Skip to content

How Money Rules

by on July 29, 2018




How we know the Banks rule






Controlling the Money Supply







By controlling money, one controls the entire economy.

How they translate control of money into control of everything
1) Usury, which is interest on loans of money.















Real Currencies on Facebook

  1. But you’re a christian, right? Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Why are you so concerned about money for? You’ve got eternal heaven to look forward to in a few years, no?

    • Nothing belongs to Caesar.

      Usury is Babylon’s essence: it kills billions prematurely, enslaving all of us. It is as anti-Christian as it gets, and prophecy is that a disobedient People would be debt slaves.

  2. Nikolai Dante permalink

    Not only your articles, but your comment sections are a treasure trove of knowledge and research. Please post more often! Thanks

  3. Just like in Feudal times where a few families owned all the land which is a requirement for any human to live, the peasants were “loaned” this land and to pay off this debt they had to devote a significant amount of their time and energy to produce the needs and wants of the landed gentry. The elite did not see why they should work but instead to use this “free” time to enjoy the material pleasures of life. The peasants had been convinced by the church though that these elite were some how representatives of God and so they had the divine right to rule. I would question the moral stance of the Christian Church on prohibiting usury. I believe it may have purposely done this to allow a monopoly of interest charging to take place. Just having a quick look at the wealthiest banking families (Fuggers, Medicis etc) especially those in the Italian city states and the “Holy” Roman Empire shows they all had close ties to the Catholic church. In fact the Medici’s produced three popes!

    To project this power on the rest of the world during the European Empires, initially slavery was imposed to produce various goods in the Americas in an attempt to monopolise world trade. It became to costly maintaining violent control over slaves and so The European based elite used debt based money to give the illusion of earning wealth. Once they had successfully invaded a foreign land they used a combination of privatising land ownership, privatising the means of production of goods from said land or transferring the trade production to Europe (eg. manufactured cotton goods from India to England) and imposed taxes on the local population. This meant people of the world could only pay off taxes and acquire privately owned human needs (housing, food, clothing etc) using imperialist minted coinage which could only be gained by exchanging their labour. So they had to start working for private Capitalist companies.

    Essentially money reflects the actual debt we owe to the private owners of the world. Firstly by imposing this system where all money in circulation (even our wages) is created as a loan/debt to individuals, companies and countries the elite are in effect stating that if you want to live on this planet you owe us a significant portion of your time and energy. Secondly they will only loan to those who align to achieve whatever their agendas are, eg. wars etc.

    The effect of charging interest controls the rate at which the world must turn resource into goods/services and be sold so that companies can repay debt, workers get paid to pay their debt and taxation collected so governments pay back their debt. If the GDP is not high enough then parts of the world economy risk going into recession unless the money lenders loan more or write off debts. Once a recession has hit and companies that start going into liquidation thats when Banks can step in and buy up the company if so desired, but I believe they pretty much own everything now. Thats why post 2008 recession interest rates were slashed and government debt suspended/cancelled (QE) in the West which staved off the next recession to achieve whatever the goals of the elite are. The Fed has begun to increase rates and looking to create the next recession, in my opinion one which will dwarf 2008 and potentially create civil wars everywhere. Maybe they have realised that the environmental disaster created from debt based Capitalism requires a purging of humanity as the world can no longer sustain mass consumption!

    • kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

      The Middle Ages are frequently associated with backwardness, tyranny and poverty: a period in which life was hard and short. Notwithstanding the absence of technological benefits in the fields of medicine and science, this was in reality an age in which prosperity and happiness were abundant and widely diffused.

      The litmus test of any successful civilisation is the financial arrangements which prevail in its economic life. Are the means of exchange – that is money and credit – issued by the state for the sole benefit of its inhabitants, or are they controlled and manipulated by private bankers for their own enrichment and the enslavement of the people?

      In mediaeval England state finances were firmly in the hands of the king, but prior to 1290 they were in the grip of a group of marauding moneylenders.

