Tag Archives: islam

Riffing On Usury

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

Some of the earliest known condemnations of usury come from the Vedic texts of India. Similar condemnations are found in religious texts from Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the term is riba in Arabic and ribbit in Hebrew). At times, many nations from ancient Greece to ancient Rome have outlawed loans with any interest. Though the Roman Empire eventually allowed loans with carefully restricted interest rates, the Catholic Church in medieval Europe banned the charging of interest at any rate (as well as charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change).

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/07/24/putting-shylock-to-shame-the-moneylender-portrayed-as-hero/

@John Walton

Usury, in essence, is making money from having money, by lending to people who are naïve or have suffered reversals. The lender, like the capitalist, takes some risk and has some overhead, but to the extent one can separate the lender/investor’s contribution of useful expertise from the effect of merely having money at his disposal, to that extent one may raise the issues of undeserved profit and exploitation. Savings and loan associations and mutual insurance companies are collectives where the profit returns to the members. In recent decades many of these companies were taken public by greedy investors who became members and were often in league with management, who invoked spurious reasoning to justify the transition, which works to the detriment of the majority of depositors or policy-holders. The before/after contrast illustrates my idea of profit beyond what is appropriate or necessary. It was not unusual for ‘professional depositors’ to open as many as two hundred accounts around the country to qualify for participation in stock offerings that were (nearly) sure things, but not seen as such by the small fry, some of whom, in any case, could not afford to risk savings even on a sure thing. Peter Lynch has written about this process, which is likely not as profitable for investors today as back when few people understood it.

@John Walton

I agree with your second point but not your first. Defenders of capitalism may cite libertarian premises like yours, in which case they need to explain why people coming newly into the world have a duty to respect the claims of people who amassed land before they were born. Other defenders point to capitalism’s superior productivity, which is a way of appealing to an ethical norm, namely that we should prefer capitalism because it produces a greater level of material well-being for the average person. But most of us distinguish between more and less deserved well-being. We think a doctor deserves his wealth more than a pornographer or an idle rich person who sits back and lets a hired manager invest for him. Libertarians think free exchanges between adults should be beyond the scope of ethical assessment but I don’t see why. Their own view is itself an ethical position. Why is it wrong to interfere with any voluntary exchange? We don’t hesitate where children are parties (nor do we hesitate to regulate drugs and dangerous products), but some adults are as naïve and vulnerable as children, and these are targeted by the archetypal usurer. Nor does looking out for such people automatically ‘infantilize’ the society and lead to communism. At least, I don’t see that it must.

@Hipster Racist

An excellent comment and it’s great to see someone else pointing out the differences between credit unions and mutual companies with collective ownership and private banks. In the former, the owners of the enterprise are the customers, while in the later, an outside group is the owner while the customers are a different group.

The lender, like the capitalist, takes some risk

This isn’t particularly true in the modern financial system and in practice it has never been true in the transactions people decried as “usury.” When a speculator lent money on a shipping excursion the speculator may well have suffered losses when the ship went down. The usurers that people complained about often had the backing of the state to “make them whole” – the borrowers who could not repay the compound interest and fees were often then enslaved. The distinction between “usury” and “investment” is something the Church, despite a heroic effort, never really got right for all sorts of reasons, a primary one being the Church didn’t particular care about the practical effects, they were more interested in their incoherent ideology and their own political power.

E. Michael Jones, a valuable cultural critic, despite being an anti-white fanatic, has at the least tried to come to grips with this in the modern world and tries to retrofit Catholic anti-usury ideas as not being specifically about interest rates, or compounding, but instead a power balance.

I suggest one might try to understand the concept of “barren metal” not with confused analogies of biological reproduction but instead understand “usury” as what we now refer to as “economic rent.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

The Jews were allowed to benefit from “economic rent” on money. There is no economic reason why this should be so:

In classical economics, economic rent is any payment made (including imputed value) or benefit received for non-produced inputs such as location (land) and for assets formed by creating official privilege over natural opportunities (e.g., patents). In neoclassical economics, economic rent also includes income gained by beneficiaries of other contrived exclusivity, such as labor guilds and unofficial corruption.

