As suggested by many authors, the break-up of the Roman Empire did not result only from the onslaught of barbarians, but because Rome was already “ruined from within by Christian sects, conscientious objectors, enemies of the official cult, the persecuted, persecutors, criminal elements of all sorts, and total chaos.” Paradoxically, even the Jewish God Yahveh was to experience a sinister fate: “he would be converted, he would become Roman, cosmopolitan, ecumenical, gentile, goyim, globalist-and finally anti-Semite.” (Tomislav Sunic, Marx, Moses, and the Pagans in the Secular City)
Professor Tomislav Sunic is a political scientist, and said to be a mediocre scholar with a halting command of English (http://home.earthlink.net/~karljahn/EN
R.htm). As a proponent to the narrow ideological coterie of the European New Right or Nouvelle Droite, he is widely recognized for his anti-Christian views. In Marx, Moses, and the Pagans in the Secular City,” (http://www.watermark.hu/doctorsunic/clio.html), Sunic relies on age-old arguments, which attempt to uplift paganism, while denouncing Christianity. Some of these arguments are so antiquated that they were used during the Roman era against Christians. Other arguments are borrowed from Jewish rabbis expressing their contempt and hatred of Christianity. Little effort is given for appearing balanced and there are few attempts in camouflaging his diatribe of Christianity.
The Romans were the most notable of organizers and preservers of all Western society. The Greeks may have been innovators of thought and philosophy, but it was the Romans who were most fond of rule and order. This is very important in understanding how Rome became Christianized.
Sunic, who is purported to be from Croatia, deceives the reader by blaming the so-called “Christian cult” for Rome’s downfall. The major reason for the decline of pagan Rome can be attributed to the long-term destructive effects of usury. Indeed, usury has fueled the rise and the fall of the great civilizations of Egypt, Persia, Babylon, Greece and Rome. In Will Durant’s History of Civilization, he mentions the major factor in the rise of ancient Rome was its adherence to free-market policies. It is true that commerce was central to Roman life and expansion. The trade policies gave Rome the strongest economy of the ancient world, providing the Roman state with the resources to become the greatest empire of all time. Having only limited products, Rome had to export her gold though. Conquest was a means to replenish the treasury. This worked well for a while, but by the reign of Trajan (98-117 A.D.), the cost of conquest was greater than the riches it supplied. Borrowing money at interest caused the government to raise taxes and led to the inevitable reversal of its earlier commerce policies. High taxes, pervasive regulation and debasement of the currency ultimately undermined the strength of the Roman economy. In the end, the state simply did not have the resources to defend itself against barbarian invasions. Internally, Rome’s own citizens became increasingly alienated, which can be directly attributed to the practice of usury. The lack of Roman will to survive was a slow capitulation that none knew for the wiser. To understand the factors that led to Rome’s demise sheds a great amount of light on other civilizations that perished as well.
The Roman government was far too corrupt already with its politicians bought by moneychangers for any fledgling Christian sect to have an affect on its decline. The moneychanger’s demand was perpetually self-serving, which was disparate to the common good of the populace. Originally, Rome was founded as a republic. The unchecked influence of the moneychangers caused it to change into a democracy. A republic is derived through the election of public officials whose attitude toward property is respected in terms of law for individual rights. A democracy is derived through the election of public officials whose attitude toward property is communistic and respects the “collective good” of the population instead of the individual. This is the resultant system that moneychangers bring to civilization. The subversion of power is a sleight of hand that changes the right of the individual into what is often called the “collective good” of the people (communistic), which is always controlled by an alliance of powerful interests.
There is no reference in the article to the moneychangers and their lawyers sowing the seeds for Roman society to suffocate under its own lethargic weight. Lawyers were indeed a problem to Rome. The Romans were so concerned by lawyers’ opprobrious effect on public morale that they attempted to curb their influence. In 204 BC, the Roman Senate passed a law prohibiting lawyers from plying their trade for money. As the Roman republic declined and became more democratic, it became increasingly difficult to keep lawyers in check and prevent them from accepting fees under the table. Indeed, they were very useful to the moneychangers. The lawyers fed upon corruption and accelerated the downward plunge of Roman civilization. Some wealthy Romans began sending their sons to Greece to finish their schooling, to learn rhetoric (Julius Caesar was one example) — a lawyer’s cleverness in oration. This compounded Rome’s growing woes.
