Skip to content

How Money Rules

July 29, 2018

The World is run by the Banking Cartel, who is the real hegemon, not some Nation State.

When Banks rule, it is obvious that they rule through money. Here is how they do it.

By Anthony Migchels. This article was written for, and first published by

How we know the Banks rule
Let us first ascertain that the Banking Cartel is indeed the hegemon. And this can be proven by one simple statistic: the World is indebted to them to the tune of $247 Trillion Dollars. That is three times World GDP.

This debt costs about $12 Trillion per year to service, which is about one sixth of World GDP. It is known that all this money ends up with the richest 10% of the people worldwide. Even much worse: about a third of this money (about 4 Trillion) ends up with the richest 0,0032%. These are the people that control the Banks.

Compare this to the income of the US Federal Government, which sits at a paltry $3 Trillion. US Government debt to the Bank is about $21 Trillion, and US total debt (including households and corporations) is perhaps as high as $70 Trillion.

Not only is the Government’s income markedly lower than that of the Banking Cartel, it is dependent on them for money.

These numbers are self evident. They expose the true nature of power, and they also show how ridiculous it is to speak of ‘economic growth’ and ‘wealthy countries’. Obviously, the United States cannot be ‘rich’ when it has $70 Trillion (3,5 times GDP) in debt. There will be wealthy people in the US, yes, but the country itself is poor and broke, as is also proven by the fact that 80% of Americans own nothing, and live paycheck to paycheck.

Besides the obvious implications of the massive debt, it has been established that all the major Banks in the World (European, American, Chinese, Japanese) own each other. They ARE a cartel. It’s not speculation, it’s a fact.

Controlling the Money Supply
To control means to be able to start, sustain, and stop something. Banks control the money supply. They create the money, they decide how much money there is, who gets it, and they destroy the money (when debts are repaid).

And they control all the money supplies in the World. Including that of Syria and Iran. And North Korea. Which is not surprising, as the Communist Manifesto demands ´the centralization of all credit in the State, by means of a national bank and an exclusive monopoly’.

Libya seems to have been the last country with monetary independence: Gaddafi ran an interest-free monetary system, with the issueing organization securely in his own hands. People got interest-free loans for business ventures and mortgages. When the ‘rebels’ (Zio-Capitalist-Wahhab proxy goons) were still a bunch of start ups in Benghazi, the first thing ‘they’ (in reality their sponsors in the State Department) produced was a charter for a Central Bank.

All ‘national’ currencies worldwide, are created in the same way: as an interest-bearing debt to the Bank. Which is noteworthy in itself, because there are many natural ways of creating currency, and this uniformity is a key tell-tale sign of centralized control.

It is sometimes hard to fathom for people why money is so incredibly crucial in the economy, but it’s really very simple: money is half of all transactions. The seller provides goods and services, the buyer provides money.

So on the one hand, there are all the goods and services in the World, on the other hand, there is the money.

Money is the gateway to everything else. Without money, most transactions would not take place. By controlling the volume of money, one controls price levels in the economy. By keeping money scarce, one creates artificial scarcity of everything.

By controlling money, one controls the entire economy.

How they translate control of money into control of everything
Here are the three main Banker tools of exploiting control of money:
1) Usury, which is interest on loans of money.
2) Creating inflations and deflations, the boom and bust cycle.
3) Credit allocation: Bankers decide who gets money, and who doesn’t. They control who can invest, and in what.

We have already seen what damage Usury does: working people pay $12 Trillion per year to the idle classes, parasites who inherit billions and suck up billions more in interest, without ever producing anything that is of use to anybody.

Usury is the main driver of debt. The last 25 years or so, States, Corporations and individuals have paid more interest than they currently have debts outstanding. Without Usury, there would hardly be any debt.

By controlling the volume of money, both in the general economy, and in specific markets, they control all price levels. Yes, ALL price levels, in all markets. Even Oil (the biggest market) they can just increase prices tenfold in a matter of moments. They did this in 2006-2008. This is true of all assets and commodities.

By lending liberally, for instance for speculation on the Stock Exchange, or real estate, they create booms, inflations causing higher prices. Next, they cite ‘lack of confidence’, or ‘bad fundamentals’, and stop lending, which diminishes money in the market, and lowers prices, leading to busts.

During the busts, most people are forced into liquidation at depressed prices. Only the Plutocrats have enough money to pick up the pieces for pennies on the dollar.

The 2008 Credit Crunch alone has created about $50 Trillion in damages worldwide (bailouts plus missed economic growth). Unsurprisingly, the wealthy became much wealthier in the last ten years, while working people (the 90/99%) saw income and asset positions decline massively in real terms.

And last, but not least, the Banker privilege of deciding who gets credit: the implication of this is obvious: the absolute worst people in the World get to decide who gets money, who can invest, and in what. Therefore, Bankers decide in what direction society will develop. So obviously we have mass poverty, people working 50 hours per week, 50 weeks per year while having nothing. That is how the filthy rich like it.

When Bankers decide who gets money, then the Fed can just print $16 Trillion for Bank bailouts, while politicians will tell everybody we can’t afford food stamps and social security.

Yes, the Bankers rule, and they rule through money. They prey on our ignorance. We don’t understand they are a Cartel (a Monopoly), we don’t understand how they create the money, how they set all prices, how Usury automatically concentrates all wealth with the very richest.

But once one does understand the problem, the solution is obvious: take control of the money supply, create usury-free credit, manage volume to allow stable prices (which is really not complicated), and allow local communities to allocate credit for their own needs.

Note that the problem is not fixed with some Gold Standard, while they own all the Gold, and will only lend it at interest to us. The problem is also not fixed with letting the State create the money, but leave all credit (at interest!) to Banking. Crypto currencies are bogus items who do not solve any of our monetary problems. Mindless speculation is not going to solve Banking.

Nationalizing the Fed is also far from sufficient, and at best a minute step in the right direction. The Fed only exists to facilitate Commercial and Merchant Banking, and was created by the Banking Industry.

Keep this in mind: the essence of Banking is not ‘money creation’ as most of the Alternative Media will tell you. The quintessential nature of Banking is lending at interest. THAT is what a Bank does, and that is how they have conquered the entire World.

Only interest-free credit can solve Banking and the New World Order.

Real Currencies on Facebook

  1. Welcome back!

    Have you heard of the Casa Pound fascist group in Italy? Look at their page: They actually mention usury, it’s the first time I’ve heard a European nationalist mention usury and the banking system all at the same time.

    Money supply isn’t the only thing that determines prices.

    Your link that says all the banks own each other isn’t working for me, it says servers IP can’t be found.

    • Thanks! I’ve fixed it.

      And yes, I’ve heard of them. But honestly, I’m amazed how retarded the ‘nationalist’ parties that are now growing are on the economy. But good for Casa Pound, of course.

      No, indeed: prices are a function of demand, supply, and money supply, but when you have full control over money, and nobody realizes what you’re doing, you pretty much have full control over prices.

    • kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

      The Usury system has been mentioned a number of times by Nationalists here in the UK, you cannot be familiar with patriots like Arnold S Leese or Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay, even John Tyndall founder and former Chairman of the British National Party named the Jew and how they control our system.

      Here from Arnold S Leese

      “I wish to emphasise that I have done my research on the Jew Menace in the same scientific spirit as when I was investigating camel diseases in the world’s deserts. I have been after truth, not propaganda; in fact, I have investigated the diseases of the body politic!”

      The Nameless War from Captain Ramsey

      John Tyndall on the Jewish Question.


      I described this process of awakening in The Eleventh Hour:
      Bit by bit, it started to come home to me, in the form of incontrovertible evidence, that there was present in Britain and around the world a definite Jewish network wielding immense influence and power – through money, through politics and through its strong foothold, in some sectors amounting to virtual monopoly, in the mass media.
      And further on:

      Then what of the uses of Jewish wealth and power? I set to work studying the political orientation of Jewish writers in the press, Jewish book-publishers, Jewish political leaders, political philosophers and academics. I investigated the various causes to which Jewish money was being donated.
      The truth was inescapable. In not one single case could I find any prominent, powerful and influential Jewish personage who identified himself or herself with any cause complementary to the interests of the British Nation… Quite the contrary, every cause inimical to these things seemed to have Jewish participation and backing. Looking back to the political arguments I had had earlier, it now occurred to me, as it had not done at the time, that the most vociferous and aggressive opponents of all I believed in had been Jews.

      I became aware of a strange paradox. While Jews were to be found among the most ardent and committed opponents of British Nationalism and British race-loyalty, they were at the same time the most passionate champions of nationalism and race consciousness on the part of their own people

  2. Tim permalink

    you really should post this on

  3. jim koconis permalink

    ditto: welcome back!

    thank you for summing up the essence of all your previous enlightening essays about the nature and mechanic of money – as well as your remedy for what, thru out history, has been the grandest fraud, and deepest mystery confronting the common man.

    of course, i mean usury.

    if i may, i only have this comment to add (and would appreciate your thoughts regarding it)…

    the very existence of banking is possible only because those with expendable incomes would rather save their money than spend it. why? because they have no pressing needs for which the money might exchanged to satisfy and banking this money provides an increase to THEM (usury). the banks, and all other financial markets, simply co-opt the desire of these savers and leverage it to their very unnatural benefit. by ‘saving’ money rather than spending money, it in a very real sense removes the essential and proper nature of money as a humble medium of exchange and just accountancy.

    one might ask – who shoulders the more grievous blame – the bankers or the savers?


    how could any monetary regime, however well designed and managed, ever overcome this problem?

    it seems to me that the problem of usury is, initially, a spiritual problem of those who would rather store up their expendable exchange tokens for there own future benefit rather than spending it joyously on the obvious needs of the many poorly endowed living all around them.

    • There will be no demand for the money of the rich, when the common man can get interest-free credit from a local facility.

      So nobody will be paying for interest on savings either.

      But yes, the issue that precedes the monetary matter is our spiritual blindness, lost in materialism and ego, forgetting that we should live, work, and share together as brethren, instead of this nonsense of ‘cut throat competition’ and ‘winner takes all’.

      • I’d say that fierce competition is not the issue. The object of that competition and the location of that competition within an economic hierarchy is the issue. If those at the bottom are not fighting for sustenance, it is because those at the top are fighting for the privilege to rule over them. Optimally within a nonviolent leadership contest.