The Church, in practice, gave the Jews a monopoly on certain kinds of finance, which greatly hurt Europeans. Whether or not the Church even understood what it was doing, or if they were in fact “in league” with the Jews is open to historical interpretation, and frankly the Church doesn’t come out looking good either way.

It seem obvious that neither the Church, not libertarian ideologues, have any idea nor any motivation to do something about the modern problems of usury/economic rent, but fortunately, it looks like White/European technology will once again save the day. We are already seeing a revolution in our understanding of economics and money.

Here’s my prediction: both Catholic and libertarian ideologues will go out of their way to squash the revolution in economics as both ideologies are once again trumped by European ingenuity.

But expect both to type countless words online to try to maintain some sort of relevance.

@John Walton

Thanks for the compliment and thanks for pointing out that the objection to usury is at bottom an objection to (excessive?) rents. The ‘barren metal’ objection seems wrong, in that money is a proxy for non-barren capital goods. But I wonder if another ‘biological’ objection might have some validity. I am ignorant of the literature but I would guess that if the money supply doesn’t change then the usurers as a group own a larger and larger portion of the wealth over time, provided they can keep their own consumption costs below the usurious profits. But I suppose the entrepreneurial borrowers as a class will charge their customers, including the usurers, enough so that the entrepreneurs come out ahead. So, who loses? I guess the non-entrepreneurial ‘defensive’ borrowers lose and drift into destitution. Interesting. What is this ‘new economics’ you refer to? You have piqued my curiosity!

@Hipster Racist

We do not need to ignore our traditional moral instinct that “usury” is wrong, nor do we have to rely on medieval misunderstandings of monetary systems to explain why it’s always been considered wrong.

For the last 20 years or so, “Islamic banking” has been a regular topic in the financial literature as Western banks seek to incorporate all that oil money into the system.

Sharia prohibits riba, or usury, defined as interest paid on all loans of money (although some Muslims dispute whether there is a consensus that interest is equivalent to riba).

Here we see the same argument over whether riba/usury is any sort of interest on money or something else. Consider the alternatives in Islamic banking:

Some of the modes of Islamic banking/finance include Mudarabah (Profit and loss sharing), Wadiah (safekeeping), Musharaka (joint venture), Murabahah (cost plus), and Ijar (leasing).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance

Notice that Islamic banking accepts various financial transactions when the interests of the borrow and lender are the same, when the risks are aligned the same way.

If a lender stands to gain more from a default than a repaid loan, that is an obvious conflict of interest – in that situation the lender wants the borrower to default, presumably in order to claim the collateral.

If the money supply doesn’t change then the usurers as a group own a larger and larger portion of the wealth over time

Yes, if in the historical case, Jews as a class have a monopoly on finance, then in the aggregate Jews will wind up with Christian wealth. Actually figuring out the absolute quantity of money is difficult and practically impossible in a decentralized system. In practical terms, whatever class controls the money can always hold back supply of money to force defaults, and this appears to have happened.

Like pornography, it’s likely that many have simply thrown up their hands and said “I know usury when I see it.” “Usury” has traditionally been considered a sin, a moral crime, an evil. Libertarians will try to simply punt on the moral issues and demand you define usury by a specific number, so they can say, “well if 10% is usury, is 5% ok?” “If 0% is the only acceptable interest rate then there will be no lending at all.” By making it a math problem they are ignoring whatever moral instinct that has existed throughout history in many cultures that declares “usury” – however defined – as morally wrong.

“Money,” as in currency, what is used instead of simple barter, is a “social construct” and various forms of money have proved practical in various cases because it’s a decentralized way to coordinate trade. With modern communication technology, “the internet” etc., decentralized coordination can provide alternative to coordinating trade.

