Tag Archives: usury

Americans and Trump vs. the NFL

Oh yes you will. Most Americans are too morally lazy to give up their entertainment just because it is anti-American. They would rather enjoy their credit cards than avoid paying $200 billion a year to the ruling banker class. They would rather enjoy their degrees than refuse to enrich the unholy alliance of universities, $200-a-textbook publishers, and the rent-seeking banker class that only stands to gain the more debt students are made to carry (since more debt for them always equals more interest payments, therefore they always also seek to involve the country in more wars, because require government bonds, and bonds mean billions of dollars of annual interest earnings for bankers). They would rather enjoy their music than avoid subsidizing the four companies that control most of America’s music industry and the utter scum who work for these companies, who continue fund the production of music that encourages young men to be gangsters, criminals and pimps. Americans would rather enjoy their cushy jobs instead of taking a career hit to avoid working for the parasitical financial sector, for the defense and security apparatus, for the utterly corrupt media and journalism sector.

Americans needs the president to tell them something before they start thinking about, then make a big commotion about it, and perhaps change happens or does not in a tiny part of life, like idiots who on the sinking Titanic argue about the decoration, will go back to their lazy and cowardly lives, letting the banker scum continue ruling this country.

The point of the Islamic acts of worship

A question received on tumblr:

What are the importances of acts of worship Prayer, zakat and fasting etc

At the most basic level these acts reaffirm God’s important in our lives. We Muslims cannot ignore God, saying “we have faith” and then go for days without thinking about God. The prayers interrupt our lives five times a day. Fasting interrupts a whole month of the year.

As for zakat, it provides basic income to the poor. If the people of the United States paid zakat, it could amount to $100 to $500 billion dollars a year, meaning that within a few years there wouldn’t be a single homeless or poor person in the country, and every poor person (belonging to the bottom 50% of society) would get a monthly income of $1000 or more from zakat.

As far as I know no Muslim country properly applies the zakat system, which is why there is so much widespread poverty in countries like Egypt. Zakat has to be taken, it is not a voluntary act. Most rich people are not generous and would rather not pay 2.5% of their uninvested wealth to the poor every year, they would rather do as the Jews and Christians of America do, lending their wealth to the poor and charging them 5% or more interest.

In the zakat system, the poor charge interest on rich people’s uninvested wealth, the money they hoard in their bank accounts. In America’s usurious system, the rich charge interest on the poor, to the tune of more than a trillion dollars per year. American taxpayers paid upwards of $200 billion on money borrowed from usurers to pay for government expenditures, which is why the rich and powerful of America constantly want to increase the size of the military and to instigate new wars, such as with Iran and Russia. War requires spending, and the money for it has to be borrowed from the rich, and the interest on that money has to be paid by the average taxpayer.

For the rich, war always means money. Islam breaks this cycle of evil and destruction by prohibiting usury (all charging of interest) and enforcing zakat.

As for other acts of worship, they all have some wisdom if you look into them.

Why the Banks are So Powerful and Why the Bible and the Quran Forbid Usury: Charting How Interest Creates Obscene Wealth Inequality

Imagine if in 1913 the real economy of the US had $100 billion in capital, while the banks and money-lenders had only $1 billion. Given everyday economic circumstances, by 2017, the wealth of the real economy would have grown to $2163 billion (with a 3% economic growth rate). Meanwhile, the wealth of the banks and money-lenders during the same period would have grown from $1 billion to $3806 billion. Starting at only 1% of the wealth of the real economy, within just over 100 years, the financial sector grows to 175% the size of the real economy.

This is the heart and soul of usury; the reason why banks are so powerful, and the reason why usurers have been hated with visceral hatred throughout history. The usury sector uses the law to enforce an alternate reality where their profits grow faster than the real economy. If they were honest investors, their money would be directly invested into the economy, so that their wealth would grow (and shrink) with the real economy. But through the hateful invention of usury, they create an alternate reality where their wealth always grows faster than the real economy.

The chart assumes a relatively low business loan interest rate of 5%, and a high delinquency rate of 6.75% (the highest recorded by the St. Louis Fed between 1987 and 2016), and a high (usurer-unfriendly) reserve ratio of 33% (the lower the reserve ratio, the faster the wealth money-lenders grows, as they earn more interest on their capital).

Wherever the usurers take control of an economic system, within a short span of time their wealth grows so that they own most of the economy; its largest companies, its real estate market, its mainstream media, its academia. In the United States, through neo-liberal usurer economics, they have entirely shut down any honest examination of the evils of usury. Through their control of the media, interest and usury are taken for granted, and the mostly-Christian peasant class of the West is made to think of mortgages as an “investment”, rather than a tremendous risk that enslaves them to debt.

Usury is evil because, on a macro scale, it passes off most risks to the borrower, and most profits to the lender. When a usurer lends money at 5% interest to a town’s businesses, some of these businesses will make a profit, and some will make a loss. If the town’s economy grows at 3% during the year, it means some businesses made a profit on the money they borrowed, and some made a loss, so that on average there was a profit of 3% and a loss of 2%. To the usurer, none of this matters. He gets to charge 5%, pretending that the economy grew at 5%, so that after the year passes, he ends up with close to a 5% profit, while the town ends up with a profit of 3%. This gives him an annual profit advantage of 2%. Within just a few years his profits grow so fast that he will afford to buy up more and more of the town’s land, housing and businesses, until he gains near-total control of the town’s economy, and manages to extract rent and profit from every nook and cranny of it. Below is a chart of this process over 20 years, assuming both the money-lender and the townsfolk have $10 million at the beginning.

The chart only shows the money-lender’s wealth growth from his interest income. But as his wealth grows, he will invest the surplus wealth into buying up land, houses and business, so that his real wealth growth would be quite larger after 20 years.

The usurers at the Federal Reserve, Wall Street and the Chicago School of Economics would have you believe that the above situation is unavoidable, that it is just a fact of life, and that if you dislike money-lenders for their profiteering and rent-seeking, you are just hating them for their wealth.