    • John of Kolno permalink

      I beg to disagree. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck did not introducte pension funds for nothing. Saving money in case of really wealthy individuals is in fact disputable, but ordinary folk? They’ve got no other means to sustain themselves in old age than saving money during their working years (i.e. if they do make enough to make [even if minute] savings, naturally).

      • If people don’t have to work their entire lives just to make the Landlord richer, they can own their own house, a bit of land, and other assets. Their old age will be comfortable.

        ‘Pensions’ are for wage slaves, and Bismarck, and later Hitler had nothing really against wage slavery, all they were concerned with was not overly aggravating workers so that they would not revolt.

        But the mature way of going about these things is assets. Not ‘savings’, let alone ‘pensions’.

        • John of Kolno permalink

          Yes, Anthony, what you’re proposing is the ideal model we all should strive for, but I was talking about actual Planet Earth A.D. 2018 🙂
          BTW terrific blog, been aware of it for like 5 years or so. You’re one of the more prominent persons in the judeo-sceptic part of the European ‘nationalist’ movement and one that I owe my awakening (jew- and usury-wise) to, among other scholars. Great job sir, I truly admire your work and keep up the good fight.

        • John of Kolno permalink

          Ad vocem But the mature way of going about these things is assets. Not ‘savings’, let alone ‘pensions’.
          People still need to buy food and other essentials and pay their bills after they retire, and even if they are able to tend to their garden on their own in the beggining, that won’t last forever so they will have to buy stuff. Ergo, some amount of savings is indeed necessary, methinks.

  4. You’re right but unnecessarily vague… The bankers got control of central banks around the world … Central Bank produce the currency… Instead of transferring the currency to Treasury, central banks exchange currency for government bonds… Government bonds are paid by the taxpayer of course…

    All government funding is done by borrowing… Criminal … unconstitutional… immoral… unnecessary… governments should print their own currencies free from debt and interest payments!

    die falscher lends..government spends has irs extract..pays loanshark back

  5. Rajakaruna permalink

    Banks are run and controlled by Jews! That simple. Just look around Wall Street, London or Frankfurt. Billionaire Jews top the list of billionaires? With money, they control just about everything in our lives. Those, like the Jews, who have the gold make the golden rules!

  6. bjchip permalink

    Real Money represents work done.

    This definition, unlike the money represented by debt, ties money to physics and so resolves the physics-envy of economists.

    It also makes it clear that not only can we NOT create unlimited amounts of money with interest attached, we cannot tolerate ANY form of rent-seeking behaviour.

    After all, rent-seeking was rubbished by Adam Smith (the father of Capitalism).
    It was rubbished by Karl Marx (the father of Communism).
    It is (in the form of interest) forbidden by the Holy Bible.
    It is (in the form of interest) forbidden by the Holy Koran.

    Yet it is the economic definition of money chosen and imposed on the entire planet.

    Not a little bit wrong… this is Wolfgang Pauli territory
    “Es ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch”

    The changes necessary are devastating to the current arrangements. Not easily changed.

  7. kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

    In the old days there was no paper money. The accepted token of exchange was precious metal minted into coins by the Church and the Crown. Because there was only a limited amount of gold and silver available, the economic life of the nation had a certain regularity.

    An even greater restriction existed throughout Christendom. This was a prohibition against usury, or charging interest. The Church held it to be a grave sin and the code was upheld by the civil powers. There were harsh penalties for those who broke the law.

    The regulation of usury was to prevent the separation of money from reality. Money is not a good, it is a measure. It is fraud to pretend otherwise, and constitutes theft. Usury is making money from lending money; it is making money from nothing. This is exactly what is happening today on a colossal scale.

    Several important things arose from the prohibition of usury in medieval Christendom. Firstly Jews, who had taken to wandering around Europe in the Middle Ages, began to specialize in money-lending and other practices which were forbidden to Christians. Exploited Christians, both peasants and aristocracy, found themselves being bled dry by usurers, which is why there were sporadic uprisings, imprisonments and expulsions of Jews throughout Europe. It is one reason why King Edward I expelled these perfidious people from England in 1290. Oliver Cromwell allowed them back when the moral authority of the Church was undermined and the King was beheaded in 1649.

    Secondly, gold coins, jewels and other valuables were deposited with people who held strongboxes. This was usually with goldsmiths and money-lenders who, more often than not, were one and the same. These loan-sharks and scriveners realized that, without much chance of being found out, they could charge people for looking after their deposits and then use those deposits – which did not belong to them – to make loans to other people at interest. They soon became rich and powerful.

    Gold coins are heavy and awkward to carry around so the custom arose whereby the money-lenders would issue credit notes to depositors who began to trade these notes between themselves in commercial transactions. Paper money had come into existence.

    A new form of usury developed as the swindling money-lenders realized the immoral benefits that could be obtained from such a situation. It became apparent to these thieves that they could go one step further than dishonestly using other people’s money for financial advantage at no cost to themselves. They could invent money from absolutely nothing. They could issue credit notes with nothing to back them up and put them into circulation as interest-bearing debts. No-one would be any the wiser. They calculated that they could safely issue notes for up to ten times more than the gold deposits they held, because the depositors would never ask for their deposits back all at the same time.

