Part II : Jews and the Libertarian Movement – Open Borders

by Alex Gore

Now I’ve discussed in Part I why free-market capitalism has benefited Jews. In this part I’m going to discuss how open border policies have benefited Jews. Some of this overlaps with my previous post – The Mises Institute and Open Borders. Jews have historically been overwhelmingly for open borders. Chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique is a good read. There are five reasons I can think of why Jews are for open borders:

  1. Historically anti-semitic movements have occurred in a homogeneous society where people are of the same race, religion, or beliefs
  2. Jews feel more comfortable in a multicultural society and highly ethnocentric people, such as the Jews, tend to have an exaggerated perception of discrimination and racism. They often perceive it when none actually exists. I participate in libertarian message boards from time to time and you can usually spot the Jew by their reactions to criticisms. For example, there was an article on Mises on why the mainstream media was so bad. I responded as below:

Now me being a minority, I myself prefer to live in a multicultural society. Though I have conservative beliefs, I would much rather live in an area that is liberal and has a mixture of different races and background. I’m sure Jews feel the same way.

3. The mixing of races such as in interracial marriages is usually dysgenic and creates an increasing gap between the ruling class and their subjects

4. As “revenge” against the European people for past anti-semitic practices.

5. The destruction of culture and tradition that stands in the way of materialism, capitalism, and money-making opportunities for the Jewish banking and business elites.

But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the well-being of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God, upon the brotherhood of humanity, unconnected with the conception of equality, which is negatived by the very laws of creation, for they have established subordination. With such a faith as this a people might be governed by a wardship of parishes, and would walk contentedly and humbly under the guiding hand of its spiritual pastor submitting to the dispositions of God upon earth. This is the reason why it is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the mind of the “goyim” the very principle of god-head and the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs.

– The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

Libertarian Christians such as Gary North has tried to justify usury and capitalism in the bible. In actuality, the only places in the bible where usury is justified is that of Jews to their enemies – the Gentiles. For instance, Deuteronomy 23:20


Now getting back to the original topic. As Brenton Sanderson illustrates in Free to Lose: Whites, Jews, and Libertarianism (Occidental Quarterly, Fall 2011), Jews have been hypocritically for open borders for the West but closed borders for Israel. Jewish libertarians are no exception:

(Milton) Friedman’s position with regard to immigration to the US was that, providing that immigrants (from whatever racial or cultural source) are entering the nation to take up employment, as opposed to state welfare, there is no rational reason to oppose that immigration . . . (However) the apparent attraction of non-discriminatory immigration for Friedman did not extend to the state of Israel. While Friedman frequently railed against the socialist tendencies of various Israeli governments, he was a strong supporter of the ethno-state of Israel, and there is no record of him ever noticing Israel’s racially-restrictive immigration policy — much less decrying it. This surely demonstrates that in such matters the ingroup moral criterion of whether it was “good for the Jews” surpassed his universal libertarian commitment to the supposed benefits of a free and open immigration policy.

Ayn Rand demonstrated an even greater capacity for hypocrisy with her attitude toward respective manifestations of White and Jewish ethnocentrism. She declared that “there is no such thing as a collective or racial achievement” and espoused the moral superiority of her type of individualism which “regards man — every man — as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.” For Rand, however, “every man” ostensibly did not include the Arabs in their conflict with Israel. Instead she regarded the fight between Israel and the Arabs as fight  between civilized men and savages. Appearing on Donahue in 1979 she declared that: “If you mean whose side should you be on — Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages who have not changed for years and who are racist and who resent Israel because it’s bringing industry and intelligence and modern technology into their stagnation.”


It’s no surprise that libertarians being overwhelmingly white and individualistic have a soft spot for open borders. They easily buy into the mainstream mantra that “race is only skin deep”. I’ve argued on the boards with libertarians on matters such as racial differences and open borders. They normally come across as either hostile or in complete denial. Libertarians for the most part are also clueless about an NWO conspiracy – let alone a JWO conspiracy.

Libertarians are usually against all authority including religious, parental, and of course the state which benefits the Jewish elites. I myself was a longtime libertarian but I’ve only recently discovered that I was being duped. Libertarians seldom point to any sort of ruling class, let alone a Jewish ruling class. The libertarian movement is essentially a giant gatekeeping operation that actually protects the establishment. They do this by misdirecting your attention towards blaming the government instead of those actually pulling the strings. The government is merely a tool that the establishment uses to enslave the masses. Take a look at the articles on the Mises website. The vast majority is just recycled mainstream media stuff disguised as promoting your freedom and liberty. The following are examples of their disinformation on race and immigration:

Migrants from Other States Are “Stealing Our Jobs”

The Economic Evil of Eugenics

The Racist History of Minimum Wage Laws

Though the three founders of the Austrian School of Economics were Gentile-Austrians, there’s little that’s Austrian about the Institute anymore. It should really be called the Jewish School of Economics:

Von Mises was funded by the Rockefellers.

Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. Even after he finally landed the position at NYU, where he remained only a visiting professor until his retirement in 1969, his salary was paid for not by NYU, but from funds contributed by generous private supporters.

