Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The pharisaical banking system;
(A union between Babylonian religions, Babylonian banking and Babylonian Jews … The
Pharisaical system of “Commercial Law”, as codified in the “Babylonian Talmud”;),
First the Temple Priests, then the Goldsmiths and the commercial bankers of today. The
first use of the fractional reserve system was in the Temple of Shamash under Hammurab
(Hammurabi (Akkadian from Amorite Ammur?pi, ? “the kinsman is a healer,” from
?Ammu, “paternal kinsman,” and R?pi, “healer”; (died c. 1750 BC) )– the sixth king of
Babylon (Peter Cook, FEDERAL RESERVE FRACTIONAL RESERVE AND
INTEREST-FREE GOVERNMENT CREDIT EXPLAINED 4, 1991). “Called fractional
reserve banking.”
Do you know where the bank gets the $160,000 for your mortgage? It’s very simple.
Someone walks over to a computer and types 160,000 beside your name. With only
$27.93 of cash reserves for every $10,000 of assets (as of June 1999) the bank has just
created the remaining $159,553 of that interest-earning money out of thin air. When,
after 25 years of hard work, you pay off your mortgage, the $159,553 vanishes back into
thin air. Not so the interest however. It vanishes into the banker’s pocket. Chartered (i.e.
privately owned) banks, such as The Bank of Montreal, The Royal Bank, The CIBC, etc.
have created about 95 percent of our total money supply ($589.1 billion as of Sept 1999)
in exactly this way. But the cash reserves in their vaults amount to only a paltry $3.893
billion. (About $32 billion of cash circulates in public hands.) This is called fractional
reserve banking, and it’s the greatest scam of all time because it creates debt for no reason
other than to enrich the banking class. Its long term effect – as becomes clearer every
day – is to steadily suck wealth out of the community and into the hands of a few people,
a fact that bankers and most politicians stubbornly refuse to admit. Charging interest on
money created out of nothing is, in the main, unjust and immoral, and Plato, Aristotle,
Cicero, the Bible (Deuteronomy 23:19), the Koran (2:275-278), the Catholic Church,
many codes of law and most writers on morals have condemned it for more than two
thousand years. The historical name for this evil is usury. Nevertheless bankers enjoy
peace of mind because they know that the public thinks they merely lend out the savings
of their depositors. In fact, banks create more than 95 percent of all deposits, for when a
bank creates a loan it simultaneously creates a deposit. What banks do to justify the
accusation of being economic parasites is to lend out interest-bearing money of their own
creation using “Fiat Money. Money which a government declares shall be accepted as
legal tender to back it up.
The ecclesiastical doctrine of interest was the greatest obstacle to modern banking. It was
primarily based upon 1) Aristotle’s condemnation of interest as an unnatural breeding of
money by money. Ha’Mashiyach condemnation of interest (Luke 6:34) and the reaction
of the Fathers of the assembly against commercialism and usury in Rome. (Will Durant,
THE AGE OF FAITH page 630, 1950). The moral condemnation of this ancient practice
has been summarized: “It comes as news to most people to learn that practically all
important ethical teachers — Moses, Aristotle, Y?shua, Mohammed, and Thomas
Aquinas, for instance — have denounced lending at interest as usury and as morally
wrong” (Lawrence Dennis, “The Squirrel Cage of Debt,” Saturday Review of Literature
661, June 24, 1933).
Usury has been condemned since biblical times. (George Braden, II THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: AN ANNOTATED AND
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 729, 1977). It was originally considered usurious to make
any charge for the use of money. . Originally the word interest had the same essential
meaning as usury. Smith, III, p. 826. The word “usury” used to mean any interest. It came
to mean interest that exceeds the rate established by law (Ken Warner, GIVE US A
KING 120-121, 1988).
Interest comes from the Latin verb “intereo” meaning to be lost. F.W. Maisel at 141, The
ancient Israelites called usury “a bite.” It is like the slow poison of a serpent: “Usury does
not all at once destroy a man or nation with, as it were, a bloody gulp. Rather, it slowly,
sometimes nearly imperceptibly, subverts the victim’s constitution until he cannot prevent
the fatal consequences even though he knows what is coming.” Mooney, p. 23. The
practice of lending to an enemy was “as a means of destroying him” (John. H. Kimmons,
Usury: What Is It, and Does the Law of ?lôhîym Forbid It?
The Tanakh “classes the usurer (u·su·rer) n. One who lends money at interest, especially
at an exorbitant or unlawfully high rate ) with the shedder of blood, the defiler of his
neighbor’s wife, the oppressor of the poor, the spoiler by violence, the violator of the
pledge, the idolater, and pronounces the woe upon them, that they who commit these
iniquities shall surely die.” . The usurer was put in the same category with extortionist,
Sabbath-breakers, those who vex the fatherless and wows, dishonor parents and accept
bribes (Ezekiel 22). .. The usurer was also classed with the liar, the unrighteous, the
backbiter, the slanderer and perjurer, and denied the right to inherit the New Jerusalem
(Psalm 15). . The usurer is further classed with the meanest and lowest of men and the
vilest of criminals (Ezekiel 18). .
Before the Babylonian captivity, Ezekiel denounced the practice of usury as a great evil
and mentioned the practice of oppressing strangers as part of the great wickedness. .
Interest repayments on loans, even to resent strangers was forbidden in the years of the
Jubilee & Shemita (the Sabbatical Year) (Leviticus 25:35-37) whereas in regular years it
was permissible to charge interest to strangers (Deuteronomy 23:19-20). .
Zechariah forbade “the oppression of the stranger, classing it with oppression of the wow,
the fatherless and the poor…”.. Malachi “enjoins regard for the stranger’s rights.”.
Nehemiah, after the captivity, boldly denounced usury (Nehemiah 5:9-11), instituted a
reform and had retribution made for all usurious holdings. . Those who can be in the
Tabernacle or dwell in the holy hill include (Psalm 15:5): He has not put out his silver at
interest, and has not taken a bribe against the innocent. He who does these is never
moved. ”
Solomon gave us the proverb, “the borrower is servant to the lender.”. Pro 22:7.
The continued the prohibition of usury: “In the fullness of time the Messiah came, and no
part of the Torâh was abrogated. The prohibition of usury as to the Yisra’el was
extended, to include mankind, and the permit as to the stranger was declared
inoperative and void. The Yisra’elites was taught to sympathize with strangers
remembering that they were once strangers Exodus 22:21 “Do not tread down a
sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Mitsrayim.
Y?shua taught (Luke 6:34-35) “love ye your enemies, and do good and lend, hoping for
nothing again.”. Usury was the basis for Y?shua’s calling the money changers thieves:
“The commerce of the world is conducted on principles as much at variance with the
teachings of the master, as are the practices of a sneak thief or burglar. So the Master
taught, as with whip of cords, he indignantly drove its representatives, from the sacred
precincts of the Temple, denouncing them as thieves. Every well-informed mind knows
that the money changers in the Temple, on that startling occasion, were at the very center
of the pharisaical banking system (A union between Babylonian religions, Babylonian
banking and Babylonian … The Pharisaical system of “Commercial Law”, as codified in
the “Babylonian Talmud”;), and of the pitiless and grinding commerce of Palestine.”..
In Y?shua’ parable on the subject of usury (Matthew 25:26-27; Luke 19:22-23) “only the
hard, austere man, one whose conscience will not interfere with his reaping where he has
not sown, and taking up where he has not la down, would extract usury, for he makes the
lord of the parable tell the servant of it: You say I am a hard and austere man, then why d
you not act accordingly, and earn me my usury as my nature demanded?” . at 3.
Assuming there is a stranger exception, “where is the authority for the practice of usury
on our brethren?”. at 3. The taking of interest is “subversive of the principles of a sound
state policy, contrary to good morals, and opposed to the teaching of ?lôhîym’s Word.” .
at 10. The meaning of “usury” has been changed “to mean exorbitant interest.
The Apostle Peter publicly told his vision: “And in another lake, full or pitch and blood
and more bubbling up, there stood men and women on their knees: and these were
usurers and those who had taken interest. . .” Antenicene Fathers, Vol. IX, p. 146. The
Apostle Paul, in telling his vision, said: “And I saw another multitude of men and
women, and worms consumed them. But I lamented and sighing asked the angel and said,
‘Who are these?’ And he said to me: These are those who exacted interest ON interest,
and trusted in their riches and did not hope in ?lôhîym that He was their helper.”
Antenicene Fathers, Vol. IX, p. 160.
A long-existing and self-perpetuating tax-immune internationalist-transnational’s group
uses fronts with inter-locking corporate and or fraternal group of individuals, whose
membership is either secret or semi-secret, with undisclosed ownership shares, has
usurped the sovereignty of borrowing national governments (who serve their lenders). It
includes largely unrevealed yet reported campaign contributors who also control the
media and press, all major political parties, and dictates prudential appointments. It
abhors the direct issuance of money by elected officials and through the creation of a
system of privately-owned and controlled central banks, holds all of the world’s gold and
all loan and mortgage paperwork.
Its business is conducted in secret meetings which determine the future of all national
economies and the timing of expansion (through loans) or contraction (through no loans).
It exercises an exclusive monopoly of the issuance of money created out of thin air and
issued solely as debt, does not create money to repay the interest, and lives off perpetual
national debts that consume future income and under international law cannot be
repudiated even by an internal political revolution. At least for others, it tends to be probureaucracy,
pro-abortion/population control, pro-government education, anti-family,
anti-nationalist, anti-inheritance, anti-private property and anti-Y?shua Ha’Mashiyach.
This group can demand special privileges and even military force to collect “national”
debts.
It plans to soon accomplish global disarmament (of both civilians and nations) and have a
monopoly on force (including nuclear weapons). It has the privilege of a guaranteed untaxable
income enforced by liens on all public and personal property and collected by the
coercive force of the taxing structure of the various governments. The basis for its
continued existence is continued usury and unforgiving collection of all debts resulting
from committing the highest crime of usury.
“Commercial Law”
is based on Ancient Babylonian Codes
A Historical Research Article linking the “Slave-Trading Codes” of Ancient
Babylon
To the pharisaical banking system;
(A union between Babylonian religions, Babylonian banking and Babylonian Jews …
The Pharisaical system of “Commercial Law”, as codified in the “Babylonian
Talmud”;),
Meyer Amschel Rothschild ((23 February 1744 – 19 September 1812) was the
founder of the Rothschild family international banking dynasty) said: “Permit me to
issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws .
. . enforced unemployment and hunger, imposed on the masses because of
the power we have to create shortages of food, will create the RIGHT of
Capital to rule more surely than it was given to the real aristocracy”.
A new union between Babylonian religions, Babylonian banking and
Babylonian law is returning the world to serfdom.
When the Romans Conquered the Nation of Israel, shortly before the time of Y?shua
Ha’Mashiyach; they set-up a “Puppet Regime” in Israel, so-as-to more effectively
Mask the harsh reality that the Israelites were a Conquered People. And because
“Law” was frequently administered by” the Priesthood” in these ancient cultures, a
group of priests known as “Pharisees” thereunder Combined with the Romans to
Deceive, Confuse, Plunder, and En-Slave the common Yisra?lites People. And
because Ha’Mashiyach Y?shua was a Threat to that Oppressive/Despotic system;
both factions of these over-lapping “special-interest-groups” Conspired to have
Y?shua Nailed to the Stake. The Pharisees were Direct Participants in this Lawless
Conspiracy to Murder this Innocent Man; even though it seems that it was Roman
Soldiers who actually completed the execution.
These same Pharisees base their entire Religious Belief-System upon a body of Laws
which is not from the Torâh, which reach back to the teachings of Moses. Rather
these Pharisees look to a body of so-called “Laws” which derive from “Slave-Trading
Codes” in Ancient Babylon; and quite probably reaching back to Nimrod himself.
The fact that the religion of the Pharisees has never been recorded as having become
extinct indicates that they and their Slave-Trading practices continue on to exist to
this very day. In their own literature, the modern practitioners of “Rabbinical
Judaism” Admit (quietly) that they are decedents from those ancient Pharisees. In
their own book entitled “The Jewish Encyclopedia”, and “prepared by more than Four
Hundred Scholars and Specialists”, and published by the “Funk and Wagnall’s
Company”, in 1905, Page 665; the following text is presented:
“With the destruction of the Temple, the Sadducees disappeared all
together, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the
Pharisees.
Henceforth, Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees, the
whole history of Judaism was re-constructed from the Pharisaic point of
view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new chain
of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition (Abot i. 1).
Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the
Jew for all the future.”
Here is shown clearly that the ancient Pharisees are still alive and well writing
textbooks for Funk and Wagnall’s in 1905, and disseminating such beliefs among
their followers.
The ancient counterparts of these modern Pharisees had schools in Babylon from a
very early pre-Ha’Mashiyachian date. We may read concerning these matters from a
scholarly work entitled “The Babylonian Talmud”, by Sedner Nezikin, London; The
Soncino Press, 1935. In the Foreword to this book is an introductory few pages by
(The Very Rev. The Chief Rabbi) J.H. Hertz. Herein he speaks on pages 13, 14, 15 to
say:
“The beginnings of Talmudic literature date back to the time of the
Babylonian Exile in the sixth pre-Ha’Mashiyachian century . . . When a
thousand years later, the Babylonian Talmud assumed final codified form in
the year 500 of the Ha’Mashiyachian era, the Western Roman Empire had
ceased to be . . .
When we come to the Babylonian Gerama, we are dealing with what most
people understand when they speak or write of the Talmud. It’s birthplace,
Babylonia, was a autonomous Jewish center for a longer period than any
other land, namely, soon after 586 before Ha’Mashiyach era to the year
1040 after the Ha’Mashiyachian era – 1,626 years . . . ”
For a long time it was held that the language in which the Babylonian
Talmud was written defied grammatical formulation. This is now seen to be
nothing but prejudice. . .
“The style of the Babylonian Talmud is one of most pregnant brevity and
succinctness. It is at no time “easy reading”. Elliptical expression is a
constantly reoccurring feature, and whole sentences are often indicated by
as single word. In discussions, question and answer are closely interwoven,
and there is an entire absence of demarcation between them. Hard thinking
and closest attention are required under the personal guidance of an
experienced scholar, or of an elaborate written exposition of the argument,
for the discussion to be followed or to be understood. And that
understanding cannot be gained by the aid of Grammar or Lexicon alone.
Even a student who has fair knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, but who
has not been initiated into the Talmud by Traditional Jewish guides, will find
it impossible to decipher a page!”
Here we have plain admissions from this J.H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi) wherein he reveals
that the source of the material which is codified within their “Talmud” is from
“Babylon”. Other sources affirm this also. This “Babylonian Talmud” is that rootsource-
repository of so-called “Law” from which the modern Talmud draws its
historical roots. J.H. Hertz (Chief Rabbi) and others of the same belief are all quite
comfortable referring to it amongst themselves as the “Babylonian Talmud”.
