5 votes

All Wars are Fought for Usury

Excerpt:

SPREAD OF CENTRAL BANKS

Franklin wrote of the British colonies in North America in the 1750s: "Nowhere on Earth does one find a happier and more well-being people." He explained that this was due to that "we in the colonies make our own currency," called "colonial scrip." He further explained: "By issuing our own currency we can control its buying power, and we are not obliged to pay interest to anyone."

In these British colonies in New England, there was a wealth contrasting sharply to the poverty and misery in England. There was enough money, and it was definitely interest free.

In American schoolbooks, the reason given for the outbreak of the Revolutionary War was the tea tax but according to Franklin "the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax" (of 2 percent) on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction." The result of the influence of the English banks on the British Parliament was horrendous poverty in America. When this situation had been created, it was easy to get people ready for war which the Freemasons did with satisfaction. They wanted a safe base for their future global activities.

Among the men who drew up the Constitution of 1787, many urged protection against the financial drain of the international bankers. Therefore Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution reads: "Congress shall have power ... to coin money, regulate the value thereof..."

Alexander Hamilton, a Freemason and secretary of finance in the government of George Washington, and also the agent of the international financiers, ordered the establishment of a privately owned union bank and the introduction of interest money. His argument was simple; "A limited national debt would he a blessing to a nation " He considered it dangerous for the government to issue its own currency.

Thus the United States got its first central bank in 1791. It was privately owned but had a contract running for only 20 years. It was not renewed when it expired. Andrew Jackson referred to the fact that the Constitution had given Congress the right to issue currency in sufficient quantity but not transfer this right to others.

http://henrymakow.com/2013/05/all-wars-are-fought-for-usury....



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

End Usury!

End Usury!

Blah.

Cyril's picture

LOL Good one :)

LOL

Good one :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Usury is very, very old in the principle.

Usury is very, very old in the principle.

Peoples have always managed to live around it, by various means.

Guilt isn't on one side only. Borrowing money from someone or something else should always be considered seriously and avoided by all possible means.

Breaking news:

the plunder we suffer today isn't just about good old usury.

What we suffer today is "A MILLION TIMES" worse - so to speak - than usury.

It's MONEY DEBASEMENT BY LEGAL PLUNDER THRU COUNTERFEITING, UNDER FORCE OF LAW ... yes, you guessed it ... in central "banks".

"Central banking" is no more "banking" than I am a saint. Wrong noun #1.

"Central bankers" are no more "bankers" than I am an angel, either. Wrong noun #2.

Evidence and terminology refreshers :

http://www.dailypaul.com/275696/bank-fraud-in-ten-minutes

Thus, those are not "banks". Those are not "bankers".

The latter are thieves, parasites, crooks, and sometimes, murderers using the pen as a sword - by planning over millions of human lives seen as ... COMMODITIES, in their spreadsheets.

The central bankers' minions, gov't and politician bullies, handle the rest of how the horror is made effective world wide, thru their victims' sweat and blood.

"Bear."

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Counterfeiting is only one problem.


What some people claim is "counterfeiting: is just the use of something other than gold/silver as money.

But anything can be the instrument of money. What is important is not what the medium of money is, but that:

1. The Money Supply is managed transparenly, with no secretive expansion.
2. There is no public debt caused by the mere creation of money.

It is (usury) the violation of the 2nd principle that brings whole Nations to their knees awash in perpetual public debt, that they can never escape from.

For if the mere creation of money itself introduces debt, then the total money in circulation can never pay off all expeditures plus the artificially created debt. This means that the money supply always has to be continually expanded and expanded (and with it the debt is expanded and expanded) -- and there is no resolution.

Ben Franklin's "Colonial Script" was a paper-money system, but it was an honest money system -- hence it worked!

But The Bank of England/U.S.Central Bank system is a dishonest system, and it cannot work regardless of what medium is used (because loans are made on non-existent money, and debt is perpetually generated, and the supply is constantly corrupted by design).


Cyril's picture

From my point of view,

From my point of view, the seed idea of central banking was the same as that of the money changers before the temple.

Usury was already practiced before that... Lending at excessive interest rates (when the lender knows he is doing so).

Now of course, when we lend something to our own relatives, we usually don't try, let alone think to do that, if we otherwise claim to love them. It's then about help, not exploiting. Is lending at interests to strangers a sin? To each their own morality ... Who am I to judge a priori if neither lender or borrower are to complain eventually? I'm just happy I can make a good living without being a banker, that's it. Their own morality and reputation is their problem, not mine.

My main point is money changing was essentially another evil improvement, promising to last, as it did, IN ADDITION TO that legacy habit of usury practiced by the greediest.

Thus, money changing became complementary to usury, for more injustice between creditors and debtors. Both can work independently or combine together.

Of course, I certainly don't mean to defend either. I just think it is useful and wise to distinguish the two for what they really are, specifically, and how much harm, indeed, they have always brought because of their similar but non identical natures.

Proverbs 11 had also warned against dishonest scales and weights, btw.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I think that is a massive generalization.

Wars are fought for many reasons, money, resources, territory, and hegemony just to name a few.

While people do make money by lending money to the State, it is not generally the motivation for the State to go to war.

The State usually goes to war for it's own interest and the interest of it's cronies, usually both coincide.

The claim that all wars are fought over money lending is easily proven to be false.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Love wins in the end

more:
http://www.dailypaul.com/284260/new-earth

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

New World IS Coming

NO MORE USURY!!!

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

What is wrong with lending

What is wrong with lending money for interest? I could never have started a business without usury. Am I getting the definition wrong?

Understand this...


There is a big, big difference between voluntary usury (seeking a loan and paying interest to a 2nd-party by choice), and mandatory usury applied to the mere creation and existence of all money.

The latter is what makes the Rothschilds Central Bank model a form of enslavement, and tyranny, and systematically indebts any Nation on that system.

Ben Franklin was referring to the fact that the old "Colonial Script" was interest-free money that the private Bankers had no power over (they could not create it). It could only be created by the government transparently and this was done with no cost to the public (no debt generated).

When The Bank of England (similar to today's Federal Reserve Central Bank) took over and outlawed the "Colonial Script", then the only legal tender was their "dirty money" ... money that by design costs money to create. Central Banks indebt and enslave Nations because they are the ones, and not the elected government, who create and control all the money in existence -- and they do so as a profiteering scheme (usury) for themselves (to enrich themselves at the expense of the Country).

--

So there is nothing wrong with having voluntary loans at interest (lending, a.k.a. usury) using otherwise "honest money" in circulation (money created without indebting all the public).

But there is something totally corrupt about having all the money be rigged such that the mere creation of money also creates debt. This is because, then the more money that you create...the more debt you also create -- and the sum of the entire Money Supply in circulation cannot possibly expunge the debt. So more money is created....and then more debt... It's a catch-22. A Ponzi Scheme. Fractional Reserve Lending is also a further distortion that expontially corrupts the money supply, and leaves the Country in a state of unresolvable Debt.

As Ben Franklin correctly points out, after the "Colonial Script" was so successful, The Bank of England swooped in and stomped it out -- leading to the American Revolution which this Country really lost because despite driving the army away, ....privately-owned (Rothschilds) Central Banks followed anyway. We won the "war", but lost our Independence.

And when Lincoln tried to do escape the clutches of the International Bankers with government-issued Debt-free "Greenbacks" this is what the Rothschilds "London Times" had to say:

"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt.

It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America.

That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

-- The London Times responding to Lincoln's Greenback debt-free currency

Lincoln was assassinated.

Finally, Kennedy was the last President to attempt to go around the Central Bank (E11110), and we all know what happened there too.

Now you see why I don't celebrate the 4th of July.
We Lost!!

I know its fashionable to

I know its fashionable to hate fractional reserve banking on the DP but I'm not afraid to express my ambivalence in this matter.

This system allows creation of new money from loans made to small business. In a world with only gold as currency, there would be far less capital to invest in mew ideas. That is a reality that I cannot ignore however many cries for a return to sound money I hear.

As for my post, I was referring of course to the title which paints all usury aka money lending as evil. It also reeks of anti Semitism to me but as I cannot read minds, I don't know how it was meant so didn't condemn it.

Oh heaven forfend! Is there

Oh heaven forfend! Is there not one thing that any Jewish person can ever be criticized for? And what does money lending have to do with Judaism?

Maybe you are the one guilty of stereotyping. I wish all of the people who scream "anti Semitism" at the drop of a hat would actually observe the ridiculousness of their argument. Something is bad, but some Jews do it, so critiquing it is "anti Semitic." Thus, we must never ever criticize it. See how stupid that is? And what the hell is a Semite? An Arab Semite or a Khazarian phony Semite or a Sephardic or Arab Jewish Semite?

I didn't jump to conclusions

I didn't jump to conclusions and qualified my statement.

In my life experience usury has been used mostly with respect to lending practices of wealthy Jews. My sources have been friends from UAE where banks aren't allowed to charge interest. It is against Sharia and I've heard it being used to disparage Jews. I did not accuse the OP as I cannot read minds and am aware it can be usd in a different context.

What matters...


What matters here is not the medium used for money, but who controls its supply, and that the creation itself does not impose public debt.

Gold by itself is not an answer to anything because, after all, The Rothschilds and Central Banks own most of the World's Gold anyway, and they also own the paper-certificate schemes which is used to price-fix the entire market (and manipulate the perceived supply or "virtual" supply).

Back in the days when Gold was money, The Banksters were still in charge, and the original "Goldsmiths" (bankers) had invented the whole fraudulent Fractional Reserve lending concept where you have both unredeemable notes, and interest on non-existent money.

--

So once again Gold solves nothing.

This is all about whether:
1. A profiteering scheme is in control of the world's money, or
2. A transparent public scheme is in control of the money.

The first will always produce corruption.

If I had an awesome a

If I had an awesome a responsibility as co trolling a country's money supply I'd damn well make sure I profited from it. So would you and so would every single person on this board.

In fact, In India at least the governors of RBI are reasonable well compensated but not very well. Of course big banks have a say in determining monetary policy because they are the institutions from which we gauge demand for more money or more savings.

There are literally THOUSANDS of checks and balances at every reserve bank in the world. On transparency I agree with you, but there are inherent problems with that as well. But checks and balances hinder freedom and ability of the fed to act and hence a great deal of caution must be taken as to how much weight should be lent to each. You feel that transparency should receive more focus. Ron Paul and I agree, but until I research much more as to the workings of economics we cannot make a final judgement either way.

Nonsense


Money can and should be created as a debt-free instrument. This is how an honest system would work, and Ben Franklin proved that point (as also did Abraham Lincoln).

And the whole concept of lending out multiples of non-existent money (and profitting from it via interest) is fruadulent. How can somebody collect interest on something that doesn't even exist in the first place? And the choas that this introduces to the money supply (devaluation) is also obvious and results in a predictable declining standard of living.

But these are the dirty and corrupt schemes of the (private) Central Bank Model that we all have to suffer under. They invented it.

If you defend them, then you defend corruption itself.


I know where you are coming

I know where you are coming from and agree that govt. should not perhaps be involved.

As for calling it fraudulent, I think its silly. Banks should be allowed to leverage their savings a thousand fold if they want and if people trust them. It will still not make it fraudulent as long as they are not deceiving the public.

Fractional reserve banking will not go away unless it is outlawed by GOVT. It is an emergent property of any free market banking system.

If a bank can do it, why

If a bank can do it, why can't I? Why shouldn't I be able to create money out of thin air, and loan it to someone, as long as that person trusts me right?

Just make your own bank. Read

Just make your own bank. Read my post below. I hope you know banking is not as simple as handing out money. You'd need knowledge in accounting, economics, statistics, calculus etc and be willing to take on the considerable risks.

I've already said get govt out of it, let the fed be dissolved, let banking be deregulated.

Sorry...


Banks should only be allowed to lend what is redeemable, otherwise you have by definition an on-book default (whether or not anybody calls them on it), and that is itself a dishonest (corrupt) system.

And moreover, money must be created only transparently through public appropriation -- as Ben Franklin explained -- with no public debt for the mere existence of money. That is the only honest money system.

Because, once again, if you let Banks create the money that can never work -- because then all the money in circulation can never cover both the total expenditure plus the artificially created debt. This deception forces the money supply to constantly expand and expand, which also causes the debt to expand and expand ... and the whole situation is unresolveable. And this can only lead to one thing: Exponential Debt, a devaluation of the money, and ultimately a crippled Economy.

This is exactly what Thomas Jefferson warned us against:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin, 1802

Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, and Andrew Jackson all knew that you cannot let private Banks have all that power. They will destroy the Country. And this is exactly what has happened to this Country.

Do not defend it.

Remember, "The Fed" is not a government agency, and it does not operate for the benefit of the public interest. It is The Rothschilds privately-owned "Bank of England" Bankster-scheme to siphon off the Nation's wealth for themselves (as our all the World's Central Banks, along with the World Bank) -- which Andrew Jackson was the last President to have the foresight to cutoff and stop.

The Ben Franklin model (debt-free, publically managed money) is the only way in which wealth will no longer be accelerated and concentrated into the hands of the Banksters & WallStreet.

Ok, how about this

Ok, how about this compromise. The Fed should be dissolved. Now you give your solutions as to what takes over and how.

I will be happy if all banks are deregulated and allowed to function as they wish and fail if they make bad decisions. Is that okay? Because even then bankers will be the richest people around.

So if I have $100, I can lend

So if I have $100, I can lend you $100,000.00? Where did it come from? Why is a bank any different than anyone else?

Without government approval, fractional reserve lending can't exist. Without government, it would obviously be illegal and immoral - and no one would value the worthless paper notes.

Blah.

Fractional reserve banking

Fractional reserve banking was around way before govt. took it up. It is how every single bank operated.

Do you want to get the govt. to ban fractional reserve banking? Because that is the only way it will stop, the genie is out of the bottle and its not going back in.

Suppose I have a vault and someone gives me 1000 bucks for safekeeping on which I'm promising to pay an interest of 1000 in 5 years time. I give him a receipt saying that in 5 years time, he is eligible to receive 2000.

I make one loan of 1000 to another guy by giving him exchangeable promissory notes on the condition that in 2 years I get 2000 back.

Since I know that after two years I will have 2000 in my vault, I lend out that 2000 in promissory notes to another guy on the condition that I am returned 5000 in 5 years.

At the end of 5 years, the depositor comes to get his money. I have 7000 in my bank account, pay him 2000 and keep 5000.

As long as I have managed it in such a way that no one who came for withdrawal of his savings was refused, everyone is satisfied. If I fail to do that then my business will fail, I will go to prison and my old customers will divide my property among them/ suffer losses for bad judgement and move onto other.

I thought the Liberty movement was for less regulations, not more. Now tell me which part violates free market principles and which part violates liberty principles.

Answer our question oh

Answer our question oh protector of the overly sensitive guardian against the Anti Semite, why can't we practice fractional reserve lending if a bank can?

As long as you can convince

As long as you can convince people to accept your promissory notes, you can.

The only problem is regulation by the govt, so yes, please get them out of banking and let banks leverage their savings to any degree they want. People can decide for themselves who they trust, and if they make a mistake, well its their own fault, not the bank's.

You are confused!

Read the book "The Creature from Jekyl Island"

If you can't afford the book, PM me and I'll help.

It's factual, covers it all, has no BS and will help you out in life.

BTW, do you need a loan? I only got $20 but I can lend you $20,000 at interest. I'll give you an IOU, and you'll have to work for me to earn IOUs so you can pay me back. Only cost you $30,000 in IOUs. BTW, I run a sweat shop in India, prepare to move.

Blah.

I'll summarise my views on

I'll summarise my views on the matter.

The Fed is bad.

Usury is not fraudulent in of itself.

Banks should be allowed to follow any model they want including fractional reserve banking as long as they apprise their customers of the risk and they are given no taxpayer funded bailouts.

Quite a few factual errors in article.

The usury forbidden in the old testament was ribah.

Ribah was a loan of 100 dinar where I kept a fee for originating the loan.

You still owe 100 dinar, but only ever got a portion.

The lender was taking his profit up front instead of receiving rent on his money. Or in addition to.

If a lender offered ribah, one might be suspicious of their respect for tradition and cultural standards. Find someone else. There's no regulation like self regulation.

Free includes debt-free!

U$ury is the root cause -

- of the injustices of our times.

Greetings Paul_S, and +1 for "self regulation". There are many instances where we humans fail, - therefore the need for laws = rules that govern society, - external control-s.

The other thread is no longer available.

I only see headline. ASD not mine.

Free includes debt-free!