    The principle of modern banking was thus established: invent money from nothing, put it into circulation as “running cash notes” that have to be paid back with real wealth that is produced from our labour, sit back and become unbelievably wealthy and powerful men: hidden rulers of nations.

    In England this deceitful system was officially sanctioned in 1694. The usurper of the throne, William of Orange, had overthrown the legitimate King James II with the financial backing and plotting of powerful Jewish financiers in Amsterdam. In return he gave the sovereignty of England to a group of financiers by means of a Charter allowing them to call themselves the Bank of England. The Charter made no mention of issuing the nation’s money, but within minutes of signing the new Bank officials were discussing the form of their “running cash notes.” The same system was adopted in every country by a process of Masonic revolution and manipulation.

    • Well before we were using coins in midevil times we used clay tablets quite successfully. Money was hi-jacked by people who owned the mines and created one of our first lessons against the money power. It matters more how we use money, not what we use.

      • kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

        Medieval England and Germany were using Tally Sticks until the Noseberg’s took over with their money swindle and Fractional reserve banking.

        THE TALLY STICKS (1100 – 1854)

        King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.

        The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.

        Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.

        He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today’s money is just paper.

        The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?

        Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).

        What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder’s in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder’s.

        These investors, who’s names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694.

        It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot.

        This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.

        Here’s how they did it.

        With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500’s, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute.

        The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell’s successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them.

        So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today.

        The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.

        Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.

        You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.

        These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.

        The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.

        If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.

        With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction.

        One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses.

        By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.

        As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It’s those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer’s.

        When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.

        Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable.

        • That was a great read. I’m aware of the tally sticks.

          Have you heard of the financing of the greenbacks? It wasn’t as free from the money power as we thought.

          • kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

            Thank you, yes i have heard of Abraham Lincoln and him issuing Greenbacks, but not really up to speed on it. I will have a listen to the video you have posted.


    • An insightful summary but what I would question is the moral stance of the Christian Church on prohibiting usury. I believe it may have purposely done this to allow a monopoly of interest charging to take place. Just having a quick look at the historical banking families listed below, especially those in the Italian city states and the “Holy” Roman Empire shows they all had close ties to the Catholic church.

      In fact the Medici’s produced three popes! During Feudal times The Church gave royalty the divine right to rule, they had tremendous power and waged wars. Their morality requires questioning.

  8. Just like in Feudal times where a few families owned all the land which is a requirement for any human to live, the peasants were “loaned” this land and to pay off this debt they had to devote a significant amount of their time and energy to produce the needs and wants of the landed gentry. The elite did not see why they should work but instead to use this “free” time to enjoy the material pleasures of life. The peasants had been convinced by the church though that these elite were some how representatives of God and so they had the divine right to rule. I would question the moral stance of the Christian Church on prohibiting usury. I believe it may have purposely done this to allow a monopoly of interest charging to take place. Just having a quick look at the wealthiest banking families (Fuggers, Medicis etc) especially those in the Italian city states and the “Holy” Roman Empire shows they all had close ties to the Catholic church. In fact the Medici’s produced three popes!

    To project this power on the rest of the world during the European Empires, initially slavery was imposed to produce various goods in the Americas in an attempt to monopolise world trade. It became to costly maintaining violent control over slaves and so The European based elite used debt based money to give the illusion of earning wealth. Once they had successfully invaded a foreign land they used a combination of privatising land ownership, privatising the means of production of goods from said land or transferring the trade production to Europe (eg. manufactured cotton goods from India to England) and imposed taxes on the local population. This meant people of the world could only pay off taxes and acquire privately owned human needs (housing, food, clothing etc) using imperialist minted coinage which could only be gained by exchanging their labour. So they had to start working for private Capitalist companies.

    Essentially money reflects the actual debt we owe to the private owners of the world. Firstly by imposing this system where all money in circulation (even our wages) is created as a loan/debt to individuals, companies and countries the elite are in effect stating that if you want to live on this planet you owe us a significant portion of your time and energy. Secondly they will only loan to those who align to achieve whatever their agendas are, eg. wars etc.

    The effect of charging interest controls the rate at which the world must turn resource into goods/services and be sold so that companies can repay debt, workers get paid to pay their debt and taxation collected so governments pay back their debt. If the GDP is not high enough then parts of the world economy risk going into recession unless the money lenders loan more or write off debts. Once a recession has hit and companies that start going into liquidation thats when Banks can step in and buy up the company if so desired, but I believe they pretty much own everything now. Thats why post 2008 recession interest rates were slashed and government debt suspended/cancelled (QE) in the West which staved off the next recession to achieve whatever the goals of the elite are. The Fed has begun to increase rates and looking to create the next recession, in my opinion one which will dwarf 2008 and potentially create civil wars everywhere. Maybe they have realised that the environmental disaster created from debt based Capitalism requires a purging of humanity as the world can no longer sustain mass consumption!

    • kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

      The Middle Ages are frequently associated with backwardness, tyranny and poverty: a period in which life was hard and short. Notwithstanding the absence of technological benefits in the fields of medicine and science, this was in reality an age in which prosperity and happiness were abundant and widely diffused.

      The litmus test of any successful civilisation is the financial arrangements which prevail in its economic life. Are the means of exchange – that is money and credit – issued by the state for the sole benefit of its inhabitants, or are they controlled and manipulated by private bankers for their own enrichment and the enslavement of the people?