Of course there is the crypto-currencies like Bitcoin, but even that relies on traditional ideas of money. There are already thought experiments about decentralized money creation, why give banks a monopoly on money creation? Why can’t money be created and destroyed as needed by individuals?

The path forward for money and banking is not to prevent people from creating money out of thin air but to allow everyone to create money out of thin air.

https://hackernoon.com/beyond-bitcoin-truly-decentralized-banking-d7793edc7d99

Counter Currents once published a great article about various non-libertarian ideas of money and other aspects of the economy.

https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/12/money-for-nothing-3/

I’m suggesting that there is a reason why “usury” has always been considered a sin and that “usury” may be best defined as something other than simple compound interest.

Another good work to read on the topic is “Debt: The First 5000 Years.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

Hunter Wallace on the Alt Lite

In Hunter Wallace’s latest interview with Red Ice posted on AltRight.com, he expressed surprise at how the “Alt Lite” is full of homosexuals, degenerates, race mixers, and single people without children. He points out that while these people were welcomed at the “Deplora-Ball” celebrating Trump’s win, regular old-fashioned White Nationalists like he and his wife were excluded. He marvels at how this “Alt Lite” finds Milo – a Jewish homosexual who poses for “art” bathing in pig’s blood and endorses “Twinks for Trump” – completely acceptable but “racists” – i.e., racially conscious White people – are not.

The reason why Wallace is confused is because he misunderstands the nature of the Alt Lite, Donald Trump and his campaign, and the “New Right” phenomenon generally. The main reason he doesn’t understand what is going on is because he’s never taken seriously the events of 15 years ago and everything that has happened since.

The “Alt Lite” – Milo, Gavin McInnis, Lauren Southern, the “Gorilla Mindset” guy – are all only “Alt” because they are Donald Trump boosters.

Well, who is Donald Trump?

The left, the liberals, and the Democrats are of course peddling nonsense when they say that Trump is a “racist” or a “sexist” or an “anti-semite” or “Hitler.” The Democrats say that about all Republicans. The reality should be obvious to everyone:

Donald Trump is a New York liberal Democrat.

So it should not at all be surprising that the people supporting Donald Trump would also be, essentially, urban liberals. These are not social conservatives – neither is Trump. These are not people who are pro-white – neither is Trump. What do they all have in common, aside from the fact that they support Trump?

They hate Muslims and see “radical Islam” as a threat to the West.

In the case of people like Milo and Trump’s other gay fans, one only needs to look to one of the first anti-Muslim European leaders: Pym Fortyn. Back in the early 2000s, Fortyn was the Donald Trump of the Netherlands. He was “socially liberal, economically conservative.” He was a flamboyant homosexual. He opposed mass Muslim immigration precisely because Muslims tended to be socially conservative. Muslim were against homosexuality, liberated women, abortion, pornography and sexual liberation in general.

What Hunter Wallace may be too young to realize is that before the George W. Bush administration, most Muslims in America were Republicans. Many conservative Christians in America saw Muslims as natural allies against social liberalism. Muslims were represented in the pro-life movement. The Bush family was traditionally seen as “Arabist” and had strong ties to the Muslim world through the oil industry.

Well, what happened that turned Republicans and socially conservative Christians against Muslims?

You get two guesses and the first one doesn’t count.

Hunter Wallace may recall his own run-ins a few years ago with the neo-conservative David Frum and his protege, the self-described “Satanic libertarian” Alex K. Alex K was a gay “libertarian” that was strongly anti-Islam, a supporter of the war against Iraq and the Muslim world generaly. Just like Milo, Alex K. was eventually fired because of disturbing sexual comments he made about underage boys, infamously describing the then teenage Justin Bieber as a “Child I’d Life To Fuck.” Milo’s implosion is virtually identical to the implosion of the young neo-con five years ago.

As Donald Trump’s entire career has been promoting anti-racism (i.e., anti-whiteness) gay acceptance, socially liberal values, and sexual liberation, it’s not particularly surprising that those people are his staffers. Also considering that Donald Trump is a long time extremely strong supporter of the Zionist regime in Palestine – actually spending the last decade acting as a proxy for the Likud party – it also shouldn’t be a surprise that Trump is the most anti-Muslim President in US history.

