The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1391: Smashing the 'Forced Into Finance' Trope

Episode Date: July 5, 2026

56 MinutesPG-13Pete reads and comments on the 2018 Andrew Joyce Ph.D. article, Reply to Danya Ruttenberg on Jews and Usury. Reply to Danya Ruttenberg on Jews and UsuryPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's PaypalPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

With election time approaching, political ads will be inserted into the episode along with other ads that, frankly, I'm not going to like and you aren't going to like. So please ignore them, skip by them, whatever you have to do. I don't endorse any of the ads that are inserted, but it is another way for me to generate income. So I appreciate you guys putting up with them. If you don't want to deal with them, go to the Picanuena Show.com. can subscribe through Patreon. You can subscribe through Substack, which is my preferred one. Because with both of those, you get an RSS feed, only Patreon and only Substack give you an RSS feed. There's also a link to my website, Gumroad, and SubscribeStar, where you will get

the audio files that you can download and listen to or you can stream in most cases through those locations as well. So if you want to avoid the ads, consider supporting the show If not, just know none of these ads get any endorsement from me. Skip by them. Do what you need to do. I appreciate all of you. Head on over to Pekignone's Show.com. You can get the show early and ad free over there.

If not, here's a show. All right, everyone. Back with a solo episode. Found another great article at the Occidental Observer. This is one that was sent to me. Oh, like four or five years ago. It's another one I've been wanting to read and just, you know, with summer around and a lot of people are traveling and, you know, some people just aren't available for interviews. I will take the opportunity to do some on my own.

So if you're looking at the video of this and the video is going to be available for supporters, it looks like a really, really like somebody made an egg. eye of a very anti-Semitic kind of picture. But no, what we'll find out is, is this is all started. The subject of this article, how this article came about was that some New Jersey politician sent these flyers out saying that their opponent was really greedy. And the opponent happened to be Jewish. shocking in New Jersey, I know. And Andrew Joyce, who's article I read on the windrush,

on the SS Windrush, did an article addressing some concerns that were made by someone named Dania Rutenberg. This article is from November 16, 2018. Now, what he, what Dr. Joyce took the opportunity, to do was to address some of the tropes. Some of us get accused of using tropes, but everybody uses tropes. And the trope is that Jews weren't, because Christians weren't allowed to charge interest, Jews were brought in.

And so I've even heard in some cases that Christians taught Jews how to charge interest so that they could do something Christians weren't allowed to. But so Dr. Joyce takes the opportunity to say, hmm, you know, you're talking about the last 2,000 years. I don't know, maybe we can look at some examples from even before then. And he just seeks to dispel some myths. So why don't I get into the, get into Dr. Joyce here. And he's basically responding to a bunch of tweets.

So there's going to be screenings. shots of tweets in here. And yeah, it's all good stuff. I think you're going to enjoy it. You're going to learn a lot here. So the article November 16, 2018, reply to Daniel Rutenberg on Jews and Usory by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. He starts out.

I must object to Daniel Rutenberg's recent Twitter thread on Jewish usury. The threat appears to have been prompted by a mail or sent out by Connecticut. Oh, I'm sorry, Connecticut, not. Jersey, but anyone who knows the history of Connecticut, especially Hartford. Yeah, same thing applies. Connecticut, GOP, state senator, Senate candidate Ed Sharimut, which shows Jewish opponent Matt Lesser clutching a fistful of cash. Criticism from Jews was almost immediate with familiar claims, that the piece played

into harmful anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews as greedy, exploitative, and untrustworthy. Keremut initially attempted to defend his usage of the image and accused Lesser of, quote, using the Democrat playbook of identity politics to hide from his record, end quote. He insisted the image was only illustrating his belief that Lesser would vote to increase taxes and more government spending. Unfortunately, but I mean, how familiar does this all sound? harmful anti-Semitic Jewish, anti-Semitic stereotypes, criticism almost immediately. I mean, yeah, we get it. Onward.

Unfortunately, but predictably, Karamut, I don't know how you pronounce his name, it's kind of odd, quickly caved and has issued a groveling apology for his campaign flyer, pleading, quote, it is clear now that the imagery could be interpreted as anti-Semitic, and for that we deeply apologize as hate speech of any kind, as no does not belong in our society and especially not in our politics, end quote. Eight years later and, wow. Yep. He then apologized specifically to Lesser, the Jewish community, end quote,

anyone who found the mailer to be anything other than a depiction of policy differences between the two candidates, end quote. Lesser himself has claimed the pamphlet employs imagery use to depict Jewish people going, back hundreds of years. At issue here is the fact, at issue here is the fact it's now basically forbidden or considered highly suspect to negatively discuss or depict the subject of Jews and money in any context. Even if you object to the fiscal policies of your Jewish political opponent, it's the shield, the Rothschild.