      In mediaeval England state finances were firmly in the hands of the king, but prior to 1290 they were in the grip of a group of marauding moneylenders.

      The laws against usury before the arrival of William the Conqueror in 1066 were very strict. In 899 King Alfred (871-99) directed that the property of usurers be forfeited, while in 1050 Edward the Confessor (1042-66) decreed not only forfeiture, but that a usurer be declared an outlaw and banished for life.

      These wise laws were abandoned when the Normans defeated the English at Hastings on October 14th 1066. William I (1066-87) was accompanied by a party of Jewish settlers, who had been resident in Rouen, Normandy, since Roman times. Circumstantial evidence indicates that these Jews had provided financial support for William’s military campaign in return for the right to practise usury in England under royal protection.

      It was, however, William’s son Rufus (1087-1100) who actively permitted these Jews to engage in lending money at interest – a venture in which he initially took a 50 per cent share of the profits. In order to pay the interest on loans advanced to the Crown, Rufus was obliged to tax the populace, which engendered much resentment towards him. The Encyclopaedia Britannica provides a vivid description of this odious man:-

      ‘In appearance William II was unattractive; bullnecked, with sloping shoulders, extremely corpulent and awkward in his gait; His long locks and clean-shaven face marked his predilection for the newfangled fashions which contemporary ecclesiastics were never weary of denouncing. His features were strongly marked and coarse, his eyes grey and deeply set; he owed his nickname (Rufus) to the fiery hue of his complexion. He stuttered violently and in moments of passion was almost inarticulate. His familiar conversation was witty and blasphemous. He was surrounded by a circle of vicious parasites, and no semblance of decorum was maintained in his household.

      ‘His character was assailed by the darkest rumours, which he never attempted to refute. He died unmarried and without issue.’

      Those Jews not involved in the money-lending racket traded in corn and wool or dealt in trinkets, cheap jewellery and useless junk. Although it was forbidden by statute, many of them engaged in coin-clipping, that is filing and clipping the edges of coins and putting them back into circulation as clipped coins. The filings and clippings were then melted into bullion. A similar fraud they perpetrated was the plating of tin with silver and then selling it as silver-plate.

      Another practice which incensed the English merchants was the custom of Jewish traders of selling a whole range of merchandise under one roof. Items such as candles, cloth, iron, leather, silver- ware which were normally sold in separate shops, were all disposed of in a bazaar type operation. The greed of these traders caused both anger and impoverishment amongst the merchant class and undermined the guilds.

      The moneylenders charged princes and other noblemen interest rates of at least 33 per cent per annum on lands which they had mortgaged. The working class, who pledged their tools of trade or chattels, were expected to pay rates of up to 300 per cent per annum. Not unexpectedly, within two generations one quarter of all English lands were in the ownership of Jewish usurers.

      The allegations of ritual murder of pre-adolescent Christian boys around the time of the Jewish Passover, or Pesach, added greatly to the general clamour that all Jews should be removed from England.

      In 1233 the Statutum de Judeismo restricted the lending activities of the Jewish money-lenders, and in 1275 a statute abolished all forms of usury. An extract from the latter statute reads as follows:-

      ‘Forasmuch as the King hath seen that divers evils and the disinheriting of good men of his land have happened by the usuries which the Jews have made in time past, and that divers sins have followed thereupon that he and his ancestors have received much benefit from the Jewish people in all times past, nevertheless, for the honour of God and the common benefit of the people, the King hath ordained and established that from henceforth no Jew shall lend anything at usury either upon land or upon other thing (writer’s emphasis).

      ‘And that no usuries shall run in time coming from the feast of St. Edward last past. Notwithstanding the covenants before made shall be observed, saving that the usuries shall cease. But all those who owe debts to Jews upon pledge of moveables shall acquit them between this and Easter; if not they shall be forfeited. And if any Jew shall lend at usury contrary to this Ordinance, the King will not lend his aid, neither by himself or his officers for the recovering of his loan; but will punish him at his discretion for the offence and will do justice to the Christian that he may obtain his pledges again.

      ‘And that the distress for debts due unto the Jews from henceforth shall not be so grievous, but that the moiety of lands and chattels of the Christians shall remain for their maintenance; and that no distress shall be made for a Jewry debt upon the heir of the debtor named in the Jew’s deed, nor upon any other person holding the land that was the debtor’s before that the debt be put in suit and allowed in court.’

      Finally, in 1290 on July 18th a statute was passed by King Edward I (1272-1307) and the House of Commons compelling all Jews* to leave England for ever by November 1st of that year. Any Jews who remained in the kingdom after that date were liable to be executed.

      The announcement of the expulsion was greeted with great joy and jubilation throughout the land. Unlike with the modern practice of ethnic cleansing, the Jews after paying a tax of 1/15th of the value of their moveables and 1/10th of their specie were permitted to leave with all their goods and chattels.

      • Many times we should have stripped them of their wealth.

