The Conversation of Freedom Is Not Jewish
By Staff News & Analysis - February 22, 2012

The "Catholic" Wing of Libertarianism …The Jesuits were never true Catholics. Jesuits are part of a long-term Illuminati Jewish plot to infiltrate and subvert Catholicism from within, even though most Jesuits are probably not aware of it. Indeed, Lew Rockwell is right: the Salamancan Jesuits, AKA the Illuminati, were behind modern Libertarianism. In a reply to Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati ploy, in which Anthony Migchels pointed to the Jewish money behind Austrian Economics, the Daily Bell noted that many prominent current Libertarians were Catholics, including Lew Rockwell, Pat Buchanan, Thomas Woods, and Justin Raimondo. That may be true, but it does not refute the dominant Jewish character of Libertarianism. Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Ayn Rand were Jewish. Professor Martha Steffy Browne, a member of Mises' private seminar on economics in Vienna, noted that 23 out of 29 attendees were of Jewish descent. – HenryMakow

Dominant Social Theme: Freedom is a Jewish plot.

Free-Market Analysis: Memehunter and Anthony Migchels have again confronted libertarianism (and DB) at a well-read alternative news website. But by introducing a historical perspective (Memehunter is the actual author), they're actually challenging the roots of a conversation that goes back millennia.

The article begins by describing the "dominant Jewish character of Libertarianism" and calls libertarianism an Illuminist/communist ploy. But even formal Libertarianism has numerous definitions so it is not clear what is being attacked. Here's a Wikipedia definition that gives a flavor of the broad spectrum of thought behind modern "libertarianism."

Libertarianism is variously defined by sources. It is generally used to describe political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with small or no government power.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.

Historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as a critical individualist social philosophy, aimed at transforming society by reform or revolution, that fundamentally doubts authority.

Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.

According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Can someone who believes in freedom and personal responsibility disagree with this statement? Libertarianism is many things to many people. Having apparently mis-stated what libertarianism is, the article compounds the problem by stating the following: "Libertarianism emphasizes individual freedom, but fails to recognize that humans are social beings, not isolated individuals. Self-interest reigns supreme for libertarians, but there is no room for social justice."

Dear reader, we don't believe this to be true. At the Daily Bell, we call our approach libertarian (small "L" to differentiate ourselves from the formal Libertarian Party), but we certainly can't be accused of the simplistic notion that we haven't recognized humans are "social beings." Not so long ago, in an article entitled "Bush Used as Trojan Horse for Global Justice," we wrote the following:

What the world needs, in our humble view, is "decentralized justice." We've called for a return to tribal and clan justice … In private justice, people avenge their own via duels, feuds and the like. Justice-seeking can be extended "unto the seventh generation" and people are likely going to be more polite and careful when any individual can avenge an "insult to honor" or other offense on his own. In a private justice paradigm, people control their own justice and are apt not to act rashly because the consequences can be deadly.

Does this sound like a group of elves that fails to recognize that "humans are social beings"? Of course not. And we're not alone. As a group, libertarians – certainly libertarian commentators – tend to be literate and careful individuals. The idea that libertarians are black-and-white linear thinkers is nonsense.

It's sad. What's even sadder about this sort of commentary is that proponents of the modern Libertarian/Rothbardian movement have made it quite clear that the ABSENCE of state control actually CREATES closer and more cohesive societies, certainly at the local level (where we think most societies should be).

Absent state power, minarchist societies tend to organize around various forms of private theology and are often (fortunately or not) more "morally" rigid than statist ones. This is because human beings are orderly animals and seek "social glue." Religion, morality, social interactions of various sorts provide it.

Such arguments as regards the "libertarian point of view" (whatever that is) that explain libertarians are merely Rand-ite robots mechanically pursuing their "self-interest" ignore the richly hued canvas painted by Austrian free-market proponents and free-market thinking generally.

The authors of the article have arrived at a paradigm in which they are convinced (for whatever reason) that libertarianism (which they have seemingly defined incorrectly) is merely the polar opposite of Illuminism (whatever that is) or communism.

The accusations – and purported debunking – are further complicated by the "anti-Jew" nature of these attacks on freedom philosophy. In fact, we've argued the real reason for the attack on free-market economics may be because it stands in the way of those who want to blame everything (for some reason) on "Jews."

Human beings as a species are apparently something like 100,000 years old. Are we to believe the conversation over freedom (or it's most "extreme" versions) is a "Jewish" one? In fact, there is emerging evidence (long suppressed by the elites) that human beings built a decentralized global (coastal) civilization over 10,000 or even 15,000 years ago, and that these ancient civilizations were drowned by flooding when glaciers melted. (One doesn't even need to invent aliens to acknowledge such potential human genius, by the way.)

Were these civilizations, if they existed, Jewish? Are we to assume so? Dwarka, too? Was Krishna a crypto-Jew? In fact, dear reader, it's debatable! Here's an excerpt from Prithi Raj who spent 25 years in India tracing the roots of ancient civilizations that he finally determined had had their beginnings in the arctic some 19,000 years ago:

You must have already heard about the claim that Jews are Yadavas of India, the tribe in which Krishna, the Godly figure of Indians, was born. The very name Hebrew is derived from Abhirah, a tribe associated with Krishna in Indian epic Mahabharat. The word Yadavas was derived from the term "Yah Devas," meaning Devas of Yah. Those days, people living in India were called Devas. And when these external people migrated into India from an external region called Yah, the local people called them the Devas of Yah or Yah Devas, which went on to become Yadavas.

Can you spot the connection between the term "Yah Devas" and the name Yahweh, the single most important name of the God of Jews, and of all Abrahamic religions? A large number of Jewish names and concepts can be traced back to Krishna and Yadavas of India, and the Indian religion, through some simple linguistic analysis. I have given some important comparisons in the following chart, taken from the book. You can make a judgement for yourself. Please click on the chart below to expand it …

You see how deep the rabbit hole goes? According to some modern Jewish conspiracy theorists, Jewish tribes may have solidified around the Babylonian Talmud, which is held up as a terrible and malevolent work. But now perhaps the timeline will have to be revised!

The anti-Jew/anti-libertarianism crowd now claims that modern libertarianism is an outgrowth of crypto-Jew Spanish Jesuits. The argument ignores, however, the ACTUAL IDEAS that were being enunciated at the time – and before and after. It is the IDEAS that are of the most significance in our view. This is the reason we were attracted to Austrian economics in the first place. Here's an excerpt from an article we found at on the Spaniard Juan de Mariana and "The Influence of the Spanish Scholastics (1536-1624)."

The prehistory of the Austrian School of economics can be found in the works of the Spanish scholastics written in what is known as the "Spanish Golden Century," which ran from the mid- sixteenth century through the seventeenth century. Who were these Spanish intellectual forerunners of the Austrian School of economics? Most of them were scholastics teaching morals and theology at the University of Salamanca, in the medieval Spanish city located 150 miles northwest of Madrid, close to the border of Spain with Portugal.

These scholastics, mainly Dominicans and Jesuits, articulated the subjectivist, dynamic, and libertarian tradition on which, two-hundred-and-fifty years later, Carl Menger and his followers would place so much importance. Perhaps the most libertarian of all the scholastics, particularly in his later works, was the Jesuit Father Juan de Mariana.

Although Father Mariana wrote many books, the first one with a libertarian content was De rege et regis institutione (On the king and the royal institution), published in 1598, in which he set forth his famous defense of tyrannicide. According to Mariana, any individual citizen can justly assassinate a king who imposes taxes without the consent of the people, seizes the property of individuals and squanders it, or prevents a meeting of a democratic parliament.3 The doctrines contained in this book were apparently used to justify the assassination of the French tyrant kings Henry III and Henry IV, and the book was burned in Paris by the executioner as a result of a decree issued by the Parliament of Paris on July 4, 1610.4

In Spain, although the authorities were not enthusiastic about it, the book was respected. In fact, all Mariana did was to take an idea that natural law is morally superior to the might of the state to its logical conclusion. This idea had previously been developed in detail by the great founder of international law, the Dominican Francisco de Vitoria (1485 1546), who began the Spanish scholastic tradition of denouncing the conquest and particularly the enslavement of the Indians by the Spaniards in the New World.

But perhaps Mariana's most important book was the work published in 1605 with the title De monetae mutatione (On the alteration of money).5 In this book, Mariana began to question whether the king was the owner of the private property of his vassals or citizens and reached the clear conclusion that he was not. The author then applied his distinction between a king and a tyrant and concluded that "the tyrant is he who tramples everything underfoot and believes everything to belong to him; the king restricts or limits his covetousness within the terms of reason and justice."

Does this sound like an elaborate Jewish plot to you? Or does it sound like part of a conversation about FREEDOM and free markets? Is Juan de Mariana a Jew … or a Catholic crypto Jew? Is it the important thing … or even the MOST important thing. Must we focus entirely on conspiratorial history?

More than almost any other thinkers (20 years ago anyway) Lew Rockwell and his mentor, Murray Rothbard, were enunciating a history of free-market thought. To characterize this extensive "great conversation" that goes back not 500 years, not 5,000 years but maybe 15,000 years (or even 50,000 years) as a Jewish strategy of world domination is just, well … sad. Among other things.

Yes, the MODERN free-market "great conversation," according to Rockwell, may have begun some 500 years ago. But it didn't begin with crypto-Jews in Spain, it didn't begin with the Romans or the Greeks, or even the Egyptians or Minoans, and it won't end in our lifetimes.

(Now that we have mentioned it, we expect that the author [or authors] of this article may jump on the idea that the Jewish religion is actually 19,000 years old and has been sowing mischief and malevolence for nearly that long, starting in the Arctic and then India!)

But, all this is beside the point … We're big fans of the concept of directed history, but the intricate study of the conspiratorial narrative is less satisfying to us than understanding humanity's larger interactions within the context of free-market thinking.

Do those who study conspiratorial history ever find definitive truth? So much is hidden currently and there is much that shall never be known in our view. Worse, such history – especially when focused on the "Jews" – soon seems to devolve into conversations about whether the Rockefellers are crypto-Jews and (now) whether the Jesuits are a Jewish sect, burrowing into the underbelly of Catholicism like a tapeworm.

This is also why we've argued that to call what's going on today "Zionism" is merely confusing. A crime syndicate runs the West – and is trying to rule the earth. It is partially a "Jewish" cabal, historically anyway, and "hires on" Jews.

It IS a criminal conspiracy. It draws its increasing numbers from Western corporations, from the military, from the Vatican and elsewhere. It uses Illumism and "dark magik" as tools to inspire fear. But we don't believe that the people at the top believe in it, anymore than we believe they're credulous Satanists.

There is ample evidence, in our view, that they merely manipulate these concepts as they do many others. They are adept at the use of symbols. It's their stock-in-trade.

Simply to maintain it is "Jewish" is to miss the point of what is going on, in our view. In fact, this group, this cabal, has cleverly planted the meme of anti-Semitism. Claim that this group is merely Jewish (incorrect anyway) and one is immediately marginalized. The leaders of this cabal have spent decades ensuring that the average Jew suffered immensely to create this meme.

These people, these elites that control most of the world's wealth via central banks, don't care a fig about the average Jew any more than they care about the larger starving masses populating the planet. They consider most of us as expendable. We're a "plague," as an "eminence" once put it.

Explain that what's taking place today is a Zionist plot and people will at least look at you blankly and perhaps assume the worst. Explain that a criminal conspiracy – an extended Crime Family – has set up shop in the halls of power and many people will understand and agree.

That's why we've explained on numerous occasions that to characterize the actors in the current New World Order as "Zionist" is not only misleading, but it's confusing as well. What's taking place today is, well … evil. Wipe out every "Jew" and we suggest you will not eradicate even an atom of the evil you wish to remove.

The argument is made as well that the texts of the Jewish religion are repugnant, especially the Babylonian Talmud. But the texts of many religions contain repugnant passages. Such texts only become dangerous if they are activated by STATE involvement.

Leveraged by the power and force of the state, religious texts take on the force of law and can become dangerous. Such states are called theocracies. US founding fathers specifically wanted to avoid creating a theocracy.

What is a "Jew" anyway? Is it a race? A species? A culture? Now we have to decide if Jewish roots are planted in India and go back 19,000 years. And once we're done with that we have to figure out if the Jesuits are actually crypto-Jews. Is the Pope a Jew as well? We have no doubt that some would say so.

There are other issues brought up in the article that we could respond to at length, but we have in the past and anyone who wishes to examine the argumentation is free to look. One such thread can be seen here: The Anti-Freedom Movement States Its (Worst) Case? … Austrians Vs. the Illuminati. We catalogue a number of errors, some of which are contained in the current article. Economist Gary North has responded as well.

The Austrian, free-market conversation is one of IDEAS. The article in question attempts to undermine Austrian "libertarian" economics by claiming that it is part of a dialectic with Illuminism and communism – and that these ideas are secondary to a malevolent Jewish strategy.

But the ideas of modern Austrian economics (the Rothbardian school, especially) involve the conversation of freedom and free markets, and ideas such as the business cycle and human action developed or expanded upon by Ludwig von MIses and later Rothbard.

One cannot portray these ideas as "Jewish" any more than one can maintain that the main purpose of Austrian (Rothbardian) economics is mainly to subvert the world via totalitarian globalism. If Austrian economics IS such a plot, it's a pretty lousy one. It's added greatly to people's understanding of freedom and free markets. Of course, the article and its author doesn't see it that way. He concludes:

Libertarianism and Communism are the two poles of a 500-year old Illuminati dialectic, with extreme individualism, exemplified by Rand's "virtuous selfishness", at one end, and extreme collectivism, encapsulated by Marx's "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", at the other end. The Illuminati dialectic leaves no room for a middle ground, for a balance between individualism and collectivism, between anarchy and totalitarianism. This is the trap that they have set up for us.

Oh, come on! There is no "one" definition for (small "L") libertarianism and free-market thinking both recognizes and respects human beings within cultural and social contexts. How can we trust the conclusion when the initial suppositions are flawed?

It is certainly possible, as this article has done, to make linkages between prominent free-market thinkers and the power-elites of the day. But these seem to us to be facile and even misleading. The true measure of Austrian economics (and its success) is that it has provided us with more tools to advance our understanding of freedom and free markets.

To attack Austrian economics as some sort of Jewish/Illuminati plot has other consequences. It marks the further coarsening of the larger alternative media dialogue, and thus erodes the ability of participants to attract a wider audience.

Here at the Daily Bell we're now accused (recently) in at least one prominent feedback thread of being a "Jewish" publication. Of course, we're not. We're a publication analyzing the memes of the power elite. We've been careful to point out in the past that some of our writers have Jewish antecedents, but many of those who participate in this modest effort, including various advisors, are not Jewish. (Whatever a Jew may be.)

We've been criticized on occassion for using the term Anglosphere to describe the broadest spectrum of the one-world conspiracy. The term Anglosphere emerged among us after a three-year period spent researching the book that became High Alert (you can download a copy at our site).

It is simply a fact that much of the initial modern conspiracy is rooted in the City of London with various additional elements in Washington DC, the Vatican, Europe and Tel Aviv. Many of these elements involve "Jews." But many may not. We decided it was simplistic and even confusing to refer to this wide-ranging conspiracy, which may include China as well, as "Zionist." For many people, the term means nothing, or even has connations negative to the user.

Will such attacks continue? They are only recent in nature; yet, we will not assume they are triggered by current participants. Still, the larger issue is an important one. Such an approach inevitably involves accusations over whether one has Jewish blood or is a "Zionist tool."

The author(s) of the article we've been commenting on mention usury, deflation and social justice. We've dealt with these issues in the past by pointing out that in a free society, ideally people should have the freedom to do what they want with their money and businesses. If they want to lend with interest and can find someone to borrow at interest, that's their business.

What really concerns us about this article is the blaming of Jews, crypto Jews and even converted Jews for the increasing one-world horror that is unfolding around us. What is taking place is NOT merely a Jewish phenomenon. It is a HUMAN phenomenon and to try to cast it as the fault of one single culture or group is simplistic.

There is a power elite. It has long roots … roots that can be characterized as Jewish (whatever that means). But in the larger scheme of things, neither the current one-world conspiracy nor the ancient human conversation of freedom and free markets belongs to one particular sect, race or entity.

Ed Note: Another reason to be concerned about this strand of argumentation, which is growing more popular as we predicted long ago when writing about Ellen Brown, is that it is essentially making a case for "government," albiet limited government. We, too, have argued for limited government, especially government within the context of devolution. But we certainly don't wish to make a CASE for government, as Western governance (as it is construed today) is force, merely force. Why people in the alternative media wish to make a case for any kind of authoritarianism is a mystery to us, especially when there is a millennia-old conversation providing us with an alternative view. The argument will then be made that Money Power itself flourishes outside of government, but this is in our view an impossible argument to support. Absent government, the mercantilist strategies of Money Power would likely founder and fail.

Edited on date of publication.

After Thoughts

No, it's not a "dialectic." The human quest is a search for meaning. And Austrian economics has contributed to that search.