What is never mentioned is that there is a way for the wealthy to invest their wealth without creating wealth inequality and giving themselves such an obscene advantage over the population, and that method is simply honest investment, what I call Socratic Finance, as Socrates mentions it in Plato’s Republic. It is to make the lender and the borrower share in their fair portion of risk and gain.

How is this magic performed? By prohibiting the charging of interest, as it used to be the law of England (look up the 1552 AD Act Against Usury of King Edward VI). According to the 1599 Geneva Bible Notes (written by John Calvin and other Puritans),

To the bankers and money changers. Usury or loaning money at interest is strictly forbidden by the Bible, (Exo 22:25-27; Deu 23:19-20). Even a rate as low as one per cent interest was disallowed, (Neh 5:11)1

When the charging of interest is prohibited, money-lenders are prevented from increasing their wealth exponentially, without regard to the actual economy. They are made to invest in the real economy, and to share in its profits and losses. If the town’s money-lender cannot practice usury, and has $10 million in wealth compared to the town’s $10 million, he would be forced to spend his money investing in the real economy by buying businesses or starting new businesses, creating jobs in the process, and raising wages, as he has to compete with other business for available talent. Some of these endeavors would make a profit, and others would make a loss. If the town’s economy grows at 3%, and if his investments are spread throughout the town’s economy, then he would make a 3% profit along with the town, so that after a year, he wouldn’t be any more richer or poorer than the rest of the town as a whole. Everyone’s wealth would increase equally, so no income inequality is created.

If he wants to invest his money to finance housing, instead of using the corrupt practice of mortgaging, he would offer up houses on a rent-to-own basis.

In a normal mortgage, a person is made to carry the burden of a $300,000 loan while the money-lender continues to own the house. In the case of default, the money-lender gets the house back, sells it, and if it sells for less than the outstanding loan amount, he goes after the borrower for the rest of the principal. Most mortgage defaults happen during times of financial crises, when people lose jobs, and when houses lose value. If the home was mortgaged at $300,000, during a crisis it would sell for only $200,000. If the buyer had paid $20,000 of the principal off, they would lose the house, and still owe $80,000 to the usurer.

But Socratic home financing is a world apart from this. If a person gets a Socratically-financed home, and then is unable to make payments, the investor gets the house back and sells it, and the home-buyer gets his principal share of the house back. If he had paid off 20% of the principal, he would get 20% of the house’s sale price. In a Socratically-financed home, the buyer always gets some money back in the case of default, as there is no loan involved, it is real ownership transfer of the house. In the previously mentioned case of the $300,000 house, the buyer would get $40,000 back after foreclosure, instead owing $80,000.

Over the past 400 years, most Christians have continued the tradition of being utter disgraces to the name of Christ, so that today even the Vatican funds its operations through usurious lending. Even the Amish practice usury.

If but a probable suspicion arose
of a man to occupy that filthy trade
He was taken for a devil in the likeness of a man.
But good Lord, how is the world changed?

That which infidels2 cannot abide, Gospellers allow,
That which Jews take only of strangers
and will not take of their countrymen for shame,
That do Christians take of their dear friends
and think for so doing they deserve great thanks.

Thomas Rogers (Anglican theologian, ca. 1555-1616)

Today’s usurers try to absolve themselves from their sins, and whitewash their actions, through the practice of philanthropy. Almost every wealthy usurer is described as a “philanthropist” on Wikipedia. They gain billions of dollars by squeezing the life out of the economies that play host to them, using usury to drive a wedge into the economy and extract rent from it, then spend a few hundred million dollars funding hospitals, museums and universities, and lo and behold! They are philanthropists. It is to this usurer trick of philanthropy that Rabbi Hermann Adler, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire from 1891 to 1911, refers when he says:

No amount of money given in charity, nothing but the abandonment of this hateful trade, can atone for this great sin against God, Israel and Humanity.

The Gene-Culture

/ No Comments on The Gene-Culture

The phrase “gene-culture” expresses the idea that there is no such thing as a culture independent from genes, or genes independent from culture. It enables a researcher to think of human evolution in accurate, realistic terms. At a population level, it is not individual humans, or specific genetic backgrounds, that are most relevant to natural selection, it is the gene-culture.

Examples of gene-cultures are WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), Lebanese Christians, the Amish, Malaysian Muslims, and Ashkenazi Jews.

In order for children to grow up, prosper, and reproduce, in addition to requiring healthy and capable genes, they require healthy and capable cultures. They need a culture where there is rule of law, where there is sufficient social support to overcome the fear of the financial risk posed by having children, and where there is sufficient knowledge and health care to feed, clothe and care for these children.

The reproductive prosperity of a population relies on both genes and cultures. The two are inseparable. And when either of them is unfit, reproductive fitness is diminished.

The Japanese are extremely fit genetically. Intellectually they have the capacity to provide sufficient food and care for their offspring. But their culture is unfit. The reproductive fitness of their genes doesn’t make a difference when the culture part is unfit; the gene-culture as a whole becomes unfit and fails to reproduce effectively.

What is unfit about Japanese culture is the fact that they fully embraced the West’s neo-Liberal Usurer Economics, which, through the Risk-Profit Differential, constantly pushes the nation’s wealth into the hands of the super-rich, increasing poverty among the lower classes, and causing stagnation in the middle class.

Any culture that is not resistant to usury will eventually suffer stagnation, declining birth rates and population shrinkage. This is happening in most, if not all, of the developed world.

Just as a population that is genetically prone to a plague can be wiped out by it, a population that is culturally prone to usury will be wiped out by it.

The idea of the gene-culture enables us to view matters of cultural (economic and religious) practice in Darwinian terms. Just as a harmful genetic mutation reduces a population’s viability, a harmful cultural mutation (in the case of Japanese, embracing Western-style usury) reduces the population’s viability.

The idea of the gene-culture also contains the important implication that culture affects genes and genes affect culture. Among animals, genetic fitness is the most important factor in their survival, most animals have negligible cultures (exceptions being higher primates like orangutans). Humans, however, due to their intellectual complexity, are extremely reliant on culture, so that culture makes up about half of the picture when it comes to examining a population’s reproductive fitness.

