Just a little factoid about Mike Cernovich and his cohort - Alex Jones et al.

[Dachsie]

I really liked Mike Cernovich's commentary when I first started being focused on the PizzaGate / PedoGate issues. He is a smart guy and is an attorney.

But I started noticing his growing alliance with Alex Jones and Infowars.com programming.

In this video today...




Politifact Is Fake Facts! Mike Cernovich Periscope
OpenMind
OpenMind
66K
558 views
Published on Jul 8, 2017

Support real news here! http://patreon.com/mikecernovich
Gorilla Mindset: How to Control Your Thoughts and Emotions to Live Life on Your Terms - http://amzn.to/2bV3yRt
MAGA Mindset: Making YOU and America Great Again http://amzn.to/2dmvXlM

https://www.facebook.com/MikeCernovich
https://twitter.com/Cernovich
https://www.periscope.tv/Cernovich
http://www.dangerandplay.com/

This is a mirror channel, the official channel of Mike Chernovich is here https://www.youtube.com/user/DangerAn...
please subscribe to Mike, click the bell, to receive notifications when he goes live

SUBSCRIBE to see more similar videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5p...

at 2:20 minutes on this video
is gives the example of how Politifacts is fake news. Cernovich says the New York Times is owned my Carlos Slim, but Politifacts counters that no, Slim only owns 15 % of the company. Cernovich calls that splitting hairs or discounts it.

I heard Alex Jones say NYT owned by Carlos Slim back in November of 2016. It sounded wrong to me so I wrote to Mike King who has the tomatobubble.com website and has a huge series there exposing everything about FakeNewsCity, the NYT times.

Here is the email I got back from Mike King.

"Alex Jones is a clown....slim only owns 16%

the sulzbergers control majority shares and voting shares"

The Sulzberger family totally controls the editorial policy and major ownership of the New York Times.

I guess Mike Cernovich is very much in with Alex Jones' policy of trying to make things look like they are controlled by non-Jews.

But this little factoid shows Cernovich and Jones are committing a deliberate deception and lie that is contradicted by the facts, and that meets my definition of fake news.

[Down1]

(((Mike Cernovich))) self admitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvwM645GA40

[Dachsie]

Cernovich describes himself exactly the way David Seaman describes himself.

Except these Jews who are not religious Jews and are not Zionists all of a sudden become big defenders of the Jews when they have never really been very Jewish at all either in religion or ethnicity. Seaman defends his Jewishness to some degree too but I do not quite think he is what Cernovich is describing.

But, Cernovich says, these new kind of Jews that are attacking conservatives

and they are making people hate them.

Maybe it is part of their plan to make people hate them as they can use that to show that "conservatives" are the new NAZIs. That is a very usable old trick.

I do not think I have any anti-semitism in me.

Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Jesus does not care about DNA or skin color.

He cares about what we do.

I also care about objective facts.

Cernovich in that video you posted, Down1, is just doing more Infowars tap dancing routine. The FACTS are that Jews run the Federal Reserve and U.S. money systems and all banking. Period. It is a lie to try to neutralize or cloud that FACT. Certainly preponderance of Jews in money matters must be objectively examined and revealed. E. Michael Jones is one person who has done this. I think Michael Hoffman has done this too but those two men, both "Catholics", are far apart in their ideas in many ways.

[goldleaf]

I've listened to and read both, E. Michael Jones and Michael Hoffman some. Probably Jones more. Neither one mentions the other and seem to go their own direction. What exactly are the differences in these two other than concentrating on different aspects of the jew.

[Dachsie]

Mike Jones continues on in communion with the novus ordo church, that is, he kind of ignores all the changes and ignores Franky and just goes along to get along with the Church. He does not belong to any supposed traditional Catholic group like St. Pius X which have "Catholic" churches all over Europe and USA. Jones talks about usury but never mentions how the Church changed its defined doctrine condemning it and then being OK with it. He seems to have some rather unique definitions of exactly what usury is.