There is no mentioning the effect of moneychangers buying political influence for their own selfish gain, while the vast majority of the population suffered. Diodorus Siculus, a first century Greek historian promulgated:
“This [usury] has for centuries caused great misery and poverty for Gentiles.” He also observed usury was a trade run by Jews who treated other people as enemies and inferiors. “It has brought strong condemnation of the Jews!”
And, yet the Jews had great influence over Rome’s government. The populace hated the Jews. And the Jews, who were already well entrenched as moneylenders, bought more influence to ensure their monopoly over Rome.
Roman Historian Tacitus stated this about the Jews and their peculiar behavior:
The customs of the Jews are base and abominable and owe their persistence to their depravity. Jews are extremely loyal to one another, always ready to show compassion, but towards every other people they feel only hate and enmity. As a race (the Jews are not a race, because they have mingled with the other races to the point that they are only a people, not a race), they are prone to lust; among themselves nothing is unlawful.”
Jewry had a great hatred and disdain for Rome. Yet, they lived in the city of Rome itself and profited greatly from the Roman people and its economy. One would ask, how could a culture of people despise another with such enmity and yet desire to interact on a daily basis; to bring up one’s family in the midst of these “reviled” Roman people? Author Josef Kastein, in “History of the Jews,” p. 192 stated:
To the Jews, Rome constituted the quintessence of all that was odious and should be swept away from off the face of the earth. They hated Rome and her device, arma et leges, with an inhuman hatred. True, Rome had leges, laws, like the Jews. But in their very resemblance lay their difference; for the Roman laws were merely the practical application of the arma, the arms…but without the arms, the leges were empty formulae.”
The moneychangers destroyed Rome from within by first monopolizing usury, monopolizing the precious mineral trade and then disproportionately magnifying the temporal businesses of prostitution (including pedophilia and homosexuality), and slavery. Constantine (306-337 AD) was the first Roman emperor to issue laws, which radically limited the rights of Jews as citizens of the Roman Empire, a privilege conferred upon them by Caracalla in 212 AD. The laws of Constantius (337-361 AD) recognized the Jewish domination of the slave trade and acted to greatly curtail it. A law of Theodosius II (408-410 AD), prohibited Jews from holding any advantageous office of honor in the Roman state. Always the impetus was buying influence concerning their trade. Harry J. Leon of the University of Texas quoted in his book, “Jews of Ancient Rome,” p.3:
“We come now to the libel involving the gold, the Jewish gold. This is obviously why the present case is being tried close to the Aurelian Steps. It is because of this particular charge that you have sought out this location, Laelius (the prosecutor), and that mob (referring to the noisy crowd of Jews whom Laelius had assembled to create a commotion at the trial). You know how large a group they (the Jews) are, and how influential they are in politics. I will lower my voice and speak just loudly enough for the jury to hear me; for there are plenty of individuals to stir up those Jews against me and against every good Roman, and I don’t intend to make it any easier for them to do this. Since gold was regularly exported each year in the name of the Jews from Italy and all our provinces to Jerusalem, Flaccus issued an edict forbidding its exportation from Asia. Who is there, gentlemen of the jury, who cannot sincerely commend this action? The exportation of gold had been forbidden by the Senate on many previous occasions, and most strictly of all during my consulship. Further, that Flaccus was opposed to this barbarous Jewish superstition was proof of his strong character that he defended the Republic by frequently denying the aggressiveness of the Jewish mobs at political gatherings was an evidence of his high sense of responsibility.”
Speech of Cicero, which is one of the few revelations of Jewish subversion that survived the burning of libraries. The great consul of Rome, Cicero, had to lower his voice to avoid stirring up the Jews. A Roman aristocrat, Flaccus, was removed from office and dragged back to Rome to face a false charge. Why? Because he had tried to enforce the Roman law banning the Jewish traffic in gold. The outcome of this trial was that Flaccus’ ban on the shipping of gold was removed. Thus the Jews won their objective, and Flaccus was lucky to escape with his life after he had opposed them. To the white gentile, greed has always been the Achilles heel that led to the downfall of his civilizations. Usury has been the opiate that has ruined the ingenuity of many of its civilizations. As this Jewish craft spread, the people increasingly suffered from the burdens of indebtedness. So troubling was the effects of usury that Lex Genucia outlawed usury in 342 BC. Nevertheless, ways of evading such legislation were found and by the last period of the Republic, usury was once again rife. Emperors like Julius Caesar and Justinian tried to limit the interest rate and control its devastating effects (Birnie, 1958). Entertainment was a way to temporarily set aside the burdens of indebtedness. It was a way to festively indulge in all the glory that Rome had to offer. Rome soon became drunk on hedonism. Collectively, entertainment helped disguise the collapsing of a great power. Spectator blood sports, brothels, carnivals, festivals, and parties substituted for everything that was wrong with Rome. Some Senate conservatives were concerned about the new extravagances. In 182 AD, the Senate passed a law regulating the size of parties. Partying continued to grow though. Circuses and public festivals for the poor were already being paid for by politicians to win plebeian approval. The introduction of a new feast in 173 AD; the celebration at Floralia, may have been modeled after the Greek festival of Aphrodite. The chief attraction at this new Roman festival was dances by prostitutes, dances that ended in a strip tease. Many Romans, however, considered this celebration terribly decadent. Today, the Carnival in Rio de Janeiro and Mardi Gras in New Orleans give an eerie resonance to the celebration at Floralia.
Prostitution and thievery flourished. The old legal code of Rome, The Twelve Tables, served the plebs for centuries and was now rendered ineffective. There was no police force. The closest resemblance to a police force was neighbor watching out for his neighbor. The plaintiff could always summon the defendant in front of a magistrate. People from smaller communities, many of whom were poor, migrated to the big cities, especially to Rome. This compounded the level of crime and victimization. In Rome, feuds and bloodshed between families were numerous, with the rivals calling on friends and neighbors for assistance. Few Romans lived past the age of forty. The indigent were buried in common pits in the public cemetery on Esquiline Hill. But most Romans persisted in enjoying what they believed was the glory of Rome’s position in the world.
Blood sports and the coliseum increasingly became a catharsis for the masses. The Christians, political prisoners, prisoners of war, anarchists, and common criminals were increasingly blamed for the ills of Roman society. As the taxes and indebtedness of the people rose, so did the call for blood. The unfortunate many were paraded into the arena before cheering crowds to be slaughtered. Citizen patriots themselves were increasingly at odds with the growing democracy as the moneychangers increasingly influenced the public policy. These condemned citizens were branded “anarchists,” as the aristocrat Faccus nearly was when he challenged the power of the Roman Jews. The plebeian masses were more concerned with blood sports, circuses, and receiving bread than understanding the ominous effects of the moneychangers and lawyers on Roman society.
Rome became a multi-cultural state much like our own in the United States. Indeed, it was truly an international city. Foreigners of every nation resided and worked there. The Romans soon intermarried and had children with the many foreigners. This included concubines from the numerous slaves won through war. Rome had an extraordinary large slave population and was estimated to make up about two-thirds of its population at one time. One such slave from Syria, named Eunus encouraged as many as 60 thousand slaves to revolt in Sicily taking over several towns and defeating the first army sent against them by Rome. Slaves were acquired through failures to complete contracts under Law Merchant (see commercial law) or born to parents acquired by such means. This jurisdiction gave merchants an edge in some of their dealings. Contractors were held as insurance and expected to accept servitude as the price of failure in business.
Generally, Romans viewed slavery as a natural part of life. Defeat and slavery was the fate of an inferior society. Domestic slaves won favor by flattery and sexual favors. For the Romans, there was no law forbidding concubines and intermarriage. Lex Canuleius allowed the intermarriage of plebeians and patricians as early as 445 BC. Canuleius delivered the following speech in defense of his laws and in opposition to the consuls:
“For what is our purpose in framing them [our proposed laws] except to remind them that we are their fellow-citizens, and though we do not possess the same power, we still inhabit the same country? In one of these laws we demand the right of intermarriage, a right usually granted to neighbours and foreigners-indeed we have granted citizenship, which is more than intermarriage, even to a conquered enemy-in the other we are bringing forward nothing new, but simply demanding back what belongs to the people and claiming that the Roman people should confer its honours on whom it will.”
In fact, intermarriage was encouraged in Roman society. The premise dates to the origin of Rome where Romulus led the ensuing “rape of the Sabines.” The nuptial cry – “For Talassius” in Roman marriage rites pays tribute to the abductor who carried off a “tall and beautiful” maiden intended for the leading patricians. There it was said there should be no reluctance for men to mingle their blood with their fellowmen. The Roman poet Horace appealed to maintaining the Roman ethnos by writing:
“The pure home is not mongrelized by illicit sexual intercourse / law and custom have driven out forbidden mongrelization / mothers are praised for the resemblance of their offspring / vengeance closely follows guilt.”(Ode 4:5:21).
