Skip to content

A Crucial Lesson Of History: Why Do We Have Usury?

by on June 18, 2021
John Calvin by Titian

(Left/Above: John Calvin, Prophet of the Money Changers)

Usury was forbidden in Europe, during the Medieval Era. But there was no mechanism to provide interest-free credit. As a result, there was credit scarcity. This was a very real problem, hindering economic expansion. And this was the rationale for letting the Money Lenders back in.

1500 Europe was a burgeoning Civilization, that was seeing growing urbanization and specialization in the economy.

Because of Usury prohibition, there was no Banking. There was an economy based on the understanding that men share the common fate of having to wrest a living from the Earth, and that brotherly love, and not money grabbing, was the basis of the economy.

It’s hard to even fathom such enlightenment now, and certainly things will not have been all roses. But this was how they thought and operated.

However, the economy was stalling because of a bottleneck: there was insufficient credit.

The key problem was that the Powers that Be, the Aristocracy and the Church, were not developing interest-free lending. What should have been done is organizing collective savings, and using those for both mutual credit, and mutual guarantees.

It could have been done, but the rich and powerful are typically not too concerned with the needs of the masses, and usually see them as a herd to be exploited, and this was definitely ongoing in Europe at the time too.

Be that as it may, the key economic issue is that businesses needed credit for further expansion, and it was hard to come by. And this was stifling economic development.

And this, then, was the key rationale for ‘rational’ people saying that Usury must again be permitted, to entice the rich to lend.

Francis Bacon

Francis Bacon, arguably the most influential man of the 16th century, wrote a screed ‘Of Usury‘ in which he put it bluntly:
“since there must be borrowing and lending, and men are so hard of heart as they will not lend freely, usury must be permitted.”

In this quote, we can clearly see the need for credit, and that apparently lending was insufficient. He points at the ‘hard hearts of men’, which is a direct reference to Jesus’ famous parable of the Talents, in which He tells the wicked servant something to the effect of ‘if you really thought I was that hard of heart, you should have put the money in to a bank to collect interest for me’. (Matthew 25:26-27).

Men will not lend without interest. At any rate, the rich, who have the money, won’t.

Again, this problem could have been solved in other ways, even at the time, but this was the direction the debate in society was taking. And make no mistake, this debate was heavily manipulated by the money lenders behind the scenes, Michael Hoffman extensively documented this in his ‘Usury In Christendom’.

Francis Bacon himself obviously was a highly connected Rosicrucian and Freemason. He was definitely doing the work of the secret societies.

John Calvin
Another notorious 16th century enabler of Usury is John Calvin.

Calvin was famous for his scriptural expertise, and to this day Calvinists and Presbyterians use the motto ‘sole scriptura’.

And John Calvin concluded, in a letter to a friend: “I do not consider that usury is wholly forbidden among us, except it be repugnant to justice and charity.”

He apparently overlooked Deuteronomy 23:19:
Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury“.

So Calvin was just lying. Of course, the Scriptures radiate an absolute disgust of Usury in general. Peter, in an apocryphal book, said that he saw the Usurers in Hell, thrown into boiling mire and filth. At the link you can find dozens of other Bible verses directed against Usury.

By the Bankster con job known as ‘Modern Economics‘, Calvin is credited thusly:
But his real contribution was going further and demolishing the old Scholastic arguments about the unnaturalness of “money begetting money”, by emphasizing the relationship of credit to economic activity.  “Why should the lender be cheated of his just due, if the money profits the other man, and he be the richer of the two?”

“Here Calvin states that usury is permissible, but only on commercial loans, and subject to additional conditions, notably, that it never be demanded of the poor & needy”

Note that Calvin is emphasizing commercial credit, which is exactly the problem we’re discussing: credit was needed for further economic development.

Also note that Calvin says Usury must not be demanded of the poor, only commercial loans. But in doing so, he ‘overlooks’ that when businesses borrow at interest, they will have to pass on these costs to the consumers, who ultimately pay for everything. And these consumers would have been the peasants.

As we know, today 40% of prices is Usury passed on by producers.

It’s hard to overstate Calvin’s influence on the rise of Banking and Capitalism during Modernity. The Amsterdam Empire was controlled by hard core Calvinists. London, which was the successor base of International Finance after the Cromwell and Glorious Revolutions in the 17th century, was Presbyterian.

