I remember being brainwashed in Seminary that the Puritans completely blew it with regards to economics. I had suspicions about that then. They have now been completely confirmed.  Since my introduction to Libertarianism, and in specific the Austrian School of Economics, I have been suspicious of learning my Economic theory from Jews and Jesuits.  Ludwig Von Mises, the primary character behind our contemporary push towards the Austrian School, was born a rich Jew. Gary North, adds that he laid the foundations for his own Libertarianism by reading another Jew named Murray Rothbard.  Now the Jesuit history behind Libertarianism is fascinating as it buttressed the Anti-Christian practice of usury. In McCabe’s A Candid History of the Jesuits pg. 282-283, we find that the Jesuit Houses in Peking, China made a fortune, charging interest up to 24%! Does that sound familiar to you my American reader?

I will never forget the epic scenes in the First season of the Showtime series The Borgias, where Girolamo Savonarola, preached so passionately against the corruption under the Borgia Pope Alexander VI (Rodrigo Lanzol Borgia-Papacy: 1492-1503), giving specific emphasis to the common use of usury.

In 1492 Jews were expelled from Spain and some 9,000 Iberian Jews were welcomed into the Papal States in Rome by Borgia Pope, Alexander VI. He did the same with expelled Jews from Portugal in 1497 and from Provence in 1498. Under the Borgia Pope Alexander VI, the Jews made a fortune off of excessive usury.

It was in the 14th and 15th centuries that the rise of the Marrano Jews (Jews forcibly converted to Christianity) were creating problems for the Catholics as this new demographic was producing a number of Judaizer heresies. However, the Jesuits in the 16th century allied themselves with the Murranos. The Cross and the Pear Tree: A Sephardic Journey by Victor Perera, mentions on page 76 that Loyola was called a Jew-lover and many Murranos later became Jesuits. And let the reader not forget the earlier Borgia House connection because the co-founder of the Jesuit Order was Don Francis Borgia. Thus the Borgia House-Jesuit-Jewish Zionist-Usury Financed International Banking Cartel came into its own. Is it just a coincidence that Marx was educated at the Jesuit High School in Trier, Germany? Is it not strange that the Charging Bull on Wall Street looks exactly like the Family Crest of the House of Borgia and the crest of the Duke of Valentois, a title of nobility first given to Cesare Borgia in 1498? Is it just a coincidence that the Salamancan Jesuits  like Molina and Juan de Mariana laid the foundations for Libertarianism and the Austrian School of Economics?  Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School, relied heavily on them.

In Vatican Assassins, 1039-1040, EJP quotes, David I. Kertzer’s  The Popes Against the Jews [Bracketed comments are EJP’s]

“In September 1882, the first international anti-Semitic congress was held in[apostate Protestant, Masonic Lutheran, Jesuit-controlled, later-to-be firebombed] Dresden, with representatives present from [apostate Protestant] Germany and the [Roman Catholic] Austro-Hungarian empire. In reporting on the event, Civilta Cattolica recounted that although many violent speeches had been made denouncing the Jews, the ‘relatively moderate’ resolutions proposed by Reverend Adolf Stoecker had been approved [sealing the future fate of Dresden, as the Order’s Nuremberg Laws of 1935 would also seal the fate of Bavaria’s Nuremberg]. Stoecker, a Protestant minister [like America’s Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, anti-Jew, once anti-Pope, Christian minister Texe Marrs], was one of the most influential pioneers in the development of German anti-Semitism. . . .But let us return to Civilta Cattolica, where by 1890, the ailing [Jesuit] Father Oreglia had passed on his leadership in the Jesuits’ crusade against the Jews to colleagues. One of these men, [Jesuit] Father Raffaele Ballerini, . . . wrote [in ascribing to the Jews the secret goal of the Jesuit Order] . . . ‘The whole Jewish race [in fact, the White Gentile-led Company of Jesus] . . . is conspiring to achieve this reign over all the world’s peoples [as declared in the Jesuit-authored The Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion].’ . . . They [in fact, the Jesuits] began ‘a remorseless, constant war against the Christian religion and especially against Catholicism [the same war carried out from 1789 to 1815 by Jesuit Adam Weishaupt’s Bavarian Illuminati directing high-level, Grand Orient Freemasonry via the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars] . . . and an unbridled campaign of usury, monopolies, and thievery of every sort [via the ten planks of the Order’s Masonic The Communist Manifesto], to the detriment of those among whom they have enjoyed and continue to enjoy civil liberties [which high crimes the Jesuits have committed in every host country since the inception of the Society, especially in Fourteenth Amendment America].’ . . .‘For the Jews’, [in fact, the Jesuits] the Jesuit concluded, ‘brotherhood of peace [set forth in the Jesuit-edited The Documents of Vatican II] were and are merely pretexts to enable them [the Jesuits] to prepare—with the destruction of [both “heretic” Protestant and “liberal” Roman Catholic] Christianity, if possible, and the undermining of Christian nations [which conspiratorial undermining the Order has accomplished in both Protestant and Roman Catholic nations during the Devil’s Twentieth Century]—the messianic reign [aspired to by the Pope of Jesuit making] that they believe the Talmud promises them…[My interruption-DS] In 1890 [Jesuit] Ballerini devoted three long articles in Civilta Cattolica to ‘the Jewish Question in Europe.’ The following year these were bound together and published as a ninety-page book to reach a broader audience.

The Jews [in fact, the Jesuits] ‘formed a foreign nation in the nations where they resided [as do the Jesuits], a sworn enemy of the nation’s well being [as are the Jesuits, evidenced by the Order’s scores of legal expulsions due to its quest to control the governments of all nations]. . . . Although they may live in France, in Germany, in England, they never become French, or German, or English, but remain Jews and nothing but Jews [as do the cosmopolitan Jesuits remain only Jesuits under their secret vows]. In an 1893 article titled ‘Jewish Morality,’ another Jesuit author, Father Saverio Rondina, listed all the recent changes aimed against the [Masonic] Jews [fronting for the Jesuits] in Europe, ranging from fraudulent banking practices [evidenced today by the Order’s Federal Reserve Bank] to charges of murder [constantly committed by the Order’s CFR-controlled Central Intelligence Agency]. . . . The Jewish nation [in fact, the Jesuit Order], Father Rondina wrote, ‘does not work, but traffics in the property and the work of others [like the Order’s Chicago Board of Trade]; it does not produce, but lives and grows fat with the products of the arts [like the totally morally depraved “Hollywood” Jesuit Theater] and industry of the nations [like the Order’s CFR-controlled New York Stock Exchange] that give it refuge. It is the giant octopus that with its oversized tentacles envelops everything [as does the Jesuit Order, marvelously described in 1844 by Eugene Sue in his The Wandering Jew]. It has its stomach in the banks [Bank of America, Chase Manhattan Bank, etc.] . . . and its suction cups everywhere: in contracts and monopolies [Halliburton and Bechtel Corporations] . . . in postal services and telegraph companies [A. T. & T.], in shipping [W. R. Grace and Co.] and in the railroads, in the town treasuries and in state finance. . . . It represents the kingdom of capital [controlled by the Order from Hong Kong, Zurich, London and New York],. . . the aristocracy of gold. . . . It reigns supreme. . . . What governs is Masonry, and this too is governed by the Jews [first declared by Masonic Jesuit Abbe Augusten de Barruel in his 1797 treatise on the French Revolution, repeated by Ludendorff and Hitler].’ ”

Is it possible that Communism, that primary weapon of the Order, designed to supplant all traditional governments and religions pursuant unto the destruction and subsequent confiscation of white property, has been firmly supported by a controlled Pro-Usury-Libertarian-Gold Standard feigned opposition that increases the Order’s wealth by boosting the price of gold? I was taught by a Free Market Economist, John Robbins, that value is subjective not objective. Yet what is the whole basis behind the Gold Standard? Objective value. Gold has no objective value and neither does a federal reserve note. Both can be manipulated, confiscated, and re-distributed.


Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 142. What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are…usury (Psalm 15:5)

Fisher’s Catechism QUESTION 75. What is forbidden in the Eighth Commandment? (Taken from Reformed.org)

“Q. 29. What is it to monopolise?

A. It is to engross commodities, in order to enhance the price of them.

Q. 30. What is the worst kind of monopolising or forestalling?

A. It is the buying up grain, or other provisions, in large quantities, in order to exact a higher price for them afterwards.

Q. 31. In what consists the evil of this sin?

A. They who are guilty of it enrich themselves upon the spoils of others, Ezek. 22:29; they “grind the faces of the poor,” Isaiah 3:15; and bring upon themselves the curse of the people, Proverbs 11:26 — “He that withholdeth corn, the people shall CURSE him; but blessings shall be upon the head of him that selleth it.”


Q. 32. What is it to take USURY, according to the proper signification of the word?

A. It is to take gain, profit, or interest, for the loan of money.

Q. 33. What kind of usury or interest is lawful?

A. That which is moderate, easy, and no way oppressive, Deut. 23:20, compared with Ex. 22:21.

Q. 34. How do you prove that moderate usury is lawful?

A. From the very light of nature, which teaches, that since the borrower proposes to gain by the loan, the lender should have a reasonable share of his profit, as a recompense for the use of his money, which he might otherwise have disposed of to his own advantage, 2 Cor. 8:13.

Q. 35. What is the usury condemned in scripture, and by right reason?

A. It is the exacting of more interest or gain for the loan of money, than is settled by universal consent, and the laws of the land, Proverbs 28:8 — “He that by usury, and unjust gain, increaseth his substance, shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.”

Q. 36. How do you prove from scripture, that moderate usury, or common interest, is not oppression in itself?

A. From the express command laid upon the Israelites not to “oppress a stranger,” Ex. 23:9; and yet their being allowed to take usury from him, Deut. 23:20; whicH they would not have been permitted to do, if there had been an intrinsic evil in the thing itself.

Q. 37. Is it warrantable to take interest from the poor?

A. By no means; for, if such as are honest, and in needy circumstances, borrow a small sum towards a livelihood, and repay it in due time, it is all that can be expected of them; and therefore the demanding of any profit or interest, or even taking any of their necessaries of life in pledge, for the sum, seems to be plainly contrary to the law of charity, Ex. 22:25-28; Psalm 15:5.

Q. 38. Were not the Israelites forbidden to take usury from their brethren, whether poor or rich? Deut. 23:19 — “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother.”

A. This text is to be restricted to their poor brethren, as it is explained, Ex. 22:25, and Lev. 25:25, 35; or, if it respects the Israelites indifferently, then it is one of the judicial laws peculiar to that people, and of no binding force now.

Q. 39. What is the spring of all these different ways by which men defraud and Injure one another in their outward estate?

A. Covetousness, Luke 12:15, or an inordinate prizing and loving of worldly goods, Psalm 62:10.

Q. 40. What should affright and deter every one from such wicked practices?

A. The consideration of the curse that shall enter into the house of the thief, Zech. 5:3, 4; and of the vengeance that shall light upon such as go beyond and defraud their neighbour: for, “the Lord is the avenger of all such,” 1 Thess. 4:6.”

This is where the skeletons in Gary North’s closet really start to stick out. In North’s Usury, Interest, and Loans: A Brief Summary of Biblical Teaching, With Bibliography  North states, “There is not one verse — not one hint — in the Bible that taking excessive interest is wrong.” What he means is, if you take his view of Hereditary slavery, then upon that foundation, “There is not one verse — not one hint — in the Bible that taking excessive interest is wrong”.

North wants to know where the Bible allows usury, but condemns excessive usury.

In Fisher’s quotation above in answer to q. 36 Fisher says, “From the express command laid upon the Israelites not to “oppress a stranger,”  Ex. 23:9; and yet their being allowed to take usury from him, Deut. 23:20; which they would not have been permitted to do, if there had been an intrinsic evil in the thing itself.”

Next, North says, “A non-charity loan could be collateralized by a piece of rural land. The borrower could lose his land for up to 49 years if he defaulted. The 49-year limit was established in terms of the sabbatical periods of seven years: seven times seven. This is discussed in Leviticus 25, the chapter on the jubilee year. [1] A non-charity loan was not under any restriction with respect to interest. A person who defaulted on a commercial loan that had not been collateralized by land could be sold into slavery, but a unique kind. He had to be paid. Also, he did not receive tools of production at the end of his term of service. [2] This term could be up to 49 years….[3] He who denies that Jesus annulled the Jubilee laws owes it to his followers to explain why the Mosaic law’s authorization of inter-generational slavery is not still in force.

Leviticus 25:44-46 was widely was cited by defenders of the South’s slave system prior to 1865. [4] I think it is wise not to attempt to resurrect it now. Except for Jesus’ words in Luke 4, there is no explicit or implicit annulment of inter-generational slavery in the New Testament.

In short, [5] a Christian who cites the Mosaic laws governing the prohibition against interest has a lot of explaining to do. He had better understand the implications of his position.

[6] The Mosaic laws governing interest-taking on charitable loans were aspects of the national sabbatical year, including the crucial provision, the six-year term of slavery. This all ended when Israel disappeared as a nation in 70 A.D. These laws were not re-established by the New Testament.

Conclusion: the Mosaic laws governing charitable loans are defunct. There is no more national sabbatical year and no more jubilee year.”

[1]. The first underlined statement here has already been refuted. Fisher pointed out that Ex 23:9 forbid the Jews to oppress the stranger. That is a restriction with respect to interest.

[2]. Slavery was not limited to 49 years. That pertained to the Israelites, not the heathen. R.L. Dabney in his Defence of Virginia says,

“The antithesis in the position of the two laws [Lev. 25:44-46-DS] shows that these heathen slaves were not to go free at the year of Jubilee, like Hebrew slaves. They are to be bondmen forever. They and their children, slaves by birth, are to descend from father to son, as heritable property. There was to be “no seventh year freedom here; there is no Jubilee liberation.” So says the learned divine, Moses Stuart, of Andover, himself an anti-slavery man. And so say all respectable Hebrew antiquaries. Indeed it would be hard to construct language defining more strongly and fully all those features of domestic slavery most contradictory to the theory of Abolitionists. They were to be bought and sold. They were heritable property: (Mr. Sumner would prove hence, “mere chattels.”) (Here is involuntary slavery for life, expressly authorized to God’s own peculiar and holy people, in the strongest and most careful terms…  An honest mind can make nothing less of their words. But in Numbers xxxi. 25 to 30, and Joshua ix. 20 to 27, we have instances which are, if possible, still stronger. In the former passage the people of Midian had been conquered by God’s command, and the captives and spoils brought home; the captives to be slaves for life according to the law of Leviticus, ch. xxv. The book of Numbers then proceeds: “And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Take the sum of prey that was taken both of man and of beast, thou and Eleazer the priest and the chief fathers of the congregation; and divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them who went out to battle, and between all the congregation. And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses and of the sheep: Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazer the priest, for an heave-offering of the Lord. And of the children of Israel’s half thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the Lord.” In verses 40th and 46th, we read farther that the “Lord’s tribute of the persons” of the first half, “was thirty and two ‘persons,” and of the second half, “three hundred and twenty.” Here God commands a portion of these slaves to be set apart to a sacred use, and dedicated to himself, that they might become the property of the ministers of religion. The second instance is not contained in the books of Moses, but in the history of his successor Joshua: we group it with the former, for its similarity. In Joshua, ch. ix., we are told that while he was triumphantly engaged in the destruction of the condemned heathen tribes of Palestine, according to God’s command, the people of Gibeon, a part of the doomed race, despairing of a successful defence, adopted this stratagem to save themselves. Under pretence that they were not of Palestine at all, but from a very distant place, their ambassadors obtained from the leaders of the Israelites a very stringent oath of amity. This pledge the elders incautiously gave, without seeking the divine direction. In a very few days they learned to their astonishment, that these Gibeonites lived in the very heart of Palestine, close to the spot where they were encamped, and that they were of the very race which they were appointed to destroy. But they had sworn in the name of Jehovah not to destroy them. In this state of things, the princes and Joshua determined to punish them for their falsehood, and at the same time substantially observe their oath, by leaving them unhurt, but reducing them to slavery as the serfs of the Tabernacle and its ministers. In verses 23d and 27th, Joshua told them: “Now, therefore, ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen,” (Ebed, i. e., slaves,) “and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God.” “And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord, even unto this day, in that place which he should choose.” This compact the Gibeonites seem gladly to have accepted. In 2d Samuel, ch. xxi., we find this same race of serfs still living among the Israelites, under the same compact. King Saul, David’s predecessor, having broken it by killing many of them, God himself interposed, and required a satisfaction for the breach. Here we have evidence that the slaves of heathen origin were not freed by the Jubilee, for centuries had now elapsed and they were still slaves. We also see evidence that the contract made by Joshua was not regarded by God as unlawful. In this case, also, we find God accepting a religious offering of slaves for the service of his sanctuary. And these, while real slaves, did not belong each to an individual master, but were slaves to an institution and a caste, a form of bondage always justly regarded as less benevolent than the former.”  (Pg. 117-121)

[3] So what if Christ abrogated Jubilee? That is not the issue. North never even hinted at distinguishing the rights of Jews and Heathens at this point. Fisher already admitted that prohibitions against taking any interest from a fellow Israelite was ceremonial. But our position is not dependant on those relations. Hereditary slavery was authorized in the law of Moses and basing a rejection of Hereditary slavery from King George’s attempt to start a race war here (The presence of African slaves here was a Jesuit plot to destroy the Protestant peoples of this land through race war) simply buttresses my suspicion that North is indeed a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor.

[4] By “resurrecting” does he mean the principle or the practice? Mr. North’s imprecise language becomes overwhelmingly burdensome the more you read him.

[5] It is North who has the explaining to do. Why is it that North seems to consistently fall right in line with the Jesuit-Borgia-Usury Financed International Banking Cartel- Counter Reformation agenda? That is what North needs to explain. Not only do I understand the implications of my own view I understand the implications of Mr. North’s view because I have been living with those implications for 32 years. Demonizing of the Slave Institution here in these original colonies is nothing-less than demonizing the Culture and Peoples of these original colonies, which said culture has been utterly annihilated here in my homeland; pursuant unto the Counter Reformation agenda which I have to work for, pay over 30% taxation to, and am currently exiled in. No, it is North who has the explaining to do.

[6] Wrong! Those laws governed the Israelites. There were general laws that reflected relations with heathen nations but as we have seen, there was a body of natural laws separate from the laws that pertained to Israel as a commonwealth.

In conclusion I would like to draw your attention to a statement made by Reg Barrow, in his SAUL IN THE CAVE OF ADULLAM

“Moving next to _The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin_ (P.E. Hughes, ed. and trans., Eerdmans, 1966), it is evident that Wilson’s [Doug Wilson-DS] view of negative civil sanctions was alien to Calvin and the Geneva Presbyteries. Blasphemies, contradiction of the Word, drunkenness, usury over five percent, dissolute games, missing church, being late for sermons, women (midwives) baptizing, superstitious worship, observing Romish festival days, attending Mass, etc., all came under civil cognizance (usually fines, pp. 53-59).”


Libertarianism Connected to Pluralism

Gary North is known for his devotion to Theonomy and his abhorrence of Pluralism. However, is it possible that he uses this commitment as a Trojan Horse to import numerous Pro-Pluralist ideas into Theonomic communities to eliminate the possibility of a real Christian Nation ever truly developing? I think so.  Ingrained within Libertarian thought is the primacy of the individual and his hunger for competition. Now I do not deny that North has often committed himself to a Patriarchal understanding of the Law of Moses.  His commentaries are full of this. However, his Libertarian poison eliminates the possibility of this ever really developing. Enter Social Contract Theory. The Bible does not teach that men are naturally self-interested individuals that become social through a contract.  The Bible teaches that men are Social and Patriarchal by nature. The great divine Samuel Rutherford said, “Every man by nature is a freeman born, that is, by nature no man cometh out of the womb under any civil subjection to king, prince, or judge, to master, captain, conqueror, teacher…because freedom is natural to all, except freedom from subjection to parents.” (Lex Rex, [Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1982], 51)

Even if Adam had never been beguiled by the serpent in the beginning, man would by nature be subject to his parents.  By nature, from the very innocence of creation God has established order and rank.  Paul speaks of God being the head of Christ, Christ being the head of man and man being the head of woman, who by nature was born under matrimonial subjection (There goes the primacy of self-interest). Admittedly, woman was made for man and under his authority because she originates from him (1 Corinthians 11:8-12).  In our ordinary generation we originate from our parents and therefore by nature are subject to them.  Though Christ is God blessed forever and never created, he is eternally begotten of the Father and has the Father as his head.  Man was made lower than the angels in rank (Hebrews 2, Psalm 8) and have these beings as superiors though not directly under their authority.  So it is clear that by nature, there is order and authority given by nature outside of sin.  However, is this the case with civil government?  What is the difference between the office of father in a family and the office of a king when Isaiah calls him “a nursing father (Isaiah 49:23)?”  The answer is given by Samuel Rutherford: “As a man cometh into the world a member of a politic society, he is, by consequence, born subject to the laws of that society; but this maketh him not, from the womb and by nature, subject to a king, as by nature he is subject to his father who begat him, no more than by nature a lion is born subject to another king-lion; for it is by accident that he is born of parents under subjection to a monarch, or to either democratical or aristocratical governors, for Cain and Abel were born under none of these forms of government properly.” (Ibid.)  The distinction being made by Rutherford is the difference between natural law and positive law.  This distinction is defined by Webster’s Dictionary: “In laws, that which is natural, bindeth universally; that which is positive, not so.  Although no laws but positive are mutable, yet all are not mutable which are positive.”  Therefore, it is clear that paternal authority is different from civil in that paternal authority is universal and therefore natural, while civil authority is regional and temporal in its forms and legislation and therefore positive, mutable, and as a minister with the power of the sword, has its origin from the consequences of sin.

The nature of civil authority is given in Romans 13.  The Divine Right of Kings doctrine interprets this passage as descriptive.  This view is incorrect due to the key terms that regularly describe government for most are not “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”  Romans 13 is prescribing the authority in much the same way the constitution of the United States is described as “an express powers document.”  This method of delegation is a “regulative principle” (Not to be taken as strictly as it is in Ecclesiastical matters) and the only authority that it has is that which has been expressly stated by God.  To this statement some will object that government has authority in the same way a father does when he tells his son to take his feet off the coffee table.  They will argue that there is no command or prohibition in the Word contrary to one’s foot on the table, but the father has authority to forbid such.  This objector fails to see the distinction between paternal and civil authority. Rutherford pointed out that kings are called fathers metaphorically in the scriptures and tyrannous leaders are metaphorically called leopards and lions in Ezekiel 22:27, and Zephaniah 3:3; “If then, tyrannous judges be not essentially and formally leopards and lions, but only metaphorically, neither can kings be formally fathers.”[Ibid., 62]  Civil power and fatherly power are not of the same essence as this objection implies and “It is answered,- that the argument presupposeth that royal power and fatherly power is one and the same in nature, whereas they differ in nature, and are only one by analogy and proportion; for so pastors of the Word are called fathers, 1 Cor. iv. 15, it will not follow, that once a pastor, evermore a pastor; and that if therefore pastors turn wolves, and by heretical doctrine corrupt the flock, they cannot be cast out of the church.” [Ibid]

The rank individualism and the emphasis on competition creates a certain attitude in these people that cannot be ignored. These people will never win the broad attention of mankind and will keep competing with each other until their group is all but extinct. I would rather have a Parish than a pluralistic social mystery meat and I would rather have a brother than a competitor thank you very much.