I don't know, most of you probably know that. Rothschild means red shield. It's their child from criticism. Supporting the soft censorship is a quite distinctive Jewish historical narrative that is really nothing more than a tapestry of politicized myths. These myths act as something like a cultural psychological shield deployed instinctively along with a special vocabulary, trope, canard, stereotype by strongly identified Jews against all incoming criticism. Daniel Rutenberg is one such strongly identified Jew, and her Twitter thread in response to the Karamut-Lesser incident is a classic example of the cultural psychological shield. Normally, these deployments are so commonplace and predictable that they merit little comment.

Routenberg's statement, however, has achieved almost 2,500 retweets and over 3,000 likes in a little over 48 hours. Some response, I feel, is required. Huh. So he took it off at Twitter. didn't feel like responding on Twitter. I'm glad he did that that way, although I doubt Mr. Joyce is allowed anywhere near Twitter. So Rutenberg is apparently a rabbi because, of course,

and a feminist author and has been named one of the Jewish weeks 36 under 30 in 2010, 36 most influential leaders under age 36, and was almost one of the top 50 most influential, Women rabbis by the Jewish Daily Forward. In certain respects, she is far from Orthodox, but she is a very strongly identified leftist Jew and exemplifies, in many respects, trends and attitudes in Diaspora Judaism. Her unabashed feminism, anti-racism, and leftism has contributed to a certain appeal outside Judaism,

and she enjoys a Twitter following of over 43,000. It was for this not insignificant audience as she attended. attempted to contextualize the Karamet lesser incident with an apologetic narrative on Jews and usury. I wonder why she went there. I mean, it was basically, if anything, it was just a greedy trope. So she decides she's going to make this about usury. But she doesn't know that people like Mr. Joyce exist and are here to educate us about their tropes. why she focused specifically

why she focused specifically on the issue of usury in response to the incident is unclear Lesser is not a money lender and he is not depicted or reference in relation to debt in the caramette flyer unless one assumes that on some level Rutenberg acknowledges the fact that Jews have in the past and present maintain what can be termed a special and extraordinary relationship with money I haven't read this in a couple years, so I'm reading it for the first time in a couple years. I like to do that. I like to not read something, you know, and then, oh, I'm going to just immediately read it again, just so that I can have like a, my reactions to them can be natural.

And I don't like my comment. I don't want to write down comments and just, you know, come up with my own tropes. But I, yeah, so I had forgotten that he had written basically what I just said before this. as such Rutenberg deploys the classic Jewish apologetic narrative attempting to explain this relationship and begins in erroneous but predictable fashion with Jewish moneylenders in medieval Europe so I'll read her tweets because it's a series of tweets he left out the first one apparently it was uh you know probably not not in context didn't mean anything here second

This is Rutenberg's tweets. Second, some background. Yes, I've tweeted this before, but everything old is still ongoing, I guess. In the Middle Ages, Jews were barred from many trades and professions, and it was sometimes illegal for Jews to own land. By the way, and I, Grock argued this with me. Oh, well, Jews couldn't own land. And I made Grock stop.

responding by saying, were they barred from renting land? See, they have to own it. Rent, no, I'm not going to, I'm going to rent from a goy. No, not going to do that. Onward with her sweet thread here. It was convenient for local authorities to permit Jews to work in trades that were repugnant to Christians, most notably money lending, which was associated in the Christian world with depravity and sin. Second, some, okay, yeah, all right.

So, Dr. Joyce, comments. The first problem with Rutenberg's narrative is that she begins with Jewish money lending in evil Europe. This is part of a strategy I have elsewhere described as a, quote, cropped timeline explanation, end quote. So she's just picking out one little, I mean, if you believe the Bible, Jews have been around, what, 3,000, 3,200, 3,500 years. She's saying, just pay attention to this little blip in that timeline so that I can show that, you know, basically nothing's our fault. Essentially, when confronted with the question of why Jews have generated such animosity in history, across such a broad geographical area, and amidst such a variety of religious cultures, Jews resort to a process of historical gerrymandering. To accept the full breadth and weight in historical context leaves Jewish behavior as the only logical explanation for anti-Semitism.

Since this is culturally, religiously, and psychologically unacceptable to Jews, they have long resorted to simply ignoring vast swaths of evidence. Yeah, I've been told when I've brought up how during the Muslim caliphate in Spain, Jews were basically made police. And they abused the Christians, made slaves of the Christians, forcibly made them force them to become Jews in many cases for circumcision. And, you know, I point out the books and that these are written by people that can't be accused of anti-Semitism.

They're like, well, no, it has to be. that has to have been written by an anti-Semite because that can't be true. And if it is true, I'm going to say it's not true. I haven't heard it before because all I've ever heard growing up is that we're the victims all the time. We've never done anything wrong. We're God's chosen people. We're special. We're better than everyone else.

And everyone wants to kill us. Sounds like a recipe for like hyper-narcism. Right. The most often, since this is culturally, religiously and psychologically unacceptable Jews, they have long resorted to simply ignoring vast swaths of evidence. This most often involves beginning and ending their explanation for anti-Jewish animosity with a timeline most befitting the meme of innocent Jewish victimhood and predatory European Christianity.

As such, all Jewish explanations of anti-Semitism essentially begin with medieval Christian, Christendom and omit or downplay any historical evidence of Jewish behavior and anti-Jewish cultural currents outside this time frame or the historical narratives that may follow from it. This process will be described in more detail below, but it should suffice to state here, but it should suffice to state here that the special relationship between Jews and money preceded medieval Christianity. Like I said, I mean, I've actually been told, no, we had nothing to do with money up until um up until christians made us do this going on with mr joyce it is a matter of clear historical record that the special relationship between jews and money preceded medieval christianity jews

have settled among european host population since ancient times the oldest communities were in the urban centers of the mediterranean and a list of jewish colonies in this area can be found in the first book Maccabees. Possibly one of the reasons why it was taken out of every Bible except the Apostolic Church's Bibles. Maybe. I don't know. In the early Roman Empire, clusters of Jews could be found as far north as Leon, Bon, and Cologne. The economic nature of these communities was uniform and similar to those in the East. Even prior to the Talmudic area, circa 300 to 500 to 500 AD, Jews had developed a strong interest and aptitude in commerce and banking. From its origins, the Jewish involvement in these fears was regarded by host populations as malevolent and exploitative.

In one of the earliest examples, a papyrus dated to 41 AD, an Alexandrian merchant warns a friend to beware of the Jews. During the fourth century, Alexandria witnessed a number of anti-Jewish riots, almost all of them provoked by accusations of economic exploitation. Take a sip. So when they tell you, well, because Christians couldn't... Nope. No. This is your cherry-picking history. Mr. Joyce.

In other words, Jewish economic activity was deemed highly problematic by those populations. At least 1,000 years before Rutenberg begins her crop timeline explanation for the trope of Jews and usury, an economic activity that had not only condemned as unethical by Jewish theologians, but by Aristotle and large numbers of Greek and Roman legislators. So when Ms. Rutenberg says that because Christians deemed us usury to be a sin, most Aristotle and people before Christianity, considered it to be unethical. To put it in the most mild term you can think of.

Between the 5th and 10th centuries, Jewish trading posts took hold across Europe from Cadiz and Toledo, to the Baltic, Poland, and Ukraine. This extensive network afforded the Jews in a most total monopoly in the exchange of currency and information. Islamic and Christian civilizations during this period were bitterly opposed and traitorous, from either faction were reluctant to carry goods into rival territory.

Jews, enjoying relative tolerance from both civilizations, were able to carry goods from the Middle East and to Europe, where Carolingian elites were particularly fond of purchasing luxury goods from Arab lands via Jewish merchants. Similarly, Jews were strategically positioned to overcome the legal obstacles of both civilizations to usury, an economic area that had refined almost to an art form in Babylon. as evidence in the very large amount of commentary on money lending in the Babylonian Talmud. I mean, if you search hard enough, you just catch them in a lie. During the Carolingian era, during the Carolingian dynasty 714 to 8877,

the Jewish population in northwestern Europe evolved from a scattering of individual international traders to growing communities of local traders. The shift to local trade enabled the Jews to acquire an influential middleman role in European society to which they added widespread engagement in credit operations. Money lending. On this foundation of growing economic influence, the later Carolingian period

also witnessed the development of the first symbiotic relationships between Jewish finance and European elites. This grants its significant, Those damned European elites. Just blame them. Oh, and they are to blame. Don't get me wrong. I've talked about this before.

You've heard me talk about it. Kings and mayors and, yeah. Inviting them in to make them money. This granted significant privileges and protections to Jews who soon acquired elite status themselves. One of the first examples of such a relationship emerged in the 8-10, when Agobard 7709 to 840, the Archbishop of Leon attempted to restrict the financial activities of Jews in his locality and was confronted with royal power.

Perhaps even more so than when Muslims invaded Spain in 7-11 when the Jews helped them overrun it, opening the gates of Toledo, another trope that they say that never happened. But the silencing of Agobar, may be regarded as the birth of the Jews as a hostile elite in European society. Certainly it was the first major political victory for the taboo on claims regarding Jewish influence. See? The elites invite them in. And then when people start to notice, the elites clamp down upon them.

Does that sound familiar at all? I will say this. I've probably said this before. I look at the elites as somebody who, you know, people say, well, I mean, look, you have to blame the elites. The Jews were just doing what they do. If somebody hires a hitman and the hitman tries to kill somebody, they're both guilty. Is one more guilty than the other?

Probably the person who, probably the person who did the hiring and initiated. it and put it into motion. So you just, someone who's willing to kill somebody, you just forgive them. You think it's okay, you just let them go. Somebody who's willing to lend money to you so that you're enslaved to them, what you're just going to let them go because they were brought there by somebody. It's not good logic. Encourished by the successes of financial political pioneers like those in Leon, significant numbers of Jews from Southern Europe began a steady northern migration. The point here is the Jews were not pre-existing in large numbers in northern and Western Europe and merely moved into money lending due to a prohibition on other

occupations or the owning of land. It was not a case, as Rutenberg argues, of it being convenient for local authorities to permit Jews to work in trades that were repugnant to Christians. Rather, Jews moved to medieval Europe specifically in order to engage in money lending in the lucrative trade of goods on credit at interest. They moved there on their own. Sure, some were invited, some actually were, became very important because they were adopted by royalty and nobility. They weren't brought there specifically for that purpose. Many gathered in the Rhine Basin, forming the nucleus of what would later come to be known as Ashkenazi Jewry. Expansion from there was rapid. A colony of Jewish financiers reached England in 1070,

following on the heels of the Norman conquest four years earlier. B. Lionel Abraham's used vast quantities of archival evidence in his 1894 Arnold Prize-winning article on the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, and was able to conclude on the basis of this evidence that when the Jews first settled in England, quote, they brought with them money, but no sense. skill in any occupation except lending it out at interest. End quote. Another article states that there is no evidence among this abundant literature, quote, to suppose that the English Jews of this period got their living in any considerable numbers in any other art or craft. It is therefore probable that the capital with which

the community started in the country was very considerable, end quote. Headquartered in London, then the Jews of England mirrored their counterparts elsewhere on the continent in that they became a tightly knit class of financiers. From the start, they managed to associate closely with the kings in their operation, turning over to the royalty the notes of defaulting debtors in return for a share of the sums due. They were the king's men, vassals of a special kind, since they were the chief source of the Susserain's revenues. The foundation of the Jewish relations, relationship with the European elites was thus a general confluence of financial and political ambitions. The primary victims would be the European masses. Jews were not told that they couldn't,

they couldn't do another job, so all they could do was lend money. And they were forced to lend money because Christians found it to be sinful. No, this is what they did. It's all lies. He provides another screenshots of further Rabbi Daniel Rutenberg's tweets here, quoting Daniel Rutenberg, I refuse to call anyone rabbi, but especially her. Daniel Rutenberg, from a Jewish perspective, money lending was useful for two main reasons. One, it was somewhat portable, which was practical during an era when expulsion of Jews from villages and even whole countries were not uncommon. Why, Dana? Dania.

Why? Why was it not uncommon? If they were invited there to do something, why would you kick them out when they do their job? Or if they were forced to do it. I think Thomas explained it properly. The king would invite Jews to come in because the Jews can make the money. Inevitably, what would happen was as soon as a couple elite,

Jews would come into an area, other Jews would follow, and they would mingle among the people. And they would start money lending to the people and prostitution and alcohol. And normally when it came time when they were expelled, it was because of the king would inevitably get in debt to the Jews he invited in, and he wouldn't want to pay the debt back, so he kick him out. Quote-unquote pogroms, which isn't a real thing, happen when the people realize that this group that are complete outsiders are basically enslaving them. So Rutenberg goes on.

It was also profitable. Most late medieval and early modern European polities taxed Jews at jaw-droppingly high rates, so money-lending's income was often essential for community survival. Note that both of these reasons are intrinsically tied to anti-Jewish oppression. If anything, the reading of 200 years together says them being taxed at dropingly high rates, total is a lie. So Mr. Joyce responds to this. Dr. Joyce, excuse me. Man, went through a lot of time and effort to get that title. I'm going to give it to him. The curious thing here is that Rutenberg explains in her next two tweets,

that money lending was very attractive to Jews and explains that cash was more portable than land, and that U-Sre was very profitable. So taken together, her first four tweets amounts to the argument that Jews were mercilessly forced against their best intentions into an occupation that they found wildly convenient, profitable, and powerful. I couldn't put it any better. Let me say that sentence again. So taken together, her first four tweets amounted to the argument that Jews were mercilessly forced against their best intentions into an occupation that they found wildly convenient, profitable, and powerful.

And as soon as Dr. Joyce writes that sentence, another Jew who will read this will just say, well, Rutenberg is wrong. They'll just throw her under the bus because you figured out that because she's lying, her lie is going to come out. So the only thing you can at this point that you can say is, oh, well, you're anti-Semitic and, oh, no, she's wrong. Well, how she's wrong? Shut up, anti-Semite. It's starting to sound like talk of shit.

And he says, quite the silver lining. Setting aside the possibility that Rutenberg is simply a liar, there is clearly an issue of self-deception at play here in the denial of the well-established fact that Jews enjoyed money lending and deliberately developed their demographic and cultural presence in Europe. up at the nexus of the financial and the political. Forced into finance. Fucking bullshit. Sorry I didn't want to curse, but fucking bullshit. I hear it. You hear that so often.

Of course, Rutenberg can't help but end with a return to the lacrimos. I don't even know that word. Lachromos narrative of Jewish victimhood. These Jews forced to become wealthy and powerful, via loans were taxed draw-droppingly high rates and their way of life was tied to anti-Jewish oppression. In reply, for most of the medieval period, Jews weren't subject to high levels of taxation. Elman, having examined the medieval taxation rolls of England, writes that, quote, apart from the quasi-regular and normal legal sources of income, which the English as much as Jews were

required to pay, the king claimed for Jews a number of occasional contributions, especially loans and taleges, i.e. taxes levied by a medieval lord and dependence. In the 13th century, which is the vital period for our purpose, the loans were insignificant in number and amount. Further, there is no evidence of the levy of any collective tallyge upon them until the year 1168, and then the number did not exceed 5,000 marks. When the talges were brought in, they only applied to land that Jews had seized in lieu of the unpaid loans of the barons. High taxation in these instances were just a fiscal slight of hand to allow Jews to seize land on the forfeited loans of the barons and then pass them to the crown as part of the overall deal underpinning their settlement. Further, Jews were

excused from crown taxes, and unlike the Christian population, in their movement around the country, transacting business, Jews were free of all tolls and dues. We have, he has footnotes on this. That's from B.L. Abraham's the expulsion and the Jews from England in 1290.

Let me go back up there. Where am I? Ah, okay. There we go. So, yeah, overly taxed. but free from all tolls and dues, excuse from crown taxes. Come on. Come on. All footnoted. On the matter of anti-Jewish oppression, the Jewish penetration of European society was a risky venture,

but one that Jewish populations evidently felt was worth the gamble. No Jews were ever forced to settle in a European country, but still they came and still they expanded. I would say, the only, I mean, the Jews that were in Polish areas that got, that when Russia took over those areas and they were subsumed into the Russian Empire, well, I mean, I guess that's forcing, but not really. I mean, that would probably be the only way, the only argument you can make, but they're already in Europe. But I love the way he answers this, but still they came and still they expanded. Yeah, their numbers increased. They were aware that as non-Christians and as masters of debt, they would generate hostility in the general population. Indeed, these considerations

formed an important aspect of their bargaining for charters. Agreements drawn up between Jews and European elites that laid down the terms of residence, levels of protection, and financial rewards that would make it worthwhile for Jews to settle. So basically, they before they even came in because a European elite wanted them to come in so they can make money from them, well, they basically said, we need protection, we need bodyguards, we need this, we need that. It was a negotiation. Negotiations aren't forced. For example, in 1084, Jews were given a defensive wall around their settlement quarter in the Rhineland town of Spear in fulfillment of promises made in their charter. Some of the oldest houses still standing in England were

originally built on the orders of Jews, their longevity owing to the fact that Jews possessed a wealth to build homes with a generous use of stone for security. The Jewish move into Europe was thus predicated upon an understanding that Jews would be hated, but untouchable, reviled, but rich, merciless, but unaccountable. They move their knowing. that they would be hated. They still did it. He goes on and says, he has a quote here.

