Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: The Satanic Core of Libertarianism
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://henrymakow.com/the_satanic_core_of_libertaria.html
Published: Feb 26, 2014
Author: Henrymakow.com
Post Date: 2014-01-01 17:38:22 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 2984
Comments: 6
The Satanic Core of Libertarianism February 26, 2012 In Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati ploy, we covered the Jewish Money Power's ongoing involvement in Libertarianism. In The "Catholic" Wing of Libertarianism, we explored the Jesuit a.k.a. Illuminati connections with Libertarianism. In this article, we explore the Illuminati creed at the root of Austrian economics and Libertarianism: Satanism. The obscure hero of Libertarianism: Bernard de Mandeville Born in Rotterdam in 1670, Bernard de Mandeville came to England in the wake of William of Orange's accession to the throne. A doctor by profession, Mandeville became better-known as a satirist. More importantly, Mandeville was also a Satanist, linked with the Blasters and Hell-Fire Clubs of 18th-century England. Although Mandeville's name has been all but erased from contemporary mainstream economical discourse, many free-market thinkers lavish glowing praise on his insights. In a lecture delivered at the British Academy in 1966, Friedrich von Hayek extolled Mandeville as a "mastermind" and "great psychologist" whose theories anticipated those of David Hume, Adam Smith, and Charles Darwin, and praised his poem The Fable of the Bees as a "remarkable" work. According to Hayek, Mandeville's ideas "returned to economic theory" through the work of Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School by way of 19th-century German historian Friedrich von Savigny. Ludwig von Mises also paid tribute to Mandeville in his Theory and History, observing that "He [Mandeville] pointed out that self-interest and the desire for material well-being, commonly stigmatized as vices, are in fact the incentives whose operation makes for welfare, prosperity, and civilization." Even John Maynard Keynes, surely not an Austrian, recognized Mandeville as one of his main precursors in The General Theory of Employment and Money. These days, Austrian economist Gary North introduces The Fable of the Bees on his website as "the most important poem in the last 300 years". But what is so special about the Fable of the Bees that this fairly obscure poem, and its author, could have inspired such eulogies from Hayek, Mises, and Keynes? Good comes from evil, and other perversions Mandeville's Fable of the Bees or Private Vices, Publick Benefits was published in 1705, but was reworked and supplemented with abundant commentary over the next 25 years. In his writings, Mandeville argues that liberty represents man's uninhibited pursuit of his basest material and carnal instincts. Rather than being evil, selfishness and licentiousness lead to prosperity. According to Mandeville, "Evil is the grand principle that makes us social creatures, the solid basis, the life and support of all trade and employment without exception". Influenced by Mandeville, Adam Smith came to the conclusion that self-interest is the pillar of a prosperous society. Hayek and Mises went even further. They railed against altruism and solidarity as hindrances to a society's economic success. Of course, Smith is right to identify the added value brought by the division of labor and to point out that producers and sellers are primarily motivated by self-interest. But that does not mean that self-interest should be the fundamental principle of civilization. This is plain evil and the antithesis of what civilization is all about. Mandeville also claimed that a nation's wealth was predicated on the maintenance of an underclass of poorly educated laborers. Following in Mandeville's hoof steps, Mises emphasized that "men are born unequal and that it is precisely their inequality that generates social cooperation and civilization." The "Right to Allow your Child to Die" To his credit, anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard distanced himself from Mandeville's ideology. However, the same Rothbard advocated that parents have "a legal right not to feed [their] child, i.e., to allow it to die", and for the emergence of a "free market in children". Since Rothbard's system denies that humans have moral obligations to each other, he rejects aggression (the "non-aggression principle") but allows outright neglect, to the point of causing death. This is the evil outcome of taking libertarian ethics to their logical extreme. Clearly, the "non-aggression principle" is necessary but not sufficient to design a just and humane society. Satanic Ideologies in Modern Libertarianism Below are three well-known quotes. Satanist Alastair Crowley's Law of Thelema reads thus: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". Libertarian novelist Ayn Rand's mouthpiece Howard Roark proclaims in The Fountainhead: "Man's first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men." Finally, a passage from Austrian economist Ludwig Von Mises, who admired Rand's elitist stance: "The ultimate end of action is always the satisfaction of some desires of the acting man. Since nobody is in a position to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual, it is vain to pass judgment on other people's aims and volition." (Human Action) Beyond differences in wording, and even though Mises's version is more nuanced than Crowley's or Rand's, these three extracts are essentially saying the same thing. Now, it is one thing to point to similarities between Satanism and Libertarianism, but, Satanist propaganda is actually at the core of the Libertarian doctrine and of Austrian economics. The Satanic-Libertarian connection is very much alive today. Libertarian candidate Ron Paul, a self-avowed Rand admirer, may strike the right chord on many topics, but he has been linked to the Illuminati and has been seen displaying Satanic hand signs. The Satanic Dialectic The Austrian School is not the only economic school infected with Satanism, far from it. Like Hayek, Keynes was a member of the infamous Fabian Society. He was also known as a child molester. Karl Marx was himself a Satanist. In fact, Socialism, Zionism, and Satanism were originally joined at the hip: 19th-century Jewish activist Moses Hess, an influential precursor of modern Zionism, was also an early proponent of socialism and a collaborator of Marx. It was Hess who initiated Marx and Engels into Satanism. The end goal of all these ideologies is domination by a transnational, oligarchic, Satanic elite. Marxism and Austrianism both oppose nationalism and support free trade. Mises' collaborator, the arch-Zionist, Jesuit-trained, high-ranking Freemason Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi summarized the Illuminati dialectic thusly: "The fight between Capitalism and Communism over the inheritance of the beseeched blood aristocracy is a fratricidal war of the victorious brain aristocracy, a fight between individualistic and socialist, egoist and altruist, heathen and Christian spirit. The general staff of both parties is recruited from Europe's spiritual leader race [Führerrasse] the Jews." Essentially, two seemingly opposed forces advance the same goal: a world police state governed by an oligarchy of billionaire Satanists. Rising Above the Illuminati Dialectic To be sure, Austrian economics and Libertarianism have introduced useful concepts in both ethics and modern economic theory. The same can be said about Keynes and Marx. Illuminati ideologies always contain some savory morsels of truth, in order to make the Satanic deception more effective. In rising above this Illuminati dialectic, our challenge is to digest these nuggets of wisdom, and spit out the evil lies and half-truths that defile them. In the end, the real war waged by the Illuminati is a spiritual one. It is not merely about which monetary system is conducive to prosperity or which economic model is optimal. It is not solely about which political system is superior. It is, at heart, a battle between God and the Devil, for our souls. Special thanks to Anthony Migchels. See his Deconstruction of AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS (h/t to deadeyeblog regarding Marx's position on free trade)
(left, Bernard de Mandeville, the Satanist who inspired Libertarianism and Austrian economics)
Satanism defines man by carnal rather than spiritual desires, "liberating" the former and crushing the latter. De Mandeville's Fable of the Bees demonstrates that Libertarianism is rooted in Satanist dogma.
Libertarianism is part of the Illuminati Dialectic with Communism:
"Essentially, two seemingly opposed forces advance the same goal: a world police state governed by an oligarchy of billionaire Satanists."
by Memehunter
(henrymakow.com)
(left, Talk of a Romney-Paul ticket. Romney: "I'm not concerned about the poor...")
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: PnbC (#0)
This is the evil outcome of taking libertarian ethics to their logical extreme. Clearly, the "non-aggression principle" is necessary but not sufficient to design a just and humane society.
This is a pretty communistic sentiment comrade. Lucky you've got Obama/RomneyCare. Spread the wealth, to prevent death... eternal life for the collective!
Satan "Do what thou wilt". Sounds like much of the libertrarian "values". I'm for liberty but not for equating right and wrong with a shrug of the shoulder.
The claim is made in the face of the distinction made by Rothbard that, "whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question." Rothbard was clearly addressing a legal obligation as distinct from any moral obligation. http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp [Emphasis as in original] By Murray Rothbard 14. CHILDREN AND RIGHTS [...] Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?[6] The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die.
I think you have a right to spank your child. I don't know how to define over spanking which is abuse. However it is worded you should be able to spank/correct your child but not abuse them. If you don't spank your kids they often grow up thinking they can do whatever they want then become disobedient to the parents and turn out an adult with lesser values.
It is certainly your job as a parent to feed your chlldren. To not feed them would be abuse and downright evil. Even if your child is deformed or needs medical care. You need to feed your children. Which is a different thing in my mind from removing life support if they are brain dead or in a non recoverable position. That decision should be made by the parents with the best interests of the kid in mind. The true best interests whatever those are and not some lawyer twisted speak.
Since Rothbard's system denies that humans have moral obligations to each other, he rejects aggression (the "non-aggression principle") but allows outright neglect, to the point of causing death.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
but allows outright neglect, to the point of causing death
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote for other candidates
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: hondo68 (#2)
#4. To: A K A Stone, hondo68 (#1)
Since Rothbard's system denies that humans have moral obligations to each other, he rejects aggression (the "non-aggression principle") but allows outright neglect, to the point of causing death.
The Ethics of Liberty
#5. To: nolu chan (#4)
Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children,
#6. To: nolu chan (#4)
But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]