creator (of everything), then everything is work of God, right? And if u don't have the basic intelligence to do ur own thinking, who's fault is that?

      Another of ur lies is "worship" of gold. Money must have its own intrinsic value, finite in amount to prevent it being COUNTERFEITED; hence theoretically money could be any commodity, but gold/silver are best, most practical; that's all.

      So we see u're a lot like Hoffman, ur hero: like typical Pharisaic, u mis-represent in order to twist things to pretend u're "good" or virtuous. Like Hoffman, ur only real purpose is to insist upon ur Pharisaic moralism, guilty of the heresy of Pelagianism. As I've noted, the worst enemy of TRUTH (= Christ) is non-existent "good."

      Delete
    2. Notice below in Luke Chapter 6 verses 34 and 35. We have here a commandment to lend expecting nothing in return. Well, these are words directly out of Jesus’s mouth. Luke, the physician, quoted exactly what Jesus said. So who therefore is the lying? Who is the real hypocrite Pharisee?
      Luke Chapter 6
      "33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
      34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
      35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
      36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful."

      I say this to you Apsterian: Nullify the words of Jesus at your own peril. You will have Matt 12:30 to answer for also.
      Matthew 12:30
      "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

      Call true Christians all the names you want. We fear only those who are able to destroy the soul. Matthew 5:11 is a personal message to all who follow Jesus.
      Matthew 5:11
      "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."

      Matthew 12:25 below is a national message for those who reject Christ’s references to kingdom evangel. Nations which reject Christ’s teachings will be dealt with accordingly.
      Matthew 12:25
      "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:"
      Luke 19:27
      27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

      I do fly the American flag at my home as a symbol of high regard for the Unanimous Declaration, the Preamble and the Bill of Rights. But without addressing money creation at interest the founders were only 3/4’s of the way to making our nation into a Christian nation. We could not have expected the deists to embrace the full Christian Bible. They were not believers, as Apsterian is not a believer. 3,500 years of Biblical history with scribes, Pharisees and hypocrites in the majority guarantees we are still resisting God’s plans.

      Daniel S. Krynicki

      Delete

    3. Lies, Lying, Pharisaism, satanism Always, Typically Built Upon Subjectivism

      Daniel: u just lie and use quotations to pretend to backing-up ur lies, that's all--it's been seen and done numerous times. At this pt. ur argument is reduced to ur corrupt understanding of Biblic literature; that's all.

      A Christian is one who follows and worships TRUTH (= Christ), period, believing truth is the ONLY way to God and happiness, in accord w. the literature. And significance of the Christian philosophy then is Christ implicitly affirms the objective (Aristotelian) reality, necessary basis of truth--against the subjectivism of Pharisees, basis of their lies and lying--u're the Pharisee, Daniel.

      And Christ never proscribed lending at interest, despite ur lying--for interest has nothing of essence to do w. "usury"--it could only be central banking as I noted, the inflation of the currency, legalized COUNTERFEITING--it doesn't matter if u charge interest or not. Indeed, at first, the inflationists often feature lower interest rates as attraction to their system.

      What is it w. u, Daniel?--how and why are u such a liar, willing to use any twisted "interpretation" (midrash) of reality or the literary quotes in ur lies? My answer is, like Hoffman, u're typical Pelagianist and Pharisee; u're greatest urge and obsession is to puffing urself up as "good"--which "good" doesn't exist, but is the pretext and greatest excuse for subjectivism and hubristic, satanist, false "free" will. U want to be God.

      Like Hoffman, u and liars like u have a huge, gigantic inferiority-complex and ur wish to appear "good" is over-whelming any truth that might be in u. U, like the Pharisees, don't even care about truth, only the non-existent "good"--that's all u care about, truly a worshipper of idols.


      Delete
    4. You should purchase a red letter edition of the New Testament. Every passage in red is directly out of the mouth of Jesus. Every passage I quoted in my previous post originated directly from the mouth of Jesus. How can you call anyone a liar who quotes words of Jesus? It is you therefore who is the liar.

      Delete

    5. Pharisaic Madness Demonstrated For Insistence Of False Meaning

      Daniel: u LIE as u construe ur top quotations, Luke 6:33-6. Christ merely makes analogy for doing good, compared w. practice of loaning. Christ doesn't in any way say loaning at interest is wrong, PERIOD. Christ is explaining as to how one benefits someone else.

      U don't seem to be all there, Dan, so absolutely DESPERATE and obsessed u are to pretending u're "good"--such is Pharisaism, as u've abandoned TRUTH (= Christ). Worst enemy of TRUTH (= Christ) is "good," which doesn't exist; u and Hoffman are two peas in a pod.

      Same for "usury": u lie, no less than Hoffman, as u say and insist it's charging-of-interest, as I extensively explain, above. Sure, u "quote" words of Christ--BUT it doesn't nearly even begin to mean what u psychotically insist it does, ho ho ho ho

      Delete
  16. Those who believe that there is principally nothing wrong with fractional reserve banking - whether by private racketeers or by government - should explain why anyone should be allowed to steal in the sneakiest of ways from producers and savers. (Keynes said not one man in a million can diagnose it).
    If governments need funds for legitimate projects, why would they need to steal instead of getting the funds honestly? (Which is the reason why we have these monster governments today).
    No need to argue with the defenders of fraud about why they believe what they believe. Throw them this bone and let them chew on it. And come up with a good answer, if they can.