      The laws against usury before the arrival of William the Conqueror in 1066 were very strict. In 899 King Alfred (871-99) directed that the property of usurers be forfeited, while in 1050 Edward the Confessor (1042-66) decreed not only forfeiture, but that a usurer be declared an outlaw and banished for life.

      These wise laws were abandoned when the Normans defeated the English at Hastings on October 14th 1066. William I (1066-87) was accompanied by a party of Jewish settlers, who had been resident in Rouen, Normandy, since Roman times. Circumstantial evidence indicates that these Jews had provided financial support for William’s military campaign in return for the right to practise usury in England under royal protection.

      It was, however, William’s son Rufus (1087-1100) who actively permitted these Jews to engage in lending money at interest – a venture in which he initially took a 50 per cent share of the profits. In order to pay the interest on loans advanced to the Crown, Rufus was obliged to tax the populace, which engendered much resentment towards him. The Encyclopaedia Britannica provides a vivid description of this odious man:-

      ‘In appearance William II was unattractive; bullnecked, with sloping shoulders, extremely corpulent and awkward in his gait; His long locks and clean-shaven face marked his predilection for the newfangled fashions which contemporary ecclesiastics were never weary of denouncing. His features were strongly marked and coarse, his eyes grey and deeply set; he owed his nickname (Rufus) to the fiery hue of his complexion. He stuttered violently and in moments of passion was almost inarticulate. His familiar conversation was witty and blasphemous. He was surrounded by a circle of vicious parasites, and no semblance of decorum was maintained in his household.

      ‘His character was assailed by the darkest rumours, which he never attempted to refute. He died unmarried and without issue.’

      Those Jews not involved in the money-lending racket traded in corn and wool or dealt in trinkets, cheap jewellery and useless junk. Although it was forbidden by statute, many of them engaged in coin-clipping, that is filing and clipping the edges of coins and putting them back into circulation as clipped coins. The filings and clippings were then melted into bullion. A similar fraud they perpetrated was the plating of tin with silver and then selling it as silver-plate.

      Another practice which incensed the English merchants was the custom of Jewish traders of selling a whole range of merchandise under one roof. Items such as candles, cloth, iron, leather, silver- ware which were normally sold in separate shops, were all disposed of in a bazaar type operation. The greed of these traders caused both anger and impoverishment amongst the merchant class and undermined the guilds.

      The moneylenders charged princes and other noblemen interest rates of at least 33 per cent per annum on lands which they had mortgaged. The working class, who pledged their tools of trade or chattels, were expected to pay rates of up to 300 per cent per annum. Not unexpectedly, within two generations one quarter of all English lands were in the ownership of Jewish usurers.

      The allegations of ritual murder of pre-adolescent Christian boys around the time of the Jewish Passover, or Pesach, added greatly to the general clamour that all Jews should be removed from England.

      In 1233 the Statutum de Judeismo restricted the lending activities of the Jewish money-lenders, and in 1275 a statute abolished all forms of usury. An extract from the latter statute reads as follows:-

      ‘Forasmuch as the King hath seen that divers evils and the disinheriting of good men of his land have happened by the usuries which the Jews have made in time past, and that divers sins have followed thereupon that he and his ancestors have received much benefit from the Jewish people in all times past, nevertheless, for the honour of God and the common benefit of the people, the King hath ordained and established that from henceforth no Jew shall lend anything at usury either upon land or upon other thing (writer’s emphasis).


      ‘And that the distress for debts due unto the Jews from henceforth shall not be so grievous, but that the moiety of lands and chattels of the Christians shall remain for their maintenance; and that no distress shall be made for a Jewry debt upon the heir of the debtor named in the Jew’s deed, nor upon any other person holding the land that was the debtor’s before that the debt be put in suit and allowed in court.’



      • Many times we should have stripped them of their wealth.

