Ron Paul's Masonic Jewish Economics … Whether or not a currency is backed by gold makes no difference. As long as we pay interest, it is still Masonic Jewish (i.e. Illuminati) economics. The real alternative is interest-free currency. – HenryMakow.com
Dominant Social Theme: Austrians are the devil?
Free-Market Analysis: In his latest musings on Austrian economics, money-entrepreneur Anthony Migchels seems to make the case that Austrian economics may be part of a Zionist plot to impose one-world government.
Now, we have pointed out that Anthony Migchels, like "greenbacker" Ellen Brown, is certainly an energetic and eloquent spokesperson for the view of a kind of money-from-nothing. He believes that money ought not to be backed by commodities and that "people" ought to control money rather than "banksters."
Whatever else Anthony Migchels is doing, he is certainly livening up the debate over Austrian economics in an unexpected way and Henry Makow has given him a platform to do it. He is quite an entrepreneur and quite a commentator …
But in this latest article, Mr. Migchels offers up the idea that Austrian economics is infected by Masonic Jewish interests. The implication is that because Austrian Murray Rothbard and his mentor, Ludwig von Mises, were Jewish and (in the case of Mises) received some money from Rockefeller foundations, they are part of a Masonic plot to create a one-world order using the Austrians' favorite money metal, gold.
Why use the religion of people to characterize their arguments? And is everyone who receives Rockefeller money a Zionist? This is the reason we have made the case repeatedly that characterizing the one-world conspiracy as "Zionist" may DISTRACT from the reality of what is occurring.
A kind of mafia evidently runs the world behind the scenes today. The mafia uses the Jewish people in particular and hires Jewish people to help in its goal of creating global governance. This is no different in our view than the way the Italian Mafia operated in the US. The mafia/cabal USES religion. In fact, in our view, the cabal SEEKS anti-Semitism and wishes to whip it up.
It is evident and obvious (to us anyway) that Austrian economics' theoretical underpinnings are sympathetic to free banking and competitive currencies. Even Murray Rothbard acknowledged that in his historical work. And later in life he apparently acknowledged free banking as well.
But to characterize Austrian economics as part of a Jewish plot to create a Hegelian dialectic to move the world closer to a New World Order seems to us to disregard – or casts into doubt – significant insights of Austrian economics.
It is true that ANYTHING may serve the power elite as a tool to create a Hegelian Dialectic. But everything we have observed about Austrian economics over the past 25 years leads us to believe that the elites in no way wished to acknowledge Austrian economics publicly much less make it part of a larger debate. (Perhaps they are moving to do so NOW, but that's a different issue altogether.)
Was the DEVELOPMENT of Austrian economics part of an elite manipulation? Austrian economics is rooted generally in the evolving economics of the past millennium and stands athward modern infections such as economectrics and Keynesianism.
Its history can be traced back to Jesuits in Spain centuries ago, to the French who opposed Napoleon's state-planning, to the Renaissance's renewed interest in science, to the Scottish "Enligthenment" including Adam Smith and David Hume, to Carl Menger's initial conceptualization of marginal utility, the dividing line between classical and neo-classical economics, to Ludwig von Mises' insights into human action, etc.
Is this really an elite manipulation? Don't ignore, please, the insights that this discipline provides to us, insights that buttress freedom.Marginal utility shows us that only the market can determine price accurately. Human action shows us that only people by their own free will can determine their futures and the futures of their loved ones.
The alternative to marginal utility and human action seems simple to us: It is the State's merciless Leviathan. Why make a case for authoritarianism? Why seemingly denigrate concepts that show us logically that freedom is preferable to slavery and free markets are preferable to totalitarianism?
Mr. Migchels writes: "All this has become relevant because of Ron Paul, of course. He is not the man Patriots think he is. In 2001, he said, 'There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency …'."
In fact, it seems to us that free-market orthodoxy buttresses Ron Paul's remarks. Absent government, the free market itself would likely create a kind of free-trade and universal money. Probably some sort of private gold and silver standard. That's a far cry from IMPOSING one.
Ron Paul, given his background and beliefs, was merely observing what the free market is capable of doing. It can create a peaceful and prosperous world that includes lots of voluntary commerce. The DIFFERENCE between Ron Paul and the globalists is that he wants to create prosperity via freedom. Globalists want to create one world via force.
It is true that within this context Ron Paul speaks of commodity money. But he speaks of its VOLUNTARY acceptance. And in recent years, Ron Paul has been very careful to speak of money competition. He simply believes that gold will win out. Mr. Migchels, Ellen Brown and others seem to have a different point of view. They believe in fiat. (OK … May the best money win! Within a free-market system, of course.)
Mr. Migchels, who has founded his own "social credit" monetary system in the Netherlands, writes, "Social Credit is the best debt-free currency I know: it's a Greenback created by Govt, given to the people to spend into circulation, instead of Govt. In that way, the money is located at the base of the supply line. People know where to spend the money better than govt."
At its root, at its heart, does social credit use some sort of government force to initially implement its facility? Of course, another question is: Who is doing the printing for social credit money and HOW MUCH MONEY IS TOO MUCH?
Only the free market can determine the quantity and value of money, in our view. Anything other than the free market must lead to inflation and then price inflation. If government is doing the printing, then there is no "governor." The volume of money will likely always exceed what is necessary.
Thus the argument is NOT between gold and fiat. The Austrian argument is ineluctably between free banking (money competition) and those who seem to favor some sort of state force to implement various monetary schemes.
Will social credit win the day by offering its benefits WITHOUT government force and without interest? It seems to be almost too good to be true. All products, to the best of our knowledge (and money is a product), have a cost involved. Interest recognizes these costs.
Why argue that Austrian economics is part of a larger Zionist plot? Modern Austrian theory abjures the force of government and is fairly anarchical in its presentation. Isn't that what all those fighting against global governance claim to endorse?