The United States’ brand of Christianity has always been a mix of Dutch and British Calvinism. And these three Nations are the main culprits in the Capitalist take over of the West and the World.

Having said all this, and as Hoffman also indicates: we cannot blame Usury on Calvin alone. The Vatican had already been taken over by the Medici in the 14th/15th century, which is why Usury came back in Italy with their blessing.

Debt-free money
Classical American Populism has always promoted debt-free money. Which would indeed be much better than what we have now. It would solve the National Debt.

But not the need for commercial credit.

The issue at hand is: debt free money does not provide interest-free credit, while credit will still be needed. The Populists deny this, and say that with plentiful money, there will be no need for loans. But there was plentiful money in Medieval Europe. There was no money scarcity, there was credit scarcity. Usury is a function of credit, not money. But it will overtake money, if allowed. If anything, Modernity has shown that.

Only after the Usurers got back on the saddle, did money scarcity come to Europe. Usury is a key driver of money scarcity.

It’s a vital and crucial lesson: Usury Prohibition failed because it was not combined with the provision of interest-free credit. As a result there was credit scarcity in the economy, and this was used as the excuse to let the Money Changers back in.

Usury prohibition is not enough: interest-free credit is needed, or there will be bottlenecks in economic development.

It will help to have the Government print debt free money, but there will still be a need for credit in the economy, and debt cannot be entirely avoided. Especially in industry and commerce.

And there is no need to entirely avoid it, because we can simply create all the credit we need in the same way banks do today, but without the Usury.

The solution to interest on loans of money is not to end credit, but to have no interest on loans of money.

Capitalism Is Jewish Usury
Rationalizing Usury: the Time Value Hoax
The Difference Between Debt Free Money and Interest Free Credit
How Usury Encloses The Commons
Cause and Effects of Money Scarcity
More on Mutual Credit


From → Uncategorized

  1. david permalink

    you definitely have a point. to ban lending – regardless of whether it’s usurious or not – when people have a need to borrow is obviously no solution. but why do people need to borrow in the first place? is it anything to do with us having our lands stolen & rented back to us at “whatever the market will bear”?? because if it is, which it must surely be, henry georges Land Tax is definitely part of the solution

  2. Reblogged this on muunyayo .

  3. kingedward1wasright1290 permalink

    “The ostentation which possession of great wealth enabled the Jews to display, and their unconcealed contempt for the practices of Christianity, made them an object of universal dislike; as usurers, moreover, they had gained a strangle-hold on the recently founded monastic houses whose splendid buildings they had financed, and on many of the smaller aristocratic families…” From Domesday Book to Magna Carta (1951), p. 353

  4. I am sceptic. Lending out property is not different than lending out money, and both may be compensated for risk of return, inflation (for money) or wear/tear (objects), utility foregone. this is classical economics and was already accepted by the late scholastics (Salamanca school) and a number of other medieval and later authors (Turgot, Cantillon). A complete overview is available in M. Rothbard (An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought – freely available at If free men decide to enter into a loan, who are we/government to object to their mutually agreed interest (exception perhaps for consumer protection laws). If my reading is correct, the credit scarcity in medieval Europe was due in part to usury laws (insufficient compensation for risk of loan loss) but also due to legal uncertainty and lack of viable security mechanisms.

    • What would you prefer: a mortgage at 5% or one at 0%?

      Why do you think Usury is strictly forbidden in Christendom and Islam?

      Here, read up on who is behind Rothbard and the Mises Institute:

      This article was the first in a series, the rest you can find here, plus a detailed deconstruction of Austrian Economics and its Gold buggery:

    • PJ London permalink

      Actually there is a huge difference between lending money and lending property. The fact that you can say this is quite disturbing.
      One is a hard physical asset that cannot be alienated or disposed of, the other is an airy-fairy IOU that can be repudiated at any time.
      This may be why money lenders always require ownership of hard assets as guarantees for loans.

      • See also:

        You decide to “apply for a home loan” — right? Typical story. You … soliciting for you to loan them your home as an asset that … were paying on a home loan toward paying off their

        When they advertise a “home loan” you naturally assume … are proposing that you loan them your home as collateral backing their debts and investments. “Home loan”– right? What if

        When a bank advertises “home loans” are they offering to loan … interpret “home loans” as an offer to loan you money for a home, when … a “home loan” involves you loaning your home (and

        A Note about Money and Foreclosures—- Pun Intended
        I supposedly got this “home loan” and supposedly received $225, … pretended to give people “home loans” when in fact the … providing you with a “home loan”, they are cheating the

        When the actual deal is examined, it shows up as a fraud scheme similar to “home loans”. You think … you to loan them your home as collateral … s what a “home loan” really is. They

        They think that when they went to a bank and got a “home loan” or a “car loan” that they … were duped into loaning their homes and their cars … course. A “home loan” in this

        When the bank approves a home loan for $300,000.00 they go … the whole amount of the loan—which it does. The Federal … the entire amount of the loan from your assets, then makes

        Home Loans”? Did you ever once … banks were advertising for you to loan your home to them? Well, that is in … of your lifetimes, what that “Home Loans” sign meant was –come here

        When they advertise “home loans” they are soliciting you to loan your home to them as an asset —a … return the amount of the purported “home loan” to you, and you think that

        Prior to 1933, when someone offered you a “home loan” it meant they … it meant, “Hey, buddy, loan us your home as an asset and … to assume that a “home loan” still meant that they

  5. The National Socialist German Workers Party Program sought to abolish interest. Maybe the real reason for WWII?

  6. PJ London permalink

    Thank you Anthony for the article.
    Islamic banking works very well. Both in the commercial level and at the private level.
    Simply put, the bank requires a security for the loan, and becomes a participant in profit.
    If there is no profit from the venture then the loan is repaid without increase. If there is a profit then the loan is repaid plus a percentage of the gain.
    With elements such as housing and consumer goods, then one uses a rent to buy agreement.
    Whether the lender uses an internal hurdle rate of return or not is between him and his maker.
    The effect is that the buyer has to pay an agreed amount for an item and pays on instalments. Once the instalments are paid the goods are transferred and become his.
    Hire purchase but without the interest function.
    Very often the Lender is known to the borrower and/or related to the borrower.
    Mosques and associations are the primary means of accessing Lenders. (Very similar to Jewish businesses and Synagogues).
    It is my belief that provision and managing of interest free Credit should be one of the primary objectives of government.
    Of course there will be some fraud and some bad luck but that should not deter the majority.
    We see this in every sphere, that because 2 people misuse firearms 100,000,000 are denied access.
    That because some people abuse children every adult male is regarded as a potential paedophile.
    The fact that some people will abuse interest free credit and may become “bad debts” should not mean that it is denied to all.
    Private and commercial banking does not need to be banned, but it would not survive in its’ present form if an alternative becomes available.

  7. pipefighter permalink


    Not many in the world would defy the moneylenders as we have. When Abraham Lincoln and Salmon Chase issued notes to pay for their Civil War expenditures in the (haha United) States they opened my eyes about the 1690 Bills of Credit in Massachusetts Bay Colony. Lincoln’s Greenback notes and the 1690 Bills of Credit were something for something credit.

    I’m very, very happy a Western European is finally expounding this’ history about the money mystery so clearly. It remains a mystery to the general population from our morally bankrupt political and educational systems.

    I only wish these recent posts of yours could be directly shared at CAU. FaceBerg does everything in his power to keep your writings out of his outreach. Too bad some of your earlier FB posts were directed at the you know whos.

    If I get time in the future, would you object to me posting them as PDFs by The Dutchman at CAU? I would do it cryptically with the WordPress link embedded in The Dutchman as before.

    Historical accuracy as contained in these essays of yours should be made available to a much wider audience. I know you already have nearly 4000 followers. And hopefully even that will grow.


  8. Kenneth Yakovac permalink

    Great article, but don’t leave us hanging, Anthony. Tell us how a system that provides usury free credit would work. Would this be private money, or printed government money? And how do you avoid loans being political bribes? You;ve been pretty active lately, so I guess this will be your next installment to come out next week. 😉

  9. Neville permalink

    You are truly amazing Anthony and clearly a good honest Christian
    Big hug from Australia
    Neville Mladen and Mikulandra

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Absolutely Shocking Predictions By ChatGPT About The Coming Financial Collapse | Real Currencies
  2. A Crucial Lesson Of History: Why Do We Have Usury? | From the Trenches World Report

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: