Direct Link to Latest News

 

I asked Anthony Migchels - Why is Usury Evil?

January 30, 2022

tony-migchels.jpgleft, Anthony Migchels

Currently the Masonic Jewish world central banking cartel creates money out of thin air in the form of a debt to itself. This has allowed them to control the world and inflict the covid hoax on mankind.

National governments don't need to incur debt and pay interest to filthy rich families for the privilege of using their own credit.

However I don't understand why money created by national governments should be interest-free.

I asked my esteemed friend Anthony Migchels to explain why usury is a sin.

Could you explain why the opportunity value of capital, and the risk entailed in lending it, should be interest free? Why would anyone lend money then?

---


Dutch national, Anthony Migchels is the founder of De Florijn, the first fully-fledged interest-free, privately operated currency in the World. His website is Real Currencies.

His reply-

"The problems with Usury are manifold, the main one being that allowing it absolutely 100% guarantees Plutocracy and scheming rich vipers buying media, politicians, scientists, paid for with the production of the masses, stolen with Usury.

Throughout history there have been innumerable cycles of entire populations getting enslaved with debt, followed by debt jubilees to prevent debtor revolts. The latest one we're witnessing now, the implosion of the current mega debt bubble, is simply their final, crowning achievement.

Jesus said that lending at interest was for the hard of heart, and obviously, having a gentle heart is central in Christianity. But try explaining that to Shylock, right?!

Aristotle-usury-quote.jpgSo what remains as the main argument, in my view, currently is that it is simply too easy to create credit interest-free. Here, I have a little vid showing it hands on, how easy it is:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrgw8fpfZLA&t=2s

Note that ONLY the richest 10% gain from Usury. The 90% pay more interest than they receive. Remember: 40% of prices that we pay for goods and services we need are cost for capital passed on during production. So even with zero debts you're an interest-slave without even realizing it.

So, we shouldn't even be concerned with the 'rights' of the creditor ("why would I lend at interest?")

We are debt slaves. Interest slaves.

We should be wondering: "How do we get rid of this yoke?"

That's the question for the masses!

We don't want to pay!

And we don't need to, because we have all we need to create all credit at close to zero cost, and THAT is in the interest of the People, and obedience to the Law.
------------Part Two

usury-2.jpgThere is no risk: there is collateral. Current banking has close to zero risk. It's just a marketing line by the creditors 'oh, think of the risks we're taking!!" Meanwhile, all the housing stock of the West has been pledged to them through mortgages. Same with Government debt. They managed to foist income tax on supposedly 'free' men, to guarantee the usury on the national debts being payable.

After the failure of Usury prohibition, there was quite a while that it was 'either interest OR collateral'. Also, when men of good will work together, they can pool their savings, and provide mutual credit AND mutual guarantees.

And again: it's the line of the creditor. We don't care about creditors. We're debt slaves. the 90% who are getting crushed by the debt, and especially the interest on it.

Creditors, with the landlords, can go find a job. Let these parasites make themselves useful for a change. We're done with their unaffordable idleness. Every man must contribute, and sweat to provide for his family.

So:

- Usury is totally immoral, taking without producing anything.
- It guarantees that we will end up with a few scumbags owning everything (which is exactly what we have now)
- Leads to mass poverty and very long working hours (in the medieval era a man worked 15 weeks per year (!!!! think about it!) to feed his family)
- Very sternly forbidden in scripture (the apocalypse of Peter:  "And into another place near by, saturated with filth, they throw men and women up to their knees.  These are they who lent money and took usury."
- We can clearly identify what went wrong where in history (see the article 'Why do we have Usury?')
- AND we have several ways of creating all the credit we need at close to zero cost.

geld.jpgCase closed.

We can't afford half measures against the Bank Henry. You know like few others what they have inflicted. And Usury is the essence of banking. That's what banking is: lending at interest.

And it's not just about the problem, it's also about the opportunity. This is how we would live without Usury:


My reply-  "Usury is totally immoral, taking without producing anything."

