Saturday, January 24, 2015



"Usury bringeth the treasure of a realm into few hands.'' — Lord Bacon.

"A free government cannot long endure where the tendency of the laws is to concentrate the wealth of the country in the hands of a few, and to render the masses poor and dependent.” — Daniel Webster.

"Thou shalt not lend on usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury." — Deut. xxiii 19.

In considering the subject of interest, I prefer to deal with it as a branch of the general term usury, since by so doing a much better and more comprehensive idea of its operations and its effects may be obtained, than by treating it as a separate and independent factor of distribution. Usury,  which proceeds from the Latin "usus," to use, signifies the payment for the use of anything. Wherever payment is exacted merely for use, that, properly speaking, is usury. Thus rent, as payment for the use of land, is usury, and interest, as payment for the use of money, is usury, irrespective of the percentage charged. We note here that this is a far broader definition of usury than that we developed, however, Kitson's discussion of the subject as he broadly defines it is still instructive.

Juris prudence, or as it is sometimes more appropriately termed, juris ignorance, has created a fine distinction between the two terms, a distinction that exists rather in name than in principle. As a legal term, usury is excessive interest; that is, a rate beyond that fixed by law, and its exaction is made a crime. As this legal rate differs in different states and countries, and at different times in the same country, it is necessary, not only to consult the statutes, but also the map, in order to discover whether one is perpetrating a crime or not. The only difference between interest and usury in law, is a difference of percentage. I shall use the word usury as a general term denoting payment for the use of anything, whether the thing be land, money or capital. Again, we can see how terms have been made to change in order to suit the requirements of powerful special interests or entrenched privilege. A new monetary system could certainly NOT win the widest acceptance among the general public unless it cancelled these privileges and annulled the prerogatives of entrenched privilege. Usury is usury; any interest is a BAD thing, etc.

Interest is commonly applied to the use of money and capital, and rent as payment for the use of land. Interest, like all usury, is the price of monopoly. Its existence depends absolutely upon a restricted and insufficient currency; that is, a currency for which a demand is  always far in excess of the supply, for no one would pay for that which was within easy reach of all. Now we have seen that a currency issued upon a scientific basis must necessarily be unrestricted. Interest is, therefore, antagonistic to a satisfactory solution of the money question.

In discussing this question, one finds it difficult to determine with which science it is more at variance, ethics or economics. Consideration has already been given to its moral phase, in the opening chapter. I purpose treating this aspect of the case more fully, and demonstrating its utter incompatibility with any true system of economics. Whilst at first sight, as a factor of distribution, it seems superfluous, closer investigation will make it appear incomprehensible that economists should regard it as a necessary factor, for a tax upon use is a deterrent from using. The higher the tax, the less willing and the less able are people to use; and any tendency to discourage the employment of the factors of production, is naturally opposed to economy. Turn this around and you have monopoly mascaraing as science, known as ecology.

Interest is, therefore, opposed to the economic production of wealth. In the chapter on Credit, I have shown how a restricted currency tends to  augment the volume of credit. That interest is also a cause of the “piling up of vast volumes of credit," is evidenced by the fact that everyone, as a rule, uses his credit in purchasing commodities before borrowing money. In fact, credit is ordinarily employed to avoid the burden of interest. That the system of interest is opposed to every economic principle, is likewise evidenced by the manner in which the laws of all civilized nations regard the subject. All countries have established legal rates of interest. To exact more than these is punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. Why is this? If interest is an economic factor in a system tending to the wealth and happiness of society, why is it necessary to set a limit upon its field of operation? The fact of the matter is that since ANY interest is usury, any law pretending to protect the public by limiting it, is strictly a compromise; what formerly and anciently was understood to be against law has become a bent law or a pretext for bending law. Bending law does not ever imply that the real law is still not in FORCE, because as Bastiat said, law is FORCE and therefore cannot be evaded forever. All one ever does by bending law is to postpone the consequences for breaking it. A lawless financial system, such as the one under which we now live, can be kept propped up only so long before it crashes, a faulty economic school, such as the so called “Austrians” that enshrines interest, cannot long endure, and “gold bugs” clearly do not have a solution. Likewise bitcoin is a fake commodity whose true worth is ephemeral.

If six per cent tends to social weal, why does not ten per cent tend still more so? If the growth of social wealth is stimulated by a certain percentage, will it not be stimulated much more by a higher rate? Or is production excited in a gradually increasing ratio, reaching its maximum under a five per cent rate in England, six per cent in Eastern States, seven per cent in Canada, eight per cent in the West, and declining thereafter?  Experience does not prove that high rates of interest tend to facilitate production in the slightest degree. Before we hear that it does, we admonish all to recognize that numbers can and are made to lie all the time, so we shall NOT be so convinced!

It is in times of panics, when business is becoming paralyzed, credit crumbling and men are going into bankruptcy, that money commands the highest rates. It does, however, happen that a revival in business is accompanied often by a good rate of interest, owing to the increased demand for money; but no one would say that the latter was the cause of the former, any more than they would say that a brake was the cause of a wheel's rotation. The fact is that interest is universally recognized as a burden upon industry, a burden tolerated only so long as society is able to bear up under it, and this is made possible only so long as the tax is kept down to a certain point. We note that a tax or an interest payment are likewise considered the burdens or expenses born by all businesses and apportioned off into the eventual prices for every good or service. There is no distinction made between the two in accounting.

Paradoxical as it may appear, it is nevertheless true that the laws against usury are, to a certain extent, for the protection and maintenance of  those who live upon usury. Usury tends to self destruction. Extend it, and it "kills the goose that lays the golden eggs," it dries up the source that supplies it with the means for its existence; for since all wealth is the product of labour, usury of every description must be furnished by labour, and unless the remuneration of labour is sufficient for its own support it must eventually cease, with which rent, interest and profits would cease.

There is, therefore, a natural limit set upon usury. We note here that the goal of globalism is the continued enrichment of those who live upon usury. What they imagine is possible is for successively cheaper and cheaper labour to be found (and the unwilling to labour for low wages to be socially sidelined) so that their profits, living from doing nothing, can increase and continue. History is a record of showing how under any technology in the past (and there are some technologies that we no longer even know about from the distant past) that these strategies have ultimately FAILED and resulted in succeeding periods (like the barbarous 4th cnetury) where human life was nasty, brutish and short.

Now the rapacity, greed and ignorance of many individuals would recognize no bounds short of that which force and oppression could exact, a condition which no one would or could submit to for any considerable length of time. Such men would pull down the entire structure that provides them all with shelter. It is to the interest of usurers that society should produce wealth, for like parasites or potato-bugs, their existence depends altogether upon that which they are constantly destroying by feeding upon. Their demands must, of necessity, be kept within such lines as will permit a certain amount of progress and a certain degree of prosperity to the country. Moderation becomes, therefore, the law of self preservation. The tendency, however, is always towards the boundary line, which barely gives to labour the means for reproduction. This tendency is inherent in the system itself. We also note here that what Ayn Rand was doing in the service of these rapacious elitists was confusing their aims and instincts with those of the real productive John (and Jane) Galts of this world and attempting to get them to be antagonistic to the droves of the poor; to take the heat off of themselves. The John and Jane Galts are the critical elements in every advanced society, so to who goes their allegiance is a fundamental concern of all who live from usury.

Further consideration tends to show the natural antagonism which the system of usury constantly exerts towards sound economic principles. The constant desire of mankind is to avoid as much as possible a condition of labour, a condition which is not only natural, but absolutely essential for enabling mankind to reach the highest state of happiness. Now any system that tends to lead men out of this condition and away from the field of production, is contrary to economic laws. For this reason the poor laws and all forms of State aid to paupers have been universally denounced by economists. This is precisely what the system of usury does. It presents a scheme which encourages every man to accumulate wealth as rapidly as possible, irrespective of means employed or methods pursued, so that by placing it at interest he may cease producing, and reap his share of the harvests for the rest of his life, just as if he continued to labour. Nay, more, it enables him to leave his family in the same condition, that his children need not toil, nor their children, and so on from generation to generation. It is a siren that is constantly alluring producers away from production, and making them non-producers. It leads to hereditary pauperism. The result is, that everything is sacrificed to the immediate concern of hastening to get rich, of reaching that condition of "independence," by which society is compelled to furnish subsistence without obtaining its equivalent in production. Wealth is wholly unproductive. Man and nature are alone productive. No accumulation of wealth, however great, can support life indefinitely. If the wealth owner refuses to work, others must perform not only their own share, but his also. No man can live without labour performed for him or by him. No matter what the political system may be under which we live; no matter how honourable men may regard that class who live without labour; no matter how society may strive to disguise the truth, science tells us that society is made up of three classes: producers, paupers and thieves. No intricate system of laws, by which bodies of men are enabled to enjoy life without labour, can alter this fact. You would certainly never have heard it stated this way by Ayn Rand or any of the “Austrians.”

Every individual taken from the field of production adds to the labour of those remaining. For, as shown in the chapter on Wealth, human subsistence must be constantly reproduced. There is no such thing as storing the necessaries of life for any great length of time. All wealth is naturally perishable. Even by our more limited definition, the means to an income is of limited duration, which we may call natural depreciation, which is handy for discounting over time as a matter of accounting. This mad rush for individual wealth, which the system of interest is largely responsible for, has had an effect on society which no one can forsee the eventual result of. It has led to extravagance in the use of nature's bounties which mankind cannot make good for ages to come. Witness the exhaustion of our virgin soil, the shamefully wasteful destruction of forests, the exhaustion of gas-wells, of collieries, the pollution of lakes and rivers, and consequent destruction of fish and vegetable life. These and other sources of supply might under just economic conditions have been conserved, and by replanting with seed and material, nature would, in time, have reproduced what was used up, so far as animal and vegetable life is concerned. (Professor Alvord, of the Agricultural College of Maryland, in an address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, New York, in Aug., 1887, said :“There is annually taken from the soil of the United States alone $440 million worth of nitrogen, one-half of which is never returned.” We are therefore depleting the soil at the rate of 720 millions of dollars annually!) So, again, we note that the science of recent vintage called ecology may have a far more conservative usage were it not for allowance of usury.

This desire for the creation of sudden and immediate wealth, begotten of usury, is invariably attended with the destruction and depletion of the  factors of production themselves. It is the constant and uninterrupted production and reproduction of wealth that economy teaches us is the true end to attain, since this is conducive to the natural growth and stability of society. The passion which the desire for usury engenders, is constantly urging men to deprive the factors in production of as much of the products as is consistent with bare existence. It is always tending to push wages to the lowest possible scale (Gallipolis, Ohio, April 21. — The miners at Minerton, twenty miles north of here, went out on strike at noon today, as will every coal digger in the Hocking Valley. One of the leading miners at Hawks Station said to a United Press reporter: “I have never seen as discouraged a set of men as the miners of this neighbourhood have been since the last reduction was made. They know it matters not how steady they work, they cannot make enough money to keep a small sized family in the necessary food, and they have concluded that if they are to starve, they prefer doing it at once and not by degrees." — Philadelphia Evening Telegraph. April, 1894.) and to reduce the proportion allotted for renewing land and capital employed in production, all such expenditures being regarded as unproductive, in the sense of not drawing interest. We saw how Ayn Rand turned this one around on honest labour, regarding it as barely worth the cost of feeding it, because of all such expenditures being regarded as unproductive, in the sense of not drawing interest! If you suppose for one second that these issues are unrelated, may I suggest that you go take a look in the mirror at an idiot, scoundrel or fool!

The result (as I have shown in the opening chapter), is to decrease the amount and weaken the powers of the agents in production. In fact,  were it not for the rebellious nature of the labour machines, and their tendency to strike, wages would go lower and lower until reproduction became impossible. And then the giant corporations, all built on and sustained by usury, would simply transfer their operations to progressively cheaper and cheaper places where labour costs and other costs (environmental degradation, etc.) were even lower.

What countless evils this system inflicts it is impossible to conceive, let alone describe. But make no mistake, they are ALL related to usury in some form or another as well as absentee ownership (stakeholding and stockholding) and limited liability. Oh, one might add state sponsorship into it too, as that tends to add some chimera of “legitimacy” to all corporate activities. These are the elements we want as little to do with when starting a new monetary system.

In oppressing labour and preventing the labouring classes from rising to a better condition, it serves to defeat the very end which political economy has in view. Wealth cannot be spent more productively, more economically, than in improving the condition and efficiency of land and labour. A system that tends to neglect this duty, or that presents other objects of greater consequence, is a system of wealth-destruction, of political extravagance.

