E. Michael Jones on Jews and Usury, Part 2

In my view, the climax of Barren Metal comes toward the end in the chapter on the Vatican-approved, Jesuit-run periodical Civiltà Cattolica that in 1890 forthrightly addressed the Jewish Question. Far more than modern America, the European financial scandals of the era were directly and openly linked to Jews, as Jones notes. In 1882, for example, the Union Generale bank collapsed and Jews were explicitly blamed for it. Its former head, for one, fumed that the Jewish financial power of the day was “not content with the billions which had come into its coffers for fifty years . . . not content with the monopoly which it exercises on nine-tenths at least of all Europe’s financial affairs.” This power, the man claimed, had “set out to destroy the Union Generale.”

Famed writer Emile Zola also published a novel at the time in which a fictional young Catholic banker seethed at Jewish deceit. The character, Zola writes,

is overwhelmed with an “inextinguishable hatred” for “that accursed race which no longer has its own country, no longer has its own prince, which lives parasitically in the home of nations, feigning to obey the law but in reality only obeying its own God of theft, of blood, of anger .  .  . fulfilling everywhere its mission of ferocious conquest, to lie in wait for its prey, suck the blood out of everyone, [and] grow fat on the life of others.” (1169)

(See my column “Culture of Deceit” for more on such European scandals of the day.)

The Catholic periodical Civiltà Cattolica traced Jewish influence back to the French Revolution, employing Abbe Augustin Barruel’s Memoirs Illustrating the History of Freemasonry in its description of Jewish financial power. The argument, in short, is that the French Revolution allowed the emancipation of the Jews, who were then able to foist their immoral ways (according to Christian mores) onto European society, and “the main way that the Jews achieved their hegemony over Christian societies was through ‘their insatiable appetite for enriching themselves via usury’” (1178). The verdict? “The source of Jewish power is usury.”

From this central fact rolled well-known consequences:

Once having acquired absolute civil liberty and equality in every sphere with Christians and the nations, the dam which previously had held back the Hebrews was opened for them, and in a short time, like a devastating torrent, they penetrated and cunningly took over everything: gold, trade, the stock market, the highest appointments in political administrations, in the army, and in diplomacy; public education, the press, everything fell into their hands or into the hands of those who were inevitably depending upon them. (1179)

With control of gold came control of Christian society, particularly through the public press and academia, since “journalism and public education are like the two wings that carry the Israelite dragon, so that it might corrupt and plunder all over Europe.”

How little things have changed in our own day.

In the same chapter as Civiltà Cattolica, Jones discusses how the writings of one German, Father Georg Ratzinger, informed discussions in the Vatican-approved periodical. As the name suggests, Fr. Ratzinger was indeed related to Joseph Ratzinger (his great-nephew), who became Pope Benedict XVI. The elder Ratzinger pointed directly to Jewish usury as the bane of Christian culture, which, when left unchecked, resulted in the enslavement of the surrounding non-Jews. Previously, of course, traditional Christianity forbade usury, meaning that the popes thus “deprived [Jews] of their ability to occupy the choke points in the culture.”

Further restrictions kept Jews under control:

Jews were not allowed to employ Christian servants in their houses . . . Jews who defamed Christ or Christians were punished.  . . . Jews couldn’t live wherever they pleased, but were confined to specific districts. It was also forbidden to sell houses or real estate to Jews, or to rent to them, as was living under the same roof with Jews. Similarly, Jews were forbidden to hire Christian nursemaids, servants or day laborers.” (1184-5)

Ratzinger insisted it was foolish to abandon these tried and true Christian practices because Jews learned from their Talmud that “cheating the goyim was a virtue.” Linking free trade, capitalism and Jewish methods of conducting business, Ratzinger concluded that it was “to be expected that the Jews, who with centuries of practice became skilled in the deceptions of economic warfare and acquired the arts of exploitation to perfection, would take center stage under the regime of free competition” (1187). It was not knowledge or ability, in Ratzinger’s opinion, that “makes the Jew rich and admired in society” but, rather, “deception and exploitation of others.”

In a charge that finds immediate resonance in our time, Jones includes a quote from Civiltà Cattolica about “the voracious octopus of Judaism.” Compare that with Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi’s brilliant quote about Goldman Sachs following the 2008 sub-prime meltdown: “The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” George Ratzinger and countless other Europeans of the latter half of the nineteenth century felt the same way, as evidenced by their writings, and we owe Dr. Jones a debt for bringing this to our attention.

Of course Ratzinger did not think that only Jews were blameworthy in these cultural and economic wars, for at a time “when Jews stand by even their own criminal element, we see Christian politicians and legislators betraying their own Christian faith on a daily basis and vying with each other to see who has the privilege of harnessing himself to the triumphal car of the Jews. In Parliament,” Ratzinger wrote, “no Jew need defend another Jew when their Christian lackeys do that for them.”

Another fascinating topic Jones covers concerns the relationship between landed English gentry and Jewish moneylenders. “Stated in its simplest terms, the Jewish Problem involved the inverse relationship between debt and political sovereignty” (1079). This antagonism toward growing Jewish power was common among the British aristocracy as well as politicians. For example, in 1891 Labour Leader, a socialist newspaper, denounced the money-lending Rothschild family as a

blood-sucking crew [which] has been the main cause of untold mischief and misery in Europe during the present century, and has piled up prodigious wealth chiefly through fomenting wars between the States which ought never to have quarreled. Wherever there is trouble in Europe, wherever rumors of war circulate and men’s minds are distraught with fear of change and calamity, you may be sure that a hook-nosed Rothschild is at his games somewhere near the region of the disturbance. (1081)

An exemplar of this which fell into the clutches of Jewish moneylenders was the extended Churchill family. Randolph, born in 1849, grew up in an era in which “spectacular bankruptcies” would plague aristocrats for much of the century. Much of this suffering was, of course, brought on by shameless profligacy among landed aristocrats, and Jones offers the Churchills as an exemplar of the blight. “In every generation, among his [Winston’s] relatives, there were too many debts, too much gambling, too much drinking.” Informed opinion was that “there was an above-average amount of infidelity, divorce, erratic behavior, sexual scandal, social ostracism, and court disfavor.” Randolph  —  and in turn Winston  —  were very much in this mold  and fell straight into the hands of Jewish moneylenders, with profound consequences for Britain and all of Christendom when Winston became an influential politician advocating war with Germany.

As far back as 1874, the Churchill family was forced to sell wide swaths of land along with livestock to Baron Rothschild in order to settle a serious debt. Randolph, who had grown up amidst rich Jews with opulent tastes, made the mistake of thinking that he could indulge such a lifestyle without the necessary funds to back it. What he didn’t understand was that “he was on the wrong side of compound interest and they [his Jewish friends] on the right side.”

What followed was predictable. Randolph eventually contracted syphilis and lost large sums of money while gambling in Monte Carlo. In this instance, a Rothschild came to his rescue  —  but at a price. “The Jews who were supporting Randolph’s syphilitic fantasies and the extravagant lifestyle that went along with it . . . [were] willing to write off 70,000 pounds in bad debt because [Natty Rothschild] needed a friend in high places who would share Cabinet secrets that could be turned into hard financial gains” (1087). In time, “the British Empire would become an essentially Jewish enterprise over the course of the 19th century.” By the end of the century, Jones concludes, “The British Empire had become one huge, Jewish usury machine, administered by impecunious, extravagant, perennially indebted, morally depraved agents like Randolph Churchill.” Far worse was to come.

Winston Churchill inherited a mountain of debt when his father died, so, in Jones’ words, “the only tangible asset inherited was Randolph’s relationship with the Rothschilds  and other wealthy Jewish financiers.” Not an auspicious beginning. Not surprisingly, when writing about his late father, Winston left out mention of the Rothschilds completely. He also fell into the orbit of wealthy Jew Sir Ernest Cassel, followed by Sir Henry Strakosch, who “took responsibility for all [Winston’s] debts.” This occurred by 1938; could it have affected Churchill’s decisions vis-a-vis Germany during the ensuing years? One wonders. Of course, such discussions of Jewish influence over the lives of powerful gentiles such as Winston Churchill are rarely present in modern discourse, so it is to Jones’ credit that he discusses it intelligently and in depth.

At this point, Jones still has over one hundred and fifty pages of text to go, but it amounts to passing footnotes to what has come before. The founding of the Federal Reserve gets a chapter, the Depression gets a few pages, World War II is mostly ignored, Keynes makes an appearance and so on.

Readers of the Jones’ monthly Culture Wars will know that Jones has diligently covered Jewish economic (and moral) misbehavior over the last century, but Barren Metal glosses over it, though we’re fed some nice quips. For instance, Jones writes that “The Jewish usurers’ Utopia which Milton Friedman promoted under the name of Chicago School economics was the mirror image of Communism, another Jewish Utopia, because both claimed that if their programs were implemented heaven on earth would follow.” Friedman’s advocacy of transferring public works projects into private hands “was another looting operation.” Properly read, this translates to “another Jewish looting operation.

Jones addresses a similar looting operation which we know as the leveraged buyouts of the 1980s, where Jewish actors such as Michael Milken and Henry Kravis patted themselves on the back while presumably mumbling that “[Jewish] greed is good.” Scholar Benjamin Ginsberg alluded to this theft when he wrote that “It apparently did not go unnoticed in executive suites across the country that virtually all the takeover specialists and their financial backers were Jews.” Read James B. Stewart’s excellent account of this “transfer of wealth” in his Den of Thieves.

Speaking of “virtually all,” how many readers remember Yale Law School professor Amy Chua’s 2003 book World on Fire? There she wrote about the attempt to implement free markets in Russia:  “Instead of dispersing ownership and creating functioning markets, these reforms had allowed a small group of greedy industrialists and bankers to plunder Russia, turning themselves almost overnight into the billionaire-owners of Russia’s crown jewels while the country spiraled into chaos and lawlessness.” Here’s where the “virtually all” comes in: Chua correctly noted that “six out of the seven of Russia’s wealthiest” oligarchs were Jewish. When her Jewish husband heard about this, naturally he had to ask, “Just six?  So who’s the seventh guy?” Jones would never miss such a point either, which is why he wrote of the period that “the looting of Russia was a Jewish operation from start to finish.”

Moving ahead in time, we get to the Crash of 2008, where Goldman Sachs was described as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.” Situating this within the framework of his usury thesis, Jones writes how “the Jewish bankers at places like Goldman Sachs” practiced usury with no restraint once fellow Jews such as Greenspan, Summers and Rubin succeeded in removing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act.

Using a play on German words, Jones writes that this is “the trajectory Capitalism always takes when moral considerations are removed from economic exchange. Usury (Wucher) like cancer (Wucherung) always ends up destroying itself by destroying the economic host which supports it.”

Why don’t we Americans know more about this largely Jewish campaign to usurp our labor and wealth, a cancerous process which is ongoing? Perhaps we can use a phrase Jones employs when chastising fellow Catholics such as Michael Novak and Robert Sirico for supporting what Jones sees as anti-Catholic capitalist policies. Jones writes that such people are employed to “produce economic fairy tales for the goyim to keep them in ignorance of what is really going on.” Likely Jones would approve of me extending this charge to cover the all of the Jewish behavior he so assiduously describes in Barren Metal. In my view, Jews use their (usurious) ill-gotten gains to get journalists, academics, filmmakers and many others to constantly “produce fairy tales for the goyim.”

I’ve covered this in depth in my writing for The Occidental Quarterly and specifically in writing about the orchestrated campaign in Hollywood to divert attention from Jewish economic misbehavior onto their innocent non-Jewish counterparts. If I ever write a book, perhaps this is the proper topic, for over a number of years I described a remarkable celluloid pattern of deceit, beginning in early 2012 with my review of “How They Lie to Us: the Film Margin Call,” followed by The Wolf of Wall Street (see the book review here), Other People’s MoneyThe Richard Gere Film Arbitrage, The Big Short: Film and Book and finally “Money Monster.” We are talking here about a list of the biggest (non-Jewish) names in Hollywood: George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Tim Roth, Jeremy Irons, Kevin Spacey, Danny DeVito, Gregory Peck, Ryan Gosling, Christian Bale and Steve Carell. And these names were employed in a campaign to convince the goyim that Wall Street miscreants were Gentiles. If someone ever makes a DVD of clips from these films, it could be pasted inside the back cover of Barren Metal to give a modern version of what Jones is writing about.

Conclusion: Capitalism and Catholicism are Irreconcilable

Jones, a Catholic traditionalist, is no fan of capitalism. In the great conflict between capitalism and Catholicism, Jones accepts the view of those who believe that “there is an unbridgeable gulf between the Catholic and the capitalist conception of life.” In fact, Jones concludes his book with this short paragraph:

Capitalism and Catholicism, far from being compatible, are antithetical. Capitalism is state-sponsored usury; Catholicism, the traditional foe of usury, believes in the priority of labor. There is no way to resolve this dichotomy. One system must prevail over the other.

At this point in history, does it seem even remotely possible that Catholicism, long rooted in Europe but a fading memory there now, can somehow triumph over capitalism? To most rational observers, the possibility seems laughable, but then again, at the end of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, Jones concluded that “judging from appearances, the conversion of the Jews did not seem imminent. The Jews had never been more powerful; the Church was weak. But appearances can be deceiving. . . . Reversal was in the air.”

Any signs of the Jewish stranglehold over our money, economies and cultures being reversed? If so, please let us know.

Final Thoughts

I have long thought that if someone could somehow reconcile E. Michael Jones’ Catholic interpretation of The Jewish Question with the social science perspective offered by Kevin MacDonald, a thrilling new synthesis might be achieved. MacDonald, of course, very much believes in the salience of race, but Jones’ views are militantly aracial, by which I mean he is insistent that race is not a factor in the struggle between Jewry and the rest of humanity. Rather, in his view, it is a religious story in which God plays the leading role and the Catholic Church is the agent of God’s work on Earth. Jews are, to Jones . . . well, read the opening of The Gospel of St. John, where Jesus says, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do.”

I’ll be honest: I’m hugely disappointed that E. Michael Jones refuses to see race as an issue. It’s pretty obvious that the organized Jewish community and vast numbers of influential Jews are entirely on board with importing millions of non-Whites, a program that is aimed at destroying the power of White people. It’s a race war, and people who don’t play it will surely lose.

Prior to WWII, it could be argued, Jews were more parasitical and seemed content to keep their host alive. After the war, this seems to have changed into a war to eliminate Whites, which is being done through promotion of replacement-level non-White immigration, feminism, multiculturalism, homosexuality and stirring low-IQ non-Whites to commit low-intensity murder of Whites at the street level. All the while, Jews have been in the forefront of discouraging and attacking White attempts at kindling White identity and group action. At this late date, how can Jones deny the racial nexus of this war? Is he convinced God has plans for the White race one way or the other and we should simply trust in Him? If so, I humbly wish God would show us some favor during our time of need.

Still, it remains edifying to think that Jones’ theological account can so well mirror and add to evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald’s scientific (and racial) discussion of a Jewish “group evolutionary strategy.” Whichever version you accept as “getting to the root of the matter,” either will oblige you to take seriously the effect Jews and their movements have had on the modern world. And that story is far from over.

118 replies
  1. Alvin
    Alvin says:

    Jones has admitted in recent interviews, “Im not saying there isnt a war on white guys. because there is”.

    To me EMJ v. KMM is like every issue in the alt-right. You have evolutionists vs. trads. But it doesnt matter whether you say evolution made x that way or God made x that way. Where x is blacks, asians, women, what have you.

    The only place where the disagreement manifests is conversions of Jews. But since the current Pope doesnt believe in converting Jews, that issue will be popping up less and less.

  2. Rever Leo
    Rever Leo says:

    I’m genuinely surprised that Professor MacDonald did not review JR’S when it came out. Himself and Dr Joyce seem nonplussed by EMJ. This is more understandable in Dr Joyce’s case given his background but is puzzling in Prof’s case. Dr Jones is running the whole show, books magazine and media, from his basement and deserves all our support.

  3. J. Boyd Walker
    J. Boyd Walker says:

    I also have learned, and continue to learn, from E. Michael Jones’ work(s), and from all sincerely intelligent and well-meaning people who reference his work openly, comment on it, and inadvertently promote it as a result of it’s scholastic analysis, and can see that it is essential to both the understanding of positivistic (overwhelmingly Protestant and primarily Secular Humanist) approaches to law and education in this county in the last 150 years (and in the case of the Society of the Founding Founders of America, even earlier).

    As a follower biased European “in the context of” World History a devotee of the Spiritual Science of “dieser andere Jude” committed now. to the current meta-psychological outlook (and an essentially spiritual ontological/existential process of being) that is beginning to be found within in all domains historically and, in shorter time frames currently- I have just one simplified observation followed by a short comment:
    Christ as the Head of the Church/as highest human Incarnation of The Spirit of Logos (the Hellenistic interpretation of an interpretation of morality, life, real authority and it’s relation to the cosmos). This understanding was the spiritual/historical tipping point of the social order in Palestine as it existed under the physical boot of Rome and the Spiritual Boot of Pharisaic Judaism. This Pharisaic Judaism was antithetical to the moral spirit of the traditional Hebrew (now impoverished) Nationalism, and by it’s example of historical time became the early Church.

    The earliest church in the Occident was Rome, became Catholic (universal/Universal), and was the fountainhead of all Christian Doctrine, Education, Thought and thus Behavior, in the West for 2,000 years. Objective fact of all historical facts. Historically accurate and, a least until modern times, unimpeachable.

    I will just observe that it is because most of us don’t have (long-term, reinforced understanding of) the cunning for, and the depth of understanding of this Jewish reinforced insider understanding – this subtlety in relationship related to the project of self promotion, literate, bias and occult prowess in the name of a collective/subjective understanding, of and for Jewish social stratification in “other’ societies. And all that has come out of it, as Jones tells it in his indispensable book “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit”, since the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ which the historic Catholic Church Hierarchy has always taken pains to contextualize.

    Whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, or even if Christianity is observed in “Faith History” as Al Gore put it, Catholicism has priority of place as I understand it in all Church History, and most certainly in European History.

    Doctors Jones’ and MacDonald would make fine bedfellows for the alchemy of the spiritual and the psycho-historical, if this idea were not so morally objectionable.

    • Robert Bloch
      Robert Bloch says:

      “Scholastic analysis” is precisely on point. This article makes me want to convert to Judaism (sorry, moderator). The alters, some of whom are genuinely brilliant are almost entirely barren of technical economic expertise. They pine for a Volkish economics and mistrust markets because National Review fired some of them. How can good people write such cringingly bad articles?

      First — allocating capital is a labor-free activity?

      Second: it was the European genius for identifying and pricing risk that made large scale economic enterprises possible. Without Lloyds of London: probably no commercial aviation. We spit on that part of our heritage, yet it may have made it possible for us to execute on a scale that our competitors could not. The rental rate of capital not only embraces time value (evil interest) but a risk premium and the more intricate the technology, the more challenging the risk of financing it.

      Third, what makes stocks valuable is not labor as such but intellectual property — again an innovation of Europeans and a field dominated by white males.

      Maybe the middle ages were not quite as bad as the “bring-out-you-dead sketch (itself copyrighted and quite rightfully). But the idea of blood-sucking Semitic lenders preying on innocent Christians while living standards soared is patently idiotic. Not only that, but no intelligent Semitic-skeptic will dispute that the Jews have, not infrequently, made contributions to soaring living standards.

      Dr. McDonald is a great man and there is much of value on this site but to throw away market economics is to throw away the far better part of western civilization. Or wear tin hats and read Aquinas.

      • Robert Bloch
        Robert Bloch says:

        Try this one while you’re at it moderator:

        Our ancestors contracted syphilis and incurred massive gambling debts like GENTLEMEN only to be swindled by the Jews.

        I wrote an Amren piece that Dr. McDonald quoted to my infinite honour. I’d like to write about how we should think about Economics, focusing materially on patents and the innovations we’ve brought to the table. This stuff is going to kill us. Kill us. By the way, I LOVE Gildman, the way I live the sea, knowing it doesn’t love me back and may drown me. I tried to submit an outline through channels and it bounced.

        Vielen Dank.

      • Barkingmad
        Barkingmad says:

        Large scale economic enterprises, “soaring” living standards, market economics, consumerism, globalization, etc. are all of a piece. I do spit on that part of my heritage. That a bigger front = a bigger back seems to have escaped 99% of European humanity. And maybe the far easterners too.

        On the whole, we were better off when we were dragging a stick through the soil. We are not better now, in any way, shape and form.

        Gern geschehen.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Dear B,
          Thank you. In giving the smug Mr. Bloch no more than the back of your hand, you are instantiating two virtues, justice and temperance, by suiting the punishment to the crime. For all its worldly pretentiousness, his “analysis” is as short on substance as it is high on flash and attitude.

          While Bloch presents himself as a Deep Thinker, the empty crack “no intelligent Semitic-skeptic will dispute that the Jews have, not infrequently, made contributions to soaring living standards” and the dismissive contempt oozing from the juxtaposition of “wear tin hats and read Aquinas” mark him as a true exemplar of the categories where Jews really are world beaters: the impotent, envious poseur and the reflexively idle flaneur.

          • Barkingmad
            Barkingmad says:

            To tell the truth, I laughed right out loud at that statement of his you quoted. He ought to have added “at the expense of quality of life”.

            While I’m here, Pierre, that is the first time in decades I’ve seen (or heard) “flaneur”. I need to get out more…

          • T. J.
            T. J. says:

            “no intelligent Semitic-skeptic will dispute that the Jews have, not infrequently, made contributions to THEIR soaring living standards”

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Dear B,
            Apropos flaneur, it’s probably less a matter of your not getting out enough than of my having read too damn many Anouilh and Giraudoux plays in my misspent youth.

      • Seraphim
        Seraphim says:

        Usury was not perceiving interest on loans, but charging excessive interest. Does really the Church ban perceiving interests on loans on principle?
        The parable of the talants (Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:12-27) shows that was not the case. Jesus does not chase the money lenders, but the money changers (kollybistḗs – properly, a charge-“commission” given to someone making a transaction or exchange; in the NT a money-changer, converting “heathen currency” into “Jewish money” so worshipers could make payments into the Temple-treasury, practice open to abuses) and the traffickers (πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας) in ‘sacred things’ – the doves for sacrifice.

        The Early Church forbade only the clergy from ‘usury’. Actually the Canon 17 of the Council of Nicaea (always quoted as the ‘source’ of the Church’s ban on usury) is very explicit:
        “Since many clergyman have been induced by greed and avarice to forget the sacred text, “who does not put out his money at interest”, and to charge one per cent a month on loans, this holy and great synod judges that if any are found after this decision to receive interest by contract or to transact the business in any other way or to charge a rate of fifty per cent or in general to devise any other contrivance for the sake of dishonourable gain, they shall be deposed from the clergy and their names struck from the roll”.
        So, even the ecumenical council of Nicaea I, made a provision for a limited form of loaning money – even for the clergy!
        Byzantine legislation (the ‘Roman Law’) never forbade interest on loans. It went even to view it as an insurance for the lender.
        The extension of the ban to Christian laity by the Popes was an overkill. One may perversely think that this measure was a hidden way to offer the Jews the monopoly of the practice, which never stopped! Interestingly, the ban reached its zenith in 1311 when Pope Clement V made the ban on usury absolute and declared all secular legislation in its favour, null and void. That was after the destruction of the Order of the Temple, the Christian ‘bankers’ of the time. It was only after that, that the ‘Jewish bank’ started its triumphal march for the domination of the international market.

        • Barkingmad
          Barkingmad says:

          It makes sense to me that charging a modest amount of interest as an expression of appreciation for the use of someone else’s lawfully earned money would be morally acceptable. I guess that long time ago they knew what percentage would be fitting, and what would be excessive.

          • Alan Donelson
            Alan Donelson says:

            I like the guidance “give, not expecting return” — like loaning out a treasured book from one’s library — and ANY “interest”, “usury”, unnatural, wrong, immoral — forget the Talmudic “percentage” arguments. I recognize I find myself among folks who do not beLIEve in “morals”, “morality”, and such like, genetically, evolutionarily, or intellectually. Thanks for allowing my comments.

  4. Sandy
    Sandy says:

    Having read the book, and Hoffman’s too, it seems to me that the Jews beat us at our own game (usury), and here we are.

  5. PaleoAtlantid
    PaleoAtlantid says:

    If E. Michael Jones sincerely believes the Catholic Church is the steadfast opponent of usury he clearly hasn’t read revisionist historian Michael Hoffman’s recent book on the subject of usury. The paper trail is pretty clear; various popes give a wink and a nod to usury particularly if it was practiced by Medici and Fugger banksters.

    • Fr. John+
      Fr. John+ says:

      Paleo- Correct! EMJ (unlike MH) seems to want to see Rome as ‘semper edeam’ rather than a complete counterfeit to what it once was- which is (I am assuming) how MH views the ‘Mother Ship.’ But before and behind all this Western analysis/paralysis, lies the reality that Dr. Joseph Farrell (PhD, Oxon.) wrote about is his ‘God, History, and Dialectic.’ Until that is joined at the hip, we’re all going to continuously miss the forest for the trees.

      • Titus
        Titus says:

        You jus have to look at the face of Dr. Joseph Farrell to see hes a jew, you just have to read the introduction to God, History, and Dialectic to understand he is indeed very jewish, you just have to have a look at the rest of his books, nonsense and partners, to understand he is out there for the shekels of imbeciles. You of course didn’t understand any of this, or understand it too well and that’s why you are promoting that crap here.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Perhaps Titus is 100 percent correct about what both Farrell and “Fr. John+” are up to, or perhaps he’s only 95 percent correct. It hardly matters either way. Surely an author who writes a book called Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery, a book that lays the blame for 9/11 on a fascist Gentile cabal using “secret Nazi technology,” has ipso facto forfeited any claim to our respect or our intellectual sympathies.

        As Farrell plainly doesn’t mean to do any Herculean fence-mending on the rationality front, it would be unwise even to consider extending the benefit of the doubt to him—or for that matter extending it to anyone who urges us to read his stuff.

      • Seraphim
        Seraphim says:

        “God, History, and Dialectic ” is not a bad book. It was written when Farrell was still Orthodox and under the control of his mentors (it is to be understood that the book is actually his Oxford doctoral thesis with Kallistos Ware who exercised the scholarly and doctrinal control over it and is thoroughly documented).
        But since he (by his own admission) “almost completely severed any relationship with “official Orthodoxy”, he fell under the spell of ‘Giza Death Star’ and completely went off the rail. All his ravings are in stark contrast to what he wrote in GHD.
        It is true that the Great Pyramid has fascinated scores of researchers and continues to do so. But it also gave birth to the “science of Pyramidology” which strangely enough was fused with ‘British Israelism’ by the Astronomer Royal of Scotland Charles Piazzi Smyth, related to ‘aliens’, Annunakis, and to every known and (especially) unknown secret societies, etc.
        The spell of the Great Pyramid is so powerful that even the professional Egyptologists continue to maintain the impossible scenario of the building of the Pyramid, rejecting the simple solutions discovered and verified by non-archaeologists (engineers and chemists) more than thirty years ago (the geopolymeric theory – the stones of the Pyramid were actually a sort of concrete cast into molds). They can’t cast off the images of hundred of thousands slaves (Hebrews) toiling under the scourge of the cruel Pharaoh waiting for Moses to free them!

    • Ed Connelly
      Ed Connelly says:

      Paleo, that is a good observation. I too was surprised that there is not even an entry for Michael Hoffman in the index of “Barren Metal.” As nearly as I can recall, I simply can’t remember Jones ever mentioning Hoffman anywhere, which is odd since they overlap in some areas. Do readers have any ideas on this?

        • David Ashton
          David Ashton says:

          The “Thought for the Week” in the current UK “Jewish Chronicle”, February 9, is entitled “Mishpatim” and written by Rabbi Chanan Atlas. It opens with Exodus 22.24 and begins: “It is almost impossible to imagine a modern financial system operating without interest and to the modern mind nothing seems to be wrong with charging and paying interest.
          “The Bible, however, strongly condemns interest and, when both parties are Jewish, the practice is halachically forbidden. Interest was also condemned by the Buddha and Hinduism; by the great Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle and by both the Christian and Muslim religions….
          “Halachah…does not differentiate between loans to the poor and business loans and forbids both….
          “Halacha has developed some legal vehicles to deal with the challenge of interest. In many cases, these are questionable at best and evasive in nature…. Perhaps halachah can adopt some of the more systematic solutions developed by Islamic banking, instead of the current evasive halachic practices.”

          Will this set a pigeon among the fat cats?

  6. Mari
    Mari says:

    I came across Abbe Barruel in the Cecil
    Green library when I was in college. I read all his books. They were such a refreshing change from the typical English/ American historians ignorance about the French Revolution.

    I became aware of the Jewish question in the early 1970s in my early 20s. I just looked at the names of the attorneys and activists who advocated affirmative action, school bussing the hippie movement and later, gay advocacy.

  7. Mari
    Mari says:

    In one of Barruel’s books he wrote about a massive attack on the Paris Bourse by Austrian and Frankfurt Jews.

  8. Alan Donelson
    Alan Donelson says:

    I would dearly appreciate having Michael Hoffman comment here on E. Michael Jones’ book, else on his own website.

    Question to the reviewer: Did E. Michael Jones rely on, review, or even cite Mr. Hoffman’s “Usury in Christendom. The mortal sin that was and is not.” It would seem he’d have had ample opportunity to do so!

    I do not think Mr. Hoffman counts himself among so-called “traditional catholics”. There seems a Grand Canyon’s worth of gap between Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Jones.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Michael Hoffman is a regular communicant at the masses celebrated by priests of the Society of St. Pius X in the chapel at their Post Falls, Idaho, installation. (As anyone who read Karl Nemmersdorf’s recent article will recall, the SSPX is still the largest Traditionalist Catholic priestly organization in the world.) Few of his fellow Trads consider the historical and doctrinal basis of the claims Hoffman makes in Usury in Christendom to be sound—as indeed they aren’t.

      Curiously, Jones has always spurned Catholic Traditionalism. What can only be termed his blindness in this regard is one of this interesting man’s many idiosyncrasies.

      • Ed Connelly
        Ed Connelly says:

        Yes, Mr. de Craon has a good point, especially this: “What can only be termed his blindness in this regard is one of this interesting man’s many idiosyncrasies.” Should I ever have the pleasure of actually meeting Dr. Jones, I will ask him about Hoffman. Also, one would have thought that Jones and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus would have had more in common, but Jones has over the years dropped many cryptic comments about the late Fr. Neuhaus. I don’t know what’s at the bottom of it.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          With respect, Dr. Connelly, Father Neuhaus was, if not an outright sellout to the (((Establishment))), then at the least an all-too-willing cooperator with it. With regard to religious Traditionalism, he was a smells-and-bells Catholic down to his marrow rather than a full-bore deplorer of the post-Vatican II conciliar religion. What’s more, he hove far too close to being an apologist for the ruling regime of this country and for the crypto-totalitarian “democracy” it espouses for my own comfort.

          Now in one sense, the conciliar-friendly aspect of Father Neuhaus’s outlook might have made him a brother under the skin to Jones. Yet RJN’s go-along attitude with New York’s (((ascendancy))) must surely have rubbed Jones’s fur up the wrong way. Tom Fleming, who broke with Jones many years ago, considered him (here I paraphrase shamelessly) too reflexively ornery for any and all useful intellectual and moral purposes. Whilst this is not a quarrel any man of sound mind would get involved in, that there is at least a nub of truth in this estimation of Jones’s temperamental disposition seems pretty plain.

          • Ed Connelly
            Ed Connelly says:

            “Too reflexively ornery.”

            I like that a lot. In fact, if my next Jones article gets approval, I might use that in the title. Is that OK?

            As for Neuhaus, after reading “First Things” for many, many years, I came away with a hypothesis: RJN was conceding some things to the (((Neo-Cons))) in exchange for something else, which was unflagging opposition to abortion. While Neuhaus must have pleased his benefactors with many of his positions, they must have hated RJN’s stance on abortion, for these same (((benefactors))) came from the same Tribe that largely pushed through abortion in America. In fact, Jones wrote about it, titling his piece something like “Abortion: Too Many Yarmulkes.”

            Ornery indeed.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Use the locution with my blessing, Ed. No charge. [Oy, Pierre! Seventy-two and still no business sense!?!]

            I agree with your analysis as to the likely tradeoff between RJN and Team Yarmulke. I think, though, it’s a deal from which the latter came away winners. What was true for Cardinal Dolan and, before him, Cardinal Egan was also largely true for Father Neuhaus: the “unflagging opposition” to abortion was tolerated because it came with no strings—that is, no practical, moral, or intellectual consequences.

            Look at it this way. This country overflows with highly principled men and women, Catholics and Protestants both, for whom abortion is so serious a matter that it impacts quotidian matters of all sorts—and specifically, their economic and electoral decisions.* These folks keep their eye on marketers and their strategies, their advertising, even their philanthropies. They never vote for Democrats or for “pro-choice” Republicans. In short, for them, ideas have consequences, just as actions do.

            For such prominent men as RJN and Cardinal Dolan, however, abortion was effectively decoupled from every other activity and program. Here’s an example. I knew a New York Archdiocese priest who warned his congregation from the pulpit in 2012 that Obama’s actions rendered him so morally unfit for high office that no Catholic should regard voting for him as morally licit. When word of this reached the chancery office, he was formally ordered to say no more on the matter. He let on to me, however, that Dolan’s lieutenants made clear to him that, barring issuance of an executive order to do to American Catholics what Cromwell did to Irish and English Catholics, Obama was their guy, and a Democratic Congress was their desired result.

            That RJN’s deal was cut from the same bolt of cloth, I have little doubt.
            ___________________________
            *Although I consider voting to be willing participation in a rigged game and hence an enterprise for the naive, the deluded, and the brainwashed, as long as people think the farrago matters, the more morally upright the voter, the better for us.

        • Like you/Guilty Too
          Like you/Guilty Too says:

          Dr. Connelly,

          I noticed you had ceased writing for a period of years and recently returned. I had been a great fan of yours and was bereft at your departure. I was wondering why you took a long hiatus from writing. Of course there can be personal things, but were there other reasons?

          • Ed Connelly
            Ed Connelly says:

            Why, thank you for noticing. Actually, however, I’ve never stopped writing for TOO, though in 2015 I believe I had only one column. As I recall, that was when I began to notice what was later more openly labeled “the Alt-Right.”

            There were things I liked about those new podcasters but I confess I was a bit put off by some of the language. Also, in hindsight, we can realize that the initial stirrings of what became the Trump campaign were evident. In short, I think I was listening, watching, and re-evaluating my approach.

            For starters, TOO is mostly a text-based site, but podcasts have become far more prominent, it seems. In any case, these things are hard to judge, for I get little feedback. Certainly I appreciate the comments section here, but this is still far short of a dialogue. I wish we did have such a forum.

            And while I’m at it, what of the print journal The Occidental Quarterly? Originally, that’s where I put my serious attention, writing a total of eight scholarly articles. From that, however, this is zero feedback. Any idea how many TOO readers subscribe to or read TOQ?

            And what of this site? Any idea how it might affect “the movement”? I’d love to know. Certainly KMAC is followed by many, and in his many appearances on podcasts and such, either he or the host mentions TOO’s name.

            To return to your original comments, my contributions to this site picked up again in 2016 and have held steady. I’d write even more if there was a demand for it. I’d love to hear new ideas for topics and especially for platforms to spread our ideas.

            Thanks again.

    • inspector general
      inspector general says:

      Jones had Israel Shamir handle the “hatchet job” review of Hoffman’s work in “Culture Wars”. The crux of the matter is that Jones views the question of usury as theologically unchanged despite obvious practical cavilling in the modern Church. This is also, probably not coincidentally, his view about the Vatican II “reforms” about which he has written extensively. Hoffman concentrates for the most part on the practical capitulation of the Church on the issue of usury–just as he emphasizes the broadly heretical (and Jewish-inspired) interpretation of Vatican II that changed long-held Catholic doctrine on a number of matters. Jones’ lack of charity towards Hoffman (regardless of any final judgement about Hoffman’s conclusions) is disappointing to say the least.

  9. m
    m says:

    FWIW, the emergence of the so-called cryptocurrencies offer the greatest chance of economic disruption to the current monetary regime. That is one reason we find governments scrambling to “get a handle” on it. But it is all too new to tell where and how that will play out.

    On a related note, it is difficult if not impossible for the average person to understand the current mechanics of global money changing. The idea that value is somehow based in labor (to include its intellectual aspect) is sound as far as it goes. But the “velocity” of money and its derivatives have far outstripped any particular grounding within day to day labor. And market value itself has become chimerical to a large part.

    Think of the “value” of a company like Tesla, which has a market cap higher than GM or Ford, but produces little of anything. Think of AMZN, which is supported by mostly unsecured credit sales (via credit card purchases). It is doubtful that, if push came to shove, many of these credit purchases that finance the company could be called by the banks, at least without massive consumer default. But based on these same credit sales, the head of the company is the “richest” man in the world!

    One would think that it can’t go on much longer without some sort of structural rearrangement. What form such a thing could even take is a big question. One has the idea that our global based economy is living pretty much day to day, if not week to week. But people have been wondering about it for years, so who can say?

    Dollars flow toward the path of least resistance. In this respect, borders are a hindrance to capital, and we see its political results. At least in the West. On the other hand, borders are still a thing in Asia, and I presume Russia. Expect trouble because of it.

    Manufacturing also flows to the lowest denominator. With this in mind, once Asian wages increase creating a global wage equilibrium, and the cost of manufacturing rises accordingly, the next question is where productive manufacturing capital can flow? It is doubtful that it can make it’s way to Africa, because of the intrinsic nature of the African labor force. We know that Wakanda is simply a Jewish comic book fantasy.

    By then perhaps robotics will have “solved” part of the problem, which will increase by a magnitude greater human problems.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      Well, the problem of paper currency is that it can give rise to under or over-valuations that can persist for years. If you look at the wide swings in FOREX rates, they dwarf, in many cases, other production inputs. Whether to offshore or not depends ultimately on money prices.

  10. Trenchant
    Trenchant says:

    Interest is perfectly legitimate and comprehensible. The rate is the cost of time plus a risk premium. “Usury” is meaningless. A loan is contractual arrangement where both parties benefit ex ante. No one is forced to borrow or lend.

    Dr. Jones, misunderstanding the fundamental concept of interest, has confused all points that flow therefrom. It’s government and commercial banks’ money creation that constitutes the illegitimate transfer of purchasing power, not lending or borrowing per se.

    I would invite readers to read (((Rothbard)))’s concise and simple work on the subject and draw their own conclusions.
    https://mises.org/library/what-has-government-done-our-money

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Indeed borrowing money for a fee is not immoral. After all, if I borrow a car or a tool, I also have to return the car or the tool and pay a sum for the use of it. Money is just such a “tool” you have to return after having used it and pay a fee for its use. Borrowing money for a fee only becomes “usury” if the fee is too high. The Jews used to lend money for too high a fee, especially to people in dire need who could not repay the money plus the high fee in time, and thus were compelled to “pay” with their property instead. Thus the Jews became immensely rich.

      An other trick of the Jews was/is financing wars on both sides. Thus whoever wins or loses the war, the Jews always win. Plus they can win extra money by lending (again to both sides !) money for rebuilding the country after the war. Thus wars became the “harvest” for Jews.

      Money creation also is not immoral, if only it is created by the state and paid to people for services rendered. This is what Hitler did and with direct success.
      Money creation only becomes a swindle if it is created by a bank and then lend to the state for a fee. In order to repay the money plus the fee to the bank, the state has to tax its people. Thus such a bank becomes immensely rich, simply by printing money. This is how the central banks of the Jews work all over the planet. This is how the Rothschild family became fabulously rich.
      The trick is that you cannot create value by simply printing money. All economic value is based on work. No work no value. The state “works” by rendering service to its people. Thus it owns “value”. It can bestow that value by paying its citizens again for work. Thus work is payed with work. The citizens who earned money from the state now can use that money to buy goods or services from other citizens. Thus money comes into circulation. Money based on work keeps its value (because work keeps its value). Thus there will be no inflation.

      The illusion is that there is some “intrinsic value” in paper currency that only a bank can create. The “intrinsic value” of paper money is only the cost of its paper, its ink and its printing cost, which is minimal compared to is nominal “value”. It is with this simple illusion that the Jews have become immensely rich and thus powerful. Withdraw from the Jews the license to print money and lend it to the state for a fee and all their wealth and power collapses. That is why “Judea declared war on Germany” when Hitler started to print Germany’s own money and pay it to his people for work. President Kennedy too understood this and he started to print money himself. This was one of the reasons why he was murdered. We need state power to stop the Jewish money swindle, but the Jews control the state exactly because of that swindle. That is the dilemma.

      • Robert Bloch
        Robert Bloch says:

        How – I apoligize – stupid can we be? Borrowing money for a fee is immoral? Time value? Risk? If I lend you $100 I am incurring an opportunity cost and taking the risk that you will be unable or unwilling to repay me. If we take into account the opportunity cost and risk premium you are repaying < $100. Our fathers and grandfathers knew this. There were English bankers and insurers. Let's live in holes. The Jews are too smart for us.

        Goldman: in 1980 or so, decomposed treasuries into zeroes and strips. The zeroes accommodated a view that interest rates would decrease. The strips accommodated the view that interest rates would increase. By auctioning off each component, the sum of the parts became more valuable than the whole. This is math. This is logic. This is Goldman 101. No animals were harmed in the filming. To say: unnatural breeding of metal on metal (dodomites argument = Dante) is to beg Jews to eat your lunch forever & ever & ever. Amen.

        • Robert Bloch
          Robert Bloch says:

          OK, I am taking the night off. Let me go further. A lender gives you money and gets a promise. An insurer takes your money and gives you a promise. Which woukd you rather be? AIG. AIG. AIG. Our Ashkenazi friends swarmed insurance. In 1906 Lloyds responded to the San Francisco earthquake by saying: pay all claims. Not AIG’s style.

          They were killed in the CDS market because they thought they could talmudically dispute coverage triggers. The banks said: post more collateral. It did not translate. ISO does not equal ISDA.

          Point. Is there one? Ah, yes. WE created these structures. Honor was interstital and understood. Pay all claims. We created the value. They saw the embedded put and they priced it and killed us.

          As you were. Sorry, moderator.

    • T. J.
      T. J. says:

      Dr. Jones believes in the labor theory of value- that profit comes from underpaying workers [stealing from workers]- the exploitation thesis of Marx.

      He seems to be unaware that he is a Marxist. . .

      Yes Trenchant- usury is NOT charging interest. Usury is making up “money” from nothing [printing/greenbacking/fractional reserving]. Charging interest on this fake money is usury [scam/ripoff/stealing]. But when the greenbackers just print and spend- it is still inflation, reducing the purchasing power of others- stealing from them. These folks [Major Douglas, Ellen Brown, Zarlenga et al] are all Keynesian socialists. Not one has even a four year degree in economics [Brown is lawyer, Zarlenga has degree in psychology, Major Douglas was an engineer, and advocated “Christian economics” [redistribution via the printing press].

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        @ TJ:
        Usury is the loaning of money at “exorbitant” rates. That’s the consensus dictionary definition. Of course, it’s meaningless without giving a specific number and rationale to “exorbitant”.

        Money creation is different: that privilege governments arrogate to themselves (printing) and the banks (loaning money into existence). The first has redistributive effects, first receivers of the new money enjoy higher purchasing power vis-à-vis late receivers, the second, macroeconomic effects (distorting prices and investment calculation, ie. the business cycle).

        • cm miller
          cm miller says:

          I guffaw at the deck of cards the International banksters have made with their spins within wheels, complications within circuits, their baffling intricate mental gymnastics about simple trade. How they laugh up their sleeves making it seem as if it were all so heady that we will simply faint attempting the rarified air they breathe. So let’s get back to basics and if anyone starts quoting any of the (((economists))) we have allowed to deceive us, fie on you.

          Making a bargain with the devil by turning our money system over to the Jewish Federal Reserve was un-Constitutional in the first place. We need to thank the Federal Reserve for our savings account, take it back into our own piggy bank, dismiss them for bad management, and return the printing of money and the benefits of lending it to the People. The success of Colonial Scrip created by the early American economy so horrified international bankers they didn’t rest until they defeated it.

          Unhooking from the Internationalists should be pretty easy considering that the US has what we need to become totally isolationist. With the exception of a few rare minerals which have a small application in industry, we don’t even need to trade with the rest of the world. Please, go away and leave us alone.

          Benjamin Franklin and Colonial Scrip https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/hidden-history-according-benjamin-franklin-real-reason-revolutionary-war-has-been-hid-you/4358

          Fighting international bankers at your peril
          http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php#axzz56LlTIgyx

          Bankers benefit from wars, the perspective of a WWI General https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

          The fix? gradually replace debt currency with positive money https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd9Pf3Bqp20&t=7s

          As for Jones, I do a slow applause for him, admire his research, thank him for helping us, but always keep in mind that he is a preening Roman Catholic identifying with the coalition of minorities against the Calvinist founders of the US whom he confuses with Protestants. of the US. His thumb on the scale for Roman Catholicism tends to compromise his integrity, unfortunately. I reckon he is jealous of his turf and won’t give credit to the esteemed Michael A. Hoffman II who must not have gotten the memo about the double n code.

    • Alan Donelson
      Alan Donelson says:

      I, for one, regrettably relatively (not totally) ignorant on these matters — “scientifically”, “economically”, “academically”, and “conspiratorially” — choose today to come down on the side (if indeed we really have two sides to this issue), on NO MONEY FROM NOTHING.

    • m
      m says:

      @ Trenchant: Anent your comment that interest is both legitimate and comprehensible.

      From the article it is clear that Jones is making a normative argument, and not one from economic utility. With this in mind, I’m sure he’d agree that interest is “comprehensible;” that is what his book is about. Rather he would likely argue (at least if I understand him…I have not read his book but am basing my comment on Dr Connelly’s review) that it is not a “legitimate” social practice. This, of course, turns on his view of human nature–one different than that proposed by the libertarians.

      Next, the idea that it is “government and commercial banks’ money creation that constitutes the illegitimate transfer of purchasing power” is a moral statement compounded to the factual process of fractional reserve banking. As such it is not out of line with Jones’ thinking, at least as I understand his argument as presented here, and given Jones’ take on the labor theory of value (again, I have not read the book so I may be misrepresenting him). Jones, however, would extend the sanction to the entire social-private realm of contracts. I do not know what mechanism Jones would substitute for interest, but I’m guessing he might argue for some sort of non-compounded “use fee” for loans.

      On the other hand, your implied statement that private interest arrangements between consenting parties is merely contractual, and further that it is mutually beneficial, would, from Jones’ view, be tantamount to allowing individuals (private parties) to engage in immoral actions. An analogy would be that while it is not proper for government to condone slavery, it would be OK for private individuals to engage in the practice as long as everyone consented. In fine, what Jones is arguing is that interest itself is morally wrong, and hence cannot be a justification for either private behavior, or civil law. You can tell this by his reference to Dante.

      By the way, the “contract” theory of social arrangements favored by libertarians began as a proto-Enlightenment idea, stemming at least from Hobbes, where the Englishman argued that in order for the original social contract be binding, one must presume that all parties to the contract were essentially equal, holding a “right of nature” which they then relinquished to the sovereign. We know that this notion of individual equality is absurd on its face, but unfortunately it is now our religion, ranking right up there with the idea of African Wakanda in the reality department.

      Finally, while it is true that “no one is forced to borrow or lend” (and one is certainly better off if they avoid it), it is not really a question of “force.” Instead, it is the nature of our current capitalist system that almost demands it. For example: one either borrows at interest to buy a house (which he “owns” as long as he pays his property taxes–so it is really the government’s house in a way); or he rents, and has nothing to show for it. The days of homesteading virgin land, cutting trees to make a house, and living off the land are long gone.

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        Nowhere do I recall the scriptures condoning proletariat expropriations, even under the yoke of oppressive rulers and vexatious taxes and laws.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          You are quite right, my friend. 1 Peter 2:18–25 is probably the ultimate proof text in this regard. Indeed, verse 18 stands as a knockout blow to rebellion and expropriation on its own:

          Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. [NRSV]

    • Karl Nemmersdorf
      Karl Nemmersdorf says:

      Many people, even entire classes of people, have been forced to borrow. I do not have time to make hash of more of your argument; hopefully someone else will. Pierre?

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Dear Karl,
        Are you here replying in frustration to Trenchant or m? The position of your comment points to m, but its tone points to Trenchant.

        I consider my knowledge of economics insufficiently deep and insufficiently sophisticated to make a claim to having an informed position in this argument. I have written before that though I have seen no reliably usable definition of usury, I think of it as Potter Stewart thought of pornography: “I know it when I see it.”

        The difficulty that has plagued conscientious men since the time of Plato and Aristotle lies in the attempt to reconcile Aristotle’s opinion—largely adopted by Augustine and other early Doctors and refined and broadened by Aquinas—that charging interest on money offends nature and morality because it treats as living something inherently without life with what seems an obvious fact of everyday existence: If you agree that a man can reasonably ask you to pay for use of his property or his time, why should there be an objection to paying for the use of his money?

        Nonetheless, surely the crux of the matter is that commercial oppression via borrowing and lending is a thread in the fabric of the utterly, almost incomprehensibly immoral and unjust system of malgovernance under which we live and by which we are all oppressed in ways too numerous to count. Surely, too, this single thread cannot be teased out of the larger fabric of injustice and tyranny—or better, if it can be teased out, I am not the man equipped to do it.

        I quite agree that for most of us, “neither a borrower nor a lender be” may be sage advice, but it’s also a counsel of perfection; hence largely unattainable. For the nonce, I fear that hoping that (((society))) will embrace a truly Christian morality is to waste precious time in a vain pursuit. Far more to the point would be, insofar as possible, to align one’s actions with his Christian principles and thus be a scandal to a wicked world—and not coincidentally, take a giant step toward Priority no. 1: saving one’s own soul.

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        “Many people, even entire classes of people, have been forced to borrow.”

        Forced by whom? By circumstance? Destitution, however tragic, isn’t death.

    • Dan
      Dan says:

      The best reading I’ve done on this issue is by Antal E Fekete. He pointed out to us that Mises’ and Rothbard’s explanations of interest are inadequate. He then proceeds to give us a theory of interest that’s grounded in natural law or the fundamental need of man to support himself in his old age when his labour is in deficit.

      He further points out that the illegitimate practices of banks with government sanction, namely borrowing short to lend long, is tantamount to illegitimate gain at society’s expense. This practice enables banks to position themselves as parasites pocketing the spread between the “discount rate” and the “rate if interest”.

      Of course, all this with a fiat currency means that banks and governments can finance their schemes and “producers”, or in Joneses terminology, “labour”, foots the bill.

      Fekete muses that the word “usury” may have a different meaning today than it did in the time of Aquinas. He speculates that perhaps it was understood as the illegitimate practice of borrowing short to lend long that the church fathers were so against.

      Perhaps it’s no surprise that the phenomenon of interest arising out of the propensity to save and the phenomenon of the discount rate arising out of the propensity to consume have been confused or deliberately obfuscated. As have so many monetary and economic principles.

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        I don’t agree with Fekete’s theory of interest, but neither that of Rothbard or Mises. For me, it’s Guido Hülsmann’s, “A Theory of Interest”.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        One problem is that modern monetary economics is quite a complicated subject for the “layman” to grasp, less suited to creative brains with a mechanical intelligence and idealist inclination, than those long adapted to mathematical calculation and material avarice. [Redacted Superfluous Irrelevant Drama]
        ——
        (Mod. Note: Mr. Ashton, the above part of your message is clear, but the part [Redacted] was both not relevant and unnecessary.)

    • Titus
      Titus says:

      Trenchant,
      I see you are well versed in jewish economics, but we are not talking about theoretical abstractions but the real world. Now, can you explain me how do banks incur any risk when they lend money created out of thin air by uncle Schlomo?, if the debt is not repaid they now suddenly have some hard assets out of ones and zeroes stored inside a computer (and this they love very much and so economy has to crash every now and then) , and if the worst came to the worst they can just scam the goyim further in the form of bank “bailouts”.

      Of course the creation of debt money is another big perversion and jewish scam.
      Today EVERYONE is forced to borrow from usurious banks at all levels, and all this jewish monopolies created in the last centuries (from Hollywood to Google) came to that dominant position thanks to their privileged ethnic loans.
      Usury and debt seem to be powerful control tools and thus should be highly regulated and out of few private hands, specially those of the jews, at least outside Israhell. Of course we would be much better if we banned those practices altogether rather than continuing the current situation, so keep this jewish economics to yourself.

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        “how do banks incur any risk when they lend money created out of thin air”

        When or if depositors front the bank to withdraw their money, there is risk that there are insufficient funds available to pay them, as the bank has loaned their money out (fractional-reserve banking allows this). In the event of a bank collapse, the liquidator will wind down the loan portfolio in order to pay out bank depositors/creditors. It’s likely bank shareholders will be left with nothing (barring bailout).

        None of the above should be read as an endorsement of FRB, mind you.

        On the monopoly franchises, I agree. But everyone doesn’t have to borrow. Renting isn’t the end of the world.

        • Barkingmad
          Barkingmad says:

          It could be said that when virtually everyone wishes or needs to borrow money one way or another (to buy necessaries of life; to buy a house; to buy anything needed or only wanted) something is terribly wrong. What comes first – the financial system or widespread greed among all classes (for material goods & entertainment) in a large portion of the population? It’s hard to figure out for sure.

          But in any case you are correct, renting isn’t the end of the world – though it could be, if you have children and you want a decent house with yard and no landlord cruising by on a weekly basis, peering into your windows, checking on you, constantly raising rent, etc. A country where 99% of the population is renting from wealthy landlords is no more desirable than one controlled by wealthy bankers lending directly to the individual home buyer.

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            Hilaire Belloc for one distinguished between loans to start up productive enterprise and debts incurred by consumption. The private and public debts of the British “nation” are colossal.

          • Barkingmad
            Barkingmad says:

            @DavidAshton. I need to look up where H.B. discussed this topic, it would probably be interesting reading.

            However, for my part, I’d like to see further description of “productive” enterprise. There’s lots of garbage being produced, at least recently, in the name of “growing the economy”. Indeed, I would sum it up this way: economists, politicians and virtually the entire population don’t seem to give a hoot between quantity and quality; quality” appears to be irrelevant, so long as money is changing hands. What do you think?

  11. Inspector General
    Inspector General says:

    Happy to see this sympathetic and intelligent appreciation and critique of the work of Dr Jones. He is one of the intellectual heroes of out time.

    • Trenchant
      Trenchant says:

      Well, I don’t think Jones has comprehended the concept of money and interest at all, going from what Dr. Connelly writes of him. Unless he’s suggesting that individuals can’t stipulate private contracts without outside interference. Lending isn’t a social practice, it’s a deal between two parties alone. If I borrow my neighbor’s car a day in exchange for a dozen beers is that socially illegitimate?

      Hiding interest under some other wording like non-compounded “use fee” or commission, etc. is just an exercise in casuistry. “Islamic” banking resorts to similar subterfuges. The form is altered, the substance unaffected.

      “Illegitimate” transfer of purchasing power, because only the government can print, and the banks loan, money into existence, to enjoy its higher purchasing power. That transfer of wealth is not subject to the losing party’s consent.

      A contract, by definition, is a freely entered compact between individuals. Selling oneself into “slavery” is a performative contradiction. (And an insult to real slaves).

      I repeat, no one is forced to borrow or lend. And, outside of Marxist ideology, no automatic right to home-ownership, either.

      • Dan
        Dan says:

        “….Lending isn’t a social practice, it’s a deal between two parties alone.”

        “……..“Illegitimate” transfer of purchasing power, because only the government can print, and the banks loan, money into existence, to enjoy its higher purchasing power. That transfer of wealth is not subject to the losing party’s consent.

        A contract, by definition, is a freely entered compact between individuals. Selling oneself into “slavery” is a performative contradiction. (And an insult to real slaves).

        I repeat, no one is forced to borrow or lend. And, outside of Marxist ideology, no automatic right to home-ownership, either.”
        ______________________________________________________________________

        Borrowing short to lend long is a “social practice” since the spread between the rate of interest and the discount rate doesn’t belong to a group of corporations. It belongs to the society as a whole by virtue of the fact that without social cooperation or society it wouldn’t exist. On top of that the practice of borrowing short to lend long doesn’t just make banks fat from illegitimate gains but eventually victimises innocent parties – the wider society – as the inevitable result is deflation.

        Yes, but most consent or are unaware that this isn’t a natural system or to put it another way, that it must be so. This is because the real mechanisms are hidden by economic journalists and the halls of learning whose charter is to disseminate truth, they’ve abrogated their responsibility.

        As you’ve made clear above it’s not a freely entered contract since legal tender laws are enforced. The fact that we must use the debt instrument called the dollar means we are forced to borrow and hand over our value for unequal value.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          Borrowing short, lending long exposes the bank to a commercial risk of default through maturity mismatch, but that’s a problem for the bank’s owners, not society. If banks were treated like ordinary corporations – no fractional-reserving, no deposit-insurance and no bailouts – a bank run would just result in a plain-vanilla liquidation (with no change in money supply because no money had been lent into existence).

          • Dan
            Dan says:

            Yes, I hear what you’re saying but you’ve overlooked the fact that in the process of the banks duration mismatch being a problem for the banks owner’s it’s also a problem for the wider society. Typically the most common illiquid asset banks hold on their balance sheet is real estate/housing. This means the innocent who, are and are not, involved with the bank will suffer as the market will experience an acute deflation.
            Borrowing short to lend long is fraud pure and simple, with disastrous consequences, especially if done on a grand scale like it is today.

          • Trenchant
            Trenchant says:

            @ Dan:
            Dropping home prices are as bad for sellers as they are good for buyers. There are no deleterious macro effects for maturity-mismatch alone. Every time you buy an ice-cream you increase the demand for the factors of production of ice-cream and their prices (OK, the degree is small, but not zero). Every single purchase/sale of anything affects its price, but that’s neither bad nor avoidable. The world is in constant flux and so too people’s wants/desires.

            With maturity mis-match and money creation in the FRB-driven inflationary boom, however, prices are broadly, but not evenly, distorted. When an inflationary bubble pops, projects that appeared viable are revealed not to be, and are junked. A maturity mis-match with no money creation doesn’t give rise to inflation and so doesn’t distort prices generally.

      • m
        m says:

        @ Trenchent: Hiding interest under some other wording like non-compounded “use fee” or commission, etc. is just an exercise in casuistry. “Islamic” banking resorts to similar subterfuges. The form is altered, the substance unaffected.

        It seems to me they are substantially different. In any case it is not self-evident that they are equivalent. A use fee is a one time, non recurring charge. As I understand certain Islamic banking practices, what exists is a proportional “equity sharing” agreement, in force until the loan is paid off. These are not the same as compound interest. Ergo, to call these different forms of loan origination contracts “subterfuges” for interest begs the question, as it presumes what is not determined, what is not self-evident, and is in fact still being debated.

        Personally, I have no particular interest (nice pun, eh?) in it, one way or the other. I advise anyone who will listen to stay out of debt as much as possible. I’m just trying to understand Jones’ argument. It is clearly an argument from morality, apart from economic utility. One can certainly argue whether compound interest is moral, but that does not make other competing forms of loan payments equivalent to, or hidden forms of, compound interest.

        • Ed Connelly
          Ed Connelly says:

          @m: You wrote, “I’m just trying to understand Jones’ argument. It is clearly an argument from morality, apart from economic utility.”

          That is 100%, absolutely correct, and Jones makes this the linchpin of his critique. He argues that modern economics has been severed from the moral law, with results we now see.

          Jones’ claim is that morality (in his case, Catholic law) must govern economics. Many chapters in “Barren Metal” are devoted to this.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          m: “Ergo, to call these different forms of loan origination contracts “subterfuges” for interest begs the question”

          Assuming these are different is the question-begging. I’m not convinced, and you’ve not demonstrated, any substantive difference between this Islamic “equity sharing” and the standard loan where title to the property remains the bank’s until the loan is extinguished by repayment.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          M:”It seems to me they are substantially different. In any case it is not self-evident that they are equivalent.”

          So we’re in agreement, these words don’t have any precise meaning. For example, lest I offend the Prophet, I calculate the interest figure over the life of the loan and charge it upfront (adjusted for present value), and call it “use fee”. The quantum (substance) doesn’t change, only the description (form).

          “A use fee is a one time, non recurring charge. As I understand certain Islamic banking practices, what exists is a proportional “equity sharing” agreement, in force until the loan is paid off. These are not the same as compound interest.”

          But they are! When you make your last mortgage payment to your Western bank, only then does title transfer to you. If you default, the bank recovers loan principle and interest; any remaining balance is yours.

          Of course, anyone who thinks Islamic money is cheaper than Western money should ring up their preferred Wall St. bank’s Islamic Banking Office and make a fortune on interest rate arbitrage.

  12. Charlie
    Charlie says:

    (Mod. Note: Dr. MacDonald suggested that you (Charlie) write an article on this topic, for TOO publication.)

    ———-

    MODERATOR:
    Is it possible for TOO to have a webpage for posting corporations and corporate advertising agencies (to boycott) that feature race mixing advertising and its corresponding message of White genocide?
    (note: the capitalization of “WHITE”. Readers/Commentors: Always capitalize White in the context of describing the race. Don’t lowercase it but be sure to capitalize jOo as you will do.)

    • Ed Connelly
      Ed Connelly says:

      I hope I’m not jumping the gun here, but I do hope to write my next column on E. Michael Jones’ “Culture Wars” magazine. I just feel that anyone interesting in the writings of K. MacDonald would also likely be interested in what Jones has to say. I’ll see if I can get permission from our editor 🙂

      And no, I’m not getting anything from Dr. Jones in return for my kind words about his work.

  13. ilena
    ilena says:

    This made me think about the usury behind Student Loans.
    If someone took on the usurious practices behind this scam, many of the millenials could be convinced of the Jewish money power structure.

    • m
      m says:

      @ ilena: This made me think about the usury behind Student Loans. If someone took on the usurious practices behind this scam, many of the millenials could be convinced of the Jewish money power structure.

      I don’t think anyone really expects student loans to be repaid, short of a few white kids, maybe those going to medical school who have a chance to earn a good income, and have a sense of basic honesty. Eventually all these loans for worthless degrees will have to be “forgiven.” And you know who will pick up the tab?

      Anecdote-I was talking to a youngish woman in a department store. I don’t know why, but as she was ringing up my purchase she told me she just graduated with a “degree” in hip hop music production from one of the private schools in the area–a scam outfit specializing in entertainment industry “diplomas.” (Actually they specialize in the student loan business.)

      She was a nice enough Hispanic looking girl with maybe an IQ a little above 1 SD below the white mean. She told me she owed 60 large on her loan, but the only job she could get was working part time in the department store. A few months later I saw that the department store had closed, and the mall was being torn down. That loan will never be paid back.

  14. Winston S. Mythe
    Winston S. Mythe says:

    A better way to put it is that banks don’t ‘lend money’ they ‘facilitate credit’.

    As I understand it, based on my other readings and comments above, the problem lies in banks not lending out actual reserves, but facilitating the creation of new money when other parties become their debtors. The principal plus the interest is then paid out of the gains from productive labour. The debtor risks going into default and losing their physical assets while the bank is not risking anything of theirs or anyone else’s in the agreement. The money is created, being equal to the loan principal, but the interest is not. Where it comes from is an unanswered question so far.

    Money creation would imply diluting the money supply, which would lead to inflation, more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services means each dollar now purchases less value. But as the banks get repaid the loans, the money that was created disappears. If loans get repaid at the same rate they are lent out, there can’t be any effect on inflation. So the simple fact of banks creating money does not lead to inflation, per se. Governments printing money would seem to me the culprit for causing inflation rather than fractional reverse banking, It is also unclear who benefits from inflation, as surely purchasing power for all, banks, governments and individuals would be equally affected (?).

    And what about the other side of the ledger, savings accounts earning compound interest? Banks receive interest payments, but they also have to pay them out. As I understand it, the fact that interest is charged at a higher rate than it is paid is how banks generate income.

    Another issue not brought up is mortgage securitisation, where mortgages get packaged and sold on. Doing a youtube search for ‘Anthony Carlin’ will yield some engaging presentations on a recent case involving this and a plethora of other issues, too complex to discuss further here.

    • m
      m says:

      @ WsM: And what about the other side of the ledger, savings accounts earning compound interest?

      If there was no general dollar inflation (ie, monetary inflation as opposed to simple supply and demand price fluctuations) there would be no need for savings interest. In fact, you could hide your shekels under your bed and they would not lose value over time. Today, with smaller deposits, banks charge a use fee for their services, especially in times of “low” interest rate returns. Some have proposed a formal imposition of negative interest as a means to “encourage” banks to “loan” out dollars on deposit, etc.

      You have touched on one of the big problems, perhaps the biggest, with borrowing. It is government borrowing, really the root or mechanism of government’s evil. It allows politicians (or, more accurately, those who control them) the ability to wage their wars “on credit” as it were. Otherwise governments would not be able to afford the cost. It allows for the expansion of empire, meanwhile citizens become poorer over time because their dollars become worth less over time. This latter situation drives individuals to speculative investments as a means to recoup wealth lost to inflation.

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        In fact, in the world of yore where money supply grew at an extremely low rate, if at all, the mattress stash could be expected to increase in purchasing power over time, as progressively better production allowed for lower prices.

        Reading some of the old classics like Pride and Prejudice it’s easy to envy the ease with which people were able to budget reliably over extremely long periods. A man on X pounds p.a. could live out his days, comfortable in the knowledge that on aggregate, prices would remain stable. Pick up a novel written the last century and any prices quoted look quaint bordering on ridiculous.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          Even with zero inflation, there would still be a cost for borrowing. Loaning out money exposes the lender to the risk than he’ll never get it back, and also he gives up the peace of mind that ready money brings. Bird in the hand…

      • Wintson S. Mythe
        Wintson S. Mythe says:

        m:

        Re monetary inflation and price fluctuations due to supply and demand, that is another question my understanding is hazy on, as in how do you separate the two? How do you know what proportion of a price increase is ‘inflation’ and what proportion is due to high demand / low supply? You really have to trust the method of ascertaining this, otherwise it could all be alchemy / crystal ball gazing, and our inflation numbers might be all wrong or its actually deflation instead of inflation.

        I don’t see how it is government borrowing ‘per se’ that leads to inflation, but the ever increasing rate of taking on new debt in relation to the rate of repayments of the debt. Would that be right?

    • stealth
      stealth says:

      yes,people dont talk so much about mortgage backed securities.this seems to me as instantly cancelling out the money which has been created, taking money away which could have been invested in production and leaving none in circulation for the mortgage installment payer to earn.until they invented QE and the seemingly illogical Basic Income which i imagine is coming to replace it.blame the crash on subprimes not MBS!
      i will click on the link to the review of that brad pitt film which i havent seen.notice jim rickards appears as a hero in the movie and take what he says with caution

  15. stealth
    stealth says:

    time preference.
    modern credit expansion money is created as a token of the production rate a business already has or the monetisation of a house which is already built .therefore time preference doesnt come in to it.in fact the ‘borrower’ is doing the whole of society a favour by providing the backing for the currency.
    no, i dont have an economics degree.maybe i benefit from not being indoctrinated.i have been actively studying though and have read the recently departed zarlengas giant tome for instance; greenbacks are not the answer, tax is theft, although i appreciate that he and kucinich identify that money is the key issue and probably have their hearts in the right place.
    did the european expansion occur because of jOosury or because of interest free tally sticking until harvest time or interest free credit extended by port authorities as merchants swapped goods?
    i’m siding with jones and calling out the austrian school as intentional usury apologists.i notice the austrians are jOos, which can be used as a red flag but of course the leading lights in calling out the jOo world order are jOos themselves.
    i am disappointed by the lack of agreement on solutions and lack of organisation amongst those who have identified the problem as the money system.hopefully we can form groups of like minded people and hopefully the best solution will be the most competitive

    • Titus
      Titus says:

      “i am disappointed by the lack of agreement on solutions and lack of organisation amongst those who have identified the problem as the money system.hopefully we can form groups of like minded people and hopefully the best solution will be the most competitive”
      Last time they figured out a solution the jews started WWII.

      On a side note, the jew seem to be inclined to create “civilization” based on blatant lies. Even in the “hard sciences” like theoretical physics, it is known that jews will invent a particle out of thin air if the real data doesn’t fit the theory, so everything comes “nicely” at the end, at least for a while. The fundamental question then is if we can create the very nature of reality or reality exists as it is and we have to discover the laws of nature instead of creating them.
      I believe its the latter, the jews are not famed for being good engineers or creators of “practical things”, nor for creating any civilization on their own, this mentality probably steems out of their extreme parasitic niche as mind manipulators, culture distorters, story tellers, etc.
      Dr. William Luther Pierce used to say they can’t help themselves, and having a look at orthodox jews i often think that mental illness can have competitive evolutionary advantage under certain conditions.

  16. Jud Jackson
    Jud Jackson says:

    Very interesting article. One minor quibble. Wasn’t the Glasss Steagal act removed by the Republican Congress and signed by Bill Clinton? Of course, Reuban, Greenspan, and Summers all supported it.

  17. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    Catholic response to the financial/gold “problems” towards the end of the 19th century, and specifically the prominent Masonic-Jewish collaboration in French politics, forms the background to the composition of the “Protocols”. These “fit the facts” of that era, whatever their supposedly general and wider subsequent resonance regarding the revolutionary ferment, and its funding, in predominantly Orthodox Czarist Russia at the start of the 2oth century; this is made clear (if inadvertently) by Kerry Bolton’s booklets. The direct allusion to a specific contemporary politician and to underground railway preparations are chronologically significant.

    The suspicious absence from the otherwise detailed “lecture(s)” of their author(s), location and date is as important an argument against “authenticity” as the lack of an obvious Hebrew or Yiddish idiom, in contrast to a Latin aphorism, and the way they are composed, with borrowings from Joly in addition to Jewish material gathered lumpily into a “parodical” form.

    The methodical tracing of “Protocol” texts by Cesare De Michelis and Michael Hagemeister should not be ignored, amid the vast and still continuing literature on the subject, just because these writers are “philo-Semitic”. They take the research beyond, and deeper than, speculation about (say) the role of Matvei Golovinski (a Jewish name) who later got work in the Bolshevik “health service”.

    The finance-communism nexus, remarked upon by observers as diverse as Disraeli and Bakunin, was no doubt strengthened by belief in the “Protocols” as the literal record of an actual meeting of Jewish leaders. However, research into such links uncovers them with more precision but also qualifications; for example, Jacob Schiff was more concerned to overthrow “Czarism” than to invest in a Leninist dictatorship as such; and the role of other players like Olof Aschberg and the Hammers are ideologically more relevant in that respect.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        @ Seraphim

        Because the “Protocols” appear to “ring true” in impressive detail, with acute insights into government control and the operation of gold. The situation at the end of the 19th century has its replications in following decades, and some of the Jewish allusions do indeed reflect persistent Jewish attitudes. There are various versions of the “Protocols” but the are basically a clever piece of antisemitic construction which “touch on all the political issues of the day” (Hannah Arendt). I don’t know how many “efforts” you have studied, but the De Michelis book does almost exactly what the late Revilo Oliver wanted, before he committed himself on the subject, although thar study is published by a Jewish organization.

        You may be interested in the pioneer analysis by Nesta Webster, the “doyenne of conspiracy theory”, in her “World Revolution” (1921) and “Secret Societies & Subversive Movements” (1924). She noted that the compilers were also acquainted with ideas from secret societies, and worked them in. In my youth I met her secretary Anthony Gittens who admitted that she did not believe in their Jewish authorship.

        On the larger, related issue of Jews and the banking system, I think researchers should at least peruse Jerry Muller’s “Capitalism and the Jews” (2011). There are also nuggets to be unearthed from books by Niall Ferguson and the albeit chauvinistic and howler-prone “Economic History of the Jewish People” by Jacques Attali.

        And as a closing item, our “old friend” George Soros has just been revealed as a key backer of the anti-Brexit campaign in the UK.

  18. Joe Shephard
    Joe Shephard says:

    What is the alternative to interest on loans? If you ban usury then you will see a rental economy to replace it. An entrepreneur will rent the building, tools, inventory and even the workers from people who have needed resources. You have this option today with homes, cars, tools,etc. and most people prefer renting the money at interest and having more choices with how they spend their money. Either way it is equivalent, you pay extra to get resources at an earlier time than when you can afford to pay outright with cash. You can also see this with the Miller Modigliani theory in finance. There is no essential difference in capital structure, whether you finance through debt or equity.

    I see high interest as a problem for the poor but most middle class people benefit from reasonable amounts of debt. I dispute that one class gets richer and everyone else becomes poorer. Banks can and do fail. People borrow for school and business and do come out ahead on their investment.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      A major justification for lending money was that the lender deprived himself of the use of his own wealth for a time and made up for this deferral by asking the borrower to pay extra (i.e. interest). The future work of the borrower was tied to repayment, and failure to repay was punished by the confiscation of the past work of the borrower (i.e. security).
      The process became complicated by increased “fractional reserve” lending from a notional amount that exceeded deposits and could not sustain a “rush on the banks” for cash.
      When banks “fail” the bankers are not the only people to suffer loss. Even free trade theorists like the Mises people see and say this.