      • Thanks for the detailed response. I’ve looked into the Jewish history on money lending at interest for some time and without doubt they have engaged in the practice. The expulsion in 1290 got me thinking, the main reasons for money borrowing was for the elite to wage war and to satisfy their wants which primarily came via the Eastern spice trade where the Italian city states had a monopoly on as a middle man. This demand from the Feudal elite did not stop post 1290 and coincidentally “In the 1290s, the Bardi and Peruzzi families had established branches in England and were the main European bankers by the 1320s.” So it seems rather than expelling the Jews based on principle they just had a better offer with the Florin. “Moral” Christian bankers had found a clever way of lending without interest, “Creative accountancy enables them to avoid the Christian sin of usury; interest on a loan is presented in the accounts either as a voluntary gift from the borrower or as a reward for the risk taken”. I’m sure the Church knew this was usury in all but name but they more than likely provided them with finance, and indeed their successors the medici provided popes. Private money has managed to get its power once it gained legal tender and the backing of the nation’s armed, police and secret services. Eg. The dollar is protected by the largest armed forces in history. The Fed was created in 1913 and post World War 1 the US turned from being a debtor to a net creditor. The elite had chosen their next currency, I believe we are in the midst of the next major change.

        For me a litmus test of any civil society is if it gives all members an equal opportunity to acquire human need. That will never happen as long as private ownership of land and means of production exists which has been the case in Europe and expanded through its empires to become global capitalism. Money has nothing to do with a functioning or progressive society, its just a way to transfer human time and energy into the hands of the private owners of the world. Don’t get me wrong this existed in other cultures to but the Europeans mastered it through Companies given the impression of “freedom”. The controlled collapse is beginning as they have realised they have killed the Earth’s productive ability especially since electronic fiat currency was created with the petrodollar. Our global debt is an indication of the unsustainable and polluting lifestyle the Western based elite companies loaned to their peoples who will now be blamed for the mass consumption. Don’t trust any of the establishment.

      • kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

        The Jews in England were removed under direct orders of King at the time, they didn’t get a choice in the matter, they are even mentioned in the Magna Carta. You need to look into the History of England much deeper.

        Hoc amino in vigilia Conceptiontis beatae Mariae omnes Judaei Londoniarum capti et incarcarati apud Gyhalam Londoniis. (In the year , on the vigil of Conception of Saint Maria, all Jews of London were captured and incarcerated amid the jail of London.) Eodem anno omnes Judaei, cum eorum bonis, filiis, at uxoribus, circa festum Omnium Sactorum, terram Angliae et Aquitaniae, concendente rege Edwardo, exulantur. (In time same year , all Jews with their goods, children and wives, around the holiday of All Saints, are expelled from the land of England and Aquitania, Edward the king having conceded.

        By the mid 17th century, England had been without Jews (apart from a few infiltrators posing as Gentiles) for over 350 years, since their banishment by good King Edward I in 1290. This had been inspired by their persistent wrongdoing, including extortionate money-lending and clipping the gold and silver coinage. The banishment had been greeted with universal rejoicing by the thankful English people.

        Cromwell wanted to accede to Jewish appeals for readmission, spiced with financial assistance for his cause, but was sensitive to public opposition to the idea, plentifully shown during an assembly to discuss the subject which he convened. So he abstained from any formal revocation of the banishment, and instead allowed Jews to enter the country on the sly, contrary to the law; and this has remained the position up to today, various parliamentary measures in the past 200 years giving recognition to this return by stealth without ever formally repealing the expulsion.

        William Prynne was a distinguished lawyer of Lincolns Inn, London, in the forefront of resistance to Cromwell’s proposal for readmission. His book Demurrer was published in 1655. In it he cited various authorities for his contention that the expulsion had been by royal decision in Parliament, not royal edict outside Parliament; even though in those days of royal government an edict was fully as much a promulgation of law as a statute enacted in Parliament.

        He cited in support of this Henry de Knyghton, a Canon of Leicester in Richard II’s reign (1377 – 1399) whom he termed “a most diligent Antiquary” and quoted him as speaking of “the same Parliament that the Jews were exiled.” Next he cited “Our learned John Bale” that “by the publick Edict of the Parliament assembled in London, and by a publick decree; They were all commanded to depart the Realm with their goods…” Next he cited Raphael Holnshed’s Chronicles, Vol. 3, p. 285: “In the same year was a Parliament holden at Westminster… It was also decreed that all the Jews should avoid out of the Land… and so herupon were the Jews banished out of all the King’s Dominions: and never since could they obtain any priviledge to return hither again.”

        Prynne then, on pages 48 and 49, summarized his knowledge as follows:–

        1. That all the Jews were then banished out of England, never to return again, at the special instance, and request of the Commons in two several Parliaments, as an intollerable grievance and oppression under which they groaned.

        2. That the principle grounds of this their perpetual banishment were, their infidelity, Usury, forgeries of Charters, clipping and falsifying of monies, by which they prejudiced the King and kingdom and much oppressed and impoverished the pople [sic].

        3. That this their banishment was so acceptable to all the people, who oft-times pressed it in Parliament that they gave the King a Fifth and Fifteenth part of their moveables to speed and execute it.

        4. That this their banishment was by the unanimous desire, Judgement, Edict, and Decree both of the King and his Parliament; and not by the King alone: and this Banishment, total, of them all, and likewise final, Never to return into England. Which Edict and Decree not now extant in our Parliament Rolls (many of which are lost) not printed Statutes; yet it is mentioned by all these Authorities.

        He added to this his important conclusion (p. 50) that the banishment is of permanent effect, and not restricted to the Jews involved in 1290:–

        So none banished the Realm by judgement or Act of Parliament, can, may or ought, by the fundamental and known common Laws of England, to be restored and recalled again, but only by a like judgement, Act and Restitution in full Parliament…

        Therefore the Jews being so long since by Judgement, Edict and Decree both of the King and Parliament for ever banished out of England (never since repealed or reversed) neither may, nor can by Law be readmitted, reduced into England again, but by common consent and Act of Parliament: which I conceive they will never be able to obtain.

        The Jews in England, if not the whole of Britain, today are illegal immigrants. The enforcement of the Expulsion is the only satisfactory solution to Britain’s grievous Jewish Problem.

        The Expulsion of the Jews from England

        Geoffrey H. Smith

        Upon accession to the throne, Edward I was conducting a crusade against the Saracen. Returning to England in 1274, he found the realm in ruins, as a result of his father’s folly.

        Many debtors, realising that the Jews of England were in trouble, refused to honour their debts. An audit organised by the government revealed widespread corruption. Many formerly affluent Jewish financiers had to sell their property in order to fulfill their tax obligations. Many also failed to pay the taxes due and were simply banished, as Jews were only tolerated when they could devise means to legally rob the English so as to pay taxes to the Crown.

        The generally run-down condition of Jewry cried out for reform, and events abroad indicated one method of bringing it about.

        In 1274, when Edward returned from the crusades, the Council of Lyons under Pope Gregory X ordered the Christians to condemn the sin of usury and those who conducted it, both native-born and foreign. Pious Edward, being a loyal son of the Church, went into immediate action, and ordered an investigation into the practices of the Florentine bankers. They had been in England since 1223. There then followed an investigation of the Jews.

        For nearly 200 years Jewish bankers had been favoured by the Crown and encouraged to fill the royal coffers – this cannot be denied. But now that Jews were impoverished, their ‘usefulness’ could be forgotten. And so Henry III’s policy of restricting Jewish activities, and the Church’s policy of suppressing usury, were combined in an attempt to prevent Jews from practising their expertise in loaning money at interest.

        A foolish attempt was made to turn Jews from usurers and merchants to material producers and common labourers. This proposal – putting Jews to work – was submitted by Robert Grosseteste, later Bishop of Lincoln. He thought it a good idea and he approved it. See Grosseteste, Epistolae, ed. Luard, V. p. 3ff. (To this day, Jews in Israel refuse to sweep the streets and do menial work.)

        Then later, Thomas Acquinas urged similar action upon the Duchess of Brabant. “If rulers think they harm their souls by taking money from usurers,” he wrote, “they should see that the Jews are compelled to labour.” (See Opusculum ad Ducissam Brabantae, 1261.)

        The Stätütüm dè Jûdèísmö of 1275 was promulgated in the Common Council of the Realm at Westminster. Both Jews and Christians were forbidden to lend money at interest; offenders would suffer punishment. Debts outstanding at the time the Statute was introduced were to be paid by the following Easter.

        And that each Jew after he shall be seven years old, shall wear a badge on his outer garment that is to say in the form of two tables joined of yellow fait of the length of six inches and of the breadth of three inches.
        Stätütüm dè Jûdèísmö 1275

        As regards the ownership of land, the Stätütüm dè Jûdèísmö was more liberal than the legislation of four years earlier, which prohibited it entirely except for personal occupation.

        Following the promulgation of the Statute, Jewry held a meeting to consider the long-term impact. They drew up a long petition, begging the King and his Council to make modifications. Poor Jews (they claimed) should be allowed to dispose of property to fellow Jews, instead of being forced to tear down buildings for scrap material.

        Jews could no longer travel about safely and usury was no longer profitable as debtors realised their increasing plight. Their petition to the King and Council was a pathetic plea for mercy, begging to be allowed to live at peace under Edward as they had done since the days of the Norman Conquest. (See Select Cases in Court of King’s Bench, Edward I, vol. iii, pp. xxxi, cxiv.)

        During the year following the enactment of the Stätütüm dè Jûdèísmö, many Jews unable to pay their taxes were imprisoned and their families deported overseas. Wealthy Jews, in contrast, turned to the sale of corn and wool. They proved successful at Bristol, Canterbury, Exeter and Hereford, trading in corn, while at Lincoln, Norwich and Oxford their interest was wool. Dealing in trinkets, jewelry and common junk continued as of old.

        Many Jews, forbidden by the Statute to profit from usury took to ‘clipping’ the coinage: that is, clipping or filing the edges of gold and silver coins, putting it back into circulation and melting the clippings and filings into bullion.

        This offence is condemned in Sepher Hassidin pp. 305-6 and is recorded as one of the reasons for the Expulsion by Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, in his Responsa. (Also by the chroniclers Ibn Verga and Usque in their accounts of the Expulsion; and less sceptically, Isaac Abrabanel in his Yeshwoth Meshiho, p. 46.) Jews were punished more severely than Christians if clipped coins were found about their person.

        Even Jewish historians admit that usury was their sole occupation at one time, but once that channel of livelihood had been forbidden, conditions worsened, dramatically and fatefully for Jews. Prosecutions increased until at last the King appointed a judicial commission to investigate.

