By Ryan Augustine

In defense of the Federal Reserve, there are two things:

1. The Federal Reserve has been in the news recently due to the Department of Justice pursuing criminal charges against Fed. Chair Jerome Powell. These charges are politically motivated to pressure the Fed into lowering the interest rates.

2. Many libertarian and Kremlin-compromised types, such as Rand and Ron Paul, mischaracterize the Fed as the head of an all powerful banking cartel which prints money out of thin air and devalues the money supply through expanding fiat currency. This is simply not true.

With that said, I think it is important to talk about what the Fed is and what it actually does. The financial system is the most complex system in the world, so I will try to make this as simple as I can.

The reason why our money is constantly being devalued is systemic. It comes from our reliance on fractional reserve banking (usury) and socialism. Money is created whenever a loan is created. So, when someone buys a house for $500,000, they take out a 30-year loan. The bank which issues the loan only has to hold a small percentage (typically 10 per cent; although, the reserve requirement was changed to zero per cent under Trump in 2020) as a reserve. The remaining 90 per cent of the money is created into existence by the banks’ double-entry bookkeeping. Therefore, there is a relationship between loans, money creation, and inflation. The lower the interest rate on a loan, the more attractive loans are to take out, the more money is created, the more money created means more dollars chasing goods and services, which means inflation.

The main purpose of the Fed is to ensure stability in the currency. The Fed’s primary tool to do this is that it sets the exchange rates between banks (called the Effective Federal Funds Rate). Basically banks make millions of transactions between banks every day, and in order to have a certain amount of money in reserves and stay solvent, they loan each other money at the end of the day to square up.  The rate banks can charge other banks for lending money is the EFFR. This rate essentially serves as a rate floor, i.e. the lowest possible interest rate the banks will charge for a loan. So when inflation is too high, the Fed will raise this rate, which will lead to fewer loans being issued, which means less money is created, which means that there are fewer dollars chasing goods and services and, thus, less inflation.

This way of regulating money creation is actually a good system and aligned with capitalism because the people who really need loans will still get them. It remains a free choice whether you want to buy money. That’s not saying that fractional reserve banking is good but that if we are to regulate it the way the Fed does, it makes sense.

The other thing that the Fed gets a bad rap for is the country’s national debt. The Fed always seems to get blamed for the national debt, when in reality it has very little to do with it. The main reason we have a national debt is socialism.

Our national debt is created by the treasury department issuing bonds. When we don’t have enough tax revenue to cover the cost of running the government, the treasury department issues bonds on the bond market. The bonds, or “T-Bills,” can then be bought by anyone. When you buy a T-bill you are paying the government $100 for the governments promise to pay you back that $100 with interest. The government has gotten into a situation for the last several decades where it has so many T-Bills outstanding that it is issuing new T-bills to pay for old T-bills. That is why the National Debt is 38 trillion dollars and the interest on the debt is one trillion dollars a year. It has nothing to do with the Fed. The only thing the Fed has done with regards to Treasury bills is to step in on rare occasions and buy T-bills when no one else is willing too. This is known as quantitative easing, or being the buyer of last resort.

As anti-Communists, we need to understand that the attacks on the Fed are an attempt to destabilize the dollar as the reserve currency of the world so a BRICS currency can take over. The Fed isn’t the issue with our monetary system; it actually does a pretty good job as a regulator, keeping things from getting out of hand. The issue with our monetary system is that there is no free lunch, and we have about a century of usury which has compiled debt. We need to get rid of the usury, not get rid of the Fed, or else they will establish a BRICS currency, or as Klaus Schwab would say, a great reset.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

Michael Hoffman’s Usury in Christendom is a thought-provoking and challenging elucidation on the gradual acceptance of the mortal sin of usury in the Catholic Church contrasted with the supposed stern stand against usury by early Puritans—the supposed inheritors of medieval Catholicism.

