By Pastor Don Elmore
"Then Jesus sent the multitudes away, and went into the house; and His [Jesus’] disciples came unto Him [Jesus], saying, Declare unto us [the disciples] the parable of the tares of the field.”
Have you ever wondered why the LORD Jesus spoke in parables? One example would be the parable of the “tares of the field.” After speaking this parable, the crowd left and Jesus went into the house. His disciples shortly joined Him and asked for an explanation of the parable. Jesus only gave the interpretation of the parable to His disciples. Why? Because the crowd was not there; they had been sent away.
One of the questions that was asked by His closest followers, was why He spoke in parables. His answer would be astounding and very confusing to the modern-day Judeo-Christian. It would be hard for them to understand. For the Messiah said that it was only His disciples that were granted to know about the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to the crowd it was not granted. What? Jesus said that the multitudes were not given the opportunity to know about the mysteries of the kingdom of God.
And another part was added to this enigma. For Jesus also said to His disciples that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what the disciples saw, and did not see it, and to hear what the disciples heard, and did not hear it (Matthew 13:17). That means that the disciples had been given the special gift of spiritual discernment in the meaning of the mysteries of the kingdom; even as some of the ancient prophets and righteous men had not.
This was a shock to my brain when I first heard this truth because I had learned as a young man, from my Judeo-Christian church, that Jesus was a master teacher. I had been taught that He spoke in parables so that everyone could understand what He was teaching. But this wasn’t true at all. Jesus was a master teacher, but He didn’t teach everyone that was in His audience; for He had the ability to speak so that who He wanted to hear could hear and who He didn’t want to hear, couldn’t. That destroys the belief in the universal message!
Have you ever wondered, if the Bible is so simple to understand, why couldn’t a racial stranger pick up the Bible and understand everything that is in it? In fact, why couldn’t an enemy of Christianity cause all kinds of problems by questioning parts of the Bible? It must be true that the Bible is written in a language that can be only understood when it is deciphered by the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is not given to all the different races of people in the world, only part of one race.
The Bible says that the Holy Scriptures are written to the covenant people only.
Psalm 147:19, 20:
19) “He showeth His Word unto Jacob, His statutes and His judgments unto Israel.
20) He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for His judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.”
A Negro, an Oriental, a Jew, an Arab, a mongrel, a Mexican, all individuals of different races besides the covenant people of God, can never understand what is written in the Bible. It is a racist book. It tells of a racist God. It tells of laws given to God’s people, who are the “apple of His eye.” It tells how they can be the most prosperous of all people if they just follow His laws. And it tells how they can be the tail if they disobey His commandments and they will find themselves being ruled over by their enemies. Only an Israelite can be a Christian.
Let’s look at just one of these laws, that is omitted from the “Christianized” world of today. To obey this law carries with it a blessing from God.
19) “Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury.
20) Unto a stranger [#5237—“nokri”; foreigner, alien] thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shall not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.”
So, what does this law of Almighty God have to do with the history of civilization? Why is this knowledge so unknown? I believe it is because most of the Bible is not read, and if it is read, it is not understood by most of its readers. The pulpits are the place where the true meaning of the Scriptures is to be told, but the pastors have failed in this job completely. But for the few in the pulpits, who are given the Holy Spirit to interpret correctly what the Bible is saying, the events that happen in the world don’t seem so random and helter-skelter but are thought out and carefully planned.
Take, for example, Deuteronomy 23:19 and 20. How can anyone, including the main Enlightenment philosopher, John Locke, say from these two verses that everyone is equal in God’s law? For an Israelite is not allowed to make any usury loans to a fellow Israelite, but to a non-racial Israelite it is permissible. In fact, it is a capital offense for any Israelite who breaks this law and makes a usury loan to his brother.
So, how could an Israelite charge usury to his brother? The response is to have the stranger, i.e. a racial foreigner, be the individual who charges usury to the Israelite.
And were God’s people (Christendom) wrong in following this law for many centuries? Christendom had no usury for centuries and for several hundred years the Christians of this age only had to work for a little more than a 1/4 of a year (14 of 52 weeks).
THE RACIAL STRANGER DOES USURY BANKING
Ever since the year 1290, there were no Jews in England. They had been kicked out of that nation. As explained in his book, The Vigilantes of Christendom, the late Richard Hoskins went into detail about how usury came to power in the Israelite lands. The Jews had first entered Britain in 1066 AD and charged usury to the nation and citizens. And then why were they thrown out.
“In the Synod of Exeter in 1287, three years before the Jews were banished, Christians and Jews …were forbidden to eat together:
1 Corinthians 5:11: “If any…be a fornicator or…and idolater…or an extortioner, with such a one, no not to eat.” …and against Jews holding public office;
Deuteronomy 17:15: “Thou mayest not set a stranger (Hebrew: zuwr—racial alien) over thee, which is not thy brother.” ... or having Christian servants;
Deuteronomy 15:6: “Thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.” …and denied to Jews entrance into churches.
Leviticus 22:10: “There shall no stranger [zuwr] eat of the holy thing.”
Numbers 1:51: “When the tabernacle is to be pitched…the stranger [zuwr] that cometh nigh shall be put to death.”
[The Jews were forbidden to eat with Christians, hold public office, have Christian servants, their usury banks were closed, and they were forbidden to enter their churches; sounds like another European nation later in history.]
With the power of the usurers diminished, the King, Richard I, issued a decree that his usury bankers [Jews] be banished from England.
The [Jewish] usurers had been brought to England to gather wealth for their master, the king, by using the usury system that the king’s Christian faith forbade him to use. They, [the Jewish bankers], had served their purpose and had been discarded.
Their history from this time revolves about their [Jews] attempt to re-enter England and re-establish the usury practices that had proved so profitable before, however, without the hindrances and restrictions that had formerly been present.
[It took about 3 1/2 centuries for the Jews to finally gain permission to have residence back in England.]
At the time of their attempted re-entry in the early 1600’s, the land situation in England (and the rest of Europe) was…that the land belonged to the [Catholic] church, who confirmed a king to manage it for them on shares, and the people shared with the nobles on whose estates they labored.
The days of the 1300s had gone when ‘a laborer could provide all the necessities for his family for a year by working only 14 weeks.’
The [Jewish usury] bankers’ effort to enter Britain was at last successful. It was done through negotiations with an English ruler. Past English rulers had been unsympathetic to entry pleas. So, the bankers got their own English rulers by financing competitors for the throne. Of course, it was agreed that the new rulers would be properly grateful and would be lenient on the subject of entry, and on their activities after their entrance.
Oliver Cromwell [the Puritan] came to power in this manner. He was bountifully financed during his rise by the international bankers [Jews] in Amsterdam and was their servant.
Proverbs 22:7 “The borrower is slave to the lender.”
Later, Charles II was assisted from his exile [in Holland] and return by Mendes da Costa and Augustine Coronel-Chacon [Jews]. After that, William III [from the Netherlands] of Orange’s venture to capture the English throne was financed by a loan of 2,000,000 gulden from Antoni Lopez Suasso [Jew].
All of these loans had strings attached, as all loans do. It was worth the effort and risk of interfering in the internal matters of a sovereign nation if the prize might be the banking monopoly of that nation. By this time the king had taken the church land and declared himself sole owner. He was now ruler of both the country and the church. To control the king with loans and attached loan-agreements was to control almost the entire nation.
In this manner the usurer bankers [Jews] emerged as the actual managers, manipulating the kings of England with their loans. The kings only spoke for their masters [Jews].” Vigilantes of Christendom, pages 18-20.
There was war once again in England. In fact, there were three civil wars fought during this short time (ten year) period. The monarchy lost the first two civil wars and the King, Charles I, although many citizens of England would not sign the papers to commit his execution, there were others that did.
One that did was Oliver Cromwell, who triumphed over the monarchy when he had King Charles I beheaded on January 30, 1649. The Republic of England, known as the Commonwealth of England, began immediately after his execution. And the chaos just continued.
Establishment of the Commonwealth: 1649
For the next few years, the Republic of England fought an almost genocidal war in Catholic Ireland and Presbyterian Scotland. Oliver Cromwell eventually took over from Parliament as the head ruler (dictator) in England and served for about five years until his mysterious death on September 3, 1658, when he was 59 years old. After his inept son ruled for a couple of years, the royalty was called back from exile in France and Charles II was restored as the Monarchy ruler. The Commonwealth of England only lasted for 11 years, but the Jews were now the secret rulers behind the curtain.
Oliver’s grave was dug up on January 30, 1661, on the twelfth-year anniversary of the King’s beheading, and Cromwell’s body was hanged in a post humous execution and then thrown into a pit. His skull had been cut off first and displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685. It was owned by several individuals before it was eventually buried beneath the floor of the antechapel at his alma mater, Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.
Did What Happen in Britain Have Any Effect in America?
What does all this, the Jews reentering, starting and controlling the usury central bank in England, have to do with the people living in America? A lot, because we were part of Britain when all of this happened. We were one of the many colonies of the British Empire and what affects Britain affects their colonies.
The Pilgrims and Puritans were both strong Protestants; they were Calvinists. The main difference between the two was that the Pilgrims separated from the Church of England while the Puritans vowed to remain in the Church and purify it from within. They both felt that the Church of England was too Catholic.
The “separatist” Pilgrims came first in 1620 and anchored in Provincetown Harbor, Massachusetts. The Pilgrims were headed to the Colony of Virginia to begin their new settlement but ended up in Provincetown when they encountered dangerous storms trying to make it around Cape Cod.
It was only 29 years later, 1649, when the Monarchy ended abruptly in England. The king of England was executed, and after a couple of years, the Puritan, Oliver Cromwell, took over the rulership of England and her colonies.
In the decade before the King’s execution, approximately 20,000 Puritans emigrated to New England in a Great Migration. In 1642, after the English Civil Wars began, over 3,000 of the male colonists in America returned to England to fight against the Monarchy and for the Parliament.
Meanwhile, Virginia was battling for its survival in a war against the Powhatan Indians (1644-1646) which saw a tenth of the colonial population killed in the initial massacre. Royalist propaganda accused the Roundheads, those who fought against the Monarchy and for Oliver Cromwell, of stirring up the natives. As a result, practically all Puritans and Presbyterians were expelled from the Virginia colony. After the regicide, Virginia remained faithful to the House of Stuart, although the English Parliament had decreed that support for Charles II was treason.
But when the Jews were once again allowed to re-enter Britain, the Jews were slowly allowed to enter her colonies. In September 1654, twenty-three Sephardic Jews entered New Amsterdam (which was owned by the Netherlands), which in 1664 become New York (owned by the British).
The charter of the colony of South Carolina granted liberty of conscience to all settlers, expressly mentioning, Jews, heathens and dissenters. As a result, Charleston, South Carolina was the largest Jewish population of any city in the United States until the 1830s. The parasitic Jew began his destructive powers to kill Jacob.
From the time the Jews reentered England, it was approximately 120 years before the colony in North America broke off from her former nation and became “independent.” But how independent were they? Not very. For they were still under the usury bank of England which was controlled by the Jews.
After we won our “independence” we were under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 till 1789, when George Washington became our first president under the Constitution. But that was 13 years since America declared their independence. Did we have any presidents then?
There aren’t many high school students (or college) who have ever heard the answer! We had 8-14 Presidents of the Continental Congress, or Presidents of the united colonies of America, or Presidents of the Continental Congress of the united states of America, or Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled. It all depends on if you think the nation became a country when it declared its independence in 1776, or when the Articles of Confederation were adopted in 1781, or when the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. But the first President of the United States after the Constitution was adopted was George Washington; but he was the fifteenth over-all president of the united states.
Nevertheless, under the Constitution it says:
Article 1, Section 8: “That Congress shall have the power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.”
Two years after the Constitution was in effect, on February 8, 1791 a bill establishing the First National Bank was passed by a vote of 39-20 in the House of Representatives. The majority of votes against the bank came from the southern states.
The bill moved on to President Washington for his executive signature. Some Congressmen and government officials urged President Washington to sign the First Bank into law. Others implored him to veto the bill.
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson expressed his opposition to the Bank. He believed the Bank was unconstitutional because it was an unauthorized extension of federal power. Congress, Jefferson argued, possessed only delegated powers which were specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Attorney General Edmund Randolph agreed with Jefferson.
Washington, undecided at the time, passed their arguments on to Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, (an agent for the Rothschilds), asking him for his opinion. Hamilton used the charter of the Bank of England as the basis for his plan. Alexander Hamilton convinced President Washington to sign the bill into law on February 25, 1791.
What Happened When the Charter for the Bank Came Due?
Although the Bank’s charter did not expire until 1811, discussions about renewing it began much earlier. In 1808, the Bank’s shareholders asked Congress to extend the charter. In March 1809, Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin recommended renewing the Bank’s charter. Congress let the matter languish until January 1810. At that time, the House gave the request for renewal a quick reading but took no action. Finally, in January 1811, both chambers of Congress engaged in a debate on whether to renew. Later that month, the House voted against renewal by just one vote.
In February, Gallatin again recommended renewing the Bank’s charter. The Senate vote, however, resulted in a tie. The vice president, George Clinton of New York, cast the tie-breaking vote, and the charter renewal was again defeated by one vote. (Sounds very similar to what is happening today. Same thing happened on August 7th of this year, 2022.)
By 1811, many of those who had opposed the bank in 1790-91 still opposed it for the same reasons and said the charter should be allowed to expire. But this time, Alexander Hamilton, the chief promoter of the first National Bank, was dead; killed in a duel with Aaron Burr, and his pro-Bank Federalist Party was out of power. The Democratic-Republican Party was in control. Furthermore, by 1811, the number of state banks had increased greatly, and those financial institutions feared both competition from a national bank and its power. Plus, gold and silver coins were still being used as money.
The War of 1812, (which ended in 1815) was fought over this central bank losing its charter in the United States. After many very fierce battles, including the White House being burnt to the ground, the war eventually ended in 1815. England was also involved with the war against Napoleon in Europe at the same time. The War of 1812 ended (1815), after no clear victory by either combatant, but the United States had acquired so much more debt that the Second National Bank was argued to be needed. It received its 20-year charter in 1816.
What Happened to the Second National Bank?
The year was 1816, just one year after the famous battle of Waterloo, now located in Belgium, and the Rothschild’s complete takeover of the Bank of England and of its stock market. Then the fifth president of the United States and last founding father to be president, James Monroe, a Deist and freemason, created the Second National Bank. The new bank’s charter was a copy of the previous bank.
Just as before, the identity of the primary stockholders remained a secret, but it is known that the largest block of shares, about 1/3rd of the total, were sold to foreigners. As one observer put it, it is certainly no exaggeration to say that the Second Bank of the United States was rooted as deeply in Britain as it was in America. So, by 1816, the Rothschilds (Jews) had taken control of the Bank of England and backed the new privately owned central bank in America as well.
The History website says the following:
“A national bank had first been created by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton in 1791 to serve as a central repository for federal funds. The Second Bank of the United States was founded in 1816; five years after this first bank’s charter had expired. Traditionally, the bank had been run by a board of directors with ties to industry and manufacturing, and therefore was biased toward the urban and industrial northern states. Jackson, the epitome of the frontiersman, resented the bank’s lack of funding for expansion into the unsettled Western territories. Jackson also objected to the bank’s unusual political and economic power and to the lack of congressional oversight over its business dealings…
He [Jackson] made clear that he planned to challenge the constitutionality of the bank, much to the horror of its supporters. In response, the director of the bank, Nicholas Biddle, flexed his own political power, turning to members of Congress, including the powerful Kentucky Senator Henry Clay [who became Jackson’s presidential opponent in the 1832 election] and leading businessmen sympathetic to the bank, to fight Jackson….”
In 1832, Senator Henry Clay, Jackson’s opponent in the Presidential election of that year, proposed re-chartering the Bank early. The bill passed Congress, but Jackson vetoed it, declaring that the Bank was:
- Unauthorized by the Constitution,
- Subversive to the rights of States, and
- Dangerous to the liberties of the people.
Is that still true? After his reelection, Jackson announced that the Government would no longer deposit Federal funds with the Second National Bank and would place them in state banks. Supporters of the National Bank in the Senate were furious and took the unprecedented step of censuring Jackson. The President held fast, however, and when the Bank’s charter expired in 1836, it was never renewed. The Second Bank of the United States had come to its conclusion, which President Jackson believed was a greedy monopoly dominated by rich American and foreign (Jewish) interests.
After this time, when the nation’s central bank had been eliminated, the principal “money changers” struggled to regain their lost centralized power, but to no avail. Then, finally they reverted to the old central banker’s formula: have a war to create debt and dependency. If they couldn’t get their central bank any other way, America could be brought to its knees by plunging it into a brutal War. They just repeated what had been done in 1812, after the First Bank of the United States was not re-chartered.
After the war between the two nations, the Union versus the Confederate States of America (1861-1865), the United States was in so much debt that it became bankrupt and as a result became a corporation in 1871. `It is well settled that the “UNITED STATES” has been a corporation, since it was incorporated on February 21, 1871 under the name “District of Columbia.” It was reorganized June 11, 1878 as a bankrupt organization and on June 5, 1933, as a de facto government; originally the ten mile square (100 square miles) tract ceded by Maryland and Virginia and comprising Washington District of Columbia, plus the possessions, territories, forts, and arsenals.