In the above chart, I’m counting the material environment in which the genes exist toward the gene side. The contribution of culture toward the reproductive fitness of humans varies a great deal from environment to environment, and the average amount of its contribution might be less than 50%.

Imagine a hundred Japanese middle class families in Tokyo adopting a hundred Haitian children from soon after birth. The children will grow up in a Japanese world, learning Japanese customs and ideals. But they do not have Japanese genes. Victorian romantics and modern proponents of “environment is everything” (junk 20th century social scientists, which is nearly all of them) would imagine that these children would grow up and make perfect Japanese citizens who will only be held back by racism.

What actually happens is that their Haitian genes will mutate Japanese culture, so that no matter how hard they try to be authentically Japanese, there will be clear manifestations of differences in their understanding and application of Japanese culture (which is not a bad thing, it is a simple fact of biology).

But the most interesting thing is the children of these children. These children will create a Creole Japanese culture that will seem quite foreign to the average Japanese. It will have aspects of Japanese culture and Haitian culture, even if the children and their parents know nothing about Haiti and its people. Haitian culture is partly a result of its population’s genetics. And if this population is made to grow up in Japan, these genes will ultimately show through, tearing Japanese cultural conditioning apart and creating something new and interesting out of it.

A Shortcut to (Edible) Mushrooms

When a tribe that has never seem mushrooms before wanders into a shire where mushrooms abound, some brave souls will experiment with this new potentially edible stuff. If someone eats a particular mushroom, gets sick and dies, this will not lead to a genetic adaptation against eating such mushrooms. It leads to a cultural adaptation. The culture will recognize such mushrooms as unsafe to eat, perhaps first beginning by considering all mushrooms unsafe (if the first experiment with mushrooms goes really badly).

Genes are a response to topology. Cultures, too, are responses to topology. When tribe is placed in that particular environment, it responds, modifying its culture to adapt to it, in this particular case by accumulating knowledge regarding which mushrooms are safe and which ones are not.

If this tribe’s descendants move on to a city a few generations later, they may carry with them extensive knowledge of mushrooms that is going to be largely irrelevant, since this knowledge was an adaptation to pressures from another environment. For this reason this knowledge will slowly be lost unless someone writes it down.

This process of a culture adapting to a new environment, then losing the adaptation once it goes into a new environment, is the same as a genome adapting to a new environment then losing the adaptation once it goes into a new one. Except that cultural adaptation is much, much faster, and increases the species’ adaptation power by orders of magnitude. Humans do not need genetic adaptations to poisonous mushrooms when they have the power of overnight cultural adaptation.

Russia

An interesting expression of the gene-culture came from Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia’s president, the Wall Street-friendly drunkard Boris Yeltsin, took off all of Russia’s defenses and threw it to Wall Street’s fattest and ugliest usurers, who, in just a few years, managed to plunge the country into the worst demographic disaster in its history. Russia started to resemble a third-world backwater rather than a proud Euro-Asiatic country. Regardless of the genetic fitness of Russia’s population, removal of its cultural defenses against usury destroyed its reproductive fitness.

Once Vladimir Putin took over, he kicked out the usurers and started the process of repairing Russia’s cultural fitness through reviving the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian industry. The usurers, in turn, launched an all-out financial and propaganda war on him from Wall Street that has continued to date. Regardless of Wall Street and Washington’s chest-pumping, Russia has continued its demographic recovery. Christianity is back on the rise, culture is flourishing, life expectancies increase and technological innovation grows.

The above is, of course, a gross simplification of what happened in Russia. But to the gene-culture this is not an issue, since the gene-culture is a high-level construct that enables researchers to examine human history from a Darwinian perspective. No facts are ignored or thrown out to fit reality into the theory (as is done by junk sociologists on the one hand, and certain evolutionary psychologists on the other), as the theory encompasses all facts. Dysfunctions in politics are affected by, and affect, the gene-culture. Russia’s gene-culture leads to Czars, Arab and African gene-cultures lead to dictators, and Western Europe’s present gene-culture leads to usurer-controlled democracies. Cultures select for genes and genes select for cultures.

Feminism

The gene-culture also sheds light on the effects of feminism. Feminism reduces fertility in many ways, such as encouraging women to spend their most fertile years working to enrich the usurer class. A gene-culture that is not immune to feminism will be infected and mutated by it, so that its reproductive fitness decreases. Meanwhile, gene-cultures that are immune to feminism will not be harmed by it, and will reproduce faster than the infected populations. This process will naturally eliminate feminism from any large population that contains a significant minority gene-culture that is resistant to feminism.

The gene-culture could also be called the gene-meme, or geme for short. But this gets too technical and only social scientists would understand it. I chose “gene-culture” since it is easier to imagine and comprehend. By “culture” I mean everything carried by a human population apart from genes and epigenetics. This includes language, religion, law and political institutions.

The Risk-Profit Differential: Why Usurers Practice Usury

The evils of usury, and the immense urge that usurers feel to practice it, can all be summed up into one phrase: the risk-profit differential.

Whatever reasons usurers bring up to defend usury can be defeated by mentioning this phrase. The risk-profit differential is the core of usury, the reason why usurers prefer usury over productive investment, as was recognized by Jesus in his Parable of the Talents.

The risk-profit differential refers to the fact that, at its core, every usurious contract is about passing off more risk to the borrower than to the lender, and passing off more profit to the lender than to the borrower. This differential, this unbalanced arrangement that constantly pushes risk away from the usurer while also constantly pushing profit toward him, is where the attraction of usury lies.

It is the desire of every human to want to increase profits while also wanting to decrease risks. A usurer is simply someone selfish enough to create an arrangement that puts this unchecked, selfish animal desire into law through a contract that ensures him more profit and less risk, while also ensuring less profit and more risk to the borrower.

Usury is about enforcing a contract that enslaves the borrower to the usurer’s interests. The usurer class ensures itself a constant rate of profit (the class as a whole always profits, never loses), while the borrower class profits and loses randomly, so that as a whole no profit or loss is made. The usurer class gets guaranteed profits. The borrower class is forced to share its profits with the usurers, while also being made to keep its losses to itself.