      • Thanks for the detailed response. I’ve looked into the Jewish history on money lending at interest for some time and without doubt they have engaged in the practice. The expulsion in 1290 got me thinking, the main reasons for money borrowing was for the elite to wage war and to satisfy their wants which primarily came via the Eastern spice trade where the Italian city states had a monopoly on as a middle man. This demand from the Feudal elite did not stop post 1290 and coincidentally “In the 1290s, the Bardi and Peruzzi families had established branches in England and were the main European bankers by the 1320s.” So it seems rather than expelling the Jews based on principle they just had a better offer with the Florin. “Moral” Christian bankers had found a clever way of lending without interest, “Creative accountancy enables them to avoid the Christian sin of usury; interest on a loan is presented in the accounts either as a voluntary gift from the borrower or as a reward for the risk taken”. I’m sure the Church knew this was usury in all but name but they more than likely provided them with finance, and indeed their successors the medici provided popes. Private money has managed to get its power once it gained legal tender and the backing of the nation’s armed, police and secret services. Eg. The dollar is protected by the largest armed forces in history. The Fed was created in 1913 and post World War 1 the US turned from being a debtor to a net creditor. The elite had chosen their next currency, I believe we are in the midst of the next major change.

        For me a litmus test of any civil society is if it gives all members an equal opportunity to acquire human need. That will never happen as long as private ownership of land and means of production exists which has been the case in Europe and expanded through its empires to become global capitalism. Money has nothing to do with a functioning or progressive society, its just a way to transfer human time and energy into the hands of the private owners of the world. Don’t get me wrong this existed in other cultures to but the Europeans mastered it through Companies given the impression of “freedom”. The controlled collapse is beginning as they have realised they have killed the Earth’s productive ability especially since electronic fiat currency was created with the petrodollar. Our global debt is an indication of the unsustainable and polluting lifestyle the Western based elite companies loaned to their peoples who will now be blamed for the mass consumption. Don’t trust any of the establishment.

      • kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

        The Jews in England were removed under direct orders of King at the time, they didn’t get a choice in the matter, they are even mentioned in the Magna Carta. You need to look into the History of England much deeper.

        Hoc amino in vigilia Conceptiontis beatae Mariae omnes Judaei Londoniarum capti et incarcarati apud Gyhalam Londoniis. (In the year , on the vigil of Conception of Saint Maria, all Jews of London were captured and incarcerated amid the jail of London.) Eodem anno omnes Judaei, cum eorum bonis, filiis, at uxoribus, circa festum Omnium Sactorum, terram Angliae et Aquitaniae, concendente rege Edwardo, exulantur. (In time same year , all Jews with their goods, children and wives, around the holiday of All Saints, are expelled from the land of England and Aquitania, Edward the king having conceded.

        By the mid 17th century, England had been without Jews (apart from a few infiltrators posing as Gentiles) for over 350 years, since their banishment by good King Edward I in 1290. This had been inspired by their persistent wrongdoing, including extortionate money-lending and clipping the gold and silver coinage. The banishment had been greeted with universal rejoicing by the thankful English people.

        Cromwell wanted to accede to Jewish appeals for readmission, spiced with financial assistance for his cause, but was sensitive to public opposition to the idea, plentifully shown during an assembly to discuss the subject which he convened. So he abstained from any formal revocation of the banishment, and instead allowed Jews to enter the country on the sly, contrary to the law; and this has remained the position up to today, various parliamentary measures in the past 200 years giving recognition to this return by stealth without ever formally repealing the expulsion.

        William Prynne was a distinguished lawyer of Lincolns Inn, London, in the forefront of resistance to Cromwell’s proposal for readmission. His book Demurrer was published in 1655. In it he cited various authorities for his contention that the expulsion had been by royal decision in Parliament, not royal edict outside Parliament; even though in those days of royal government an edict was fully as much a promulgation of law as a statute enacted in Parliament.

        He cited in support of this Henry de Knyghton, a Canon of Leicester in Richard II’s reign (1377 – 1399) whom he termed “a most diligent Antiquary” and quoted him as speaking of “the same Parliament that the Jews were exiled.” Next he cited “Our learned John Bale” that “by the publick Edict of the Parliament assembled in London, and by a publick decree; They were all commanded to depart the Realm with their goods…” Next he cited Raphael Holnshed’s Chronicles, Vol. 3, p. 285: “In the same year was a Parliament holden at Westminster… It was also decreed that all the Jews should avoid out of the Land… and so herupon were the Jews banished out of all the King’s Dominions: and never since could they obtain any priviledge to return hither again.”

        Prynne then, on pages 48 and 49, summarized his knowledge as follows:–

        1. That all the Jews were then banished out of England, never to return again, at the special instance, and request of the Commons in two several Parliaments, as an intollerable grievance and oppression under which they groaned.

        2. That the principle grounds of this their perpetual banishment were, their infidelity, Usury, forgeries of Charters, clipping and falsifying of monies, by which they prejudiced the King and kingdom and much oppressed and impoverished the pople [sic].

        3. That this their banishment was so acceptable to all the people, who oft-times pressed it in Parliament that they gave the King a Fifth and Fifteenth part of their moveables to speed and execute it.

        4. That this their banishment was by the unanimous desire, Judgement, Edict, and Decree both of the King and his Parliament; and not by the King alone: and this Banishment, total, of them all, and likewise final, Never to return into England. Which Edict and Decree not now extant in our Parliament Rolls (many of which are lost) not printed Statutes; yet it is mentioned by all these Authorities.

        He added to this his important conclusion (p. 50) that the banishment is of permanent effect, and not restricted to the Jews involved in 1290:–

        So none banished the Realm by judgement or Act of Parliament, can, may or ought, by the fundamental and known common Laws of England, to be restored and recalled again, but only by a like judgement, Act and Restitution in full Parliament…

        Therefore the Jews being so long since by Judgement, Edict and Decree both of the King and Parliament for ever banished out of England (never since repealed or reversed) neither may, nor can by Law be readmitted, reduced into England again, but by common consent and Act of Parliament: which I conceive they will never be able to obtain.

        The Jews in England, if not the whole of Britain, today are illegal immigrants. The enforcement of the Expulsion is the only satisfactory solution to Britain’s grievous Jewish Problem.

        The Expulsion of the Jews from England

        Geoffrey H. Smith









        Stätütüm dè Jûdèísmö 1275



















        Abrahams, B. L. The Expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290 (1895).
        Adler, Rev. M. Jews of Medieval England (1939).
        Comay, J. Who’s Who in Jewish History after the Period of the Old Testament (1974).
        fitz Stephen, W. Materials for the History of Thomas Becket.
        Gregg International. The Jews of Angevin England: Documents and Records from Latin and Hebrew Sources, Printed and Manuscript, for the First Time Collected and Translated (1893).
        Leese, A. S. My Irrelevant Defence: Meditations Inside Gaol and Out on Jewish Ritual Murder (1938).
        Martin, C. T. Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society (1899).
        Parkes, J. The Jew in the Medieval Community: A Study of his Political and Economic Situation (1938).
        Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. The Nameless War (1952).
        Richardson, H. G. English Jewry under Angevin Kings (1960).
        Roth, C. The Jews of Medieval Oxford (1951).

  4. kingedward1wasright1290 permalink










    • Well before we were using coins in midevil times we used clay tablets quite successfully. Money was hi-jacked by people who owned the mines and created one of our first lessons against the money power. It matters more how we use money, not what we use.

      • kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

        Medieval England and Germany were using Tally Sticks until the Noseberg’s took over with their money swindle and Fractional reserve banking.

        THE TALLY STICKS (1100 – 1854)











        Here’s how they did it.
















        • That was a great read. I’m aware of the tally sticks.

          Have you heard of the financing of the greenbacks? It wasn’t as free from the money power as we thought.

          • kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

            Thank you, yes i have heard of Abraham Lincoln and him issuing Greenbacks, but not really up to speed on it. I will have a listen to the video you have posted.


    • An insightful summary but what I would question is the moral stance of the Christian Church on prohibiting usury. I believe it may have purposely done this to allow a monopoly of interest charging to take place. Just having a quick look at the historical banking families listed below, especially those in the Italian city states and the “Holy” Roman Empire shows they all had close ties to the Catholic church.

      In fact the Medici’s produced three popes! During Feudal times The Church gave royalty the divine right to rule, they had tremendous power and waged wars. Their morality requires questioning.

  5. bjchip permalink

    Real Money represents work done.

    This definition, unlike the money represented by debt, ties money to physics and so resolves the physics-envy of economists.

    It also makes it clear that not only can we NOT create unlimited amounts of money with interest attached, we cannot tolerate ANY form of rent-seeking behaviour.

    After all, rent-seeking was rubbished by Adam Smith (the father of Capitalism).
    It was rubbished by Karl Marx (the father of Communism).
    It is (in the form of interest) forbidden by the Holy Bible.
    It is (in the form of interest) forbidden by the Holy Koran.

    Yet it is the economic definition of money chosen and imposed on the entire planet.

    Not a little bit wrong… this is Wolfgang Pauli territory
    “Es ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch”

    The changes necessary are devastating to the current arrangements. Not easily changed.

  6. Rajakaruna permalink

    Banks are run and controlled by Jews! That simple. Just look around Wall Street, London or Frankfurt. Billionaire Jews top the list of billionaires? With money, they control just about everything in our lives. Those, like the Jews, who have the gold make the golden rules!

  7. You’re right but unnecessarily vague… The bankers got control of central banks around the world … Central Bank produce the currency… Instead of transferring the currency to Treasury, central banks exchange currency for government bonds… Government bonds are paid by the taxpayer of course…

    All government funding is done by borrowing… Criminal … unconstitutional… immoral… unnecessary… governments should print their own currencies free from debt and interest payments!

    die falscher lends..government spends has irs extract..pays loanshark back

  8. jim koconis permalink

    ditto: welcome back!

    thank you for summing up the essence of all your previous enlightening essays about the nature and mechanic of money – as well as your remedy for what, thru out history, has been the grandest fraud, and deepest mystery confronting the common man.

    of course, i mean usury.

    if i may, i only have this comment to add (and would appreciate your thoughts regarding it)…

    the very existence of banking is possible only because those with expendable incomes would rather save their money than spend it. why? because they have no pressing needs for which the money might exchanged to satisfy and banking this money provides an increase to THEM (usury). the banks, and all other financial markets, simply co-opt the desire of these savers and leverage it to their very unnatural benefit. by ‘saving’ money rather than spending money, it in a very real sense removes the essential and proper nature of money as a humble medium of exchange and just accountancy.

    one might ask – who shoulders the more grievous blame – the bankers or the savers?


    how could any monetary regime, however well designed and managed, ever overcome this problem?

    it seems to me that the problem of usury is, initially, a spiritual problem of those who would rather store up their expendable exchange tokens for there own future benefit rather than spending it joyously on the obvious needs of the many poorly endowed living all around them.

    • There will be no demand for the money of the rich, when the common man can get interest-free credit from a local facility.

      So nobody will be paying for interest on savings either.

      But yes, the issue that precedes the monetary matter is our spiritual blindness, lost in materialism and ego, forgetting that we should live, work, and share together as brethren, instead of this nonsense of ‘cut throat competition’ and ‘winner takes all’.

      • I’d say that fierce competition is not the issue. The object of that competition and the location of that competition within an economic hierarchy is the issue. If those at the bottom are not fighting for sustenance, it is because those at the top are fighting for the privilege to rule over them. Optimally within a nonviolent leadership contest.

    • John of Kolno permalink

      I beg to disagree. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck did not introducte pension funds for nothing. Saving money in case of really wealthy individuals is in fact disputable, but ordinary folk? They’ve got no other means to sustain themselves in old age than saving money during their working years (i.e. if they do make enough to make [even if minute] savings, naturally).

      • If people don’t have to work their entire lives just to make the Landlord richer, they can own their own house, a bit of land, and other assets. Their old age will be comfortable.

        ‘Pensions’ are for wage slaves, and Bismarck, and later Hitler had nothing really against wage slavery, all they were concerned with was not overly aggravating workers so that they would not revolt.

        But the mature way of going about these things is assets. Not ‘savings’, let alone ‘pensions’.

        • John of Kolno permalink

          Yes, Anthony, what you’re proposing is the ideal model we all should strive for, but I was talking about actual Planet Earth A.D. 2018 🙂
          BTW terrific blog, been aware of it for like 5 years or so. You’re one of the more prominent persons in the judeo-sceptic part of the European ‘nationalist’ movement and one that I owe my awakening (jew- and usury-wise) to, among other scholars. Great job sir, I truly admire your work and keep up the good fight.

        • John of Kolno permalink

          People still need to buy food and other essentials and pay their bills after they retire, and even if they are able to tend to their garden on their own in the beggining, that won’t last forever so they will have to buy stuff. Ergo, some amount of savings is indeed necessary, methinks.

  9. Tim permalink

    you really should post this on

  10. Welcome back!

    Have you heard of the Casa Pound fascist group in Italy? Look at their page: They actually mention usury, it’s the first time I’ve heard a European nationalist mention usury and the banking system all at the same time.

    Money supply isn’t the only thing that determines prices.

    Your link that says all the banks own each other isn’t working for me, it says servers IP can’t be found.

    • Thanks! I’ve fixed it.

      And yes, I’ve heard of them. But honestly, I’m amazed how retarded the ‘nationalist’ parties that are now growing are on the economy. But good for Casa Pound, of course.

      No, indeed: prices are a function of demand, supply, and money supply, but when you have full control over money, and nobody realizes what you’re doing, you pretty much have full control over prices.

    • kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

      The Usury system has been mentioned a number of times by Nationalists here in the UK, you cannot be familiar with patriots like Arnold S Leese or Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay, even John Tyndall founder and former Chairman of the British National Party named the Jew and how they control our system.

      Here from Arnold S Leese

      “I wish to emphasise that I have done my research on the Jew Menace in the same scientific spirit as when I was investigating camel diseases in the world’s deserts. I have been after truth, not propaganda; in fact, I have investigated the diseases of the body politic!”

      The Nameless War from Captain Ramsey

      John Tyndall on the Jewish Question.


      I described this process of awakening in The Eleventh Hour:
      Bit by bit, it started to come home to me, in the form of incontrovertible evidence, that there was present in Britain and around the world a definite Jewish network wielding immense influence and power – through money, through politics and through its strong foothold, in some sectors amounting to virtual monopoly, in the mass media.
      And further on:

      Then what of the uses of Jewish wealth and power? I set to work studying the political orientation of Jewish writers in the press, Jewish book-publishers, Jewish political leaders, political philosophers and academics. I investigated the various causes to which Jewish money was being donated.
      The truth was inescapable. In not one single case could I find any prominent, powerful and influential Jewish personage who identified himself or herself with any cause complementary to the interests of the British Nation… Quite the contrary, every cause inimical to these things seemed to have Jewish participation and backing. Looking back to the political arguments I had had earlier, it now occurred to me, as it had not done at the time, that the most vociferous and aggressive opponents of all I believed in had been Jews.

      I became aware of a strange paradox. While Jews were to be found among the most ardent and committed opponents of British Nationalism and British race-loyalty, they were at the same time the most passionate champions of nationalism and race consciousness on the part of their own people

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. How Money Rules — Real Currencies – Source 99
  2. How Money Rules – Abel Danger
  3. How Money Rules – Banks are BOSS | toodlessss

Leave a Reply to bjchip Cancel reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: