top of page




Money Creation

  1. The Bank of England - Excerpt from their publication “Money Creation in the Modern Economy. The whole article can be found in the link:

  • This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans. 

  • Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’ central bank money to create new loans and deposits.

  • The amount of money created in the economy ultimately depends on the monetary policy of the central bank. In normal times, this is carried out by setting interest rates. The central bank can also affect the amount of money directly through purchasing assets or ‘quantitative easing’.  

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.


2.    The abstract from Richard A. Werner’s article, “Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence” published in Science Direct.  Read the whole paper at the link below: 

He is from Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development, University of Southampton, United Kingdom???? .   This is the professor Werner with tons of articles

This paper presents the first empirical evidence in the history of banking on the question of whether banks can create money out of nothing. The banking crisis has revived interest in this issue, but it had remained unsettled. Three hypotheses are recognised in the literature. According to the financial intermediation theory of banking, banks are merely intermediaries like other non-bank financial institutions, collecting deposits that are then lent out. According to the fractional reserve theory of banking, individual banks are mere financial intermediaries that cannot create money, but collectively they end up creating money through systemic interaction. A third theory maintains that each individual bank has the power to create money ‘out of nothing’ and does so when it extends credit (the credit creation theory of banking). The question which of the theories is correct has far-reaching implications for research and policy. Surprisingly, despite the longstanding controversy, until now no empirical study has tested the theories. This is the contribution of the present paper. An empirical test is conducted, whereby money is borrowed from a cooperating bank, while its internal records are being monitored, to establish whether in the process of making the loan available to the borrower, the bank transfers these funds from other accounts within or outside the bank, or whether they are newly created. This study establishes for the first time empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing. The money supply is created as ‘fairy dust’ produced by the banks individually, "out of thin air".

Author’s Note

I need to point out that bank credit is not conjured like fairy dust out of nothing.  It is always the amount the borrower promises to make valuable with their labor over the term of the loan.  The borrower provides the value and the bank conjures the money as its liability.  Money measures value, the value you promise to create.  Issuing money is what the sovereign does to create the conditions in which the people live.  Should banks completely control the money supply for their benefit?  Should you create the money that you can make valuable?

Notes and Certificates




























These bills illustrate the evolution of the banking fraud since before the Great Depression - almost 100 years ago, when the Federal Reserve Note claimed to be backed by gold, then after FDR confiscated the gold it is no longer redeemable in gold, but then the deception is resurrected with the Silver Certificate and the true money of the Republic, the United States Note is ignored. You can look at the notes in your pocket to see what the current basis is.



4. Larken Rose made a video about how to be a crook. It ends describing the banking scheme as the ultimate crime, the one enforced by capturing the law itself.   See    How To Be a Crook  at



The way banks represent their accounts is as if the loans they make are their assets, same as people or any other business.  What they call the loan is your promise to pay.  It is your commitment to create value for the benefit of the bank. Our money in the bank is the bank's liability or what they owe us.  When we borrow, the bank creates a “deposit” in our loan account, as their liability (what they owe us) and then they account for it as what we owe them?  This is fraud!

Assets = Liabilities + Equity


If we as a community chartered a public bank, we would also issue money with an accounting entry.  However, we would have very different criteria for what is credit worthy, we would charge an administrative fee, not interest, and the repayment schedule would reflect reality and the profits would accrue to the community, providing widespread prosperity. 


Authoritative Sources on  Banking History

This history is a result of reading numerous books about money,  it is mostly a distillation of the research done by:

1.  Alexander Del Mar. 

His books are full of references to other authors stretching back through history. 

The History of Money in America from the Earliest Times to the Establishment of the Constitution


from Wikipedia:  Alexander del Mar


Alexander del Mar (August 9, 1836 – July 1, 1926) was an American political economist, historian, numismatist and author.  He was the first Director of the Bureau of Statistics at the U.S. Treasury Department from 1866 to 1869.

Del Mar was a rigorous historian who made important contributions to the history of money. During the mid-1890s, he was distinctly hostile to a central monetary role for gold as commodity money, championing the cause of silver and its re-monetization as a prerogative of the state.

He believed strongly in the legal function of money. Del Mar dedicated much of his free time to original research in the great libraries and coin collections of Europe on the history of monetary systems and finance.

Selected bibliography

Some works by Del Mar were announced but apparently not printed, including The politics of money and The history of money in modern countries.


Del Mar is a remarkable writer. There is stuff in him. He is the sort of man you need in America. He knows what he is about. He is the sort of man to put things right in your country, or in any country.[18]

  • From Del Mar's 1895 book History of Monetary Systems:

In the United States the same bag of coins often masquerades now as the reserve of one bank, and now of another. How far similar subterfuges are employed in the various private banking establishments of Germany is not known, and in the absence of such knowledge it is deemed safer to include the entire paper issues in the circulation. This at least is a known quantity; the " reserves," as experience has too often and too sadly proved, may only exist in the playful imagination of that fortunate class who have secured the prerogative to issue bank money.[19]

  • A la mort, l'argent! (Silver until I die!)[20]


2. Stephen Zarlenga,

The Lost Science of Money. This book is my main source for monetary history. 

3. Bernard Leitar, The Future of Money. This is my main source for understanding the nature of money.

4. David Graeber.  Debt: The First 5,000 Years

This is the human story of the devastation of debt on society and why we need a jubilee and no usury ever again.  See 

5. Ellen Brown.  Web of Debt, Public Banking Solution, and Banking on the People 

She is a real hero of mine, and I rely greatly on her research and insights.  Public Banking is realizable, we are almost there, but my strategy is much more ambitious than hers. 

6. Joseph Farrell, Babylon’s Banksters and Financial Vipers of Venice

See also 


7.  Thomas Greco, The End of Money and the Future of Civilization

This book is about the solution, but the Common Good Payment System is a better strategy than just the credit commons and business to business barter systems. 

8. Paul Grignon.   He has made a trilogy of films:  "Money as Debt" (2006, revised in 2009), "Money as Debt II - Promises Unleashed" (2009),  “Money as Debt III - Evolution Beyond Money” (2011).  See  and,-playlist-(essence,-1,-2,-3,-4,-digital-coin):9 

Especially noteworthy are"Money as Debt III - Evolution Beyond Money” , and “The Introduction to Digital Coin”.  These could be used in our Jural Assemblies for instructional purposes in creating the society that benefits everyone.

9. Adrian Kuzminski, 

Fixing the System: A History of Populism, Ancient and Modern.  See 

10. Antony Sutton,

Triology Of Western Technology And Soviet Economic Development 1917 To 1930, 1930 To 1945, 1945 To 1965 


(Feb. 14, 1925 - June 17, 2002)

Antony Suton was a British-American writer, researcher, economist, and professor.

His website:

His book, America's Secret Establishment, An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones,


From Modern History Project

Chapter 2:  How The Order Controls Education

Collectivist educational philosophy imported from Germany



11. Christopher Budd  

12. Carroll  Quigley, 

Tragedy & Hope:

A History of the World in Our Time   

My father had a photocopy of the original book, from 1963 when it was first published.  This was because it could not be purchased and it had been taken out of all the libraries.  At the time, the elites determined that it was too dangerous for people to know about the elite control at the time of the Kennedy Asassination.  But Bill Clinton decided that it needed to be made available for the conspiracy theorists to read so they could be identified more easily and ridiculed.  See 

13. Rudolf Steiner,

The Fundamental Social Law: Rudolf Steiner on the Work of the Individual and the Spirit of Community

I have lived with the idea of the Fundamental Social Law since my senior year in High School, at the Rudolf Steiner School by Central Park in New York City.  When the connection between the debt based monetary system and having to earn your living dawned on me I knew issuing money is how we would implement the Fundamental Social Law.  For more on this, see Search — Rudolf Steiner Archive (  Also see: The Fundamental Social Law: Rudolf Steiner on the Work of the Individual and the Spirit of Community: 9780880106542: Selg, Peter, Creeger, Catherine E.: Books

14.  Michael McKibben and Douglas and Tyla Gabriel, and &

They have been collaborating for many years to understand the hidden history, and the identification of the Babylonian Bankers is highly significant.  It allows us to follow the machinations of the banking elite since the beginning of recorded history.  See Michael McKibben’s website, Americans 4 Innovation: (Americans for Innovation ( and Douglas Gabriel’s website (

Here's a taste of what you will find on Michael McKibben’s website, on the Babylonian Radhanites )

The City of London is controlled by the Pilgrims Society who carry on the pagan control of the Radhanite merchant-bankers of Babylon. "The City of London Corporation" was chartered in 1067 after the coronation of William I, William the Conqueror, on Dec. 25, 1066 at Westminster Abbey.


William was Norman (French). The Babylonian Radhanites (demon-worshiping pagans who claimed to be Jews for several millennia) already had an extensive banking and trade network through Europe and, Middle East to China.


The Radhanite merchant-bankers were forced to flee Babylon (renamed Baghdad) ahead of the armies of the Muslim Seljuk Turks in 1055 A.D.—just 11 years earlier. They fanned out along their extensive network of merchant-banking centers.


In the process, they rebranded themselves as "Ashkenazi Jews." They had called themselves Jews for millennia while in Babylon, but they had created their unique pagan version that followed the Talmud, Yiddish, and rabbis, rather than the Torah, Hebrew, and Prophets.


The "Ashkenazi" adjective was an 11th century fabricated moniker with no credible basis. They had also fabricated a new trading language—Yiddish, With this newly-minted identity, these Radhanites continued to press usury, debt slavery, fiat currency and human trafficking. Secretly, they worshiped Babylon's demon-gods of the Seven Deadly Sins, most notably Mammon—the love of money through usury, which the Prophets railed against. See Fig. N. below.


In 33 A.D., Jesus Christ had overturned the trading tables of these money-changers in the Temple on the Monday of Holy Week, having earlier been very clear about the choice each person must make:


“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” Matthew 6:24.

“London is a modern Babylon”
Benjamin Disraeli, London, 1874
Imperialist, Twice British Prime Minister

“The most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated”
(The Ashkenazi/Khazarian [Fake] Jew Babylonian Radhanite merchant-banker hoax)
Sir Arthur Koestler, London, 1977
Socialist, Historian, Journalist

“British India [and America] sprang from the loins of the City of London”
A Parliament of the Press: The First Imperial Press Conference, 1909 (London), p. 54.

Organizations based in the "One Square Mile" "The City of London" Usury Lemming Zoo of Redcoats: Bank of England, BlackRock, Lloyds Bank, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, Silver Vaults, London Stock Exchange, World Gold Council, Debt Management, Warburgs, Barings, Prudential, Goldman Sachs, Goldsmiths, Rothschild & Co, N.M. Rothschild, World Bank, BNY Mellon, Patent Attorneys, London Metal Exchange (Baron Michael Farmer), Investec (Lord Mark Malloch-Brown), Barclays, Coutts Bank, Lloyd's of London (insurance), Prince's Trust (Sir Nigel Knowles—Kamala Harris' handler), Salvation Army, YMCA (walking distance), London Royal Courts of Justice, Inner Temple, Inns of Court, Fleet Street (propaganda), Tavistock Institute (mind control, brainwashing, just blocks away), Facebook (walking distance), Google, BBC (walking distance), Satchi & Satchi (propaganda), Institute of Chartered Accountants, Weil Gotshal LLP (Facebook), Gibson Dunn LLP (Facebook), Baker McKenzie LLP (Facebook, Microsoft), Int'l Press Telecommunications Council, British Telecom, Unilever, Worshipful Council of Mercers (Livery Companies), British Bankers Association—It is a cozy group of Mammon-worshiping Babylonian Radhanite pagans dressed up like "Jews" and cowardly hiding behind the ADL. Sources: Wikipedia brag pages.

