Freemasonry & Loan Sharking (Usury)

On Usury and Monetarism (Capitalism). What is Money? What is to be done? A brief history of the loan-sharking scam from the Knight’s Templars to the present.

For children.


By Lucifer

Morning Star
Light of the World.
For Anarchist Communism


____________________
.
Introduction
.
Prior to the introduction of promissory notes, goods were exchanged for gold and silver coins. The production of gold and silver was a process which depended on sourcing natural deposits. When a tyrant (a statist) or private propertyist had deposits of precious metal on land he had stolen, the tyrant became rich and could pay his workers with such metal, often coins stamped with his face on them. Thus few people had much gold and silver, and many people had little gold and silver.

____________________


.
Part I: The Knight’s Templars
.
Once upon a time there was a religious cult called the Knight’s Templars (The soldiers / militants / mercenaries of Solomon’s Temple).

These men were heavily armed and had very safe and secure places (security depositories) where they would look after your gold and silver for you, so that no thief may break in and steal it.

Let us say that you had some Sterling silver (Sterling silver is an alloy that today must be 92.5% pure silver) to look after; they would give you a hand written note stating words to the effect of: [I] ‘I promise to pay the bearer on demand, one pound (16 ounces) of sterling silver.’ [/I] This is still written on today’s pound sterling (UK) currency notes.

You could deposit one pound of sterling in the Templar depository in London, take one of their ships to Jerusalem, produce your promissory note and they would give you back the silver.

Eventually instead of purchasing things with silver, people began to exchange the promissory notes instead.
The bankers soon realised that they always had silver in their depositaries which few people came back to collect, and that their written promises alone could purchase commodities or be lent out at up to 30% interest. To issue a promise to pay on demand their depositor’s silver, when there could never possibly have enough silver to make good their promises, is the definition of ‘fraud’ and ‘theft.’

Eventually their cult became illegal in Europe and the Templars were tortured, imprisoned and thankfully executed, though their executioners who represented the religious tyrants (the European Church and the tyrannical states) were hardly any better than the bankers.

Many of the knights of the Usury cult fled to Scotland. Some time later we see these knights appear again under different names.

______________________


.
Part II: The Freemasons / Secret Societies.
.
Once upon a time there were groups of religious cultists who opened many security depositaries under different names.
They issued promises on notes to their customers as the Knight’s Templars did, and they believed themsleves to be continuing their loan-sharking legacy.
Soon their depositaries were filled with gold and silver.

The run on the bank.

One day the people lost confidence in one of these cultists and there was a ‘run’ on his bank.
Rumour soon spread that the banker did not have enough silver and gold in his vault to make good all his promises.
All his customers demanded that he ‘make good’ his promises and return their silver and gold.
That day the banker closed his doors, and stated ‘come back tomorrow.’

Covering each other’s back. One cult, many faces.

That night the banker met up with his fellow bankers, who emptied their vaults and gave him enough money to make good his worthless promises.
The next day his customers returned and he paid them in full.
His customers then took their gold and silver to the banks of the men who had covered their fellow cultist’s back.
That night the same cult of bankers counted their common assets and found that they had all their gold and silver back.
S

Covering each other’s back. One cult, many faces.

That night the banker met up with his fellow bankers, who emptied their vaults and gave him enough money to make good his worthless promises.
The next day his customers returned and he paid them in full.
His customers then took their gold and silver to the banks of the men who had covered their fellow cultist’s back.
That night the same cult of bankers counted their common assets and found that they had all their gold and silver back.
Soon the banker who made good all his promissory notes, became the most respected banker in the land.

___________________________
.
Part III: the legalisation of reserve banking.
.
Eventually it became clear that all bankers operated such a scam, so the bankers sought to make their scam legal.
Once this scam was legal, for every pound of silver in a depository, the banker could legally issue silver notes for many pounds of silver.
This was simply the legalisation of theft, and soon the bankers, not the tyrants who ran the government, became the richest Capitalists (monetarists) on the face of the earth.


The worker must sell his labour hours for Capital (money), but the bankers can simply issue Capital; this is simply theft of ‘labour.’
Since no new money is ever issued without being lent at interest, and since the worker cannot produce his own currency to pay this interest, since for monetarism to work, only a select few are ever given the power to issue money, there is always more money owed to the bankers, including the interest, than there is money in the system; thus the worker is enslaved by a system where he/she is constantly ‘chasing his/her tail,’ since it is impossible for all debt to be repaid; thus Capitalism (monetarism) is a system where debt and bankruptcy are inevitable for some (the indebted) and great wealth are inevitable for the Usuryists (money creators and lenders).

