Usury Castrates
May 10, 2016
THIS AD may be a perfect illustration of our fraudulent monetary system, which renders what is fertile infertile and what is infertile (money) fertile. Jamie Dimon, president of JP Morgan Chase, will be paid $27 million this year for, among other things, increasing debt peonage. And as if that isn’t enough, his company psychologically castrates American men by promoting “transgenderism.” (The commercial is ambiguous, but everyone knows the subtext. And don’t bother writing to Chase to complain. They don’t give a hoot what you think.)
It is often said that usurers — those who charge interest on loans — deserve payment for their loans because of the opportunities they lose by not using money in another way. But that assumes that they would make their money increase another way. It also assumes they have actual money to lend.
In fact, most bank loans are made with money created through the accounting deception known as double-entry book-keeping. As Colin McKay writes:
All of the ‘money’ that we believe ourselves to own, and that we circulate daily among ourselves in payment for goods, services, and investments, is neither ‘money’ in true substance, nor are we the owners of it.
The reality of the system is this. Bankers create IOUs out of nothing. These digital tokens represent our IOU to the bank. Then—by a clever accounting trick—they let us borrow their IOUs as ‘money’.
Usury is money magick, as McKay argues. It’s an inversion of values. It destroys the natural order. The inversion of male and female follows as night follows day. In the manufactured chaos of sexual confusion, the indebted may never realize they’ve been robbed.
— Comments —
Hurricane Betsy writes:
But that assumes that they would make their money increase another way. It also assumes they have actual money to lend.
Regarding your point #2: I have no quarrel.
Re #1: Yes, if the money is real, the lender could make his money increase in another way (other than loaning it out for profit to himself). He could use it to buy something – material goods – add value to it, then sell it. And make a profit.
That’s what business is: you buy something, then sell it for more. Are you opposed to trade? :)
Laura writes:
He could also sell it and lose money because he paid too much for it — or he could be unable to sell it. He could open a store or a restaurant or another business with it and lose everything. In short, his profit is not guaranteed.