The Michael Journal is a  journal of Catholic patriots for the Social Credit monetary reform.  

See .  It is a great source to understand an important movement for monetary reform. Here is the excerpt of Chapter 49 on The History of Banking Control in the United States by Alan Pilote from the Michael Journal that is pertinent to our thesis.  See

In This Age Of Plenty - Chapter 49

The dictatorship of the bankers and their debt-money system are not limited to one country, but exist in every country in the world. They are working to keep their control tight, since one country freeing itself from this dictatorship and issuing its own interest- and debt-free currency, setting the example of what an honest system could be, would be enough to bring about the worldwide collapse of the bankers’ swindling debt-money system.

This fight of the International Financiers to install their fraudulent debt-money system has been particularly vicious in the United States of America since its very foundation, and historical facts show that several American statesmen were well aware of the dishonest money system the Financiers wanted to impose upon America and of all of its harmful effects. These statesmen were real patriots, who did all that they possibly could to maintain for the USA an honest money system, free from the control of the Financiers. The Financiers did everything in their power to keep in the dark this facet of the history of the United States, for fear that the example of these patriots might still be followed today. Here are some facts that the Financiers would like the population not to know:

The Happiest Population  

We Are In 1750. The United States of America does not yet exist; it is the 13 Colonies of the American continent, forming "New England", a possession of the motherland, England. Benjamin Franklin wrote about the population of that time: "Impossible to find a happier and more prosperous population on all the surface of the globe." Going over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, Franklin was asked how he accounted for the prosperous conditions prevailing in the Colonies, while poverty was rife in the motherland:

"That is simple," Franklin replied. "In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."

The English bankers, being informed of that, had a law passed by the British Parliament prohibiting the Colonies from issuing their own money, and ordering them to use only the gold or silver debt-money that was provided in insufficient quantity by the English bankers. The circulating medium of exchange was thus reduced by half.

"In one year," Franklin stated, "the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."

Then the Revolutionary War was launched against England, and was followed by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. History textbooks erroneously teach that it was the tax on tea that triggered the American Revolution. But Franklin clearly stated:

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament: which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England, and the Revolutionary War."

The Founding Fathers of the United States, bearing all these facts in mind, and to protect themselves against the exploitation of the International Bankers, took good care to expressly declare, in the American Constitution, signed at Philadelphia in 1787, Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 5:

"Congress shall have the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof."

The Bank Of The Bankers:  

But the bankers did not give up. Their agent, Alexander Hamilton, was named Secretary of Treasury in George Washington’s cabinet, and advocated the establishment of a federal bank to be owned by private interests, and the creation of debt-money with false arguments like: "A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing... The wisdom of the Government will be shown in never trusting itself with the use of so seducing and dangerous an expedient as issuing its own money." Hamilton also made them believe that only the debt-money issued by private banks would be accepted in dealing abroad.

Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, was strongly opposed to that project, but President Washington was finally won over by Hamilton’s arguments. A federal bank was thus created in 1791, the "Bank of the United States", with a 20 years’ charter. Although it was termed "Bank of the United States", it was actually the "bank of the bankers", since it was not owned by the nation, but by individuals holding the bank’s stocks, the private bankers. This name of "Bank of the United States" was purposely chosen to deceive the American population and to make them believe that they were the owners of the bank, which was not the case. The charter for the Bank of the United States ran out in 1811, and Congress voted against its renewal, thanks to the influence of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson:

“If Congress," Jackson said, "has a right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."

Thus ended the history of the first Bank of the United States. But the bankers did not play their last card.


The Bankers Launch The War

Nathan Rothschild, of the Bank of England, issued an ultimatum: "Either the application for the renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war." Jackson and the American patriots did not believe the power of the international moneylenders could extend so far. "You are a den of thieves-vipers," Jackson told them. "I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out!" Nathan Rothschild issued orders: "Teach these impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to Colonial status."

The British Government launched the War of 1812 against the United States. Rothschild’s plan was to impoverish the United States through this war to such an extent that the legislators would have to seek financial aid... which, of course, would be forthcoming only in return for the renewal of the charter for the Bank of the United States. Thousands were killed, but what does that matter to Rothschild? He had achieved his objective; the U.S. Congress granted the renewal of the Charter in 1816.


Abraham Lincoln Is Assassinated

Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860, under the promise of abolishing the slavery of the blacks. Eleven southern States, favorable to the human slavery of the black race, then decided to secede from the Union, to withdraw from the United States of America: that was the beginning of the Civil War (1861-1865). Lincoln, being short of money to finance the North’s war effort, went to the bankers of New York, who agreed to lend him money at interest rates varying from 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln refused, knowing perfectly well that this was usury and that it would lead the United States to ruin. But his money problem was still not settled!

His friend in Chicago, Colonel Dick Taylor, came to his rescue and put the solution to him: "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes, and pay your soldiers with them, and go ahead and win your war with them also."

This is what Lincoln did, and he won the war: between 1862 and 1863, in full conformity with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln caused $450 million of debt-free Greenbacks to be issued, to conduct the Civil War. (These Treasury notes were called "Greenbacks" by the people because they were printed with green ink on the back.)


Lincoln said: "Government, possessing the power to create and issue currency and credit as money, and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by taxation and otherwise, need not and should not borrow capital at interest as the means of financing governmental work and public enterprise… The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity."

Lincoln called the Greenbacks "the greatest blessing the American people have ever had." A blessing for all, except for the bankers, since it was putting an end to their racket, to the theft of the nation’s credit and issuing interest-bearing money. So they did everything possible to destroy these Greenbacks and sabotage Lincoln’s work. Lord Goschen, spokesman of the Financiers, wrote in the London Times (Quote taken from Who Rules America by C. K. Howe, and reproduced in Lincoln Money Martyred by Dr. R. E. Search):

"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a 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. That Government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." (The monarchy of the money lenders.)

First, in order to cast discredit on the Greenbacks, the bankers persuaded Congress to vote, in February of 1862, the "Exception Clause", which said that the Greenbacks could not be used to pay the interest on the national debt, nor to pay taxes, excises, or import duties. Then, in 1863, having financed the election of enough Senators and Representatives, the bankers got the Congress to revoke the Greenback Law in 1863, and enact in its place the National Banking Act. (Money was then to be issued interest-bearing by privately-owned banks.)

This Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes. Lincoln heatedly protested, but his most urgent objective was to win the war and save the Union, which obliged him to put off till after the war the veto he was planning against this Act and the action he was to take against the bankers. Lincoln nevertheless declared:

"I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. And of the two, the bankers are my greatest foe."

Lincoln was re-elected President in 1864, and he made it quite clear that he would attack the power of the bankers, once the war was over. The war ended on April 9, 1865, but Lincoln was assassinated five days later, on April 14. A tremendous restriction of credit followed, organized by the banks: the currency in circulation in the country, which was, in 1866, $1,907 million, representing $50.46 for each American citizen, had been reduced to $605 million in 1876, representing $14.60 per capita. The result: in ten years, 56,446 business failures, representing a loss of $2 billion. And as if this was not enough, the bankers reduced the per capita currency in circulation to $6.67 in 1887!


William Jennings Bryan

“The banks ought to get out of the governing business”

Lincoln’s example nevertheless remained in several minds, as far along as 1896. That year, the Presidential candidate for the Democrats was William Jennings Bryan, and once again, history textbooks tell us that it was a good thing that he did not succeed in his bid for the Presidency, since he was against the bankers’ "sound money", the money issued as a debt, and against the gold standard. Bryan said:

"We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin and issue money is a function of Government. We believe it. Those who are opposed to it tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank, and that the Government ought to get out of the banking business. I tell them that the issue of money is a function of Government, and that the banks ought to get out of the Government business... When we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, but until this is done, there is no other reform that can be accomplished."

The Fed: The Most Gigantic Trust

Finally, on December 23, 1913, the U.S. Congress voted in the Federal Reserve Act, which took away from Congress the power to create money, and which handed over this power to the Federal Reserve Corporation. One of the rare Congressmen who had understood all the issue at stake in this Act, Representative Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. (Rep-Minnesota), father of the famous aviator, said:

"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Wilson) signs this bill, the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."


The Education Of The People

What allowed the bankers to finally obtain the complete monopoly of the control of credit in the United States? The ignorance among the population of the money question. John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, in 1787:

"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in the Constitution, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation."

Lincoln’s Secretary of Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, stated publicly, shortly after the passage of the National Banking Act, in 1863:

"My agency in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act was the greatest financial mistake of my life. It has built up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country. It should be repealed, but before that can be accomplished, the people will be arrayed on one side, and the banks on the other, in a contest such as we have never seen before in this country."

Automobile manufacturer Henry Ford said:

"If the people of the nation understood our banking and monetary system, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

The education of the people, that’s the solution! It is precisely the method advocated by the "Michael" Journal: to build a force in the people through education, so that the sovereign government of each nation will have the courage to stand up to the bankers and issue its own money, as President Lincoln did. If only all those in favour of an honest money system understood their responsibilities for spreading the "Michael" Journal! Social Credit, which would establish an economy where everything is organized to serve the human person, is precisely aiming to develop personal responsibility, to create responsible people. Each mind won over to Social Credit is an advance. Each person formed by Social Credit is a force, and each force acquired is a step towards the victory. And for the last seventy years, how many forces have been acquired!… If all of them were active, it is really before tomorrow morning that we would obtain the implementation of the Social Credit proposals!

As Louis Even wrote in 1960: "The obstacle is neither the financier, nor the politician, nor any avowed enemy. The obstacle lies in the passivity of too many Social Crediters who hope for the coming of the triumph of the Cause, but who leave it up to others to promote it."

In short, it is our refusal to take on our responsibilities that delays the implementation of Social Credit, of an honest money system. "Much will be asked of the man to whom much has been given" (Luke 12:48). Examine your consciences, dear Social Creditors; personal conversion, one more step, let us take on our responsibilities: the victory has never been so close! Our responsibility is to make Social Credit known to others, by having them subscribe to the "Michael" Journal, the only publication that makes this brilliant solution known.

Social Credit Bill Passed By The Us Congress In 1932

It is the education of the people that is necessary. Once the pressure from the public is strong enough, all the parties will agree with it. A fine example of this can be found in the Goldsborough bill of 1932, which was described by an author as a "Social Credit bill" and "the closest near-miss monetary reform for the establishment of a real sound money system in the United States":

"An overwhelming majority of the U.S. Congress (289 to 60) favored it as early as 1932, and in one form or another it has persisted since. Only the futile hope that a confident new President (Roosevelt) could restore prosperity without abandoning the credit-money system America had inherited kept Social Credit from becoming the law of the land. By 1936, when the New Deal (Roosevelt’s solution) had proved incapable of dealing effectively with the Depression, the proponents of Social Credit were back again in strength. The last significant effort to gain its adoption came in 1938." (W.E. Turner, Stable Money, p. 167.)