Richard M. Ebeling of the Independent Review

The Rockefellers, by the way, are a Jewish family.


Part I : Jews and the Libertarian Movement – Capitalism

by Alex Gore

Libertarians in general are against the concept of government. I myself had been a big fan of the libertarian movement for many years. I’ve read a number of books by the Ludwig Von Mises Institute such as Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard and Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises. I’ve also read Why Government Doesn’t Work by Harry Browne. However what I once supported has got me questioning major aspects of it. I now believe too much freedom is not really a good thing and there should be limits. Unlimited freedom ends up turning into despotism.

The one big issue that is almost never discussed among free-market capitalists and libertarians is that of RACE. And the fact that it is almost never discussed is the probably worst kept secret of libertarianism. Libertarians want to act like there is no such thing as race and like the mainstream they believe that race is just skin deep. The fact is, by discussing race realities, the whole foundation of libertarianism would actually crumble.

As I explained in my post, Jews and Multicultural Movement, there are actual genetic and biological differences among the races in terms of IQ, aggressiveness, propensity towards committing acts of violence, the treatment of those outside their race, and ethnocentricism. Blacks, Arabs, and Jews, to name a few, are considered ethnocentric – meaning they are cohesive and have a “brotherly” attachment to members of their own kind. They practice a “natural” socialism. These people’s ethnocentricism likely evolved through thousands of years of conflict with enemy groups in which strength in numbers was crucial to survival. I personally have visited a number of Arab countries, where in the markets all the shoe sellers would congregate in one area of the market and sell the same shoes for the same price. That’s the same for sellers of jewelry, clothing, produce, etc. Getting ahead of your competitors by, for example, undercutting is considered an offense. The attitude is that everyone should be on the same level.

Caucasians on the other hand evolved in the sparsely populated cold north where dealing with the climate was of more importance than dealing with tribal conflict. They have highly individualistic tendencies. They value personal achievements over group based ones. That’s a major reason why the standard of living is much higher in the West than most anywhere else. European-based people are natural born competitors. They don’t mind putting their fellow whites out of business (unless it was their neighbors of course). I would say they are natural born libertarians as well. Unfortunately their individualistic tendencies and relative compassion for outsiders mean they have little ethnic defense against strongly cohesive people. This is the paradox of libertarianism which stresses individualism. When it comes to conflict – group based strategies will almost always win out against individually based ones. That’s evident in the US which over the last 100 years has gone from a relatively free society to ones ruled by despots that has little in common with the citizens it rules. We essentially have a mafia that runs things. European-based people are able to be pushed around without fear of them fighting back. On the other hand, Middle Eastern societies, (both Arab and Jewish) with their strong ingroup-outgroup barriers, have done a far better job of containing unwanted elements than Western societies.

Now what does Jews have to do with libertarianism? And why are there so many prominent Jews in the libertarian movement (think Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, and Stefan Molyneux)? Brenton Sanderson in The Occidental Quarterly (vol 11, no 3, Fall 2011) answers those questions in Free to Lose: Jews, Whites, and Libertarianism. Quoting Milton Friedman:

The feature of capitalism that has benefited the Jews has, of course, been competition. Wherever there is a monopoly, whether it be private or governmental, there is room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly—whether these criteria be color of skin, religion, national origin or what not. Where there is free competition, only performance counts. The market is color blind. No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or atheist; by Whites or blacks. Any miller who wishes to express his personal prejudices by buying only from preferred groups is at a competitive disadvantage, since he is keeping himself from buying from the cheapest source. He can express his prejudice, but he will have to do so at his own expense, accepting a lower monetary income than he could otherwise earn.

Sanderson further writes:

It may have occurred to the reader, however, that while Friedman, von Mises and Rand opposed the existence of monopolies that provided “room for the application of arbitrary criteria in the selection of the beneficiaries of the monopoly,” the reality is that Jews, even in the freest of markets, are notorious for developing and using ethnic monopolies in precisely this fashion. Indeed this is a major theme of (Kevin) MacDonald’s “A People That Shall Dwell Alone” where he observes that from “the standpoint of the group, it was always more important to maximize the resource flow from the non-Jewish community to the Jewish community, rather than to allow individual Jews to maximize their interests at the expense of the Jewish community.”

The massive extent of Jewish nepotism in their business dealings is so exhaustively documented (very frequently by Jews themselves) as to be beyond dispute. Such is the rarity of instances where Jews use other Jews in a purely instrumental manner that they are cause for great shock and trauma  within the Jewish community (witness the Madoff affair). Given this, it seems to me that while, as Friedman, von Mises and Rand assert, the free market may work efficiently to hinder ethnocentric discrimination among Whites (a group that MacDonald characterizes as, owing to their evolutionary history, strongly predisposed to individualism), the hyper-ethnocentrism of the Jews (and the Chinese) predispose them to transcend this “rational” discipline imposed by the free market.