Michael Hoffman who also wrote a book on Usury but puts down the Church pretty bad because he said the Church started doing business and paying usury to entities way bak in the early 1500s. Hoffman does speaking engagements frequently with Protestant groups and never says much about what kind of Catholic church he belongs to but he disses all the traditional Catholic groups including the real ones like Pius V or Father Donald Sanborn and Father Cekada because those traditional groups say the problems with the Church started with Vatican II council and John XXIII back in early 1960s.

I personally have tried to research exactly how the Church came to establish the doctrine on usury to begin with. I cannot get to the bottom of it and I know of no Catholic priest or anyone who will tell the whole truth about it.

Here is an article that defends the Novus Ordo church by Crisis magazine.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/c...doctrine-usury

It seems to say that the Church fathers kind of took their ideas about usury partially from Aristotle and the Greek philosophers.

I can see many verses in the Old Testament that condemn usury but it was conditional. It was against the law for followers of the Abrahamic covenant to deal with each other via usury, but as best I can tell it was OK for Jews to deal with gentiles via usury.

There is only one verse in the New Covenant that really touches on the subject and that is the parable of the talents and it looks on the surface to sanction usury. I cannot get anything down pat about any official interpretation of the parable of the talents though Jones and Hoffman have different takes on it.

I am angry that I cannot get exactly how it is that the Church founded a doctrine that seems to be not supported in the New Testament, only in the Old Testament, and which they later abandoned, when defined dogmas of the Church cannot be abandoned, or at least that's the story they tell us.

This is as short as I can make my reply, but I realize it is not "Post Quick Reply."

[goldleaf]

With their historical knowledge of the jews its hard to believe they would not be trads. Jones must have some mad typing skills.

[Dachsie]

I stumbled upon a radio interview of Michael Hudson regarding his book, Usury in Christendom, by Mark Anderson of American Free Press yesterday. It explains a lot to me regarding how and why the Church instituted its doctrine against usury in the first place. It was a helpful interview. Michael Jones' Culture Wars Magazine, apparently did a review of Hoffman's book and Hoffman said it was a fair review, so maybe the two are kind of coming together. Mark Anderson is a Catholic too. I was a guest on his radio show several years ago on the subject of the Trans Texas Corridor.

I pretty much assessed the points of disagreement between the two. Hoffman says the doctrine was correct but the Church has changed and abandoned a doctrine and that is a big NO NO. Dr. Jones says the Church really did not CHANGE or abandon the doctrine but I agree with Hoffman on this.

It was interesting in this two hour interview to hear how we should not draw a big line between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Jesus came to fulfill the law not to abrogate it. Jesus and the apostles quoted the Old Testament many many times. That enlightens me as I was drawing a big line.


Will paste in some of my notes on this below...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiJJSt1nI-Y

August 2013
Mark Anderson interviews Michael Hoffman on Book on Usury the Mortal Sin that Was and then Was Not.

Good explanation of how Catholic doctrine on Usury began and how it was gradually abandoned.

Michael Hoffman - Usury in Christendom

TheRapeOfJustice
41K
1,094 views
Published on Jul 8, 2017
Michael Hoffman with Mark Anderson in "Beyond Exposure", American Free Press Radio, August 26, 2013.
• Category
o Education
• License
o Standard YouTube License


https://revisionistreview.blogspot.c...viewed-in.html

Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Hoffman’s book on usury reviewed in “Culture Wars” magazine
The July-August issue of Culture Wars, a Catholic magazine published by E. Michael Jones, PhD., has an extensive review of Michael Hoffman's book, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not.

The review, titled "Has the Catholic Church Changed Her Teaching on Usury?" is authored by Anthony Santelli, PhD., a fomer professor at George Mason University and the founder and hedgefund manager of AES Capital.

The 19-page review is on pp. 30-49 of the July-August issue. A pdf. of the issue may be purchased online for $4.00 at this link: http://www.culturewars.com/ (Look for the "Buy Now" button highlighted in yellow).

Michael Hoffman has submitted a 2300-word letter to the editor of Culture Wars in reply to the main points of contention in Dr. Santelli's review.

"I will not release my letter in advance of Dr. Jones publishing it, unless it is heavily redacted or refused publication," Hoffman said.

Hoffman's book may be purchased here:
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogs...visionist.html

A YouTube video of Hoffman talking about the Money Power is available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT0grvk16NI
_____________
Posted by Michael Hoffman at 8/14/2013 02:27:00 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Anthony Santelli, Culture Wars magazine, E. Michael Jones, Has the Catholic Church Changed Her Teaching on Usury? Michael Hoffman, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not



http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/c...tragic-history

November 16, 2011
Catholics and “Usury”: A Tragic History
Jeffrey Tucker


This piece is paired with another view of usury from a distributist perspective, also running today.
What makes “social teaching” different from the faith-and-morals magisterium of the Catholic Church? Most of the latter was settled early in Church history, with developments coming over time as subtle elaborations and careful applications of eternal truths.
Social teaching (including economics) is different. It has gone through many upheavals and changes throughout Church history, even complete reversals, many of which parallel historical developments.
One of the most pronounced cases in point concerns the lending at interest. It was condemned from the earliest years of the faith, but this condemnation ended in the 16th century, liberalized in law by the 18th century, and is today not even an issue. It is hardly talked about at all apart from perfunctory warnings against usury (and what the difference between interest and usury is precisely has never been spelled out).
As even the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia said: the Church “permits the general practice of lending at interest, that is to say, she authorizes the impost, without one’s having to enquire if, on lending his money, he has suffered a loss or deprived himself of a gain, provided he demand a moderate interest for the money he lends.”
This view amounts to a complete reversal of a view that prevailed from the Patristic age until the high middle ages. During all these years, the Church stood squarely against the institution of interest – as opposed as Islam is or even more so. This only began to change with the development of sophisticated monetary institutions in the high middle ages. These allowed theologians to consider the topic more carefully and come to realize that interest is no different from any price on the market – something to be freely negotiated by the parties involved and reflecting the changing conditions of supply and demand.
One of the earliest statements against interest comes from the Council of Nicea, which sought to crack down on avaricious practices among the clergy, among which was lending money at a profit. The Council condemned this and other attempts at “dishonourable gain.”
It was surely a wise teaching, necessary to stop corruption, but there was a slight problem. The Council broadened its mandate beyond the priesthood and implied that the practice was universally wrong. It added scriptural proof from the Psalmist that interest itself was immoral. “He that hath not put out his money to usury [interest], nor taken bribes against the innocent: He that doth these things shall not be moved for ever.” The implication was that the rule pertaining to clergy really reflected a general social principle.
And thus began a long tragic history of the Catholic Church’s 1000-year war against interest and the money-lending profession. And it is a strange war indeed, one undertaken with little to no substantive basis from scripture (the above hardly suffices). Attacking lenders as heretics contradicts normal commercial dealings. It even contradicts Jesus’s own parable of the talents, which presumes and praises the existence of money lenders and condemns the failure to give them idle money as profligacy itself.
The war against interest was a war against basic economic logic. Present goods are more valuable than future goods, so it makes sense that the person who wants something earlier rather than later, but doesn’t have the money now, is likely to pay a premium. Further, lending is always risky so it makes sense that there should be a reward attached to undertaking that risk. Finally, money that is lent out is not otherwise employed by the owner and therefore there is an opportunity cost that will be paid and compensation for this sought. For all these reasons and many more, interest is a normal part of peaceful commercial society.
To understand this, it is helpful to consider the case of barter in a desperately poor society. Let’s say you have two chickens but only need one. A fellow comes along and wants the other one but has no money. He offers a potato – a pretty shabby deal overall for straight one-for-one trade. But, even so, you want him to have the chicken and you aren’t currently in need, so you propose a deal. He can have it if he gives you some eggs from the chicken for a period of one month. After that, he can have the chicken.
You are happy. He is happy. Everyone wins. But why the egg premium? He wanted the chicken now and you didn’t need it now. So he pays to feed his more urgent need, and you are glad to relinquish control of your chicken provided there is a stream of income coming out of it. This is the way interest works in a barter economy. True, there is no money involved but the principle is the same as that which is considered a normal part of commercial life today.
And truly, the Church never objected to this sort of deal. After all, on what possible grounds could one object? It is mutually beneficial in every way. No one is ripped off. All is transparent. One could even say that society is far better off this way. The alternative is that one person be without food and the other person holds an idle resource. Better to achieve a great degree of social harmony with this kind of deal than to settle with the inferior alternative.
The introduction of money to the story changes nothing of moral substance. This is because money is nothing but a proxy for goods. It is the most valuable good in society, something acquired not to consume but to hold and trade for other goods. Money also serves an important book keeping function: you can’t often add and subtract bartered items (and cow, an apple, and an iPad can’t aggregated) but you can manipulate figures in monetary terms.
But for some reason that is unknown, people’s brains go haywire when the subject of money comes up. They presume that something evil must be going on because the exchanges get complicated and well developed. How is it that people can get rich not by making things but merely by arbitraging between the present and the future? Isn’t there something morally suspect about this practice?
Before the high Middle Ages, it was uncommon for most people to have any money at all. Most peasants worked for food, and traded the wares that they may for good directly. Economies were local and financial institutions were available only to the very rich and powerful. Handling money was not a common experience for most people. It might have appeared that the buying and selling of money itself was the sole province of the sinful.
From a Catholic angle, there is an additional issue that concerns a difficult topic: Jews. They tended to be the money lenders. This posed a problem in a time of intense religious and sectarian concern. In fact, you often find this issue appearing in Church legislation in the middle ages: all kinds of prohibitions and leniencies name the Jews in particular.
Later in the Middle Ages, starting in the 15th century, economies began to change dramatically. Feudalism was giving rise to capitalism, money and finance were becoming a growing part of everyday life, and the buying and lending of money was less the exception than the rule in a commercial life that was reaching an ever wider swath of the population.
Catholics themselves became big players in the emerging world of high finance, particularly with the banking family of Jacob Fugger, which had taken over the role of economic dominance from the Medici family that traded mainly in politics. The Fuggers specialized in lending and collecting, and doing it at the behest of Papal states – which strikes me as non-problematic in every way, but which also seemed to confront a problem from the point of view of social teaching.
It was the neo-Thomists who started the process unraveling traditional teaching and cleared the path for the full legitimization of interest. The first great strides were made by Conrad Summenhart (1465-1511), the chair of theology at Tubingen. He began to make exceptions to the strict doctrine. He wrote that money itself is fruitful, a good that can be bought and sold like any other.
When a money holder lends, he is giving up something that would be otherwise profitable, so he should be compensated for his loss, same as any merchant. Moreover, Summerhart said, it is helpful to think of the money paid in exchange for lending services as a different good from the money itself – that is, possibly, as a gift given to the lender as a sign of appreciation. Summenhart didn’t go all the way to license interest but he said that if neither then borrower nor the lender thought of it as such, it was permitted. Thus was interest reduced to state of mind rather than an objective fact. This represented great progress in Church teaching.
The next and final step in the liberalization of interest was taken by Thomas De Vio, Cardinal Cajetan (1468-1534). He was the leading Catholic theologian of his day, a favorite of the Pope, and a defender of Catholicism against Martin Luther. His writings represented the most sophisticated of his time as regards economics. He completely endorsed Summenhart’s teaching and took it a step further to say that any loan contract was legitimate if both the borrower and the lender agreed to it in anticipation of some economic benefit. He carefully took apart St. Thomas’s own writings on the topic and demonstrated that it was perfectly just for the lender who is giving up use of his property to charge a service fee in exchange.
Since those times, there has been no real debate in the Church on this question. Yes, usury continues to be warned against, though no one makes the attempt any more to distinguish between interest and usury. They were once considered synonymous; today they are distinguished as a reflection of a continuing bias against lenders who would seem to display more avarice than charity in their work. But in practice, there is no clear difference. What’s more, even seemingly usurious loan rates serve a social function: the higher the rate of interest, the more saving is encouraged and borrowing discouraged.
John Noonan’s book on the scholastic doctrine on usury chronicles all these changes with incredible precision, and provided the source text that other scholars of economic doctrine such as Murray Rothbard have used in their own writings. They demonstrate a wonderful capacity of the Church to learn and grow with the times as regard its social teaching. It should not be a surprise to observe subtle changes even from one papacy to the next, e.g., it has struck many people that John Paul II was friendlier toward market institutions that Benedict XVI.
I don’t find this even slightly puzzling. Economics is a science, one very late to develop in the history of ideas. It is not doctrine and it is not morals, subjects on which the Church pronounces infallibly. Economics is not the primary domain of Church competence in any case, and sometimes the line that separate economic theory from faith and morals can become blurry indeed. If nothing else, this history should instill a bit of humility on the part of Church teachers, and a cautionary point as regards economics and other sciences.
Tagged as Business, Capitalism, Catholic Church, Catholic Social Teaching, Church, Middle Ages, money
37

By Jeffrey Tucker
Jeffrey Tucker is managing editor of Sacred Music and publications editor of the Church Music Association of America. He writes a bi-weekly column on sacred music and liturgy for Crisis Magazine and also runs the Chant Cafe Blog. Jeffrey@chantcafe.com


Hoffman’s book on usury reviewed in “Culture Wars” magazine
Posted by Everett Kia on 2:27 PM with No comments so far
The July-August issue of Culture Wars, a Catholic magazine published by E. Michael Jones, PhD., has an extensive review of Michael Hoffman's book, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not.

The review, titled "Has the Catholic Church Changed Her Teaching on Usury?" is authored by Anthony Santelli, PhD., a fomer professor at George Mason University and the founder and hedgefund manager of AES Capital.

The 19-page review is on pp. 30-49 of the July-August issue. A pdf. of the issue may be purchased online for $4.00 at this link: http://www.culturewars.com/ (Look for the "Buy Now" button highlighted in yellow).

Michael Hoffman has submitted a 2300-word letter to the editor of Culture Wars in reply to the main points of contention in Dr. Santelli's review.

"I will not release my letter in advance of Dr. Jones publishing it, unless it is heavily redacted or refused publication," Hoffman said.

Hoffman's book may be purchased here:
http://revisionisthistorystore.blogs...visionist.html

A YouTube video of Hoffman talking about the Money Power is available here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT0grvk16NI
_____________
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Categories: Anthony Santelli, Culture Wars magazine, E. Michael Jones, Has the Catholic Church Changed Her Teaching on Usury? Michael Hoffman, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not
Newer Post Older Post Home
0 comments:
Post a Comment

[Joshua01]

Whenever I see Alex Jones' name I stop paying attention. He's controlled opposition, nothing more. Credibility? Think the old WWF!

[PatColo]

Jordan Sather's feed brought this to my attn; see his followers' separate comments (23 atm):
https://twitter.com/Jordan_Sather_/s...05898881191936

---

Cernovich has 418K twatter followers. 55 comments atm:
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1019004896421376000

Mike Cernovich ‏Verified account @Cernovich
I used to be highly skeptical of Israel, then I noticed the people who want to kill me (ANTIFA) all hate Israel. Got me thinking. Now I’m a Zionist.
4:44 PM - 16 Jul 2018

• 100 Retweets
• 304 Likes

^ what's funny is, we've seen the (((Antifa manual))) and see it was obviously kosher-written; with their signature Deflect-N-Project gambit from the first page forward, fraudulently replacing the historic JP & current J-Privilege realities, with "Whites..."

I only started the first page of that (((antifa manual))), but right there they launch into "White Privilege"... when, all the riot videos I've seen, (((antifa))) appears mostly White! Are these the paid rent-a-mobbers? Or are they just truly (((brainwashed))) self-hating-White useful idiots? I guess we're not supposed to know that!

And lemme guess, the (((antifa manual))) has a big fat blind spot re the JP?! jus' guessin'. Oh and page 1 goes into the "white male slave traders" lolz; when everyone who's looked beyond (((hollywood history))) knows the slave trader/owners were majority dinjoo-nuffins!

this podcast apparently goes into the antifa question some; haven't listened yet.

Radio Wehrwolf - 9/28/2017


http://www.talkshoe.com/custom/image...7-MainIcon.jpg
Dion brought some tremendous white pills with a recent Reuters poll on people racial leanings, and then an Antifa manual. Which outlines their 100 years plan to take over America and the world.

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2017/09/...ifa-manual.pdf

Radio Wehrwolf Archive
Radio Wehrwolf Web-Site

Download