    ReplyDelete
  17. To apsterian.
    You have mentioned something in your posts that needs clarification, privately, if you don't mind. Is there a way to contact you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, why would something need "clarification" only privately?--if there's something needing clarification, let it be public.

      Delete
    2. That's ok. Then we'll let it rest.

      Delete
    3. Ok--must not be too great big deal--I've done my best to explain things in detail, in several notes, and given references. Good luck.

      Delete
  18. Keynes said not one man in a million can diagnose [inflation as a symptom of debt/usury-based economies].

    ---

    Not coincidentally, Keynes was a homosexual and quite the philo-Judaic. He bought at auction Newton's (hushed up for centuries) papers in which he opines that one need only observe the 'Noahide Laws' to obtain salvation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keynes Was Actually PROVEN Gross Incompetent As Practical Economist

      Yes, interesting, Mr. Pinay--but further, did u know Keynes was incompetent investor, having lost his fortune due to bad investments?--but his work was so useful to the Jews that one of them, not sure if it was one of the big Rothschilds at the time, literally re-imbursed Keynes for substantial portion of the lost funds?--ho ho ho--NO WONDER he became such "philo-Judaic," eh? Ho ho ho ho [I'll search for the actual reference and account of these embarrassing facts on Keynes.]

      But Mr. Pinay, there's a serious question I must put to u--it has to do w. ur advertisement for Hoffman's work on usury--as it's gross mis-information, false for its claim of usury consisting of charging-of-interest, don't u think u should take-down that ad?--for the good and info of the people who come to ur site?

      To be sure, Hoffman's works on Talmud are excellent, far as they go, but the one on usury is gross travesty and actually fraud for its claims, serious mis-information. I've already advised Hoffman that work on usury is terrible dis-credit, in the long-run, for his genuine good works on Talmud and the other works.

      The Roman Church and popes are actually shown to be quite beneficial and insightful for their actions regarding charging-of-interest--CONTRARY to Hoffman's Pharisaic, holier-than-thou pretensions. Western civilization has benefitted fm the freedom afforded by the charging-of-interest, and the popes can rightly take credit for that advance.


      Delete
    2. Here's what I found on Keynes w. just a few minutes over at Mises.org using the search word, "Keynes"--there's lots and lots of material there.

      FM https://mises.org/blog/was-keynes-brilliant-investor

      "Was Keynes a Brilliant Investor?
      August 28, 2013•Hunter Lewis

      "The latest example of Keynes hagiography is an article by David Chambers and Elroy Dimson in the Journal of Economic Perspectives (volume 27, number 3, Summer 2013, pp. 213–228).

      "The thesis is that Keynes was an investment genius and innovator who developed methods later used by Warren Buffett and George Soros.

      "Keynes did make a modest fortune through a combination of writing and investing. But to compare his speculative style with Warren Buffett’s long term investment style is preposterous. Consider these facts:

      "Keynes’s initial foray into investing led to a smash up. He lost everything he had unwisely borrowed and had to be bailed out by his parents, who had some inherited money but were not wealthy.

      "He did not do well in the 1920s. He was taken unawares by the the 1929 Crash and also by the 1937 rout. In both instances, he came perilously close to being wiped out again because of very concentrated holdings of currencies, stocks, and commodities and continuing use of leverage (as much as one pound of debt for every pound of his own). In short, Keynes was a speculator, at the same time that he criticized speculators and the “casino” atmosphere of the market. He also failed entirely to understand that the casino was fueled by the easy money policies which he espoused.
      ..."

      Delete
  19. https://books.google.com/books?id=mvbTBHyaP8sC&pg=PA133&dq=isaac+newton+noahide&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sfPVUMTBErGJ0QGwuIDQBw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=isaac%20newton%20noahide&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hoffman has posted a ref. to lt-to-ed. by one of his fans to the Winona Post, at http://www.winonapost.com/Opinion/Letters-to-the-Editor/ArticleID/50826/Central-banks-are-the-real-enemy-of-Americans

    So I want to be sure the proper expo is duly noted for this issue of "usury" which is mis-represented and mis-understood by Hoffman, as I note in above expo, this comment page, over a yr ago.

    ------------------------------------

    Hoffman's Expo Highly Defective, Mis-Leading

    I want to respond to Mr. R. Slemmer's note in today's edition which cited M.A. Hoffman II regarding "usury" and central-banking.

    For there's a great and serious problem w. expo of Hoffman (and Slemmer) on "usury," there being no definitive meaning for the word, "usury," but which, unfortunately, is too often understood merely as charging-of-interest.

    But charging interest couldn't be the real problem, it far more likely that "usury" refers rather to central-banking which replaces real commodity money (like gold/silver) w. cash or "currency" based upon nothing of "intrinsic value."

    Thus "fiat-currency" is issued which inevitably causes price-inflation, and when issuance of this fiat-currency is necessarily curtailed to abate the inflation, the resulting lack of currency causes the various loans to being defaulted, the debtors and society bankrupted and impoverished.

    This pernicious "boom & bust" process has nothing to do w. charging interest and would happen even if no interest were charged. Slemmer is absolutely right, however, to deplore central-banking as it really is just legalized counterfeiting, the money printed (or digitalized) based upon nothing of intrinsic value.

    Honest money is commodity-based, like gold/silver, and charging interest is properly simple matter of contract btwn/among the various individual parties. Hoffman's work is thus seriously, if not fatally flawed, for this basic lack of understanding of "usury."

    ReplyDelete