Adam Smith recognized the importance to a community of duly regarding the condition, skill and talents of its members. "The acquisition of such talents," he observes, “during the education, study or apprenticeship of the acquirer, always costs a real expense, which is a capital fixed and realized, as it were, in his person. These talents as they make part of his fortune, so do they likewise of that of the society to which he belongs.   The improved dexterity of a workman may be considered in the same light as a machine or instrument of trade, which facilitates and abridges labour, and which, though it cost a certain expense, repays that expense with profit." (Wealth of Nations, Smith)

In connection with this McCulloch remarks: "Instead, then, of being entirely overlooked, as is most frequently the case, the dexterity, skill and  intelligence of the mass of its inhabitants ought to be most particularly attended to in estimating the capital and productive capacities of a country. Much stress is uniformly and justly laid on the comparative power and efficacy of the machines which man has constructed to assist him in his undertakings; but man is himself the most important of all machines, and every addition made to his skill and dexterity, is an acquisition of the tmost consequence. The discrepancies that actually obtain in the physical organization and capacities of the various races of men, are comparatively trifling. And yet, how vast is the difference, in an economical point of view, between an American Indian or an African, and an Englishman or a Frenchman! Lord Bacon's aphorism, that knowledge is power, is true as well in a physical as in a moral sense. It not only enables individuals to attain an ascendency over their less instructed neighbours, but it makes immeasurable additions to their productive capacities. An ignorant and uneducated people would, though possessing all the materials and all the powers necessary for the production of wealth, be sunk in poverty and barbarism. And until their mental powers had began to expand, and they had been taught to exercise the empire of mind over matter, the avenues of improvement would be shut against them, and they would neither have the power nor the wish to emerge from their low and degraded condition."

The remuneration to labour must, therefore, be sufficient (in order that society may progress) to not only provide subsistence, but means for properly nourishing and educating the wealth producers' children, and enabling them to acquire knowledge and skill useful in production; and the  greater the degree to which this is carried out, the wealthier must such a society become, to say nothing of the moral aspect of the case. Usury ends to decrease the wealth productiveness of nations by withdrawing individuals from the field of production, and by depriving the factors of production of a part of that which should be employed in their support and betterment.

I shall now show that not only is the system contrary to scientific laws, but that, as a continuous or a universal system, it is impossible; that it can not and does not work for any long period uninterruptedly; for that system asserts that all capital increases in a continuous and regular system of progression for all time. Setting aside, for the present, its utter variance with nature's laws, it is easy to demonstrate by facts its absurdity; for the growth of usury is greater than the growth of wealth. For instance, had our
ancestors of five hundred years ago mortgaged the earth to some capitalist for $i,ooo at five per cent interest, and allowed the interest to accumulate nd draw interest, the descendents of that capitalist would today not only own the entire globe, but the rest of mankind would be hopelessly bankrupt. Had the Pilgrim Fathers invested the little capital they brought from the old world on a three per cent usury basis, the people of this ountry would owe them far more than all the wealth of the North American continent.

"Suppose," says Proudhon, "that a man in the reign of St. Louis had borrowed 100 francs, and had refused — he and his heirs after him — to  return it. Even though it were known that the said heirs were not the rightful possessors, and that prescription had been interrupted always at he right moment, nevertheless, by our laws, the last heir would be obliged to return the 100 francs with interest, and interest on interest, which in all would amount to 107,854,010,777,600 francs; which is 2,696 times the capital of France, or more than twenty times the value of the terrestrial globe!" (“What is Property?" Humboldt Series)

"Suppose, when Virginia was settled in 1607, England had sold to the first settlers the whole of the United States for $1,000 and had taken a mortgage for this sum covering the whole property, but instead of paying the interest yearly at seven per cent, the settlers had agreed to take up  their bonds at the end of every six months and add in the interest. Allow the $1,000 and the accruing interest to remain outstanding until 1860, and then become due. Although our prosperity has far surpassed that of any other nation, yet our property of every description would not pay the debt. Interest at seven per cent doubles the principal in ten years and one month. In 100 years and ten months the debt would have amounted to $1,024,900; and in 201 years and eight months to $1,048,576,000. Add fifty years and five months to 1859, and the sum would amount to $33,554,432,000. All the interest which would have accumulated upon the $1,000 would not have increased the quantity of the money or the roperty of the nation. All the increase of the value of the property would have been added by the labour of the people; but all their surplus earnings have not equalled the legal accumulation at seven per cent interest on $1,000 during this periods (Ed. Kellogg.) Now of course we have interest bubbles into the trillions of dollars that of course can never be repaid as there is not enough money in the world of any kind that can ever repay them. Realization of these fabulous financial con games eventually brings down empires. Since it has happened before, it will happen again, as we have NOT learned from our past.

But it is not necessary to go back so many years to show the impossibility of usury as a scientific principle. Usury is always increasing more rapidly than wealth. It knows no period of depression, no time of stagnation, no failure of crops, no unfortunate speculations, no condition of ill-health and inability to produce. It forever goes on as regular as time, and as relentlessly as gravitation, counting and adding to men's burdens, piling them higher and higher, until the load becomes too great and they fall, crushed by the weight of its oppression. No system of production has et been discovered capable of maintaining this regular, never-failing supply which usury demands. Deny any of this at your own peril: what Kitson is saying here is absolutely true and is a very good reason for taking a stand FOREVER against usury.

All forms of wealth production have usually been fitful, irregular, and subject to fluctuations. One season's harvests are abundant and the next a failure. This year's fruit crop may prove enormous and the next spring's frosts may kill all the blossoms. The consequence is that though for a imited period production may make rapid progress, yet, like the hare and the tortoise, usury invariably overtakes and keeps ahead of production. For years past usury has been far in excess of the ability of nations to meet its legal demands. The consequence is that bankruptcy is general throughout the civilized world, and today insolvency faces the people of almost every nation on earth, "The borrowed capital of this country," says a writer in the Arena (I. W. Bennett in March No. 1894) "claims more in remuneration than the country can produce. Every dollar invested in business claims a return called interest. Every dollar representing debts unpaid, claims a like remuneration. This must all be paid out of the production of each year, and from each year's product men must be fed and clothed and sheltered. The wealth of the world must be kept up. Buildings, machinery, everything must be kept in repair; and improvements for use in the future must be taken from the stock of the present. There is not wealth enough to meet all these obligations, and the business of the world must go into the hands of a receiver every now and then, so that a new start in business may be made. The country, with all its allied industries, is analogous to a mammoth business concern. When it contracts greater liabilities than it can meet it fails, and we have a financial panic. What is being described did happen, happened over the last decade, shall happen again. WHO IS ALWAYS TO BLAME? Figure that out and you will begin to get it. Hint: the “Austrians” shall NOT be able to help you, nor the Marxists.

"This state of bankruptcy is chronic. Counting everything, the liabilities of the country are always greater than its assets. The industrial world is always in a state of potential bankruptcy, but credit tends to keep it out of the hands of a receiver. Then the same persons are in part debtors and creditors, and this, with our frequent liquidations, aids in keeping us from continual financial panic. Any disturbing of credit precipitates a crisis.

"An odd proposition, but one capable of mathematical demonstration, is that the very foundation principles of our industrial system lead us to recognize obligations which we can never pay. A simple, specific statement of what they are compels us to admit that they are too large to meet.

"The present wealth of the United States may be placed in round numbers at $72 billion. Imagine that! That fully eighty per cent of this sum pays interest may be verified by any person who cares to give the subject thought. If any of the money in business bears interest, all money invested in business must likewise bear interest, otherwise nobody would assume business risks. But we may arrive at the same conclusion by a process quite different.

"Something like eighty per cent of the wealth of the country is in the hands of about 250,000 persons, or about one two-hundred-fortieth of the population. This excludes the wealth of well-to-do farmers and merchants; and it goes without saying that nine-tenths of this wealth held by the immensely rich is interest-bearing. Nearly all of it is lent, or if not lent out is invested in some business where interest on the money invested is added to the return or profits of the undertakers. The wealth in the hands of farmers and merchants is paying interest on all that is not used for the personal wants of themselves and their families; and even many of the homesteads of the country are paying interest. . . . I certainly hope that all the John and Jane Galts out there and those who would think of themselves as Libertarian or have listened to the blandishments of the “Austrians” or “gold bugs” are paying attention. YES, the problems ARE interest (usury) and corporations.

"At least one half of such wealth is interest bearing. An examination of the mortgage lists of the several states will more than bear out this estimate. We are, then, paying fixed charges, as the railroads put it, on about $55 billion of the country's wealth. The net rate will average five per cent; and taking into consideration commissions and other charges, six per cent is a low estimate of the gross rate. The interest on $55 billion at six per cent is $3,300 million per year. To get the average interest charges for the last decade we must take the average of interest paying capital, which is about $50 billion. We have, then, an average yearly interest of $3 billion, a sum which more than absorbs the entire yearly increase of wealth in the United States. During the last decade the wealth of this country has increased about $22 billion.

"During the same period the interest charges were $30 billion. Adding but the single item of interest on personal business obligations to the standing debt of the people, the assets of the country's citizens will, in the short period of ten years, fall $8 billion below their liabilities. The principal falls due in that time, and the business of the country, if fixed in the hands, would bankrupt in that time. It does actually feel the shock. But the fact that many persons are creditors as well as debtors, and the debtors and creditors change places, puts off the final accounting. We have said before on this blog that, contrary to everything mainstream economics teaches, not only is asking for interest on a loan of money a BAD thing, but living off the proceeds of such taking is likewise a BAD thing; idle money should NEVER be rewarded.

The tendency of the enormous fixed charges on business is to amass the wealth of the country in the hands of large property owners, who are almost exclusively creditors. 

The mightier the fortune, the more interest it draws and the more exempt it is from the dangers of speculation.

"Fortunes go on piling up under the laws of interest, and after all cheeky and counter-tendencies are allowed for, the country has a panic —  becomes bankrupt — every twenty years. Then Keynes came along and said that the government as spender of last resort could effectively buy off these panics, but the debt ceilings would go stratospheric. The result, as this blog has taken pains to explain, is that all governments everywhere are held captive to the usurers. Those that are not become their targets for war. So, just who are your enemies now? Are you waking up yet?

"There is a well-defined financial flurry of more or less violence, every decade, or even oftener. The fact is that whenever the creditor class demands its money there is a panic, for there is not money enough in the country to satisfy the demand, and all property must be turned over to meet liabilities. Indeed, the cash in the country is principally in the hands of the creditor class, having piled up there under the laws of interest. Do you begin to understand why a new monetary system must FOREVER disallow certain practices? It is not for nothing that we endeavour to educate people, to tell them the truth.

"During times of confidence business is kept moving by a shifting of liabilities, but in times of doubt and uncertainty, from whatever cause brought about, the business of the country finds it impossible to meet its obligations and is obliged to file into bankruptcy. The cleverest of speculators cannot long keep up their business by borrowing from one to pay another, unless debts are very small as compared with the capital invested. Just so the business of the country, taken as a whole — the piling up of debts always ends in collapse. It is nonsense to say that want of confidence is the cause. Unless the ground principles of business produce instability, want of confidence can have no effect. Men realize that the business of the world cannot pay its debts, and therefore lose confidence."

The absolute oppression which a system of compound interest engenders, has led to its abolition in most nations, by law. Not now of course, 120 years ago, before the first great war, before things went totally berserk. And who were those who made the world finally go crazy? Usurers are the single greatest match stick to ever bring about world havoc. Now if simple interest is just, why is not the former? The principle is identical. Wealth paid as interest bears on its face no stamp of usury, and is as well fitted for investment as any other wealth. If compound interest is unjust, then simple interest is equally unjust. There is not the slightest difference in principle. Now I have shown that compound interest is impossible; that it tends to accumulate faster than wealth can be created under its yoke; and since all interest is a part of wealth and likewise capable of drawing interest (under his broad definition, it is), it follows that the principle of interest is, economically speaking, impossible. It may be asked, does not the system exist, and why is it continued if it be an impossible system? The answer is, that as much of it as now exists does so by force of law, and is fostered through ignorance. He's being far too kind. Here again, what we need are lawyers to adequately prove that certain routine business practices all involving usury are in fact frauds upon the public. Then we shall see that nothing but the raw power of certain elites and their threat of violence is what holds the present edifice in place. All their bribes, blackmail, etc. are instances of the extension of their corrosive power.

In every civilized country the legislative, judicial and administrative branches of government, that is to say the entire machinery of governments, is in the hands of usurers, those who live by rent, interest and profits. Which is why one cannot expect a thing from governments and must strive to stay on the same terms one reserves for wild beasts; great respect for the great harm they can do on behalf of those who are their real masters. In no civilized country does one find the laws made or administered by the actual wealth producers. So all you John and Jane Galts out there can get that through your heads and stop wasting your time and energies chasing things through governments that can and shall never belong to you. In the next place, the system has never worked for any considerable length of time without a break-down. Too big to fail? Too big to jail? Figure it out.

Now, a scientific principle is one which is universally applicable to the phenomena with which it deals. The greater the field over which it operates, the more is its truth and exactness established. Usury, on the other hand, becomes impossible as soon as applied universally or over a considerable period. It is only applicable on a small scale or for a limited period. That clearly never stopped the usurers. They have nearly the entire globe and shall not be satisfied until it is all theirs and everyone is enslaved, and oh of course, if you're in the way, it's your fault, not theirs. We've already told you that as far as most of you are concerned, they'd prefer that you just go off somewhere and die quietly and not disturb their twisted perverted pleasure party. 

No comments:

Post a Comment