What’s Wrong With Libertarianism?

“Every couple of years, mainstream media hacks pretend to have just discovered libertarianism as some sort of radical, new and dynamic force in American politics. It’s a rehash that goes back decades, and hacks love it because it’s easy to write, and because it’s such a non-threatening “radical” politics (unlike radical left politics, which threatens the rich).

Pull up libertarianism’s floorboards, look beneath the surface into the big business PR campaign’s early years, and there you’ll start to get a sense of its purpose, its funders, and the PR hucksters who brought the peculiar political strain of American libertarianism into being — beginning with the libertarian movement’s founding father, Milton Friedman. Back in 1950, the House of Representatives held hearings on illegal lobbying activities and exposed both Friedman and the earliest libertarian think-tank outfit as a front for business lobbyists. Those hearings have been largely forgotten, in part because we’re too busy arguing over the finer points of “libertarian populism.” 

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman. In his early days, before millions were spent on burnishing his reputation, Friedman worked as a business lobby shill, a propagandist who would say whatever he was paid to say.  That’s the story we need to revisit to get to the bottom of the modern American libertarian “movement,” to see what it’s really all about. We need to take a trip back to the post-war years, and to the largely forgotten Buchanan Committee hearings on illegal lobbying activities, led by a pro-labor Democrat from Pennsylvania, Frank Buchanan. 

George Stigler

What the Buchanan Committee discovered was that in 1946, Milton Friedman and his U Chicago cohort George Stigler arranged an under-the-table deal with a Washington lobbying executive to pump out covert propaganda for the national real estate lobby in exchange for a hefty payout, the terms of which were never meant to be released to the public. They also discovered that a lobbying outfit which is today credited by libertarians as the movement’s first think-tank — the Foundation for Economic Education — was itself a big business PR project backed by the largest corporations and lobbying fronts in the country.

It starts just after the end of World War Two, when America’s industrial and financial giants, fattened up from war profits, established a new lobbying front group called the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) that focused on promoting a new pro-business ideology—which it called “libertarianism”— to supplement other business lobbying groups which focused on specific policies and legislation.

The FEE is generally regarded as “the first libertarian think-tank” as Reason’s Brian Doherty calls it in his book “Radicals For Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement” (2007). As the Buchanan Committee discovered, the Foundation for Economic Education was the best-funded conservative lobbying outfit ever known up to that time, sponsored by a Who’s Who of US industry in 1946.

A partial list of FEE’s original donors in its first four years— a list discovered by the Buchanan Committee — includes: The Big Three auto makers GM, Chrysler and Ford; top oil majors including Gulf Oil, Standard Oil, and Sun Oil; major steel producers US Steel, National Steel, Republic Steel; major retailers including Montgomery Ward, Marshall Field and Sears; chemicals majors Monsanto and DuPont; and other Fortune 500 corporations including General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Eli Lilly, BF Goodrich, ConEd, and more.

Leonard Read

The FEE was set up by a longtime US Chamber of Commerce executive named Leonard Read, together with Donaldson Brown, a director in the National Association of Manufacturers lobby group and board member at DuPont and General Motors.

That is how libertarianism in America started: As an arm of big business lobbying.

Before bringing back Milton Friedman into the picture, this needs to be repeated again: “Libertarianism” was a project of the corporate lobby world, launched as a big business “ideology” in 1946 by The US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. The FEE’s board included the future founder of the John Birch Society, Robert Welch; the most powerful figure in the Mormon church at that time, J Reuben Clark, and United Fruit president Herb Cornuelle.

The purpose of the FEE — and libertarianism, as it was originally created — was to supplement big business lobbying with a pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-economics rationale to back up its policy and legislative attacks on labor and government regulations.

This background is important in the Milton Friedman story because Friedman is a founding father of libertarianism, and because the corrupt lobbying deal he was busted playing a part in was arranged through the Foundation for Economic Education.

The arrangement between Friedman and Stigler with the Washington real estate lobbyist was finally revealed during a congressional review of illegal lobbying activities in 1950, called the Buchanan Committee. Yes, there was something called accountability back then.

False, whitewashed history is as much a part of the Milton Friedman mythology as it is the libertarian movement’s own airbrushed history about its origins; the 1950 Buchanan Committee hearings expose both as creations of big business lobby groups whose purpose is to deceive and defraud the public and legislators in order to advance the cause of corporate America.

The story starts like this: In 1946, Herbert Nelson was the chief lobbyist and executive vice president for the National Association of Real Estate Boards, and one of the highest paid lobbyists in the nation. Mr. Nelson’s real estate constituency was unhappy with rent control laws that Truman kept in effect after the war ended. Nelson and his real estate lobby led what House investigators discovered was the most formidable and best-funded opposition to President Truman in the post-war years.

So Herbert Nelson contracted out the PR services of the Foundation for Economic Education to concoct “third party” propaganda designed to shore up the National Real Estate lobby’s legislative drive — and the propagandists who took on the job were Milton Friedman and his U Chicago cohort, George Stigler.

To understand the sort of person Herbert Nelson was, here is a letter he wrote in 1949 that Congressional investigators discovered and recorded:

“I do not believe in democracy. I think it stinks. I don’t think anybody except direct taxpayers should be allowed to vote. I don’t believe women should be allowed to vote at all. Ever since they started, our public affairs have been in a worse mess than ever.”

Peter Thiel

It’s an old libertarian mantra, libertarianism versus democracy, libertarianism versus women’s suffrage; a position most recently repeated by billionaire libertarian Peter Thiel — who was Ron Paul’s main campaign funder in his 2012 presidential campaign.

So in 1946, this same Herbert Nelson turned to the Foundation for Economic Education to manufacture some propaganda to help the National Association of Real Estate Boards fight rent control laws. Nelson chose to work with the FEE because he knew that the founder of the first libertarian think-tank, Leonard Read, agreed with him on a lot of important issues. Such as their mutual contempt for democracy, and their disdain for the American public.

Leonard Read, the legendary (among libertarians) founder/head of the FEE, argued that the public should not be allowed to know which corporations donated to his libertarian front-group because, he argued, the public could not be trusted to make “sound judgments” with disclosed information.

So in May 1946, Herbert Nelson of the Real Estate lobby, looking for backup in his drive to abolish federal rent control laws on behalf of landlords, contacted libertarian founder Leonard Read of the FEE with an order for a PR pamphlet “with some such title as ‘The Case against Federal Real Estate Control’.”

In libertarianism’s own airbrushed history about itself, the Foundation for Economic Education was a brave, quixotic bastion of libertarian “true believers” doomed to defeat at the all-powerful hands of the liberal Keynsian Leviathan and the collectivist mob.

Here is what the Buchanan committee’s own findings reported—findings lost in history:

“It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Foundation for Economic Education exerts, or at least expects to exert, a considerable influence on national legislative policy….It is equally difficult to imagine that the nation’s largest corporations would subsidize the entire venture if they did not anticipate that it would pay solid, long-range legislative dividends.”

Or in the words of Rep. Carl Albert (D-OK): “Every bit of this literature is along propaganda lines.”

There’s no idealism here. The notion that libertarian ideas have captured the political imagination of millions in this country is a root problem: if we’re going to escape the corporate oligarchy that is running this country–their ideas can’t possibility be the alternative solution. This movement has to be recognized for what it is.”(1)

Un-Communism

“Libertarianism looks as if someone (let’s call her “Ayn Rand”) sat down to create Un-Communism. Thus:

Communism Libertarianism
Property is theft Property is sacred
Totalitarianism Any government is bad
Capitalists are baby-eating villains Capitalists are noble Nietzchean heroes
Workers should rule Worker activism is evil
The poor are oppressed The poor are pampered good-for-nothings

Does this sound exaggerated? Let’s listen to Murray Rothbard:

We contend here, however, that the model of government is akin, not to the business firm, but to the criminal organization, and indeed that the State is the organization of robbery systematized and writ large.

Lew Rockwell

Or here’s Lew Rockwell on Rothbard:

He was also the architect of the body of thought known around the world as libertarianism. This radically anti-state political philosophy unites free-market economics, a no-exceptions attachment to private property rights, a profound concern for human liberty, and a love of peace, with the conclusion that society should be completely free to develop absent any interference from the state, which can and should be eliminated.

Thomas DiLorenzo

 

Thomas DiLorenzo on worker activism: “[L]abor unions [pursue] policies which impede the very institutions of capitalism that are the cause of their own prosperity.”

 

 

Ludwig von Mises

 

Ludwig von Mises: “What is today euphemistically called the right to strike is in fact the right of striking workers, by recourse to violence, to prevent people who want to work from working.” (Employer violence is apparently acceptable.)

The Libertarian Party platform explains that workers have no right to protest drug tests, and supports the return of child labor.

On Nietzsche, some libertarians love Nietzsche; others have read him. Nonetheless, the Nietzschean atmosphere of burning rejection of conventional morality, exaltation of the will to power, and scorn for womanish Christian compassion for the masses, is part of the roots of libertarianism. It’s unmistakable in Ayn Rand.

The more important point, however, is that the capitalist is the über-villain for communists, and a glorious hero for libertarians; that property is “theft” for the communists, and a “natural right” for libertarians. These dovetail a little too closely for coincidence. It’s natural enough, when a basic element of society is attacked as an evil, for its defenders to counter-attack by elevating it into a principle.

Who needs facts?

The methodology here is not new: oppose the obvious evils of the world with a fairy tale. The communist of 1910 couldn’t point to a single real-world instance of his utopia; neither can the present-day libertarian. Yet they’re unshakeable in their conviction that it can and must happen.

Academic libertarians love abstract, fact-free arguments– often, justifications for why property is an absolute right.

James Craig Green on Property Rights:

This concept of property originated in some of those primitive tribes when individuals claimed possessions for themselves as against the collective ownership of their groups. Based on individual initiative, labor, and innovation, some were successful at establishing a separate, private ownership role for themselves. […]

Examples of natural property in land and water resources have already been given, but deserve more detail. An illustration of how this would be accomplished is a farm with irrigation ditches to grow crops in dry western states. To appropriate unowned natural resources, a settler used his labor to clear the land and dug ditches to carry water from a river for irrigation. Crops were planted, buildings were constructed, and the property thus created was protected by the owner from aggression or the later claims of others. This process was a legitimate creation of property.

The first paragraph is pure fantasy, and is simply untrue as a portrait of “primitive tribes”, which are generally extremely collectivist by American standards. The second sounds good precisely because it leaves out all the actual facts of American history: the settlers’ land was not “unowned” but stolen from the Indians by state conquest (and much of it stolen from the Mexicans as well); the lands were granted to the settlers by government; the communities were linked to the national economy by railroads founded by government grant; the crops were adapted to local conditions by land grant colleges.

Distaste for facts is actually libertarian doctrine, the foundation of the ‘Austrian school’. Here’s Ludwig von Mises in Epistemological Problems of Economics:

As there is no discernible regularity in the emergence and concatenation of ideas and judgments of value, and therefore also not in the succession and concatenation of human acts, the role that experience plays in the study of human action is radically different from that which it plays in the natural sciences. Experience of human action is history. Historical experience does not provide facts that could render in the construction of a theoretical science services that could be compared to those which laboratory experiments and observation render to physics. Historical events are always the joint effect of the cooperation of various factors and chains of causation. In matters of human action no experiments can be performed. History needs to be interpreted by theoretical insight gained previously from other sources.

The ‘other sources’ turn out to be armchair ruminations on how things must be. It’s true enough that economics is not physics; but that’s not warrant to turn our backs on the methods of science and return to scholastic speculation. Economics should always move in the direction of science, experiment, and falsifiability. If it were really true that it cannot, then no one, including the libertarians, would be entitled to strong belief in any economic program.

An untested political system unfortunately has great rhetorical appeal. Since we can’t see it in action, we can’t point out its obvious faults, while the ideologue can be caustic about everything that has actually been tried, and which has inevitably fallen short of perfection.”(2)

The Founding Fathers

There are those libertarians who are adamant that their ideal isn’t Rothbard or von Mises or Hayek, but the Founding Fathers.

“Nice try. Everybody wants the Founders on their side; but it was a different country back then– 95% agricultural, low density, highly homogeneous, primitive in technology– and modern libertarianism simply doesn’t apply.

You can certainly find places where one Founder or another rants against government; you can find other places where one Founder or another rants against rebellion, anarchy, and the opponents of federalism. Sometimes the same Founder can be quoted on both sides. They were a mixed bunch, and lived long enough lives to encounter different situations.

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. James Madison

 

All the Property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it. –Benjamin Franklin

The Constitution is above all a definition of a strengthened government, and the Federalist Papers are an extended argument for it.

The Founders didn’t anticipate the New Deal– there was no need for them to– but they were as quick to resort to the resources of the state as any modern liberal. Ben Franklin, for instance, played the Pennsylvania legislature like a violin– using it to fund a hospital he wanted to establish, for instance. Obviously he had no qualms about using state power to do good social works.

It’s also worth pointing out that the Founders’ words were nobler than their deeds. Most were quite comfortable with slave-owning, for instance. No one worried about women’s consent to be governed. Washington’s own administration made it a crime to criticize the government.

Robert Allen Rutland reminds us:

For almost 150 years, in fact, the Bill of Rights was paid lip service in patriotic orations and ignored in the marketplace. It wasn’t until after World War I that the Supreme Court began the process of giving real meaning to the Bill of Rights.

The process of giving life to our constitutional rights has largely been the work of liberals. On the greatest fight of all, to treat blacks as human beings, libertarians supported the other side.”(2)

Why are libertarian ideas important?

“Liberatarian ideas are important because of their influence on the Republican Party. They form the ideological basis for the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush revolution. The Republicans have taken the libertarian “Government is Bad” horse and ridden far with it:

  • Reagan’s “Government is the problem”
  • Phil Gramm’s contention that the country’s “economic crisis” and “moral crisis” were due to “the explosion of government”
  • Talk radio hosts’ advocacy of armed resistance to “jack-booted government thugs”
  • Dole’s 1996 campaign, advancing the notion that taxes were “Your Money” being taken from you
  • Gingrich’s Contract with America (welfare cuts, tax cuts, limitations on corporations’ responsibility and on the government’s ability to regulate them)
  • Dick Armey’s comment that Medicare (medical aid for the elderly) is “a program I would have no part of in a free world”
  • Bush’s tax cuts, intended not only to reward the rich but to “starve the beast”, in Grover Norquist’s words: to create a permanent deficit as a dangerous ploy to reduce social spending
  • Jeb Bush’s hope that the Florida state government buildings would one day be empty
  • Intellectual support for attacks on the quality of working life in this county and for undoing the New Deal

Maybe this use of their ideas is appalling to ‘Real Libertarians’.

At least some libertarians have understood the connection. Rothbard again, writing in 1994:

The truth is that since we have been stuck with a two-party system, any electoral revolution against big government had to be expressed through a Republican victory. So it is certainly true that Newt Gingrich and his faction, as well as Robert Dole, have ridden to power on the libertarian wave.

Can you smell the compromise here? Hold your nose and vote for the Repubs, boys. But then don’t pretend to be uninvolved when the Republicans start making a mockery of limited government.

What about the social side?

The Libertarian Party has a cute little test that purports to divide American politics into four quadrants. There’s the economic dimension (where libertarians ally with conservatives) and the social (personal) dimension (where libertarians ally with liberals).

The diagram is seriously misleading, because visually it gives equal importance to both dimensions. And when the rubber hits the road, libertarians almost always go with the economic dimension.

The libertarian philosopher always starts with property rights. Libertarianism arose in opposition to the New Deal, not to Prohibition. The libertarian voter is chiefly exercised over taxes, regulation, and social programs; the libertarian wing of the Republican party has, for forty years, gone along with the war on drugs, corporate welfare, establishment of dictatorships abroad, and an alliance with theocrats. Christian libertarians like Ron Paul want God in the public schools and are happy to have the government forbid abortion and gay marriage.

For all practical purposes the social side of libertarianism is irrelevant. A libertarian might actually agree to legalize drugs, let people marry whoever they like, and repeal the Patriot Act. But this has nothing to do with whether robber baron capitalism is a good thing.

We tried it, and it failed

The libertarianism that has any effect in the world, then, has nothing to do with social liberty, and everything to do with removing all restrictions on business. So what’s wrong with that?

Let’s look at some cases that came within spitting distance of the libertarian ideal. Some libertarians won’t like these, because they are not Spotless Instances of the Free Utopia; but as I’ve said, nothing is proved by science fiction. If complete economic freedom and absence of government is a cure-all, partial economic freedom and limited government should be a cure-some.

Pre-New Deal America

At the turn of the 20th century, business could do what it wanted– and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organizers, filth in our food, a punishing business cycle, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly, gunboat diplomacy in support of business interests.

The New Deal itself was a response to crisis (though by no means an unprecedented one; it wasn’t much worse than the Gilded Age depressions). A quarter of the population was out of work. Five thousand banks failed, destroying the savings of 9 million families. Steel plants were operating at 12% capacity. Banks foreclosed on a quarter of Mississippi’s land. Wall Street was discredited by insider trading and collusion with banks at the expense of investors. Farmers were breaking out into open revolt; miners and jobless city workers were rioting.

Don’t think, by the way, that if governments don’t provide gunboats, no one else will. Corporations will build their own military if necessary: the East Indies Company did; Leopold did in the Congo; management did when fighting with labor.

Pinochet’s Chile

Augusto Pinochet

Or consider the darling of many an ’80s conservative: Pinochet’s Chile, installed by Nixon, praised by Jeanne Kirkpatrick, George Bush, and Paul Johnson. In twenty years, foreign debt quadrupled, natural resources were wasted, universal health care was abandoned (leading to epidemics of typhoid fever and hepatitis), unions were outlawed, military spending rose (for what? who the hell is going to attack Chile?), social security was “privatized” (with predictable results: ever-increasing government bailouts) and the poverty rate doubled, from 20% to 41%. Chile’s growth rate from 1974 to 1982 was 1.5%; the Latin American average was 4.3%.

Pinochet was a dicator, of course, which makes some libertarians feel that they have nothing to learn here. Somehow Chile’s experience (say) privatizing social security can tell us nothing about privatizing social security here, because Pinochet was a dictator. Presumably if you set up a business in Chile, the laws of supply and demand and perhaps those of gravity wouldn’t apply, because Pinochet was a dictator.

When it’s convenient, libertarians even trumpet their association with Chile’s “free market” policies; self-gov.org (originators of that cute quiz) includes a page celebrating Milton Friedman, self-proclaimed libertarian, who helped form and advise the group of University of Chicago professors and graduates who implemented Pinochet’s policies. The Cato Institute even named a prize for “Advancing Liberty” after this benefactor of the Chilean dictatorship.

Destination: Banana Republic

The newest testing ground for laissez-faire is present-day America, from Ronald Reagan on.

Remove the New Deal, and the pre-New Deal evils clamor to return. Reagan removed the right to strike; companies now fire strikers, outsource high-wage jobs and replace them with dead-end near-minimum-wage service jobs. Middle-class wages are stagnating– or plummeting, if you consider that working hours are rising. Companies are rushing to reestablish child labor in the Third World.

Under liberalism, productivity increases benefited all classes– poverty rates declined from over 30% to under 10% in the thirty years after World War II, while the economy more than quadrupled in size.

In the current libertarian climate, productivity gains only go to the already well-off. Here’s the percentage of US national income received by certain percentiles of the population, as reported by the IRS:

  1986 1999
Top 1% 11.30 19.51
Top 5% 24.11 34.04
Top 10% 35.12 44.89
Top 25% 59.04 66.46
Top 50% 83.34 86.75
Bottom 99% 88.70 80.49
Bottom 95% 75.89 65.96
Bottom 90% 64.88 55.11
Bottom 75% 40.96 33.54
Bottom 50%    16.66    13.25

This should put some perspective on libertarian whining about high taxes and how we’re destroying incentives for the oppressed businessman. The wealthiest 1% of the population doubled their share of the pie in just 15 years. In 1973, CEOs earned 45 times the pay of an average employee (about twice the multipler in Japan); today it’s 500 times.

Thirty years ago, managers accepted that they operated as much for their workers, consumers, and neighbors as for themselves. Some economists (notably Michael Jensen and William Meckling) decided that the only stakeholders that mattered were the stock owners– and that management would be more accountable if they were given massive amounts of stock. Not surprisingly, CEOs managed to get the stock without the accountability– they’re obscenely well paid whether the company does well or it tanks– and the obsession with stock price led to mass layoffs, short-term thinking, and the financial dishonesty at WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, HealthSouth, and elsewhere.”(2)

Conquered by Conservatives

“The nature of our economic system has changed in the last quarter-century, and people haven’t understood it yet. People over 30 or so grew up in an environment where the rich got more, but everyone prospered. When productivity went up, the rich got richer– we’re not goddamn communists, after all– but everybody‘s income increased.

If you were part of the World War II generation, the reality was that you had access to subsidized education and housing, you lived better every year, and you were almost unimaginably better off than your parents.

We were a middle-class nation, perhaps the first nation in history where the majority of the people were comfortable. This infuriated the communists (this wasn’t supposed to happen). The primeval libertarians who cranky about it as well, but the rich had little reason to complain– they were better off than ever before, too.

Conservatives– nurtured by libertarian ideas– have managed to change all that. When productivity rises, the rich now keep the gains; the middle class barely stays where it is; the poor get poorer. We have a ways to go before we become a Third World country, but the model is clear. The goal is an impoverished majority, and a super-rich minority with no effective limitations on its power or earnings. We’ll exchange the prosperity of 1950s America for that of 1980s Brazil.

Single-villain ideologies

Despite the intelligence of many of its supporters, libertarianism is an instance of the simplest (and therefore silliest) type of politics: the single-villain ideology. Everything is blamed on the government.

The advantage of single-villain ideologies is obvious: in any given situation you never have to think hard to find out the culprit. The disadvantages, however, are worse: you can’t see your primary target clearly– hatred is a pair of dark glasses– and you can’t see the problems with anything else.

It’s a habit of mind that renders libertarianism unfalsifiable, and thus irrelevant to the world. Everything gets blamed on one institution; and because we have no real-world example where that agency is absent, the claims can’t be tested.

Not being a libertarian doesn’t mean loving the state; it means accepting complexity. The real world is a monstrously complicated place; there’s not just one thing wrong with it, nor just one thing that can be changed to fix it. Things like prosperity and freedom don’t have one cause; they’re a balancing act.

The problem with markets

Markets are very good at some things, like deciding what to produce and distributing it. But unrestricted markets don’t produce general prosperity, and lawless business can and will abuse its power. Examples can be multiplied ad nauseam: read some history– or the newspaper.

  • Since natural resources are accounted as free gains and pollution isn’t counted against the bottom line, business on its own will grab resources and pollute till an environment is destroyed.
  • The food business, on its own, will put filth in our food and lie about what it’s made of. The few industries which are exceptions to food and drug laws (e.g. providers of alcohol and supplements) fight hard to stay that way. The food industry resists even providing information to consumers.
  • Business will lock minorities out of jobs and refuse to serve them, or serve them only in degrading ways.
  • Business will create unsafe goods, endanger workers, profiteer in times of crisis, use violence to prevent unionization– and spend millions on politicians who will remove the people’s right to limit these abuses.
  • Thanks to the libertarian business climate, companies are happily moving jobs abroad, lowering wages, worsening working conditions.
  • The same libertarian climate encourages narcissists to pay themselves handsomely while ruling incompetently, and leads to false accounting, insider trading, and corruption.
  • Businesses create monopolies and cartels when they can manage it; and the first thing monopolies do is raise prices.
  • Businesses can create bureaucracies as impenetrable and money-wasting as any government.
  • State-controlled media are vile; but business-controlled media are hardly better, especially given the consolidation of major media. Democracy needs a diversity of voices, and we’re moving instead toward domination of the airwaves by a few conglomerates.
  • The poor are ill-served even for basic services: they pay more for food; they pay through the nose for rotten apartments; they can’t get loans even if they can get bank accounts; if they can get a job it’s ill paid, with no health benefits. Poor areas are also highly polluted (in ways that cause massive health problems).

Libertarian responses to such lists are beyond amazing:

  • “Businesses would be stupid to do those things.” Then they’re stupid, because they do them. Private racial discrimination, for instance, lasted a hundred years; and it wasn’t ended by businessmen changing their minds, but by blacks and liberals organizing. The Libertarian Party platform actually hopes to legally re-enable private discrimination.
  • “The market will correct those problems.” In a few cases it will– if you wait long enough. But very often it’s simply impossible: e.g., the monopolist has made sure no alternatives exist. (One of the railroad tycoons, for instance, was careful to buy up steamship lines.) And though it was sometimes possible to break a monopoly by starting a well-bankrolled competing business, that was no consolation to (say) an oil producer who saw Rockefeller consolidating all the refineries. He could hardly start up his own refinery, and he’d be bankrupt before anyone succeeded in doing so.)

    Slavery is another example: though some hoped that the market would eventually make it unprofitable, it sure was taking its time, and neither the slave nor the abolitionist had any non-governmental leverage over the slave-owners.

    (Libertarians usually claim to oppose slavery… but that’s awfully easy to say on this side of Civil War and the civil rights movement. The slave-owners thought they were defending their sacred rights to property and self-government.)

  • “We believe in laws too.” And they do, rather touchingly; they just don’t believe in enforcing them. Enforcement of the laws passed by democratic legislatures is called “men with guns” or “initiating force” in libertarian ideology. And without enforcement, laws are just pretty words. You can see this today in Latin America, which often has very progressive laws. The business and landowning elite just ignores them.
  • “So what do you want, state-run movie theaters?” The single-villain ideology is so strong that the only response some people can make to a market failure is to invent a statist response and criticize that. Sometimes the best solution to these problems is to use the market– once it gets a good liberal kick in the pants to go find one.

And those are the better responses. Often enough the only response is explain how nothing bad can happen in the libertarian utopia. But libertarian dogma can’t be buttressed by libertarian doctrine– that’s begging the question.”(2)

Taxation is Theft

“Perhaps the most communicable libertarian meme– and one of the most mischievous– is the attempt to paint taxation as theft.

First, it’s dishonest. Most libertarians theoretically accept government for defense and law enforcement. (There are some absolutists who don’t even believe in national defense; Maybe they want to have a libertarian utopia for awhile, then hand it over to foreign invaders.)

Now, national defense and law enforcement cost money: about 22% of the 2002 budget– 33% of the non-social-security budget. You can’t swallow that and maintain that all taxes are bad. At least the cost of those functions is not “your money”; it’s a legitimate charge for necessary services.

Americans enjoy the fruits of public scientific research, a well-educated job force, highways and airports, clean food, honest labelling, Social Security, unemployment insurance, trustworthy banks, national parks. Libertarianism has encouraged the peculiarly American delusion that these things come for free. It makes a philosophy out of biting the hand that feeds you.

Unacceptable Morality

Ultimately, a primary objection to libertarianism is moral. Arguing across moral gulfs is usually ineffective; but we should at least be clear about what our moral differences are.

First, the worship of the already successful and the disdain for the powerless is essentially the morality of a thug. Money and property should not be privileged above everything else– love, humanity, justice.

Libertarians need to get a clue that the extremely wealthy don’t need them as their unpaid advocates. Power and wealth don’t need a cheering section; they are– by definition– not an oppressed class which needs our help. Power and wealth can take care of themselves. It’s the poor and the defenseless who need aid and advocates.

The libertarians reminds me of G.K. Chesterton’s description of people who are so eager to attack a hated ideology that they will destroy their own furniture to make sticks to beat it with.

James Craig Green again:

Typical excuses are “the common good”, “public morality”, “traditional family values”, “human rights”, “environmental protection”, “national security”, and “equality”. Each appeals to the confused hysteria of a segment of the population. Each allows property to be denied its rightful owner. Each denies the concept of self-ownership.

Here’s a very different moral point of view: Jimmy Carter describing why he builds houses with Habitat for Humanity:

From my rural boyhood, when I often spent the night with black neighbors who lived in unheated and dilapidated shacks, to my years in the White House when I saw the plight of the homeless and those trapped in poverty housing worldwide, I have known that shelter matters. And I know, as a Christian, that I have a responsibility to serve where I can, that as I treat “the least of these”, I treat my Creator.

Is this “confused hysteria”? No, it’s common human decency. It’s sad when people have to twist themselves into knots to malign the human desire to help one’s neighbor.

Libertarianism is the philosophy of a snotty teen, someone who’s read too much Heinlein, absorbed the sordid notion that an intellectual elite should rule the subhuman masses, and convinced himself that reading a few bad novels qualifies him as a member of the elite.

And perhaps most common, Libertarianism is the worldview of a provincial narcissist.

It’s hard to read libertarians without concluding that they’ve never been out of the country– perhaps never out of the suburbs. They don’t know what Latin American rule by the elite looks like; they don’t know any way of running an industrial economy but that of the US; they don’t know what an actually oppressive government looks like; they’ve never experienced a depression; they’ve never lived in a slum or experienced racial discrimination. At the same time, they have a very American sense of entitlement: a gut feeling that they’ve earned the prosperity they were born into, that they owe the community nothing, that they deserve to have whatever they want, that no one should stand in their way.

In short, they’re spoiled, and they’ve evolved a philosophy that they should be spoiled.

It’s important not to leave out the possibility of honest confusion. Some people may be attracted by parts of the libertarian program without buying into its underlying morality.

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” –Franklin D. Roosevelt“(2)

“No existing democratic governments fully endorse and implement libertarian doctrine, for no national electorate would tolerate so radical a system of political economy.

Nonetheless, libertarianism deserves careful critical analysis since in theory, if not in practice, it is the ideological “spear-point” of “free market reform” throughout the world.

For all its acquired respectability in contemporary political discourse, libertarianism is a grave threat to the very existence of the American system of justice and representative democracy as we have come to know it. Libertarianism poses this threat not because of the cogency of its doctrines but rather because of the enormous financial and media resources that promote it.

It is important to note at the outset that libertarianism divides neatly into two aspects: personal libertarianism and economic libertarianism. This division puts the libertarians at odds with both the political right and the political left.

There is a hesitatency to use the terms “liberal” and “conservative” since the public media have abused both terms to the point that they are essentially meaningless.

In the American political scene today, self-described “conservatives” are more accurately identified as “regressives,” since they seek to return society and government to the conditions of earlier times. The essentially synonymous words “liberal” and “progressive” can be used interchangeably.

The liberal (or progressive) tends to agree with libertarian insistence that law and government are not justified in interfering with the personal lives of individuals. They agree that in a free society there is no place for laws regarding sexual preference, abortion, drug use, euthanasia, etc. Liberals and libertarians thus endorse John Stuart Mill’s proclamation that “over himself, over his own mind body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” To the contrary, the right, and especially the religious right, has no trouble endorsing government interference regarding these matters of personal conduct.

On the other hand, the liberal left strongly opposes, and the right endorses, the libertarian positions regarding market fundamentalism, deregulation of commercial activity, minimal government, and privatization. Economic libertarianism has for all practical purposes been adopted into the platform of the Republican Party, even though that party is reluctant to embrace the term “libertarianism.”

Because economic libertarianism poses the greater threat to the American system of government and traditions of justice, the primary focus will be on that aspect of libertarianism.

The Essential Doctrines of Libertarianism

While not all individuals who describe themselves as libertarians will fully agree with all of these stipulations, (there are, after all, several varieties of libertarianism), the following formulations will identify the “targets” of this analysis:

  • Natural Rights. There are three fundamental human rights: to life, liberty and property. These rights are all “negative rights,” in that they all stipulate “freedom from” interference from other persons or from governments. There are no natural “positive rights:” i.e., rights to receive, e.g., an education, a livelihood, health care, etc.
  • The like liberty principle: All persons are entitled to maximum freedom consistent with equal liberty for all.
  • Minimal government: The only legitimate function of government is the protections of each individual’s rights to life, liberty and property All other functions of government are illegitimate. Taxation to support these illegitimate functions amounts to a theft of private property.
  • Spontaneous Order. The fundamental social institutions arise “spontaneously” out of individual voluntary associations. No planning or regulation “from the top down” is necessary.
  • Social atomism. There are no separate entities called “society” or “the public.” These are simply aggregates of individuals.
  • Privatism. Private ownership is always preferable to public ownership.
  • Market Fundamentalism: The “free market” – the unregulated and undirected summation of all private buyer/seller transactions – is always “wiser” than centralized economic planning.

Now, to an elaboration of these doctrines:

Individualism and Social Atomism: Libertarianism is a radically individualistic doctrine. The optimal libertarian society (if “society” is the correct word) is an aggregate of individuals in voluntary association, secure in their “natural rights” to life, liberty and property. (Thus, the only legitimate function of the “minimal government” is to protect these rights).

Thus “society,” ideally, is a simple summation of individuals, in voluntary association, privately optimizing their satisfactions.

Natural Rights: To the libertarian, the Lockean rights of the individual to life, liberty, and property are fundamental. Because these rights reside in the individual, the only legitimate function of government is to protect these rights from usurpation by other individuals or institutions – especially the government itself which, according to John Hospers, is “the most dangerous institution known to man.”

Accordingly, the scope of government must be scrupulously confined to the protection of life, liberty and property from foreign enemies (through the military), from domestic enemies (through the police and criminal courts), and from the private activities of others (through the civil courts).

Libertarians stress so-called negative rights (or “liberty rights”) which entail duties of forbearance on the part of others. For example, my right to free speech entails your duty not to prevent that speech. However, to the libertarian, there are no “positive” or “welfare rights,” which entail the duty of individuals or of government to positively provide benefits or sustenance to others. The poor have no “rights” to welfare support, and the only children that have a right to our support are our own.

The liberal, while accepting the libertarian triad of negative rights, also proclaims the citizens’ “positive rights” – to an education, to employment with a living wage and safe working conditions, to a clean and safe environment, etc. These rights arise from the fact that the liberal, unlike the libertarian, recognizes social benefits and public interests. Communities flourish when they include an educated work force, when the citizens are assured that their basic needs for livelihood and health-care are met, and when the citizens share the conviction that the society is their society and that they have a role in its governance. And because the communal activity produces more wealth than would be obtained by the sum of individual efforts, members of the community have positive rights to a share of that wealth, and to community assistance in case of misfortune.

Accordingly, the liberal insists that Ayn Rand’s Ubermensch, John Galt, is a fantasy. There is no fully “self-made man,” morally free of all responsibility and obligation to the society that nurtured him and sustains him.

Privatization, Environment, and the Commons Problem: According to the libertarians, all environmental problems derive from common ownership of such natural resources as pasturage, fisheries, and even air, water and wildlife. The solution? Privatization of all such resources. Does this sound extreme? Consider the following from Robert J. Smith: “The problems of environmental degradation, pollution, over-exploitation of natural resources, and depletion of wildlife all derive from their being treated as common property resources. Whenever we find an approach to the extension of private property rights in these areas, we find superior results.”

Public Accommodations and Property Rights. Because property rights are inviolable, the owner of a restaurant or motel or other “public accommodation” is entitled to refuse service to anyone at the owners’ sole discretion, which means that the owner has the right to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or whatever. Thus the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constitutes an illegitimate violation of personal property rights. The libertarian might agree that discrimination is morally indefensible, and that private citizens are fully entitled to protest and to boycott establishments that elect to discriminate. Nonetheless, the property rights of the owners are inviolable. 

Spontaneous Order. “The great insight of libertarian social analysis,” writes David Boaz, “is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes.” Because an orderly society arises “spontaneously” out of the free associations and activities of individuals, without the support, investment or coordination of any overarching institutions (e.g., governments), a well-ordered society is a “free gift,” for which nothing is owed (i.e., taxes ) by the component individuals for its maintenance.

Minimal Government. Accordingly, it follows that government has no function other than to protect and secure each individual’s natural and inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Any additional functions of government, for example public education, public parks, museums, support for the arts, scientific research, welfare payments, foreign aid, are illegitimate, and taxes levied to support these functions constitute theft of private property.

 

 

Market Fundamentalism. “The wisdom of the market place” – prices that arise out of the numerous free transactions between autonomous individuals – will always exceed the “wisdom” of regulated markets, controlled and coordinated by superordinate (namely government) agencies.

 

Milton and Rose Friedman clearly enunciate this central dogma of libertarianism:

A free market [co-ordinates] the activity of millions of people, each seeking his own interest, in such a way as to make everyone better off… Economic order can emerge as the unintended consequence of the actions of many people, each seeking his own interest.”

In the phrase “the activity of millions of people, each seeking his own interest…” we see the concept of social atomism at work. And in the clause, “economic order can emerge as the unintended consequence…” we find a reiteration of the concept of spontaneous order.”(3)

The Myth of Social Atomism

“Perhaps the fundamental dispute between libertarians and liberals resides in the ontological status of “society” and “the public.”

Social atomism might well be the foundational doctrine of libertarianism, upon which all other planks of the libertarian platform – market fundamentalism, privatism, minimal government, spontaneous order – are supported. Refute this doctrine, and quite possibly the entire theoretical structure of libertarianism might collapse. Accordingly, the doctrine of social atomism deserves careful critical scrutiny.

Ayn Rand

The social atomism of the libertarians was starkly expressed by Margaret Thatcher when she wrote: “There is no such thing as society – there are individuals and there are families.”  And Ayn Rand: “There is no such entity as ‘the public’ … the public is merely a number of individuals.”  Now admittedly, Baroness Thatcher is not a political philosopher, and Ayn Rand insisted that she was not a libertarian. So let’s look further.

The implications of social atomism are radical in the extreme, for if there is no such thing as “a public,” it follows that there are no “public goods” or “public interest,” apart from summation of private goods and interests. Moreover, if there is no society, it follows that there are no “social problems,” there is no “social injustice,” and there are no “victims of society.” The poor presumably choose their condition; poverty is the result of “laziness” or, as the religious right would put it, a “sin.” There are further implications. Since there is no such thing as a “public,” taxation for the support of such “so-called” public institutions as education, libraries, the arts, parks and recreation, is coercive seizure of private property, or “theft.”

The liberal replies that this denial of the very existence of “society” and “the public” is reductionism, plain and simple – what the Brits call “nothing-buttery.” It is comparable to saying that Hamlet is “nothing but” words, that Beethoven’s music is “nothing but” notes, that the Mona Lisa is “nothing but” pigments on canvas, and that the human brain is “nothing but” cells and electro-chemical events.

Good For Each, Bad For All

Further refutation of social atomism, the keystone of libertarianism, is simple and straightforward. If we can cite cases in which self-serving behavior (“good for each”) can cause collective harm (bad for all), and conversely cases in which imposed constraints upon individuals (“bad for each”) can result in collective benefits (“good for all”).

Then, by thus distinguishing “each” and “all” we will have demonstrated the existence of an “all-entity,” “society,” with unique properties that are distinct from a mere aggregate of individuals.

In more familiar terms, society is “more than the sum of its parts.” Here are three such cases:

Antibiotics: The over-use of antibiotics “selects” resistant “super-bugs,” decreasing the effectiveness of antibiotics for all. But just one more anti-biotic prescription for a trivial, “self-limiting” bronchial infection won’t make a significant difference “in general,” while it will clearly benefit the individual patient. But multiply that individual doctor’s prescription by the millions, and we have a serious problem. “Good for each patient, bad for the general population.” The solution: restrict the use of antibiotics to the seriously ill. Individuals with trivial and non-life-threatening ailments must “tough it out.” “Bad for each, good for all.”

Traffic laws: We all agree that traffic laws can be a nuisance. But if you believe that traffic lights constrain your freedom of movement, try to drive across Manhattan during a power outage! In the blackouts of 1965 and 1977 in the eastern United States and Canada, traffic began to move only after the police and a few citizen volunteers stood at the intersections and directed traffic.

The decision of each driver to accept constraints worked to the advantage of all. So too with the traffic lights and stop signs that we encounter daily. We are all freer to move about only because we have collectively agreed to restrict our individual freedom of movement. “Bad for each, good for all.”

The Tragedy of the Commons. The principle of “good for each, bad for all” was forcefully brought to public attention in 1968 by Garrett Hardin, in his essay “The Tragedy of the Commons” – which was, for a while, the most widely reprinted scientific essay of the time.

Hardin, a biologist, cites as an example, a pasture owned “in common” by the residents of a village. The pasture is at “carrying capacity” – the number of sheep is such that the villagers can, with that number, use the pasture indefinitely without reducing the productivity of the land. However, any additional sheep will degrade the pasture and thus its capacity to support livestock.

It thus becomes immediately apparent, that any individual who adds a sheep to his personal flock will gain in personal wealth, while, at the same time, by degrading the common resource and the value of the other sheep, he slightly decreases the wealth of every other villager. Each villager is similarly situated. Absent common agreement and enforcement thereof, it is “rational” for each individual to increase his personal flock, even though, in Hardin’s words, “ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons.”

In other words: “good for each, bad for all.”

The solution? Hardin prescribes “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon,” which means the rule of law enforced by government. Each individual agrees to a curtailment of liberty (“bad for each”) in behalf of the common good (“good for all”).

It is all too easy to overlook the profound “tragedy” in the “trap” faced by the villagers in Hardin’s example – “tragedy,” in the sense of “the solemnity of the remorseless working of things.” (Here Hardin quotes the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead). For so long as there is no protection of the commons through government regulation and law, the certain fate of the common pasture is destruction. Accordingly, under these circumstances the only “rational” course for each herdsman is to increase his herd and take what he can while he can. If he altruistically volunteers restraint all by himself, he is a fool for his restraint will in no way preserve the commons. Thus restraint (aimed at preservation) is punished and greed (contributing to destruction) is rewarded.

If the “tragedy” applied only to a village of herdsmen surrounded by a “common” pasture, it would be of little interest. The power of the tragedy of the commons is its enormous scope of application: not only to pastures, but also to the seas, the atmosphere, rivers and lakes – any and all resources available to all and owned by none.

Accordingly, an industry that volunteers to scrub its smokestacks or purify its water outflow, assumes costs that will put it at a disadvantage with competitors. The irresponsible industries win out in a “race to the bottom,” and the common atmosphere and watershed degrade, along with the health of unconsenting citizens in the vicinity.

So too with the whaling industry, prior to the adoption of international agreements to impose limits. (“Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon”). The whales were then clearly being hunted to extinction. Yet the only result of individual restraint was to leave the whales for others to catch: “they’re done for anyway – let’s get what we can now before they’re gone.” A similar tragedy has caused a radical reduction in the fishery “catch” in the North Atlantic. Now, at long last, international limits have been imposed.

Catalytic Converters and the Limits of Volunteerism. Next, an application of the tragedy of the commons that might be more salient to those who live in or near urban centers, where automobiles are many and sheep are few.

Libertarians often tell us that voluntary restraint is a morally preferable solution to commons problems than government coercion. Sure enough! The trouble is, it doesn’t work.

Consider the catalytic converter as a solution to the problem of air pollution. (The numbers are “made up” as accuracy is not important. This is a hypothetical “model” based roughly on generally known technology and demographics).

The catalytic converter is a device placed on a vehicle’s exhaust system which eliminates (let us assume) 90% of exhaust pollution. Assume further that purchase and installation of the unit costs $200. In the Los Angeles airshed are ten million vehicles.

Will individuals be willing to pay $200 to clean up the air in their neighborhood? Many folks would probably be willing Will they clean up the air by volunteering, all by themselves, to install a catalytic converter? Probably not! As an example, if they do install a catalytic converter, it will reduce the pollution by slightly less than one ten-millionth for those that live in the Los Angeles area. In effect, no help whatever. And they will be out $200. To put the matter bluntly: volunteerism is not only futile, it is irrational. The solution is obvious and compelling: require that all vehicles have working catalytic converters. Result: the air pollution in LA has been dramatically reduced, to the relief of the vast majority of Angelinos, and at an individual cost acceptable to that majority.

If a proposition to repeal the catalytic converter requirement were put on the ballot, it would be soundly defeated (assuming the public was correctly informed). The solution is straightforward, rational and popular: “mutual coercion mutually agreed upon.” Imposed and enforced by “big government.”

It costs (“bad for each”), but the “social benefit” is well-worth it (“good for all”).

Examples above focused on “material” or “resource” commons – such as air, water, oceans, pastures (“open range”), etc. But there are also “non-material” commons that are equally, if not more, important to the quality of social life and the justice of a political order. These include the rule of law, the quality and level of education in the community, trust in the government and the prevailing sense among the citizens of that government’s legitimacy, the degree of civility and the “moral tone” extant in the society.

When unscrupulous individuals act to their own advantage and heedless of the consequences to others, they can degrade “the moral commons” – the mutual respect and constraint that is implicit in every well ordered society. For example, when outlaws are unpunished, the rule of law suffers. Worse still, when corrupt politicians and government officials put themselves above the law and betray the citizens by accepting bribes from special interests, they erode the trust that is essential to good government. And when there is reason to believe that the ballot has been compromised and there are no offsetting procedures to assure the accuracy of the ballot, the very legitimacy of the government and of legislation is diminished.

In a just political order, based on the principles of our founding documents, government and the rule of law are the common “property” of the citizens at large, and of no class or faction in particular. This principle is stated explicitly in the Declaration of our Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The Moral Point of View

“Society” is not, as the libertarians would have us believe, simply autonomous private individuals “doing their own thing,” from which activity somehow, “as if by an invisible hand” (Adam Smith), benefits for all accrue without foresight or planning – a “spontaneous order.”. On the contrary, a society is more than the sum of its individual parts. A society is, as John Rawls puts it, “a cooperative venture for mutual advantage [which] makes possible a better life for all than any would have if each were to live solely by his own efforts.” As these examples illustrate, common goods are achieved through individual constraint and sacrifice. “ Bad for each, good for all.” Conversely, unconstrained self-serving behavior by each individual can harm society as a whole. “Good for Each, Bad for all.”