It is clear from the domination of Jews in the media, the banking system, and the government, that the European based people cannot compete with them because the Jews (Ashkenazi) have a higher mean IQ and higher ethnocentricity. A free-market society that has both a highly ethnocentric and a highly intelligent minority will eventually be taken over by those people. I would say a purely free market may work in the long term if society was completely composed of members predisposed towards individualism. But even if a society was composed of nothing but individualists what is to stop some of them from forming a group with a goal of controlling society? The traits of cohesiveness, high intelligence, and feelings of superiority could slowly evolve with the practice of eugenics.

“You say that Marxism is the very antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred to us [The Money Power] It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites to one another, that they put into our hands the two poles of this planet and allow us to be its axis. These two contraries, like  Bolshevism and ourselves, find their identity in the International.”
– Otto Kahn, Investment Banker

Message me if you want a copy of the Sanderson article.

Usury – For Good or Bad?


I’ve been pondering as to what benefit or detriment usury has caused in our society.

Arguments Against Usury:

“Legalized usury commits the human race to the unceasing pursuit of economic growth. Usury imposes an unstoppable expansion on the process of wealth creation; it sets in motion a driving force whose velocity increases exponentially along with compound interest, impelling us to transform all the world’s human and natural resources into the form of financial representation. As the people of Renaissance England clearly saw and often said, usury is inherently insatiable. The history of the human race since restraints on usury began to be lifted has involved the sudden and dramatic colonization of the globe by money, the evaluation of human activity and the natural environment in terms of money, and the direction of an ever-increasing proportion of physical and psychological energy toward the production of money.” – David Hawkes

Does usury and uncontrollable debt go hand in hand? It seems it does. Does usury and inflation go hand-in-hand? Again it seems it does. The problem with money, unlike tangible goods is that it can be easily counterfeited without the public ever finding out. Counterfeiting is something the government and banks do on a regular basis by printing money or creating loans out of thin air. The US economy over time has become one that was once based primarily on the production of tangible goods to that which produces mainly speculative financial goods. I believe even under a system in which money is issued 100 percent privately, there would be abuses although far less than in the current system. Perhaps the church since the early days foresaw the predicament we are currently in.

Michael Hoffman argues that usury and capitalism make society less human and more “robotic”. It places emphasis on numbers, profits, production, and materialism rather than love, compassion, family, and tradition. (Marx), too, admired ‘naked self-interest’ (in its time and place), and for much of the same reasons as Miss (Ayn) Rand: because, he believed, it cleared away the cobwebs of religion and led to prodigies of industrial and cognate accomplishment. (Hoffman, p277)

Arguments for Usury:

My thinking is that if the church constantly finds themselves in a fight against usury, then there must be something inherently natural about it. Fighting usury is akin to the church’s fight against promiscuity or even their fight against sex in general. It goes against human nature. The Von Mises Austrian school of economics explains capitalistic activities, which includes usury, as being a natural part of human behavior to better themselves and better their status by mutually exchanging their property for someone else’s property. In a two way trade, both parties benefit because each has something the other wants. Murray Rothbard in Man, Economy, and State says that “All action is an attempt to exchange a less satisfactory state of affairs for a more satisfactory one.”

Austrian school economics recognize that time is scarce and finite. People have different time preferences. Like any other free-market activity, interest-rates are determined by supply and demand. Those with a high time preferences are more willing to pay more for something now (and borrow money to do it) while those with low time-preferences are willing to fore-go consumption in the present by saving money and/or lending it out now.

It could be argued that societies that discourage usury remain backward states, such as much of the world before the 16th century or the Islamic states today. The average standard of living, wealth, and health has risen exponentially since that time and much of that can be attributed to capitalism and usury.

– AD

Michael Hoffman – Usury as Satanic


Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. – Luke 6:35 NSRV

This essay is not to agree or disagree with the morals of usury, but to present my findings from Michael Hoffman’s Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not. Though I grew up as a Christian, I no longer practice it. I do have some sentiments toward the religion however. The way I look at religion is more through the social context. Usury in Christendom is an interesting read and tells you the sentiment of the times before modern day capitalism. Though Hoffman is against capitalism, he claims to be for the free-market – that is one that is compatible with biblical scriptures. I have long been an advocate for free-market capitalism, but this book gave me something to think about.


Six Big Mistakes Inflationists Make

Gold advocates and free-market economists have been mainly on the wrong side of inflation for the past 35 years. Since that time, the US economy has yet to experience the stagflation, let alone hyperinflation, that has been expected to happen. To be sure, we have seen steady inflation but nowhere close to the high rates that has been forecasted. The policies of the US Fed has indeed been reckless, but that recklessness has yet to translate into monetary ruin. I’ve been pondering this for a little while and came up with six errors that inflationists make:

  1. Believing that the Fed prints money
  2. Believing that the Fed controls interest rates
  3. Believing that the Fed can stop deflation
  4. Thinking that the situation in the US is similar to Zimbabwe
  5. Believing rising gold prices are indicative of inflation
  6. Believing a falling dollar is indicate of inflation


the real Syrian Free Press

War Press Info ~ Archive of Most Important Reliable Global War News

The Holocaust is a Hoax

Time to expose the lies!

The Rabbit Hole

Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.

Levant Report

the Real Middle East, debunking the sound bites

Mothman777's Blog

Perfect nutrition in spiritual context