America: The Beginning Of The End

[EzraLB]

While the "Civil" War seems to really have gotten the ball rolling down hill for this country, we can see the seeds were sown much earlier that enabled that to happen.

As Bill has rightly pointed out, for example, the Puritan, Cotton Mather advocated for the relaxation of the usury laws in America in about 1700. He claimed that the British economic system was a bulwark against Roman Catholicism--and that it was only the Catholics who stubbornly maintained a prohibition against usury, which, of course, was not true, at least in practice.

Cotton Mather went so far as to assert that usury was "legitimated by the 'Divine Law' of the Old Testament, given 'countenance' in the New Testament, 'Justified' by economic 'Necessity and Utility,' mandated by the ethical principle of equity, required by the philosophical meaning of money itself, and congruent with the moral 'Law of Charity,'" according to Mark Valeri in his book "The Rise of Usury in Early New England".

It seems that Mather was heavily influenced by the crypto-Jew, John Calvin, who made the Talmudic, hair-splitting distinction between good and bad usury. Good usury was a legitimate commercial loan on credit to grow a business venture, where bad usury was an egregious loan with ruinous rates. Clearly, they both serve only one purpose--they deliver the entire economy into the hands of the Jews.

It's interesting to note that Cotton Mather's father, Increase Mather "counted usury among the several causes for the relentless judgments of God against New England: bad weather, Indian wars, intrusive royal agents, and depressed trade."

http://www.common-place.org/vol-06/no-03/valeri/

Without the allowance of usury in the Colonies, there probably would have been no Civil War.... Perhaps one day Bill will do a series of podcasts on this subject as it had a huge impact on the course of American History.

[Micah83]

Ezra, I know we are brothers, but we cant believe everything we read. We all have faults but to call John Calvin a crip is tantamount to calling Swift a jew.

[EzraLB]

Micah,
Apparently, John Calvin's original last name was Cohen. The B'nai B'rith admitted this and celebrated him:

“At B'nai B'rith celebrations held in Paris, France, in 1936 Cohen, Cauvin, or Calvin, whatever his name may have been, was enthusiastically acclaimed to have been of Jewish descent."
--Quoted from "The Catholic Gazette," February, 1936

In the same article, the B'nai B'rith brags:

‘We are the Fathers of all Revolutions, even of those which sometimes happen to turn against us. We are the supreme Masters of Peace and War. We can boast of being the Creators of the Reformation! Calvin was one of our Children; he was of Jewish descent, and was entrusted by Jewish authority and encouraged with Jewish finance to draft his scheme in the Reformation."

A copy of that article can be found here:

http://watch.pair.com/catholic-gazette-b'nai-b'rith.pdf

I understand that one could argue that the Catholics cannot be trusted because of their opposition to the Reformation, but the jewish hand in the Reformation is clear. Bill has pointed out many times how Martin Luther himself was under the influence of subversive Jews, who encouraged his activities. Often times, as new information comes to light, we as Christians have to let go of some of our Sacred Cows, and John Calvin may, in fact, be one of them. By their fruits you may know them.

[Kentucky]

I wouldn't put too much stock into what jews or catholics have to say, being that they have no love for the truth; indeed they are masters of disinformation. As Bill pointed out recently, Christian Identity should not quote jews like Brother Nathaniel Kepner or Henry Macow as trustworthy sources. And there are hundreds if not thousands of pundits who regurgitate lies as if it were the truth. Even if they do sprinkle in a little truth, surely our sources should come from White Christians who understand the meaning of I Thes. 5:21 "Prove all things." I have heard numerous arguments as to Calvin's background, but one of the most informed Calvinists, who I brought to Christian Identity and this forum, Lisa Lee, could answer every single objection with scholarship and facts. I'm sorry she's not here anymore; I think it may have been because of some cavalier accusations that Calvin was a jew. I'm not necessarily convinced either way, but what Calvin does for me, what fruits he brought to the marketplace of ideas, was the absolute sovereignty of God and the necessity of theocratic government (not religious oligarchies). Once we accept that Jesus and Hitler were jews, we're on the slippery slope of not trusting any good men of Christ. In fact, we have adversaries that do just that to Bill and myself and anybody else in Christian Identity that gets too close to the truth.

Mark

[EzraLB]

Mark,
I agree with you on one central issue--that we will never know with any certainty whether or not John Calvin was a crypto-Jew. And while you will never see me quote the likes of Makow or Kapner, I see no problem quoting the likes of B'nai B'rith. We quote the "Protocols of Zion" all the time--and they were clearly written by a Jew, no matter how often Jews deny it. We quote many jewish sources because they often do tell the truth at times. Bill, for example, has often quoted the Talmud in the context of biblical exegesis--and made the valid point that not everything in the Talmud is a lie.

And the same holds true for Catholic sources on many issues. Many Catholics have written extensively on the jewish infiltration of the Catholic Church--in fact, Bill has quoted Maurice Pinay's book "The Plot Against The Church" on a number of occasions. Are we to disregard that book simply because it was written by Catholics using a pseudonym?

As far as my using a Catholic source for the B'nai B'rith attestation, I did add the caveat that the Catholics may have an axe to grind with John Calvin, but that could also be said for Martin Luther; yet no one with any compelling circumstantial evidence has accused Luther of being a cryto-Jew. To me, that's significant because if the Catholic Church would try to besmirch anyone with the accusation of being a Jew, it would be Luther, not Calvin. While they accused Luther of being influenced by jewish scholars, they never accused him of being an actual Jew.

Also, if you read the Catholic source concerning the B'nai B'rith conference, it is remarkably similar in language to the "Protocols" both in tone and in style. That gives it some credibility, to me at least. There are many aspects of the "Protocol" agenda that are touched on in that article. So if those quote are a Catholic fakery, whoever wrote them must have been familiar with the Protocols--and hoped that no one would notice the similarities. That seems a little far fetched.

Like you, Mark, I am familiar with many of the arguments that people have made in defense of John Calvin's identity; however, I have not found them any more persuasive or conclusive than the other side. For example, they point out that Calvin had expressed many hostile and anti-semitic views toward Jews. The problem is that many Jews have spoken out against Jews, a good example being the Marrano Jews that ran the Spanish Inquisition--they pronounced death sentences on other Jews. And it's interesting to note that Calvin pronounced the death sentence on the heretic, Michael Servetus, who turned out to be a converso Jew.

Also, Luther wasn't accused by his contemporaries of being a "judaizer", but Calvin was. Aegidius Hunnius (1550-1603), a Lutheran theologian, wrote the treatise "Judaizing Calvin" wherein he called some of Calvin's Biblical interpretations nothing but "Jewish perversions".

While there is no smoking gun here, there is still enough circumstantial evidence to at least leave the door open to the idea that his man, who was born in a town with a sizable Marrano population, may not have been exactly what we have been lead to believe. I have no strong opinion either way, but I do know that he advocated a relaxation of the prohibition against usury, which was my original point.

[Kentucky]

Mark,
I agree with you on one central issue--that we will never know with any certainty whether or not John Calvin was a crypto-Jew. And while you will never see me quote the likes of Makow or Kapner, I see no problem quoting the likes of B'nai B'rith. We quote the "Protocols of Zion" all the time--and they were clearly written by a Jew, no matter how often Jews deny it. We quote many jewish sources because they often do tell the truth at times. Bill, for example, has often quoted the Talmud in the context of biblical exegesis--and made the valid point that not everything in the Talmud is a lie.

I guess it might beg the question: does God put the truth in the horse's mouth i.e. the writings of jews and/or catholics. And sure, we can see the truth spoken as we know it. But, this follows with another consideration and that is, is it colored with a little bit a leaven? What I'm concerned with is principle over common repetition, which is what advertising does, saturation soundbytes; Winston taste good, like a cigarette should. The practice within Christian Identity should be policed diligently among our rank and file, as I've witnessed way too many idiots call somebody a "jew" without 2 or more witnesses simply because they have a disagreement with this or that exegesis. To practice the same with historical figures then feeds the propensity to falsely accuse brethren. My own rule of thumb is that I only quote jews to show their perfidy and corrupt nature, not as factual sources to be trusted or conveyed as a trusted witness. Bill demonstrated this type of hi jinx when he exposed the leaven of modern day Pharisees in his exhaustive series on the Paul bashers http://christogenea.org/articles/willia ... ul-bashers I'm just saying we need to be vigilant when it comes identifying someone's background, because if we throw caution to the wind, it makes us look bad. I think that's what Lisa Lee felt and is why she left. "Quench not the spirit" I Thes. 5:19. Calvin may remain somewhat of an enigma in that regard.

As I wrote in my most recent sermon: "Evil is shredding the truth and scattering it to the wind. Karl Marx could have just as easily said, “Spoil the heritage of a people and they are easily mongrelized.” American history has indeed been corrupted when even so called White Nationalists are so fond of quoting jewish sources like the orthodox clown “Brother” Nathaniel Kapner or filtered Illuminati expert Henry Macow. If we depend on the jew for an “increase of knowledge,” then we are already on the slippery slope of delusion, because the jew is not born from above, but rather born into the heritage of murderers and liars. Surely we can find the truth amongst our own brethren." - See more at: http://kinsmanredeemer.com/wind-part-2# ... 1Mjh0.dpuf

Mark

[MichaelAllen]

Ezra, I know we are brothers, but we cant believe everything we read. We all have faults but to call John Calvin a crip is tantamount to calling Swift a jew.

Calvin endorsed usury at a time when no other reformer had or was. Of course he gave the sentimental argument, "Well those who are really poor should be lent to without hope of receiving interest. For everyone else, 5%." --- Micah83, can you not see the intrigue? Martin Luther, at the same time is lighting fire under the seats of Christian Europeans about jews and their trappings of money-lending."

Imagine this as today... when one political pundit speaking of another, agreeing with them, complimenting them, but then passively deconstructing them.

It's like where one person co-opts another, but then changes the agenda quietly (it's the Hegelian dialectic), and I see John Calvin as doing that to Martin Luther. Calvin halted German reformationism in its tracts from moving westward into France and Britain, and simultaneously giving it a strange jewish twist. Sorry to say it didn't happen this way... but had we all become Lutheran at the time when Martin Luther was around... the RCC would have been crushed into oblivion and we would have never heard of a holohoax... because a real one would have happened about 400 years before the fake one.

In my strong opinion, John Calvin worked for the jews, and could have been one himself. He adds nothing theologically fundamental except a very misguided view of predestination... and he gives us usury. It's not a matter of having faults. There was no reason to endorse usury in 16th century France or Switzerland. Not to mention, he endorsed burning (what he considered to be) heretics at the stake. And he did both.

[EzraLB]

Mark,
As an ideal, I cannot disagree with your points--it should be our first priority to find Truth among ourselves, and I look forward to reading your sermon on the subject. That said, you will rarely find me taking any source--Christian, jewish, or otherwise--and endorse it without reservation or context. As I've said, I'm not insisting on Calvin's jewish identity, but it would be naive to ignore some of the red flags. One of the things that attracted me to Christogenea in the first place is that there were no sacred cows, no icons of Christian tradition to be idolized and not scrutinized. That's what gives this forum intellectual credibility from my perspective.

And I'm sorry to hear that your friend left this forum over a disagreement about John Calvin, but if she was at one time an avowed Calvinist, in order for her to embrace CI, she must be objective enough to realize that Calvin did, in fact, add a certain amount of leaven into Christianity that further atomized and divided us. She must recognize that even if she's satisfied that Calvin wasn't a crypto-Jew, others may not be convinced. I'm the first one to recognize that one not need be a Jew to betray our people, which is a point that White Nationalists don't seem to easily grasp. But if there is evidence that someone might be a Jew, we can't simply ignore it to protect an idol.

As far as the standard of "prove all things," of course, ideally we are obligated to do that, but we have to be consistent, and I've witnessed many examples where that yard stick has not been applied rigorously and consistently. Take, for example, Pope Leo X. Bill has many times accused him of being a crypto-Jew, based on the evidence that he endorsed usury and was a Medici who were bankers and doctors. That's far less evidence than what we have for John Calvin, yet perhaps because of our anti-Catholic sentiments, we accept that as enough proof. I'm not defending Leo X--I believe that Bill is 100% correct, but there is no smoking gun.

Another example is where Bill asserted that Vladimir Putin was not White based on his political pandering to the Jews--his fruits. He even went on to assert that the Russians in general were not White with perhaps a few exceptions. Where is the proof? Are we to rely on the age-old German and English contentions that the Russians are all touched with the Mongol brush? Do we write off tens of millions of potential White Christian allies because of a suspicion based on legend? If the Russians aren't White, who cares if the Bolshevik Jews killed 30 million of them? I'm not here to defend Putin--I just want to be clear about what kind of intellectual standards we are going to hold ourselves to.

Two of the great historians of the last hundred years--Nesta Webster and Elizabeth Dilling--both used jewish sources extensively to prove their points. Dilling amassed extensive quotations from the B'nai B'rith to show the admitted jewish influence throughout American society. Are we to disregard her work? One of the Achilles Heels of the Jews is that among themselves they love to brag about their success and influence, and historians like Webster and Dilling use that to their--and our--advantage. Apparently, B'nai B'rith bragged about John Calvin being one of their own. They didn't do that with Martin Luther or Leo X. Is that conclusive? Certainly not, but it's worth considering, along with all the other evidence, including Calvin's fruits.

[wmfinck]

And I'm sorry to hear that your friend left this forum over a disagreement about John Calvin, but if she was at one time an avowed Calvinist, in order for her to embrace CI, she must be objective enough to realize that Calvin did, in fact, add a certain amount of leaven into Christianity that further atomized and divided us. She must recognize that even if she's satisfied that Calvin wasn't a crypto-Jew, others may not be convinced. I'm the first one to recognize that one not need be a Jew to betray our people, which is a point that White Nationalists don't seem to easily grasp. But if there is evidence that someone might be a Jew, we can't simply ignore it to protect an idol.

It is unfortunate that Lisa Lee left, BUT if she left because she was upset about Calvin being criticized, then it is good that she left.

There is only one God, Yahshua Christ, and He cannot be criticized here. Everyone else is a viable target so long as they are shot at with Christian love and humility.

I have teeter-tottered over whether Calvin was a Jew, and that is because we have no smoking gun. Even the contention over his name is arguable. If it came from "Cohen", he would not even be a "crypto", LOL, but I do not know enough about historical and linguistic things French to make that determination.

Neither have I read Calvin. But the fruits of Calvin on any dimension are wrong. The mainstream Calvinists believe in an anti-Biblical type of predestination which transcends race and creates a Frankenchrist - a body of Christ stitched together out of all races, no different from that of the modern Roman Catholics. On the other hand, most so-called Kinists are Calvinists, but think that there can be multiple bodies of Christ. So while claiming to be nationalists they can still cling to Calvin in spite of Scripture.

Another example is where Bill asserted that Vladimir Putin was not White based on his political pandering to the Jews--his fruits. He even went on to assert that the Russians in general were not White with perhaps a few exceptions. Where is the proof? Are we to rely on the age-old German and English contentions that the Russians are all touched with the Mongol brush? Do we write off tens of millions of potential White Christian allies because of a suspicion based on legend? If the Russians aren't White, who cares if the Bolshevik Jews killed 30 million of them? I'm not here to defend Putin--I just want to be clear about what kind of intellectual standards we are going to hold ourselves to.

Was I misunderstood? Perhaps I did not express my self clearly enough.

First, most Russians are NOT white, considering Russia as the geographical entity which Putin himself esteems it to be. Putin is not a promoter of Russia in an ethnic sense at all. He believes in Russia the geographic entity, and his policies are anti-nationalist and anti-racist. Historically, ethnic Russians colonized their own empire, settling among Tatars and Mongols and Arabs.

As for the ethnic Russians of today, I believe that many of them have indeed mixed, especially with Tatars and Jews, but to the greater extent within the last 100 years. I have seen, and even met, a few Russians I thought were White, however they are the minority when the total population of the Russian Federation is concerned. There are many (supposed) Russians in Panama City Beach, Miramar and Destin and most of them I do not think are White.

Is a Maria Sharapova white? Is Elena Korikova White? Both probably are. Anna Kournikova? Now it is getting arguable... No one would convince me that a Brezhnev or a Chernenko was truly White, or a Stalin.

As for Putin, if he is not a Jew, he certainly is a whore for Jewry. But I have seen credible evidence that he has one Jewish grandfather. Many Russians have accused him of being a Jew. Yeltsin gave Russia to the Jews, Putin was his hand-picked successor, and Putin is pictured many times wearing the yarmulke for photo ops. Are they all Photoshopped?

As for Jews, he supports them 200% and he always has. He professes support for Israel, he enforces the holocaust and anti-Nazi dogma, he has outlawed anti-semitism and racism, he enforces multi-culturalism and diversity, and he is an enemy of true Russian nationalists. Putin is no anti-oligarch, in fact he has helped Jewish oligarchs at every turn. Certain Jewish "businessmen" have really cashed in during Putin's tenure in office.

If Putin is not a Jew, he may as well have been one. The same can be said for Calvin. MichaelAllen's Calvin vs. Luther analogy is appropriate, Britain and France would have been better off following Luther, or at least the post-1543 version of Luther.

[brucebohn]

Thank you gentlemen. This discussion has been of particular interest to me
personally. Informative, and has answered several questions that I had meant
to bring up,here in our forum... Thanks again Bill for providing this venue , which
is truly a blessing as we continue this most important work....

May Yahweh continue to bless all..