But as the ancient city of Babylon is clearly related to terms such as “Babble” aka:
“Confusion”, and as ancient Biblical texts indicate plainly that this is the source for all
of the language confusion and much other problems which has spread throughout
the entire world, it is understandable that these ones do seek to downplay the fact
that “Babylon” is the spiritual source/center for Their body of “Spiritual-Law
Codifications”. We here-in merely seek clear labels of what is going on with regard to
this body of codifications which seemingly so significantly affect our modern
sociological structures. We have a Right to ask these questions. Everyone is affected
by these concerns. And it seems clear that many who modernly claim to be “Jews”
are following this set of Spiritual Codifications which have originated in ancient
Babylon, and which thereunder are properly known and referable to as the
“Babylonian Talmud”.
We find similarly enlightening source material in a profoundly insightful work from a
gentleman named Guy Carlton, Lee; of Johns Hopkins University in his work:
“Historical Jurisprudence”, 1922; Pages 12, 17, 18, 38-40, 188-189:
The law of Babylonia has had an immense effect upon that of nearly all the
countries of Europe . . . The literature of Babylon has perished; but the
element of culture which has endured was greater than the literature. That
element is law, an organized intelligible system of rights and duties
enforced by the State. . . The great work of the nation was the production of
a system of law, necessary to the extended commercial activity of the city . .
. The complex Babylonian civilization, which produced a commercial law in
advance of any other ancient system . . . was . . . the product of . . . its
relations to the other countries of the world.
The exercise of judicial functions, at least in matters of commercial law,
seems to have been in the hands of the hierarchy. The reasons for this may
have been in part those which, in the mediaeval period of European history,
threw the control of legal procedure largely into the hands of the
ecclesiastics. In Babylon, the custom of documentary evidence in almost all
transactions . . . and the wide extent to which written contracts were
employed, made the notarial and judicial functions of the priests very
extensive. But the part taken in business transactions by the priesthood was
appropriate for another reason, which perhaps had more influence in the
time of the early law, before the purely commercial side had been
developed. This was the part which was connected with contractual oaths,
which at first were numerous. The contracting parties were obliged in their
contracts to swear by the principal god of the country, and by the reigning
prince, that they would abide by the conditions of the contract . . .”
The Babylonian Law developed to the fullest extent the idea of a Contract.
Almost any possible business transaction was reduced to the form of a
contract and was executed with the same formalities – i.e., with witnesses,
notary, and signature. Thus the points as to deeds, sales, mortgages, loans,
and banking are in no respect different in form from the matter of hiring,
rent and leases, partnership, testaments, and domestic relations, including
adoption. Transactions so very different could be reduced to the same
principle, or brought under the one head, only by a highly abstract
conception of contract itself. From forms of contract . . . we pass to the
relations of master and servant, leases, and future delivery of goods.
Sub-section A. Master and Servant. . . a man might well make a contract
with another whom he hired for a year, or whom he contracted to serve for
a year. . . example . . . In connection with this contract, it should be noted
that Ubarru was regarded as a free agent, hiring himself out. But since he
enters into a relation to his master in which he is temporarily in the
condition of a slave, he has a representative, or guardian . . .
. . . In the case of a slave the name of the slave’s father is never given. The
slave is not regarded or spoken of as a man, but as a thing, and is reckoned
in the same way as cattle. The actual point of this contract is the transfer of
the right to a man’s services. Such a transaction is but a part of the whole
Babylonian system, whereby every credit or right was passed from one to
another by means of contracts . . .
The law was very strict as to the beginning and termination of these
contracts. . . If the servant did not appear, he could be arrested and brought
to his master, as he was his master’s man. …
This species of . . . slavery was of great importance and very customary in
Old Babylon.
Babylon (‘s) . . . commercial customs . . . became . . . the commercial law of
the whole known world. Of . . . these Rome was . . . possessed from the
earliest period . . . ”
Here-under, we see a number of significant items for our study. But at this point it
seems best to re-visit Chapters 17 and 18 of the Book of Revelation in the Bible.
Here in is Revealed that a particular Body of People are recognizable as a “Great
Prostitute” who “Rules over the Kings of the Earth” through the use of “Deception”,
“Magic”, and “Merchants”. This “Great Prostitute” who uses Deceptive Magic is clearly
labeled therein as “BABYLON”.
The above work from Johns Hopkins University by Mr Lee clearly recognizes that
Babylon’s Religious Priesthood is commonly recognizable as the source of all of the
modern so called “Laws of Commerce”. These “Laws of Commerce” are shown to be
a specific body of Codes which authorize the Administration of the Compelling Force
of the State in the En-Force-ment of Contracts, mostly for Payments of Debts. The
ancient Babylonian Priests were involved because Contracts were deemed to be a
form of “Oath” entered into by the contracting parties; and the approval of their
Gods were invoked so as to more effectively legitimize/bamboozle the entire process
in the minds and the consciences of the contracting parties and all public witnesses.
These Babylonian Religious Codes recognized the ability to buy and sell contracts
between merchants in “Commerce”. They sold and “bought . . . slaves and the souls
of men” in the time of Ha’Mashiyach, and before and after, just precisely as is
recognized in Revelation 18: 11-13. Under this system of Babylonian Codes,
contracted-debtor-people were Forcibly Compelled to perform the contract regardless
of Conceivability, or who was the original contract-creditor. This Babylonian Religious
Commercial-Code depended in large part on a deeper set of Slave-Trading Codes.