The first couple hundred pages are fairly straight forward and illustrate the Biblical and Early Church teaching on usury, which appears uncompromising (no amount of interest is permitted under the sin of usury, according to traditional Church teaching). Hoffman starts with Medici Pope Leo X as the beginning of the Church leadership’s slide into apostasy (the love of money being the root of all evil). It was Leo X who, as Hoffman contends, created the loophole for moderate rates of interest with the institution of the monte di pieta, a Florentine bank supposedly designed to offer relief to the poor from the excessive interest rates of Jewish and gentile loansharks thriving in the region. Hoffman argues that the loophole of Leo X and those of Popes thereafter has absolutely no moral justification and is a contravention of Biblical teaching. A fair point by Hoffman that’s difficult to counter, especially considering that Leo X threatened excommunication to anyone publicly expressing doubts over his 1515 Bull. However, on page 226, Hoffman seems to inadvertently provide his own loophole when he writes, “Few churches today exhort against interest on loans beyond the rate of inflation….” How is Hoffman’s exception of inflation any more permissible than the monte di pieta’s exception of circumventing Jewish loansharking by way of low-rate fees required to keep the bank in operation? Hoffman then shows that the loopholes eventually led to mass acceptance of differing forms of usury, persecution of anti-usury dissidents (within the Church and outside of it), and the Catholic Church’s lending of its own money at interest. He claims encyclicals of post-Renaissance popes, like Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum of 1891, were merely rhetoric to placate the masses while Church-sanctioned usury continued unabated.

The latter half of Usury in Christendom ramps up the book’s overall polemical tone and uplifts the early Puritans—unlike the supposedly wayward later Puritans—as the harbingers of anti-usury, anti-capitalist Biblical economic practices. And even when he does discuss those wayward Protestants, like crypto-Jew John Calvin, he can’t help but blame their permittance of usury on the influence of “Roman Catholic nominalists”. Catholics are somehow solely responsible for all usury in the modern world, it seems. Hoffman clearly suggests that the apostate Roman Catholic leadership is primarily responsible for modern usurious capitalism, not Jews or Protestants. The latter have been unfairly scapegoated, although they are involved, Hoffman insists. The Catholics must also be responsible for the early Puritan’s usurist loophole, with which Hoffman seems to have no problem, of permitting usury on commercial investment.

“The early Puritans were capitalism’s worst nightmare; how they came to be made synonymous with its ‘spirit’ is an act of legerdemain by way of a malignant prejudice.”

John Cotton is one such early Puritan to whom Hoffman frequently refers.

Hoffman seems to feel that he must—in the name of historical truth, I suppose—correct Catholic “ignoramuses” in their prejudicial views on the early Puritans and, to a lesser degree, anti-usurist Calvinists. After all, it seems according to Hoffman, Catholics ought to look to Protestant reformers (heretics) to correct Catholic apostasy.
A rather absurd conclusion, if in fact, it is his. Hoffman’s championing of the early Puritans is set up early on in his book as he leaves them out of his list of the guilty parties involved in usury. “Modern Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and Mennonites are all guilty of this grotesque disobedience to God.” He seems to suggest, as he does with the early Puritans, that early Protestants were obedient to Biblical teaching on usury. It was only modern Protestants that got it wrong. While Hoffman be be correct that many Catholics throughout the ages have levelled unfair and/or exaggerated charges against early Protestants of usury and Shylockian economic practices, he comes across as quite angry and reactionary—the same way he does with his critics in public discussions (online comments, etc.).

Hoffman’s yearning for an Amish-like economic system may be ideal for the Church, but it is completely impractical in a time when Satanic communism co-opts any legitimate anti-capitalist movements. It may be even more impractical now because of the no-return-like state of the world economy (it seems the banksters have created a system by which only further usury and quantitative easing can keep it going). At times, Hoffman seems to embrace Soviet critiques of Western “colonialism”, particularly in the following mocking tone:

“Was it Puritan Conquistadors who, in an orgy of greed unprecedented in the annals of the western hemisphere, contracted a gold fever that burned so hot it plundered and enslaved the helpless indigenous nations at their mercy?”

Regardless, Hoffman does correctly point out that capitalism and communism are two dialectical forces that both serve the purpose of the money power. They are both based in materialism.