Through this unbalanced arrangement, the wealth of the usurer class balloons. They build skyscrapers to house their banks and insurance companies. The rest of society’s prosperity grows fast at first, then stagnates, and then starts to decline as the debt load grows.

Regardless of how poor society continually becomes, regardless of how much it suffers, the wealth of the usurer class continues to increase. With their immense wealth they end up controlling our entire economy, our media, our politicians, ensuring that things will always stay in their favor. This is not new. The Knights Templar, through their practice of usury, were powerful enough to ignore the commands of popes and kings.

Casinos make vast profits by having machines that win very slightly more than they lose. Perhaps winning 52% of the time and losing 48% of the time. Usury, through the risk-profit differential, turns the entire economy into a casino where the usurers win 80% of the time, and lose 20% of the time (through defaults and bankruptcies). While a large casino makes a few billion dollars a year for its owners through its rigged nature, the economy, due to the rigged nature of usury, makes trillions every year for the usurer class.

Usury is an unbalanced arrangement, otherwise it wouldn’t be usury. There is no way to make usury fair, to make it harmless, to make it add positive value to society. The only solution to usury is to ban it, as the Catholic King Edward I and the Protestant King Edward VI did.

Remember this phrase, the risk-profit differential. No matter how many clever arguments the usurers and their economists come up with in defense of their usury, they can never make this fact go away, as this is the only reason a usurer practices usury: he wants nearly all profits to come to himself, and nearly all losses to go to his borrowers.

[For ideas on non-usurious lending and insurance, please see the chapter on Socratic Finance in my book How to Really Occupy Wall Street.]

Usurers Love Immigrants

/ No Comments on Usurers Love Immigrants

Note that I’m writing all of this as a (legal) immigrant myself from Iraq living in the US.

Helping immigrants who are trying to leave their hopeless countries for a better life is a cause that most of us can get behind. It’s difficult to refuse help to those who need it. At least, if you are not a usurer.

Usurers, who knowingly pass off their economic risks to society so that only profits remain for themselves, are at the forefront of supporting immigration. They fund ad campaigns and large non-profit organizations that promote immigration. And they pretend that they do it all because their hearts are bleeding for these poor people.

When someone’s entire lifestyle is based on passing off suffering to others, only a very gullible person would believe them when in this very specific case they seem to have bleeding hearts. They couldn’t care less about the people dying from drug overdose and alcoholism in small US towns, and black people dying in ghettos, when the usurers took their jobs overseas to increase their own profits.

The reason usurers support immigration is that, for them, immigration is a complete no-brainer. It is winnings and profits all the way.

Usurers want to promote “diversity” by importing immigrants from non-white countries. One important quality of these immigrants is that they are easy to convince that the locals hate them. They are told in the usurer media, in college, in movies and TV shows, in ads, that America’s peasant class are all racist and ignorant. In this way, America gets to have yet another class that can be used to fight off the peasant class.

By having a divided nation ridden with internal conflicts, and promoting these conflicts every chance they get, usurers believe they themselves will be safe. A brown person waiting at a bus stop is not going to be worrying about the power of the usurers if he is constantly bombarded with ideas suggesting to him that the white people around him are all secretly racists who hate everything about him.

The only instances in history where usurers have been in true danger are those in which a country’s population were all united for a common goal. Germany was entirely being run by usurers in the 1920’s. They owned the banks, the corporations and the media (similar to the United States today). It was usurers who financed Hitler’s rise to power, thinking that he would be even friendlier to usurer interests. What happened instead is that Hitler used the hopelessness and despair of Germany’s peasant class to unite the country and bend it to his will. Instead of doing as the usurers wanted, he used the power given to him by the people to take over the country’s economy.

Samuel Untermyer, a Jewish millionaire, wrote in The New York Times in August 1933 that it was a number of Jewish bankers who were financing Hitler. The Harvard-educated Rabbi Edward L. Israel wrote this in 1938 in The Pittsburgh Press:

One sad fact keeps ringing in our ears in the midst of the savage anti-Semitic outbursts in Nazi Germany. We cannot keep from mind the grim thought that during Hitler’s rise to power, a number of wealthy Jews helped to finance his campaign. Unbelievable as it now seems, this is the truth.

Hitler’s lesson, and many similar lessons throughout history, have taught usurers that a stable and united nation is a highly dangerous environment for usury, because usurers will be at the mercy of the whims of the nation’s leaders, who are empowered by the population’s unity.

What’s much safer for usury is a nation full of divisions. They promote hatred for men in the name of feminism, hatred for whites in the name of civil rights, and hatred for straight people in the name of gay rights. And toward this same goal, they promote immigration to create new classes of society who do not identify with the suffering of America’s peasant class. They can even be convinced to hate America’s peasant class by telling them that America’s peasant class are mostly racists who hate them. In this way, racial and religious divisions are used to destabilize the nation’s unity, and thus stabilizing the usurer’s paradise. As long as different classes of peasants fight each other, they won’t have the time to focus on their true enemies, the usurers living in their gated communities and high towers, protected by a militarized police.

The second reason usurers love immigrants is to get cheap workers and keep wages low for the entire population, so that more profits can be directed toward their own stomachs. After President Trump’s crack down on illegal immigration, wealthy California farmers can be found who are complaining about how “hard” it is to find workers. What they are saying is that it is hard to find workers at the disgracefully low wages they are used to paying them. Americans are “too expensive” for them, because if they hired Americans, instead of their making $10 million a year in profit, they might make only $7 million. What a tragedy! They may not even be able to afford that bigger yacht they’ve been thinking about for the past year!

It is true that the price of some things will go up if immigration stops. But that increased price goes to other workers. It is money being sent from one part of the peasant class to another, meaning that the peasant class’s economic fitness as a whole is not harmed. No, its fitness even benefits, because of the real Phillips curve: wage inflation reduces unemployment. When restricted immigration increases wages, as the money among the peasant class increases, their ability to purchase goods and services increases, and business profits in their area increase, so that these businesses are able to expand and hire more people (who will also be paid high wages). It is only the usurer’s personal profits that are reduced.

Immigrants, by increasing the population, also increase the number of people that can be enslaved through mortgages, credit cards, student loans and insurance. It is a way for usurers to increase the number of their slaves.

Many immigrants are able to assimilate and find better lives here. As usual for usurers, they and their media use this good fact to justify the whole thing, the same way they justify usury, for-profit-insurance, futures contracts and globalism. They ignore the fact that immigration makes local workers and professionals poorer. If today 100,000 Indian software engineers are brought to the country, the wage-earning ability of nearly all local software engineers will decline. And if they have secure jobs, they will not be able to ask for promotions, because their bosses can always say that they are already being paid more than all these newly available software engineers.

The usurer pretense is that immigrants are just as capable as the locals to fill out all job positions throughout society. They can be entrepreneurs, surgeons and farmers. And a few superstar immigrant entrepreneurs and surgeons are used as “proof” of this.

In the real world, if we consider 100,000 local software engineers, we can easily imagine that $200,000 has been spent educating and training each one of them, equaling a sum of $20 billion. If we bring in 100,000 Indian or Chinese software engineers, this $20 billion investment can easily lose half of its value, as our local software engineers will suffer wage stagnation and unemployment from the competition from the immigrant software engineers. That is 100,000 of our people who will find it so much harder to pay off their student loans, to buy a house, to start a family. What good is a kindness that benefits a group of people while destroying the hope and livelihoods of another group of people?

The usurers and their media frame the entire issue as a matter of racism and xenophobia, which is of course to their own profit, since whether it is low-skilled or high-skilled immigrants that we are bringing in, it is the usurers whose wealth will balloon as a result as their corporations end up paying lower wages and earning higher profits, and as their banks find new customers to enslave to credit cards, mortgages and student loans.

The issue of immigration is as complicated as the issues of usury, insurance, futures contracts and trade. This complexity gives the usurers and their media the ability to exaggerate the benefits of whatever the usurers want while ignoring the harms. And in the case of immigration, since it is so easy to call someone a racist for opposing immigration, there has been very little resistance to it.

It is possible to have a fair form of immigration, through having skill quotas. First, all immigration should be stopped. Next, we should look at the economic conditions of the workers in different sectors of the economy.

For example, we can look at low-skilled workers and see whether after a year of no immigration their median wages rise or fall. If they rise, it means their prosperity is increasing, and it means we could let in a limited number of unskilled workers who could supply the economy with labor without damaging the wellbeing of the local unskilled workers. The amount of unskilled immigrants allowed should be small enough to prevent wages from decreasing next year. It is fine if wage growth slows a little, but wage growth should not stop.

But if we find that even after stopping immigration low-skilled wages are stagnant, it means the economy is already oversupplied with low-skilled labor, so that letting in more low-skilled workers would do damage to the economic wellbeing of the local low-skilled workers we have. No more immigration should be allowed until their wages start to rise higher than inflation.

The same calculation can be done for software engineers, or welders. If it is determined that the wages of any sector are increasing quickly, we can let in more immigrants who can work in that sector without causing economic damage to the local population.

Even as they promote immigration, the usurer media ignores the fact that usurers have everything to gain and nothing to lose from it. The costs to the rest of society are entirely ignored, our local low-skilled workers are treated as stupid and worthless. The widely-read usurer lobbyist Bill Kristol says American workers are lazy and need to be replaced by immigrants. Americans are some of the hardest working and most overworked people in the world.

As a commentator who has nothing to do besides ensuring usurer interests are protected and that the status quo is unchallenged, he may really be stupid enough to think that every other American lives the same life of idleness and luxury. Most of our political elite are like this. Everything comes so easily to them that they really think the average American is also having a great time doing nothing useful.

Immigration is often nothing but another outlet for the usurers to increase their own profits at the cost of the rest of society. We should see through their duplicity and lies and realize that the reason they promote immigration is not that they have good hearts, but that they stand to gain all the benefit from it while passing off all the costs to the rest of society.

Free Trade is Welfare for Wall Street

Free trade sounds like a good thing. Who doesn’t want freedom? How could restricted trade be better?

Usurer economists have managed to enforce the usurer-invented ideology that free trade benefits both nations that engage in it. It has certain benefits that usurers use to justify it, the same way that usurious lending, for-profit insurance and futures contracts have benefits that usurers use to justify them.

Free trade is how corporations (and their usurer owners) maximize profits by bypassing local laws that ensure livable working conditions, health insurance, and environmental protection. They move production to countries where workers are cheap because education is cheap or free there, instead of having to pay local workers who have $100,000 or more in student debt and who need a certain amount of pay just to make ends meet.

Free trade is how usurers double-dip the world economy, producing things where it is cheapest, and selling them where it is most expensive. They do their utmost to maximize profits while contributing the very least to either of the nations they exploit.

The usual argument in support of free trade goes like this: If one nation is good at producing airplanes, and another good at producing wine, then if each nation specializes at what it does best, both nations will produce more of the things they specialize in, and in this way the production of both nations increases, and thus both nations enjoy a surplus of both wine and airplanes.

What goes into this argument is the naive and fraudulent assumption that all of a country’s workers are equally capable of moving from one industry to another. If our country’s largest software companies move their best jobs to India, does that mean our own programmers can become farmers or airplane makers? Is that the best use of their talents for our country?

A programmer put out of work due to Microsoft off-shoring work to India (or importing workers from India through the H1-B visa) is not going to be happy as a farmer or accountant. They have spent years learning their specific trade (and perhaps have collected hundreds of thousands of debt from usurers in the process), and they need an outlet for their talents that can enable them to get their investment back.

Usurer economists will say that they are free to create their own companies. But they cannot. Usurer-backed companies like Microsoft, who get their cheap labor from India, will always be able to out-compete them, because their workers are cheaper, and they have the money to out-spend all competitors in advertising.

By putting our programmers out of work, these programmers are forced to either accept a low-paying job so that they can find work again, or start a company that supplies a small product to a niche market, while the major software industries of our country are run by foreign programmers, meaning that there will never be a major market for the talents of our own programmers.

The same is true for manufacturing workers. A worker who specializes in producing specific car parts for the car industry cannot effectively move to another industry when the car part maker decides to move production to Mexico or China. They cannot start their own car part making company because the company that fired them is going to be producing the parts cheaper, so that they cannot compete.

This has been happening in industry after industry in the United States as our globalist usurers have continually sent production overseas. The market for the talents of our local workers and professionals has continued to shrink, and their incomes have stagnated, even as the profits of corporate managers have skyrocketed.

Free trade is all about treating people like cattle. Your entire industry has been sent overseas so that there is no outlet for your talents? Too bad. You are an exchangeable cog, if a cheaper one can be found, then you might as well never have existed. And good luck paying off your student loans. If you are lucky, you will be able to find another job, or start a company that can make enough for you to get by.

But most people are not lucky. What free trade does to most people is that it takes away the jobs they enjoy (and have spent years learning to do effectively) and forces them to do second-rate jobs, often at lower pay. It turns thriving cities into ghost towns as factories and businesses close and the workers are left living in barren economies, to become alcoholics and drug addicts.

These workers are filled with an overwhelming sense of shame, as there is no purpose to their existence anymore, or so they feel. They either completely give up, or leave for a larger city and try to start to rebuild their lives anew, often while carrying large debt loads from their past lives.

Since Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), which enacted free trade between the US, Mexico and Canada in 1994, drug overdose deaths and death rates in general in small US towns skyrocketed, in a phenomenon that’s only now being recognized. Some are calling it the “White Death”, as it has mainly affected majority-white counties in the Midwest and surrounding areas.

It was the counties that were hit hardest by NAFTA that gave the most votes to Donald Trump.

The NAFTA hasn’t been any easier on Mexico. Our usurer economists use the media’s nascent racism against lower-class whites (“they took our jerbs!”) to pretend that free trade is a good thing that the lower class opposes because it benefits other poor people. What actually happened after the NAFTA is that it put millions of Mexican corn farmers out of work, since Mexico was flooded with cheap corn produced by US corporations. The devastation caused by NAFTA caused the biggest wave ever of Mexican illegal immigration into the United States.

Usurers and their economists said the NAFTA would help raise the wages of Mexicans. What actually happened is that Mexicans in 2014 actually had lower wages than they did in 1994. Millions of Mexican families had to give up the plots of land that had been farmed by them for generations, as their land was now worthless thanks to US corn.

And usurers on both sides of the border got richer. Mexico’s chief usurer, Carlos Slim, became the richest man in the world for a while.

The root evil of free trade is that it ignores the very, very important fact that the majority of the workforce cannot effectively move from one sector of the economy to another. Once free trade destroys their industry, they are left with nearly nothing. Years of education and training (in the case of US workers), or generations of hard work on a farm (in the case of Mexican farmers), or millions of dollars spent on factories, are made entirely worthless by it.

People are not cattle. And a million-dollar factory cannot magically go from producing car parts, or milling grain, to producing smartphones. When free trade hits, all the investment that went into the factory becomes mostly worthless. The Midwest is full of abandoned and rusting factories that once were worth millions and were surrounded by thriving towns.

There are people who love to write software for computers, and who have spent years of effort, and have collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, to acquire the skills they have. If most of the country’s software industry is suddenly run by foreigners, then local software programmers will have no outlet for their talents, and they will suffer unemployment and lower wages. Corporations will treat them as undesirable, since they cost so much more than foreigners, and the corporations will do their best to only maintain skeleton crews of local software programmers while outsourcing everything that can be outsourced.

Free trade is a great tool for beating employees into submission. If they complain that their wages aren’t sufficient for them to make a living, you can just threaten them to send their jobs overseas. Through the use of this threat, local wages can be kept low, so that more profits go into the stomachs of the usurers who own and run the country’s corporations.

Usurers want to be able to freely import goods and services from China. What they ignore to mention is that China doesn’t allow its own usurers to freely import goods and services from other countries. China only believes in one-way free trade, where it can flood the world with its own products while refusing to take in other countries’ products freely, in this way ensuring full employment for its own citizens and creating unemployment in other countries.

The people who run China are clever, and unlike the US government, their policy decisions are meant for the benefit of the nation as a whole, instead of entirely for the benefit of an all-powerful usurer class. China encourages local industry and employment through charging heavy taxes on imports. Many American and European car makers have been forced to build factories there, since China makes it so difficult for them to import cars built elsewhere. Through this policy, China makes these companies hire Chinese workers, who acquire the technologies of these companies, and through the government’s strong support for local industry, they are able to leave these Western companies and create Chinese alternatives to them. It’s one of the main goals of the Chinese government to reduce imports (its reliance on other nations) so much that by 2025 it means to ensure that 70% of all products the country needs are entirely locally produced. Universities are working with local factories to develop alternatives to materials which so far they have only been able to import from Western countries.

Encouraging local employment and preserving the value of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that go into educating and training a skilled worker is only one of the benefits of restricted trade. The other important benefit is innovation. You cannot innovate in producing passenger airplanes if your country doesn’t have an industry producing passenger airplanes. If all of your airplanes are imported from China, the innovation is going to be happening there. This is the case with LCD/LED screen technology. As most smartphone, laptop and TV screens are made in South Korea and Japan, these two countries are the world leaders when it comes to inventing and marketing new screen technologies. The US, with all of its supposed technological glory, is a complete backwater when it comes to screen technology, because, through unrestricted trade, it has subsidized innovation in these two nations while crippling its own local producers.

By importing any good or service from other countries, we are subsidizing innovation and research in that country, allowing them to maintain a permanent technological edge over us.

The solution to all of this is restricted trade, which we can also call “fair trade”. This was the policy of the United States during its extremely fast industrialization in the 19th century, until it was given up through the efforts of bank lobbyists.

One of the greatest American economists of the 19th century was the anti-free-trade thinker Erasmus Peshine Smith, whose ideas inspired American trade policy until the end of the 1800’s. Almost no one knows his name, since he wasn’t a usurer economist, and his ideas go against the interests of the usurer class, so that not a single mention of him can be found in most of today’s college textbooks. An entire 40 year period of American economic history has been wiped from the public consciousness.

One reason usurers and their media hate Donald Trump so much is that he says he will charge a tax on imports (such taxes are known as tariffs), which threatens their profits, and which will force them to raise the wages of their local workers. It is a policy that will help the peasant class at the cost of the usurer class, and so to a usurer it is utter blasphemy.

The latest defense of globalism and free trade is that sooner or later, everything is going to be automated, so that “bringing those jobs back” is not going to happen anyway, as the jobs will not exist. They are using some imaginary event 50 years in the future to justify continuing their current policy of plundering the working and middle classes. Bringing any industry back to the country would not only bring those jobs back, but will also create a great number of other supporting industries that too will employ people. Usurers will be forced to raise wages, and job opportunities would greatly increase for job seekers.

Yes, automation is a big, looming threat to everyone except the top 10% most skilled workers and professionals in society. But leaving our industries overseas is not the answer, because even if a factory is entirely automated, if it is overseas, the knowledge to run the factory, and the innovation required to improve it and make greater things out of it, will also happen overseas, giving that overseas nation (and its skilled workers) a great advantage over our workers.

The solution is to bring jobs back regardless of automation. As for automation, there is a powerful solution to it known as wealth recycling, that I will address in a future chapter, that will ensure that automation, instead of reducing people’s wages and living standards, will actually increase them.

To oppose free trade, which we should call “globalism”, since the word “free” in “free trade” makes it sound like a good thing to most people, fair trade has to be promoted in its place. That means putting our workers and professionals on an equal footing with foreign ones. We shouldn’t let a usurer corporation like Microsoft import tens of thousands of cheap foreign workers so that it wouldn’t have to raise the wages of local ones. Big tech companies have put hundreds of thousands of skilled software engineers out of work through this selfish and greedy policy.

The usual argument for these companies to import workers is that there aren’t enough skilled workers locally. Anyone familiar with their industries knows that this is a breathtakingly enormous lie. What they are really saying is that local workers cost too much. They want cheap workers who will ensure them continued enormous profits. So far, through importing cheap workers, these companies have managed to create wage stagnation for their workers over the past 15 workers just as executive pay has skyrocketed.

The United States does not have a talent shortage like these companies pretend. It has a massive surplus of talent that is going to waste. There are so many unemployed skilled workers that today even a PhD is not sufficient to ensure employment. A usurer corporation like Google gets to lord it over its employees by getting the best of the best of the country at incredibly discounted salaries, since they always have the power of outsourcing and hiring foreign workers.

There is nothing wrong with Google having an Indian branch that serves India. What is wrong is Google sending most of its jobs to India, and then from there serving the US market. Because this way all of the investment and innovation will happen in India, and Google will be able to offer services to the US market at discounted rates, so that no local company that hires local workers will be able to compete. This is the exact situation that has happened in industry after industry since the 90’s when outsourcing and worker importation soared.

Chinese leaders are very well aware of this and they make Western companies establish local operations there, and make them produce things there, if they want to serve the Chinese market.

President Donald Trump too seems to be aware of this and is promising to fix the matter. While this will be a step in the right direction for the people of the US, it is only a small step. It prevents one type of usurer abuse, but it doesn’t address the root cause of our economic woes: usury. Still, we need to be thankful for any progress made.

I call companies like Microsoft and Google usurer companies because they (and every other big corporation) all practice usury. They amass large hoards of cash, and like any usurer, lend these at interest to others through Wall Street banks. Apple made $4 billion solely from usury (reported as “interest income” on their earnings statements) in 2016, Microsoft made $903 million, Oracle $538 million, Google $434 million, and Facebook $91 million. The actual amount of money invested in usury by these large tech companies is probably upwards of $100 billion, the previous numbers are only the interest they earned on their usurious lending.

Since taxes on imports are, in effect, a tax on the local population (since they end up having to pay higher prices for imports), the tax could be returned directly to the bottom 50% of society as part of the larger uninvested wealth tax that will be covered later. In this way imports will be prevented from destroying local industries on the one hand, and they will contribute to the wellbeing of the poor and the lower middle class on the other hand.

The Wonderful Parallel Universe of Usury

When asked, ‘What is to be said of making profit by usury?’
Cato replied, ‘What is to be said of making profit by murder?’
—Cicero (44 B.C.)

Someone who practices lending at interest is known as a usurer. Usurers have been hated by people throughout history, not just out of envy for their wealth, but because once usurers are in charge of any nation’s economy, wealth inequality explodes: the rich continue to get richer, the middle class stagnates, and the number of people living in poverty grows larger.

Modern economists, many of whom are nothing more than lobbyists for the usurer class, have rewritten the entire science of economics with usury at its foundation, so much so that only one in a thousand economists can be found who can think critically about the effects of usury on the nation’s economy. The majority are so immersed in Usurer Economics that for them to question anything about usury feels the same as questioning the value of breathing air.

What is so bad about earning and paying interest anyway? Shouldn’t a person who lends $10,000 USD to a business earn something in return?

There is one species of this price or reward …when money is lent on a contract to receive not only the principal sum again, but also an increase by way of compensation for the use; which generally is called interest…the enemies to interest… hold… any increase of money to be indefensibly usurious. And this they ground as well on the prohibition of it by the law of Moses among the Jews, as also upon what is said to be laid down by Aristotle, that money is naturally barren, and to make it breed money is preposterous, and a perversion of the end of its institution, which was only to serve the purposes of exchange” “and not increase. Hence the school divines (scholastic theologians) have branded the practice of taking interest as being contrary to the divine law both natural and revealed; and the canon law has proscribed the taking any, the least, increase for the loan of money, as a mortal sin.
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book the Second, as quoted in Usury in Christendom, emphasis mine.

Some people who borrow money make profits through the use of this money, so that paying an interest rate of 5%, for example, is of little consequence to them. If you borrow $10,000 at a 5% annual interest rate, you will only have to pay $500 at the end of the year. That’s very little if during that year you made $2000 from the money you borrowed. Your profit is 20%, while the interest rate is 5%, meaning that you make a net profit of 15%, or $1500, during that year. The usurer who lent you the money is satisfied, and you who borrowed the money are satisfied.