Even the dividend and the compensated discount, two essential parts of Social Credit, were mentioned in this bill, which was the "Goldsborough bill", after the Democratic Representative of Maryland, T. Allan Goldsborough, who presented it in the House for the first time on May 2, 1932.

Two persons who supported the bill especially hold our attention: Robert L. Owen, Senator of Oklahoma from 1907 to 1925 (a national bank director for 46 years), and Charles G. Binderup, Representative of Nebraska. Owen published an article, in March of 1936, in J. J. Harpell’s publication, "The Instructor", of which Louis Even was the assistant editor. As for Binderup, he gave several speeches on radio in the USA during the Depression, explaining the damaging effects of the control of credit by private interests.

Robert Owen testified in the House, April 28, 1936: "...the bill which he (Goldsborough) then presented, with the approval of the Committee on Banking and Currency of the House — and I believe it was practically a unanimous report. It was debated for two days in the House, a very simple bill, declaring it to be the policy of the United States to restore and maintain the value of money, and directing the Secretary of the Treasury, the officers of the Federal Reserve Board, and the Reserve banks to make effective that policy. That was all, but enough, and it passed, not by a partisan vote. There were 117 Republicans who voted for that bill (which was presented by a Democrat) and it passed by 289 to 60, and of the 60 who voted against it, only 12, by the will of the people, remain in the Congress.

"It was defeated by the Senate, because it was not really understood. There had not been sufficient discussion of it in public. There was not an organized public opinion in support of it."

Once again, education is the main issue: Republicans and Democrats alike supported it, so there was no need for a third party or any sort of "Social Credit" party. Moreover, Owen admitted that the only thing that was lacking was the education of the population, a force among the people. That confirms the method used by the "Michael" Journal, advocated by Clifford Hugh Douglas and Louis Even.

The Goldsborough bill was titled: "A bill to restore to Congress its Constitutional power to issue money and regulate the value thereof, to provide monetary income to the people of the United States at a fixed and equitable purchasing power of the dollar, ample at all times to enable the people to buy wanted goods and services at full capacity of the industries and commercial facilities of the United States... The present system of issuing money through private initiative for profit, resulting in recurrent disastrous inflations and deflations, shall cease."

The bill also made provision for a discount on prices to be compensated to the retailer, and for a national dividend to be issued, beginning at $5 a month (in 1932) to every citizen of the nation. Several groups testified in support of the bill, stressing the bill provided the means of controlling inflation.

Ignorance Among The Population

The most ardent opponent in the Senate was Carter Glass, a fierce partisan of the Federal Reserve (private control of money) and a former Secretary of the Treasury. Besides, Henry Morgenthau, then Roosevelt’s Secretary of Treasury, who was strongly opposed to any monetary reform, said that Roosevelt’s New Deal should be given a trial first.

What mostly helped the opponents to the bill was the near ignorance of the money question among the population... and even in the Senate.

Some Senators, knowing nothing about the creation of money (credit) by banks, exclaimed: "The Government cannot create money like that! That will cause runaway inflation!" And others, while admitting the necessity for debt-free money, questioned the necessity for a dividend, or the compensated discount. But all these objections actually disappear after a serious study of Social Credit.


Quotes On Money

"Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes its laws." — Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founding father of international finance.


"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." — US President James Madison.

"The money power denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes." — William Jennings Bryan.

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." — US President James A. Garfield.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from the bankers and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and to control credit." — Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1940.

"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." — John K. Galbraith, in "Money: Whence it came, where it went", p. 29.

"The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn’t quite realise it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must all be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create credit."

 — H. W. White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand, to the New Zealand Monetary Commission, 1955.


Thomas Edison and Henry Ford

Let us bring an end to this lesson with the quotations of two great American citizens, Henry Ford and Thomas Edison: 

"Throughout our history some of America’s greatest men have sought to break the Hamiltonian imprint (Alexander Hamilton’s debt-money policy) on our monetary policy in order to substitute a stable money supply measured to the nation’s physical requirements. Lack of public and official understanding, combined with the power of banking interests who have imagined a vested interest in the present chaotic system, have so far thwarted every effort.

"Don’t allow them to confuse you with the cry of `paper money.’ The danger of paper money is precisely the danger of gold — if you get too much it is no good. There is just one rule for money and that is to have enough to carry on all the legitimate trade that is waiting to move. Too little and too much are both bad. But enough to move trade, enough to prevent stagnation, on the one hand, not enough to permit speculation, on the other hand, is the proper ratio…

"If the United States will adopt this policy of increasing its national wealth without contributing to the interest collector — for the whole national debt is made up of interest charges — then you will see an era of progress and prosperity in this country such as could never have come otherwise."

And a call from Henry Ford: "The youth who can resolve the money question will do more for the world than all the professional soldiers of history."

The Doctrine of Discovery  

From World 

The Doctrine of Discovery is a policy enacted initially by the 15th-century Catholic Church proclaiming the right of Christian nations to take possession of the lands of non-Christians in the interest of saving their souls. Non-Christians were not recognized as legitimate landowners, and any lands 'discovered' by Christian explorers were claimed as the property of the discoverers' nation.

The Doctrine of Discovery (also known as the Discovery Doctrine) is articulated, first, by a papal bull issued in 1452, another in 1455, and the best-known in 1493, shortly after the 1492 expedition of Christopher Columbus and his 'discovery' of the so-called New World. The 1493 papal bull made clear the duty of Christian explorers to seize the lands of non-Christians for the purpose of Christianizing the inhabitants and bringing them within the folds of European Christian civilization.  

The Doctrine of Discovery was used to legitimize genocide against the American Indians.

Excerpt from The Lost Science of Money , page 210


Pope Nicholas V had made it clear enough in 1450: "We after scrupulous reflection, are granting by our Bull full and entire freedom to King Alphonso to conquer, to besiege, to fight, and to submit all the Saracens, Pagans, and other enemies of Christ, wherever they may be; and to seize the Kingdoms the Dukedoms, the Princedoms, the Lordships, personal properties, landed properties, and all the wealth they withhold and possess; and to submit these persons to a perpetual slavery; to appropriate these Kingdoms, Duchies, Principalities, Counties, lordships, properties and wealth; to transmit them to their suc­cessors; to take advantage and make use of them personally and with their offspring."

The Lords of Trade

from The Lost Science of Money, page 377


More than anything else it was The Lords of Trade's monetary suppressions that led to the Revolution:  

"There can be little doubt that the acts of 1751 and 1764, which suppressed further issues of bills of credit, contributed not a little to the final breach with the Mother country,' admitted Bullock, " .. .In 1776 when he was examined before the House of Commons, Franklin gave it as his deliberate opinion that one reason for the impatience and disrespect which the colonies were manifesting toward Parliamentary authority was 'the prohibition of making paper money.' Too little attention has been given to this fact by most American historians," Bullock recognized, and noted that:  

"In colony after colony, party lines came to be drawn upon this sole issue.”  

"There can be no doubt that the bitterness engendered by this conflict was one great cause of the Revolution," wrote Sumner, another commodity money advocate.  

Del Mar was more to the point: "But the narrow minded and selfish London merchants and bankers, who influenced the government at this period, would not permit the colonies to have their own monetary system ... accordingly orders were sent to America to put down the colonial money and enforce the falsely named "national," but really private [English] money .. .it was the enforcement of this policy that brought on the Revolution ... ," wrote Del Mar, and led to establishing an order of society that had been "forgotten for 18 centuries"- a republic.  

By 1773 London reconsidered, and allowed colonial legislatures more leeway in issuing various forms of paper money. But it was too little, too late; the colonists "rejected any parliamentary interference with their control over money," wrote Emst.

Colonial Scrip  
Read this amazing historical story our teachers never taught us.... is where I got this story, maybe 20 years ago.  It is no longer there. 

This same story is also in the Michael Journal:  I did find this book:  Lightning Over the Treasury Building , Chapter 4, by John R Elsom online and this link takes us to substantially the same story. 

which is more detailed and damning than Binderup’s version and is well worth reading.

(Much of the following historical material is taken from a radio address given a half century ago by the late Congressman Charles G. Binderup, of Nebraska, and compiled by Mrs. Lucie Boulrice, 1133 Liberty, Springfield, MA 01104. For more information, you may write or call her at (413) 737-3080. 

How America created its own money in 1750 

Benjamin Franklin tells what made New England prosperous 

Colonies were more prosperous than the home country 

Before the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the war that followed, the colonized part of what is today the United States of America was a Crown possession of England. It was called New England, and was made up of 13 colonies, which became the original states of the great Republic.

In 1750, this New England was very prosperous. Benjamin Franklin wrote:  "There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace reigned on every border. It was difficult, even impossible, to find a happier and more prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe. Comfort prevailed in every home. The people, in general, kept the highest moral standards, and education was widely spread."

When Franklin went over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, he saw a completely different situation; the working population of the home country was gnawed by hunger and plagued by inescapable poverty. "The streets are covered with beggars and tramps," he wrote. He asked his English friends how England, with all its wealth, could have so much poverty among its working classes. His friends replied that England was prey to a terrible condition; it had too many workers! The rich said they were already overburdened with taxes, and could not pay more to relieve the needs and poverty of this great mass of workers. Several rich Englishmen of that time actually believed what economist Thomas Malthus later wrote, that wars and epidemic disease were necessary to rid the country from "manpower surpluses."

People in London asked Franklin how the American Colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poorhouses, and how they could overcome this plague of unemployment and pauperism.  

Thanks to debt-free money issued by the colonial governments Franklin replied; "We have no poorhouses in the Colonies, and if we had some, there would be no one to put in them, since in the Colonies there is not a single unemployed person, not a beggar nor a tramp."

His friends could not believe their ears, or understand how this could be. They knew when the English poorhouses and jails became too cluttered, England shipped the wretched inmates like cattle, to be dumped on the quays of the Colonies if they survived the filth and privations of the sea voyage. (In those days English debtors went to jail if they could not pay their debts, and few escaped, since in jail they could not earn money.) 

Franklin's acquaintances, in view of all this, asked him how he could explain the remarkable prosperity of the New England Colonies.  Franklin told them: "Why, that is simple! In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It's called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it to pay the government's approved expenses and charities. We make sure it's issued in proper proportion to make the goods pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In other words, we make sure there is always adequate money in circulation for the needs of the economy. 

"In this manner, by creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay, to anyone. You see, a legitimate government can both spend and lend money into circulation, while banks can only lend significant amounts of their promissory bank notes, for they can neither give away nor spend but a tiny fraction of the money the people need. Thus, when our bankers here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt principal to be returned and usury to be paid. The result is that we have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. We do not have too many workers, we have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury."

English Bankers impose poverty on the Colonies.

Franklin should not have been so free with his advice, which soon came to the attention of the powerful English Bankers. They quickly used their influence to have the British Parliament pass a law that prohibited the Colonies from using their Colonial Scrip money. The new law ordered them to use only credit redeemable in gold and silver coins that were provided in insufficient quantity by the banks of England.

And so began in America the plague of debt-based money, which has ever since brought as many hardships to the American people, as it has to Europeans.

The first law regulating Colonial money was passed by the British Parliament 1751, then expanded by a more restrictive law in 1763. Franklin reported that only one year after implementation of the prohibition on Colonial Scrip, the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed and beggars, just like those he had seen in England, because there was not enough money to pay for their goods and work. The English Banker's new laws had reduced the circulating medium by half.  

Franklin added that this was "the original and true cause of the American Revolution;" and not the tax on tea or the Stamp Act, as has been taught our children for generations in "history" books. The Financiers (bankers) of every generation manage to have removed from school books any information that can throw light on their own schemes and fraudulent actions that protect their power over the people.

Franklin, one of the chief architects of American independence, put it clearly: "The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been for the poverty created by the bad influence of the English Bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War." 

Other great statesmen of that era, including Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Jackson confirmed this point of view held by Franklin; and later by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy both issued sovereign money, James Garfield tried, and all three died in office.

A remarkably honest English historian, John Twells, speaking of the money of the Colonies, their Colonial Scrip, wrote: "It was the monetary system under which America's Colonies flourished to such an extent that Edmund Burke was able to write about them: 'Nothing in the history of the world resembles their progress. It was a sound and beneficial system, and its effects led to the happiness of the people.' "

John Twells added: "In a bad hour, the British Parliament took away from America its own scrip money, forbade any further issue of such bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all taxes should be paid in British coins. Consider now the consequences: this restriction of the medium of exchange paralyzed all the industrial energies of the people. Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies; most rigorous distress visited every family and every business, discontent became desperation, and reached a point, to use the words of Dr. Johnson, when human nature rises up and asserts its rights."

Another historical writer, Peter Cooper, expressed himself along the same lines. After saying how Franklin had explained to members of Parliament the reason for the prosperity of the Colonies, Cooper wrote:  "After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, the Parliament enacted laws forbidding the use of this money in the payment of taxes. This decree, clearly in the interest of the British bankers who stood behind the Crown, brought so many drawbacks and so much poverty to the people that it was the main cause of the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much more important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp Acts."

DANGER! The Scrip of the Bankers has Taken over America.

Today, in America as well as in Europe, we are under the regime of the Scrip of the Bankers instead of the scrip of the sovereign nations. Hence the enormous public debts, everlasting interest (usury) charges, taxes that plunder purchasing power and rob the production of the people, with the result being more and more consolidation of the financial dictatorship. 

Where shall we start to correct the fraud of the bankers? 

The first step in the monetary reform being advocated by more and more action groups of educated and intelligent people is precisely the replacement of the banks' debt money by debt-free money issued by the Constitutionally mandated sovereign government of the nation, the United States Congress, and elsewhere, the British Parliament, and similar governments. It is the duty of those governments to serve and protect their people, not allow financial robber barons to destroy them. 


Pujo Committee “MoneyTrust”

Pujo Committee “Money Trust” Wall Street Banking Cartel Investigation 1912-1913  

In 1912, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, Arsene P. Pujo convened a special subcommittee to investigate the “money trust”.  The “money trust" refers to a small group of Wall Street bankers who wielded a powerful control over the nation’s finances. 

Excerpts from the Introduction from the public intelligence website:

For those who wish to understand the true nature of our current financial system, the Pujo Committee’s 1912-1913 investigation of the “Money Trust” is instructive.  The Committee identified a concentrated group of Wall Street bankers who operated a sophisticated financial network unified by 341 interlocking directorships held in 112 corporations valued at more than $22 billion in resources and capitalization exerting significant control and influence over the U.S. economy and monetary system.  The companies and individuals comprising this network were primarily agents of the Morgan and Rockefeller banking empires which dominated U.S. finance following the “Industrial Revolution”.  The Committee names a number of prominent banking institutions as participating in this system including J.P. Morgan & Co., First National Bank of New York, Kuhn Loeb & Co. and individuals such as Paul Warburg, Jacob H. Schiff, Felix M. Warburg, Frank E. Peabody, William Rockefeller and Benjamin Strong, Jr.  Understanding this system of overlapping financial networks and how those networks were used to dominate utilities, railroads, banking and the U.S. financial infrastructure throughout much of the twentieth century is key to the proper analysis of our current economic situation and the influence that the “Money Power” wields over global politics.

…The committee’s majority report concluded that a group of financial leaders had abused the public trust to consolidate control over many industries. The Pujo Committee report created a climate of public opinion that lead to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914.

….The hearings were conducted between May 16, 1912 and February 26, 1913. The transcript of the hearings was published in three volumes. It is presented in the original 29 parts with the index, a table of interlocking directorates of 18 financial institutions, and the majority/minority report of the committee.

There is much more on the website.

Here is a more interesting and truthful take on the Pujo Committee. The 'Money Trust' Hearings (1912) from 

The speeches of Senator LaFollette and Congressman Lindbergh became rallying points of opposition to the Aldrich Plan in 1912. They also aroused popular feeling against the Money Trust. Congressman Lindbergh said, on December 15, 1911

“Senator LaFollette publicly charged that a money trust of fifty men controlled the United States. George F. Baker., partner of J.P. Morgan, on being queried by reporters as to the truth of the charge, replied that it was absolutely in error. He said that he knew from personal knowledge that not more than eight men ran this country.

The Nation Magazine replied editorially to Senator LaFollette that "If there is a Money Trust, it will not be practical to establish that it exercises its influence either for good or for bad."

Senator LaFollette remarks in his memoirs that his speech against the Money Trust later cost him the Presidency of the United States, just as Woodrow Wilson's early support of the Aldrich Plan had brought him into consideration for that office.

Congress finally made a gesture to appease popular feeling by appointing a committee to investigate the control of money and credit in the United States. This was the Pujo Committee, a subcommittee of the House Banking and Currency Committee which conducted the famous "Money Trust" hearings in 1912, under the leadership of Congressman Arsene Pujo of Louisiana who was regarded as a spokesman for the oil interests. These hearings were deliberately dragged on for five months, and resulted in six-thousand pages of printed testimony in four volumes. Month after month, the bankers made the train trip from New York to Washington, testified before the Committee and returned to New York. The hearings were extremely dull, and no startling information turned up at these sessions. The bankers solemnly admitted that they were indeed bankers, insisted that they always operated in the public interest, and claimed that they were animated only by the highest ideals of public service, like the Congressmen before whom they were testifying.

The paradoxical nature of the Pujo Money Trust Hearings may better be understood if we examine the man who single-handedly carried on these hearings, Samuel Untermyer. He was one of the principal contributors to Woodrow Wilson's Presidential campaign fund, and was one of the wealthiest corporation lawyers in New York. He states in his autobiography in "Who's Who" of 1926 that he once received a $775,000 fee for a single legal transaction, the successful merger of the Utah Copper Company and the Boston Consolidated and Nevada Company, a firm with a market value of one hundred million dollars. He refused to ask either Senator LaFollette or Congressman Lindbergh to testify in the investigation which they alone had forced Congress to hold. As Special Counsel for the Pujo Committee, Untermyer ran the hearings as a one-man operation. The Congressional members, including its chairman, Congressman Arsene Pujo, seemed to have been struck dumb from the commencement of the hearings to their conclusion. One of these silent servants of the public was Congressman James Byrnes, of South Carolina, representing Bernard Baruch's home district, who later achieved fame as "Baruch's man", and was placed by Baruch in charge of the Office of War Mobilization during the Second World War.

Although he was a specialist in such matters, Untermyer did not ask any of the bankers about the system of interlocking directorates through which they controlled industry. He did not go into international gold movements, which were known as a factor in money panics, or the international relationships between American bankers and European bankers. The international banking houses of Eugene Meyer, Lazard Freres, J. & W. Seligman, Ladenburg Thalmann, Speyer Brothers, M.M. Warburg, and the Rothschild Brothers did not arouse Samuel Untermyer's curiosity, although it was well known in the New York financial world that all of these family banking houses either had branches or controlled subsidiary houses in Wall Street. When Jacob Schiff appeared before the Pujo Committee, Mr. Untermyer's adroit questioning allowed Mr. Schiff to talk for many minutes without revealing any information about the operations of the banking house of Kuhn Loeb Company, of which he was senior partner, and which Senator Robert L. Owen had identified as the representative of the European Rothschilds in the United States.

The aging J.P. Morgan, who had only a few more months to live, appeared before the Committee to justify his decades of international financial deals. He stated for Mr. Untermyer's edification that "Money is a commodity." This was a favorite ploy of the money creators, as they wished to make the public believe that the creation of money was a natural occurrence akin to the growing of a field of corn, although it was actually a bounty conferred upon the bankers by governments over which they had gained control.

J.P. Morgan also told the Pujo Committee that, in making a loan, he seriously considered only one factor, a man's character; even the man's ability to repay the loan, or his collateral, were of little importance. This astonishing observation startled even the blase members of the Committee.

The farce of the Pujo Committee ended without a single well-known opponent of the money creators being allowed to appear or testify. As far as Samuel Untermyer was concerned, Senator LaFollette and Congressman Charles Augustus Lindbergh had never existed. Nevertheless, these Congressmen had managed to convince the people of the United States that the New York bankers did have a monopoly on the nation's money and credit. At the close of the hearings, the bankers and their subsidized newspapers claimed that the only way to break this monopoly was to enact the banking and currency legislation now being proposed to Congress, a bill which would be passed a year later as the Federal Reserve Act. The press seriously demanded that the New York banking monopoly be broken by turning over the administration of the new banking system to the most knowledgeable banker of them all, Paul Warburg.”

List of grievances  

From the Declaration of Independence

Text of the Declaration of Independence | Declaration Resources Project (

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

And the paragraph about slavery that was left out.

["He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither."]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.


Trumbull's famous picture of the Declaration of Independence.
List of Signers by State

Fifty-six delegates eventually signed the Declaration of Independence:

President of Congress

1. John Hancock (Massachusetts Bay)

New Hampshire

2. Josiah Bartlett

3. William Whipple

4. Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts Bay

5. Samuel Adams

6. John Adams

7. Robert Treat Paine

8. Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

9. Stephen Hopkins

10. William Ellery


11. Roger Sherman

12. Samuel Huntington

13. William Williams

14. Oliver Wolcott

New York

15. William Floyd

16. Philip Livingston

17. Francis Lewis

18. Lewis Morris

New Jersey

19. Richard Stockton

20. John Witherspoon

21. Francis Hopkinson

22. John Hart

23. Abraham Clark


24. Robert Morris

25. Benjamin Rush

26. Benjamin Franklin

27. John Morton

28. George Clymer

29. James Smith

30. George Taylor

31. James Wilson

32. George Ross


33. Caesar Rodney

34. George Read

35. Thomas McKean


36. Samuel Chase

37. William Paca

38. Thomas Stone

39. Charles Carroll of Carrollton


40. George Wythe

41. Richard Henry Lee

42. Thomas Jefferson

43. Benjamin Harrison

44. Thomas Nelson, Jr.

45. Francis Lightfoot Lee

46. Carter Braxton

North Carolina

47. William Hooper

48. Joseph Hewes

49. John Penn

South Carolina

50. Edward Rutledge

51. Thomas Heyward, Jr.

52. Thomas Lynch, Jr.

53. Arthur Middleton


54. Button Gwinnett

55. Lyman Hall

56. George Walton

List of Signers of the Declaration of Independence from the website: 





Brief History 

It is very important to know that the Official Story says that the Jews were the lenders on usury, but the true story is that they were not the Jews of the bible, they were not Semites.  They were the Babylonian Rhadenites who claimed to be Ashkenazi Jews who adopted a facade of Judaism so that they could take advantage of the Bible legitimizing Jews lending to Christians.  The Protestant Reformation was set in motion and guided by the hidden hand of the intergenerational organized crime syndicate inspired by and held together by Satanic rituals that got its start in Sumer, by exploiting the Gold Silver ratio, and that today is behind the Illuminati that recruit from the Masonic Order and have engineered the American Empire and destroyed the Republic for their benefit.  They are the force behind the technocratic, transhumanist, totalitarian tyranny coming at us like a tsunami.   And their wealth and power is all based on money as valuable in itself and usury.  