This is from a book written by Benzian Netanyahu. I am almost positive. Yes, this is his dad. It was primarily because of the functions of the Jews as the King's revenue gatherers in the urban areas that the city saw the Jews as the monarch agents who treated them as objects of massive exploitation. By serving as they did the interests of the kings,

the Jews seem to be working against the interests of the cities. And thus we touch again on the phenomenon we have referred to, the fundamental conflict between the king and their people, a conflict not limited to financial matters, but one that embraced all spheres of government that had a bearing on the people's life. It was in part thanks to this conflict of interest that the Jews could survive the harsh climate of the Middle Ages,

and it is hard to believe that they did not discern it when they came to resettle in Christian Europe. Indeed, their request since the days of the Carolingians were for assurances of protection before they settled in a place show, A, that they realized that they were prepared, that they realized that the king's position on many issues different from those of the common people, and B, that the kings were prepared for the sake of their interest to make common cause with the alien Jews against the clear wishes of their Christian subjects. In a sense, therefore, the Jews' agreements with the kings in the Middle Ages resembled the understandings they had reached with foreign conquerors in the ancient world.

That's from Netanyahu, 1995, the origins of the Inquisition in 15th century, Spain, page 71 through 72. I mean, it's all right there. Even when they're like, even when they're trying to defend themselves, they give it all away. All right, let's go back to Mr. Joyce. Perhaps the most egregious falsehood in Rutenberg's tweet thread is her claim that, quote, only a small subset of Jews were pushed into money lending, end quote. First, it should by now be clear that Jews were not pushed into money lending. Second, the numbers engaged in money lending were not a small subset.

One historian has pointed out that there is no evidence among the abundant literature on medieval English Jewry, quote, to suppose that the English Jews of this period got there living in any considerable numbers in any other art or craft. It is therefore probable that the capital with which the community started in this country was very considerable. End quote. In the thousands upon thousands of pages of documents we have on this community, the residential data, the taxation information, the details of their personal accounts, etc. We don't find a professionally diverse and dispersed population. but instead a close-knit interrelated and extremely well-organized group of money lenders and financiers. I've actually heard it say, oh, no, no, you know, we wanted to be tailors and everything,

but they wouldn't allow us. You weren't equipped. You were there to lend money. You were there to make money. You were there to get rich off of nothing. Off of nothing. More screenshot of tweets from... Rabbi Daniel Rutenberg. And so a trope was born.

Even as a small subset of Jews were pushed into money lending, they were resented for it and identified with the work in a way that Christian bankers never were. Oh, I didn't think there were any Christian bankers. And then she has another tweet, in parentheses. You caught that the reason Jews were pushed into this in the first place was also a result of anti-Jewish oppression, right? Yes, got it. Good.

Rutenberg's claim that only a small subset of Jews were engaged in money lending and her claim that Jews were treated differently from Christian bankers are actually linked in more ways than one. Some excellent research has recently been carried out on the context of Jewish expulsions in medieval Europe and the expulsions of usurers more generally by Harvard's Rowan William Doran. Doran's 2015 Ph.D. thesis, banishing usury, the expulsion of foreign moneylenders in medieval Europe, 1200 to 1450 is viewable here and is well worth the read, particularly his chapter on the background to the expulsions of the Jews. In May 2016, Doran published a development of his ideas in a chapter in law and history review, quote, once the Jews have been expelled, okay, so this is the title, once the Jews have been expelled, intent and interpretation in late medieval canon law. The major conclusion of Doran's meticulous work are that Jews were nothing more than a small

and often incidental fraction of the overall expulsions of moneylenders from various areas of medieval Europe and that most banishments targeted Christians hailing from northern Italy. The expulsion of Jews from various European locations is revealed not as an expression of irrational anti-Semitism, but as a result of essentially judicial arguments that stress the need for unanimous policies concerning usury. As Doran notes, quote, one of the few constants of medieval papal attitudes towards the Jews had been a very strong resistance to their expulsion. So yeah, we're going to kick out all the money lenders.

All everyone charging usury. Get the hell out. Jews are a part of that. They're targeting us. This only began to change when usury, rather than Jews-Gua-Jews, came under papal consideration. Early medieval usury legislations such as Yusurinum Baraganum, my line is terrible, was promulgated in response to the increasing presence of Christian moneylenders from northern Italy in the cities and territories of northern Europe. And it was on these Christian moneylenders that its sanctions fell, denial of lodging and expulsion within Thurtony,

three months. Over time, however, both secular and ecclesiastical figures grappled with the wording of the legislation, which did not mention Christians specifically. Over time, a consensus grew that usury, whether Christian or Jewish, was a grave social ill, and the historical papal aversion of the expulsion of Jews was overturned. The majority of expulsions of Jews occurred not because of the deeds of a small subset of Jews, but because usurers of all descriptions were being expelled in Jewish communities were based almost exclusively on the trade in loans. They simply had to be removed in total. This is only the briefest summary of Doran's work, and it really has to be read in full to be

appreciated. It is, however, a powerful rejoinder from a Harvard PhD historian and medieval legal specialist to the pop pseudo-history advanced by Rabbi Rutenberg and eagerly absorbed by those who really don't know any better, and are will. willing to take a bullet for people who not only they don't have any tie to, but don't like you. I can use stronger language, but I mean, I don't really have to. The latter part of Rutenberg's tweet depicted above really says it all in terms of the circular nature of the Jewish defensive narrative. Quote, this is in the zinc, you caught that the reason Jews were pushed in

into this in the first place was as a result of anti-Jewish oppression. Yes, got it, good. Rutenberg basically engages in the familiar Jewish tactic of explaining every negative Jewish behavior, that is, when any is admitted to, by pointing to oppression. Quote, you oppressed us, so we did A. But why did we oppress you? Because we also did B. But why did you do B? Because you oppressed us. But why did we oppress you in that instance? Because we also did see, add infinitum. More tweets from Rutenberg. Most Jews throughout history lived a precarious existence economically and otherwise.

Many times in history we have been tolerated and even embraced by the rulers and locals of our host country. But we have also been subject to expulsions, pogroms, inquisitions, and genocide many times over, often, indeed, fueled by the trope of the greedy, crooked Jew, serving as a scapegoat for other stresses and complies. complexities in society. This is another one that you hear over and over again. What was the one I heard? Oh, whenever any society starts to, starts to stress or things start looking bad, the Jews always get blamed. Do you really want people to examine that claim, especially in the last 2,000 years?

in the West? Dr. Joyce goes on. Just in case anyone isn't fully convinced by Rutenberg's thread, she wheels out some psychoanalytic jargon for her conclusion. The trope of the greedy crooked Jew merely serves as the scapegoat for other stresses and complexities in history. I personally find it quite funny that one of these stresses and complexities remains household debt. I find it equally strange that despite it being two centuries since Jews achieved full political and economic emancipation,

they are still utterly prolific as moneylenders and financiers. The founder and CEO of Avant Credit, one of America's fastest growing online providers or consumer loans, is Al Goldstein. Goldstein is also behind Springcoin, CashNet USA, Dollars Direct, and Nova International, quick quid, pockets of pounds to pocket, and on-stride financial. Goldstein owns more than 10,000 properties foreclosed on Americans during the financial crash, an event in which is co-ethics at Quicken Loans, Daniel Gilbert, and Ronald Arnail, AmeriQuest, played a major role. San Francisco-based money lending operation Lendup, which has recently been forced to pay $6.33 million in refunds and fines for violating consumer finance laws, is operated by

Sasha Orloff and Jacob Rosenberg. Chicago-based PLS Financial is owned and operated by Dan and Bob Wolfberg. Jeffrey Weiss is the Jewish head of DFC Global Corp, which operates Money Mart, the Money Shop, Payday U.K., and Payday Express. The head of EasyCore is the Jewish Australian Philip Cohn. Among its American assets, Cone's EasyCorp has a portfolio which includes Easy Pond, Pawn, Pond Plus, Value Pond, and Jewelry, Premier Pond, and Jewelry. Pond and Jewelry's Pond Shop, Easy Cash Solutions, Jerry's Pawn Shop, and Cash Max Payday Loans.

Internationally, it also owns Cash Amigo in Mexico, as well as the Cash Converterter's international brand. EasyCore has joined the UK Feeding Frenzy by offering the online payday lending service Cash Genie, as well as coming under criticism for charging annual interest rates of 2,986% on its loans. Cash Genie has been forced to repay money to its customers after the financial conduct authority found that the company applied unauthorized charges to customers' accounts and permitted customers to become indebted far beyond their means. In the UK, Mr. Lender advertises its surfaces under the motto, Your Friend Until Payday. But who is Mr. Lender? The founder and owner

of the company is Adam Freeman, a member of the Southwest Essex and Settlement Reform Synagogue, who is also selected for UK's version of The Apprentice. Even with new laws and restrictions, Mr. Lender still charges 1,269.6% APR on his loans. Not very friendly, but by far the most notorious domestic online money lender in Britain is Wanga. It was the astonishing 5,853% rate on Wanga's annual loans that finally prompted the British government to begin closing the loopholes, which permitted the moneylenders feeding for, frenzy on the British people. Wanga, which still charges annual interest rates of 1509% was founded by two South African Jews, Errol Damelin and Jonti Hurwitz. Both operated the company via the Virgin

Islands in order to avoid paying tax. They were, however, very generous donors to Jewish causes like Jewish care. According to his Wikipedia entry, Damelin grew up in a Jewish family where he attended the University of Cape Town. Following his graduation in 1992, he emigrated to Israel. He began his career working as a corporate finance banker at an Israeli bank that later merged into Israel Discount Bank. He founded Wanga in 2007, with the company soon attracting criticism for fraud and the exploitation of the most vulnerable in society. Among the company's practices was the forging of legal letters in order to terrorize customers into paying even higher fees. Because such practices are completely illegal, the company was later subject to criminal investigation.

Like a rat deserting a sinking ship, Damlin stepped down from his leadership at Wanga, retaining his shares, just two weeks before the company was due to be hit with new regulations from the Financial Conduct Authority, as well as a $4 million compensation demand. Wanga had yet to pay thousands of customers when it went bust in August 2018. Errol Damelin has since waded into obscurity while Hurwitz has reinvented himself as a creator of degenerate art that is then sold in inflated prices by the Jewish art fad dictators, the Sachi brothers. He calls this piece immigrant. You can't make it up. He says here, I have to finish with this one true sentence from Rutenberg's thread, the first. Everything old is still ongoing, I guess. I couldn't put it better. Some of the

The footnotes. This is Paul Johnson's history of Jews. I've read most of that. S. Barron, economic history of the Jews. B. L. Abraham's expulsion the Jews from England in 1290. Jews of England of the 20th century Jewish Quarterly Review, 1902. Poliakoff, the history of anti-Semitism, volume one, from the time of Christ to the court Jews. Elmins, the economic causes of the expulsion of the Jews from 1290, the Jews of

England in the 13th century, Jewish Quarterly Review again, Abrams the expulsion Jews for 1290, Johnson's history of Jews, Jews of England in 13th century, R.W. Doran's once the Jews have been expelled, intent, and interpretation in late medieval canon law, law and history review. That's the Harvard professor. So yeah, we've all heard it if you've studied the JQ at all, if you've studied the history history of the last 2,000 years at all. We were forced into finance. We couldn't do anything else. It wouldn't let us own land.

We wanted to farm. It wouldn't let us. Here is an article. I will link it in the show notes. Showing that's just false. It's just false. It's just made up. And I mean,

I honestly believe like this, Daniel, Just from my experience, I don't believe this Daniel Rutenberg is lying. I think she actually believes this stuff because these are just tropes that people are taught. I've not only had Jews tell me these tropes. I've had non-Jews just repeat these right back to me. And it's basically a historical. And then when you look at the fact that like there were not only Jews, but Christians lending money and they were expelled

as well, it's like, I mean, it really is just create your own history. It's like, sure, a lot of this happened. Context is completely distorted or ignored. So we're ever the victim and we've never done anything wrong. Imagine living like that. Well, I hope you got a lot out of this. I want to be as educational as possible. especially if I'm going to do one of these by myself

and tons of articles out here that are great to read and to expound upon. And if you never read this article before or heard of it or somebody else has, I'm sure somebody's covered it on a show sometime or another. Yeah, it's something you can use. It's at the Occidental Observer. If you can't find the link,

search Andrew Joyce, J-O-Y-C-C-E, at the Occidental Observer and you'll see tons of articles by him. You just fall down a rabbit hole, truly. Anyway, thank you very much. And, huh, I never, looks like the screen never changed from the original. Huh.

I've been reading this in a separate, in a separate tab and it looks like the whole like it was never. Damn it. The video for this is pretty much useless. Anyway, I guess you'll be able to listen to it. Take care, everyone. Thank you. And be back in an interview pretty soon.

Or discussions. Everything. I'm going to try and do everything. Take care.