Besides the traditional patrician and plebeian order, an unspoken caste system developed in Roman society as well. The bloodline of the patrician class remained of fair-skinned Europeans as opposed to the great plebeian society. The Roman term, Allies, was used in describing the conquered people in Italy. They held a treaty with Rome that allowed intermarriage and the right to conduct business but did not have the vote of full Roman citizenship. As the Roman Empire expanded into regions of Asia and Africa, so did the amount of intermarriage. As a result, intermixed and darker skinned races increasingly dominated the plebeian class. The influences of different foreign beliefs and customs had a harmful effect on Rome’s unity. Some patricians worried about the increasing miscegenation of Rome. Tacitus, the first-century Roman historian, provides us a curious written record of the “unmixed” race of Germania that hints at the problem in Rome.
“For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves.”
Today, darker-skinned Italians are more predominant in the south of Italy and Sicily than in northern Italy. Latin American countries reflect the same social structure as in other southern European countries do. The most fair-skinned families are found in the patrician class. Many people today have never given thought to whether present-day Italians are the same race of people that lived in tribal Rome. An inquiring mind would ask what happened to the massive slave population Rome once sustained? The same question can be asked about the great civilizations of Greece and Egypt as well. The influence of the moneychangers can be directly connected to the profitable import of slaves from the many conquered regions of the Roman Empire.
Eventually, the Romans lost their tribal cohesion and identity. The population of Rome had changed and so did its character. Increasing demands were made of the ruling patricians. The aristocrats tried to appease the masses, but eventually those demands could not be sustained. Rome had become bankrupt. The effects of usury polarized the patrician class against an increasingly dispossessed and burdened class of citizens.
In 54 B.C., Cicero (Marcus Tullius Cicero), a first century B.C. Roman stateman – writer stated:
“We are taxed in our bread and our wine, in our incomes and our investments, on our land and on our property not only for base creatures who do not deserve the name of men, but for foreign nations, complaisant nations who will bow to us and accept our largesse and promise us to assist in the keeping of the peace – these mendicant nations who will destroy us when we show a moment of weakness or our treasury is bare, and surely it is becoming bare! We are taxed to maintain legions on their soil, in the name of law and order and the Pax Romana, a document, which will fall into dust when it pleases our allies and our vassals. We keep them in precarious balance only with our gold. They take our very flesh, and they hate and despise us. And who shall say we are worthy of more?…When a government becomes powerful it is destructive, extravagant and violent; it is an usurer which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance, for votes with which to perpetuate itself.”
An incident recorded by the Jewish philosopher, Philo during the time of Caligula (37-41 A.D.) echoes Cicero’s edict concerning the collection of taxes:
“A little time ago in our own district by a person who was appointed to serve as collector of taxes. When certain debtors from poverty took flight in fear of some terrible retribution, he led off by force their women, children, parents, and other kin, and beat and abused them and inflicted every kind of outrage on them to reveal where the fugitive had gone or to pay what he owed–though they could do neither, the one from ignorance, the other from greater poverty than the fugitive’s. He did not give up until he had wrung their bodies with the rack and scourge and ended their lives with unheard of afflictions….When there were no kin left, the outrage was extended to their neighbors and at times whole villages and towns, which were quickly abandoned and emptied of inhabitants.”
The tale of the usurer’s power is reported during the revolt of several Italian cities in 88 AD. It concluded by the Roman siege of the Italian city of Asculum in the second year of the war. The war was costly and had damaged Italy’s economy. “During the war, debt had become more widespread. Uncertain about the future, financiers had begun refusing more loans and demanding payment. Those Romans angered by the moneylenders had begun a movement against usury. A praetor responded favorably to the movement and invoked an ancient law against usury that had long been ignored. This infuriated financiers, and a gang of men mobbed the praetor and cut his throat, and some who had spoken in favor of the praetor and against usury were lynched,” (“Antiquity conflict, attitude and changing religions,” Frank E. Smitha.)
Rome was bankrupt and was collapsing. The parasitic nature of usury and its effect on government was too complex for the uneducated plebeians to understand (see Addendum for an illustration of usury’s power). Indeed, it was the moneychangers with the use of their lawyers that destroyed pagan Rome. The Jewish interests did not control all usury. However, they were a people well recognized as being extremely loyal to each other and adept in the black craft of usury. To all others (gentiles) they showed hate and enmity. Throughout history the weapon of usury is used again and again to destroy nations. The French author and historian, Georges Batault, is quoted in his book, “Le Probläme Juic,” (1921) stating:
“We suddenly learn, not only that there were Jews in Rome in great numbers, but that they had political influence which they exercised to the profit of the popular party against that of Cicero and the Senate. Revolutionaries by doctrine, since all messianism declares that the destruction of all existing order…the Jews have drawn profit from all revolutionary movements in history since the fall of the Roman Empire. At the Renaissance, a time of perpetual uprisings, they lent money to Princes and merchants, and were well-considered; again at the Reformation they took advantage of religious schisms to further their own beliefs. From the Revolution of 1789 came the emancipation of the Jews in France, and their principal advocate was Mirabeau, largely under the influence of Moise Mendelssohn and Dohm; the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 brought further amelioration to them.”
A first-century Roman philosopher named Seneca (Lucius Annaeus Seneca) further stated:
“The customs of that most criminal nation have gained such strength that they have now been received in all lands. The conquered have given laws to the conquerors.” (from De Superstitione)
The Jews were known to have migrated to Rome at different times through history. For instance, in 161 BC the ambassadors of Judah Maccabi came to seek the protection of Rome against Antiocus IV. Those messengers were soon followed by others who moved to the capital of the empire, and because its power and location, made it the most favorable center for trading. (Sacerdoti, A., Fiorentino, L. Guida all’Italia Ebraica, 1986, Comunita Ebraica di Roma, Johson, P.: A History of the Jews. 1987, Oddoux, C. et. al.: Mendelian Diseases among Roman Jews, 1999). Still other Jews came to Rome as slaves after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD by Titus and again in 135 AD, after the final subjugation of their homeland by Hadrian.
Many historians blame Christianity for Rome’s demise. These same forces blame the Romans for persecuting the Christians. Although, the Romans carried out the acts of persecuting Christians, it was the Jews who cried most for their blood. Jews enjoyed a widespread influence in Roman society. The well-known influential statesman, Cicero knew the power of the Jews and said:
“Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills.”(Oration in Defense of Flaccus)
Cicero was serving as defense counsel at the trial of Flaccus, a Roman official, who interfered with Jewish gold shipments to their international headquarters (then, as now) in Jerusalem. Cicero himself certainly was not an insignificant person, and for one of this stature to have to “speak softly” shows that he was in the presence of a dangerously powerful sphere of influence. And on another occasion Cicero wrote:
“The Jews belong to a dark and repulsive force. One knows how numerous this clique is, how they stick together and what power they exercise through their unions. They are a nation of rascals and deceivers.”
Fortunately, the writings of Cicero survived the burning of libraries. In the case against Faccus, we can see the crafts of the Jews are the same today. The Jews clearly held great influence in politics as a result of their professions and profited immensely at the expense of Rome. We can further deduce by the case of Faccus that the Jews were not concerned with the interests of Rome, but rather for their own interests. The Jewish gold was being shipped from Rome and its provinces throughout the empire to Jerusalem. Why? We also know that the Jews had utter contempt and hatred of the Romans. This contempt is demonstrated by their breaking of Roman law, which Faccus tried to uphold. If we look closer, we see that gold has a very special meaning to all Jewry unlike any other people. The 16th century German religious reformer, Martin Luther recognized this and promulgated:
“Their breath stinks for the gold and silver of the heathen; since no people under the sun always have been, still are, and always will remain more avaricious than they, as can be noticed in their cursed usury. They also find comfort with this: When the Messiah comes, He shall take all the gold and silver in the world and distribute it among the Jews.’ Thus, wherever they can direct Scripture to their insatiable avarice, they wickedly do so.”
The Jewish Talmud agrees with Martin Luther’s assertion. In Baba Kamma 37b., we find:
“The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has ‘exposed their money to Israel.'”
The Talmud further teaches great hatred toward Christians and recommends harming and killing them. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai recorded in Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10:
Tob shebe goyyim harog (“Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed”).
Israelis have nationally immortalized Simon ben Yohai by annually partaking in a pilgrimage to his gravesite. This they do to honor this rabbi who advocated the extermination of non-Jews. (Jewish Press, June 9, 1989, p. 56B).
The Chief Rabbi in France, Rabbi Reichorn, in 1859 frankly revealed:
“Wars are the Jews harvest, for with them we wipe out the Christians and get control of their gold. We have already killed 100-million of them, and the end is not yet.”
Now, if we look back at Rome, we will find that Romans and Christians alike verified what the Rabbis later revealed. The martyr, St. Justin, stated in 116 AD:
“The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. They wandered through the country everywhere hating and undermining the Christian faith.”
The testimony of Quintas Spetimus Florens Tertullian, Latin Church Father (160 – 230 AD), verifies the edict of St. Justin by promulgating:
“The Jews formed the breeding ground of all anti-Christian actions.”
There are enough records for us to piece together what actually occurred in Rome that led to its downfall. Rome fell as a result of corruption and the lack of cohesion of its own people. But, it was the instrument of usury that brought about this corruption and allowed its gold and silver to be controlled by Jewish interests.
Out of the vestiges of the Roman Empire arose Christianity. Christianity served to unite what already became moribund and corrupt. The sacred ethos of Rome, which past politicians tried to preserve by quixotic laws, were unenforceable because the culture of their plebeians had changed. What was once a unified and homogeneous society became diverse. Diversity was a menacing detriment to all of Rome and its culture. Influences from those conquered foreign lands permeated the ethos of all of Rome. The foreigners who lived in Rome brought with them their alien pagan cults and traditions. Attempt after attempt to halt these alien beliefs failed. And, at the same time Christianity was growing throughout the empire and become a national movement. At first, the Roman government resisted and reacted to Christianity as yet another alien cult. Rome was truly in a state of no return. Essentially two ultimatums of policies were left to pursue. Either allow and tolerate the various national movements, or to stand on the Roman foundation of antiquity, to revive old Roman principles, the ancient military rigor and discipline, and the patriotism of Old Rome. Several emperors unsuccessfully pursued the latter course, but in vain. Realistically, it was just as impossible to bring the plebeians back to the old simplicity as to make them return to the old pagan beliefs and to the national form of worship. Military leaders in the field reported they had good luck with Christian soldiers in battle. They came to represent the ideal of Rome and became more recognized and deserving than the Praetorian Guard itself. Christianity came to Rome as a liberating force that provided the Roman Empire with its salvation. Usury would soon be recognized and eliminated from Roman society for over six hundred years. The prohibition of usury didn’t occur right away though. The Roman emperor Constantine (306-337 AD) wisely avoided taking on the powerful moneychangers of his time. But, he did make other decrees concerning the Jews in their power and limiting their corruption. By the fourth century AD, the Church prohibited the taking of interest by the clergy. This was a rule that was extended in the fifth century to the laity as well. Under Charlemagne in the eighth century, the Church took bolder steps and declared usury to be a general criminal offence. The anti-usury movement continued to gain momentum and perhaps reached its zenith in 1311 when Pope Clement V made the ban on usury absolute and declared all secular legislation in its favour, null and void (Birnie, 1952). As it was with Lex Genucia, who outlawed usury in 342 BC, soon afterward loopholes were found in the law, in addition to contradictions in the Church’s growing legalism, usury was once again rife. The Jews, who lived apart from the Christians, continued acting as the primary moneylenders in Europe (i.e., until around 1300). The resulting stereotype of Jews was immortalized in Shakespeare’s play “The Merchant of Venice.” Anti-Semitism during this period was rampant and England’s King Edward I forbade Jews to exact usury. A unified European recognized the deceit of the Jews and how their usury was directed against them.
In 1592, Pope Clement VIII acknowledged the corrupt influence of usury and charged the benefactors by proclaiming:
“All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. Then as now Jews have to be reminded intermittently anew that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.”
It was Christianity that put an end to the destructive nature of usury on its people (see addendum for usury example). Rome’s treasury became barren as a result of the moneychangers. It weakened the Roman Empire immeasurably, and thrust untold millions in poverty, debt, and in prison. It was Christianity that halted the influence of the Jews and their destructive trades and practices. And, the Christian faith spread throughout the former Roman Empire. All of the European people eventually became Christianity’s vanguard and champion. Without the strict adherence to the moral ethos, any civilization will devolve into the religion of Nimrod.
Sunic suggests that our natural inclination; our true selves, is the pagan religion that preceded Christianity. This echoes Rabbi Lewis Browne’s book: “This Believing World,” in which he asserts that Christian holidays are really pagan festive days. The implication is Christianity is really a pagan religion. Sunic has gotten it all wrong and so have those Christian hating rabbis. Sunic has not done his homework. Otherwise, he would know that Talmudism is Judaismº. Christianity is not related to Talmudism in the least. To imply otherwise, is reckless and irresponsible. Christianity is said to be [by Christians] the “straight and narrow path” while paganism holds to no similar moral value and tends to be the spiritual default for all societies. Out of the ruins of paganism Christianity was built, in which there was the renewed promise of rule and order. Indeed, the Romans were the most notable of organizers and preservers of Western civilization. This has been revealed through Christianity. Sunic’s diatribe is intended to make Christians feel guilty and to stumble in their faith. Paganism never stopped usury for any prolonged period of time. Christianity did however. Usury is the vise for instigating paganism, which asserts the temporal and lecherous trades that Christians find decadent. Christianity is the absolute antipode of paganism.
Our dilemma today is the same that occurred in Rome. Our country and people will suffer the same fate if usury continues as it has. From the onset of history, it has been the moneychangers, who have exploited mankind for pure profit. Usury is an abomination against God’s statutes, which manipulates and destroys people, families, and nations. It is by the profits made from usury used to attack Christianity. One needs only to ask- who is in control of usury worldwide? Didn’t Rome suffer from these same people? Usury brings forth an insidious side to all people. The temptation to borrow is powerful, and it always polarizes lender against borrower where the former becomes the master and the later, the slave. As a vice, neighbor is pitted against his neighbor, and nation against nation. Lastly, it is befitting that I end with the following quote:
“The mode of government which is the most propitious for the full development of the class war, is the demagogic regime which is equally favorable to the two fold intrigues of Finance (usury) and Revolution. When this struggle is let loose in a violent form, the leaders of the masses are kings, but money is god: the demagogues are the masters of the passions of the mob, but the financiers are the master of the demagogues, and it is in the last resort the widely spread riches of the country, rural property, real estate, which, for as long as they last, must pay for the movement. When the demagogues prosper amongst the ruins of social and political order, and overthrown traditions, gold is the only power which counts, it is the measure of everything; it can do everything and reigns without hindrance in opposition to all countries, to the detriment of the city of the nation, or of the empire which are finally ruined. In doing this, do not financiers work against themselves? It may be asked: in destroying the established order do not they destroy the source of all riches? This is perhaps true in the end; but whilst states which count their years by human generations, are obliged in order to insure their existence to conceive and conduct a far-sighted policy in view of a distant future, Finance which gets its living from what is present and tangible, always follows a short-sighted policy, in view of rapid results and success without troubling itself about the morrows of history.” (G. Batault, Le probleme juif, p. 257; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 135-136)
º As a religion, Judaism is over 90 percent Talmudism.
To illustrate the devastating effect of usury and how compound interest works, a standard text example is provided below.
If one penny had been borrowed at 6 percent compound interest in the year of Christ Jesus was born and no payments were made, how much would be owed today in year 2002?
Using the formula for annual compound interest; FV = PV(1 + i)n where PV is the present value $0.01, i is the interest of 6% and n is the number of years- 2002. FV is the future value of the debt owed in the year 2002.
We substitute the amounts in the equation thus:
(.01) x (1.06)2002 = 4.60 x 1048 dollars (4 followed by 48 zeroes)
How much money is that?
If we think of it in terms of gold, divide the amount by the current price of gold ($300/oz) we get:
1.53 x 1046 troy ounces of gold
How much gold is that?
There are 14.6 troy ounces in a pound and 1,205.6 pounds in a cubic foot of gold, we get:
8.69 x 1041 cubic feet of gold
To imagine that much gold, we need to think in terms of astronomy. The sun has a diameter of 865,000 miles. Its volume is therefore 4.99 x 1028 cubic feet. Dividing into the above figure gives us:
1.74 x 1013 solid gold suns
If we assume that an average galaxy like the Milky Way contains one billion stars like the sun, we get:
17,440 galaxies of a billion solid gold suns!!!
All this from a single penny borrowed in the time of Christ. It’s no wonder Albert Einstein referred to compound interest as the most powerful thing in the universe. (Example from Chris C.)