And these all are still recognizable and very frequently enforced under what modern
legal text-books refer to as: “Master-Servant Relationships”.
Under the ancient Babylonian Religious Codes, “Slavery” is clearly facilitated. People
were not recognized as People there-under, but were items in Commerce. The Slave
could be arrested and assaulted by government officers for not showing up for work
on time. The text-book says that “The slave is not regarded or spoken of as a man,
but as a thing, and is reckoned in the same way as cattle”. Not too long ago, in our
American History, “Slavery” was a very Common Practice, both against the Black
Race, and also against all other races, including Orientals and the economically
disenfranchised Caucasian/White Race. The Problem of “Oppression” is Not a Race
Problem; it is a Economic-Class and Religious Problem.
In the above quoted text, and with reference to these ancient Babylonian-based
“Slave-Trading” Codes; Mr Lee goes on to make it clear they were passed down to
the Roman Slave-Traders in his statement “Of . . . these Rome was . . . possessed
from the earliest period . . . “.
History seems to tell that many Israelites had been Captured into Slavery in Babylon.
Yet by the time of Y?shua , many had returned. During that Captivity; many of the
Babylonian Commercial/Slave-Trader/Merchant Codes seemed to have Infected
Israelite-Society. It does not take a lot of intelligence to suppose that this worked to
Under-Mine the Godly Principles of the more ancient Israelite Torah-Laws.
Yet the “Pharisees” Openly Embraced this Babylonian System of Slave-Trading
Codes. Ha’Mashiyach Y?shua and his followers were impaled for speaking-out boldly
against these Evils of the Romans and their False-Y?hûdim Pharisee Puppet-drones.
As revealed above, the Romans were already followers of those same Babylonian
Slave-Trading Codes. This indicates that the Connection between the Roman Slave-
Traders and the Pharisees was more than a mere coincidence. This indicates that at
some point in the even more ancient history; the Roman Slave-Traders and the
Pharisee of Israel; were of Common Cultural Ancestry.
As the name signifies, the “Babylonian Talmud” contains much of the Commercial
Slave-Trading Mercantile Codifications of “Master-Servant Relationships” which
originated in Babylon. Those of the “Pharisee” (Rabbinical-Judaism) belief-system,
refer in their “Babylonian Talmud” to those who are not of their culture; as “Goyims”
or “Gois”. These words translate to mean “Human Cattle”. This is precisely how
historical textbooks indicate that the ancient Babylonians referred to their Slaves. As
Mr. Lee stated in his above quoted text, “The slave is . . . reckoned in the same
way as cattle”.
Though the “Babylonian Talmud” seems to contain few direct citations to Slavery
itself, it does set forth a significant amount of evidence showing that Non-Pharisees
“Goyims” are to be treated with all of the contempt of “Slaves”. Citations from the
“Babylonian Talmud” read:
“All things pertaining to the Goyims are like desert, the first person to come
along and take them can claim them for his own.” Babha Bathra 45. “It is
permitted to deceive a goy.” Babha Kama 113b.
And though citations are not clear that this is directly from the Talmud, other
Pharisaical Literature states:
“The Life of a Goy and all his physical powers belong to a Jew.” A. Rohl. Die
Polem. P.20
And articles published by Henry Ford’s newspaper, the Dearborn Independent in
1920 – 1922 discuss the “Kol Nidre” as a Pharisaical:
“prayer, named from its opening words, “All vows”,” (Kol Nidre). It is based
on the declaration of the Talmud: “He who wishes that his vows and oaths
shall have no value, stand up at the beginning of the year and say: ‘All vows
which I shall make during the year shall be of no value.'””
The list goes on and on. The Historical Documentation is Massive of the Malicious
Plunder-Oriented Slave-Trading Behavior of these people. Coke and others have
defined them as “Infidels”, precisely Because History has clearly Shown that the
Sworn “Oath” of those ones Means Nothing to them. They cannot be “Bound” by
“Conscience”, and they habitually “Lie” at every turn which may serve their own selfserving
interests or those of their “Synagogue of Satan”, as referred to by
Ha’Mashiyach Y?shua at Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. This is the nature of their “Law”,
They Believe they have a God-Given Right to be “Slave-Masters”. They can-not be
expected to be bound to tell the Truth. They feel that they are En-Titled by the
Authority of their Evil God to Lie to others, so-as-to Control them and there-by to
reduce them to their unsuspecting Slaves.
Such “Infidels” were expelled from almost every country in Europe between the 13th
and 15th centuries for this precise Reason. Their tenacious adherence to this Dis-
Honest Babylonian Master-Slave system of Human Conduct Codes, and their
relentless Lying and Deception was the Direct Cause of their Ostracism from All of
these European Nations.
The Sadducees apparently gave the Pharisees opposition against this corrupting
influence, but their days were numbered, for after the destruction of the Temple by
Rome in 70 AD, the religious belief system of the Sadducees had apparently met
genocide and extinction. The Pharisees (on the other hand) were conspicuously left
in the position of authority over all Jews who did not profess Ha’Mashiyachianity. The
ancient Religion of the Pharisees has been in Continuous Total Control of what is
fashionably recognized as the “Jewish Religion”, ever since the destruction of
Solomon’s Temple. Again quoted, but more focused and brief than above, it reads:
“With the destruction of there Temple . . . Henceforth, Jewish life was
regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees . . . Pharisaism shaped the
character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future.”
The Jewish Encyclopedia: (1905; Page 665)
with the extinction of the Sadducees, the only Jewish entity which thereafter stood in
opposition to the Pharisees and their Babylonian Codified Talmud were the
Ha’Mashiyachians. The powers in Rome itself were compromised by this influence. As
revealed else-where here-in, the Religion of the Pharisees continues to this day
under their self-proclaimed banner of “Judaism” or “Jews”. These people are Not
True “Jews”. Nor are they Racial “Semites”, or “Israelites”, or even “Zionists”. Rather
they are of the “Synagogue of Satan”, and they merely “Say they are Jews”; all
precisely as Y?shua is declared to have clearly started in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.
These modern Pharisees merely proclaim they are “Jews” out of a Strategy to affect
their Ancient Plunder-Oriented Slave-Trading purpose. Approximately 85% of them
are not even of the “Semitic” bloodline, but rather are of the Ashkenazi/Khazar
Race/Bloodline. They seem to have adopted the Pharisaical-Babylonian Talmudian
Religion in about the year 740 or so, out of convenience. They know they are Not
True Semitic/Israelites; yet they scream “Anti-Semite” with spine-chilling fervor
when-ever anyone seeks to hold them to accountability for their crimes.
Multitudes of such Honorable Americans as Benjamin Franklin, George Washington,
and Henry Ford; have all Documented their Culturally Evil-Agenda in great detail.
Modern “Rabbinical Judaism” is the Religious Descendant of those very same
Pharisees, and they all look to the same “Babylonian Talmud” Code of “Master/Slave
Laws” as the Primary Written “Code of Conduct” for their lives. The preponderance of
Ashkenazi/Khazars who serve this modern so-called “Religion” of “Rabbinical
Judaism” (with its Talmudian codifications designed to support slave-trading), all
indicate to this author that the underlying Conflict between the True Nation of Israel
(aka: the “True “Jews” (Revelation 2:9 and 3:9), and these Ashkenazi/Khazars,
reaches back way Further than their professed “Conversion to Judaism” in the year
740-ad or so.
I am inclined to believe they are “Canaanites”, in large part from the very obviously
similar phonetics of their names. I also tend to believe this proposition because of
the historically documented Evils of the Canaanite peoples. And I think that likely
reach-back even further to “Cain”; the legendary son of “Adam”, who allegedly first
slew his brother “Abel”.
. . . I feel it is undeniable that these very powerfully-intense forms of Evil still walk
this earth, with every bit of acidic-venom of those other very ancient, evil, and
suspiciously similarly-named cultures. [Overwhelmingly supported by such
anthropologists as Ripley, Weissenberg, Hertz, Boas, Mead and Fishberg, Arthur
Koestler’s The Thirteenth Tribe proves the vast majority of today’s Jews are
descendants of the Khazars of South Russia as do the Scripture, encyclopedias’, and
scores of historians.
“Civil-Law” and “Municipal-Law” and Their History
Textbooks show plainly that Rome is the source of English and American “Civil Law”.
Civil Law is recognized in Black’s Law Dictionary as synonymous with “Municipal
Law”; as follows:
Civil Law: That body of law which every particular nation, commonwealth,
or city has established peculiarly for itself; more properly called “municipal”
law, to distinguish it from the “law of nature”, and from international law.
Laws concerned with civil or private rights and remedies, as contrasted with
criminal laws.
Rome is well recognizable as an Aggressively Warring and Conquering nation. A
reputable Textbook of History entitled “Apollo, History of Rome” by Cyril E. Robinson
(1956), on pages 26 and 27 reads:
“Many factors contributed to (Rome’s) success; but more important than
her military powers, were the political methods where by she contrived to . .
. conquer. . . In 381, after overcoming the . . . town of Tusculum, she . . .
admitted it to terms . . . (under which it was) compelled to pay the war-tax,
and . . . a town thus treated was known as a muni-cipum or “burdenholder”.
Many of the peoples conquered by Rome were reduced to Slaves. No reputable
historian contests this fact. Webster’s New International Dictionary (1950, 2nd
Edition) links the above term “Muni-cipum” to our modern term “Municipal”; as
follows:
Municipal: . . . munia official duties + root capere to take. . . . Rom. Hist. Of
or pertaining to, or of the nature of, a muni-cipum.
It further goes on to make the following most note-worthy statement:
Municipal District: A subdivision of a region inhabited chiefly by non-
Ha’Mashiyachians.
The Roman merchants engaged in much Slave Trade. The establishment of “Slave-
Markets” was one of their top priorities. Contracts Exchanged hands among
Merchants for the Delivery of Slaves. The Codes which Governed these Contracts for
Slaves was based on the Same Codes which the Babylonians had developed. “Of . . .
these Rome was . . . possessed from the earliest period . . . “. (“Historical
Jurisprudence” – Lee, above).