It was less than forty-two years after the United States became a corporation, that the nation once again had a Jewish usury central bank but this time without a 20-year charter. The money had progressed from being redeemed by gold or silver coins to be completely fiat. Soon, there will be no physical money at all. It will be all digital. And we owe over $30 trillion in debt which is still climbing at an alarming rate.
Did God’s law provide for His nation having a central usury bank controlled by His enemies? Did Israel, in which Almighty God was King, designate foreigners (even their most fierce enemies) to be part owners and be paid interest on loans that they made to the nation of Israel and to it citizens? Did Israel have fiat paper money? Did Israel have a promise of 2% annual inflation?
If Christians really read their Bibles and understood what they read, and put what God told us to do in the United States, there would be:
- No interest or usury on loans, except to racial foreigners,
- No “money” created by debt,
- No inflation,
- No paper fiat money,
- No multiplication of debt with the creation of credit,
- No monopolies,
- No corporations,
- No credit card companies,
- No gigantic farms,
- No stock and bond markets,
- No central usury banking system,
- No massive bond buying by the fed,
- No prison system,
- No public-school system,
- No “sorceries” or pharmacies,
Ezekiel 22:12: “In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord God.”
Were the First National Bank, the Second National Bank and the present Federal Reserve System all biblical (Christian) or were they all unbiblical (non-Christian)? Should the pulpits preach that there should be no USURY banks in America charging interest to the people of the covenant, except they could charge it to racial foreigners; or should they do, as they are doing now, just ignore this great sin and have its citizens be slaves? Christendom had no usury banks for centuries, and for several centuries only had to work for 1/4 of a year.
Do you hate or like or are you indifferent towards the devoted Calvinist Oliver Cromwell? He was a Puritan who believed pointless enjoyment was frowned upon:
- Cromwell shut many inns and closed all the theaters.
- Most sports were banned.
- He loaded tens of thousands of Covenanters of Scotland and thousands of Catholic young men and boys from Ireland onto ships and sold them into slavery in Virginia and the Caribbean Islands?
- Gambling dens and brothels were closed.
- Sunday became a very special day under the Puritan leader. Most forms of work were banned. Women caught doing unnecessary work on the Holy Sabbath were put in stocks.
- He outlawed the celebration of the Mass of Christ (Christmas), Easter and Whitsunday.
- He outlawed all monopolies.
- He fined anyone who swore. If the person continued this practice he was put in prison.
- He believed that women and girls should dress in a proper manner. Make-up was banned.
- Once a month, there was a mandatory fast day.
- All of Cromwell’s laws were enforced by his army.
- But he let the antichristian Jews, the enemy of our God and His followers, back into God’s elect nation--Britain. They began charging usury to the nation and its individual citizen’s loans after they were free from this economic disaster for almost 400 years.
- And now they are ruling the United States, and the other Israelite nations, by charging us interest on almost everything.
- They have become judges (two are now on the Supreme Court), 10 are in the United States Senate and 27 are in the House of Representatives, two are state governors, many are advisors to the Presidents, all have been chosen as heads of the Federal Reserve Banking System, many are huge donors to both political parties, many have been creators and leaders of the civil rights movement, many have been creators and leaders of Communism, and many are leaders and supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement, etc.
Oliver Cromwell was a Calvinist, a follower of John Calvin. But he was not a follower of Martin Luther. Why? Because John Calvin believed in usury and Luther did not.
Luther, at first, showed support to the Ashkenazim Jews. But later in his life he read a copy of the Jewish “holy book” the Talmud. Luther was enraged and compelled to write a booklet titled, The Jews and Their Lies and denounced them harder than any pope ever did. Luther then spoke out against usury and the Jewish bankers. Luther, at the end of his life, even identified the usury bankers and told his readers to expel them.
So, Cromwell’s life proved to be disastrous for all the Israelite nations of the world. He failed in so many areas. He failed:
- In the elimination of usury,
- In taking usury loans from the enemies of God and His people,
- In not knowing who the enemy of God and His people were,
- In giving the enemy of Christianity the power to control them,
- In signing the papers for the execution of the king of England,
- In massacring his brothers.
Should the churches, as well as the nation, learn from Cromwell’s huge mistakes?
May God have mercy on our souls.
Blessed be the LORD God of Israel.