Trump is a neo-con. Obviously.

Neo-conservative Jews have always been strongly anti-White America, strong supporters of mass immigration, strong supporters of social liberalism via issues like “gay marriage” – yet support the exact opposite for Israel, for which they support ethno-nationalism and Jewish supremacy.

Contrary to popular belief, Trump was never an opponent of illegal immigration. Trump spent the Obama years becoming popular among the Republican party base by publicizing the idea that Barak Obama was a Secret Muslim that hated Israel and wasn’t even born in America, and had a fake birth certificate forged perhaps by a conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian mullahs. The idea that Trump is a “civic nationalist” is a post-hoc label given to Trump by hopeful fans that really should have known better.

As A. Nolen explained from day one, Trump was allowed to touch a third rail of US politics – mass non-white immigration – because it was a popular issue among the GOP base that was always marginalized by the GOP establishment. Neither the GOP establishment nor the neo-conservatives wanted to make immigration an issue, but it was the one popular issue that immediately turned Trump into the front runner. If illegal immigration hadn’t have caught on, Trump had the trade deals, Common Core, and Obamacare as backups, but that wasn’t needed.

It was after the event that Wallace – and the rest of the Alt Right – have chosen to ignore that Muslim were taken up by the left, at a time when the left, true to their principles of anti-racism and anti-nationalism, became increasingly critical of the apartheid policies of the Zionist entity in Palestine. The European left, and even the European mainstream, were also increasingly taking up the cause of the Palestinians.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that over the last 15-20 years we have seen the emergence of a “New Right” that is exactly in line with the socially liberal interests of Zionist Jews but makes a completely unprincipled exception for Zionism and Islam.

There’s a direct line between that event, Pym Fortyn, David Frum’s Alex K., Milo and Cernivich and Donald Trump.

The “Alt Right” and the White Nationalists turned against the neo-conservatives of the Bush and Obama years so had to be brought back into the fold. The person who was tasked to do that was Donald Trump, who has so far done an amazingly masterful job.

At the ten anniversary even in New York City, there were two major protest rallies.

One was a rally of conservative Christians and Zionist Jews attacking Muslims and denouncing the so-called “9/11 Victory Mosque” that was supposedly being built at Ground Zero (the entire scandal was fake.)

The other rally was staged by “Act Now To Stop War and End Racism” where a brown Muslim led a crowd of mostly white progressive in a chant of “Allah Akhbar” and spoke in favor of Palestine.

In fact, one may just want to review Donald Trump’s own public statement about that particular event and especially his statements during his campaign against Jeb Bush when Trump … in a room full of conservative Christian Republicans in South Carolina, Bush Country … actually said “vote for me and you’ll find out what really brought down those towers.”

Does anyone doubt that the Bush family got the message loud and clear? George W. Bush himself just came out this weekend to defend Muslims and call Trump a “racist” and an “Islamophobe.”

I guess Trump can say it but when a simple blogger like Hipster Racist says it it’s a “conspiracy theory.”

https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio/the-uncertain-future-of-the-alt-lite

https://altright.com/2017/03/02/the-uncertain-future-of-the-alt-lite/

Not a joke: the #3 leader of Al Qaeda was a California Jew named Adam Pearlman. Look it up even the US military admits it.
Not a joke: the #3 leader of Al Qaeda was a California Jew named Adam Pearlman. Look it up even the US military admits it.

ISIS: We Will Break The Crosses Of The Infidels And Sell And Trade Their Women

A Gen-U-Ine Muslim Al-Qaeda Terrorist. Well, sure he was a Jew but he converted!
A Gen-U-Ine Muslim Al-Qaeda Terrorist. Well, sure he was a Jew but he converted!