____________________________
.
Money is power; power corrupts.
.
Whether gold or silver, or whether promissory notes; as long as there is monetarism, and some can create Capital from nothing and lend it at interest, and others have to sell their labour (as labour slaves or sexual slaves) and become indebted to survive, there will be crime and poverty and some shall have abundant wealth and others will starve.

Slavery works.

The slave master and those who benefit from slavery can always be expected to argue that ‘slavery works,’ and this is true for the slave master since the slaves do all the work and the master reaps all the rewards of their labour.

Capitalism (Monetarism) works.

Capitalism works for those who are the beneficiaries of Capitalism. Those in the First World who are the beneficiaries of Third World labour slavery can mostly be expected to argue that ‘Capitalism works,’ which is true for the Capitalists, since it is their labour slaves in the Third World who make the products which fill the bargain shops of the First World, and specifically the bankers (Usuryists) who are the richest of the rich can be expected to argue this most of all.

Communism (Fr. To share) does not work as much as Capitalism.

In a world without governments, private property or money, where agriculture was the priority, people would not have to do as much work; they could spend their time enjoying the fruits of their collective labour, eating, drinking, making love, travelling, listening to music or whatever they chose to do.

In India today, for example, there are 15 million child labourers. In a Communist society they would probably do the least amount of work, and the Capitalists would still be expected to argue ‘Communism does not work’ since for those 15 million children it would be true, they would not work, they would not be enslaved to Capital, they would not make trinkets to be shipped around the globe to fill the bargain shops of the First World where the products of their labour would be stolen by their enemies who convince themselves that Capitalism works each time they buy an item for a dollar that took a child a day to make.

.
The liberation of the Third World proletariat and globalisation. Monetarist Imperialism: the highest stage of Capitalism
.

The term globalisation sounds very nice; it suggests that we are living in a global village, and that all people in the world are becoming closer; nothing could be further from the truth.

In Marx’s day, the European proletariat were impoverished and they lived side by side with the rich; in today’s world there are no children working down mines in Europe, and few workers in the First World are working in such appalling conditions for subsistence wages as there were in 19th century Europe, for such labour slavery has been exported to the Third World, where appalling working conditions for subsistence wages are the norm for much of the population, and extreme poverty is the norm for many.

The poorest nations of the world service debt to the richest Usuryists in the richest nations and the poorest people in the world export the products of their labour to the proletariat of the First World. Nothing much has changed since the era of Marx and Kropotkin and the 19th century Communists, merely that the world has divided into exploited nations and those nations who are the beneficiaries of their slavery.

Only war can resolve this problem. The Capitalists of the First World are militant and totally committed to militant evangelical world Capitalist revolution; only militant resistance can stop them.

Lucifer

For Anarchist Communism





'The revolution will have to be (Anarchist) Communist or it will be drowned in blood and will have to begin all over again'


'Either the State forever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant with another.....Or the destruction of all states and new life starting again in thousands of centres on the principle that the lively initiative of the individual and groups of that Free Arrangement The choice lies with you'.. Kropotkin, 'Conquest of Bread' (1892).

On the Pan-German banner is written: Retention and strengthening of the State at any cost. On our banner, the social-revolutionary banner, on the contrary, are inscribed, in fiery and bloody letters: the destruction of all States, the annihilation of bourgeois civilization, free and spontaneous organization from below upward, by means of free associations, the organization of the unbridled rabble of toilers, of all emancipated humanity, and the creation of a new universally human world. Mikhail Bakunin

Addendum


Children often ask, 'Since there are so many poor people in the world, why don't they just issue more money?'

A response by Lucifer

I asked this question as a child to my father who is an accountant and a Masonic cultist. At the time he simply told me that it was a ridiculous thing to ask and that it could not be done, but he offered no explanation that a child could understand.

Thus in the language that a child could understand.

Capital and labour hours. Price and value.

Marx argued that the 'value' of a commodity was the amount of labour hours it took to produce the commodity. Thus a pound of silver was worth more than a pound of sand. What Marx suggested was the introduction of 'labour vouchers,' by a temporary tyranny (government) where everyone had the same amount of labour vouchers per week. Thus no person could possibly be better off than anyone else. In the history of Marxist governments however this has never occurred and what we have seen is the history of 'Leninist' state Capitalist governments where the banks are nationalised and the issue of money continues.

Printing more money in State Capitalism

Let us take the example of Cuba. Everyone gets the same wages, lives rent free and only the state bank can issue currency. Cuba, North Korea and China all have state banks which are not privately owned; they do not practice reserve banking; unlike in Capitalism, they do not borrow in order to issue new currency. Let us say that Castro increased everyone's wages by 100 times. What would occur? Frankly the same amount of goods would be in the shops, the same amount of agriculture would be produced, but everyone would have 100 times their usual salary; what would have to occur to stop the shops emptying in the first few hours after everyone got paid, would be instant inflation; the goods would have to cost 100 times more and nothing would really change. The wealth of the nation can be determined firstly by how much food they produce and the standard of living (healthcare etc), not by how much money they have, but if everyone had ten times more money, and the same amount of commodities were produced, nothing would change. Thus printing more money in a state Capitalist (Leninist) system would not enrich the population; all that would occur would be inflation.

Those with Capital (money) can demand labour slavery of others.

For example in the UK, the minimum wage is about $10 an hour ($1600 a month), whereas there are 15 million child workers in India who work for a few dollars a week, and also millions of adult prisoners in China who work in government factories and who cost the government a few dollars a week to feed. The Capitalist in Britain can walk into a bargain shop and pick up something for a dollar that represents the labour slavery of some Third World labour slave, and the Capitalist thinks 'Oh isn't Capitalism wonderful, it would take me hours to make that and it would cost $20 if it was made in the First World.' However it is not wonderful for the labour slave who has to make it.

Money makes the Capitalist world go around, not love.

The Capitalist does not have to say please do this for me my love; the power of Capital makes the demand, 'do this or be impoverished.'

Capital works for the Capitalist in the same way that slavery works for the slave master.

The State Capitalist solution.

There are many people in the First World who have studied private Capitalism and who oppose it, and who call for the introduction of State Capitalism in the First World; i.e., the nationalisation of banking. This type of Capitalist government however would not be Cuba where all persons have the same wages; on the contrary some would be rich and others would be poor.
Economic power would be transferred from the private usuryists to the governments (police states / tyrannies). This would simply be a 'modification' of Capitalism. People would still starve in some regions, there would still be labour slavery in the Third World. There is no reason to believe that state terrorists such as the governments of George Bush and Elizabeth Windsor would not still be committed to World Capitalist Revolution, the holocaust of all militant enemies and the economic enslavement of humanity under Capital.

Capitalism cannot be reformed; it has to be abolished.

For a world where all persons are economically equal, Capitalism (monetarism) would have to be totally eradicated; State Capitalism simply leads to the corruption of the tyrants and the political elites. Private Capitalism leads to empowering the Usuryists and all who collaborate with them and serve them.

Lucifer
For stateless collectivism (Anarchist Communism)

I don't have much to say other than- great job Lucifer, you are spot on in this analysis/tale. I wish I knew how to fix the world, but alas... I do not.

Originally posted by luciferhorus
Morning Star
Light of the World.
For Anarchist Communism

Revelations 22:16 - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Originally posted by luciferhorus
Once upon a time there was a religious cult called the Knight’s Templars (The soldiers / militants / mercenaries of Solomon’s Temple).

The Knights Templar was a religious military organization only under a Papal auspice. Because a snooty king owed them money they were falsely charged and disbanded to expunge the debt.

Originally posted by luciferhorus
You could deposit one pound of sterling in the Templar depository in London, take one of their ships to Jerusalem, produce your promissory note and they would give you back the silver.

Yep, they used one of the first check system.

Originally posted by luciferhorus
The bankers soon realised that they always had silver in their depositaries which few people came back to collect, and that their written promises alone could purchase commodities or be lent out at up to 30% interest. To issue a promise to pay on demand their depositor’s silver, when there could never possibly have enough silver to make good their promises, is the definition of ‘fraud’ and ‘theft.’

Could you provide sources of this?

It's kind of disgusting that you put "thankfully executed". You made a statement, but provided no evidence of it.

As for Part II, there is no hard evidence of the Freemason-Templar connection. Even as a Freemason, we cannot prove we come from the Templars.

What a poor account of history..

These men were heavily armed and had very safe and secure places (security depositories) where they would look after your gold and silver for you, so that no thief may break in and steal it.

The idea was that you could deposit your gold at home, as you set off to leave. (pilgramages to Palestine most often). The bank then wrote you a travelers check of sorts, stating how much was deposited, it was then notarized and handed to you.

As your on your way to where ever it is your going, you carry NO gold or silver on you. That way, when the highway robbers, thieves and other nasty folk decide to rob you, beat you and leave you naked in the road (as so often this occurred) your money was not on your person.

When you get to where you where intending to go, you can then make your withdraw.

The Templar Knights did not give interest on these deposits, and they did not invest with these deposits. In fact, it was "illegal" for a Templar to have any net wealth. The reason the Templar's where so rich was that, when a new member joined, all his worldly possessions where handed over.. hence their massive holdings of land.

MODERN banking, which you appear very concerned over, had nothing to do with the Templar. In fact, most agree, the idea for modern banking did not even originate in their actions.

The first "modern" bank was founded in Italy, Ufficio di San Giorgio in Genoa.

If you enjoy the histories of banks taking over countries.. this bank, the first modern bank, had more control of Italy, and overseas territories then the actual state it's self did. Most of Europes leaders where indebted to the bank, and it held prestigious depositors. Including Columbus.

And it was not run by Templar Knights, they where dead and gone. And it was not run by Masons, as Free Masonry did not exist at this point in time.

Originally posted by KSigMason

Revelations 22:16 - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Since Herod's family were considered foreigners and widely despised by many Israelites, a number of Messiah's appeared claiming to be the rightful king.

The authors of the Gospels were attempting to show that Jesus entitled to this kingship.

However, consider:

1:
Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

(a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)

(b) Hell (Luke 3:23)




Jesus descended from which son of David?

(a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)

(b) Nathan(Luke3:31)

All of these statements cannot be true. The Gospels are not a 'scholarly work by historians; they are simply propaganda.


2:

According to Christian theologians, Jesus was not the offspring of Joseph.
Joseph merely adopted Jesus and then went on to have other children with the Virgin Mary.

3:

Who then was Jesus' 'real' father according to the Christians?

According to the Christians, God (the Holy Spirit) impregnated the Virgin Mary.

Christians always claim that Trinitarianism is not polytheism, and that the 'Three' personalities constitute 'One being'

Christians worship Jesus as an object of idolatry (he is actually God)

Therefore logically:

If there is One God.

And Jesus is God.

And God impregnated Mary.

Therefore Jesus impregnated Mary.

Therefore Jesus is the offspring of Jesus.

In Christian theology Jesus is thus a 'mother-impregnator'

Since Jesus was not married to his mother when he impregnated her, Jesus according to the Christians is also a 'bastard,' thus negating the claim that he was a 'legitimate' descendent of David and heir to the throne of Israel.

This also raises the issue of pederasty, since Jesus, not being born yet would have been a prepubescent when he impregnated his mother????


I should point out that if we remove the myths and miracles of Jesus from the story and consider his teachings, we find a person who was clearly in rebellion against the religious and economic Archons of his age; he was not alone as a martyred anti-Capitalist revolutionary in that era; however he is the only one whom the Christians have made a mockery of and turned into a mother-impregnating justification for Capitalism, tyranny and in these times Anglo-American state terrorism.

Since your cult is a cult of monetarists, lawyers, tax collectors, usuryists, and the assorted chaff of Capitalism, might I suggest that you use some Capitalist figure (such as George Bush) as a religious Archon instead of comparing yourself with the martyr Jesus, who was quite unlike y’all.

LL

Lux

Originally posted by Rockpuck


The idea was that you could deposit your gold at home, as you set off to leave. (pilgramages to Palestine most often). The bank then wrote you a travelers check of sorts, stating how much was deposited, it was then notarized and handed to you.

The idea of leaving one's gold 'at home' is a new one to me; could you provide some source on this.

The history of Templar banking is quite well documented by historians and there are numerous written and Internet sources of this.

I did attend a lecture on this subject a few years back at the London Masonic research society where a young lawyer who had published a book on this matter gave a lecture on this subject. I was quite surprised that he openly admitted to the Templar's loan sharking legacy.

In a very short period of time, the Templars accumulated enormous financial power; so much so that they were lending money even to the wealthiest Princes of Europe and even to Europe's wealthiest Prince (the Pope).

This gave rise to the myth that the Templars could convert lead to gold; this is simply a myth; the Templars' financial secret was merely the confidence trick that the Federal Reserve, the IMF and Capitalism's central banks operate today; they operated a paper money scam.

The Templar Knights ...... did not invest with these deposits.

This is entirely untrue; can you provide some sources for this.

It is a well established fact that the Templars were loan sharks (Usuryists / money lenders) who lent money at interest.

In fact, it was "illegal" for a Templar to have any net wealth. The reason the Templar's where so rich was that, when a new member joined, all his worldly possessions where handed over.. hence their massive holdings of land.

Yes it is common phenomenon in the study of religious cults, for a cult Master to demand the wealth of his slaves; this leads to a very wealthy organisation; Jim Jones did it, Sun Myung Moon does it; numerous cult religious leaders do it.

And it was not run by Templar Knights, they where dead and gone. And it was not run by Masons, as Free Masonry did not exist at this point in time.

Yes I've dealt with this issue in my 'Great Work' essay. It is not a matter of the 'name' of a particular cult; the various Masonic Temples have only been officially registered in relatively recent history.

This is quite understandable since the Templars were excommunicated after the Templar Holocaust at the end of the 13th century; they did not 'officially' exist, and thereafter became shrouded in the myths and legends of my homeland (Scotland).

LL
[I]‘For every slave a master and for every master a slave.’[/I]


Lux.