To most people today, this seems like a perfectly fair and just transaction.

But it is not. It is one of the most evil and unjust transactions that humans have ever invented. According to the New Testament, the only time that Jesus used violence during his entire career was against the usurers.

Hermann Adler, Chief Rabbi of the British Empire from 1891 to 1911, says: “No amount of money given in charity, nothing but the abandonment of this hateful trade, can atone for this great sin against God, Israel and Humanity.” He is attacking usurers for using philanthropy (widely publicized acts of charity) to justify their usury, saying that no amount of charity will absolve them.

In Europe, during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, usurers were among the most despised classes of society, they had the same social standing as brothel owners, cesspit cleaners and public executioners. It was a source of pride for Christians that they did not engage in usury.

As the centuries passed, usury become commonplace. Usurers rebranded themselves as financiers, capitalists and industrialists, and through performing acts of charity, the majority of them were (and are) also known as philanthropists.

So what is the big deal with usury?

The problem with usury is that the profits of lenders always grows faster than the profits of borrowers. When you borrow $10,000 at 5% interest, within this transaction is the embedded assumption that your prosperity will grow by at least 5% in the next year. This is why Aristotle and many other philosophers and intellectuals call usury “unnatural.” The profits of usury are separate from the profits of the actual economy in which it exists. When usurers lend at 5%, they are maintaining a parallel alternate reality in which the economy grows at 5% in the next year, regardless of whether the actual economy grows at 5% or not.

While some borrowers make good use of the money they have borrowed and make more than 5%, so that they can pay off the usurers and still make a profit, others, because of the millions of different chances that operate in the reality of an economy, make a loss on the money they have borrowed.

They may have borrowed $10,000, and a year later they only have $8,000 left, because their business dealing didn’t work out as they expected. But the usurer, in his alternate reality, continues to pretend not only that the $10,000 still exists, but that the $10,000 made a 5% profit. He collects $500 from the borrower at the end of the year, leaving the borrower with $7500 in cash, and a $10,000 debt to pay off. If the borrower continues to be unlucky the next year, he loses another $2,000 of his cash, but he still has to pay about $500 to the usurer, so now he has $5,000 left in cash, and a $10,000 debt to pay off.

Meanwhile, during these two years, the usurer has earned $1,000 in profit, without losing any of the $10,000 he gave to the borrower, since the borrower is required to pay it back regardless of his or her profits or losses.

Usury is a way of earning money by the virtue of having money, while making others to carry the burden of any risk that comes out of using the money. It is an amazing deal—for the usurer. For the borrower, sometimes it is a good deal, sometimes it breaks even, and sometimes it is pure slavery.

A modern, poignant form of debt slavery today is student debt. A usurer lends a student $200,000 at, let’s say, 5% interest. Within this debt is the assumption that not only will the student be able to use their $200,000 degree to earn that much back over their career, but that they will also make a 5% profit, every year, over the cost of the degree.

As it happens, some students graduate and succeed in the business world, so that they pay off the loan in 10 or 15 years while enjoying a good, or at least an acceptable, standard of living.

But for many students, this is only something that they can dream of. They borrow tens of thousands of dollars, only to spend the rest of their lives barely being able to make the monthly payments on their loans. And ten years after graduation, due to changing economic, political or technological conditions, their degrees may be completely worthless, meaning that they racked up $200,000 or more in debt for something completely useless. This $200,000 will hover over them like a dark cloud for the rest of their lives.

Meanwhile, the usurer in his or her high tower, continues to extract a 5% interest, or $10,000 a year, from the student, with the law enabling them to maintain an alternate reality in which that completely useless degree is actually worth $200,000, and also that that useless degree is enabling the student to earn a 5% yearly profit over the value of the degree.

In 2015, there were 2.8 million Americans over the age of 60 who were still living with student debt. US law, authored by usurers and their lobbyists, prohibits these people from declaring bankruptcy so that they can get rid of this cloud that has been giving them constant stress since their early adulthood. The law forces them to pay it off, and empowers usurers to seize these people’s wages and properties to get not only the original $200,000, but an additional $10,000 yearly profit over and above that for every year these people have had their debt, which, for a person of 60, means for their entire adult lives. Student debt has turned these people into money-making machines for the usurers.

Usury is about creating an alternate reality in which the economy grows at 5%, or 20%, or whatever the usurers are currently lending their money at, and using the law to force this reality on the population, regardless of the actual economy.

In the real economy, each year and each month’s profits are different from the previous ones. One year the economy may make a 5% profit, another a 2.5% profit. A war may break out, or natural disaster may strike, causing the economy to make a loss. Political conditions can change. Trade wars, currency speculation and terrorism can severely damage an economy’s profits.

But in the blissful alternate reality of the usurer, none of this happens. Each year is full of sunshine and great harvests, and the population will have to subsidize this alternate reality for them, by their very blood if they have to.

If all the businesses in the United States borrow $5 trillion from usurers at 5% interest, but they only make a 2.5% profit, they will actually make a 2.5% loss, since they have to pay 5% to the usurers. That is a $125 billion loss that will have to be paid to the usurers.

A business may declare bankruptcy, in which case the government auctions off their assets to pay off the usurers. In such cases the usurers can lose a lot of money. Usurers use this risk of bankruptcy to justify their profits. While this risk does exist, it is the amount of the risk that matters. While usurers do make losses sometimes, their profits are always greater. The whole economy operates like one big rigged casino for usurers, in which 10% of the time they lose, and 90% of the time they win, regardless of economic conditions.

The wealth of usurers grows faster than the wealth of the population, meaning that they always have the upper hand in the economy. They get to buy the most profitable companies and the most profitable patches of land and real estate. They own the biggest mansions and the nicest cars. They live in a blissful alternate reality where every day is a great day—all subsidized by the sweat and blood of the rest of the population.

They are celebrated in the media as philanthropists and art collectors, rather than being cursed for being leeches draining the blood from the rest of society.

Why? Mostly because they own most of the media. You will never, ever hear a critique of usury in the media, whether it is from conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, libertarians or any other media group that claims to have the good of the people at heart.