    • Jake Trotman
      Jake Trotman says:

      The point about usury is that one ethnic group controls the business practises between ethnic groups. The Jews hold the money we are forced to lend , with interest, from them. They don’t charge each other interest on a loan – that’s against their belief system. So when you see that our lives are dictated by ; Crest checks, how
      Much can we borrow, we see the Jewish hand controlling the economy. The Jews also made us leave the gold standard , which led to mass inflation of everything. It’s why houses aren’t cheap, cars, etc etc compared to what our grandfathers paid. It’s part of the plan to keep us all focused on our debts whilst they terraform society . Ususy is Jewish not gentile

    • Gnome Chompsky
      Gnome Chompsky says:

      I greatly enjoyed the reviews. Having read Das Kap. from cover to cover, so much is turgid but parts are valid and still worth reading, but in the end I wondered (after reading Engels who is clearly thinking goyim when ‘gentile’ is used in Marriage , Private Property and the State, more about the behaviour of Jews in the Russian Empire, about their behaviour as Bolshevik commisars, etc., about the reality of activities of Bronstein, pseudonym Trotsky).

      Of course, Marx never uses Jewish exemplars in his account of the rise of capitalism. Many of his exemplars are clearly in thrall to Jewish usury, but I can not recall one passage where that is stated.

      The world (and former USSR places) would likely be a slightly better place if Stalin had had Trotsky assassinated at the first opportunity, long before his long exile. Who knows, maybe the excellent Soviet education system of later days would have lasted longer.

      Perhaps U.S.A. ‘neocons’, offshoot of the Trotters, would never have gained their ridiculous power if Lev Bronstein’s assassination had been much earlier, after all, several hundreds of thousands of souls are dead by his deeds, many more as offshoots of this demon whose face closely resembles that of a goat.

      His alleged porn-acting and fellow-tribal inciting career in NY, I once saw a still photo in print of Bronstein in a porn scene, pre-digital tech that would not be able faking it, Trotters porn career in his brief NY exile is almost certainly true.

      I would like to continue, but will leave with thank-you for the well-written and informative writing, also for you informing of a writer who not much refutes Das Kapital, but treats the same topic with far more reality.

      BTW, re. your mention of Israel Shamir, I am glad to see it, but I have occasional correspondence with him, he is *not* Roman Catholic as you imply in the article, but Orthodox.

      Cheers.

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        @ Mr Chompksy

        You certainly deserve congratulations for wading through the entire text of the furunculous Moor’s magnum opus. Even dedicated communists find that task too much, and somewhat superfluous. “The masses of illiterate Russians were not fired to communist revolutionary enthusiasm by reading the theories of Karl Marx but by the promise of paradise made to the people by thousands of agitators” (Hitler).

        Some quotes Hitler possibly overlooked:

        “That the money-changers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do…. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose their organization.” – Marx, “NY Daily Tribune”, January 4, 1856.

        “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.” – Marx, “Deutsch-Franzoesiche Jahrbuecher”, 1844.

        “This young lady…is the ugliest creature I have ever seen, with repulsive Jewish facial features.” – Marx, Letter to Antoinette Philips, March 24, 1861.

        Some useful critiques of Marx come from Jews; e.g. Julius Carlebach, “Karl Marx & the Radical Critique of Judaism” (1978); Leopold Schwarzschild, “The Red Prussian” (1986); Robert Wistrich, “Revolutionary Jews from Marx to Trotsky” (1976). Still worth study is M. M. Bober, “Karl Marx’s Interpretation of History” (1948).

      • inspector general
        inspector general says:

        If my comment (not the article itself) is the basis for your comment about Shamir: I did not imply that Shamir is Roman Catholic–I have known he is a convert to Orthodoxy from non-religious Jewish background for a long time. Even so, he and Jones have had cordial relations in the past, and Shamir did indeed write the review in question. It should be easy enough for anyone interested to reference the exact issue of Culture Wars in which the review appeared.

  19. Deep North
    Deep North says:

    Fractional reserve banking and paper currency need to be phased out and made illegal. A few of the Mises Institute books easily explain this subject. Paul Warburg and Jacob Schiff were instrumental in establishing our Federal Reserve Bank. The Fed is what causes the boom/bust economic cycle that enriches Jewish banks and financiers while impovershing the rest of us.

    • Henry
      Henry says:

      Fractional reserve banking has not been used for decades. It was an instrument of gold standard banking. There never was enough gold to meet demand so fractional reserve lending became the almost alchemical solution. FR ceased to function when the West went off gold. Banks “printing money” is a myth put out by the tards who swallow the Mises BS. For example, in the UK, there is only £870 per capita printed and minted money in circulation. However, 98% of what currently passes for money is created out of thin air and issued as ‘loans’ by the joint stock banks. No reserves are needed to back this vast amount because the signature of each borrower is taken as a legally binding commitment to return the principle plus interest. The interest (which is not issued with the loan) is crucial here, as this must be drawn from money circulating within the general community, 98% of which is also a debt that has to be returned to the banks along with interest attaching. So as things stand today, money creation is a deflationary process, not inflationary.

      Paper money is not the problem. Lack of government issued money and a total reliance on bank credit is the problem.

      • Trenchant
        Trenchant says:

        Zimbabwe has shown the way in overcoming this terrible problem of lack of government-issued money; Venezuela’s doing good work, too.

        FRB defines the banking system, everywhere, and has done so for at least a century in most countries. (The legal precedent was set by Carr v Carr 1811).

          • Henry
            Henry says:

            Trenchant, I don’t see your point. I’m not interested in the legal relationship between a bank and its customers as it has no bearing on the how banks today create money ex nihilo. Nor do I see what the defunct FRB system has to do it. One can only assume that you operate under the long held misunderstanding that banks create their loans by leveraging loans from what they hold in their customers deposit accounts. This is not the case. In fact, deposits do not create loans. Instead, it is the bank loans from “out of nothing” which create the deposits.

            The process was explained in detail quite recently by The Bank of England in its Q1 report of April 2014…

            Two Misconceptions about Money Creation

            The vast majority of money held by the public takes the form
            of bank deposits. But where the stock of bank deposits comes
            from is often misunderstood. One common misconception is
            that banks act simply as intermediaries, lending out the
            deposits that savers place with them. In this view deposits
            are typically ‘created’ by the saving decisions of households,
            and banks then ‘lend out’ those existing deposits to borrowers,
            for example to companies looking to finance investment or
            individuals wanting to purchase houses.
            In fact, when households choose to save more money in bank
            accounts, those deposits come simply at the expense of
            deposits that would have otherwise gone to companies in
            payment for goods and services. Saving does not by itself
            increase the deposits or ‘funds available’ for banks to lend.
            Indeed, viewing banks simply as intermediaries ignores the fact
            that, in reality in the modern economy, commercial banks are
            the creators of deposit money. This article explains how,
            rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with
            them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the
            sequence typically described in textbooks
            .(3)

            Another common misconception is that the central bank
            determines the quantity of loans and deposits in the
            economy by controlling the quantity of central bank money
            — the so-called ‘money multiplier’ approach. In that view,
            central banks implement monetary policy by choosing a
            quantity of reserves. And, because there is assumed to be a
            constant ratio of broad money to base money, these reserves
            are then ‘multiplied up’ to a much greater change in bank

            loans and deposits. For the theory to hold, the amount of
            reserves must be a binding constraint on lending, and the
            central bank must directly determine the amount of reserves.
            While the money multiplier theory can be a useful way of
            introducing money and banking in economic textbooks, it is
            not an accurate description of how money is created in reality.

            Rather than controlling the quantity of reserves, central banks
            today typically implement monetary policy by setting the
            price of reserves — that is, interest rates.
            In reality, neither are reserves a binding constraint on lending,
            nor does the central bank fix the amount of reserves that are
            available. As with the relationship between deposits and
            loans, the relationship between reserves and loans typically
            operates in the reverse way to that described in some
            economics textbooks. Banks first decide how much to lend
            depending on the profitable lending opportunities available to
            them — which will, crucially, depend on the interest rate set
            by the Bank of England. It is these lending decisions that
            determine how many bank deposits are created by the banking
            system. The amount of bank deposits in turn influences how
            much central bank money banks want to hold in reserve (to
            meet withdrawals by the public, make payments to other
            banks, or meet regulatory liquidity requirements), which is
            then, in normal times, supplied on demand by the Bank of
            England. The rest of this article discusses these practices in
            more detail.

            See the full report here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf

      • Wintson S. Mythe
        Wintson S. Mythe says:

        Henry:
        How can you determine that money creation is deflationary based on what you’ve said above?

        You’re implying that more money leaves the system then gets created in the credit facilitation process. Some debts will never be repaid, meaning less money disappears than is created. Another factor is the rate at which new credit is facilitated as opposed to the rate at which debts go bad, and how much bad debt there is in dollar terms. To ascertain inflationary or deflationary pressures surely you’d need to know what those rates are.

        Besides, the principal is the part of the loan that disappears, the interest goes in as bank revenue and gets paid out in interest for savers, pays the bank’s expenses, and goes to shareholders as stock and dividends, hence cycling back into the economy (comes in, goes out, neutral to money supply).

        As to the question of how interest can be paid, as in, where does the money come from if it is not created initially, speculating here, but could be from foreign investment coming into the country, or from future debt money creation, if the latter, then surely the effect would be inflationary?

        • T. J.
          T. J. says:

          the interest goes in as bank revenue and gets paid out in interest for savers

          I literally jumped out of my chair when reading this.

          The old way of loaning- deposit money was untouchable as it was customer’s property- it could not be loaned. Interest earning funds could be loaned, but not more than deposits. Enter fractional reserve- the bank could create loans ex nihilo, and charge interest on this created “money.” Say they $100M on time deposit. So the bank pays out say 4% [in days of old] or $4M. But due to fractional reserve they can loan to say $1B [funds created from nothing]. Say they charge interest rates from 8% [I know, today’s prime is 3.75] to 25% [credit cards]. Average the rate at 16%. The bank gets revenue of .16 X $1B or $160M.

          $160M minus interest paid of $4M. That leaves $156,000,000 to cover expenses and (((PROFIT))). [The usury here is real].

          Today, the “deposit” is considered to be bank property- the bank can stick it on its balance sheet. The bank can use this for whatever, can loan it with the fractional multiplier.

          If fractional money/loan creation were barred, maybe 90% of $100M could be loaned, bringing in only $14.4M in revenue. Subtract interest paid $4M, this leaves only $10.4M to cover operating expenses. After expenses maybe nothing left, or even a loss [!]

          WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO CREATE LOANS FROM NOTHING BANKS WOULD BE ABOUT AS PROFITABLE AS A HOT-DOG CART.

          [I looked at the NY Fed site awhile ago [today]. Only 30% of banks face reserve requirement, which is 10%. It don’t matter- gold with fractional, or what we have today- the central problem of loans being created from nothing remains untouched].

        • Henry
          Henry says:

          Henry:

          How can you determine that money creation is deflationary based on what you’ve said above…..

          I haven’t said that money creation per se is deflationary. I’m all for money creation. But the way we allow our money to be created at interest then destroyed is certainly deflationary. A £1000 card loan @ 30% over 2 years takes £1340 back to the lender. In this way the borrower becomes the unwitting agent of the banker and his loan leaves money short; and so the constant cycle of deflation grinds on endlessly. Think of a bank led economy as a snake that chooses to feed off itself. In order to disguise the fact that the banks have swallowed almost all of our money (only 2% remains) an ever-growing population of new and hungry borrowers was needed to keep the scam afloat. This is how mass immigration became essential for “growing the economy” as bankers and their shills in politics and the media laughingly refer to their long-running fraud. Those large immigrant families need feeding, housing, clothing, educating, health care and welfare galore. They need furniture and white goods and expensive cars – but the money for these things doesn’t come simply from serving rancid curries to English drunks at the arse-end of a Saturday night.

          Let’s be clear; if our current money system were inflationary then there would be no need for borrowing at levels we see today because money would be plentiful. How can it be inflationary if 98% is destroyed at the end of the process and all that remains is the sum the banks take out in interest and other fees? It matters little that much of this is eventually returned to the community in the form of wages and shareholder dividends, as it provides only a tiny fraction of the sum needed to clear the massive debt that results from our refusal to issue Sovereign money sufficient for demand and interest free.

          As for defaulted loans…any significant sums are always secured and readily recovered through the courts and debt agencies. And what do you mean by “foreign investment”? The system of remittances supplies much of this “foreign investment”. A Pakistani nurse does not send English money to her needy family in Pakistan. She exchanges her English money for Paki money and rupees is what her family receives. The Paki money is supplied by sharks and sweaters who are rich in a currency that is worthless when it comes to buying property, goods and services in England. They need English money to realise their wealth in England. Likewise, with bank credits and the settling of import debts owed foreign nationals. London has been purchased by an international cabal of pimps, sweaters and oligarchs, but they’ve obtained their booty with debt money already created by British banks and lenders.

          Chinese money must be spent in China. It may be exchanged for an equivalence in say dollars or pounds, however money can only be used as such to purchase goods and services in its original place of issue. Try paying for a meal in a Chinese restaurant in London with Chinese money. Better still try to ‘inflate’ the restaurant’s coffers with Indian rupees and see how you get on with a rush of sudden-onset Oriental sensitivities.

          • Winston S. Mythe
            Winston S. Mythe says:

            TJ:
            Confused as to why you zeroed in on that particular comment. I am not denying banks creating money out of nothing. You raise an excellent point though, about banks being as profitable as hot dog stands without that ability.

            Henry:
            And yet inflation still exists, does it not? With every passing year wages and government benefits increase by a moderate amount. It takes more dollars / pounds to buy the same goods and services. In deflationary times it would actually make sense to store money under the mattress. If we look at it in this simple way:

            If more credit is getting created (rate of new loans) in any one period than is getting destroyed, conditions are inflationary.
            If less credit is getting created in any one period than is getting destroyed, conditions are deflationary.

            Without actually having the data to ascertain which set of conditions applies, then we can’t make a determination one way or the other. As the population increases I would surmise the rate of new credit increases, hence inflation.

            On foreign money introduced into the system, I would speculate:
            – Tourism;
            – Multinational corporations, who hold US dollars and often practice foreign currency hedging to mitigate losses from exchange rate fluctuations;
            – Profits earned from exports.

            Even if we are to assume that foreign money does not suffice to account for the interest not coming into being in the credit creation process (as you seem to be suggesting), then surely the “lack of money” would drive the rate of new loans to increase, leading to inflation. The rate of new loans would be of course limited by borrowers ability to pay, which relies on receiving sufficient wages, etc. So to take the analysis further we would need to look at real data and be able to interpret it.

            On inflation, and who benefits, relating to a comment of mine further above, I surmise that those who participate in “inflationary acts” would have cause to profit from them, due to time lag. At the time the money is created, it can be spent at $1 nominally = $1, before the effects of inflation are felt further down the track, and $1 nominally = $0.98. So it’s about who gets to spend that money first.

          • Alan Donelson
            Alan Donelson says:

            I have read long and extensively about “Babylonian Money Magick” (aka so many names and descriptors). I boil down my input to the following.

            Life Pays Off

            Life pays as IT comes and goes.
            Life leaves no debt unpaid in ITs wake.
            Life makes no profit on ITs works.
            Life simply invites fair exchange,
            Freely,
            With Love,
            In GOD.
            AMEN.

        • David Ashton
          David Ashton says:

          The cancellation of the principal on repayment leaves the bank interest. To simplify, the difference between the interest on savings and the interest on loans is the bank profit. Once wages of bank employees are removed, the remainder is quite substantial and the banking elite enjoy a considerable income. They live from lending money not from actual creative production by brain or hand. The process is then further complicated by hedge-funding, international investment in cheaper labor areas, and influence from bankers and bank theory on government, not vice-versa. In Britain, taxpayers have had to help rescue banks. The biography of George Soros is sufficient to illustrate a major fault in the system.

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        Another greenbacker. Gary North has literally spent a lifetime refuting this.

        https://www.garynorth.com/public/8574.cfm

        Speech presented by Professor Jesús Huerta de Soto at the Aula Magna, Academy of Economic Studies in Bucharest, on October 20th, 2010. The author launches his monetary treatise, Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles, translated into Romanian by the Ludwig von Mises Institute – Romania.

        Jesús Huerta de Soto Ballester (born December 23, 1956, in Madrid) is a leading Austrian School economist and Professor of Political Economy at Rey Juan Carlos University of Madrid, Spain. He received doctoral degrees in Law (1984) and Economic and Business Sciences (1992), both from Complutense University of Madrid, and an MBA from Stanford University. He has been a Professor of Political Economy at Complutense University of Madrid’s Law School since 1979. In 1983, Huerta de Soto received the extraordinary Rey Juan Carlos Award in Economics, in 2005 the CNE’s Adam Smith Award for lifetime achievement and in 2009 he was awarded a honorary degree from Universidad Francisco Marroquin.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oDH6m4AW6Y

        There are many, many Austrians who are not jewish. Austrian economics was founded by Karl Menger. See German Hans Hermann Hoppe:

        Money and Banking

        ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeF7H3tHFw

      • T. J.
        T. J. says:

        Government paper is just as fake as what we now have. To be used to socialist purposes. There are two socialisms:

        Socialism A, which strips wealth from the White middle class using fake loans. The money goes up to the (((rich)) and their buddies.

        Socialism B, which strips wealth from the White middle class using fake loans.
        The money goes down to the Negroes and their associates.

        Liberal [sometimes conservative] socialists want to eliminate Socialism A, and to eliminate fake loans. The “money” will be simply print and spend, with no fractional reserve. [Like Greenbacks] The wealth will still be strip-mined from the White middle class.

        Both the As and the Bs are Keynesian inflationists. The Bs want to do this for Christian reasons [in many cases]

        A is: from each White, according to ability, to each Joo, according to greed.

        B is: from each White, according to ability, to each Negro, according to need.

        • David Ashton
          David Ashton says:

          Keynes was not an inflationist and, as it happens, was national minded and in favor of eugenics. It is a reasonable assumption that if Mosley had established a fascist government in Britain, Keynes would have been invited to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, with General Fuller at Defense and Jorian Jenks at the Agriculture Ministry.

          • T. J.
            T. J. says:

            USA has been under Keynesianism since around 1946. The money supply [M2, M3 not available for 13 years] has risen by 5.85% compounded annually, whilst consumer prices have risen 4.4% compounded. That, I presume is inflation.
            I also presume this has resulted from Keynes’ theories being put into practice?

            The country has been under jew control since then. To say that Keynes was not an inflationist is like saying that jews are not inflationist.

            I presume that Mr. Keynes’ mind was sold to the highest bidder- just like Dr. Friedman’s.

            Paper money exists for only one reason- to steal the property of another.

  20. Jake Trotman
    Jake Trotman says:

    An investigation into usury will lead to the JQ. A concise history of usury , in the west, from the re entry of the Jews into the English speaking world- until now would be the ultimate red pill.

  21. Volkstaat
    Volkstaat says:

    The problem with Jones’ otherwise uniformly brilliant analysis is that he fails to recognize that “war” – including racial “war” – only takes one to tango. While it might be entirely true that within the Catholic worldview race is immaterial to these questions, the fact remains that for “Judah-ism” (meant to include religious and “atheist” Jewry) race is not only material, it is preponderant. Given this, I see no reason why Jones couldn’t at least incorporate the Jewish view on the importance of race and how it motivates their collective behavior into his research.

  22. Sam J.
    Sam J. says:

    There’s a lot of good stuff commented on about the money supply and banking here. One thing I don’t think has been done in this thread is to get to the very lowest of basics. The basics show that the money supply system the Jews have foisted on us is unstable and predatory.

    All money in the West is created with debt. The government or any other entity gives a promise to pay or a bond to the FED or other central bankers of a sum of the loan plus interest. The FED gives us…nothing. Absolutely nothing in return, except they “allow” it. This means at the very root that if all money is created with debt then if the debt is paid off…we would have no money. It also means the debt can NEVER be paid off because, well to pay money, that’s made with debt, you need more debt. So in the end the interest devours all. Debt can not be mathematically paid off if all money is debt created. If you extend this thought that all money is debt, it can’t be paid off and the interest goes higher and higher then you realize that whoever issues the currency, say the FED, will eventually own everything. Everything. Also since we need money to exchange to buy things and place a value on them, but all money is debt then for practical, (we’re talking long term here), purposes we have no money and everything we have is worth nothing.

    Now you can see this is so stupid as to be unbelievable that we have such a system but it’s true we do.

    The Jews use this system to preferably give loans to their people first. With these they buy up all the productive businesses and ride them into the ground to get back maximum profits. It would not surprise me if they owned everything of value. Especially after the bank bail out where they got Trillions. I think that is why the stock market has done so well. The Jews have bid up the price while they borrowed money at low interest to buy the whole economy.

    The only hope is to get rid of the Jews. Peacefully if we can get it but they must go whatever it takes. The Jews have been thrown out of every single country they’ve ever been to in any numbers for the same reasons we need to throw them out now for thousands of years. What they do is working for them and has worked for them. They will never stop and the only hope to get rid of them and never allow them any control over us at all.

  23. Mark Hunter
    Mark Hunter says:

    Suppose a person or business lends out something (just once, no “fractional reserve”) and suppose the something can be either $50,000 cash or a truck worth $50,000. The fee for renting the money is $1,000 per year, and the fee for the renting the truck is $1,000 per year, more because of wear and tear on the truck, refurbishing it on its return, storage and maintenance. When the truck is lent out the customer signs an agreement whereby if he wrecks or loses the truck he must pay, in addition to the fee, the value of the truck.

    Between the two, cash or truck, there is no difference in the rightness of charging a fee for the lease, none whatsoever.

    It’s obvious but just to rub it in, a man could rent the truck, sell it for $50,000, treat the money as if he had borrowed $50,000 instead of the truck, then later either buy the truck back or per his contract with the renter give him $50,000, in addition to the fee.

    Borrowing can be beneficial if it is to make money. For example, suppose you found a job or a better job but you needed a car to get to it, and you didn’t have a car or the money to buy one. You can borrow money to buy the car and pay it back with the money you earn. The interest could be worth it.

    The following is from Capitalism and “the Jews” on ARIwatch.com:
    Borrowing money at interest is similar to renting goods for a fee. (They differ in two respects. It’s impossible for a “banker in goods” – physical goods – to engage in the fractional reserve shenanigans that Federal Reserve bankers do: he cannot lend the same thing – say a car – to several different people simultaneously. And unless you lose or destroy the car, you cannot default on the loan, you always have it to return; whereas when you borrow money you can, and usually do, spend it in the expectation, not always fulfilled, of getting it back again.)

    Michael Jones is stupid on the subject of lending money.

  24. Henry
    Henry says:

    Winston S. Mythe said:

    On inflation, and who benefits, relating to a comment of mine further above, I surmise that those who participate in “inflationary acts” would have cause to profit from them, due to time lag. At the time the money is created, it can be spent at $1 nominally = $1, before the effects of inflation are felt further down the track, and $1 nominally = $0.98. So it’s about who gets to spend that money first.

    My emphasis above….

    Unless you’re referring here to the lender, I’m sorry but that’s wrong. The idea that the borrower is the first user who gets the full value of the money when it’s spent is fallacious. For the creator of the loan is the first to spend it when (the bank) types it into existence and rents it out for $X plus interest. If $100 @ 10% is used to purchase a table for sale at $100 then the real cost of the table to the borrower is $110 and so it’s the borrower who takes the hit. By renting his money @ 10% his $1 nominally = $0.90 and the purchase of the table becomes his second transaction, not his first.

    This is how the value is really lost. In practice, the borrower blows $110 of tomorrow’s money on $100 today. The person who sold the table has $100 (which may also form part of a bank repayment) and of course the bank gets its profit which leaves the community a certain $10 short. The money taken from the community ($10 plus anything the seller of the table is obliged to repay) still exists, but now it’s all in the hands of the bank and, though a fraction will be returned when wages are paid and part spent, we can never consider the banking system and its profits to be part of the community and its available wealth.

    In practice. the issue and return of a loan is deflationary because it eventually creates a contraction of the money circulating within our communities. The same hard pressed communities that 10 yrs ago had to sacrifice their futures in order to revive the all consuming parasite that’s been sucking them dry for 350 yrs.

    You couldn’t make it up.

Comments are closed.