Tony, this is nonsense. The lender produced the money. As long as that lender ultimately is the national government, and not some private cartel, it is necessary to charge interest. You did not explain why anyone would lend otherwise.
Money is a commodity. It has a price. The lender will choose someone who pays interest over someone who does not.  Millions of retirees live off interest. Do you want them to starve?

--
Related--  Makow- Banking System is Responsible for Our Enslavement

Also by Anthony Migchels -- Covid is Cover for a Financial Crisis
----------------------------------------------------Ending Debt and Usury Would Save Mankind
---------------------------------------------------- We Face the Mother of All Depressions



First Comment from CK

 Lending money at interest is not a crime (unless the rate is exorbitant, typically over 12-18% in most states).  If someone earned the money, they deserve a return.  Gain and loss.  If you lose (the use of your money by letting someone else use it), you should gain (they should repay the money plus interest).  Of course, family and friends shouldn't be charged interest, but if you want to remain on friendly terms, it's probably best not to lend them money in the first place.  I have seen money destroy many good relationships.

True usury is the issuance of sovereign money from nothing, then charging interest for a piece of paper.  That's "money for nothing and your chicks for free".

There is no virtue in the fake money central banking scheme where governments are conned into paying interest to get money to use for vote buying.

The alternative to this financial disaster of central banking is on your site.  There's an excellent article about Edison and Ford wanting to finance the Muscles Shoals dam by spending the money into existence to build a useful project that GENERATED real returns, not endless interest payments.

https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/11/thomas-edison-exposed-central-banking.html






Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "I asked Anthony Migchels - Why is Usury Evil?"

Doug P said (January 30, 2022):

Doug Plumb

3:20 PM (2 hours ago)

to Henry
It's difficult to imagine the change, where a young couple starting out would not borrow money for a house but buy the materials gradually as they worked and build it on the weekends while living at a relatives house. This would require dependence on family and people do not typically lend money to family or let them live rent-free to get a start because MONEY IS SACRED to people. Money is worth more than anything in our current culture.

We could evolve to such a system slowly, starting with national banks who lend money at interest and use that interest to pay the taxes. Gradually national governments could reach the point where they are no longer lending money for cars and houses because people could depend on families - functional ones created by a well-educated populace. National banks could maintain a money supply by hiring people for infrastructure work - ie roads, hydro, etc the kinds of things that require very long-term planning.

People are not well enough educated in the truest sense, to create a functional supportive family. You may be able to ask a friend to help you fix your car or find your cat, but to ask for money is to sin in the most serious way. You must go to a bank.

In short, it's a good idea, but the people are too dysfunctional to adapt a co-operative system that works for them.

People would have more money than they need and would therefore invest in startups to help people create independent small business.

All of this creates another problem: the technological state requires planning and control to remain a technological state. If a state is not technological, a technological one would take it over.


IS said (January 30, 2022):

you write: "Money is a commodity. It has a price."

It's more, it's like blood that has to circulate to do the job and should have a price of stored items, usually losing value over time.

Please read the post of blog Opium des Volkes - (religion is the opium of the people, Karl Marx). It's about Silvio Gesell's Freiwirtschafts-Modell (free market modell).

Nietzsche was not the Antichrist - http://opium-des-volkes.blogspot.com/2022/01/nietzsche-was-not-antichrist.html

Realcurrencies sees Gesell's approach as one of two solutions for the problem:

Debt Free Money alone does not solve Compound Interest - https://www.realcurrencies.org/2012/01/05/debt-free-money-alone-does-not-solve-compound-interest/

Best,

Peter ( coronistan.blogspot.com )



RH-2 said (January 30, 2022):

Why anyone would lend without any compensation?

In a government of, by, and for the people, would not the strengthening of the economy of the nation or state, and the increase in wealth generated by sound lending be its own reward? I reiterate: Whay should a government seek to profit off of its own people?

As to private lending without interest, as a your reader R mentioned, in Islam the lender shares in the risk and reward of the investment or business for which the loan is made. It worked very well for nearly 1400 years, until Muslim nations joined the predatory international banking and lending system, and quickly became debtor nations, even the Saudis.