        On 17 November 1278 Jews all over England were arrested in house-to-house searches in every city that had Jewish quarters. Several hundred were sent to the Tower, their property confiscated and escheated to the King. Among the Jews arrested were Benedict fil’ Licoricia, a prominent Jew of Winchester, and the affluent woman financier Belaset of Lincoln. The house confiscated from Belaset of Lincoln is still standing in Steep Hill. (For the official inventory of the property confiscated, extant only for Bristol, Devizes and Winchester, see Misc. J.H.S.E. ii, 56-71.)

        A few Jews stayed alive by discovering the benefits of Christianity, and gave up Judaism. Only three Christians were hanged for clipping the coinage and melting it down into bullion.

        Thus, the end came about to large-scale offences against the coin of the realm. The sale and export of bullion by Jews was prohibited (cf. P.R. 1283, pp. 56, 79; see also: Annales Monastici ii, 390-1; iii, 279; iv, 278).

        In November 1286 Pope Honorius wrote to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, reaffirming the decision of the Lateran Councils. He enlarged on the evils of relations between Christians and Jews and warned of the pernicious consequences of the study of the Jews’ Talmud. The King joined in the dialogue and condemnation by reviving the crimes of ritual murder. Jewish writers use the word “allegation” with regard to ritual murder with boring regularity.

        On 6 February 1283 a Justice of the Jews, Hamo Hauteyn, set up a commission to investigate charges against Jews accused of selling plate made of clippings or silvered tinplate to foreign merchants. However, Justice Hauteyn was cashiered as he was far from genuine also. (See Select Cases in Court of King’s Bench, Edward I.)

        To coin a modern phrase, there was only one ‘final solution’ to the Jewish problem. But the banishment of Jews was by no means a new idea in the 13th century. It had been employed all over Europe as far back as the 7th century.

        In England various parliaments attempted to interest the King to order the expulsion of all Jews and it seems to have crossed the mind of Henry III. The Jews averted immediate disaster by making a better offer.

        The final step was taken on 18 July 1290 by an Act of the King in his Council. It happened to be (long since remembered with awe) the fast of the ninth of Ab, the anniversary of manifold disasters for Jews, from the destruction of Jerusalem onwards. On the same day writs were issued to the sheriffs of many English counties, informing them that by Royal Decree all Jews were ordered to leave England before 1 November; any who remained were declared liable to be executed. The news of the expulsion was greeted by the population with great joy. Parliament promptly agreed to royal demand for a fifteenth of moveables and a tenth of the spiritual revenue, in taxation against Jews.

        The Jews of London started their long journey to the coast “under the custody of the Lord King,” bearing the Scrolls of the Law, “una cum libris suis” (at one with their book). On board ship, at Queenborough, at the mouth of the Thames, ship’s anchor was cast at ebb-tide and the ship grounded on a sandbank. The ship’s Master then invited his passengers to stretch their legs. When the tide reversed direction so did the Master, climbing back on board while telling the helpless Jews that they “ought to cry unto Moses, by whose conduct their fathers passed through the Red Sea.” The Jews all drowned but the Master also met a bad end. He was hanged when the pious Edward learned of his mockery and manslaughter.

        Most of the Jews went from England to France, while others wandered to Spain, Germany and Flanders. That fateful year for Jews, 1290, saw the first general expulsion from any country of that era. As chronicled in recorded history, Edward I was the first to order wholesale banishment of the Jews, with such awesome and long-lasting effect. His example was followed sixteen years later in France, by Philip de Bel, and two centuries later by Ferdinand and Isobel of Spain.

        “Although Edward I’s 1290 edict of expulsion was not formally revoked as Manasseh [Ben Israel] had hoped, the resumption of open Jewish worship achieved the same practical result. The edict has actually not been revoked to this day.” Joan Comay: Who’s Who in Jewish History after the Period of the Old Testament (1974).

        Abrahams, B. L. The Expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290 (1895).
        Adler, Rev. M. Jews of Medieval England (1939).
        Comay, J. Who’s Who in Jewish History after the Period of the Old Testament (1974).
        fitz Stephen, W. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket.
        Gregg International. The Jews of Angevin England: Documents and Records from Latin and Hebrew Sources, Printed and Manuscript, for the First Time Collected and Translated (1893).
        Leese, A. S. My Irrelevant Defence: Meditations Inside Gaol and Out on Jewish Ritual Murder (1938).
        Martin, C. T. Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society (1899).
        Parkes, J. The Jew in the Medieval Community: A Study of his Political and Economic Situation (1938).
        Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. The Nameless War (1952).
        Richardson, H. G. English Jewry under Angevin Kings (1960).
        Roth, C. The Jews of Medieval Oxford (1951).

  9. Not only your articles, but your comment sections are a treasure trove of knowledge and research. Please post more often! Thanks

  10. But you’re a christian, right? Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Why are you so concerned about money for? You’ve got eternal heaven to look forward to in a few years, no?

    • Nothing belongs to Caesar.

      Usury is Babylon’s essence: it kills billions prematurely, enslaving all of us. It is as anti-Christian as it gets, and prophecy is that a disobedient People would be debt slaves.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. How Money Rules – Banks are BOSS | toodlessss
  2. How Money Rules – Abel Danger
  3. How Money Rules — Real Currencies – Source 99

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *