INTEREST AND USURY – MAIN PILLAR OF THE SATANIC WORLD ORDER
Usury and interest have been one of the pillars of the Antropo-Satanic World Order ,from the ancient times. For centuries, lending money at interest has given “producers of money” the chance to misuse and exploit the needs of other men by persuading and forcing them to submit to their conditions and even ideology. In this way, men (individually) and nations (as a whole) are “enslaved” under the pretext of help-under the feeling that loan that they get is “real good”- what it is not.
Jewish Cabbalists persuaded European aristocrats and (later) American statesmen to allow them to print paper money for their states. According to this agreement, Bank of England, France, Deutche Reichsbank and (later) US Federal Reserve have been founded as private companies (banks) that,acctually lent money to these states.In this way Cabbalists got chance to charge interest for their “services” to the states and secured for themselves monopoly rights in the world money issues.
The money-landers do not have to possess oil wells; they do not have to fight for oil , produce or transport it. They just lend money to the companies,states,armies,kingdoms- to do the job (for them) and in the end the money-lenders become “custodians” of the money (profit) those in the oil bussiness made.
Many contemporary religious authorities, who are either naive or corrupted by the NWO claim that usuary and interest are not similar –that usuary is prohibited but “moderate interest” is acceptable and necessary for normal banking.
To the contrary, Greek and Roman writers disapproved the habit of certain persons to oppress others with interest on loan. They condemned money trader's profit. Aristotle in his Politics ( 1: 10,11), as well as Plato in his Laws (5: 742) considered interest as pernicious and illogical practice. Also Aristophanes condemned it openly (“Clouds”, 1283 sqq.) and Seneca compared it to the crime of homicide (De beneficiis, 7: 10).
Hinduism and Budhism do not pay much attention on this issue.
There is no general and absolute prohibition of interest in The Old Testament, although The Torah, at two places, forbids the Jews from taking of interest ("neshek") from one another. See The Old Testament Ex. 22: 25; and De. 23:19-20 ( the literal translation of the Hebrew word "neshek" is interest on a debt; Strong's Concordance of the Bible-Strong's Number: 5392-HSN ).
The New Testament did not regulate this issue,except that one passage in St. Luke (6: 34, 35) might be interpreted as a hint of the condemnation of interest. It must be said that usury and interest were not of great importance for early Christian clerics. Later, The Church changed the notion, thus the Council of Arles, First Council of Niceaea and the Council of Elvira condemned clerics who lent money at interest (note –only clerics). However, the First Council of Carthage (12th canon) and the Council of Aix (36th canon) considered the practice of charging interest for lending money as unacceptable ,even for layman. In the Middle Ages interest was forbidden by canonical laws apsolutelly (see Decree of the Decretals- chapters 2, 5, 7, 9 and Decree of Gratian, q. 3, C. IV). Usurers and those people who persistantly used to claim that charging interest is not forbidden should be treated as heretics according to the Council of Vienne held in 1311 ( "Ex gravi", unic. Clem., "De usuris", V, 5). After all, the fact that the Jews have been given impunity for usury by the Church for a long time is infamous. Nevertheless, Calvin expressed opinion that lending money at interest to rich persons should not be prohibited. Salmasius theoretically elaborated this view and wrote systematic code of rules on this issue. A friend of Benedict XIV- Maffei in his famous treatise, "Dell' impiego del danaro" justified Calvin’s attitude.
Generally ,in the past the Church permitted two types of interest :so called compensatory interest (when the lender was in danger of losing his capital or could not advance his loan of money without exposing himself to a loss or to deprivation of a gain) and moratory interest.
Today, the Church allows the practice of lending at interest-what means that the Church authorizes the impost without one's having to enquire if, on lending his money, he has suffered a loss or deprived himself of a gain, provided he demand a moderate interest for the money he lends.
Many people ask what the reason was for this change in the attitude of the Church towards the interest? Clerics often claim this differece is due to the change of “global economical circumstances”.But what abot the practice of the Church to permit Jews to lend money at interest even in the Middle Ages?
Islam, to the contrary, has succeeded to prohibit interest totally and apsolutelly to everyone since today (although some perverted scholars like Freemason - the Great Egyptian Mufti Shaikh Muhammad 'Abduh tried to prove that usury was not interest.However he was refuted and anathemisized by the majority of the Islamic scholars ).
In the Qur’an, God does not declare war on anyone except the people who charge interest/usury.
- “Those who devour usury/interest will not stand except as stands one whom the devil by his touch has driven to madness. That is because they say: Trade is like usury: but Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury/interest.... Allah will deprive usury/interest of all blessing, but will give increase for deeds of charity, for He loves not any ungrateful sinner.... O you who believe, fear Allah and give up what remains of your demand for usury/interest, if you are indeed believers. If you do it not, take notice of war from Allah and His messenger, but if you repent you shall have your capital sums; deal not unjustly, and you shall not be dealt with unjustly. And if the debtor is in difficulty, grant him time til it is easy for him to repay. But if you remit it by way of charity, that is best for you if you only knew. (Surah al Baqarah, verse 275-280 ).
- “ For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which
had been lawful for them; in that they hindered many from Allah's way. That they (Jews) took usury though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men's substance wrongfully; We have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment.”(4: 160 - 161 )
Today, when the moneylenders "enslaved” our nations and civilisation, this unchangable Quranic regulation is fascinating.
It is known that lending money at interest is not just the cause of individual impoverishment but also the reason for the so called “budget deficit” and the “state debt”. As one insightful economists concluded
” according to most govemments the only ways to control the deficit are to raise taxes or to cut govemment spending. However, considering that the deficit continues to grow simply because of the exorbitant amounts of compound interest added to the original debt, one of the most effective ways to reduce the deficit would be to reduce interest rates.Lower interest rates = lower deficit.In fact, at zero interest, the debt would not grow at all, and the large amounts of money spent in servicing the debt could be used to pay it of “.
Is it true that money is "producer of good" (so that the lender must be awarded a fixed part of the possible extra wealth that lended money “produced”)?! No -this is a lie because banknotes ,in a reality, does not worth much more then the paper. Only labour –human physical and intellectual activity when it is applied to either capital and natural resources is beneficial.
Of course, we all know who is that pernicious lender who possesses all the money needed by individuals or governments and to whom we individually and our nations,generally owe the national debt.
We know this now-but our religions and Divine scriptures (example of the Holy Qur’an) elaborated this problem and warned us on the possible catastrophy long time ago.
I will conclude with the words of one insightful journalist who wrote about this issue:
“The truth is that when banks create money (as cheque-money or blips on computer screens) they lend what they have not got to reap where they did not sow. Their loans are not backed by any real wealth on their behalf. Nor do they lend out depositors' money (or when did the bank last tell you that you can't take out money from your account, because it has been lent to someone else?). When you give your house or business as guarantee for their money, this money is not backed by gold, silver or tangible wealth. It is an empty promise except for the fact that the govenment, with the central bank as lender of the last resort, is ready to bail out the banks should a run on their money occur.
Bank-created credit is based on the nation's capacity to produce and consume in the sense that whilst it is not issued nor backed by the government, the government - being the largest debtor - guarantees a certain return in debt service payments from its revenue. An increasing part of local and national government taxation today is raised for the purpose of servicing the interest payments on local and national govemment debt. So whether you personally borrow or not, you pay the interest on that fictitious rmoney. Likewise, when you take a bank loan, you pay at least twice: you give a guarantee of real wealth in case of default, and you pay a penalty (as interest) for accepting money as a loan which costs the lender nothing and did not exist until it was created as a loan to you.
.... only when we get back to a system where the usurer is not being rewarded for taking advantage of others' difficulties, we will achieve real prosperity.
Islam, often laughed at for sticking to its principles and not "moving with the times", has never given in to the demands of the money-lenders to change its tough stance on interest. Naturally, Islam has increasingly been attacked by the financial interests behind today's media and politics. Looking at the evidence with an open mind, however, it should not take you long to realise that Islam makes sense, and interest doesn't “.