A better question might be, why should any population saddle themselves with usurious and oppressive consumer debt in order to satisfy falsely perceived needs generated by media advertising aimed and fleecing and bankrupting them in the first place? Ditto for the bubble and bust scheme with housing markets.


Sandy said (January 30, 2022):

Never, that I can see, has anyone troubled himself to define "usury". Should I do hard, honest work for years, pay cash for everything, live frugally, keep my cash under the mattress and out of the hands of the banks, etc. etc., then loan, say, $10,000 of my savings to someone...for FREE? I don't think so, Henry.

Commenter "David" started to make some good points, as follows:

initially shared your incredulous reaction to Anthony's theory. However, upon further reflection, I think it is necessary to try to view it without looking through the lens of the existing paradigm.

Perhaps asking why anyone would lend is the wrong question; maybe the point is that without a small investor-class having a stranglehold on the means of production, a true, free (and localized) market could emerge to fill the vacuum.

No way can any of this be resolved under the present circumstances. The grasping nature of not only the privileged People Who Run Things, but also the majority of the rank and file human, lies at the heart of all this. Call it a cliche, but, yes, it is a spiritual problem.

Somehow, the (financial) slate has to be wiped clean, and a new start made. However, we are too far gone, there's no more Gaddafis with a scheme to straighten the money system out. Such a new start can occur (IMO) only by way of civilizational collapse - as in the dystopian film "The Road", where most people are dead and the few survivors have next to nothing but their own two hands and occasionally a bit of good luck finding food and friends.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_(2009_film)


CR said (January 30, 2022):

You ask why anyone would lend money if they were not going to profit by charging interest. The answer seems obvious to me, as a form of charity to help others in need. If you need to ask why one would give money to charitable causes or help the less fortunate then I don't even know what to tell you.

As you have shown us that the global banking cartel is largely Jewish, these verses from the Bible are particularly relevant:

Ezekiel 18:13
He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

Leviticus 25:35-37

If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.


RH said (January 30, 2022):

Hi Henry,

From the Torah, the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28:

12 The Lord shall open to you his good treasure, the heavens to give rain to your land in its season, and to bless the work of your hand. And you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow.


13 And the Lord shall make you the head and not the tail. And you shall be above only, and you shall not be beneath, if you follow this command of the Lord.


Why should a government need to make a profit off of lending to its own people, unless that government is in debt because it lets a third party create money for it out of nothing and then charges it interest, instead of creating its own for free?


This is the fundamental fallacy and evil that has brought the entire world to the brink of the potential castrophe we now face. How can someone who sees so much else so clearly not grasp this essential truth at the very root of so much evil?

---

Thanks Richard

The root of all evil is letting Jewish Satanists create the money supply.

No one can tell me why anyone would lend without any compensation?

h


R said (January 30, 2022):

Modern money lenders aren't even lending their own money. They print it or borrow printed money. Why should they make a profit on fraud? Money lending is supposed to be charity or a duty like helping out a family member. It shouldn't be made into a business. Lending of surplus real money increases production in the economy. When real money is used it creates deflation and increases the value of the original loan. So the lender would getting paid back in appreciated money. There would be more products available to buy. And there's more people to sell to. The health/real wealth of the economy determines the value of money. The wealth of the middle class determines the wealth of the economy. So the money lender would benefit from building up his people and investing directly into the economy.

I heard islam has a system that the lender only gets a percentage if the debtor makes a profit on the money.

Also when God says "jump", you ask "how high?" and not "why?"


David said (January 30, 2022):

initially shared your incredulous reaction to Anthony's theory. However, upon further reflection, I think it is necessary to try to view it without looking through the lens of the existing paradigm.

Perhaps asking why anyone would lend is the wrong question; maybe the point is that without a small investor-class having a stranglehold on the means of production, a true, free (and localized) market could emerge to fill the vacuum.

With a real demand for goods and services, would loans in many cases be necessary...?

A true government has an interest in lending money to its people to produce goods and services.

Just some thoughts. I am by no means an expert in this area.

Thanks,


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at