ISIS – in their English language, glossy magazine distributed to secret Al Qaeda cells around America and Europe – Dabiq – ISIS/ISIL, like something out of Central Casting, gives readers all the Muzzie Fundie Fun we’ve all come to love. They will convert us all to Muslim and conquer our women, who will voluntarily wear the burka and join the Sultan’s Harem.

http://nypost.com/2014/10/14/isis-the-whole-world-will-be-an-islamic-state/

Aren’t you mad, White Man? How these Muhammadean Beasts insult us! We need a new Crusade! Plus the liberals should totally be on our side because the Muslims hate gays and women. These brutes actually crucify Christians just like they did to Jesus and they cut people’s heads off. Now, we may have been a bit blase about taking down the Dictator of Syria Hosni Mubarak Muammar Gaddafi Bashar al-Assad, but we cann all agree that we must conquer these Muslim brutes.

This Evil Muslim Laughs At Crippled Soldiers! Before He Converted to Muslim, as a Jew he liked soldiers!
This Evil Muslim Laughs At Crippled Soldiers! Before He Converted to Muslim, as a Jew he liked soldiers!

Not that we should get squeamish about Diversity and Mutli-Culturalism though. We’ll all admit that boring old white bread Whitey needs some Vibrancy – pretty much, anyone is better than Whitey, Vibrant Latinos, Diversity African Americans, and Chinese, Japaese, Koreans, Brazilians, Jews, and other hard pressed minorities should be welcome in America until we’re finally diverse, just as long as they promise to not be anti-semitic and support Israel. Just as Whites are a Social Construct, so Palestinians are an Invented People.

You see, there’s just the two exceptions to Vibrant Diversity.

Oh, so anyway, it basically goes like this. Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda used 19 radical fundamentalist hijackers with boxcutters who flew two planes into two buildings in Manhattan, scoring a total of three skyscrapers destroyed – a world record. Then, they actually got past the entire US military and hit the Pentagon – the headquarters of the Military of the World’s Sole Superpower – with a hijacked, unarmed civilian airliner.

You got to hand it to them, that’s pretty fucking impressive.

You can tell he converted from Jew to Muslim because of the tablecloth on his head. Hey, I saw that tablecloth at Howard Johnsons!
You can tell he converted from Jew to Muslim because of the tablecloth on his head. Hey, I saw that tablecloth at Howard Johnsons!

Now, we had to invade Iraq, and Al-Zakawri led Al Qaeda in Iraq, but then we killed him, so then Adam Pearlman the Al Qaeda Media Coordinator told us he was going to covert or kill us just as soon as his eldest was Bar Mitzvahed.

Remember, so far, this is all serious shit. Real world wide terrorist groups based on radical Islam. Just take it at face value for a minute, ok?

Now, you may think that magazines are going out of favor thanks to the internet, but Al Qaeda had its own glossy – Inspire! – great name, btw – and there are some major differences in the Al Qaeda zine and ISIS’ zine, Dabiq.

While al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s magazine Inspire focuses on encouraging its readers to carry out lone-wolf attacks on the West, Dabiq is more concerned with establishing the religious legitimacy of ISIL and its self-proclaimed caliphate, and encouraging Muslims to emigrate there.

You can tell he is no longer a Jew because he loves it when Israelis die. Fucking Muzzie!
You can tell he is no longer a Jew because he loves it when Israelis die. Fucking Muzzie!

As a bona fide hipster, I’ve been into Radical Jihad since the early days, back when we had Youseph al-Katab in the New York Post posing with copies of “Nuclear Jihad” – back before the glossy Corporate Jihad magazines of today. We had to watch early videos of Adam Pearlman Adam Gadayn of Al Qaeda – third in charge after Usama Bin Laden himself – and we liked it. You young whippersnappers of today can get beheading videos on youtube, we had to wait for Rita Katz of SITE to find the best jihadi videos and release them to the West.

You kids these days, you just don’t know how easy you have it.

joseph-cohen-converts-to-al-quaeda

How ironic, Jews even make the best NAZIS!
How ironic, Jews even make the best NAZIS!