He also equates the “social justice” in Fr. Charles E. Coughlin’s The National Union for Social Justice with the same kind of modern “social justice” against which pundits like Glen Beck rail. Hoffman may be correct that Beck is a hopeless predatory capitalist, but I doubt very much that Coughlin’s social justice is the same as that expressed by the radical Left today.

Critics of Hoffman have pointed out his inconsistent reasoning when accepting mainstream media narratives in one instance and rejecting them as “cryptocracy” propaganda in the next instance. The following Hoffman polemic illustrates this:

“Are these fables about the first Puritans seeded by the Cryptocracy to keep us from studying the radical Protestant roots of resistance to the authority of money? With the virtual collapse of the credibility of popery in the 21st century—with its melange of institutionalized child molestation and ‘infallible’ canonization of ‘Blessed’ John Paul II, patron saint of Voodoo in Benin and Koran-kissing in Rome—an alternative to papalolatry is intensely to be desired.”

Hoffman’s refusal to publicly acknowledge to which Church authority he subscribes only further provides ammunition for his critics. But perhaps we can glean something from a small footnote on page 259. Is he Protestant? Catholic? Schismatic?

“In our protest of the idolization of mere human beings (Romans 3:10; Matt. 20:25-28), we meant to take nothing away from the esteem due to faithful and saintly pre-Renaissance pontiffs who upheld the integrity and authority of the Word of God.”

Completely left out of Usury in Christendom’s equation, oddly, is the history of usury and capitalism—for or against—in Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly as it pertains to the great and prosperous Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Orthodox position is the same anti-usury teaching of the traditional Roman Catholic Church). Was this an historiographical blunder or does Hoffman think it irrelevant? Apparently he feels that the relatively short Puritan period warrants more attention than 1,000 years of Byzantium—through which to learn lessons on usury.

On a minor note, the book has no index, which is unusual and inconvenient.

Putting aside Hoffman’s frequent Puritan apologetics, his book makes solid points about the apostasy of Catholic leadership since the Middle Ages when it comes to usury. His logic and standards are sometimes inconsistent, but his points on usury in the Catholic Church are valid and important. His theory on loopholes is plausible and should not be ignored, despite his biases.

“Contraception, abortion, and homosexuality are, in part, derived from the corruption of a society that has legalized the crime of usury.”

Michael Hoffman, the revisionist writer, clearly regards it as one of his missions in life to shift blame for the rise of “Christian” usury from Protestantism to the Catholic Church. In many articles and books Hoffman has asserted that Protestants, specifically Calvinists, have been unjustly scapegoated for usurious hegemony in the west. Hoffman’s method of argumentation on his website and elsewhere is to simply ignore facts that don’t support his thesis of Protestants as radical foes of usury. Thus he ignores or downplays the huge and well documented role of Calvinists and other Protestants in the rise of modern industrial usurious capitalism – a role modern Protestants and philo-Protestants not only admit, but brag about (1). He also ignores, or attempts to explain away, some central facts of post-Reformation history, such as, for example, the rise of great usurious Protestant capitalist powers in the centuries after the Reformation.

For example, Britain as a fanatically Protestant polity, became the world’s leading usurious industrial power in the post-Reformation age. Moreover overseas territories settled by Protestant Britons likewise eagerly embraced usurious capitalism (2). In this context it must be noted that since the Whig sponsored Dutch Orangeist conquest of England, it has never had a Catholic monarch or Prime Minister.

Anglo-usury and Anglo anti-Catholicism went together. The United States, another capitalist superpower with a long history of anti-Catholic persecution and discrimination, only got its first Catholic president in 1960, and we know what happened to him. The all-pervasive hatred of Catholicism that characterised both the British Empire, and to a lesser extent, the U.S., makes the idea that some form of subtle or subliminal Catholic influence explained these nations’ fervent embrace of state-sponsored usury bizarrely far-fetched.

Why, in any case, would Protestants, especially radical Protestants, obediently follow the lead of the hated Papists in something so fundamental, especially since the whole point of the Reformation was revolt against Rome? The question gains even more force when one remembers the central pivot of Hoffman’s thesis: the notion that during the Renaissance the Catholic Church broke with the teaching of the Medieval Church on financial matters, and that disgust at Catholic financial corruption partly drove the Protestant “reformers”. How likely was it that Protestants who rebelled against Rome, in part because of perceived financial corruption, and who repudiated apostolic succession and many ancient dogmas of the faith, would blindly sign up to a new anti-Christian financial dispensation, simply because their religious arch-enemy had already done so? If they revolted so violently against ancient teachings of the hated Papists, and went on an iconoclastic altar and statue smashing rampage across great swathes of Europe to prove the point, why on earth would they eagerly embrace newly minted Catholic teachings – unless, that is, such alleged new teachings dovetailed with their own materialistic agenda?

In an exchange on his blog, Hoffman noted that when Calvin endorsed usury, several prominent Puritans, including John Cotton, reproved him. Far from admitting the obvious implication of this statement, which is that the founder of the most successful radical Protestant sect decisively broke with the anti-usury traditions of Christendom, Hoffman attempts to argue that it proves the anti-usury outlook of many radical Protestants.

Not only is this highly disingenuous – Calvin defined the spirit of radical Protestantism far more than John Cotton did – but it also points to a more profound misapprehension on Hoffman’s part. He seems to be believe that the tendencies of Reformation and post-Reformation radical Protestantism can be illustrated simply by citing anti-usury writings and sermons of some prominent Puritans. Thus is if a prominent New England Puritan like Cotton condemns loan-sharking, this for Hoffman proves that the Puritans cannot be blamed for the rise of usurious capitalism. This is grossly simplistic on several levels.

First of all condemnations are one thing – actions are quite another. When it comes to the Catholic Church, Hoffman attaches no credibility whatsoever to the post-Renaissance Church’s many condemnations of usurious capitalism and freemasonry. According to him, all such condemnations amounted to nothing more than cunning and hypocritical ploys on the part of Rome, to disguise its true occultist-usurious agenda. On the other hand he takes all the statements by early Protestant leaders condemning usury or Judaic corruption completely at face value – even when they come from the mouths or pens of men such as Luther, who condoned all forms of sin including lying, and enthused about occult practices such as alchemy (3). Emotionally and spiritually, then, Hoffman is anything but a detached unbiased scholar when it comes to evaluating the merits of post-Reformation Catholicism on the one hand, and early Protestant movements on the other.

Another problem with cherry-picking anti-usurious or anti-Judaic statements of early Protestants is that this type of reductionism often fails to take note of the underlying trends at work in historic political or religious movements. For example, if most 1960s liberals had been asked what they thought of same sex unions, the vast majority of them would have said they deplored such a grotesque idea, and that social conservatives who suggested otherwise were simply scare-mongering. Indeed as recently as 2012 Barack Obama claimed to be opposed to “gay marriage”. Yet when the American Supreme Court ratified this evil sham in June 2015, the U.S. President celebrated by lighting up the White House with the colours of the LGBT rainbow flag. Revolutionary movements aren’t always open about what their true endgame is, and sometimes aren’t even sure themselves, so their past statements are by no means an infallible guide to their future actions.

Hoffman himself spots subtle “gradualism” everywhere where Rome is concerned, but ignores much more glaring examples of the phenomenon in the history of Protestantism. Thus he cites Pope Leo’s Papal Bull “Inter Multiplicis” as beginning the gradual process of abandonment of the Catholic Church’s prohibition against usury, but denies that Calvin’s much more definitive embrace of usury played a decisive role in the rise of loan-shark hegemony.

Unfortunately for his thesis, the historical facts speak for themselves. Protestant and Jewish families shaped the modern financial system in Britain and its dominions (including Ireland), and in the U.S., Prussia, Switzerland, Scandinavia and elsewhere. Even in predominantly Catholic nations like France, Protestants were at the heart of usurious banking. The rhetorical hostility of certain Puritans to usury does not in any way negate the huge role radical Protestants played in the rise of the usurious state, any more than the opposition of certain traditionalist Anglicans to “women priests” proves that Protestants have had no truck with feminism.