This view of history is available in numerous books by authors who documented the original sources from the historical period of each development.  See, for example, A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind by Stephen Mitford Goodson 

The following excerpt is from the Ayn Rand website.  See  

Our brief history begins with Aristotle’s view on the subject.


The practice of lending money at interest was met with hostility as far back as ancient Greece, and even Aristotle (384–322 b.c.) believed the practice to be unnatural and unjust. In the first book of Politics he writes:

The most hated sort [of moneymaking], and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural use of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term Usury which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money, because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of making money this is the most unnatural.

Aristotle believed that charging interest was immoral because money is not productive. If you allow someone to use your orchard, he argued, the orchard bears fruit every year—it is productive—and from this product the person can pay you rent. But money, Aristotle thought, is merely a medium of exchange. When you loan someone money, he receives no value over and above the money itself. The money does not create more money—it is barren. On this view, an exchange of $100 today for $100 plus $10 in interest a year from now is unjust, because the lender thereby receives more than he gave, and what he gave could not have brought about the 10 percent increase. Making money from money, according to Aristotle, is “unnatural” because money, unlike an orchard, cannot produce additional value. …


….Aristotle’s economic and moral view of usury was reflected in ancient culture for a few hundred years, but moral condemnation of the practice became increasingly pronounced. The Greek writer Plutarch (46–127 a.d.), for example, in his essay “Against Running In Debt, Or Taking Up Money Upon Usury,” described usurers as “wretched,” “vulture-like,” and “barbarous.” In Roman culture, Seneca (ca. 4 b.c.–65 a.d.) condemned usury for the same reasons as Aristotle; Cato the Elder (234–149 b.c.) famously compared usury to murder;3 and Cicero (106–43 b.c.) wrote that “these profits are despicable which incur the hatred of men, such as those of . . . lenders of money on usury.”

As hostile as the Greeks and Romans generally were toward usury, their hostility was based primarily on their economic view of the practice, which gave rise to and was integrated with their moral view of usury. The Christians, however, were another matter, and their position on usury would become the reigning position in Western thought up to the present day….

….During the Dark Ages, the concept of an economy had little meaning. Human society had reverted to a pre civilized state, and the primary means of trade was barter. Money all but disappeared from European commerce for centuries. There was, of course, some trade and some lending, but most loans were made with goods, and the interest was charged in goods. These barter-based loans, primitive though they were, enabled people to survive the tough times that were inevitable in an agrarian society.

Yet the church violently opposed even such subsistence-level lending.

During this period, the Bible was considered the basic source of knowledge and thus the final word on all matters of importance. For every substantive question and problem, scholars consulted scripture for answers—and the Bible clearly opposed usury. In the Old Testament, God says to the Jews: “[He that] Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live . . . he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.”  Ezekiel 18:13. And:

Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money; usury of victuals; usury of anything that is lent upon usury.

Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury, that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.  Deuteronomy 23:19–20.


In one breath, God forbade usury outright; in another, He forbade the Jews to engage in usury with other Jews but permitted them to make loans at interest to non-Jews.

Although the New Testament does not condemn usury explicitly, it makes clear that one’s moral duty is to help those in need, and thus to give to others one’s own money or goods without the expectation of anything in return—neither interest nor principal. As Luke plainly states, “lend, hoping for nothing again.” Jesus’ expulsion of the moneychangers from the temple is precisely a parable conveying the Christian notion that profit is evil, particularly profit generated by moneylending. Christian morality, the morality of divinely mandated altruism, expounds the virtue of self-sacrifice on behalf of the poor and the weak; it condemns self-interested actions, such as profiting—especially profiting from a seemingly exploitative and unproductive activity such as usury.

Although Jews were legally permitted to lend to Christians—and although Christians saw some practical need to borrow from them and chose to do so—Christians resented this relationship. Jews appeared to be making money on the backs of Christians while engaging in an activity biblically prohibited to Christians on punishment of eternal damnation. Christians, accordingly, held these Jewish usurers in contempt. (Important roots of anti-Semitism lie in this biblically structured relationship.)

Opposition to Jewish usurers was often violent. In 1190, the Jews of York were massacred in an attack planned by members of the nobility who owed money to the Jews and sought to absolve the debt through violence. During this and many other attacks on Jewish communities, accounting records were destroyed and Jews were murdered. As European historian Joseph Patrick Byrne reports:

“Money was the reason the Jews were killed, for had they been poor, and had not the lords of the land been indebted to them, they would not have been killed.”  But the “lords” were not the only debtors: the working class and underclass apparently owed a great deal, and these violent pogroms gave them the opportunity to destroy records of debt as well as the creditors themselves.” ….

…Like the Greeks and Romans, Christian thinkers viewed certain economic transactions as zero-sum phenomena, in which a winner always entailed a loser. In the practice of usury, the lender seemed to grow richer without effort—so it had to be at the expense of the borrower, who became poorer. But the Christians’ economic hostility toward usury was grounded in and fueled by biblical pronouncements against the practice—and this made a substantial difference. The combination of economic and biblical strikes against usury—with an emphasis on the latter—led the Church to utterly vilify the usurer, who became a universal symbol for evil. Stories describing the moneylenders’ horrible deaths and horrific existence in Hell were common. One bishop put it concisely:

God created three types of men: peasants and other laborers to assure the subsistence of the others, knights to defend them, and clerics to govern them. But the devil created a fourth group, the usurers. They do not participate in men’s labors, and they will not be punished with men, but with the demons. For the amount of money they receive from usury corresponds to the amount of wood sent to Hell to burn them.  ….

Renaissance and Reformation

The start of the 16th century brought about a commercial boom in Europe. It was the Golden Age of Exploration. Trade routes opened to the New World and expanded to the East, bringing unprecedented trade and wealth to Europe. To fund this trade, to supply credit for commerce and the beginnings of industry, banks were established throughout Europe. Genoese and German bankers funded Spanish and Portuguese exploration and the importation of New World gold and silver. Part of what made this financial activity possible was the new tolerance, in some cities, of usury….

…Martin Luther (1483–1546), a leader of the Reformation, believed that usury was inevitable and should be permitted to some extent by civil law. Luther believed in the separation of civil law and Christian ethics. This view, however, resulted not from a belief in the separation of state and religion, but from his belief that the world and man were too corrupt to be guided by Christianity. Christian ethics and the Old Testament commandments, he argued, are utopian dreams, unconnected with political or economic reality. He deemed usury unpreventable and thus a matter for the secular authorities, who should permit the practice and control it.

However, Luther still considered usury a grave sin, and in his later years wrote:

“[T]here is on earth no greater enemy of man, after the Devil, than a gripe-money and usurer, for he wants to be God over all men. . . . And since we break on the wheel and behead highwaymen, murderers, and housebreakers, how much more ought we to break on the wheel and kill . . . hunt down, curse, and behead all usurers!” …..


…John Calvin, (1509–1564), another Reformation theologian, had a more lenient view than Luther. He rejected the notion that usury is actually banned in the Bible. Since Jews are allowed to charge interest from strangers, God cannot be against usury. It would be fantastic, Calvin thought, to imagine that by “strangers” God meant the enemies of the Jews; and it would be most unchristian to legalize discrimination. According to Calvin, usury does not always conflict with God’s law, so not all usurers need to be damned. There is a difference, he believed, between taking usury in the course of business and setting up business as a usurer. If a person collects interest on only one occasion, he is not a usurer. The crucial issue, Calvin thought, is the motive. If the motive is to help others, usury is good, but if the motive is personal profit, usury is evil.

Calvin claimed that the moral status of usury should be determined by the golden rule. It should be allowed only insofar as it does not run counter to Christian fairness and charity. Interest should never be charged to a man in urgent need, or to a poor man; the “welfare of the state” should always be considered. But it could be charged in cases where the borrower is wealthy and the interest will be used for Christian good. Thus he concluded that interest could neither be universally condemned nor universally permitted—but that, to protect the poor, a maximum rate should be set by law and never exceeded. ….


…The prevailing view that emerged in the late 16th century (and that, to a large extent, is still with us today) is that money is not barren and that usury plays a productive role in the economy. Usury, however, is unchristian; it is motivated by a desire for profit and can be used to exploit the poor. It can be practical, but it is not moral; therefore, it should be controlled by the state and subjected to regulation in order to restrain the rich and protect the poor.

This Christian view has influenced almost all attitudes about usury since. In a sense, Luther and Calvin are responsible for today’s so-called “capitalism.” They are responsible for the guilt many people feel from making money and the guilt that causes people to eagerly regulate the functions of capitalists. Moreover, the Protestants were the first to explicitly assert and sanction the moral-practical dichotomy—the idea that the moral and the practical are necessarily at odds. Because of original sin, the Protestants argued, men are incapable of being good, and thus concessions must be made in accordance with their wicked nature. Men must be permitted to some extent to engage in practical matters such as usury, even though such practices are immoral….."


Protestant Reformation

By identifying and then funding the rebellious priests such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, whose interpretation of the Bible led to the protestant work ethic, the ban on interest bearing debt was gradually removed, and usury became defined as excessive interest. 

In The Lost Science of Money, Zarlenga describes the shift of the usurers from Rome to Antwerp and how they undermined the dominance of the Church with its ban on usury by having the bible translated into the common languages and printing and distributing millions of them.  From The Lost Science of Money, page 237:


The Jewish press of Joseph Athias "claimed to have printed so many Bibles in English that every servingmaid and ploughboy might aspire to own one," wrote Van Dillen. Herbert Bloom puts the number of Athias Bibles at one million, with destinations of England and Scotland.

Sending a million Bibles to England had far reaching political effects and Athias was not the only Bible printer. The most notable was Rabbi Manasseh Ben Israel (1604-1657), who began printing in 1627. According to Tovey, Manasseh had converted to Judaism; his wife was of the Arabanel family, which claimed a direct line to David of Biblical fame.  But this may have been put out for English consumption, as it is not mentioned in the modem Jewish Encyclopaedia.

Manasseh is credited with printing the first Hebrew book and printed mostly Bibles. He engaged in grandiose geopolitical operations, especially in his relations with Oliver Cromwell. In Chapter 10 we discuss how he led efforts to gain readmission of the Jews to England, who had been banned there since 1290 for clipping the English coinage.


From The Lost Science of Money, page 256 (emphasis added in bold):


Thomas Hobbs, the renowned 17th century theorist on government power, provides rare insight on the destruction of the monarchy in his major, though suppressed work, Behemoth (not Leviathan!) …

"The seducers were of divers sorts. One sort was the ministers,

'Ministers of Christ' (as they called themselves) ... and sometimes 'Gods

Ambassadors' (commonly called Presbyterians) 

"(others) were papists .. .independents for religious freedom, Anabaptists ... Fifth Monarchy Men ... Quakers, Adamites, etc. "And these were the enemies which arose against his majesty from the private interpretation of the scripture, which had been exposed to every man's scanning in his mother tongue."  


"For after the Bible was translated into English every man, - nay every boy and wench that could read English, - thought they spoke with God almighty ... and every man became a Judge of religion and an interpreter of the scripture for himself."

From The Lost Science of Money, page 203 regarding the Scholastics

…Neither a complete ban on interest, mistakenly attributed to the Church, nor a laissez-faire approach would be correct in principal, or workable in practice.

Nor is the solution some halfway mixing of these extremes. The question is complex and must be dealt with intelligently. Helping to identify the correct monetary approach to this question is a central theme of our work. Understanding the monetary concepts presented here is a pre-condition for resolving the usury problem.

We saw that Calvin's bibliolatry, his deification of the Bible as the absolute word of God, set in motion forces that still afflict us, especially in modern day America. The destructive effects of this Bible worship are visible in political discussions, especially, for example, on talk radio. To hear the voices of ill educated men and women confidently airing insane views, must rank among the most demoralizing things that the good intelligent youth of this nation endure daily.

In leaving the Scholastics, we especially note their inability to understand the monetary importance of bank created credits. Thus later thinkers and legal systems, looking back to the scholastics for guidance, did not properly understand and limit the use of bank credits as money. Society continues to pay the price for that major oversight; but we make proposals in Chapter 24 to rectify it.


Thomas Aquinas   

The following excerpt is from the oll.libertyfund website.  They got the information from this Source: Aquinas Ethicus: or, the Moral Teaching of St. Thomas. A Translation of the Principal Portions of the Second part of the Summa Theologica, with Notes by Joseph Rickaby, S.J. (London: Burns and Oates, 1892). Vol. 2.  See


Article I.—Is it a sin to take usury for the lending of money?

R: To take usury for the lending of money is in itself unjust, because it is a case of selling what is non-existent; and that is manifestly the setting up of an inequality contrary to justice. In evidence of this we must observe that there are certain things, the use of which is the consumption of the thing; as we consume wine by using it to drink, and we consume wheat by using it for food. Hence in such things the use of the thing ought not to be reckoned apart from the thing itself; but whosoever has the use granted to him, has thereby granted to him the thing; and therefore in such things lending means the transference of ownership. If therefore any vendor wanted to make two separate sales, one of the wine and the other of the use of the wine, he would be selling the same thing twice over, or selling the non-existent: hence clearly he would be committing the sin of injustice. And in like manner he commits injustice, who lends wine or wheat, asking a double recompense to be given him, one a return of an equal commodity, another a price for the use of the commodity, which price of use is called usury. 

But there are things the use of which is not the consuming of the thing: thus the use of a house is inhabiting it, not destroying it. In such things ownership and use may be made the matter of separate grants. Thus one may grant to another the ownership of a house, reserving to himself the use of it for a time; or grant the use and reserve the ownership. And therefore a man may lawfully take a price for the use of a house, and besides demand back the house which he has lent, as we see in the hiring and letting of houses. 

Now according to the Philosopher, money was invented principally for the effecting of exchanges; and thus the proper and principal use of money is the consumption or disbursal of it, according as it is expended on exchanges.


Article IV.—Is it lawful to borrow money at usury?

R. It is nowise lawful to induce a man to sin; but to use the sin of another unto good is lawful; because God also uses all sins unto some good, inasmuch as He draws some good out of every evil. And therefore Augustine, in reply to a certain Publicola, who asked him whether it was lawful to take the oath of a man that swore by false gods, writes: “He who uses, not to evil, but to good, the word of another who swears by false gods, does not join in his sin whereby he has sworn by demons, but joins in his good faith whereby he has kept his word. But he would sin if he were to induce him to swear by false gods.” So in the case proposed we must say that it is nowise lawful to induce a man to lend at usury: it is lawful however for a good purpose, as for the relief of one’s own necessity or that of another, to borrow money at usury of him who is prepared so to transact usuriously; as it is lawful for him who falls among robbers to declare the goods that he has, to escape being slain, after the example of the ten men who said to Ismahel: “Kill us not, for we have stores in the field.”



OCTOBER 7, 20224:36 PM



Now that we know where to look in history, the solutions can start to flow

The Rothschilds (ca. 1744-present) did not invent mammon, but they currently lead his pagan Babylonian trek through history to control humanity through debt slavery

The Babylonian Hammarabi Code (ca. 1755–1750 B.C.) permitted usury (item 100), including in the city of Nippur.

Five hundred years later in 1186 B.C. (12th century B.C.) the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt into Canaan, under the leadership of Moses occurred.

The Canaanites (called Phoenicians by 500 B.C.) worshipped Ba’al and Moloch, practiced child sacrifice, and were charged usury by the Israelites.

Fifteen centuries later, the Babylonian Banking Houses of Egibi and Murashu (Nippur) were the actual “Jewish” subjects of admonition by many of the Jewish Prophets against usury (ca. 6th-8th centuries B.C.)

The detailed archives discovered in 1874 of the Egibi and Murašû (prounounced Murashu) Banking Houses in Babylon show that these “Babylonian Rothschilds” did not follow the instruction of the Jewish Prophets against usury. See e-book version.

These Radhanite* “Jews” controlled the Babylonian banking system, controlled the Silk Road trade with China, intermarried with the Turkic peoples of Persia, Khazaria and Sogdia and ceased to be Judean (truly Jewish) many centuries earlier.

* named after a suburb of Babylon

In short, the “Jewish” controllers of banking in Babylon were fake Jews, and have been to this day

Some 27 centuries later, the Rothschilds and their fellow fake-Jewish bankers—worshipers of Ba’al, Moloch and Mammon (via Sabbatean Frankism)—continue the evil pagan traditions of debt slavery, usury, human trafficking, and child sacrifice. These Babylonians rebranded themselves as “Ashekenazi”—while hiding as Judean Jews and using “anti-semitism!” propaganda epithets to mask their promotion of the usury sin. (They’re not Jewish nor semitic.)

Mammon and the sin of usury is the central demon plaguing our world today; he must be cast out (and we must stop practicing usury as both purveyors and co-dependent victims)

The Year of Jubilee must be declared

Oct. 07, 2022—The practice of usury has been almost universally condemned as unfair, discriminatory, and sinful by moral men and woman of the world since time immemorial—no matter their religion be it Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Moslem, or philosophy be it Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, or Aquinas.

Remarkably, the law and accounting practices of usury that lure its victims into debt slavery are exactly the same today as 3000 years ago.

Debt Jubilee for Christians and Jews

Fig. 2—Gabriel, McKibben. (Oct. 06, 2022). Debt Jubilee for Christians and Jews. American Intelligence Media, Americans for Innovation. YouTube version. (Raw *.mp4 video file). Video: AIM/AFI.

Note: The mask shown above is an 8th century A.D. mask of an intoxicated Sogdian King. The foreign origins of this mask from China are here implied by his exaggerated facial features. These include an aquiline nose (hooked), elongated earlobes, prominent cheekbones, and deep-set eyes surmounted by lashed eyebrows. Source: Smithsonian Institution. Source: Smithsonian Institution, Freer Sackler, The Sogdians, Influencers on the Silk Road.

Click this image to play video.


Fig. 4—Gabriel, McKibben. (Oct. 14, 2022). Candace Farmer is a British Spy and American Traitor. American Intelligence Media, Americans for Innovation. Brighteon version. (Raw *.mp4 video file). Video: AIM/AFI.

Click here for more detailed analysis showing the interlocking relationships that tie Candace Owens’ treachery to the Rothschilds and the British Pilgrims Society where her newly-minted father-in-law Lord Michael S. Farmer is a kingpin: Anonymous Patriots. (Oct. 13, 2022). Candace Owens’ GLORIFI tied to Rothschild and Sons. American Intelligence Media. (PDF).

So, why do we accept usury as our way of life today?

Credit cards, house mortgages, loans, bonds, consumer debts, college debts, car debts, business debts, debt, debt, debt.


Who is to blame for this sinful state of affairs?

Well, certainly us as the victims. We have allowed this practice to continue.

We are similar to the enablers in the alcohol addiction of a family member—we enable the addiction by acquiescing to the dysfunction.


More directly, the blame must be laid squarely at our fiat banking and currency system, and the people who control it, and have done for some three millennia, as we shall prove.

Compared to the arc of history, the Jew Rothschilds and other fake Jewish  families like the Barings and Warburgs are almost contemporary history as compared to the long line of usurers over the last 27 centuries who have so sinfully influenced human affairs.


We feel compelled to put “Jewish” in quotes because we have discovered that the Rothschild-esque bankers today are not Judean or even Jewish—they are pagans.

Rather, they are from Turkic-Persian-Babylonian-Sogdian-Khazarian stock whose convert progenitors melded into the various kingdoms of the ancient world, notably Persia and Babylon; they were put in charge of their banking, currency, taxation, administration, engineering, industry, shipping, communications, accountancy, trade, commerce, industry, and law along the Silk Road to China.

These fake-Jews became the intermediaries between the kings and queens and their subjects. As long as these fake Jews collected the taxes successfully, they were given the keys to the empire.

This fake Jew dominance of Babylonian banking occurred before the 7th century B.C.—at the time of the writings of many Scriptures, including Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Zephaniah, Nahum, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah, Psalms, Haggai, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs.

Rome was founded (ca. 753 B.C.); Athens was ascendant (ca. 490 B.C.)

In short, around the 7th century B.C., humanity saw a burst of spiritual energy in both the seen and unseen realms to lead humanity on a higher pathway. God was speaking mightily to the world through the children of Israel during this period.

God was calling the Children of Israel to repentance; to turn from their evil ways and seek righteousness.

“LONDON IS A MODERN BABYLON” BENJAMIN DISRAELI (1804-1881)Click image to enlarge it. 


Fig. 5—The British Pilgrims Society controls modern Babylonian banking and debt slavery, empowered by the demons Mammon, Ba’al and Moloch. Jesus Christ came to free humanity from sin, and learn to love our neighbors as ourselves. Mark 12:31.

God, through his Prophets, repeatedly condemn usury—

For example: Exodus 22:25-27Deuteronomy 23:19Ezekiel 18:13Psalm 15:5Leviticus 25:36Proverbs 22:7Nehemiah 5:10-11Ecclesiastes 2:26.


Indeed, Deuteronomy 15:1-7 called for a “Year of Jubilee” where all debts would be cancelled every seven years; so did Leviticus 25:1–7Leviticus 25:8–17Nehemiah 5, and Numbers 36:4.

The wealthy “Jewish”  Banking Houses of Egibi and Murašû—the Babylonian Kingdom’s bankers (“Babylonian Rothschilds”) — described below, ignored the pleas of the Prophets to forgive debts so as not to make the people debt slaves. Nothing in their archives describes forgiveness of debt.

Nehemiah 5:9-13 pleaded with the Houses of Egibi and Murašû (yes, these very Houses):


Here we have indictable proof that the exact evil banking practices of the fake-Jewish Banking Houses of Egibi and Murashu in Babylon—at the height of their power and influence—has continued in an unbroken timeline to the fake-Jewish House of Rothschild today.

In the actual writings of the Egibi and Murashu, we have hard evidence that they ignored the admonition of the Prophets against charging interest on debt.

Worse, they funded human trafficking of all sorts, including branding slaves, castrating males to sell them as eunuchs, selling boys and girls for pedophilia, selling women into prostitution.

Babylonian fake-Jewish banking in Babylon continued along the Silk Road trade with China from 130 B.C. to 1000 A.D.


The breaking point between Babylon, Islam and Europe was the rise of  Seljuk Turk Islam. They overran Babylon, redirected Silk Road commerce, blocking it from their enemies, then attacked the Holy Land, triggering the First and Second Crusades (1096-1099 A.D., 1147-1149 A.D. respectively).

Perhaps the ultimate counterpart to the evils of Babylonian bank usury and human slavery system that was disrupted, was the miraculous and well-documented discovery of the Holy Lance of St. Longinus in Antioch by Peter Bartholomew and Raymond of Toulouse. Raymond was the conqueror of Jerusalem and later founder of the Knights Templar.


Fig. 6—The Holy Lance of Antioch, also called The Spear of Destiny, is a legend centering around the spear that pierced Jesus’ side by the Roman centurion Longinus during His crucifixion ((John 19:31-37). According to the legend, the Spear of Destiny was passed down through a line of kings, after being found in Antioch during the First Crusade (1098) by soldier Peter Bartholemew and Commander Raymond of Toulouse, founder of the Knights Templar. According to Peter’s dreams, the holy spear would lead the 5:1 outnumbered and encircled crusaders to victory against the Seljuk Turks. It did. The actual lance, or its blessed replicas, are said to have given many powerful rulers their authority, plus the ability to control their own destiny. It is also sometimes called the “Holy Lance.” The lance shown above was discovered in the last five years at a Knights Templar consistory, forensically confirmed to be a 1st century Roman centurion’s lance blade. It is currently in the loving stewardship of an American patriot—We The People.

The Knights Templar created the first Christian no-interest loans not based on usury.

It was the Holy Lance that led the first Crusaders to victory in Jerusalem against Babylon’s fake-Jewish usurers. (That very lance of St. Longinus is believed to exist today and is in the stewardship of a patriot.)


The Seljuk Turks forced the fake Jewish (Turkic-Persian-Sogdian-Khazarian) banking houses of Babylon, then well known in Europe as Radhanites, to move north into Turkey.


Fig. 7—Babylonian “Radhanite” Fake Jewish Bankers— “London is a modern Babylon” Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881). The usurous Babylonian debt system, predating 1755 B.C., and the worship of Mammon, Ba’al and Moloch, have never stopped. Instead, they have been remade by “Radhanite” Babylonian merchants and bankers along the Silk Road, and in the courts of Europe—clothed in a fake Christianity and fake Judaism. Radhanites control banking today via the secret British Pilgrims Society in The City of London—the mammonic successors of the pirates, drug smugglers, human traffickers and usurers of the British East India Company from ca. 1902 to today.

Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, Order of the Garter, was twice British prime minister (1868, 1874-1880, chancellor of the exchequer (British treasury department, 1866-1868), Tory opposition leader (1880-1881). Worked closely in banking and mining with Lord Rothschild, Moses Monetfiore and Goldsmids, despite converting to Anglicanism for political advantage. There is strong evidence that he rewrote his ancestry to obscure his Sephardic mercantile associations. (In that age of exquisite documentation of family heritage and politics, any time one reads descriptions like “details of his schooling are sketchy” and “reasons for doing so are unknown” usually means some element of history is being censored by the writer.

“Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” 1 Peter 5:8.


These fake Jews rebranded themselves as “Ashkenazi,”** and had earlier, as Radhanite (Babylonians), encouraged their brother Khazarians to “convert” to Judaism in order to open a northern route for the Silk Road through the Khazarian empire in the Crimea and over the Caspian Sea.

** Name chosen from the Noahic (Mt. Ararat) cities in Turkey named İşkenaz, Eşkenez, Aşhanas, and Aschuz.

See: Ranajit Das et al. (Jun. 21, 2017). The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish. Frontiers in Genetics.

See also: Moshe Gil. (Sep. 01, 1974). The Rādhānite Merchants and the Land of Rādhān. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Sep., 1974), pp. 299-328 (30 pages). Brill.;

Eran Elhaik, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, Ranajit Das. (Mar. 03, 2016). Localizing Ashkenazic Jews to Primeval Villages in the Ancient Iranian Lands of Ashkenaz, Vol. 8, Iss. 04, Apr. 2016, Pgs. 1132-1149. Genome Biology and Evolution (Oxford University).

The Radhanite (Babylonian) fake Jews had offices all over Europe. It appears that they rebranded themselves as “Ashkenazi,” introduced their secret Yiddish trading language, and ensconced themselves into the royal houses of Europe as “Court Jews.” They also engaged in espionage, carrying secret messages along their long network from Europe to China. See Oxford University Silk Road trade route map overlayed on new DNA studies.

Since we have discovered that these fake Jews ran Babylon, it is inconceivable that they did not take over the royal “Christian” houses of Europe, then engaged their fellow Turkic Radhanite banker brothers as “Court Jews” and as the excuse to continue charging interest in these Christian countries where usury was forbidden.

So in reality, we are concluding that the crowns of Europe were deceiving the public about their blood relationship with their Court Jews. This deception enable their Ashkenazi-Khazarian-Sogdian-Turkic cousins to charge interest in banking so that they would be seen not to be violating the Scriptures against usury.


Even the hardened socialist British historian Sir Arthur Koestler (1977) call this “the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated.”

Curiously, at this very time, The Knights Templar (1118-1312 A.D.) were chartering the first banks that DID NOT charge interest on loans.

This Knights Templar plan was wiped out when the Pope stripped the Templars of their assets and gave them to the Knights Hospitallers (1099-present, The Knights of Malta), who would acknowledge the Pope’s ownership of papal lands they had been contributed by crusaders.

(Questions: Were the Pope, his bankers and the kings he controlled closet Radhanite-Ashkenazi Babylonian usury-loving infiltrators? Were the so-called “pogroms” actually propaganda smokescreens, false flags, for the Radhanite-Ashkenazi pagan Babylonian banking insiders to wipe out their debts periodically [secret jubilees for themselves—knowing that compound interest would otherwise crush them], no matter if their unsuspecting brethren and the greater population suffered?)

The fact is, when the Knights of Malta, English Priory was formed, its formation in 1888 was led by three Babylonian Radhanite “Jewish” Rothschilds, namely Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild, Baron Lord Henry deWorms (maternal Rothschild), Lord Rosebery (inheritor of the N.M. Rothschild & Sons fortune). The Order charter requiring the member to be a Christian in good standing was dropped allowing Jews, Muslims and secularist to be members, to this day.

* * *


In 1874 on the site of the ancient city of Babylon (Djumdjuma), a secret archive of about three thousand well-preserved terra-cotta jars, packed full of small tablets covered with writing, were unearthed by Arab diggers and archeologists.

The British Museum purchased one of these troves. They were “contract tablets” that described several centuries of immense Egibi & Sons and Murašû & Sons wealth and influence transacting carefully dated money affairs of every kind and size, including tax collection, checks, bank drafts, securitized money-lending with interest and penalties, conduct commercial courts, penal legislation.

Egibi and Sons appear to have reached the zenith of its wealth and power under Nebuchadrezzar. Professor Friedrich Delitzsch tells us, ” All the financial business of the court was entrusted to this firm through several centuries.

The Banking Houses of Egibi and Murashû were wealthy fake Jewish trade merchant families in Babylon in the 6th and 7th century B.C. who actually controlled the commerce of Babylon.

The Egibi banking family was founded by “Jacob” who most scholars agree was Jewish. (Wikipedia censors make a feeble attempt to distance Jacob from Judaism.)

The Egibi and Murašû families traded in gold, silver, spices, leather, perfume, currency, banking, law, accounting, debt, commodities, branded male and female slaves, boys, girls, castrated eunuchs, cattle, grain, etc.

Fig. 9—Matthew W. Stolper. (Oct. 01, 1976). The Genealogy of the Murašu Family (leading Jewish banker in Babylon ca. 5th century BCE), Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4, 12 pgs., PDF p. 13. The University of Chicago Press. Reproduced for educational purposes only. Fair Use relied upon.

Click here for the caption text contained in this graphic.


We are discovering three interlocked demons from ancient Babylon: Mammon, Moloch and Ba’al. Many among The Children of Israel—since before 600 years before Christ—worshipped these demons. They loved money and sacrificed their own, and their children, to this day.

The Bible confirms this multiple times. For example:

Leviticus 18:21: “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Moloch, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD”);  

Jeremiah 32:35: “They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Moloch, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.”

Matthew 6:24: JESUS CHRIST: “No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve  God and mammon.”

Babylon means “sown in confusion.” Mammon is old Aramaic for “riches.”

Since nearly a millennia before Christ, these demons have directed fake-Jew dominance in banking, money, trade, gold, silver, law, commerce, debt, tax collection, contracts, civil engineering and government, almost always for foreign kings and princes.

The challenge of reading Jewish history is to understand what “Jewish” even means.

Originally it was the Twelve-Tribe descendants of the biblical patriarch Jacob Deuteronomy 27: 12. The Quran (7th century A.D.) Surah 7 (Al-A’raf) verse 160 even states that the people of Moses were split into twelve tribes who fled Egypt in 1513 B.C. and settled in Canaan.

  1. Reuben (Hebrew רְאוּבֵן‎‎ Rəʼūḇēn)

  2. Simeon (שִׁמְעוֹן‎‎ Šīməʻōn)

  3. Levi (לֵוִי‎‎ Lēwī)

  4. Judah (יְהוּדָה‎‎ Yəhūdā)

  5. Issachar (יִשָּׂשכָר‎‎ Yīssāšḵār)

  6. Zebulun (זְבוּלֻן‎‎ Zəḇūlun)

  7. Dan (דָּן‎‎ Dān)

  8. Naphtali (נַפְתָּלִי‎‎ Nap̄tālī)

  9. Gad (גָּד‎‎ Gāḏ)

  10. Asher (אָשֵׁר‎‎ ’Āšēr)

  11. Benjamin (בִּנְיָמִן‎‎ Bīnyāmīn)

  12. Joseph (יוֹסֵף‎‎ Yōsēp̄), later split into two “half-tribes”:

    • Ephraim (אֶפְרַיִם‎‎ ’Ep̄rayīm)

    • Manasseh (מְנַשֶּׁה‎‎ Mənašše)

Within 1000 years after the Exodus, “Jewish” merchants, traders and bankers are to be found living and working all over Europe, Middle East, Eurasia and China.

For example, the Book of Deuteronomy was written in the 7th century (641-609 BC). Indeed, the Bible called on the Children of Israel to declare a “Day of Jubilee” (canceling of debt) every seven years. Deuteronomy 15 called on the Children of Israel to stop occult practices like the sacrifice of sons and daughters in the fire, sorcery, omens, witchcraft, spells, spiritism. Deuteronomy 18:9-13.

The Babylonian (Radhanite) fake-Jewish banks controlled the Chinese Silk Road trade and were only disturbed by the rise of the Seljuk Turks.

With that event ca. 1000, they rebranded themselves as “Ashkenazi,” constructed a new trading language, Yiddish, and took over the royal lines of “Christian” Europe, we believe these new facts are telling us.

The Ashkenazi-Persians-Babylonian-Turkic-Khazarian fake-Jewish bankers opened a northern route through Khazaria, and simultaneously bifurcated the royal families of Europe into fake Christians rulers and their fake “Court Jews.”

Historians tell us that Sogdian-Khazarians had large aquiline or hooked noses that set them apart in China.

In fact, the capital of Khazaria, Atil or Khazaran, was a western-most trading hub along the Silk Road (at the mouth of the Volga River in present day Astrakhan, Russian Federation.

The Babylonian (Radhanite) traded spices, dyes, perfume, porcelain, horses, camels, honey, wine, incense, medicines, steel weapons, furs, gold, silver, paper, gunpowder, jewelry, silk, eunuchs, women, girls, boys, eunuchs, camels, wool, brocade, linen, glassware, pearls, precious stones, leather, royal purple, coral, castor, slaves.

Curiously, the Silk Road Turkic brother-merchants of Sogdia and Khazaria just disappeared from history after the 8th century for the Sogdians, then 11th century for the Khazarians. More likely, they were censored out of our collective consciousness.

Genetically, Yiddish-speaking Ashkanazi fake Jews (Radhanite) emerged from four towns in modern-day Turkey, namely İșkenaz, Eskenaz, Așhanaz, and Ashkuz.


Fig. 10—Eran Elhaik, University of Sheffield (UK), National Science Foundation. (Sep. 05, 2018). Ashkenazic Jews’ mysterious origins unravelled by scientists thanks to ancient DNA, p. 2. The Conversation.

Sir Arthur (1905-1983) rose to prominence during the emergence of a new and ruthless British banking corporatism  that has now enslaved the world in onerous debt.

The central controller of this agenda is the British Pilgrims Society headquartered in the The City of London financial, press and legal district.

Sir Arthur Koestler was born in Budapest, Hungary to a Jewish family, lived on a kibbutz, was a Zionist, communist, Marxist-Leninist, parapsychologist, and a prolific historian and novelist. He was knighted by the Queen in 1972 (New Year’s Honours) as an author.


Fig. 11—Sir Arthur Koestler (1905-1983). (1977). The Thirteenth Tribe – The Khazar Empire and its heritage. Pan Books (London). Koestler was born to Jewish (Khazar-Radhanite?) parents in Budapest, Hungary.

See p. 16: “The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated.”


The “hoax” Koestler decries is the largely successful censorship of the true history of the Jews of Europe.

Koestler believed that had this true history of the Jews been told, the six million Jews murdered by the Germans in the concentration camps in WWII would not have happened—because they were Kazarian fake Jews who were neither Hebrew or semitic, and in fact,

… they were more Aryan than the Germans!

Koestler shows with thoroughly sourced scholarship that the Ashkenazi fake Jews of Europe are descended from semi-nomadic, Turkic, Sogdian, Khazarian traders from the Caucuses who converted to Judaism ca. 8th century, and are not from semitic Hebrews.

 Vigorous attempts are made to discredit this hypothesis, but they ring hollow. They are buried in misdirection and scrambled DNA verbosity. These counters typically start with snarky comments that turn off sincere scientists and overwhelm civilians.

For example, just look at the extensive information on their Silk Road trading partners to their east, the Sogdians. Note: Some editor inserted the unsupported, dubious statement at the end of the Smithsonian website on the Sogdians.



Fig. 12—Judith A. Lerner and Thomas Wide. (Accessed Oct. 17, 2022). Who were the Sogdians, and Why Do They Matter? Freer Sackler, Smithsonian Institution.

During the first millennium, the “Silk Road” trade routes across Asia were both land-based and maritime, and were controlled by RADHANITES (bankers & merchants from Babylon) Babylonian-Sogdian-Khazarian “Jewish” Bankers; they had little to no Jewish blood—rather, they were syncretic (fused various religions together) Babylonian pagans who worshipped Mammon, Ba’al and Moloch, and became masters of adapting into whatever culture they inflitrated with banking usury, including their secret language of Yiddish, and now digital encryption.

Click map to enlarge it


Fig. 13—Eran Elhaik, Paul Wexler, Mehdi Pirooznia, Ranajit Das. (Mar. 03, 2016). Localizing Ashkenazic Jews to Primeval Villages in the Ancient Iranian Lands of Ashkenaz, Vol. 8, Iss. 04, Apr. 2016, Pgs. 1132-1149. Genome Biology and Evolution (Oxford University).

DNA overlays now prove that Radhanite “Jews” (who renamed themselves Ashkenazi “Jews” in the 11th century A.D.) are descended from Babylonian Persians (now Iraq, Iran) and the Silk Road lands from Babylon to China, including Persia, Sogdia, Khazaria and the other Turk peoples who controlled the Silk Road between China and Europe. The Radhanites were the “Jewish” bankers, merchants and spies of Babylon. Note Rādhān was suburb of Babylon that Rādhānites effective controlled economically, religiously and politically for more than 1000 years. Their “Judaism” appears to be fake and used only to bolster trade and banking, including the “conversion” of the Khazarians so they could get in on the Silk Road economy. The Talmud appears to have been one of the ways they differentiated their Judaism from the Hebrews of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These books demanded that they flee USURY.


The Babylonian Radhanite Talmud finessed the subject of usury by making distinction between personal and business usury; allowing business usury.

See Hillel Gamoran. (1976). Talmudic Usury Laws and Business Loans. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1976), pp. 129-142 (14 pages). Brill. (p. 142: “The [Babylonian Radhanite] Talmudic literature shows how the rabbinic authorities created an anti-usury structure made largely of straw.”).

However, these mercenary historians want us Westerners to believe that the Jewish-convert Khazarians were bereft of a rich cultural history over hundreds of years like their fellow Turkic Sogdian neighbors? This is preposterous. Khazarian history has been censored from our collective consciousness, we believe.

(NOTE: Modern archeology shown at the Smithsonian has discovered Sogdian art and writings in China that describe a people with large, hooked noses as sculpted on Sogdian art displayed at the Smithsonian. Notably, the Sogdians and Khazarians are both of Turkic stock and likely share common facial features. Indeed, Sogdians were alternatively sought out, and at other times persecuted in China, and were identified by their large noses.)


We believe this censorship is designed to protect the British Zionist fiction of the “Great Diaspora” as a centerpiece of their dominance of Israel and the Middle East in the 20th century.

We believe it is also designed to mask the Khazarian convert heritage of its banking and corporate aristocracy led by the Windsors (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha), Rothschilds and other Radhanite (Babylonian) German families.

The British Pilgrims Society’s Jewish hegemony fiction dies when the truth of their fake-Jewish Turkic blood actually being Khazarian-Sogdian since ca. 1000, and not semitic.

The “antisemitic” and “pogrom” propaganda screeds that have worked so well will lose their potency as this becomes widely known.

In short, the argument against Kharzarian origins of fake Jews is the best fake history (“hoax”) that money can buy from mercenary historians, as Koestler—a likely Khazarian-Sogdian fake Jew himself—points out.

These historians jump through hoops to dismiss multiple new haplogroup (DNA) studies that discredit the classical stories of the “diaspora” of Israeli and Sephardic Jews “migrating” into the Rhineland (Germany).

Think about it. There was no need to “migrate” like inchworms. These locations were a month’s journey by land or a single ship ride by sea.

Those haplogroups favor Khazarian/Turkic origins of Jewish converts from the land mass spanning Turkey in the southwest, to the Aral Sea in the east, to Kiev across to Rostov-on-the-Don in the north.

History shows us that the Turkic Khazarians and Sogdians to their east were great traders along the Silk Road from China into Byzantium and Europe.

They traded in spices, silks, furs, women, girls, gold, silver, luxuries and slaves. These facts are undisputed.

Khazaria became the favored “northern route” into China once the Moslem Seljuk Turks captured Babylon.


We believe the answer is because it would reveal that the ” Christian” nobility and “Jewish” bankers of Europe were both Khazarian-Babylonian-Radanite-Turkic-Sogdian.

It would also reveal that the Babylonian-Radhanite “Ashkenazi” rebranding at the time of the fall of Babylon was a complete hoax.

The conspiracy is between fake Jewish bankers and their fake Christian royal blood brothers.

They have protected this usury behind the propaganda of “antisemitism.”

Finally, we have an explanation for the fact that a preponderance of the bankers and corporate leaders in our world are fake Jews and Christians—they are, in fact, Khazarian-Sogdian from the steppes of Eurasia.

They are the blood beneficiaries of “The most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated.” (Koestler).

This also explains why these “Jews” are largely anti-Israel and anti-Russia, we believe. They are not Hebrew nor are they semitic, and they seek revenge for the Rus ruler Sviatoslov I driving them out of Khazaria in 965-969 A.D.


Usury is condemned in the Bible.

The exception was that is can be charged to foreigners.

This means that Jews cannot charge interest to fellow Jews, nor Christians to other Christians.

See Deuteronomy 23:19Deuteronomy 23:20), Leviticus 25:35-38.

Jesus said you cannot serve God and money (mammon) Matthew 6:24). 

St. Paul said the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. (1 Timothy 6:9-10).

Proverbs says “The greedy stir up conflict, but those who trust in the Lord will prosper.” Proverbs 28: 25.

The demons who promote usury

The U.S. Treasury reports that the total national debt for 2021 was $1.32 quadrillion. That’s $1,315,070,000,000. That is $3,092 for every citizen in 2021 alone.

The Treasury writes:


This is a boldfaced lie. The City of London (British)  banks associated with the Pilgrims Society, Rothschilds, Warburgs, Barings and the London Assurance Company (John Barker, John Barker Church, Geo. Washington’s aide de camp), who were in league with Alexander Hamilton (also a Geo. Washington aide de camp).


When the historical investigation focuses on usury as human society’s core sin, suddenly, the Babylonian worship of mammon, Ba’al and Moloch (Sabbatean Frankism) can be seen, unwound and destroyed.

The fake Christian and fake Jew banker and royal proponents of usury must be exposed.

A global Year of Jubilee debt reset must be declared.

Click image to view video.



Fig. 17—Freeman Fly. (Nov. 12, 2012). Ashkenazi [Babylonian Rhādānite Fake] Jews Of Khazaria A History, interview with Gaylon Ross Sr. The Freeman Perspective, Blue Fly Productions. Reproduced for educational purposes only. Fair Use relied upon. (Raw *.mp4 video file). Right click and select “Save As,” then check your Downloads folder.

bottom of page