Self-serving individual behavior, for example by scientists, entrepreneurs and artists, often or even usually results in benefits for all. (“Good for each, good for all”). This is not a universal rule. In innumerable instances, such as the five presented above, it can be clearly shown that social benefit requires individual constraint and sacrifice.

More generally, as every sociologist, psychologist and anthropologist well knows, human existence, including human consciousness, thought, evaluation, history, and culture, including private property and markets, is inconceivable without society. A human infant is not like a sea turtle or a mackerel, wholly independent and autonomous upon “hatching.” All uniquely human life, thought and culture has its origin and sustenance in the uniquely human mode of communication articulate language, which can only be acquired in social life. We define ourselves, and are in turn defined, first by the society and culture in which we find ourselves as we mature, and possibly later on by the societies and cultures that we seek out and adopt, or in the case of geniuses, transform. “The self,” writes the economist Herman Daly, “is in reality not an isolated atom, but is constituted by its relations in community with others – the very identity of the self is social rather than atomistic.”

Furthermore, as many moral philosophers have argued (with significant support from “game theory”), morality can only be understood, and moral problems cogently solved, from the perspective of a hypothetical observer of the human interaction – the so-called “moral point of view.”  From this perspective, the group of interacting individuals is the irreducible unit of moral deliberation. Moral problems can no more be analyzed from the point of view of the individual, than strategy and rules of a team sport such as hockey can be analyzed from the point of view of a single player, or a chess game successfully played in disregard of the opposing player. Finally, as the history of warfare repeatedly affirms, the best means of achieving the selfish end of personal survival on the battlefield is to subordinate one’s concern for personal survival to a shared willingness to sacrifice one’s life in behalf of others. Thus morality, at its foundations, is paradoxical: it is often in one’s best interest not to seek above all one’s self interest. This paradox can only be resolved from “the moral point of view” – from the perspective of the ideally informed and disinterested observer of human interaction.

To the libertarian, morality is founded in individual rights. In contradistinction the liberal, while acknowledging individual rights, goes further. By adopting “the moral point of view,” the liberal also recognizes “social goods” such as economic justice, domestic tranquility, and communal loyalty, all of which flourish under a system of laws, regulations, and enumerated welfare rights, which are best enacted, executed and protected by the institution of popular government – “of, by, and for the people.”

These, then, are the contrasting moral perspectives of the libertarian and the liberal:

The Libertarian: From the point of view of the individual (“the egocentric point of view,” “the mind’s I”). “Good for each.” From this perspective, the individual is enjoined to “live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.” (Ayn Rand).

 

 

The Liberal: From the perspective of an unbiased benevolent spectator of society (“the moral point of view”). “Good for all.” Furthermore, the liberal acknowledges a loyalty toward the social and political institutions that are the foundations of one’s liberty, security and well-being, and that this acknowledgment entails a moral obligation to support and defend these institutions.

Thus the libertarian (who, recall, denies the very existence of “society”) advocates the maximum liberty for each individual. The liberal, on the other hand, seeks to maximize the amount of liberty extant in the society.

The liberal further argues that, paradoxically, the egocentric point of view can not accomplish the libertarian goal of maximizing individual liberty. It fails, because individual liberties, and especially the liberties enjoyed by the privileged, powerful and wealthy, constrain the liberties and diminish the welfare of others. In other words, egocentric perspective violates the “like liberty principle” that the libertarian nominally supports: namely, that each individual is entitled to the maximum liberty consistent with the equal liberty of others.

Furthermore, the libertarian’s egocentric perspective fails because political and economic problems are not problems of individuals, they are problems of groups (i.e., of “all”), and therefore the interests of all affected individuals must be taken into account. The liberal proposes that these interests are best “taken into account,” fairly and equally, from the perspective of a hypothetical individual who is unbiased and benevolent – seeking the best result for all while respecting the inalienable rights of each.

In fact, no such neutral observer is actually necessary, for each moral agent, and the agent’s surrogate, the government, is quite capable of adopting the point of view of the hypothetical “unbiased benevolent observer.” Indeed, we did just that as we found solutions to the aforementioned problems, the use of antibiotics, traffic control, and the tragedy of the commons, whereby constraints upon each resulted in benefits to all. There we found that the astute moral agent would, as a “the unbiased benevolent observer,” perceive that all would benefit from constraints upon each.

The perspective of the “unbiased neutral observer” has a name – in fact, numerous names, since it is one of the most familiar concepts in the history of political theory and moral philosophy: “the impartial spectator” (Adam Smith), “the ideal observer” (John Stuart Mill), “the general will” (Rousseau), “the view from nowhere” (Thomas Nagel), “the original position” (John Rawls), and “the moral point of view” (Kurt Baier, Kai Nielsen and many more).

And who or what is most appropriately entitled to adopt the perspective of the “unbiased, benevolent observer,” and to codify and enforce the rules derived therefrom? What else than an agency selected and acting by the consent of the people, an agency that enacts and administers laws to the benefit of all, an agency constituted to “establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”

That agency has a name: “democratic government.” And in case you didn’t notice, the above quotation is from the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.

Public Goods and The Public Interest

The discussion above has definitively proven the existence of “public goods” and “public interest” that are distinct from the mere summation of private interests. Consider again the case of antibiotics which, medical practice has clearly demonstrated, lose their potency the more they are prescribed. The widespread use of antibiotics is clearly to the advantage of each patient, though the resulting loss of potency is to the disadvantage of all patients. Thus it is “in the public interest” to discourage the use of antibiotics by non-critical patients. It is to the advantage of each vehicle owner not to purchase and install a catalytic converter, thought this results in an increase in air pollution. But it is in the interest of all citizens when these devices are required by law. Clean air is thus a “public good” achieved through the imposition of “personal bads.” Clearly “the public interest” and “public goods” are in these cases, as well as the others cited above,” distinguishable from the summation of private interests and goods.

For a political scientist or a sociologist to deny the existence of public interests and goods should be analogous to a chemist denying Boyles Law, and a physicist denying thermodynamics. Each of these principles are the foundations of these various sciences. And yet, the libertarian, by denying the “real existence” of the entities “society” and “the public”, denies the existence of social needs and benefits and of public interests and goods as it proclaims that voluntary associations, privatization and the free market always yield superior results to government “coercion” of private citizens.

The coordinate principles, “good for each, bad for all” and “bad for each, good for all,” resound throughout the history of political thought — from Aristotle, through Thomas Hobbes, Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson, on to the present day. Indeed, the practical applications of these principles are implicit in successful communities, from the present extending far back into pre-history. They are the key to the survival of communities of social insects such as bees and termites, and of social animals such as wolf packs, wherein evolution, not argument, provides their validation.

And yet, amazingly, those who presume to call themselves “conservatives,” reject these principles, in favor of another: “good for each, good for all.” This libertarian principle of the political right, exemplified by “trickle-down economics” and the assurance that “the rising [economic] tide raises all boats,” is immediately appealing. Who would not desire that collective “goods” should result from the achievement of personal well-being? And in fact, the progressive will readily admit that many human endeavors that achieve individual benefits, also benefit society at large. “Good for each, good for all” is true in particular and identifiable cases, such as artistic creation, technological invention, and yes, business entrepreneurship.

The error of the libertarians resides in their embrace of the principle “good for each, good for all” as dogma, applied a priori to society and the economy, virtually without exception. By rejecting, implicitly, the principle of “good for each, bad for all” and vice versa, the libertarian recognizes no personal price that must be paid for the maintenance of a just social order, and pays no heed to the social costs of one’s personal “pursuit of happiness.”

 

For the libertarian, the only legitimate functions of government are the protection of the three fundamental rights of life, liberty and property.  Hence, the only legitimate disbursement of tax revenues is for the military (protection from foreign enemies), the “night watchman” police (protection from domestic enemies), and the courts (adjudication of property disputes). Because there are no “public goods,” compulsory tax payment for public education, research and development of science and technology, medical care, museums, promotion of the arts, public and national parks, etc., is the moral equivalent of theft.

According to this account of human nature and society, with the exception of the just noted protections of life, liberty and property, there is nothing that government can accomplish that private initiative and the free market cannot achieve with better results. As Ronald Reagan famously said in his first inaugural address: “government is not the solution, government is the problem.” No regulation, no governmental functions beyond basic protection of life, liberty and property, no taxes except to support these minimal functions. Any governmental activity beyond this should, in Grover Norquist’s words, be “drowned in the bathtub.”

Let the free market reign without constraint, allow all “capitalist acts between consenting adults” (Robert Nozick). As each individual, in Adam Smith’s words, “intends only his own gain,” then each individual will be “led by an invisible hand to promote … the public interest.”

Good for each, good for all.

In contrast, the progressive views society as more than the sum of its parts; it is what philosophers call an “emergent entity,” with properties and principles of the whole distinct from those of its components just as, analogously, chemical compounds (e.g. water and salt) have properties distinct from their component elements. In this sense society and its economy is like a computer, an engine, an ecosystem, the clarity of a living language. If the system malfunctions, there are innocent victims — the poor, the oppressed, the addicted, the uneducated — and the system is thus in need of adjustment or repair or even overhaul and redesign. These corrections are best diagnosed and treated when the system is examined and analyzed, as a system, and not as an amalgam of distinct individual parts. And diagnosis, adjustment, regulation, repair, overhaul, redesign of the community-entity are legitimate functions of a government established to act in the interests of all and “deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.”(4)

Market Fundamentalism

“Libertarians accept the conviction of neo-classical economists that “the free market,” unconstrained by government oversight and regulation, will always produce better results than markets directed by legislation. The free market, they insist, resulting from the “utility maximizing” transactions of numerous autonomous buyers and sellers, “spontaneously” establishes prices and prompts entrepreneurial decisions that yield the best outcome for the society in general. “Good for each, good for all.”

“The wisdom of the market place” is epitomized by the concept of “the invisible hand,” cherished by libertarians, which has its origin in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations:

[The individual] neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it… [H]e intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

An unyielding faith in the infallible beneficence of “the invisible hand,” leads to “market fundamentalism” – the doctrine that whatever government attempts, privatization and the free-market can do better.

[T]he free market allows more people to satisfy more of their desires, and ultimately to enjoy a higher standard of living than any other social system… We need simply to remember to let the market process work in its apparent magic and not let the government clumsily intervene in it so deeply that it grinds to a halt.  – David Boaz

A free market [co-ordinates] the activity of millions of people, each seeking his own interest, in such a way as to make everyone better off… Economic order can emerge as the unintended consequence of the actions of many people, each seeking his own interest. – Milton and Rose Friedman

Accordingly, the libertarians argue, governments should never interfere with markets. Furthermore, governments should not own property, which is better managed by private individuals. In short: let the free market decide. The mysterious “invisible hand” of the free market will “[allow] more people to satisfy more of their desires” (Boas), and “make everyone better off” (Friedman).

The dogma of market fundamentalism gains some credibility from the fact that it is at least a half-truth. No doubt, the individual’s striving to maximize self-interested gain accounts for numerous improvements in the quality of life in industrial countries. Presumably, the inventors and developers of computers and the internet were more concerned with their own economic prospects than they were of the “social benefits” thereof. Similarly, many scientific, scholarly, technological and artistic achievements, motivated primarily by self-interest and self-satisfaction, benefit society at large “as if by an invisible hand.”

From the undisputed truth that some, or perhaps even most, market activity yields benefits, the market fundamentalist concludes that the unregulated market never fails to be beneficial to all; the belief, in other words, that there are no malevolent effects of unconstrained market activity, no “back of the invisible hand.” From this belief follows the insistence that the free market is self-correcting, and that there is thus no need for regulation – that, in Ronald Reagan’s enduring words, “government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.”

Market fundamentalism is a “dogma” in the same sense that creationism and biblical inerrancy are dogmas; it is accepted “on faith” despite clear and compelling evidence that it is false. Not that this significantly alters the convictions of the libertarian and regressive true-believer.

Be that as it may, for those open to evidence and plain common sense, here are a few compelling reasons to reject the dogma of market fundamentalism – reasons to believe that what is good for an individual buyer or seller or corporate stockholder may not be good for the public in general.

A Fictitious Person in a Mythical Environment

Neo-classical economic theory, from which libertarian market fundamentalism is derived, can be seen at once to be inapplicable to the “real world” of actual economic activity. And, of course, the “real world” is and must always be the only world that we all live in. This mismatch between theory and application follows from the central concepts of neo-classical economics: “economic man” and “the perfect market.” A fictitious person acting in a mythical environment.

Economic Man (Homo Economicus). In neo-classical economic theory, “economic man” is a hypothetical individual who is a complete egoist, motivated solely by the self-interested desire to maximize his “preference satisfaction.” Homo Econ’s motivation is manifested by his willingness to pay for these satisfactions in a “free market.” Neo-classical theory also postulates that “all goods that matter to individuals … must be capable of being bought and sold in markets” and “anything that is valued instrumentally … can be handled by economics, be it acts of friendship or love.”“Economic man’s” behavior is described, in neo-classical jargon, as “rational.” By implication, the self-sacrificing behavior of saints and heroes is “irrational.”

Clearly, “economic man” exists nowhere outside of Ayn Rand’s novels and, perchance, on Wall Street. And this is fortunate, for we wouldn’t want him for a neighbor.

A public policy for “economic man,” systematically detached from criteria of truth, civic value, distributive justice, friendship and loyalty, is a policy that any civilized person should reject, and reject on non-economic grounds.

The Perfect Market

Consider next the conditions that define “the perfect market:”

All participants are “perfectly rational,” utility maximizing egoists – i.e., are “economic men.”

There are many participants in the market.

Competition is “perfect” – there is no collusion, cartels or monopolies.

All participants have access to all relevant knowledge.

There are no transaction costs.

All transactions are mutually beneficial.

There are no externalities – i.e., no consequences to non-participating and non-consenting “third parties”. (See the following section).

Clearly, there are no “perfect markets” anywhere on earth, apart from the imaginations of economists and libertarians.

Consider the following:

(a) “Economic man” is a myth, or at the very least extremely rare. As noted above, most individuals engage in economic transactions for several reasons, some of them non-economic.

(b) Participation in markets is restricted to those with the ability to pay. Public policy decisions, on the other hand, should involve the rights and welfare of many who are excluded from market activity; namely, the very young, the very poor, animals, and future generations.

(c) Unregulated markets are self-eliminating, because capitalists detest competition and strive constantly to eliminate it. The remedy? The enforcement of anti-trust laws and regulation, which means, of course, “interference” by governments in the marketplace.

(d) The multi-billion dollar advertising and public relations industries are devoted to the task of persuading rather than informing. And persuasion involves the withholding of relevant information (e.g. health risks) and the dispensing of distorted and false information. Caveat Emptor!

(e) All transactions in the real world exact costs. Among them are the costs of enforcing the laws required for markets to take place at all (e.g. fair disclosure, patents and copyrights, contracts, civil and criminal courts, etc.), and this of course means government, which is so despised by “free marketeers.”

(e) Transactions are frequently not mutually beneficial, due to fraud (i.e., violation of the “relevant knowledge condition”), the remedy of which is civil suits, which requires the “transaction costs” of the enforcement of law and the appeal to courts.

(f) External costs of market transactions are more the rule than the exception. Innocent, non-consenting parties are routinely impacted by economic activity. Among these external costs are environmental pollution, urban decay, public health costs, etc. Third-party “stakeholders” have no say in economic transactions. Their only recourse for protection and compensation is the sole agency legitimately established to represent all citizens: the government.

“Economic man” and “perfect markets” are abstract constructs which, due to their clarity and simplicity, allow theoretical economists to devise complex mathematical models. However, they have no counterparts in the real world, which compromises the application of these concepts in public policy.

Market Failure and the Problem of Externalities

One cannot enroll in an Introduction to Economics class, without encountering the concept of “market failure” – the acknowledgment that a totally unconstrained and unregulated free market can, at times, have socially undesirable consequences (as I will exemplify below). It is one of the most obvious and incontrovertible facts of applied economics. Almost all of us are aware of market failures, whether or not we have ever studied economics.

Some students of Econ. 101 choose to major in Economics, and a few of these earn doctorates in the field. Those scholars who go on to work for The Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute, The Cato Institute, and other such “conservative” and libertarian think-tanks somehow manage to forget about “market failures.” The free unregulated market, they tell us, always brings about the socially optimum result.

Practical experience tells us otherwise:

The unconstrained chemical industry promoted pesticides and caused extensive damage to the ecosystem, until the public and then the government, aroused by Rachel Carson’s book, “Silent Spring,” put a stop to it.

Similarly, the chemical industry strenuously resisted demands that it cease the manufacture and distribution of chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs), when atmospheric scientists discovered that the CFCs were eroding the stratospheric ozone, which protects the earth’s inhabitants from ultra-violet radiation. Once again, the federal government, joined by the governments of other industrialized nations, enforced a ban on CFCs.

Reduced labor costs yield increased profits and increased dividends to the stockholders of the corporation. Thus, if workers abroad accept wages that are a fraction of the wages demanded in the United States, then the “responsible” policy of the corporation executives is to re-locate jobs abroad: “outsourcing.” The consequences to the displaced workers, and eventually to the national economy, is devastating. But strictly speaking, that is not the concern of the corporation. Not, that is, unless the government intervenes with tariffs, tax incentives, regulations, and laws.

Finally, the tobacco industry, whose corporate responsibility to its stockholders is to maximize profits, successfully marketed its products to the point where half of the US population were smokers. As a result, almost a half million Americans die prematurely each year – nearly twice the total US casualties in World War II. Today, only a fifth of adult Americans are smokers. No thanks to the industry. Once again, government intervention, vigorously and persistently opposed by the tobacco industry, has curtailed marketing and has publicized the health hazards of smoking, saving the health and lives of millions.

We are all quite familiar with these “market failures,” and many more. It is obvious that, in numerous undeniable cases the unregulated free market fails to “make everyone better off,” as Milton Friedman would have us believe. So why, if market failures are so compellingly obvious, should we even bother to mention them? The answer is that our present government is dominated by individuals who behave as if they don’t recognize these malevolent consequences of free markets. So one after another, regulations and laws designed to correct market failures are being dismantled, as government regulatory agencies are staffed with lobbyists and officers from the corporations that these agencies are charged to regulate.

But why do markets fail to produce optimal results for society at large? Railroad tycoon, William Vanderbilt (1856-1938), said it all: “the public be damned, I work for my stockholders.” Moreover individual entrepreneurs and workers also want and strive for what is best for themselves. Indeed, as any neo-classical economist will insist, personal want-satisfactions (e.g., profits) are what drive an economy.

Implicit in market fundamentalism and libertarianism is the belief that what is best for each individual and each corporation is best for all individuals – in other words, for “society at large.” As President Eisenhower’s Secretary of Defense, Charles Wilson, allegedly put it: “What is good for General Motors, is good for the country.”

Because market fundamentalism is a dogma, it is untouched by hard evidence and practical experience. “Market — good; Government — bad. Period! Now don’t confuse us with the facts.”

Those who are not captivated by the dogma of market fundamentalism (i.e., most of us), know better. We trust the scientists who tell us that pesticides damage the ecosystem, that CFCs erode the ozone in the stratosphere. And we know that smoking causes lung cancer and premature death – the cigarette packs tell us so, not because the tobacco companies warn us out of a sense of social responsibility, but because the government requires them to print the warnings.

The Third Parties Problem

It is an article of faith among libertarians, a faith undiminished by the historical record or practical experience, that the unregulated free market of self-serving buyers and sellers will, “as if by an invisible hand,” yield the optimum social benefits. Accordingly, as Milton Friedman notoriously proclaimed in the title of his 1970 New York Times article, “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.” End of story.

This reassuring dogma conveniently neglects the “third parties” to economic transactions: the “stakeholders” – individuals affected by the transactions without their informed consent. These include individuals residing downwind and downstream from polluting industries, taxpayers who must pay for the medical costs of smoking, citizens at risk of injury or death from toxic chemical releases, homeowners near airports, and most recently, the tax-paying public, present and future, that has been presented the bill for rescuing Wall Street. Add to these, the customers who are not informed of the consequences of their purchases: teenagers induced to take up smoking, consumers of insufficiently tested drugs, etc. If the stockholders of a corporation are dissatisfied with the profit-making of the corporation, they can fire the managers. But who, other than the government, speaks for the stakeholders? The costs of these third-party “externalities” do not figure into the profit-maximizing plans of corporations, unless those costs are imposed by force of law and regulation, which is to say, by government.

There is another remedy, say the libertarians: the threat of law suits by individuals harmed by corporate irresponsibility. Unfortunately, the regressive Congresses and administrations have pulled the teeth from this watchdog by enacting so-called “tort reform” – limitations on awards to plaintiffs. So today, damage claims by customers and stakeholders are simply regarded by large corporations, as “the cost of doing business.”

Once the high-pressure political rhetoric and the high-fallutin’ scholarly jargon is set aside and undeniable economic and social facts are brought to the fore, the conclusion is inescapable: totally unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism cannot work, and attempts to make it work lead to oligarchy: opulent wealth for the very few, poverty for all others, and the disintegration of social order and the just rule of law. In addition to all that, oligarchy leads, paradoxically, to the destruction of the free market for, as history testifies and we are discovering anew in the daily news, oligarchy detests competition and leads to monopolies. Hence “mergers and acquisitions.”

Equally obvious is the remedy for all this: government regulation and the rule of law – law based, not on neo-classical economic theory, but on historical experience and fundamental moral principles.

How then have the regressives succeeded in foisting a belief in the dogma of market fundamentalism upon a sizeable portion of the United States population, including the media and perhaps a majority of the U.S. Congress? They have accomplished this through the expenditure of vast sums of private money in support of “think tanks,” in the purchase of media, and in political campaign contributions.

But what cogent arguments have been presented in support of the dogma? Very few, I submit. The widespread acceptance has been accomplished through simple repetition, devoid of argument and rich in the rhetoric of “freedom.” About the only supporting argument forms of note are anecdotal evidence and false generalization. Supporters of market fundamentalism cite examples of the benefits of free markets, and from that conclude that all “free markets” are always benign. However, as noted above, the fact that free market activity is often beneficial is not in dispute. Yes, we are all better off due to innovation, entrepreneurship and competition in the production of goods and the performance of services. This is the aforementioned “half-truth” of market dogmatism. But this half truth does not yield a whole truth. It does not follow from the admitted advantages of free market activity that there are never any harmful consequences thereof. Simple reflection, as noted above, yields abundant examples of what economists call “market failures” and “negative externalities.”

“The Reagan Revolution” of 1981 ushered in the grand experiment in applied market fundamentalism. Before more and greater harms befall us all, it is past time for the people and the government of the United States to recognize and to proclaim that the experiment has failed.

We have learned what we need to know about the attempt to institutionalize this dogma, and it is time now to return to proven modes of governance: the rule of law, the protection of the environment and common resources, just distribution of the fruits of our combined and coordinated labor, and the subordination of economic activity in the service of the public good. It is time, in short, to bring back the rules, the umpires and the sanctions. Time to scrap the ethic of “you are on your own,” and to restore the ethic of community: “we’re all in this together.”

The liberal economist, James Galbraith, concurs:

“A new spirit of pragmatism surely requires that we discard the metaphor of market determinism – whole and entire. No more, let us bow and scrape before that altar. Markets have their place – they are a reasonably open and orderly way to assure the distribution of services and goods. They are not a general formula for the expression of social will and the working out of social problems.”(5)

The Privatization Panacea

Fire mark of the Hand in Hand Fire & Life Insurance Society on a house in Dulwich

“In colonial Philadelphia, firefighters were employed by private insurance companies which, of course, had financial incentives to minimize damage to their clients’ properties. Plaques with the insurance company’s insignia were placed on buildings, so that the fire fighters would know whether or not it was “their business” to put out the fires on the premises. (These plaques are often found today in antique shops). If the “wrong” plaque was on the building, well, that was just tough luck. Of course, with their attention confined to a single building, fire fighters were ill-disposed to prevent a spreading of the fire to adjacent “non-client” structures.

Occasionally, when the building’s insurance affiliation was in some doubt, competing fire companies would fight each other for the privilege of putting out the fire, resulting in more water aimed at fire fighters than at burning buildings.

Eventually, the absurdity and outright danger of this system led one prominent Philadelphia citizen to come up with the idea of a publicly funded and administered fire department.

His name was Benjamin Franklin: America’s first anti-free-enterprise commie pinko nut-case.

Franklin’s subversive left-wing ideas were extended to include libraries, post offices, and public schools, and, if we are to believe some of today’s self-described “conservatives,” it’s been downhill ever since.

Libertarians contend that virtually all economic and social institutions are better managed when privatized and unregulated. According to this theory, the greed (i.e., “profit motive”) of investing private individuals is, in virtually all cases, mystically transformed into the optimum public good. The exceptions are the police, the military, the courts and the legislatures which, they concede, are properly confined to “the public sector.”

However, today even these exceptions are succumbing to “creeping privatization,” as the hyphen in “military-industrial complex” dissolves, as members of Congress are clearly more beholden to their corporate sponsors (“contributors”) than to their constituents, and as “conservative” judges routinely rule that corporate “property rights” trump personal injury suits and civil liberties.

But is it just possible that old Ben Franklin had a point? Are we not all better off now that the fire department doesn’t look first for the insurance medallion on our homes before they turn on the hoses? Isn’t the function of the military to defend the country – all of us, rich and poor, male and female, white and “other” – from foreign enemies, rather than enrich the industries that supply the armed forces? And shouldn’t the members of Congress represent the public at large, and not the private corporations and individuals that finance their campaigns?

Libertarians and their right-wing political allies are not convinced as, today in some wealthy neighborhoods, even fire and police protection are being “re-privatized.”

Privatizing Nature

The absurdity of uncompromising privatism and market fundamentalism is on full display when applied to environmental policy.

According to the libertarians, all environmental problems derive from common ownership of such natural resources as pasturage, fisheries, and even air, water and wildlife. The solution? Privatization of all such resources. Does this sound extreme? Consider the following from Robert J. Smith (my emphases):

“The problems of environmental degradation, pollution, overexploitation of natural resources, and depletion of wildlife all derive from their being treated as common property resources. Whenever we find an approach to the extension of private property rights in these areas, we find superior results.”

The environmental devastation in the former communist countries, the libertarians argue, proves the rule: that which is the property of everyone (i.e., the state) is the responsibility of no one. In contrast, they argue, resources will be best protected when the costs of environmental degradation fall upon the property owner. Accordingly, when the environment and its resources are privately owned, there is no need to urge the owners to practice “good ecological citizenship” for abstract altruistic reasons or through the threat of government sanctions. Instead, the libertarian believes, self interest and economic incentives will suffice to motivate the property owner to maximize the long-term value of his property.

Pollution and Property Rights: But if privatization motivates the owner to protect the environmental quality of his own property, what is to keep him from polluting and degrading the property of others – especially in the absence of government regulation, which the libertarians detest? The answer, in a word, is the courts — in libertarian theory, one of the few acceptable institutions of government.

Recall that the right to property is one of the three inviolate “natural rights” of the libertarian. It follows that pollution is an invasion of one’s property and even of one’s person, and thus punishable as an illegal violation of personal property rights. Accordingly, would-be polluters are restrained by the threat of suit by the injured property owner.

That, in brief, is how the libertarians propose to deal with nature and environmental quality. Let’s see now how it stands up to close scrutiny.

The Problem of the Irreducible Commons. Recall that in his classical 1968 essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Garrett Hardin describes an overstocked pasture used by several herdsmen, but owned by no one in particular (i.e., “in common”). The addition of one sheep to the commons enriches its owner at the expense of all the other herdsmen. So long as there is no collective regulation on the use of the commons, no initiative by an individual will save the commons as each herdsman “rationally” chooses to “get what he can, while he can.” The result is inexorable: “ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons.”

The strength of Hardin’s essay resides in its enormous scope of application. “The tragedy of the commons” explains the depletion of the Atlantic Grand Banks fisheries east of Canada and the United States. It also explains the pollution of common waterways and airsheds, the loss of biodiversity, uncontrolled population growth, and global warming. In all these cases and many more, a common resource is exploited and diminished as benefit to each individual exacts costs on unconsenting others. Good for each, bad for all.

The tragedy of the commons strikes at the very heart of libertarianism. It is the polar opposite of the cheerful optimism of “the invisible hand,” whereby the self-serving “utility maximization” of each leads to advantages to all. In contrast, the tragedy of the commons is “the back of the invisible hand” — the falling tide that grounds all boats — whereby advantages sought by each systematically and inexorably work to the disadvantage of all. And as we argued in the preceding essays, the tragedy is unquestionably widespread and endemic to modern society. Gone is the Thatcherite social atomism. And gone with it is the impermeable boundary, essential to libertarian theory, between “my business” and “your business.”

Hardin endorses the liberal remedy: “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” – which means, primarily, regulation and control by a legitimate democratic government. However, as we have seen, government interference is anathema to the libertarians. Instead, they propose privatization and legal compensation for damages.

The libertarian’s error resides in their proposal that privatization, which is clearly the correct solution for some commons problems, is to be prescribed for all commons problems. Like Maslow’s carpenter who believes that all problems can be solved with a hammer, libertarians insist that all commons problems can be fixed with the “hammer” of privatization. Accordingly, they propose the abolition of all national parks and the privatization of all public lands and utilities, including roads and airports — everything, that is, except the military, the police and the courts.

Critics of libertarianism find no end of amusement pointing out the inadequacies of such a privatization scheme. How, for example, are we to “privatize” the whaling industry? Are we to “brand” the whales, to validate the ownership of each? And what if “my whale” feeds on “your” krill, which you purchased (from whom?) to feed “your” whales? What courts must we set up to assess damages? What agency will be set up to collect the facts germane to the case, and how is it to be financed? Furthermore, the privatization of oceanic resources suggests that “territories” of ocean will have to be established, which means the end of the centuries-old convention of non-sovereignty of the seas.

If we privatize wildlife, then will the owner of the wild insects that pollinate my orchard be entitled to charge me for this service? If someone’s flock of migrating birds soils my clothing or pollutes my swimming pool, how am I to locate the responsible owner? The mind boggles.

There is worse to come: can we conceivably “privatize” the atmosphere, and with it the hydrological cycle? If so, then who is liable for El Nino or Hurricane Katrina? If I own a “piece” of the atmosphere, is this a defined space, or is it the migrating clouds and molecules within. How is the “owner” to make his claim?

Total privatization of nature is a fantasy — a reductio ad absurdum, charitably supplied to the critics by the libertarians themselves. The atmosphere, the seas, wildlife, and innumerable ecological services both known and undiscovered, are now and will forever be the “common property” of mankind, not to mention the other species of the earth. And since “privatization” of land and resources can never be the total and final solution to the commons problem, there remains the libertarians’ alternative proposal: legal compensation for invasion of property. If that is found to fail, then governmental regulation, endorsed by the progressives and detested by the libertarians, may be the only remaining solution to “the tragedy of the commons.”

Progressivism vs. “The Ownership Society”

“The ownership society” – the privatization regime proposed by the libertarian — is inherently unstable, unequal, and eventually oppressive. Wealth and power act to enhance wealth and power, ever loosening the constraint of checks and balances, as they proceed to absorb government and make it an instrument in behalf of wealth and power. The statistics tell it all: today, the average CEO of a Fortune 500 company earns in half a day, what his median worker earns in a year (a ratio of 500 to 1). Twenty years ago, the ratio was 40 to 1. Today, one percent of the US households own almost 40% of the nation’s wealth – twice that of the 1970s. With the coming abolition of taxes on estates, dividends and capital gains, that inequality can only accelerate, as Leona Helmsley’s maxim — “taxes are for the little people” – achieves full realization.

Furthermore, the privatizers’ celebration of “competitive enterprise” is essentially hypocritical. As noted, capitalists hate competition, as they relentlessly strive to build monopolies and crush their competitors. All that stands in their way are anti-trust laws and the courts – which is to say, government.

But let us stop well short of the deep end. Privatization and free enterprise, constrained by popular government, are fine ideals, the applications of which have undoubtedly yielded great benefits to mankind. Moreover, government regulation can often be excessive and a damned nuisance to the private entrepreneur. Private enterprise should surely count for something. But not for everything. Adam Smith was right: “the invisible hand” of the market place can, without plan or intention, “promote … the public interest.” But we put ourselves in great peril if we fail to acknowledge “the back of the invisible hand” – the tragedy of the commons – whereby the unregulated pursuit of self interest by the wealthy and powerful becomes parasitic upon, and eventually destroys, the well-ordered society of just laws, common consent, and an abundance of skilled and educated workers who produce and secure that wealth.”(6)

 

 

Cites:

(1) The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda

(2) What’s wrong with libertarianism

(3) A Dim View of Libertarianism, Part I: What is Libertarianism?

(4) A Dim View of Libertarianism, Part II: The Myth of Social Atomism

(5) A Dim View of Libertarianism, Part III: Market Fundamentalism

(6) A Dim View of Libertarianism, Part IV: The Privatization Panacea

The Ashkenazim and the Destruction of the West

There has been a great deal of discussion and confusion, by a great number of people, for a very long time, about the history of the Jews and their actions in the West.

The following information should help to clear up this confusion and give an accurate history.

The twelve ancient Hebrew tribes

“The twelve ancient Hebrew tribes were united under the Kingdom of Israel for about 80 years of their existence: 40 years under their first King, Saul, and 40 years under David’s son, King Solomon.

Subsequently, the tribe of Judah split for good from the other eleven tribes. It became the Kingdom of Judah or the Southern Kingdom, while the other eleven tribes became the Kingdom of Israel or the Northern Kingdom.

Israel & Judah

Ten of the tribes gathered under Israel and settled mainly the Samaria region, with Samaria City as the Kingdom’s capital. However, some of the tribes established themselves peripherally around Samaria – in Galilee (Naphtali and Asher) and on the eastern side of the Jordan river (Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh).

Judah settled what would become known as Judah or Judea, with Jerusalem as its capital city. The tribe of the Levites had no inheritance and lived in different towns in the Kingdom of Israel.

That is until around 975 BC when Jeroboam, King of Israel, kicked out the Levites who went to live in Judah.”(1)

Israel’s Demise

All those who settled in Galilee were uprooted– the first group through King Solomon and the rest through King Tiglathpileser of Assyria.

The tribe of Benjamin – which many erroneously think was within the tribe of Judah – had their own territory. The tribe of Benjamin was part of the northern Kingdom, and many of Israel’s kings, like Saul and Ehud, originated from there.

The evildoing of the rest of Israel living in Samaria culminated under Hoshea around 730 BC, when Hoshea entered into an alliance with Egypt in order to throw off the Assyrian yoke. A ruse that failed. Assyria took Hoshea prisoner, and in 721 BC totally destroyed the Kingdom of Israel which never rose again.

The Benjamites and the other remaining Hebrew tribes of Israel in Samaria lost their territories and were carried into captivity.

Hence, all 10 tribes of Israel were scattered throughout the nations of the Assyrian Empire which didn’t include the Caucasus region, as many in our time are peddling in order to make converted Jews of today, who originate from there, appear Hebrews when they’re not.

Judah protected in the midst of the nations of the Assyrian Empire.

Out of the 12 tribes only Judah pulled through as a tribal entity with land, the tribe of the Levites sheltered therein.

However, the great majority of the tribe of Benjamin escaped the Assyrian scattering, and took refuge between the shoulders of the tribe of Judah.

In 586 B.C., when Judah was overrun, and Jerusalem and the temple destroyed, the Benjamite refugees, along with the Judahites and the Levites, were carried captive to Babylon.

Likewise, in 536 B.C., when King Cyrus of Babylon gave the edict for the Judahites to return home and rebuild the temple, the Benjamite exiles and the Levites were amongst them as well.

As a result, the scattered Hebrew tribes assimilated themselves as Judahites.

By the year 1 CE, only the Kingdom of Judah had survived and retained a contiguous territory with a King named Herod, even though Judah or Judea was part of the Roman Empire’s geographically designated federation known as Palestine which included various adjoining territories or provinces (see Map below – territories in red letters).”(1)

Judah’s Demise

“By the time of Roman Emperor Nero, his decadence was bankrupting the empire and the Jews of Judea were staging a huge rebellion against their Roman rulers.

Herod Antipas

Judea was one of the many conquered provinces that made up the Roman Empire. This region, which was also known as Palestine, was controlled by a family that also served as Rome’s tax collectors, the Herods.

They were a Greco-Arab family, somewhat Judiized, though only when it was necessary to please the subjects they were given. They were put in power in Palestine and destroyed the previous Jewish ruling family, the Maccabean family, root and stalk. 

Besides being heavily taxed and ruled by a non-Jewish family put in power by Rome, the Jews were further inflamed by the requirement a statue of Caesar be placed for worship in every temple throughout the Empire.

 

In the Roman Empire you could pretty much have any god you want, but legally you had to submit to the Emperor as a god as well. You had to also acknowledge that the Roman leader was also a divine figure. But the Jews would not have any of it.

A fundamental Jewish belief is that you should have no graven images. It’s a commandment given at Sinai by God. So the Jews never made representations of God.

The Jews had a much more different religion. They had a religion that was focused on the book and less focused on cultic statues. This presented a real problem for the Romans. They tried to install statues of Caesar, but the Jews weren’t to buy that at all. In fact it aggravated them, it enraged them and the Romans didn’t understand this. It’s not statues, it’s books.

And those books contained the Jewish messianic prophesies.

The thing that moved the Jews the most against Rome was an obscure prophesy that a world ruler would come out of Palestine.

Holy books inspired the Jews that a redeemer would redeem Israel, rescue Israel, restore Israel to power and leadership in the world.

David King of Israel

The Messiah that the literature described was a warrior. The Messiahs  would have claimed the same attributes that David did. David could overcome any army because God gave him the power to do it.

If you had the power of God you could easily defeat the Roman army.

The people rebelled against Rome and were led by a messianic movement that had a series of Messiahs that had come forward to fight against the Roman Empire.

The Hebrew word Messiah is translated into the Greek word Kristos or Christ, so the title of Christ can describe any of the numerous Messiahs of this movement.

 

This movement rebelled against Rome in 66 CE and it was successful, it actually defeats the Romans militarily, so it must have been a huge movement.

The victorious Jews set up a Nation State directly in the Roman Empire and the Romans had to do something about it. There was a real danger that this messianic movement could not only boil over into Judea itself, but could spread to other Jewish communities in other parts of the Roman Empire.

Rome ruled its colonies with a rod of iron and any resistance was going to be met with brute force.

At this time during Nero’s reign, two of the finest military men were the Flavians, Vaspasian and his son Titus. Vaspasian and Titus were military men. They had spent a great deal of their life outside of Rome. For over a decade they had waged war against the Druids in Brittany and Gaul. They were successful in essentially destroying the Druids. They left behind no historical record of their existence.

And it was the Flavians that Nero called upon to suppress the Jews rebellion in Judea.

Nero responded by asking his best General, Vaspasian, and his son Titus, to go into Judea with a huge army, 60 to 70,000 troops and a similar number of support individuals. So they meant business. The Romans came down to crush the rebellion.

In the year 66 CE, the Flavians began their military campaign with the Jews. They start further north in Galilee, where the first of three key events takes place. They destroy the Jewish towns of Galilee. They also capture a Jewish rebel who becomes a critical figure in the formulation of Christianity.

They captured a leading figure of the rebellion, a Jew name Josephus Bar Mathias. Josephus presented himself to the Flavians as a prophet. He survived by pointing out to Vaspasian that the prophesies of the Jews pointed out that Vaspasian would become emperor. And of course he did, so Vaspasian, liked Josephus, using him as a translator in his entourage, he used him to appeal to the rebels to surrender. At this point Josephus became a turncoat and worked with the Flavians against the rebellion.

When Vaspasian became the new ruler in Rome, Titus stayed behind on the battlefield and sets his sights on Jerusalem, where the other two key events take place.

Titus encircled Jerusalem with a wall and sealed off the entire town. Because of the Jewish resistance, it took awhile until they brought on starvation and forced the residents to surrender. Titus finally razed the Jewish Temple and left not one stone atop another.”(2)

“Judahite Hebrews living abroad (including Israelites who assimilated themselves as Judahites) made the trip every year to Jerusalem, Judah for the feast of unleavened bread, which took place right after Passover.

However, in AD 70, as the entire Hebrew nation came up from all the country and the world to Jerusalem to the feast, the Roman army was dispatched to flatten Jerusalem and the Temple, and to destroy all the Hebrews. A disaster that is known as the Apocalypse, the Tribulation, the Armageddon, the End of the Age of the Judahite Hebrews and of the Hebrew remnants of Israel who grouped under the Judahite flag.

It was an Apocalypse that wiped out the entire Hebrew race, except for those who converted to Christianity and fled the Kingdom beforehand.

The Christian Hebrews who escaped those infernal LAST DAYS of the Old Covenant did not have the mark of the beast.

Those with the mark of the beast were annihilated.

In other words, there are NO LOST TRIBES of Israel roaming about. They’re all dead.

After AD 70 there was no more Judah, just like there was no more Israel in Samaria after 721 BC.

Samaria was colonized by Asar-Haddon, King of Assyria, in 678 BC.

These people the King of Assyria brought to repopulate Samaria became known as the Samaritans. They converted to the faith of the Judahites who learned to hate them with a hatred that lingered until the time of Jesus.

The Samaritans are still around today. They are known as Samaritan Christians and Samaritan Jews.

Judah was re-populated after AD 70 by Middle Easterners from the Roman Empire, including many returning Hebrew Christians who in time intermarried with other Christian Semites such as the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Aramaics, Arabs, Phoenicians, and Syriacs, who are all known today under the cultural appellation of Christian Arabs.

They also rebuilt Jerusalem which was razed to the ground by the Roman Army.

As for the 12 Hebrew tribes, they all died –  their land inheritance buried with them.

Tribal folks in the Middle East can immediately identify their ancestries which usually go back thousands of years. Only modern Jews are at a loss to reveal which of the 12 Hebrew tribes they belong to. That’s because they’re not Hebrews.

Not one person who calls himself a Jew today can trace his ancestry to Abraham or Jacob: 1) he cannot prove which Hebrew tribe he’s from, and 2) a Jew is only a non-Hebraic convert to the faith of the Pharisees of old.”(1)

The Ashkenazim

The number one biblical verse used by Zionist Jews and Zionist Christians alike to justify dispossessing the Palestinians of their land is this one:

“On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates….” Genesis 15:18

By descendants God definitely meant the same biological bloodline, the same DNA, actual grandchildren of Abram/Abraham. Not spiritual progeny. As even a cursory study would show, those today who are known as Jews are not remotely bloodline descendants of Abraham.

They are in fact the non-Semitic and non-Israelite Ashkenazim and Sephardim, who in later times joined small numbers of other races that converted to Judaism/Pharisaism: Polish, Russians, Ukrainians, Germans, etc. These latter ones form a minority known as European Jews who, when coupled with the Ashkenazim, constitute a majority against the darker-skinned Samaritan, Sephardic, and African Jews; and none of these groups can claim to be of Abraham’s bloodline.

However, it is very important to understand what the bible and history have to say about the majority of converted Jews, the people known as Ashkenazim and Sephardim, while bearing in mind that 1) Abraham was a descendant of Shem – hence the term Semite or Shemite; 2) his scion Jacob and his twelve sons were the true biblical Hebraic Israelite nation with whom God had the Old Covenant (not with converted Jews); 3) the true Israelite nation no longer exists, and their land inheritance expired with them.

This is what the Bible has to say about the Ashkenazim in Genesis 10:

1 “Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. 2 The sons of Japheth: Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3 And the sons of Gomer: ASHKENAZ, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4 And the sons of Javan: Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Today’s Ashkenazi Jews, or descendants of Ashkenaz, are some of the GENTILES (Goyim) the bible speaks of. Why then do Ashkenazim call Christians and other non-Jews Gentiles, while pinning on themselves the term Chosen People? Is it ignorance or deception? It’s definitely not ignorance. And if to those outside it looks like deception, to them it’s pure re-branding. The ultimate Chutzpah!

Consider the terrible irony!

Ashkenazic (and Sephardic) Jews are themselves the Gentiles that many rabbis warn their congregations not to marry. To further the re-branding, they also call themselves Semites or Shemites when they’re JAPHETITES, which means they’re not Hebrews either. This re-branding is much like the way most of them – if not the majority of them – keep changing their last names every time they settle in a new country. The reason is simple and quite pragmatic. It’s a survival mechanism.

The Ashkenazim are a resilient, roaming Turkic people. They have a knack for reinventing themselves. They first surfaced in world annals as the notoriously barbaric Scythians or Sakadeans, depending on regional phonetic.

The word Scythian or Sakadean comes from the word Saka – with its Iranian verbal root Sak, meaning to roam.

The Scythians settled Central Eurasia which they conquered with their Gentile brother Togarmath and various other cousins, expanding across a vast track of land that encompassed but was not limited to parts of present-day Turkey and Iran. Their Gentile brother Riphath along with their uncle Javan’s descendants settled in Greece.

Later on, they reinvented themselves and settled a land they would call Khazaria – from the word Qasar, with its Turkic root Qaz, meaning to roam – following the break-up of the western Turkish Steppe Empire. Then the country converted en masse to Judaism/Pharisaism, sometime between 740 and 920 AD, just so they could remain independent of the two competing empires of that time, Christianity and Islam.

“Judaism was the most actively proselytizing religion…The most significant mass conversion occurred in the 8th century, in the massive Khazar kingdom between the Black and Caspian seas,” explained Jewish historian Shlomo Sand.

Then, Sviatoslav I of Kiev destroyed Khazaria around 1048 and absorbed it into Kievan Rus’, a territory that would later become part of the Russian Empire.”(3)

“After the destruction of Khazaria, the Ashkenazim scattered East and West throughout Europe and reinvented themselves as Errant Jews or Wandering Jews – meaning Roaming (Khazarian/Sakadean or Scythian) Jews. That label had nothing to do with a longing for Palestine but a longing for Khazaria or perhaps a longing for a new land, any new land.”(4)

Conquering and Destroying Western Culture

“To conquer the West, the Ashkenazim applied a simple two-step process:

1) morph themselves into God’s Chosen People;

2) take over the issuance of money.

They fully understood that there are only two entities that most men on earth revere: God and Money.

“You cannot serve both God and money.” Matthew 6:24

So they succeeded in steering both to their advantage.

To outwit the Christian West, it was essential that the Ashkenazi Jews reinvent themselves. Consequently, they tinkered with biblical terminologies.

First, a little background.

The faith that is known as Judaism today was never called thus.

Rabbi Adolph Moses in collaboration with Rabbi H.G. Enlow explained clearly in “Yahvism and Other Discourses” that, “Among the innumerable misfortunes which have befallen… the most fatal in its consequences is the name Judaism… neither in biblical nor post-biblical, neither in Talmudic nor in much later times, is the term Judaism ever heard…”

And what was it called before?

Rabbi Louis Finkelstein stated in his book “The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith” that, “Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name . . . the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered . . . From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered . . . demonstrates the enduring importance which attaches to Pharisaism as a religious movement . . .”

Judaism is actually Pharisaism, and therefore it is a misnomer since it is neither the doctrine of Judah nor the doctrine that Christ practiced.

“Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all the future,” explains the Jewish Encyclopedia.

In fact, Pharisaism is the doctrine of the Pharisees of old, an evil doctrine they brought back from their Babylonian captivity. It does not follow the truth of the Bible, neither of the Old Testament nor of the New. Its central tenets are found in a book called the Talmud (the real Satanic Verses), a book full of worldly traditions, lies, and superstitions.

The Babylonian Talmud is based on the mystical religious practices of the Babylonians which were assimilated by the Judahite Rabbis during their Babylonian captivity around 600 B.C. The Rabbis then used these occult traditions in place of the word of God,” wrote Edward Hendrie in Solving the Mystery of Babylon the Great.

The term Judaism was first coined by historian Flavius Josephus in the first century as he described the history, the civilization, the language, the poetry, the religion, the art, the science, the manners, the customs, the institutions, and the genocide of the Ancient Judahites. It was not coined with the intention of starting a religion and nor is Judaism even mentioned in the Bible.

The people who first seized the term Judaism and its historical content were then Christians. They were using it as an educational tool to acquaint themselves with the true Judahite Hebrews who practiced the doctrine of Christ. Such a mechanism allowed them to better comprehend the Epistles of the Apostles.

As a result, they were able to grasp two important facts that have eluded today’s Christians:

a) that the Judahite Hebrews who became Christians were the true Israel of God whom God spared the Great Tribulation during the Apocalypse of AD 70 – an event a lot of Christians today think is in the future;

b) that those who followed the Pharisees were not the true Israel of God, and therefore were not spared during said catastrophe that saw the genocide and the end of the Hebrew race.

Given that the Ashkenazim – who are not Judahite Hebrews – were themselves followers and proselytes of Pharisaism, a religion Christians everywhere frowned upon, they realized they needed a new image, a new public relations campaign that would put them in a more favorable light. And the reason they wanted that was because they had a Machiavellian plan. They were planning to conquer the West.

So they sprang into action some time in the late 18th century. They sharpened their Chutzpah and endeavored to get Christians to see them as the true Israel of God. Their purely cosmetic overhaul would consist in a) renaming Pharisaism, Judaism; yes, that very Judaism Christians were using for educational purposes, and b) reinventing themselves as “Jews”, an expression Christians were using to describe Judahite Hebrews or Judeans (i.e., people from the tribe of Judah). It was the perfect hoodwinking package that gullible Christians could easily swallow.

Jewish-born historian Benjamin H. Freedman explained it thus:

“When the word ‘Jew’ was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century (1775) its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was ‘Judean’. During the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international ‘pressure group’ created a so-called ‘secondary meaning’ for the word ‘Jew’ among the English-speaking peoples of the world. This so-called ‘secondary meaning’ for the word ‘Jew’ bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word ‘Jew’. It is a misrepresentation.”

As it stands, the adherents of Pharisaism or Rabbinists not only hijacked the word Judaism, but they also misappropriated the word Jew. However – over time and as it pertains to Christianity – the word Jew was completely hollowed out of its “Judean” or “Judahite” meaning because those who hijacked it were not of the tribe of Judah. In fact, in many Christian circles today, that word causes quite the confusion.

Again, here’s historian Benjamin H. Freedman:

“The present generally accepted ‘secondary meaning’ of the word ‘Jew’ is fundamentally responsible for the confusion in the minds of Christians regarding elementary tenets of the Christian faith. It is likewise responsible today to a very great extent for the dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith. The implications, inferences and innuendoes of the word ‘Jew’ today, to the preponderant majority of intelligent and informed Christians, is contradictory and in complete conflict with incontestable historic fact. Christians who cannot be fooled any longer are suspect of the Christian clergy who continue to repeat, and repeat, and repeat ad nauseam their pet theme song ‘Jesus was a Jew’. It actually now approaches a psychosis.”

“Countless Christians know today that they were ‘brain washed’ by the Christian clergy on the subject ‘Jesus was a Jew‘… (They) are also becoming more and more alerted day by day why the so-called or self-styled ‘Jews’ throughout the world for three centuries have spent uncounted sums of money to manufacture the fiction that the ‘Judeans’ in the time of Jesus were ‘Jews’ rather than ‘Judeans’, and that ‘Jesus was a Jew’.”

The forced evolution of the word “Jew” is similar to the evolution that befell the word “gay”. Gay=Merry became Gay=Homosexual. Try telling someone who’s happy (and who’s not a homosexual) that you’re glad he’s so “gay” and see what happens.

Another example is when many Christians today interact with a Jew they just met, their immediate reaction is to say, “Oh, Jesus was a Jew, too.” What they’re unwittingly saying is, “Oh, Jesus was a Pharisee, too.”

A word is what it is according to the meaning of its time. The word “Jew” today is so entrenched in describing one who follows Pharisaism (or Judaism) that it’s been completely emptied of its original meaning. Hence it no longer describes a Judahite or Judean, the actual word in the non-translated bible. That is why it needs to be struck from the translated bible because all it does is create confusion in the Christian mind; and that very confusion is exactly what the satanic forces want in order to unseat Christians as the new Chosen People – chosen to love and to do good – and to calumniate Christ as a Pharisee.

Since Mr. Freedman referred to “an international pressure group” that influenced the “secondary meaning” of the word “Jew” as it applies to followers of Pharisaism, and since he also mentioned that it was well-financed and that it spent uncounted sums of money, the only way to really discover it is to go back to the 18th Century and unearth the MONEY behind it. After all, money talks and that other stuff floats.

In the mid-18th century, one family stood out as the ultimate MONEY family, the German-born Ashkenazi Jews known as the Rothschilds.”(5)

The Jesuit Connections

“The Jesuits were founded initially as The Company of Jesus on “Assumption Day” August 15, 1534, also being the traditional feast day for Lucifer since 70CE, in a secret ceremony in the crypt of the Chapel of St. Denis by Ignatius of Loyola (born Íñigo López de Loyola) and Francisco Xavier, Alfonso Salmeron, Diego Laínez, and Nicolás Bobadilla all from Spain, Peter Faber from Savoy in France, and Simão Rodrigues from Portugal.”(14)

“Ignatius’s plan of the order’s organization was approved by Pope Paul III in 1540 by a bull containing the “Formula of the Institute”(15)

“The Jesuits are unique among all of the Catholic orders, in that they do not take orders from the Cardinal of their district, they report directly to the Pope.

It is the militia of the Pope and they have allegiance only to the Pope.

And they are a worldwide group, whose leader is known as the Black Pope, who is the real power in the Vatican.

There influence comes primarily through their financial power.”(11)

“Ignatius was a nobleman who had a military background, and the members of the society were supposed to accept orders anywhere in the world, where they might be required to live in extreme conditions. Accordingly, the opening lines of the founding document declared that the Society was founded for “whoever desires to serve as a soldier of God.

Jesuits are thus sometimes referred to colloquially as “God’s Soldiers”, “God’s Marines”, or “the Company”, which evolved from references to Ignatius’ history as a soldier and the society’s commitment to accepting orders anywhere and to endure any conditions.”(15)

“The “Society of Jesus” – as they are officially known – was originally used by the Vatican to counter the various Reformation movements in Europe, to which the Vatican lost much of its religious and political power. Absolute-temporal-ruling power has always been the Vatican institution’s primary objective.

According to the all-male Society, there are 20,000 Jesuits working in more than 100 countries, with 200 members in the UK in parishes, schools, colleges and spirituality centres.

The Jesuits only accept men who have been Catholics for three years or more. Trainee members of the Jesuits can be either scholastics, who become ordained priests after their studies, or brothers, who serve the group in a variety of other ways.

By the 17th Century there were more than 500 Jesuit schools established across Europe. The Jesuits standardized curriculum and teaching methods became the basis of many education systems today.

The Jesuits are famous for their role in the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was originally overseen by members of the Dominican order, though members of the Jesuit brotherhood were involved at a later date.

For the past 500 years, the Spanish Inquisition has controlled the Vatican by means of the Jesuits. All the Jesuits answer to their general in Rome, and he in turn is content to run the show from behind the scenes, without any publicity or public acclaim so as not to arouse the age-old Italian hostility to the Spanish.

Rome is in control of the drug trade. The Vatican controls all of the drug trade—all of the heroin, all of the opium, all of the cocaine, everything going around in Columbia.

Columbia has a concordat with the Pope. A concordat is a treaty with the Pope. Hitler had a concordat.Mussolini had a concordat. Franco had a concordat. They want to set up a concordat here, which was the reason for Reagan formally recognizing the sovereign state of Vatican City in 1984. The greatest traitor we ever had was Ronald Reagan.

So, they had a concordat. Columbia has a concordat. Do you think that drugs running out of Columbia, with a country that has a concordat with Rome, is not controlled by Rome? If Rome didn’t want the drug trade out of Columbia, they’d end the concordat. The whole drug trade is run by high Mafia families out of the country of Columbia, subject to the Jesuit General.

And the Jesuit General ran the Opium trade, a couple of centuries ago, out of China. They ran the silk trade, the pearl trade. The movie Shogun is but a slight scratching of the surface of the Jesuit “black ships” that trafficked in all of this silk and pearls and gold and opals and everything they could pull out of the East, including opium.

This is the true World’s power system right now.

This is an overview of  the bloody Society of Jesus (Company of Jesus) aka Jesuits: 500yr-old  All-MALE [homosexual] ROMAN CATHOLIC MILITARY ORDER; The Sovereign MILITARY ORDER of St. John The Hospitalier of Jerusalem, Rhodes & Malta aka SMOM Knights of Malta, wielding unchecked power behind the scenes.

Child Sacrifice to Molech

Centuries of  high level Satanists  practicing ancient Babylonian-Egyptian style Mass Human (Child) Sacrifices to Molech, directed by  Superior/Father Generals (Black Popes) & General Councils, Jesuit Provincials and Coadjutors throughout the world. This is the true power behind the Vatican, Papacy and Holy See, Roman Curia (Cardinals) — sworn to uphold bloody Oath of The Fourth Vow…

Jesuits (formerly monks) now masquerade in the guise of priests (plain black suits & white clergy collars) command Popes, Cardinals & Archbishops of the Roman Catholic Church. In devout service to their dark overlord they’re responsible for Inquisitions/Crusades (genocidal campaigns) which continue present day — WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam (Conflict) countless political assassinations, current Crusade against Islamic world and coming WW3 are ALL Jesuit inspired plots.

It was Jews aligned with the Pope who published the Protocols of Zion. Well, I tend to feel that it was just the Jesuits themselves because they, and they alone, were the ones who were able to bring this to pass.

 They’re the ones in the government. They’re the ones behind professional sports. The owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers is a Knight of Malta. The owner of the Detroit Lions is a Knight of Malta. All your top owners of these ball clubs, for the most part, are Knights of Malta, getting the people whooped up in this hoopla over games and sports, while they’re busy creating a tyranny. So, that was one of the things in the Protocols—that they would create “amusements”.

Another one they used was Walt Disney, 33rd-degree Freemason—Disneyworld, Disneyland. Another one was Milton Hersey, with Hersey Park. They create all of these amusements and games and pastimes to get the people drunk with pleasure, while they’re busy overthrowing the Protestant form of government.

And then there’s Las Vegas.

Las Vegas, for the most part, is controlled by the Mafia. But all the high Mafia families are Roman Catholic, and they are ALL subordinate to the Pope or to the Cardinal of New York, which is Cardinal O’Connor—because the Commission, the Mafia Commission resides in New York.

Frank Costello was a member of the Mob Commission, and he was intimate, personal friends with Knight of Malta, Hollywood mogul, Joe Kennedy. And that has not changed.

So, the High Knights are good, dear brothers with the High Mafia Dons—the Gambinos, the Lucchese, the Columbos, all of them. And they control Hollywood, not the Jews. It’s only Jews who are front-men who are involved in Hollywood and working for the Mafia and for the Cardinal, just like in politics it would be Arlen Spector. Arlen Spector was Spelly’s [Cardinal Spellman’s] Jew in the assassination [of President Kennedy], and he would never say a word about it.

Historically, the Jesuit mission has been to eliminate Protestant Christianity throughout the world, with United States being the last frontier to be conquered. Contrary to the self-proclaimed mission to educate and assist the underprivileged in society, the Jesuits actually worship Lucifer (not Satan) and practice the most sadistic forms of human sacrifice, homosexuality, pedophilia, black magic, and murder.

The Society employs a variety of ruthless tactics to accomplish its long-term goal (of a New World Order which pays homage to their Black Pope). One is carrying out political assassinations of world leaders who refuse to comply with its demands. These assassinations in the U.S. have included presidents (Abraham Lincoln, JFK), cabinet members, congressmen, senators, diplomats, journalists, scientists and religious and business leaders.

For purposes of obfuscation and maintaining a spirit of compliance, the Society of Jesus employs (and finances) the services of the,

  • NSA * DHS * FEMA *OSS *ONI *FBI *CIA *DIA *DEA

  • Pentagon *Department of Defense (DOD) *NASA

  • Federal Reserve (Private Bank Stock Corp) *Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

  • Congress *other Federal agencies as deemed necessary

Foreign Military and Intelligence agencies under their control include:

German SS * Deutsche Verteidigungs Dienst (underground Abwehr/DVD) * British MI6 and MI5 *Israeli Mossad

NATO *Interpol *KGB *Chilean DINA

United Nations, to name a few…

Assassinations are carried out by the aforementioned Intelligence agencies and their Mafia partners in the drug and gambling trades, often with collateral assistance from:

Knights of Malta   * Freemasons Knights of Columbus”(14)

The Black Pope

There is a Black Pope, who holds the top position over the Jesuit Order.

The White Pope embodies the spiritual power of the church and the Black Pope embodies the temporal power of the church.

“The Jesuit General through his “Company” of Jesuits governs the Roman Catholic Institution through the Pope and his Hierarchy. The Jesuit General governs Freemasonry through its “Sovereign Grand Commander” and his Masonic Hierarchy. Both systems are identical and absolutist governing every nation in the world according to the degree of its obedience or disobedience to the written Word of God— The Authorized King James Version of 1611.”(12)

Father Arturo Sosa SJ, 31st General of the Society of Jesus

 

“The current Black Pope is Arturo Sosa.

 

According to Jesuit documents:

The Superior General hears all, sees all, does all, yet in appearance does nothing. The eye of the General surveys the world to its farthest bounds. There is nothing done that he does not see by a thousand eyes, hears by a thousand ears and when he has to execute, he can select the fittest agent from innumerable hosts, all of whom are ready to do his bidding.

So what we see hear is the appearance of a Catholic Clergy acting as a Papal military.

It’s very subversive.

They are able to mobilize and hide behind the scenes to utilize other countries armies, infiltrate them, create their own mercenary forces. They have unbelievable resources at their disposal. They do this through their proxies and mercenaries, subverting from within.”(9)

“The Black Pope is said to answer directly to Satan/Lucifer & carries out all his orders and bidding’s. The Queen of England and The White Papal Bull must answer to All of his Commands.
 
He is titled the Jesuit General of the World and Supreme Chancellor of the World. He is to maintain this position of authority until The Anti-Christ/Messiah Lucifer/Satan Incarnate takes up Rule once the New World Order. He will Sit on the Throne of David and King Solomon in the rebuilt Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem and Declare himself GOD !
 
He is the most powerful man on Earth, who rule over Maritime Laws (business) . He controls the banking system, Freemasonry and the Secret Services (CIA, FBI, NSA, SIS, MI6, Scotland Yard, Mossad, CSIS, DGSE, FSB). The Vatican owns 60% of all Israel lands and the Land of the Temple Mount for their Third Solomon’s Temple where they want their throneHe is a part of the Arcana Arcanorum controlled by the Papal Bloodlines within the I-Mori. These bloodlines are the omega point of control. These are the Farnese, ORSINI, Aldobrandini, Somaglia & Breakspear. Their war room command center is within the Borgo Santo Spirito which is missile protected!  Henry Breakspear and Pepe Orsini are in high control! Jesuit Assistancy Soldier, James Grummer controls the United States Corporation.
 

Black Pope Arturo Sosa, Superior General of the Society of Jesus Diabolical Plan for a New World Order.
1. The Superior General of the Jesuits The Black Pope, Arturo Sosa and his 6 generals control the “White Pope” Pope Francis (also a Jesuit) and the Vatican.
2. The Jesuits control the Illuminati, Zionists, globalist Elites, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg group, Freemasons, Council of 300 and the evil Council of Trent.
3. The Jesuits control the Knights Templar, Knights of Columbus and the Knights of Malta.
4. The Jesuits control the CIA, FBI, NSA, ASIO, MI5, MI6, NCIS, FSB, DGSE, Mossad and every intelligence agency in the world are masonic.
5. The Jesuits have infiltrated all governments & Leaders, who are only puppets that carry out Jesuit orders.

The Jesuit General is the absolute, complete, and total dictator and autocrat of the Order. When he speaks, his provincials move. The provincials are his major subordinates. There are around 83 provincials right now.

The Jesuit Order has divided the world into 83 regions. Ok? For each region, there is a Jesuit provincial. There are 10 provincials in the United States. There is one for Central America. There is one for Ireland. They’ve divided up the world into these provinces.

So it’s old Babylonian provincial government, centered in Nebuchadnezzar or the Jesuit General himself; so it’s strictly a Roman form of government where all the states or provinces are subordinate to this worldwide sovereign.

The Jesuit General exercises full and complete power over the Order. He meets with his provincials. When they decide to start a war or an agitation, he gets the information from the provincial of that country, how best to go about this, the demeanor of the people, and then he uses legitimate grievances to foam an agitation—like the 1964 Civil Rights Movement. That was ALL a Jesuit agitation, completely, because the end result was more consolidation of power in Washington with the 1964 Civil Rights Act that was written by [the longtime President of the University of Notre Dame, the Reverend] Theodore Hesburgh.

The Jesuit General rules the world through his provincials. And the provincials then, of course, rule the lower Jesuits, and there are many Jesuits who are not “professed”, so many of the lower Jesuits have no idea what’s going on at the top. They have no concept of the power of their Order.

It’s just like Freemasonry. The lower  have no idea that the High Shriner Freemasons are working for the Jesuit General. They think that they’re just doing works and being good people. But the bottom line is that the high-level Freemasons are subject, also, to the Jesuit General because the Jesuit General, with Fredrick the Great, wrote the High Degrees, the last 8 Degrees, of the Scottish Rite Freemasonry when Fredrick protected them when they were suppressed by the Pope in 1773.

So, you have the alignment with the Jesuit Order and the most powerful Freemason they had in the craft, Fredrick the Great, during their suppression. That is an irrefutable conclusion. And then, when you see the Napoleonic Wars, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars carried out by Freemasonry, everything Napoleon did, and the Jacobins, whatever they did, completely benefited the Jesuit Order.

The Jesuit General is in complete control of the international intelligence community: that’s the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, the Israeli Mossad, the German BND, the British SIS. The Jesuit General is in COMPLETE CONTROL of the entire intelligence apparatus—FBI, every bureaucratic agency in this country, all of it; he is in complete control of it.

So, whenever he wants to find something out about an individual, they put in the Social Security number, and everything from all of the intelligence apparatus kicks-in and he and his provincials can review everything about that man. Credit cards, you name it, everything that’s attached to Rome’s social security number, which FDR put upon us in 1933 with the help of Spellman; at the time, I believe he was Archbishop, or maybe it was Cardinal Hayes—but Rome was behind FDR in putting him in office.

You find the greatest resistance to the Jesuits in Catholic countries, by Catholic monarchs. And that’s why the Roman Catholic monarchs and nobility of today don’t dare resist them. The Kennedys won’t touch them. The monarchs of Europe won’t touch them. The Hapsburgs won’t touch them, because the Jesuits have vindicated their power in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars—well, then they went to suppress the Jesuits again in Europe and they were, for the most part, kicked-out of Europe in the 1800s. All the nations of Europe banned them. Germany banned them in 1872. And so, World War I and II, the second Thirty Years War, was pay-back for this. And ever since then, nobody touches them.”(14)

“The Order (of Jesuits) controlled the infamous House of Rothschild since no later than the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, after which Jesuit-led Crusade the Rothschild family was surnamed the “Guardians of the Vatican Treasury (1830).” Eric Jon Phelps, „Vatican Assassins”, 3rd Ed., p.90.”(6)

The Illuminati

“The following is a paradox and must be seen as Hegelian dialectics, since The Jewish Rothschild bankers from the start of the Illuminati worked with the Jesuits to establish the Illuminati order, using Adam Weishaupt who had been raised by the Jesuits for that purpose. And according to Baron von Knigge, Weishaupt built the Illuminati order on Jesuit principles and remained a Jesuit in disguise. This order took over control of the Masonic lodges at Wilhelmsbad in 1781.

The Jesuits were the originators of  NWO´s  Freemasonry – not least via the Rosicrucians. Mayer Amschel Rothschild (Knight of St. John) and all of his 5 sons were Masons.  The Jesuits were from the very start a Crypto-Jewish organisationone purpose being to destroy Europe through revolutions – and they still have that purpose. The Jesuits control the House of Rothschild – and the EU.”(6)

“During the eighteenth century, and influenced by the secularist Enlightenment movement, Portugal, Spain, France and Austria were maturing as nation states and were rejecting papal influence. The Jesuits were seen to represent all that these states disliked about papal interference in temporal affairs. They became popularized as secretive, deceptive, manipulative, devious regicides, intent on world domination either for themselves or for the pope. They became convenient scapegoats, enabling the papacy to deflect antagonism from the papal Curia to the order. Expulsion of the Jesuits from colonies and home territories gave their enemies the added advantage of the seizure of their many assets.

Jesuits were first expelled from Portugal (1759), then France (1764), Spain (1767) and Austria (1770). Thousands of destitute priests and brothers sought refuge in Rome during these years. Finally in 1773 anti-Jesuit forces succeeded in persuading Pope Clement XIV to issue Dominus ac Redemptor, the papal brief suppressing the Society of Jesus, in order to secure peace in the Church. Jesuits in Italy had to renounce the Society of Jesus in order to remain in ministry.”(10)

“So, the Jesuits were involved in so much political subversion of countries, that the political pressure became to be such that the Vatican found it necessary to suppress the Jesuits.”(11)

“After a four-year investigation and pressured by the Roman Catholic Monarchs of Europe, this brave Pope suppressed the Society of Jesus with a Papal Bull on July 21, 1773. He knew the tremendous POWER he was resisting and that the signing of the Bull would be his death warrant.

Fourteen months later he lay dead having been poisoned by those masters of murder, as the Italians declared the Pope’s death to be a work of the Jesuits in obedience to their god whom they consider to be Jesus Christ in the flesh, the Black Pope.

To this day no mortal man occupying the office of Satan’s sacred Papacy has ever dared to once again suppress the Company of Jesus, as the Pope’s every word, tendency and action is closely monitored by the Jesuit General’s Curia overseeing him. For indeed, the office of “the Sovereign Pontiff” is tempered with Jesuit/Masonic regicide.

Whenever a secret organization is suppressed, they find it necessary to then go underground and create, basically, a sister organization that can keep their plans in motion.

And that’s what the Jesuits did with the Illuminati.

They were suppressed in 1773 and the Illuminati came about in 1776 and they immediately began attacking the Catholic Church, because now that they were suppressed, they viewed the Catholic Church as their enemy.”(11)

Adam Weishaupt (1748–1830), founder of the Bavarian Illuminati

“During the Order’s Suppression from 1773 to 1814 by Pope Clement XIV, The Black Pope ,Lorenzo Ricci, created the Order of the Illuminati with his soldier, Adam Weishaupt, uniting the House of Rothschild and Grand Orient Freemasonry with the Society of Jesus.

Weishaupt united the magnificent financial empire of the Cabalistic, Masonic, Jewish House of Rothschild—the “Guardians of the Vatican Treasury,” with the opulence of the international, anti-Jewish Race, primarily White-Gentile, Masonic/Luciferian Society of Jesus.”(12)

1776 MAY 1- Adam Weishaupt, Freemason and founder of the Bavarian Illuminati which infiltrated into Freemasonry makes this revealing statement:

“The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation. None is better than the three lower degrees of Free Masonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it. Next to this, the form of a learned or literary society is best suited to our purpose, and had Free Masonry not existed, this cover would have been employed; and it may be much more than a cover, it may be a powerful engine in our hands. By establishing reading societies, and subscription libraries, and taking these under our direction, and supplying them through our labours, we may turn the public mind which way we will.”(14)

“Having “Illuminized” continental Freemasonry (which had expelled the plotting Jesuits from Portugal, France and Spain) thus submitting “Illuminized Freemasonry” to the Black Pope via the Council of Wilhelmsbad, “Spartacus” Weishaupt led the Company’s war on the Pope’s Vatican Empire and Holy Roman Empire from 1789 to 1815. To deceive the historian, Weishaupt openly deplored the Jesuits though he had patterned his new Order after the Society. Coadjutor Heinrich Himmler would do the same, openly denouncing the very Jesuit Order after which his “Order of the SS” was designed. Secretly, both the Masonic Illuminati and the Masonic Thule Society were extensions of the “Church Militant,” it obediently fulfilling the will of its master, the Black Pope.

Although Ricci would die a prisoner in Rome’s Castle of St. Angelo, his Satanic master plan of vengeance against the Monarchs of Europe and war on the Papacy’s Holy Roman Empire would be crowned with success. Weishaupt, the Father of modern Communism, used his Jesuit-backed Jacobins to conduct the terrifying French Revolution incited by his Masonic Encyclopaedists, Voltaire and Diderot. This revolution led to the massacre of 300,000 people in a Godless orgy of violence.

Years later Jesuit General Ledochowski, with his Bolsheviks, conducted the Russian Revolution in 1917 incited by his Masonic Communists, Marx and Engels, it being identical to the upheaval of 1789.

What many modern writers of today describe as “the Illuminati” is, in fact and purpose, another name for the ubiquitous Company of Jesus under the all-pervading guidance of its master, the Black Pope, governing Washington, D.C., London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Peking, Jerusalem, Mecca and the Vatican.”(12)

“When Adam Weishaupt founded the Order of the Illuminati in Bavaria in 1776, we are led to believe that he intended to prevent the Jesuit order, which had at that point been suppressed by Pope Clement XIV, from regaining their former position in Europe. Weishaupt was educated by Jesuits during his youth. He did not invent the concept of Illuminism, which was based on a perversion of the Catholic sacrament of confession.”(13)

“The Order of the Illuminati was officially founded at the Jesuit College of Ingolstadt in the old Jesuit stronghold of Bavaria from which the Sons of Loyola had ignited the sanguinary Thirty Years’ War. The Company would now use the Jewish House of Rothschild to finance the French Revolution, which would, in turn, enfranchise the Jewish People in 1791, furthering the illusion that “the Jews” were the real culprits behind the upheaval in France. Rothschild would also finance the rise of Napoleon the Freemason with his Jesuit-trained advisor, Abbe Sieyes. In spite of the historical writings of the Jesuit Abbe Barruel, who blamed the Rothschilds and Freemasonry for the French Revolution, it was the Society of Jesus that used these very tools to carry out the Revolution and punish the Roman Catholic Monarchs who dared to expel the Sons of Loyola from their dominions and insisted upon their Suppression by a Franciscan Pope of their choosing—Clement XIV. The Jesuits, having been expelled from the Spanish Empire, found refuge in Corsica. From there they raised up their great Masonic avenger, Napoleon Bonaparte I.”(12)

“The purpose of the Illuminati is to divide the goyim (all non-Jews) through political, economic, social, and religious means.  The opposing sides were to be armed and incidents were to be provided in order for them to: fight amongst themselves; destroy national governments; destroy religious institutions; and eventually destroy each other.”(14)

“It wasn’t the goal of world domination, which the Illuminati shared with the Jesuits, that the public found as upsetting; it was the means whereby the Illuminati were going to achieve those goals. Weishaupt [directed by Ricci], took the idea of examination of conscience and sacramental confession from the Jesuits and, after purging them of their religious elements, turned them into a system of intelligence gathering, spying, and informing, in which members were trained to spy on each other and inform their superiors.

Jewish writer Bernard Lazare, an anti-Catholic, seems to brag about the Jewish orchestration of secret societies and the Illuminati:

“There were Jews around Weishaupt, and Martinez de Pasqualis, a Jew of Portuguese origin, organised numerous groups of Illuminati in France, recruiting many adepts to whom he taught the doctrine of reintegration. The lodges founded by Martinez were mystical, whilst the other orders of Freemasonry were rather rationalist. This permits one to say that the secret societies represented the two sides of the Jewish mind: practical rationalisation and pantheism.”(13)

“The Jesuits, not the Masonic Jews, were and are the foremost gladiatorial slaves of the Roman Caesar, the Pope. Because of their Suppression by their master, Weishaupt led a revolt of former Jesuit slaves from 1776 to 1814—nearly forty years!

Masonic Jews always play “a subordinate though conspicuous role” when used by the Jesuit General. Such was the case of:

Meyer Amschel Rothschild 1744-1812

The birth of the Illuminati with Rothschild (1776), the financing of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars with Rothschild (1789-1815), the creation of modern Communism with Marx (1848), the first head of the Federal Reserve Bank with Paul M. Warburg (1913) and later, Alan Greenspan (2006), the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) via the Bolshevik Revolution with Trotsky and Lenin (1917), the financing and building of the USSR with Jacob H. Schiff and Armand Hammer (1920-1980), AIG’s Maurice Greenberg (2006), the Jewish Holocaust of Europe with Rudolf Kastner (1939-1945), the birth of Labor Zionist Israel with Theodor Herzl (1948), the cover-up of the Masonic Kennedy Assassination with the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter and his “single bullet theory” (1964) and the continual high treason against the people of the American Empire by Henry A. Kissinger, now an advisor to Pope Benedict XVI and whom the Greek Cypriots, as a result of the CIA-induced invasion, murder, rape and plunder of Orthodox Cyprus by Moslem Turkey, have surnamed “Henry Killinger,” (1972 to the Present (2007)).

These are high-level Masonic Jews who adhere to the evil Babylonian Talmud of Judaism—the twin sister of the evil Council of Trent of Jesuitism—and have betrayed their own Jewish Race contributing to the atrocities committed by the Jesuit Order including the Jewish Holocaust. These same Masonic (racially) Jewish Labor Zionists with their secret brethren, the Masonic (religiously) Jewish Talmudic Rabbinical leaders, will one day betray “the holy people” by making Jerusalem an international city and by entering into a treaty with the Papal Caesar.”(12)

“The Illuminati wasn’t so much an organization as much as it was a concept of blackmail and espionage that was soon adopted by almost all secret societies, and it is still in use today. Talk about the Illuminati’s influence on society is sort of a red herring, especially in the way that it is used today. Modern conspiracy researchers portray the Illuminati as the end all, be all…as a highly organized institution, which it isn’t. It’s a concept or system.”(13)

“Known as “The Community of Zion” in France, the Sons of Loyola used their Middle Eastern Napoleonic Wars in attempting to secure Jerusalem, in the words of the lying Napoleon, “for the Jews.” As per the ancient dream and quest of Loyola, the Society, in the name of “the Jews,” which race they hated and continue to hate to this day, sought to destroy the two Islamic Mosques on Jerusalem’s ancient Temple Mount. It then desired to build a Masonic Solomon’s Temple “for the Jews,” but with the secret agenda of fully intending to transform “the temple of God” into a Luciferian-Satanic-Egyptian Temple of SET. That momentous transformation would be realized by a future and final Jesuit Pontiff turned Antichrist, mortally wounded with the sword, risen from the dead, indwelt by the Devil and causing the Mosaic sacrifices and oblations to cease via his personal presence within.

The relationship between the Jesuits and Freemasonry is important to understand. The Jesuits, in control of the Vatican since 1814, portray Freemasonry as their enemy. This is simply not true. (In Masonic Baltimore, the Jesuits flourish at their prestigious Loyola College of Maryland!) As we shall see, Shriner Freemasonry’s “Invisible Empire” and Jesuitism are friends and work together, as both secret societies desire to rebuild Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem.

Since the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Satan’s Jesuit General has used 33rd Degree Freemasonry for three purposes. Being keys of understanding, they are:
1. To maintain the Order’s death grip over the Pope, the College of Cardinals and thus the Papacy (controlling the leaders of Roman Catholicism pursuant to Pope Gregory XVI’s 1836 Brief granting all power to the Order);
2. To destroy the Protestant Reformation while restoring and maintaining the Temporal Power of the Order’s “infallible” Pope over every nation (controlling the leaders of all Protestants including the Orangemen, and pre-Protestant “Christian” sects including the Orthodox Church leadership);
3. To gain possession of Jerusalem in order to rebuild Solomon’s Temple, for the Pope, after which every Masonic Lodge is patterned (controlling the leaders of all Islamic sects, including the American Black Muslims, and the leaders of all Judaistic sects including the Orthodox Chief Rabbis).”(12)

“During the 19th century, when it was at its height, the Rothschild family is believed by some to have possessed the largest private fortune in the world, as well as the largest private fortune in modern world history.”

Could it be that the Rothschilds were the ones behind this “pressure group” that commandeered the word Jew and hijacked the word Judaism as part of their Machiavellian plan?

If so, what did they stand to gain?

Actually there are two good reasons why the Rothschilds would absolutely be involved, if not being themselves the originators of said plan of conquest.

1. They had an insidiously wicked vision. They wanted to transform Palestine into their new mother country, Israel, since they and their fellow Ashkenazim had lost their homeland Khazaria.

Wikipedia explains:

“After the death of James Jacob de Rothschild in 1868, his eldest son Alphonse Rothschild took over the management of the family bank and was the most active in support for Eretz Israel. The Rothschild family archives show that during the 1870s the family contributed nearly 500,000 francs per year on behalf of Eastern Jewry to the Alliance Israélite Universelle. Baron Edmond James de Rothschild, youngest son of James Jacob de Rothschild, was a patron of the first settlement in Palestine at Rishon-LeZion, and bought from Ottoman landlords parts of the land which now makes up present-day Israel.

“In 1917 Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild was the addressee of the Balfour Declaration to the Zionist Federation, which committed the British government to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

“In 1924, Baron Edmond James de Rothschild established the Palestine Jewish Colonisation Association (PICA), which acquired more than 125,000 acres (50,586 ha) of land and set up business ventures. In Tel Aviv, there is a road, Rothschild Boulevard, named after him as well as various localities throughout Israel which he assisted in founding including Metulla, Zikhron Ya’akov, Rishon Lezion and Rosh Pina. The Rothschilds also played a significant part in the funding of Israel’s governmental infrastructure. James A. de Rothschild financed the Knesset building as a gift to the State of Israel and the Supreme Court of Israel building was donated to Israel by Dorothy de Rothschild.”

Baron David René de Rothschild, current French chairman of N M Rothschild & Sons.

Thus, in cahoots with the British Empire, the Rothschilds conspired to create the state of Israel on the stolen land of Palestine. Apparently, they got tired of these random land purchases. They wanted the whole enchilada. So they gobbled up the whole thing, the whole of Palestine, using the British army (much the way AIPAC is using the US Army to wage all these Middle East wars to benefit Israel).

Only powerful money could have caused something of that dimension to materialize. What other private individuals in history do you know of managed to accomplish something of that magnitude? It’s not everyday one gets to buy his own country or in this instance steal one, especially since in so doing one is putting at risk the very Empire that’s helping. See Israel: the Scourge of Empires. Consequently, and because of said risk, more than money was needed for the realization of such an audacious plan.”(5)

And the Rothschilds were the perfect front group to be used by the Jesuits to purchase large tracts of Palestine.

“The real power in the world is not the United States, Russia, or even China. It is Rome. The Roman Catholic Church (Vatican) is the single most powerful force in the world.

However, the Vatican has been under the control of it’s largest all-male order, the Jesuits. The Jesuits were created in 1534 to serve as the “counter-reformation” — the arm of the Church that would help to fight the Muslims and the Protestant Reformers. However, they fought with espionage. The Jesuits were expelled from at least 83 countries and cities for subversion, espionage, treason, and other such things. Samuel Morse said that the Jesuits were the foot soldiers in the Holy Alliance (Europe and the Vatican) plan to destroy the United States (Congress of Vienna). Marquis Lafayette stated that the Jesuits were behind most of the wars in Europe, and that they would be the ones to take liberty from the United States.

It’s not who your not allowed to criticize.

It’s who you know nothing about.

His color is black, the color of the Jesuit order which seeks to dominate the world economy for the antichrist through the following front organizations:

 

The Catholic Church is the biggest financial power, wealth accumulator and property owner in existence. She is a greater possessor of material riches than any other single institution, corporation, bank, giant trust, government or state on the whole Earth. The Pope, as the visible ruler of this immense amount of wealth, is consequently the richest individual in the 21st century. No one can realistically assess how much he is worth.

Alternative news is clueless as to this dark, occulted truth that the Jesuits are at the very top of the pyramid and USE THE JEWS as bait to hide the fact they are THE TRUE RULERS OF EVIL.”(7)

Part of Fourth Vow of the Ordained Jesuit

Fooling the Christians

“America’s traditional churches in the 19th Century would never stand for a Jewish occupation of Jesus’s homeland,” explained author C.E. Carlson.

Therefore, the Ashkenazim needed a miracle.

They needed to be recognized by the West as the true Israel of God in order to keep the populace of the Christian Empires mollified and agreeable as they endeavored to steal the “Holy” Land, which from a religious standpoint was mostly controlled at the time by the Catholic Church/Empire thanks to its many crusades to unseat the “infidel” Muslims.

So Pharisaism or Rabbinism became Judaism while its adherents miraculously became the “Jews” of the Bible. Whoever said money can’t buy miracles. 

As the Ashkenazim finalized their naturalization as “Jews” of the bible, they sent out a loud message to the Christian world: the kinsmen of Christ were still around and therefore had the right as per “biblical prophecies” to return to “their homeland” Israel (temporarily called Palestine in their eyes, even though the Ashkenazim and all the other racially identifiable “Jews” are not even remotely related to our Lord Jesus Christ, and none of their ancestors ever lived neither East nor West of the Jordan).

Thereupon, in order to start and keep alive the illusion that the creation of modern-day Israel was the result of “biblical prophecies”, they financed many “commentary bibles” such as the Scofield Reference Bible with purposely erroneous commentaries about the return of the “Jews” to “their homeland”, along with the unbiblical rapture theology and brainwashing references about “anti-semitism” being a sin. They also kept on payroll compromised preachers, like John Hagee, to constantly brainwash the flock by spewing out their demonic bile in reference to Israeli “Jews” as God’s “Chosen People”.

And, for good measure, not only did they dust off the dead Hebrew tongue from the dustbin of forgotten languages to make it Israel’s official dialect, but they also resurrected the Sanhedrin Court of old that condemned Christ to death in order to threaten with the wrath of “God’s Chosen” those who dare to contradict the Zionist view that the entirety of the stolen land of Palestine belongs to Israel.

2. They wanted respect, control, power, and possibly even worship.

By pretending to follow Judaism, “the doctrine of Judah” (by inference the doctrine that Christ the Judahite practiced), and by pretending to be Jews (by inference Judahites), the Rothschilds and their pharisaic brethren would be seen in a whole new light by Western Christians.

No longer would Christians compare them to the dreaded Pharisees of old whom Jesus was constantly rebuking. No longer would Christians paint a mental picture of them as children of the Devil.

And no more would they be treated as pharisaic heathens and pigs deserving of calumnia, as the Europeans were wont to appraise them as followers of Pharisaism.

Now they would be seen as those of Judah who escaped and awaited God’s salvation.

By becoming Jews who practiced Judaism, the Ashkenazim positioned themselves and their coreligionists in the minds of Christians as those whom God has not rejected.

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be!” Romans 1:11

By implication they became the chosen people.

Hence, all followers of Pharisaism would no longer be identified by the outside world as Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Samaritans, Europeans, or Africans, but simply as Jews, the kinsmen of Jesus Christ, the God of the Western world.

Thus “Judaism” and “Jew” became the immediate revisionist words that historians endeavored to apply as the financial incentive to do so was extremely tempting. As a result, the words that were used to describe the adherents of Pharisaism and their religion were sanitized (just like when Blacks wanted to be called Negroes no more). This in turn caused compromised writers of all stripes to follow suit as they searched for any excuse to exploit the word “Jew” in reference to proselytes of Pharisaism or Rabbinists.

With such favorable intellectual and religious dispositions that only money could buy, the Rothschilds were now sociologically unfettered to amass their fortunes through wars, usury, and fiat money of their own central banks, in partnership with their Ashkenazi brethren. This in turn allowed them to accumulate more power, control world events, and dispossess another people (the Palestinians) of their land.

As “kinsmen of Jesus”, they figured quite presciently that no one would dare frown upon them as they went about their nefarious activities. After all, Jews are “God’s chosen” and as such God is the one who is blessing them.

So, hands off.

But if, God forbid, they were to be frowned upon, they could always buy off their detractors, or accuse them of being conspiracy theorists, or even destroy their lives by labeling them anti-Semites when Jews are not even Semites.

“…it is impossible to change the genetic make-up from Caucasian to Semitic. Which automatically nullifies their claim to be returning to Israel, the land of their forebears, because their forebears were never in Biblical Israel,” explained Benjamin Disraeli, a former Jew who converted to Christianity and a Victorian Prime Minister of Great Britain, referring to the Ashkenazim who were migrating from Russia and Eastern Europe to Palestine, with a view to turning the Arab country into Israel.

So, lo and behold, the reality of the modern Pharisees was re-calibrated. “Abracadabra!” incanted the genie and there they were, the adherents of the doctrine of Judah, the “Jews” of the bible, the chosen Hebrews (when all Hebrews are irrevocably dead).

We came to this country (Palestine) that was populated by Arabs and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is a Jewish state there,” vomited Ashkenazi-Israeli General Moshe Dayan, now deceased burning-in-hell war criminal.

The Court Jews

“Prohibited from nearly every other trade, Jews began to occupy an economic niche as moneylenders in the Middle Ages. Only they were allowed to take interest on loans, since—while the Church condemned usury universally—canon law was only applied to Christians and not to Jews.

Eventually, the majority of the European Jewish community were engaged in financial occupations, and the community was a financially highly successful part of the medieval economy. The religious restrictions on moneylending had inadvertently created a source of monopoly rents, causing profits associated with moneylending to be higher than they otherwise would have been. By most parameters, the standard of living of the Jewish community was at least equal to that of the lower nobility. However, despite this economic prosperity, the community was not safe: religious hostility increased to the extent that it manifested itself in the form of massacres and expulsions, culminating in the repetitive expulsion of all Jews from various parts of Western Europe in the late medieval period.

Lämmle Seeligmann, the court Jew

In the early modern period, a court Jew, court factor or Sheckler (German: Hofjude, Hoffaktor) was a Jewish banker who handled the finances of, or lent money to, European royalty and nobility. In return for their services, court Jews gained social privileges, including in some cases being granted noble status. Court Jews were needed because prohibitions against usury applied to Christians, but did not apply to Jews.

Examples of what would be later called court Jews emerged in the High Middle Ages when the royalty, the nobility, and the church borrowed money from money changers or employed them as financiers. Among the most notable of these were Aaron of Lincoln and Vivelin of Strasbourg. Jewish financiers could use their family connections to provide their sponsors with finance, food, arms, ammunition, gold, and precious metals.

The rise of the absolute monarchies in Central Europe brought many Jews, mostly of Ashkenazi origin, into the position of negotiating loans for the various courts. They could amass personal fortunes and gain political and social influence. However, the court Jew had social connections and influence in the Christian world mainly through the Christian nobility and church.

Due to the precarious position of Jews, some nobles could ignore their debts. If the sponsoring noble died, his Jewish financier could face exile or execution. The most famous example of this occurred in Württemberg when, after the death of his sponsor Charles Alexander in 1737, Joseph Süß Oppenheimer was put on trial and finally executed. In an effort to avoid such fate, some court bankers in the late 18th century—such as Samuel Bleichröder, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, or Aron Elias Seligmann—successfully detached their businesses from these courts and established what eventually developed into full-fledged banks.