Such Babylonian Master/Slave so-called “Law” is modernly still recognizable under
either term of “Civil” or “Municipal” Law. [Rome is the Seven-Headed “Beast”
described in Revelation. The “Great Prostitute” there-in described as sitting on or
controlling the “Seven-Headed Beast” of the Roman Empire which has gathered
within itself all the power and evil of the previous three Gentile world powers, is the
Roman Catholic church. – Ed.] This Beast was in existence at that time of
Ha’Mashiyach as the Civil/Military Government of Rome. . .
The Norman Conquest of England in 1066-ad
The Norman Conquest over the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic People of England in 1066 is
vastly under-rated in its significance for understanding modern models of good
government. From Rome, the “Norman Invasion” had the “Solemn Blessings of the
Pope”. This is shown in many citations, among which is the following:
“William had some difficulty in securing the help of his barons for his
proposed invasion of England; it was necessary to convince them
individually by threats and persuasions. Otherwise conditions were
favorable. William secured the benevolent neutrality of the emperor Henry
IV., and the expedition had the solemn approval of Pope Alexander II.”
Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol # 23, p.609; William 1: . . . Conquest of
England . . .
The Pharisaical system of “Commercial Law”, as codified in the “Babylonian Talmud”;
was at that time Forcibly Imposed by the Romanistic-Normans over the previously
Non-Romanized Ha’Mashiyachian/Common-Law Saxon-Anglo/English People. This is
shown as follows:
“The Jews, whom the Normans brought to England . . . [or who financed and
followed the invasion – Ed.] brought a refined system of commercial law:
their own form of commerce and a system of rules to facilitate and govern
it. . . Several elements of historical Jewish legal practice have been
integrated into the English legal system. Notable among these is the written
credit agreement – shetar, or starr, as it appears in English documents. The
basis of the shetar, or “Jewish Gage,” was a lien on all property (including
realty) that has been traced as a source of the modern mortgage. Under
Jewish law, the shetar permitted a creditor to proceed against all the goods
and land of the defaulting debtor. . . Jewish law that debts could be
recovered against a loan secured by “all property, movable and immovable”
was a weapon of socio-economic change that tore the fabric of feudal
society and established the power of liquid wealth in place of land
holding. . . . Jewish Law, wherein personal debt superseded rights in real
property had become the law of the land.” “Foootnote 11: H.C. Richardson,
The English Jewry Under Angevin Kings 94 (1960) (Jews liquidation of land
obligations broke down rigidity of feudal land tenure and facilitated transfer
of land to new capitalist class). Footnote 15: CF. 1 F. Pollock and F.W.
Maitland, supra note 3 at 469… (alien to English law for creditor not in
possession of land to have rights in it).”
“The Shetar’s Effect on English Law”, The Georgetown Law Journal; V. 71, P
1179 – 1200); Judith A. Shapiro.
Here-under; the Pharisees worked with the Normans under the “Blessing of
the Pope” of Rome. Here-under, Roman Civil/Municipal Codes were Forcibly
Imposed over the Non-Romanized Ha’Mashiyachian/Common-Law People of
England. As this Pharisee/Roman-Catholic Military Machine was Forcibly-
Imposed, the above text makes clear (seemingly happily) that a “Weapon of
Socio-Economic Change that Tore the Fabric” of the Society of the Anglo-
Saxon/Celtic Peoples. These ruthlessly shocking words are not composed by
this author; but they are the words chosen by Ms Shapirro as they appear in
her Georgetown Law Journal article. It seems that the aggressively warring
nature of that Babylonian-Talmudian based Code of Pharisaical Conduct is
not in question among that circle of scholars. It seems to clearly be a body
of Master’s Slave-Trading Codes, which are designed to “Tear at the Fabric”
of any Society which it targets.
[The invading Jews established the Exchequer – Ed.].
The “Shetar” is a corruption of the word “Star”, and it refers to the infamously
abusive “Star Chamber Courts”. This is shown in the following citations:
“The name star chamber . . . has been thought to be . . . because the roof
was originally studded with stars, because the Jewish covenants (called
starrs or stars . . .) were originally kept there.” Bovier’s Law Dictionary;
1860.
“Starr or starra. The old term for contract or obligation among the Jews,
being a corruption from the Hebrew word “Shetar”, a covenant, . . . and
Blackstone conjectures that the room in which the chests were kept was
thence called the “Star-Chamber”.”
“Star Chamber: A court which originally had jurisdiction in cases where the
ordinary course of justice was so much obstructed by one party, . . . that no
inferior court would find its process obeyed. . . In the reign of Henry the
8th, and his successors, the jurisdiction of the court was illegally extended
to such a degree (especially in punishing the king’s fiat arbitrary
proclamations He has imposed solutions by fiat) that it became odious to
the nation, and was abolished.” Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:
These courts of Pharisaical Commercial Master/Slave Codes became so heinous for
their “Secret Proceedings” and for their infliction of “Cruel and Unusual
Punishments”, that they were abolished. They are the essence of our modern
Anglo/American so-called “Equity” Jurisdiction. It was all run by “Chancery Priests”,
and they were referred to deceptively as “Courts of Equity”. The only thing “Equal”
about them is that all Conquered “Slaves” there-under were treated as “Equal-
Slaves”. “Courts of Chancery” is the more honest name which they also frequently
used, because a great “Chance” was being taken if a man were forced to go before
them. The linkage between “Equity Jurisdiction” and Romanistic “Civil/Municipal
Law”, is shown in the following:
“The whole of equity jurisprudence prevailing in England and the United
States is mainly based on the civil law”. Boviers Law Dictionary; 1868.
“Civil Law” is from Rome. There was no “Equity Jurisprudence” in England prior to
the Norman Conquest. The Norman Conquest had the “solemn approval of the Pope”
of Rome according to the above-quoted Encyclopedia Britannica, and many other
sources.
The obvious Conclusion is that the Norman’s “War of Aggression” was jointly backed
by the Pharisees and the Pope of Rome, all so as to Forcibly Impose the Roman
Civil/Municipal Codes of Babylonian-Talmudian based Master/Slave relations. These
were mere Tools for Slave Control which were early Imposed by Evil Men with great
influence with-in the Pharisaical and Roman-Catholic religious communities. All
Conscience-Bound People will recognize that No True Spirituality could possibly have
been brought in-to England at that time. The “Forces of Evil” Were In “Full Control”
during the so-called “Norman Conquest”. Just like at the Crusades; and at the
Inquisition. The religious forces consistently behind these movements have a very
consistently-evil track-record.
Evil men aggressively made Religious War against the Ha’Mashiyachian/Common-
Law – Anglo-Saxon/Celtic Peoples of England in 1066. The “Babylonian-Talmud” was
completed well before the Norman Conquest of 1066. It’s all the same basic
Master/Slave Commerce form of Code of Human Conduct. It all treats
living/breathing People as “Merchandise” in Commerce to be bought and sold as
those “Slaves and the Souls of Men” as referred to in Revelation 18:13. This entire
body of Codified Human-Conduct is all so amorally lacking in fidelity to the Supreme
Laws of “Love of Neighbor” from YHVH, as taught by His Son Y?shua; as to be clearly
a policy of the “Synagogue of Satan” as referred to at Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.
It is easy to summarize that this is that precise same Code of Human Conduct of
which the Pharisee “Money-Changers” were using to corrupt the Temple in
Jerusalem, and of which Ha’Mashiyach Y?shua over-turned their tables and drove
them out of His Father’s House with the whip. It is easy to summarize that this is the
Code of Conduct upon which the Pharisees moved to whip-up the mob into such a
fervent state of Anarchy as to abort “Due Process of Law” and to have Y?shua the
Ha’Mashiyach Lawlessly Nailed to the Stake.
Modern Applications of Ancient Babylonian Slave-Trading Codes:
This Code of Conduct embodied within the “Babylonian Talmud” is very large, but it
contains specific portions which are designed to “Tear at the Fabric” of the society
which is its target. These are the words of Ms Shapirro, as set forth in the
Georgetown Law Journal. This is not the wording of “Anti-Semitic Right Wing
Extremists”. Ms Shapiro’s term “Tear” is specifically used to denote that process
which obliterated the “Fabric of . . . Society”, as it had existed prior to that War of
Aggression. It would seem Reasonable to conclude that this is a “Code of Human
Conduct” based on “Terrorism”. Certainly the word “Tear” seems related to
“Terrorism”. Certainly the Anglo-Saxon/Celtic People fear Inspired by the forcible
imposition of this “Babylonian Talmud” based Code of Human Conduct. The wording
of Ms Shapirro Reasonably seems to be an acknowledgment that “Terrorism” was
used by the Normans and the Pharisees “who call themselves Jews” as a “matter of
Policy” under that Code of Human Conduct; all known as the “Babylonian Talmud”.
This entire body of Roman “Civil-Law” is designed to centralize the “Decision-Making
Authority” of the Entire Community in-to the Hands of a “Single Arbitrator”. This is
How All “Contracts” were En-Forced in the “Court of Equity”. It was early
incorporated into what was known as English “Law Merchant”, which many fine
scholars have confused as being a true part of the English “Common-Law”. Such
happened only after the corrupting influence of the “Norman Conquest”.
Contracts are only enforceable in Courts of so-called “Equity”. “Equity” jurisdiction
was allowed to enter into American Jurisprudence by way of Article 3 Section 2-1 of
the so-called “U.S. Constitution”. Such was a slap in the face of Ha’Mashiyach
Y?shua, and much Evil has worked its purpose in this land by way of that
compromise of ?lôhîym’s Principles.
How-ever, in the USA at the Federal Level and most (probably all) State Levels;
there are Protections in place against Summary Equity/Chancery Slave-Trader
Jurisdictions being imposed over American People. These Protections are available
through Constitutional, Statutory, and Case-Law Precedent Provisions. A full
explanation of these protections is not presented here; “US Supreme Court’s Case-
Law Precedent of “Beacon Theaters v Westover”.
Here-by; the “Equity” Jurisdiction is purged from all of its Lawful Authority to
adjudicate anything; If a proper “Due Process of Law” is invoked. By presenting a
“Counter-Complaint”, which there-by super-cedes and over-rides what is there-by
recognized as the constitutionally antagonistic “Equity” Jurisdiction; this modern
essence of “Law” allows Americans to Free Them-Selves from the Babylonian
Master/Slave-Traders Jurisdiction of so-called “Equity”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Post comment