The Reformation unleashed forces which at least some of its devotees neither encouraged nor desired, but as with early social liberals, this in no way absolves the reckless “reformers” from blame for the predictable consequences of their revolutionary pride. That pride made it inevitable that greed and the love of money would follow in the wake of their revolution.

The usurious spirit cannot be divorced from liberal pridefulness generally – it is interwoven in the fabric of modern post-Catholic culture. If love of money is the root of all evil it is because money facilitates the commission of all other sins Rebellious pride was at the very heart of Protestantism from Luther to Henry VIII to Thomas Cromwell, from to John Calvin to Oliver Cromwell. That incidentally is why Whiggish Neo-conservatives, including pseudo-Catholics like Michael Novak, are such philo-Protestants: they grasp, in a way that seems to completely elude Hoffman, that the Reformation was the beginning of the modern revolutionary capitalist age. Those early Protestants who condemned usury did so because they still lived in post-Catholic post Medieval culture, just as the 1960s liberal who condemned sexual promiscuity, or abortion on demand, still lived in a world informed by vestigial Catholic morality.

Yet another problem with Hoffman’s approach to evaluating early Protestant statements on usury is his own definition of Puritanism. There is more than a touch of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy at work here, whereby Hoffman defines a Puritan as any radical Protestant who happens to meet his definition of what a good Christian should be. Thus when objectors point out that many Protestant denominations directly descended from Puritan sects – Congregationalists, low church Anglicans, Unitarians, and so on – pioneered a worldly liberal approach to moral issues, including usury, Hoffman blithely denies that such sects have any claim on the Puritan name (4). He adopts a similar form of circular logic in attempting to address the incontestable evidence that many of the pioneering usurious banks in Britain, New England, Geneva and elsewhere were owned by Calvinists or Puritans, or their descendants. A Puritan in his parlance is simply the type of Protestant who agrees with him on religious, political questions.

For example he says that to accuse Puritans of liberal tendencies is to adopt an “elastic” definition of Puritanism.
But Puritanism WAS elastic in most matters religious – apart, that is, from its hatred of Catholicism. Modern Whigs revere Oliver Cromwell because, like them, he loathed the Catholic Church, but not so paradoxically also embraced an early form of ecumenical liberalism, and tolerated many Protestant sects – ranging from Anglicans to Independents to Presbyterians and Unitarians – sects that disagreed with each other on many things, but shared a deep hatred of Catholicism. In other words liberals find Cromwell a congenial figure because his religious views don’t differ significantly from their own, and can be summed up as “ARBC” – Any Religion But Catholicism”.

The political and social authoritarianism of early radical Protestants should not blind us to this truth: Puritans were elastic in terms of religious dogma, but nonetheless deeply inflexible towards those who challenged their spiritual and political authority. In this they foreshadowed the modern left and the modern Neo-cons, who change their mind on a sixpence, but are utterly ruthless in their repression of dissent. Not so very long ago Communists persecuted homosexuals as bourgeois degenerates; now their hard left ideological descendants persecute critics of homosexual “marriage” as hate criminals. Like communism, with which it shares certain traits, Puritanism never lacked in fervour and authoritarianism – what it lacked was any coherent concept of moral and spiritual authority.

Notes:
(1.) Lagrave, Christian, “The Origins of the New World Order”, Apropos Journal, No. 29, Christmas 2011. This invaluable essay (translated from the French original), lays bare the pivotal role of British Reformation and post-Reformation Protestantism in the development of the NWO. As the late great Solange Hertz used to say: when it comes to tracing the roots of Judaeo-Masonic global tyranny, “all roads lead to London”.
(2.) Anger, Matthew, Chojnowski, Dr. Peter, Novak, Fr. Michael, “Puritans Progress: An Authentic American History”, Angelus Press, 1996. The role of Protestants in the rise of Anglo-American usurious capitalism is glaringly obvious; so glaringly obvious that it’s well nigh impossible to take seriously an argument based on denying or downplaying this central fact of American history. Furthermore writers such as the late Professor Anthony Sutton have documented just how steeped in occultism and corruption the Anglo-Protestant self-anointed “elite old-line” American families were and are. See his book, “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Skull & Bones”, Liberty House Press, 1986.
(3) Muggeridge, Anne Roche, “The Desolate City: Revolution in the Catholic Church.” Harper, San Francisco, 1985.  For more on Luther’s proto-Reichian sexual revolutionary tendencies, see also Dr E. Michael Jones 1993 Ignatius Press book, “Degenerate Moderns; Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehaviour”.
(4) In an exchange with the author on Hoffman’s blog, “On The Contrary” in May 2015, Hoffman categorically denied that any Protestant who endorses sexual libertinism can legitimately be called a Puritan. In truth at the time of the Reformation, Catholics viewed the “Reformers” as dangerously indulgent on sexual matters. Hoffman is correct in saying that the idea of  the Puritans as strait-laced dour ascetics is a distortion, but it’s a distortion that, in a certain measure, works in Protestantism’s favour – tending as it does to obscure just how much the original Puritans had in common with modern liberals. If the Puritans were “joyless”, that joylessness stemmed from their materialist rationalism, rather than from the stringent nature of their creed.
(5.) Fahey, Fr. Denis, “The Mystical Body of Christ In The Modern World”, Browne & Nolan, Dublin, 1935. Even in an overwhelmingly Catholic country like Eamonn de Valera’s Ireland (over 95 per cent Catholic in those days), all of the major financial institutions were in the hands of Protestants or Jews. The same applied to most big commercial and industrial concerns, and to the Irish media. The role of exiled French Huguenots in advancing the Industrial Revolution, and in the rise of British usurious banking is well known – although, to the best of my knowledge, Hoffman largely passes over it.
(6) Lagrave: In his aforementioned essay, “The Origins of the New World Order”, Lagrave quotes the Scottish historian/philosopher David Hume’s description of Cromwell as in practice a religious “indifferentist” when it came to the various Protestant sects – a man who sought to form a united anti-Catholic international front of all the denominations, regardless of their doctrines. Indeed, such was his indifferentism many continentals believed him to be a Freemason. Whatever the truth here, it is certain that Cromwell’s policies dovetailed uncannily with those of “the Craft”. In modern times Neo-cons and other Zionist stooges on left and right are the most ardent members of the Cromwell fan club. Tony Blair keeps a bust of the vile old hypocrite on his desk. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised at one mass murderer revering another.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
January 19, 2014 Anno Domini

There is much appeal to the so-called sovereign, or freeman on the land, movement. It shows its adherents that there is a vast monetary conspiracy which holds the citizens of the planet in perpetual bondage and that there is a procedure to remove oneself from this.

While it is true that there is a global conspiracy ruled by money, the sovereign movement, which has its roots in the WASP establishment, doesn’t stop there and eventually takes its followers down a path of deception and ruin.

For years, I held back on advocating for or against this sovereign movement, with the intention of giving it time to prove itself. It has failed miserably and ruined the lives of many well meaning people. How sincere persons fall for this deception is apparent in the near-truth appeal of the freemen on the land. Yes, there is a global economic conspiracy. Yes, there is no law in the United States that requires one to pay income tax. Yes, the common law is a suitable law for a civilized society. But it is foolish to think, as the movement’s adherents do, that one can escape this monetary matrix simply by writing a series of homemade letters to state officials and the Queen of England or arranging words in such a way as to declare independence from the system when facing a magistrate.

The sovereign citizens movement claims that the conspiracy is based in Universal Commercial Code (UCC) or that we, as artificial corporate entities called ‘persons’, are actually governed by Maritime admiralty law (the law of the seas). The fact that our names are written in all upper case letters on government documents is the alleged proof that we are merely corporate instruments traded within the UCC system. While these codes certainly allow for control of good and services as well as people, they are not the root of the conspiracy. And publicly declaring oneself independent of this system has no effect whatsoever, as has been proven by the repeated failures in the courts by sovereigns. Afterall, the lawmakers and their interpreters (lawyers) can get away with interpreting laws in any way they see fit. The Bible declares that the love of money is the root of all evil. Evil…is at the root of the monetary conspiracy. The only way to declare oneself independent of this evil system dominated by monetary instruments is to repent of ones sins and follow Christ, who is the liberator of mankind from the bondage of sin.
The sovereign movement offers an illusory salvation through its system, which is based on letter writing and language manipulation. Sovereigns are doomed to a life of, at worst, jail time or, at best, a life of constant fighting to declare oneself independent. Spend enough time around a sovereign and you will see that much of their time is taken up by summons to court or learning the latest letter-writing technique (there is always “new light” to be learned since their methods always fail in a court of law). Adherents are always kept in a state of delusion. When they inevitably fail to convince a judge of their independence from admiralty law, they are comforted by another sovereign and advised that they simply didn’t use the right combination of words to secretly tip off the judge as to the sovereign’s true freedom.

The sovereigns point out that the City of London is a separate corporate entity. They claim that the UCC law, under which every man and woman is supposedly enslaved, is run by the British Crown in conjunction with the Vatican. Much of this speculation is fueled by Jewish disinformation of a Vatican/Catholic world conspiracy. This is a strategic deflection carefully crafted by the Elders of Zion. The Crown is certainly a big part of the world conspiracy, but remember that Jewry took over England shortly after Henry VIII’s bastard daughter Elizabeth and her court astrologer John Dee cast a spell over England, allowing for all kinds of evil to flourish. England became the new Jerusalem to the Zionist millennialists. And while the Vatican has become corrupt, especially since the Second Vatican Council, it is not a key player in the world conspiracy. The function of the now Jewish- and homosexual-infiltrated Vatican is to water down the Christian faith, to modernize and scandalize it. In reality, Talmudic Judaism and its money-changing disciples are the masters of money on Earth. They are headquartered in London, New York, and in other places and are not limited by the incorporation of cities, municipalities, or persons. They are not limited by codes or laws, and especially not letters of declaration (sovereign’s supposed claim of right) or language manipulation. The world’s modern courts system, based on interpretation and legalism, resembles something based in the Jewish Talmud and Kabbalah (the late Eustace Mullins makes some plausible claims about the courts and Kabbalah; Michael Hoffman, in Judaism Discovered, makes clear connections between the modern legal system and the Talmud). The British Crown can only be an extension of this kabbalistic system. It’s certainly no secret that most judges are Freemasons—Freemasonry being a Britishized from of Jewish cabalism. A branch of the sovereign movement called the redemptionist movement, founded by Roger Elvick, touches on the Jewish aspect of the usury/debt slave system, but fails to see its spiritual relationship: that we are enslaved by evil men (led mainly by Jews) through usury and debt but that our own personal sin and abandonment of God makes this enslavement possible, not our lack of knowledge of techniques and procedures.

If true liberation from bondage comes from knowing Jesus Christ, then the freeman movement is not only providing a false solution to the problem of bondage and slavery, it is affirming it by diverting its followers form the real answer. So delusional are the sovereigns, they naively believe that we were somehow free when only the common law existed, even though usury and sin still prevailed. Considering the sovereign’s unconscious affirmation of slavery and bondage, it’s no surprise that many sovereigns take their “enlightenment” to extremes, like using their letter procedures and statements of claim to get out of paying bills, everything from utilities to cable and phone. The rotten fruits of their deception finally evolves from its pseudo-liberating theology to outright theft.

Another rotten fruit exhibited by sovereigns, and as indicated by the Freeman society logo above, is their new age, communitarian tendencies. To justify their theft, sovereigns will often claim that no one holds ownership over anything (Judeo-Masonic goal of abolition of private property); therefore, everything is for the taking for the sovereign. Many sovereigns will use Christian-like language in order to deceive new recruits of their benevolent motive. They will mix it in with new age concepts of oneness and mother earth. Is it any surprise that Zionist shill and occultist Jordan Maxwell is a leading advocate of the sovereign movement?