Herod

The court Jews, as the agents of the rulers, and in times of war as the purveyors and the treasurers of the state, enjoyed special privileges. They were under the jurisdiction of the court marshal, and were not compelled to wear the Jews’ badge. They were permitted to stay wherever the emperor held his court, and to live anywhere in the Holy Roman Empire, even in places where no other Jews were allowed. Wherever they settled they could buy houses, slaughter meat according to the Jewish ritual, and maintain a rabbi. They could sell their goods wholesale and retail, and could not be taxed or assessed higher than the Christians.

Jews were sometimes assigned the role of local tax collectors, as did the Herods and Alexanders, for the Roman Flavians during the first century CE. These roles built up a long-standing enmity between Jews and Christians, the results of which had far-reaching consequences in the history of European Jews.”(8)

Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws” – Mayer Amschel  Bauer Rothschild

The Rothschilds and their fellow Ashkenazic partners began their international control of money in Europe, and from there extended it throughout the world.

 

Knight of Malta Amschel Mayer Rothschild (1744–1812)

“The Treaty of Paris of 1763 designated King George III, Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire.” And „according to the Encyclopedia Judaica [sic] the Rothschilds bear the title „Guardians of the Vatican Treasury.” The Vatican Treasury, of course, holds the imperial wealth of Rome. Imperial wealth grows in proportion to its victories in war — as the Jesuit empowerment Regimini militantis ecclesiae implies, the Church-at-War is more necessary than the Church-at-Peace.

According to H. Russell Robinson’s illustrated Armour of Imperial Rome, Caesarean soldiers protect themselves in battle with shields painted red. Since the soldiery is the State’s most valuable resource (the Council of Trent admitted this in preferring the Jesuits to all other religious orders), it is easy to understand why the red shield was identified with the very life of the Church. Hence, the appropriateness of the name Rothschild, German for „red shield.”

The appointment of Rothschild gave the black papacy absolute financial privacy and secrecy. Who would ever search a family of orthodox Jews for the key to the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church? This appointment explains why the House of Rothschild is famous for helping nations go to war.”(14)

Wikipedia and the Jewish Encyclopedia clarify it thus:

“Mayer Rothschild’s strategy was to keep control of their banks in family hands, allowing them to maintain full secrecy about the size of their fortunes. In about 1906, the Jewish Encyclopedia noted: ‘The practice initiated by the Rothschilds of having several brothers of a firm establish branches in the different financial centres of the world was followed by other Jewish financiers, like the Bischoffsheims, Pereires, Seligmans, Lazards and others, and these financiers obtained credit not alone with their Jewish confrères, but with the banking fraternity in general. By this means Jewish financiers obtained an increasing share of international finance during the middle and last quarter of the 19th century. The head of the whole group was the Rothschild family…’ “

Said share of international finance reached its apex in 1913 when they finally established a Central Bank in America. It would be known as the Federal Reserve System. They managed to bring it to life by bribing their way through the US Government and Congress. Such method was necessary because the Federal Reserve System is in fact a private enterprise that is pretending to be a US Government institution. It is a cover to secure the privilege of issuing money.

“The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people’s money,” explained Republican Congressman of Minnesota Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. in 1923.

To conceal their scheme, the Rothschilds and their co-conspirators attached to said central bank the “FEDERAL” moniker, a clear misnomer intended to hoodwink gullible Americans. Quite the obvious pattern, isn’t it? As a result, money creation in the US went from the People’s Representatives to a group of wealthy men who all strangely happened to be Ashkenazi Jews (except for their token non-Jewish partners):

1. Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin.
2. Lazard Brothers Banks of Paris.
3. Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy.
4. Warburg Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam.
5. Lehman Brothers of NY.
6. Kuhn, Loeb Bank of NY (Now Shearson American Express).
7. Goldman Sachs of NY
8. National Bank of Commerce NY/Morgan Guaranty Trust (J. P. Morgan Bank – Equitable Life – Levi P. Morton are principal shareholders).
9. Hanover Trust of NY (William and David Rockefeller & Chase National Bank NY are principal shareholders).”(5)

Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders,” clarified the Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s.

According to Forbes, the Federal Reserve in 2008 alone – under the oh! so responsible watch of the Ashkenazi Jew Ben “Helicopter” Bernanke – single-handedly allocated over $16 Trillion to corporations and banks internationally, purportedly for ‘financial assistance.’

If you think that these Ashkenazim who took control over the US Central banking system did not turn on the money spigot for their fellow Jews in order to create a Jewish stranglehold on the US economy and beyond, then you’re a bigger fool than Judas who sold his Lord for 30 pieces of silver.

No wonder close to half of all billionaires (“half” is what we’re told) in the US are Ashkenazi Jews. And it’s no coincidence either that they dominate the US Media.

By controlling the money supply they’re able to buy anything and anyone – anyone who serves the MONEY god that is. Said control abets the Jewish financiers to steer the US Government which in turn steers the world.

That is why all American politicians, and especially Congressmen (except for a handful few), kowtow to AIPAC (secretly known as the Ashkenazi-Israeli Political Action Committee), its bribe money, its control of the corrupt Federal Reserve, and its treasonous attitude in favor of Israel above American interests. Whatever Israel wants, including terrorism and wars, Israel gets.

As Pat Buchanan quipped, “Congress is Israeli-occupied territory.”

The Money God

The only modern-day US politician who went head-to-head with the MONEY god was President Kennedy. He signed Executive Order 11110 which authorized the US Treasury to issue Silver Certificates and to coin Silver Dollars, a smart move that if fully implemented would have put the Federal Reserve out of commission. Strangely, five months after issuing said order, he was assassinated. Silver Certificates and Dollars were then tossed into the dustbin of oblivion.

Even the President of the United States is no match for the MONEY god. Poor Kennedy had to be made an example of in order to warn all American politicians to beware of bearding the demons in their den.

President James Madison knew of the murderous streak of central bankers when he said, “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”(5)

“The present government of Israel was set up by the High Masonic Rothschild-controlled Jews, and Rothschild has had an alliance with the Jesuit General since 1876, with Adam Weishaupt. This is the very same Rothschild powers who betrayed the Jews into the hands of the Nazis, killing many Jews all throughout Europe, betraying their own Jewish people. These are the very same powers who run the nation of Israel today.
 
So what do we have? We have high-level treason and betrayal of the Jewish race; that is there in Israel today, by their own leaders, who are loyal to Rome and the Jesuit Order. And to show this, we have a great big Rockefeller edifice in Jerusalem; we have an ophthalmology center in Jerusalem run by the Knights of Malta. There’s nothing but Knights of Malta, high-level Freemasonry, and the Jesuit Order running all of Israel.
 
The Jews Get All the Blame While the Jesuits Run the Show and Control the Game Board of All.”(14)
 

Zionism

“The British Empire teed off its assault on Palestine in 1915, and secured it when it occupied Jerusalem in December 1917. At the same time, the Jews began their invasion of Palestine in earnest, with the support of their British patron. London’s Balfour Declaration essentially deeded the land of Palestine to Ashkenazi Zionist Jews, so they could recreate Old Testament Israel.

These Zionists, pretending to be the Ancient Hebrews who no longer exist and propelled by the same spirit as that of the Catholic Crusaders of the Middle Ages, began their murderous rampage of the indigenous Palestinian population, while settling the land hard and fast.

Meanwhile, the German Empire was expanding throughout Europe and North Africa. They had just elected a new Chancellor named Adolf Hitler who wanted to restore the glory of the Fatherland.

Empowered by their many victories in Palestine, world Zionist Jewry launched their war against Germany in 1933, upon Hitler assuming command. From London, New York, and Washington they screamed and yelled and…. screamed and yelled, in order to enlist the Western World in a military assault against the German Empire or the Reich (just like they’re doing today with Iran, and just like they recently did with Iraq, Syria and Libya).

They figured a war in Europe would propel more European Jews to migrate to Palestine.

To ensure the success of their Machiavellian plan, they conspired in the persecution and killing of their fellow Jews, while simultaneously wailing against the Nazis. For such behavior there’s no word more succinct in the English language than the Yiddish word Chutzpah.

Yitzhak Greenbaum, head of the Jewish Emergency Rescue committee, said: “One goat in Israel is worth more than the whole diaspora.”

Rabbi Shonfeld stated that: “The Zionist approach that Jewish blood is the anointing oil needed for the wheels of the Jewish state is not a thing of the past. It remains operable to this very day.”

Knowing of the Zionists’ conspiracy to start a war, Hitler tried to appease them and drafted the Transfer Agreement. Dr. Hans Friedenthal, head of the Zionist Federation of Germany at the time, summed up the situation after the war: “The Gestapo did everything in those days to promote emigration, particularly to Palestine. We often received their help when we required anything from other authorities regarding preparations for emigration.”

So now both England and Germany were in bed with the recreation of Old Testament Israel in Palestine.

But because English and German support was limited, and because Jews were too comfortable in Europe to migrate to Palestine, the Zionists still wanted their war.

From Holocaust Victims Accuse : “In the Zionist Congress which took place in London in 1937, Dr. Weizmann established the line of policy with his words: ‘The hopes of Europe’s six million Jews are centered on emigration. I was asked, ‘Can you bring six million Jews to Palestine?’ I replied, ‘No’. From the depths of the tragedy I want to save two million young people… The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world… Only the branch of the young shall survive… They have to accept it.’ ”

According to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Louis Kilzer, Hitler did not want to fight England and had no stomach for it. Thus the Anglo-American elite, sensing an opportunity to enlarge their own Empires, agreed to the idea of a war against Germany.

Finally the Zionists got their war. World War 2.

Unfortunately for Great Britain, many of its cities were bombed into rubble while its economy cratered. Germany fared no better. It was bombed almost to oblivion. Cities such as Dresden, Berlin, Pforzheim, Darmstadt, Kassel, and Hamburg were for all practical purposes razed to the ground.

Both countries lost their Empires, while the United States became the Empire to be reckoned with. Germany and England eventually rebuilt themselves, but power-wise they stooped to being America’s poodles.

As predicted, a flood of Jews disembarked in Palestine, as the Western world was mourning its 80 Million dead. With enough Jews on the ground Modern-day Israel declared independence in 1948.

Palestine was subsequently erased from the map, while hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced out of their homes and into neighboring countries and refugee camps. An event that is known as the Palestinian Nakba.”(16)

Russia

Some time between 740 and 920, the Ashkenazim inhabiting Khazaria chose to become spiritual progeny of Old Testament Israel. So they converted en masse to Judaism/Pharisaism. It was their way of remaining independent of the two competing empires of their time, Christianity and Islam.

Then, around 1048, Sviatoslav of Kiev destroyed Khazaria and absorbed it into what would later become the Russian Empire, where the Ashkenazim were kept under tight control and enclosed in the Pale of Settlement. Something the Ashkenazim never forgave Russia.

Something the Ashkenazim never forgave Russia.

Khazar Jews 1878

Biding their time, the Ashkenazim soon became the power behind the heinous Bolsheviks who took over the Russian government in the 1910s. Taking a page from Caesar, they massacred 66 million Christians, including 200,000 members of the Christian clergy, and destroyed 40,000 churches according to famed Christian Russian writer Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. These Christians remained peaceful and faithful, even unto death. Just like their Lord.”(16)

“Most of us know the trials and tribulations in the U.S. throughout the 20th century caused by the tyrannical bankers, but what most of us don’t realize was the admirable condition of Russia throughout the 19th century that has been totally misrepresented by totally untrustworthy Jewish media throughout our lifetimes.

Thanks to the sound fiscal policies of the czars, by 1914 Russia had become one of the leading lending institutions in Europe. It had the smallest national debt in the world, by far,  it had abolished slavery before the U.S. ever did, it enabled a majority of its peasants to own their own land, and its agricultural production was the highest in the world.

It had amassed more money than any other country in the world, education was free up through college level, and its labor laws were praised by U.S President William Howard Taft.

Goodson summarizes the picture of Russia that has been so debased by Jewish propagandists advocating Communist “liberty” for the whole world:

The people of all races in the Russian Empire has an equality of status and opportunity which was unparalleled in the modern world. His Imperial Majesty Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918) and his state bank had created a workers’ paradise that was unrivaled in the history of mankind.

The Rothschilds and their central bank destroyed this wonderful country, and according to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, murdered 66 million non Jewish people in the process. Their unending spree of mass murder and robbery continues today, championed by the killer puppets of the United States doing the bidding of their Israeli masters.

Long before the British hero Winston Churchill had turned into the mad bomber of World War II, he was a credible social critic, and in 1920, he blamed the Bolshevik Revolution on “a world conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality . . .”

The American Hebrew magazine that same year boasted . . .

The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish planning and Jewish dissatisfaction. Our Plan is to have a New World Order. What worked so wonderfully in Russia is going to become reality for the whole world.

The U.S. Senate agreed with this conclusion in 1921 when it was recorded that “Full responsibility for the first World War lies on the shoulders of the International Jewish bankers. They are responsible for millions of dead and dying.”(17)

“The majority of the Bolsheviks were Ashkenazi Jews such as Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trosky, Lev Kamenev, Gregory Zinoviev, Yakov Sverdlov, and Grigory Sokolnikov. They were financed by Ashkenazi bankers from New York and London, such as Rothschild Bank and Jacob Schiff of Kuhn and Loeb & Co. These bankers championed the destructive ideology of the Ashkenazi Karl Marx, and found it profitable to invest in Communism’s disastrous conquest of Russia, in order to make a few bucks in the process by plundering the country via well placed thieving agents who would later be known as oligarchs.

Therefore, it was no surprise when Soviet Russia allied itself with the Zionists, the United States, and Great Britain against Germany during World War 2. A war in which 20 Million Russians lost their lives, and the whole country lied in utter ruin. Still, when it came time to dissolve Palestine in order to hand it over to the Zionists, Russia’s leaders quickly lined up to geographically resurrect Old Testament Israel.

So it was no surprise either when Russia’s entire Soviet Empire collapsed in 1991 and lost all its satellite states. An event that threw into bold relief a failed country lying in absolute despair.”(16)

The United States of America

“With more than 1,000 military bases and installations spanning the globe and a foreign policy that causes almost every nation on earth to cower to its will, the United States of America is the most powerful Empire the world has ever known.

And not because its Founding Fathers wanted it, but because the founding of the United States has a deep connection to Old Testament Israel, much like Modern-day Israel.

The similarities are striking.

First, invade another people’s land. Second, kill the original inhabitants while enclosing the rest in reservations or open air prisons like Gaza. Third, repopulate it. Fourth, conquer more land or plan for it. And fifth, proclaim that “God” is the one behind it all, Manifest Destiny and Zionism.

No wonder the US and Modern-day Israel are so lovey-dovey. They’re Siamese twins, both at perpetual war and expansion since their creation.

However, there is one glaring difference.

Even though the US Federal Government has done horrible things throughout its lifetime, once in a while it implements truly unique policies that redeem its soul. For one thing, America welcomes the downtrodden, the poor, and the tired from all over the world without regard to race or religion, and gives them the freedom and the opportunity to prosper.

Whereas Modern-day Israel is a racist and parasitic state that feeds off the goodness of Americans. It is bleeding America dry. Financially, spiritually, and morally.

Billions of dollars a year are plundered out of America’s coffers for Modern-day Israel to wage war and oppress the Palestinians, while millions of Americans go hungry, jobless, and homeless. The Israeli lobby constantly wags the US Government to initiate countless conflicts throughout the world – Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and Ukraine – in order to strengthen Israeli interests.

Conflicts that so far have resulted in over 5 Million refugees and 3 Million dead, including Christians. Only the conflict with Iraq escalated into a full blown war that required a US invasion. That war caused the US economy to tank and its budget deficit to balloon. But not to worry, it’s about to get worse as some of the other conflicts are still simmering in the background, ready to explode at any moment. Nevertheless, except for Iran, those targeted countries already lie in ruin, while these conflicts have drained trillions upon trillions from the US treasury.

Incredibly, some non-profit American “Christian” organizations, such as John Hagee‘s CUFI, fundraise for the Zionist settlers. In so doing, they’re actually helping these land thieves steal another people’s land, while empowering them to kill the original inhabitants in the process. These supposedly “Christian” groups are no different than the Catholic Crusaders of old, a warmongering blot on Jesus’s name. In other words, it’s like they’re crucifying Christ all over again.

These Apartheid enablers, along with the Israeli lobby, relentlessly push the US government to provide the criminal state of Modern-day Israel with diplomatic cover in the international community, even when Israel is indiscriminately bombing innocent men, women, and children. And when the US Empire even flinches in its support, no matter how insignificant the wavering, they scream and yell and… scream and yell. So the Empire relents, becomes an accomplice to mass murder, and sends them even more money.

And the reason Zionists succeed at this deception is because of a two-prong strategy. First, they bribe Congress through the electoral process by filling up their coffers. Second, they shamelessly wave the following bible verse at Christian America:

“And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” Genesis 12:2-3

The idea is to get gullible American Christians to accept the above biblical verse as if God intended it for Zionists, and that if they bless Modern-day Israel God will bless them in return. However, even a cursory look at that biblical promise tells a different story.

That verse is clearly directed at Abram himself to whom God was talking and not at anyone else. In addition, the nation God was describing was the nation that would spring forth from Christ, Abraham’s seed. A Christian nation that would include all the families of the earth. A nation that would span the globe. That nation could hardly be the racist state of Modern-day Israel which can’t even coexist with its Palestinian neighbors, let alone all the families of the earth. Talk about Chutzpah! There’s that word again!”(16)

Total Financial Control

“The reason that people can’t see what is going on in the world is because of the brainwashing of Jewish media, which are owned by the masterminds committing the crimes who have brazenly and cleverly inverted good with bad, and liberty with tyranny. And the ignorant public nods approvingly, like bobblehead dolls unable to perceive that this deception makes a few people rich and a lot of people dead.

When you analyze the pattern of wars during the past two millennia, the modus operandi becomes clear: countries with their own national bank, working for the benefit of their own citizens, are swallowed up, bludgeoned into submission by the international financial behemoth that sinks its fangs into healthy nations that are suddenly declared evil by those with the power to poison millions of minds with a single surprising and false bulletin.

Think Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or Germans gassing 6 million Jews, two deliberate lies that sealed the fate of millions of innocent people.

 

This is the political pattern ascendant in the world today, as it has been dominant for at least the past 400 years, or since the Jews wormed their way back into Britain using their trademark techniques of bribery, blackmail and murder.

When you realize that the serial obliterations of Libya, Syria, and Iran — and earlier, that of Germany, Japan and Italy in World War II — were all because these countries had their own honest banking systems, and refused to be swallowed up by the criminal Rothschild central bank scam which robs countries of their hard earned money — you will begin to understand how you have been swindled throughout your lifetime by lying newspapers and fatheaded commentators in the pay of the criminal bankers themselves who have convinced you that you have been experiencing freedom when in reality you are locked in the prison of usury and giving away more than half the earnings of your labor to goons who create money out of nothing and then steal even more from everybody on the planet.

Stephen Goodson’s A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind (2014) is a clear exposition of how Jewish bankers have swallowed up the world with their diabolical lending scheme. When you realize the evil and destructive nature of this scam that has fooled absolutely everyone, you will realize that the United States of America is not only on the wrong side of history, but principally responsible for the destruction of the human race.

You will realize that all the wars America has fought have served to impose tyranny on luckless countries where freedom had previously existed, especially in Russia and in Germany. And all that disingenuous rhetoric about democracy and liberty has merely facilitated a tidal wave of lies engulfing everyone in the suffocating debt prison of fractional reserve lending.

This becomes obvious when you realize that all the wars of both today and yesterday, for as far back as you care to calculate, have always been engineered by the most powerful central bank in the world against countries attempting to avoid its malignant control.

Jews have always targeted all countries without a central bank for robbery and destruction, just as they are doing at this very moment.

Major factors in the decline of the Roman Empire were the concentration of wealth, the absence of mining deposits for industrial production, and the vast importation of non-White slaves with the resultant degradation of the genetic value of the nation.

A footnote in the text describes in one paragraph the entire history of how empires meet their untimely ends.

When the Government of Old Egypt fell, 4 percent of all the people owned all the wealth. When Old Persia went down to destruction, 2 per cent of the people owned all the wealth. When ancient Greece fell in ruins, one half of 1 per cent of the people owned all the wealth. When the Roman Empire fell, two thousand people owned the wealth of the civilized world. Then followed the Dark Ages, from which the world did not recover until wealth was no longer concentrated. Today (quote written in 1958) less than 1 per cent of the people control 90 percent of the wealth of these United States.

 

No society can survive a false economic system. For any society to function and prosper it is absolutely fundamental that the means of exchange be issued free of debt and interest by the legal authority as representatives of the people in perpetuity.

Needless to say, this advice has not been followed throughout history and the results have been disastrous.

Western civilization really begins in England, and according to Goodson, it was King Offa of Mercia in the eighth century A.D. who first invented coinage on the island, a pound of silver divided into 240 pennies. In 787 he banned usury, a tradition that was upheld by his successors King Alfred the Great and Edward the Confessor, who commanded that usurers forfeit their property and be banished for life (a rule we could sorely use today).

The Jews arrived with William the Conqueror in 1066 and all hell broke loose, interest rates soared, and the populace suffered from Jewish predation until 1215 when the nobles forced the evil King John to sign the Magna Carta. In 1290 the English had had enough and the entire Jewish population, some 16,000, was forced to leave England forever.

Some 400 years later, Portuguese Jews pretending to be Christians wormed their way back into England and thanks to the machinations of a traitor named Oliver Cromwell, who managed, after a mock trial, to murder the king and eventually create the money sucking monster known as the Bank of England, which rules the entire world today from its fortified enclave known as the City of London.

Henceforth a pattern would emerge where unnecessary wars would be embarked upon which simultaneously increased the national debt and the profits of the usurers. Significantly, most of these wars were started against countries that had implemented interest-free state banking systems, as was the case in the North American colonies and France under Napoleon. This pattern of attacking and enforcing the bankers’ system of usury has been deployed widely in the modern era and includes the defeats of Imperial Russia in World War I, Germany, Italy and Japan in World War II, and most recently Libya in 2011. These were all countries which had state banking systems, which distributed the wealth of their respective nations on an equitable basis and provided their populations with a standard of living far superior to that of their rivals and contemporaries.

In the 18th century, the money mad British conducted three major wars, against Spain, the fledging U.S., and France. The principal objective of the war against France to was to destroy Napoleon’s debt- and interest-free system of finance. So too was the purpose of England’s second war against the American colonies. And so too the purpose of the Jewish bank is stunningly revealed by the sad misfortunes of the English people.

So this was the early history of the destructive practices of the Jewish money scheme. We come into modern times with the same evil antics practiced against very happy and self-sustaining countries, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, and in more modern times, Iraq, Libya and so many other innocent victims, all tortured and destroyed by the Jewish predators and the traitors they bought with their ill-gotten gain.

Benjamin Franklin’s celebrated trip to England where he told the story of Colonial script began a siege of America by the Jewish bankers that remains in force to this day. Asked by parliament to explain the source of prosperity in the American colonies, Franklin replied:

In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial script. We issue it in proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay anyone.

The following year the Bank of England began its financial assault on American freedom, first with a Currency Bill that was to trigger the original Revolution, then by flooding the colonies with counterfeit money, then by establishing central banks that presidents fought to disband, and a century later, with the establishment of the Federal Reserve scam that plagues America to this day.

England played the same game in precipitating the French Revolution.

Goodson chronicles chapter and verse of the continuing battle of the English bankers against the fledgling American republic — bank panics and artificially induced recessions — right down to the Panic of 1907, which set the stage for the creation of the Federal Reserve.

. . . since the inception of the U.S. Federal Reserve,” Goodson writes, “the U.S. dollar has lost 97 per cent of its purchasing power, and there have been 19 recessions, the great depression of the 1930s and the current great depression which started in 2008, and notwithstanding mainstream media propaganda, appears to have all the symptoms of a depression. Since 1910, the National Debt has increased from $2.65 billion to $17.5 trillion in 2014, while unfunded liabilities exceed $240 trillion.

One place where the state bank idea did develop — and flower — was in National Socialist Germany, where it created what everyone agrees was an economic miracle at a time when the rest of the world was in the throes of the Jewish created Great Depression.

Gottfried Feder’s plan to abolish interest servitude was enthusiastically adopted by Adolf Hitler, who wrote:

The sham state of today, oppressing the working classes and protecting the pirated gains of bankers and stock exchange speculators, is the area for reckless private enrichment and for the lowest political profiteering it gives no thought to people, and provides no high moral bond of union. The power of money, most ruthless of all powers, holds absolute control, and exercises corrupting, destroying influence on state, nation, society, morals, drama, literature and on all matters of morality  . . .

Hitler’s conclusion:

Our financial principle: Finance shall exist for the benefit of the state; the financial magnates shall not form a state with the state. Hence our aim to break the thralldom of interest.

From being a ruined and bankrupt nation in 1933 with 7.5 million unemployed persons,” Goodson writes, “Hitler had transformed Germany into a modern socialist paradise.”

After 1939, “Hitler was now his own banker, but having departed from the fold of international swindlers and usurers, he would, like Napoleon Bonaparte, who in 1800 had established the Banque de France as a state bank, suffer the same fate — an unnecessary war followed by the ruination of his people and his country.”

“It was this event which triggered World War II — the realization by the Rothschilds that universal replication of Germany’s usury-free state banking system would permanently destroy their evil financial empire. In Europe this enslavement was finally achieved with the establishment of the Rothschild controlled European central bank on June 1, 1998 and the introduction of the euro on January 1, 1999.”

At its brief high point, Hitler had succeeded in making Germany exactly what he wanted it to be.

The Germans were now the happiest and most prosperous people in the world, fully employed and enjoying one of the highest standards of living. This success was achieved by the hard work of the German people and with the support of an honest money system not based on usury or the gold standard.

Goodson further notes “The state of German armament in 1939 gives the decisive proof that Hitler was not contemplating general war, and probably not intending war at all,” which is a fact most of the people in the world simply refuse to know, thanks to the constant bombardment of Jewish lies.

The only positive chapter of Goodson’s opus concerns the state bank of North Dakota, the only state in the U.S. that is not technically insolvent, precisely because it has a thriving state bank founded by a coalition of farmers that is only concerned with the affairs of its own state and doesn’t deal with international bankers.

In our own time, the major tragedy caused by the Jewish central bankers (other than the slow roasting of the United States) was Barack Obama’s demolition of the extremely functional nation of Libya, which had a bank very much like North Dakota’s, totally devoted to its own citizens.

Qaddafi was described by mainstream media as a “blood sucking monster” and by Obama as someone who was abusing his own people, but in reality, Goodson notes, he had the support of 90 percent of his own people.

Why was that, and why was Qaddafi not the monster Obama made him out to be?

All Libyans received free education, students were paid to study; free electricity; free health care; free housing (no mortgages); newlyweds got $50,000; autos and loans were provided free of interest; bread was 15 cents per loaf; gas was 12 cents per litre; portions of oil profits were shared with citizens; farmers received free land, seeds and animals; the unemployed were paid as if they had jobs. Beggars and homeless people did not exist.

That Obama said Qaddafi was abusing his people perfectly reflected the lies that have been told about all enemies of the Jewish central bank throughout history. Yet all those countries have been destroyed because the vast majority of duped people believed the vicious lies that were told about them by Jewish media.

This same syndrome played into the destruction of Iraq and threatens to accomplish the destruction of Iran.

Whether in Russia, or Japan, or Germany, or Libya, those nations whose reliable leaders created just societies to the advantage of all their inhabitants, these nations fell victim to the Jewish international bankers, whose aim is to turn the whole world into a ghetto in which they may ride roughshod over everyone, kill whomever they wish, and turn the world into a godless prison where humanity will meet its ultimate fate in an endless wasteland of doom and depression.”(17)

The Migrant Operation

“The evil wars that have been unleashed upon the peoples of the Middle East over the past 15 years have undoubtedly caused havoc, devastation and tragedy for millions. First Iraq and Afghanistan were ransacked by America and its allies; then Libya was torn apart from within, backed up with NATO missiles raining down from the skies. And now Syria has been bludgeoned and dismembered through a covert strategy of tension which saw the US, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia and Israel clandestinely cultivate the cancerous growth of ISIS and its offshoots.

Migrants march along the highway towards the border with Austria, out of Budapest, Hungary, September 4, 2015. Hundreds of migrants broke out of a Hungarian border camp and others set off on foot from Budapest as authorities scrambled to contain a migrant crisis that has brought Europe’s asylum system to breaking point. REUTERS/Laszlo Balogh – RTX1R573

The foreign policy pursuits of Western capitals are horrendous, destructive and harmful to all involved. And a large part of the problem is the death grip of Israel and dual-citizen Zionist Jews who occupy key positions in many Western governments, forcing their hand against Tel Aviv’s enemies.

A list of militant, predominantly Jewish congresspersons opposed to the US nuclear deal with Iran was recently published in the New York Times, illustrating the reality that the West-Islamic confrontation which began in earnest a decade and a half ago is being led and stage-managed by extremist Jews whose first concern is Israel.

Destroying the Middle East, and reordering it in the interests of Israel and international finance, has been the fountainhead agenda of the predominately Zionist, Western power elite for the past 15 years since the CIA and Mossad conspired to bring about the ‘New Pearl Harbor’ event of 9/11.

And the results of that heinous endeavor have been catastrophic. Some estimates hold that four million Middle Easterners have died as a result of US-led wars and interventions in the region since 1990. Countless millions more have been made into destitute refugees, and the wars have spawned millions of orphans too.

One “solution” to this problem that the elite are fully onside with is the resettlement of millions of refugees and other economic migrants from the Middle East and Africa into Europe. In a typical problem, reaction, solution scenario, the corporate and Zionist string pullers ruling the West have used the current synthetic crisis in the Middle East to forward their long-term plan to ethnically displace (and replace) the indigenous peoples of Europe in the furtherance of globalism.

Nick Griffin, the former head of the British National Party (BNP), stood up in the halls of the European Parliament and denounced the amazingly sinister plot to erase Europe from the map. An alliance of “capitalists, leftists and Zionist supremacists” has conspired to promote “immigration and miscegenation with the deliberate aim of breeding us out of existence in our own homelands,” Griffin said. “As indigenous resistance to this human genetic modification industry grows, the criminal elite seeks new ways to camouflage their project,” Griffin proclaimed. He added:

“First their immigrant pawns were temporary guest workers. Then it was a multiracial experiment. Then they were refugees. Then the answer to a shrinking population. Different excuses, different lies! And asylum is just another one. But the real aim stays the same: the biggest genocide in human history. The final solution of the Christian-European problem. This crime demands a new set of Nuremberg Trials, and you people will be in the dock!”

To back up this claim Griffin pointed directly to Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi’s plan to race-mix Europeans out of existence as part of his genocidal “Pan European” (i.e. anti-national) project kick-started in 1923 with the publication of his first book, Pan-Europa. Born in 1894, Coudenhove-Kalergi was the product of an Austrian-Hungarian diplomat father and Japanese mother. He is credited as a “Pioneer of European integration” and served as the founding president of the Pan-European Union movement for 49 years. Kalergi’s globalist, Illuminati-inspired movement was the precursor to the modern European Union (EU) established in 1993. In his many writings, Kalergi outlined his vision of a mongrelized Europe ruled by a Jewish aristocracy.

The man of the future will be of mixed race,” Kalergi wrote in his book Practical Idealism. “Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”

According to Kalergi, the “natural” overseers of such a deracinated mass of plebs would be the Jews whom he called the “spiritual nobility of Europe.” Kalergi reasoned that, “Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process.” Kalergi’s Jewish supremacist outlook lied at the heart of his anti-European integration project and its aim to subdue Europe’s peoples under a Jewish-led totalitarian dictatorship.

Kalergi’s own autobiography noted his connections to wealthy Jewish financiers who backed his movement. Prominent Zionist bankers Baron Louis de Rothschild and Max Warburg are said to have given him 60,000 gold marks in 1924. Warburg was especially keen on Kalergi’s proposals for a Pan-European order and introduced him to wealthy Jewish financiers from the Unites States such as Paul Warburg (founder of the Federal Reserve bank) and Bernard Baruch.

Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy made clear his intention to enforce the Kalergi scheme upon the White French population. In a December 2008 speech, Sarkozy spoke of the need to “meet the [European Union] challenge of racial interbreeding. The challenge of racial interbreeding that faces us in the 21st Century.” Sarkozy stressed that race-mixing is “not a choice but an obligation” of White Europeans. If Europeans would not willingly go along with this hostile program, Sarkozy asserted, then France and other EU member states would have to resort to “more coercive measures” to ensure Europeans are bred out of existence.

This surreal position contrasts sharply with Sarkozy’s views towards Israel and Jews. Sarkozy, a Jew himself who functioned as a “Sayanim” for the Israeli Mossad before becoming president of France, is a fanatical supporter of Israel as an exclusive, expansionist Jews-only ethno-state. He supports and defends all of Israel’s atrocities against Arab Palestinians and has dragged France into conflicts in the region that benefit Tel Aviv, most notably the 2011 regime change operation in Libya. The cause of Israel is the “fight of my life,” Sarkozy told a Jewish journalist who queried him on his commitment to the Jewish state.

Many Jews have been surprisingly forthcoming about their prominent role in fomenting the mass immigration policies that are defacing European identity. Barbara Lerner Spectre, an American Jewess and Israeli citizen, moved to Sweden from Israel in 1999 and founded Paideia, the European Institute for Jewish Studies, to promote multiculturalism in that country and Europe generally. In a 2010 interview with an Israeli television channel, Spectre brazenly announced her desire to make Europe multicultural and multiracial and that Jews would be resented for their “leading role” in that effort. Specifically she told the interviewer:

“Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”

Other Jews have openly hailed the Islamization of Europe as punishment for the “Holocaust.” The Israeli Ynet News service reported the obscene statements of a prominent Israeli rabbi, Baruch Efrati, who “welcomes the phenomenon” of Islamization in Europe. According to the rabbi, Jews should “rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years [we] were in exile there.” The rabbi declared that Europe’s Christians should never be forgiven for allegedly “slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly… Not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity.”

Europe is losing its identity in favor of another people and another religion, and there will be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity, which shed a lot of blood it won’t be able to atone for,” Efrati concluded in an address to his Israeli Yeshiva students. Another rabbi said that in order for the Jewish Messiah to return to earth that “Europe, Christianity” must be totally destroyed. “So I ask you: is it good news that Islam invades Europe?” he asked. “It’s excellent news! It means the coming of the messiah.”

The Jewish revenge narrative, which leans heavily on false and embellished Zionist propaganda stories about the Holocaust, comes up time and again when Jews are preaching in favour of mass non-White immigration into Europe. Recently, a German-Jewish far-left politician, Gregor Gysi, made a bizarre public plea in favour of Syrian refugees seeking asylum in Germany, trumpeting the slogan “Live better without Nazis – Diversity is our future.” “Because of our [German] history between 1933-1945 [the Nazi period] we are obliged to treat refugees properly,” Gysi said, calling for a lifting of restrictions on refugees. “Every year more native Germans die than are born,” Gysi said with a smirk, welcoming the phenomenon as “very fortunate.” “Nazis are not very good at having offspring,” Gysi added with glee, thus implying that all native Germans are “Nazis” deserving of extinction. Perhaps Gysi took inspiration from his co-religionist Theodore Kaufman, an American Jew who wrote a manic tome in 1941, titled Germany Must Perish!, advocating the genocide of all Germans through a forced sterilization program as punishment for electing Adolf Hitler.

Pinchas Goldschmidt, the president of the Conference of European Rabbis, told an interviewer on Russia Today that the Jews find themselves “in the middle” of a clash of civilizations between Christians and Muslims, but that in Europe Muslims are the “natural allies” of Jews. In the Middle East, however, Jews find themselves allying with Christians and other religious minorities against the Muslim regimes, and indeed have used their influence over the West to initiate wars and proxy wars against Israel’s Muslim, Persian and Arab enemies. And it is Israel and Zionist propagandists behind the fiercely anti-Islamic media campaigns associated with the Israeli-crafted ‘War on Terror.’

What all of this amounts to is a Machiavellian Zionist double game. Both Westerners and Middle Easterners, Christians and Muslims, are being used as cannon fodder for different Zionist imperatives. The Zionist architects of this elaborate geopolitical chess game aim to undermine, weaken and subjugate both Westerners and Middle Easterners in their own homelands. White Europeans are targets in Europe, where masses of Muslim, Arab and African immigrants and refugees are being wielded as pawns to further the Kalergi plan of White displacement and genocide. But at the same time, White Westerners are being manipulated to make incessant war and terrorism against Arab/Muslim societies and regimes that come into conflict with imperial Israel and do not bow to the whims of international finance capitalism, aka globalism.

It is important not to play into this Zionist ruse that seeks to divide Whites and Arabs, Christians and Muslims, having them fight it out to the death while the Jewish extremists sit back and reap the spoils of this engineered confrontation. Both of these plots, the Kalergi plan and the War on Terror, are primarily Zionist in origin and should be vigorously opposed on both fronts. It is not enough to only condemn one of these agendas and not the other, as many in the respective “white nationalist” and “anti-Zionist” camps do.

We should look at all of the information available, and identify all of the nefarious agendas and victims thereof, and then formulate a principled position that doesn’t turn a blind eye to any of the victims of this genocidal, multi-faceted scheme.”(18)

Just in case their is some question about the extent to which the U.S. government is controlled by the Zionists, take a gander at the following photos:

And here’s the catch:

Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress:

Cultural Destruction

And, of course, the same tactics used to destroy European culture, are also being utilized in the United States.

Massive immigration has been a longstanding operation that’s been heavily emphasized by Zionist interests, primarily to shift public attention away from them.

Western culture is being systematically destroyed by Ashkenazi extremism through a number of sinister ways:

“1. They have destroyed our pride in our history, and a nation that loses its sense of history soon ceases to be a nation. 

2. They have labeled our beloved Founding Fathers as “racists” and “white slavers“, ignoring the great representative republic that these men constructed.

3. They have promoted multiculturalism, celebrating every culture-no matter how backward and barbaric-except for Western white European culture. As Jewish Marxist intellectual thug Susan Sontag stated in a poisonous rant “The white race is the cancer of humanity.” 

4. They have driven the Christian faith and heritage from the public square by utilizing their countless criminal cadres of ADL and ACLU Communist lawyers. Our children will soon grow up in a society wiped clean of any vestiges of the Bible, Christ or the cross. However, the menorah is still allowed in the White House for Hannukah celebrations. In fact, the Jewish religion is the only faith that can’t be mocked openly in Hollywood entertainment.

5. They have torn our borders open, permitting, indeed cheering, the Third World dregs who will soon replace us as the majority. The Javitzes, the Lautenbergs and Cellers meticulously designed the legislation (Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965) that will genocide us. They have done all this while simultaneously-and with no sense of irony-supporting Israel’s “Jews-only” immigration policy. 

6. They have created, pushed and profited from pornography and perverse entertainment. The “Chosen” make up 90% of all American pornographers. The Hollywood they run has mainstreamed wife-swapping, common law marriages, pedophilia, scatology, licentious sex, drug and alcohol abuse and self-indulgence. Bestiality will be next on the list. In fact, they are already releasing a documentary portraying men who have sex with horses. 

7. They have brought homosexuality out of the closet and into our faces. Sodomy is shown in their media and movies as normal, healthy, enjoyable and something to celebrate openly in as brazen a fashion as possible. They have founded, funded and fronted every homosexual advocacy group in America. To oppose the flaunting of buggery is now considered “old-fashioned” and “reactionary.

8. They have brainwashed our children. With their control of the institutes of “higher” learning, they have filled the minds of the young with Marxism, Deconstructionism, relativism, anti-white self- hatred and lies about “diversity” and non-judgmentalism. These sundry “isms” are the pernicious lies that have jettisoned the positive “isms” that once bloomed in our society: patriotism, altruism, individualism, nationalism, etc. Jewish academics like Noel Ignatiev now fearlessly call for the “death of whiteness” with nary a squeak of protest. 

9. They have subverted our government. With Zionist control of media, both print and television, the two major political parties and the highest echelons of government, our foreign and domestic policy has been steered away from the interests of the European-American majority, rendering us incapable of self-preservation. The war in Iraq, the 9/11 attacks and a possible clash with Iran in the near future, are all results of the Zionist subjugation of the most powerful nation on earth, and the prioritizing of Israel’s concerns over those of the United States. Our taxpayers now fork over nearly six billion dollars a year in money and weaponry to this rogue state, with little to show for it except the hatred of the entire planet and the punishment of higher oil prices from the Arab world.

10. They have force-fed the propaganda of radical feminism to American women and girls. Thanks to the steady diet of anti-male, anti-marriage and anti-family books, lectures and college courses from the likes of the Steinems, the Friedans and the Abzugs, many women now see the prospect of marriage and child-rearing as an impediment to their liberation. This has resulted in a sharply decreased gentile birthrate. 

11. They have made abortion into a sacrament. Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and every other leftist pro-abortion promoter and provider in America is run from top to bottom by “the Chosen“. Unlimited and unregulated abortion on demand is lauded and touted in the controlled media as a positive social good for the United States. Thirty-four years after Roe v. Wade and with over 40 million abortions under their belts, these same groups still cheer and applaud for more. And with most abortion rights organizations top-heavy with Jews and a large percentage of abortion doctors also being Jewish, they have definitely made a killing out of killing.

12. They have sold us the packaged and deliberate lies of egalitarianism. All races are equal in intelligence, morality, accomplishments and potential, except of course, for one. The Jewish “race“, as their own leaders refer to their people, is declared by Jewish anthropologists to be “superior.” The lies of Montagu, Gould and Franz Boas have infected and displaced true science. According to these charlatans, Jews are uniquely intelligent, uniquely moral and a group that stands above all other groups in its supremacy. They truly believe they have a God-given right to rule over us. To criticize their pernicious power is the most egregious societal taboo. It will result in the loss of reputation and livelihood and remove any individual-no matter how acclaimed they once were-from the realm of “respectable” society. “Our race (speaking of the Jews) is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.” – Menachem Begin. (Israeli Prime Minister, 1977-1983)

13. They have propelled forward and profited from the social experiment called “racial integration“, a failed experiment that is killing European-Americans. With extremist Jews at the helm of the black civil rights movement, “headed” by their pawn, Martin Luther King, Jr., a charlatan plagiarizer and philandering minister whose speeches and writings were the product of his handler, Jewish Communist attorney Stanley Levinson, the rights of white Americans were steamrolled. This was done with the help of a pliant and gushing Jewish media bound and determined to decrease the power of Euro- Americans forever. These Jewish extremists founded the NAACP and headed it until the 1970s, not out of any benevolence toward blacks, but only to use them as a “proletariat” to finally seal Jewish hegemony over the institutions of the United States in the long run, thus guaranteeing the weakening and dumbing-down of white education and increased violence, rape and murder of the white majority. The 60% of violent crime committed in this country by “African-Americans” is then covered up or buried by the mainstream media, now firmly in Zionist hands. This, in essence, is an attempt to hide from the livid eyes of whites the abject failure and devastation of “integration.”

14. They have seized our language and steered it to the purposes of propaganda, with a little help from the Zionist-controlled idiot box. A “racist” is now someone who is appalled by black crime and the brutalizing of white women and children by violent rape and murder. It is anyone who doesn’t want white people to be wiped off the face of the earth forever. An “anti-Semite” is no longer someone who hates Jews, but someone the Talmudic Jews hate. Any soul who dares to mention aloud any aspect or plank of their sick and ghoulish anti- European death creed now leveled against us is likened to a Nazi goose-stepper sans the arm band and brown shirt. This would include a sizeable cross-section of the population who are now awakened and becoming hyper-aware of the reality of Jewish supremacist perfidy.

15. They have controlled our currency with the counterfeiting scheme that is the Federal Reserve, its umbilical cord of sustenance interfaced with the Jewish Rothschild banking cartel run from the financial nerve center of world Jewry located in London, England. Since 1913, and intermittently on and off again throughout US history, tribalist Jews have sunk their vampire fangs into the currency of our nation. This nexus of dominance, more than any other, must be broken, smashed, its reins handed back to the people and the government of our country, rather than a private corporation operated top to bottom by power-hungry greed-head Jewish extremist money-men and international bankers who are in all truth, globalists and internationalists, intent on robbing the American people of their livelihood and their birthright, just as our Founding Fathers warned us they would. Until we get this banking power off of our backs, we will never be free of Talmudic tyranny. We will instead be bankrupt and subservient to their evil power agenda.”(19)

A Jewish Defector Warns America

Benjamin Freedman 1961 Willard Hotel (Speech):

Cites:

(1) A Brief History of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah

(2) The New Testament is a Hoax

(3) Are Jews the Israelites of the Bible?

(4) The Ashkenazim

(5) How the Ashkenazi Jews Conquered the West

(6) Jesuits 1890 – Masters of Jewish Elite

(7) It’s NOT the Jews, It’s the Jesuits!!!

(8) Wikipedia- Court Jew

(9) Jesuits; Rulers of Evil. Part I

(10) The Suppression and Restoration of the Jesuits

(11) Edward Hendrie – Jesuits are Crypto-Jews

(12) Vatican Assassins

(13) Fallacies of the Jesuit conspiracy theory

(14) Abstract on Who Really Runs and Controls All

(15) Wikipedia- Society of Jesus

(16) Israel: The Scourge Of Empires

(17) The True Nature Of The Jewish Scam

(18) Is the ‘Migrant Crisis’ Part of a Zionist Plot Against White Europeans?

(19) How Jewish Supremacism Is Destroying America