In his Culture of Critique trilogy professor Kevin MacDonald shows how many Jewish dominated intellectual movements have developed a culture of critique that undermines those ideas and values that protect White group interests.
These Jewish dominated intellectual movements include the Frankfurt School, Boazian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the New York Intellectuals, Marxism and even neoconservatism.
Note the almost all encompassing nature of the Jewish critique that includes everything from philosophy and psychology to biology, literature, economics and politics. It is this culture of critique that has in many ways turned the White Western science, culture and society on its head.
But how about libertarianism? Is it also a part of the Jewish culture of critique?
MacDonald gives us a three-step method to answer the question:
1 “find influential movements dominated by Jews, with no implication that all or most Jews are involved in these movements and no restrictions on what the movements are.”
2 “determine whether the Jewish participants in those movements identified as Jews
3. AND thought of their involvement in the movement as advancing specific Jewish interests.” (Kevin MacDonald. Culture of Critique, pp. 11-12.)
The first step is easy. After all, libertarianism has clearly been dominated by Jews. The four biggest names in libertarianism are all Jews: Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. Furthermore, they all dominated a specific subschool of the libertarian movement: Chicago school, Classical Austrian school, Objectivism and the Radical Austrolibertarian school. Also one of the most famous popularizers of libertarianism, Walter Block is Jewish.
MacDonald’s second and third step are more difficult. Therefore we have to study deeper into the lives and identities of these libertarians. First Milton Friedman:
Milton Friedman: The Father of U$Srael
Table of contents:
A. Jewish identity
1. The secret real surname of Milton Friedman
2. The secret real surname of Rose Director Friedman
3. Were Directors and Friedmans fronts for the Rothschilds?
B. Serving Jewish interests
4. Turning conservatism into neoconservatism
5. Destroying Germany
6. Defending the Jewish money machine of the Fatal Embrace
7. Milton Friedman vs. Murray Rothbard on the Fatal Embrace
8. Creating globalist U$Srael
9. Destroying the world economy
1. The secret real surname of Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman was born on July 31, 1912 to Sarah Ethel Landau and Jeno Saul Friedman, Jewish immigrants living in Brooklyn, New York. Milton was the youngest child and had three older sisters.
We do not know much about the Friedman family because all his life Milton Friedman was quite secretive about his family and ancestors. Only when in 1976 he received the Nobel prize in economics did he have to write a small autobiography. But even then he did not tell much about his ancestors. He did not even mention that his ancestors were all Jews. In fact, the word Jew does not appear in this early autobiography.
My parents were born in Carpatho-Ruthenia (then a province of Austria-Hungary; later, part of inter-war Czechoslovakia, and, currently, of the Soviet Union). They emigrated to the U.S. in their teens, meeting in New York.
When I was a year old, my parents moved to Rahway, N.J., a small town about 20 miles from New York City. There, my mother ran a small retail “dry goods” store, while my father engaged in a succession of mostly unsuccessful “jobbing” ventures. The family income was small and highly uncertain; financial crisis was a constant companion.
Strangely Milton does not even mention that the birthplace and hometown of both of his parents was Berehove, a Hungarian town. One would think that the Friedman family would be interested in their ancestral town. The town had a sizeable Jewish community. In fact, the town even had a mikve, a place for Jewish ritual cleansing.
Milton does mention that his parents came from Carpatho-Ruthenia but falsely claims it was a province of Austria-Hungary. Actually it was integral part of autonomous Hungary. The name Carpatho-Ruthenia is usually only used if one wants to emphasise that the area belonged not to Hungary but to “the forgotten people”, ruthenians/rusyns. However, Berehove was majority Hungarian. Why the disemphasis on Hungarians? Did Friedman and his family have something against them? Did they consider Hungarians anti-Semitic? That would not be surprising since Hungarians have traditionally been quite critical of Jewish influence.
Carpatho-Ruthenia is a historic region in the border between Central and Eastern Europe claimed by Hungarians, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Poles, Russians and Romanians. Before World War I the area belonged to Austria-Hungary and contained many Jews just like the neighboring Austria-Hungarian Galicia. Situated between east and west it was strategically very important. Many of the most famous Jewish economists came from this Austria-Hungarian eastern part, which is now part of Western Ukraine.
Curiously, nothing is known of Jeno Friedman’s parents or siblings. Geni.com has no info. Neither does any other genealogical service nor Wikipedia entry on Milton Friedman. Furthermore, Milton seems to never have written anything about his grandfather or possible paternal uncles, aunts or cousins. Nor has Milton’s son David Director Friedman though he is very interested in history.
Finally in 1998 at the age of 86 Milton together with his wife Rose finally published their memoirs, Milton and Rose Friedman. Two Lucky People: Memoirs. In these memoirs Milton noted that his parents were born in Berehove but claimed it was a “mostly Jewish town”. Hungarians disagree. At most a quarter of the population were Jews. This is also noted in Milton’s only official biography by Larry Ebenstein.
At that time—with a population of perhaps 10,000, a quarter of whom were Jewish .. (Larry Ebenstein. Milton Friedman: Biography. 2007. p. 5.)
More mysterious is that Milton claimed that he does not know the real surname of his father.
At an early age my father went to live with a much older half-brother in Budapest. They had the same mother but different fathers. His half-brother’s name was Friedman, and since my father was always referred to as “Friedman’s brother,” he took Friedman as his name, though it was not his biological father’s. At one time, I knew his original name, but I’m too uncertain now to record my present impression. (Milton and Rose Friedman. Two Lucky People: Memoirs. p. 19.)
This is most curious. Family, ancestry and genealogy have always been very important in Jewish culture. Surely Milton must have been interested in his ancestry and his real surname. How could he forget? Of course, Milton was already in his 80’s when the autobiography was written. Maybe he had never written his real surname down and then forgotten it. But how could his wife Rose, his children David and Janet and other relatives also forget it?
It is also ludicrous to suggest that Jeno changed his surname just because he was known as “Friedman’s brother”. Milton himself notes in his memoirs that his father emigrated to the United States at the age 16 but says “I know literally nothing about the details of his emigration.” (p. 20) Why would a boy in his teens change his surname? Was he hiding something? Did Jeno want to erase his past when he emigrated to the United States? Friedman gives us no answers. In his memoirs Milton tries to explain his almost total silence over his family roots:
I had the usual youthful egoistic lack of interest in origins when I could have learned about them. (Memoirs. p. 20)
Why he did not ask his mother, Sarah? She lived to the ripe age of 74 and died in 1952. By then Milton was not so youthful anymore but a 40 year old middle-aged man. Certainly Sarah knew not only the real name of her husband but also many other details of his background. Many of Milton’s relatives must also have known. If they refused to tell him then he could have found out by contacting a Jewish-Hungarian genealogist. Jews usually have very good genealogical and other historical records. But for some reason Milton did not want people to know the name and background of his paternal ancestors.
It does not seem likely that Milton’s parents – two young immigrants from Berehove – would accidentally meet in New York. Most probably their marriage was arranged by their families as was customary at the time. In fact, Milton said as much:
However, their marriage doubtless sprang from their common roots. That is how networks develop and marriages are arranged in an immigrant culture. (Memoirs, p. 20)
It is safe to assume that Sarah and her family knew the real name and background of Jeno. It would not be surprising if their families had a long alliance and Jeno was involved in some covert illegal activities such as organized crime, communist subversion or both. This would also explain why Jeno seems to have been a shady character. Amazingly, Milton even claims he knows nothing about his father’s work. Perhaps he again forgot to ask his mother, Sarah.
I know even less about my father’s source of income. I am under the imperession that not long after his arrival he went into business of his own as a petty trader of some kind and remained self-employed for the rest of his life. (Memoirs. p. 20.)
Milton Friedman was extremely intelligent and that runs in families because intelligence is heritable. Much more than Gentiles the Jews breed for intelligence. For hundreds of years Jewish marriages were arranged to achieve as high intelligence in the offsprings as possible. The higher the intelligence the easier it is to recite and interpret the Talmud and become a rabbi. And rabbis were not only scholars and community leaders but also leading businessmen. The more intelligent you were the more powerful and richer you were guaranteed to become. Thus you would also have more children who survived into adulthood. This obviously not only raised the average Jewish intelligence but ensured that those with very high IQs usually came from the leading rabbinic families.
So where did Milton inherit his intelligence? Neither of his parents seem to have been very intelligent. They had no higher education and ran a small dry goods store. Sarah’s Landau–Hartman family was very large but seems not to have been very intelligent or otherwise notable unless they were related to the famous Galician Landau family and Joachim Landau who had been a member of the Austrian parliament. The famous libertarian economist Ludwig von Mises‘ mother came from this Landau family. (Mises bio, p. 9) However, Landau was a fairly common Jewish family name so any close relation between Berehove and Galician Landaus seems unlikely.
Milton’s oldest sister, Tillie Florence would later marry Fred Porter (Portnovsky) whose parents had immigrated from Stavisht, Ukraine, Russian Empire. (From the same town came also the Zionist activist and Israeli politician Avraham Hertzfeld.) Their son, Gerald J. Porter has been very interested in his roots. He wrote this in a now half-defunct genealogy website:
Jeno’s name was not originally Friedman. I can’t tell you what it was but I do know he went to stay with his half brother in Budapest. His half brother’s name was Friedman so he became Friedman. Whenever anyone contacted Milton and claimed to be a relative because of the Friedman name, Milton would write back that his family name was not Friedman.
Milton became famous already in the sixties. To world fame he rose after he received the Nobel Prize in economics in 1976. So for decades other Friedmans wrote to him wondering if they were related. Milton explained to them that Friedman was not his ancestral name but for some reason did not tell them what was his real surname. Many of those Friedmans must have been perplexed by Milton’s attitude.
Jerry Porter knew his uncle Milton very well and visited him many times. Porter was very interested in his roots but Friedman did not want to talk about the subject. Why did Milton keep his paternal family name a secret even from his own nephew?
Interestingly, Jerry Porter has a PhD from Princeton and is a professor of mathematics. His brother is a lawyer who graduated from Princeton.
The paternal side of Jerry Porter’s family does not seem to have been highly educated. His own father was only a small businessman. So it seems Jerry inherited his intelligence from the same mysterious source as Milton. No wonder Jerry is so interested in his roots. In his homepage Jerry now writes the following:
From time to time, someone with the name Friedman would contact Milton and claim to be a distant relative. That was never the case, because the family name was not Friedman although I am not sure what it was. It might have been Grunspan or something similar. … My grandmother’s name was Landau and we knew many relatives on that side of the family but I don’t recall ever knowing a relative of my material [Sic] grandfather.
Was Milton’s real family name Grunspan? This also raises the question if he is perhaps related to the Fed chairman Alan Greenspan? (The German word grun means green.) Or perhaps the families had at least known each other in Eastern Europe before The First World War?
Unfortunately Alan Greenspan is also very quiet about his Jewish Eastern European roots as are so many other prominent Jews. In his memoirs Alan dedicates only one sentence to his family origins and even that is very vague:
Both sides of my family, the Greenspans and the Goldsmiths, arrived at the turn of the century, the Greenspans from Romania and the Goldsmiths from Hungary. (p. 18.)
That does not tell us much. Grunspan/Greenspan and Goldsmith are very common Jewish names. Romania and Hungary are big countries though both border Carpathia.
Amazingly, Milton’s official biographer Larry Ebenstein is not interested about Milton’s real name or even if he is related to Alan Greenspan. Ebenstein just repeats Milton’s suspicious origins story almost word by word.
At a young age, Jeno moved from Beregszasz to Budapest, the capital of Hungary, to live with a much older half-brother, the son of the same mother but of a different father. The surname of Jeno’s brother was Friedman, and Jeno, who was always referred to as “Friedman’s brother,” soon adopted this as his own last name.
When interviewing Milton in 2000 Ebenstein did ask him about his ancestral name. Ebenstein explains in the biography:
Milton is no longer sure what his father’s original last name was, but believes that it was Greenberg, Greenstein, or “Green something else.” (Friedman-Ebenstein interview (2000).)
Why did not Ebenstein do more research and try to find out Milton’s ancestral name? Why not ask Milton’s relatives? Surely someone must remember. Most probably Milton’s son David Friedman remembers. If no one remembers then it would be very easy to consult a Jewish-Hungarian genealogist. Is Ebenstein a totally incompetent biographer?
In Ebenstein’s defence it must be said that he wrote the bio under Milton’s supervision. Obviously Milton and his family did not want Ebenstein to start digging into Jeno’s past.
The big question: Why? And why are historians not interested in Friedman’s ancestry? Why are historians so reluctant to research the Jewish ancestry of so many important historical figures from Lenin and Trotsky to Kerensky and Friedman? Would it be too hazardous to their career?
Related by blood or not, Milton and Alan would have at least one connection: The same Jewish mentor, Arthur F. Burns, the future Fed chairman. In his memoirs (p. 63) Greenspan explicitly refers to Burns as “my old mentor”.
Wikipedia reveals that Burns was originally Burnseig but does not tell his original first name. Neither does any other public source.
Burns was born in Stanislau (now Ivano-Frankivsk), Austrian Poland (Galicia), a province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in 1904 to Polish-Jewish parents, Sarah Juran and Nathan Burnseig, who worked as a house painter. He showed aptitude early in his childhood, when he translated the Talmud into Polish and Russian by age six and debated socialism at age nine.[2] In 1914, he immigrated to Bayonne, New Jersey, with his parents.[1] (Wikipedia)
Also the young Milton Friedman had a very Jewish upbringing:
As a child, Milton had very strong ties to Judaism, studying in a Hebrew school and, in his words, “obeying every Orthodox religious requirement.” After a stint of extreme piety during the years before his bar mitzvah, he lost his faith and ceased Jewish practice, but he still strongly identified as a Jew and took great pride in both Jewish tradition and his Jewish heritage.
After his father’s death [1929] he faithfully recited Kaddish for the full eleven months, even traveling to neighboring communities to find a minyan. And he was a devout Zionist who strongly identified with Israel and expressed pride in its achievements. (Jewish Press)
In 1929 Milton obtained a scholarship to Rutgers University and became more secularized but never abandoned his Jewish identity. He became a socialist probably because at the time everybody believed socialism was good for Jews. After all, both socialist parties and the Soviet Union were very much dominated by Jews. However, Milton’s political opinions started to change when at Rutgers university he became a student and protege of Arthur F. Burns.
In economics, I had the good fortune to be exposed to two remarkable men: Arthur F. Burns, then teaching at Rutgers while completing his doctoral dissertation for Columbia; and Homer Jones, teaching between spells of graduate work at the University of Chicago. Arthur Burns shaped my understanding of economic research, introduced me to the highest scientific standards, and became a guiding influence on my subsequent career. .. Arthur Burns and Homer Jones remain today among my closest and most valued friends. (Autobiography 1976)
Burns convinced Friedman that (relatively) free markets were even better for Jews than socialism. He probably also explained to Milton that economics and banking is the key to power. Burns might even have reminded Friedman of the old apocryphal but accurate saying attributed to the Rothschilds.
2. The secret real surname of Rose Director
In 1932 Milton got a scholarship to Chicago University where he met Rose Director who was one or two years his senior. Nobody really knows her age nor her real surname because her origin is even more mysterious than Milton’s.
Rose Director was born either in 1910 or 1911 in Staryi Chortoryisk (Charteriks), Volhynia, Western Ukraine, Russian Empire. Rose had a much older brother, Aaron Director (1901-2004). Curiously their original Jewish family name is never mentioned in encyclopedias, obituaries or even at Geni.com.
The University of Chicago obituary of Rose Friedman states that her birth records are lost. Despite this she must have known her real ancestral surname but for some reason decided not to reveal it. In the memoirs she does tell a lot about the life of her parents and extended family but never mentions their real original family names. (Two Lucky People: Memoirs. P. 2.)
Obviously Director is not a Yiddish, German or Russian but an adopted English name. Jews often took new names and even identities when they emigrated to the United States. Some Jews made up grandiose sounding surnames such as King, Lord or Director. Rose does not explain why she does not tell us the name of her parents expect by saying this:
I did not get interested in family history until it was too late to ask questions. (P. 2.)
Why not ask her brother Aaron? He was at least nine years older and at least 12 or 13 years of age when they emigrated to the United State before the First World War. He died as late as 2004. Certainly he must have remembered his own real surname. Was there something to hide? Perhaps not coincidentally Chicago University obituary of Rose claims that her father was a victim of anti-Semitism in Russia. No source for this claim is given.
She was born in a small Russian village in what is now part of Ukraine. Her birth records are lost, but she believed she had been born during December 1910. When she was an infant, her mother took her children and left for America, settling in Portland, Ore., where her father had already moved to escape threats against his life arising from anti-Semitism. They left just before that part of the countryside was devastated during World War I.
What anti-Semitism? University of Chicago does not explicate but in the memoirs Rose tells about a curious incident:
Neither do I know how long my father stayed in Charterisk before returning to the United States. I know only that he did not leave until after his father died and that he left rather precipitously and sooner than he intended. I suspect that he was going to stay until I was born but left prematurely as a result of a terrible accident in the mill that he had inherited from his father. It was my father, I believe, who improved the mill by converting it to steam. A young Russian who had brought his grain to be milled got his coat caught in the machinery and was dragged into the wheels of the mill and killed.
My father feared for his life because of the anger in the Russian community. After hiding out for a few days, he departed a second time for the United States. I have never heard more than this about the episode. In particular, I have never heard anything about the reaction of the Russian community to the family that was left behind. (Memoirs. p. 4-5)
Rose admits that this is all hearsay. Obviously his father’s sudden departure was a touchy topic that nobody wanted to talk about. It might also be that there were other reasons besides a possible accident. Certainly an outrage over an industrial accident could not be considered anti-Semitism. There were also many other reasons why Russians might have had a very negative attitude towards the Director family and Jews in general. In fact, Rose’s birth town Staryi Chortoryisk had a very Jewish dominated history.
Jews first settled in Staryi Chortoryisk in 1577, and the cemetery, is thought to have been established between the 16th and 17th centuries, By 1887, the Jewish population of the town had grown to 822, around 30% of the total population. (Esjf-cemeteries)
Volhynian Jews were extremely bitter towards the Tsar because they had lost most of the ancient privileges they had enjoyed under Polish rule. However, with their capital and business networks they kept control of the economy. Jewish Virtual Library explains (emphasis added):
The Jews of Vladimir-Volynski (1570) and Lutsk (1579) were exempted from the payment of custom duties throughout the Polish kingdom. The Jews of Volhynia enjoyed the protection of the royal officials, who even defended their rights before the aristocracy and all the more so before other classes. With the weakening of royal authority at the close of the 16th and early 17th centuries, the Jews had the protection of the major landowners, mainly because they had become an important factor in the economy of Volhynia.
At the close of the 16th century, the noblemen began to lease out their estates to Jews in exchange for a fixed sum which was generally paid in advance. All the incomes of the estate from the labor of the serfs, the payments of the townsmen and the Jews (who lived in the towns which belonged to the estate), innkeeping, the flour mills, and the other branches of the economy were handed over to the lessee. During the term of his lease, the Jew governed the estate and its inhabitants and was authorized to penalize the serfs at his discretion.
During that period, a Jew named Abraham who lived in the town of Turisk became renowned for his vast leases in Volhynia. However, with the exception of these large leases, which were naturally limited in number and on which there is no further information from the beginning of the 17th century, many Jews leased inns, one of the branches of the agricultural economy of the estates, or the incomes of one of the towns or townlets.
A lessee of this kind was actually the agent and confidant of the owner of the estate and the financial and administrative director of the economy of the aristocratic class. As a result of his functions, such a lessee exerted administrative authority and great economic influence, a situation which embittered the peasants, the townsmen, and the lower aristocracy. The lease of estates, together with the trade of agricultural produce derived from them, constituted the principal source of livelihood of the Jews of Volhynia. ..
The emancipation of the peasants in 1861 and the Polish rebellion of 1863 caused far-reaching changes in the economic and social development of Volhynia that affected the Jews. The decline of the estates of the Polish nobility, the construction of railways, and the creation of direct lines of communication with the large commercial centers deprived the Jewish masses of their traditional sources of livelihood and impoverished them. This prompted the Jews to develop industry. Of the 123 large factories situated in Volhynia in the late 1870s, 118 were owned by Jews.
Directors probably had been part of this monopolist over-class for generations. As Rose already mentioned, his grandfather had owned a flour mill. Rose also mentions that her aunt was involved in innkeeping. This is a relevant piece of information. Traditionally the Jews had a monopoly in the production and selling of alcohol. Naturally this enraged and embittered the Russian locals especially because sometimes Jews even encouraged peasant to buy alcohol with credit and then took over their farms.
For hundreds of years the ancestors of Rose and other Jews had exploited and lorded over the peasants. (Was this why Rose’s parents decided to adopt the surname Director? Perhaps an inside joke at the expense of the Goyim.) Rose explains:
Both Jews and Christians, who the Jews always referred to as “Russians,” lived in Charterisk, but there seems to have been no social contact between the two groups. Interaction was limited strictly to commercial transactions. Farmers in surrounding areas came to local markets to buy provisions and sell their wares. My aunt had a bar where the Russians congregated after the markets closed. My father worked in his father’s mill, to which Russians brought wheat and other grains to be grounded.
I don’t recall hearing any stories about pogroms such as are reported for other communities. Nevertheless, my parents and siblings made it clear that the Jews lived in fear of their Russian neighbors. (Memoirs, p. 2)
As Rose notes there was no social contact between the Jews and Russians. Jews spoke Yiddish and lived in self-segregated areas. Moreover the Directors as most other Jews were Orthodox who followed the extremely racist teachings of the Talmud. They were Ashkenazim talmudists who often saw Russians as stupid Goyim or even as dumb cattle. In school practically the only subject was studying the Talmud. Rose notes:
Jewish children in Charterisk did not go to the same schools as Russian children, and only boys went to school at all. I know nothing about the schools the Russian children attended. My brother Aaron was the only one in our family who went to school. He attended classes with a few other youngsters in the home of the local learned man. I believe my parents paid the teacher in kind for the classes. All that the boys studied was the Talmud and commentaries on it. (Memoirs. p. 4)
The Czar was determined to not only stop Jewish supremacist economic exploitation of the peasantry but also stop Jews from dominating the Russian economy. Most Jews hated the Czar and preferred Austria-Hungary because there Jews were allowed to largely dominate the economy and the culture. The Tsar was also understandably concerned that Jews would help Austria-Hungary and Germany to invade Russia. Especially Volhynia was an important strategically located border region. In fact, during the First World War the area saw many important battles. It was also the center of the Brusilov Offensive which almost won the war for Russia.
According to Rose her family emigrated to America just before the First World War. Could one reason for their emigration be that they had collaborated with the Germans and organized a communist resistance movement against the Czar? Perhaps. Rose gives us one clue. She writes:
After we left Charterisk, my mother kept in contact with her stepmother and sent her small sums of money whenever she could – evidence of the good relationship between the two parts of the family. … They [the family of Rose’s maternal uncle] had a large and apparently thriving family – affluent enough to send one daughter to France to study, as I learned when we visited Israel and for the first time met Malke, who had studied in France and was teaching chemistry at Haifa university. We also met her two daughters and her two sisters and their families. (Memoirs. p. 3)
In other words, part of Rose’s family stayed in Russia and integrated into the Soviet Union to the extent that they could send Rose’s cousin, Malke to study in France! This means that they must have been very high up in the Communist party. Only very loyal communists were allowed to travel and study abroad. However, at some point – perhaps in the 60 and 70s when Jews lost much of their power in the Soviet Union – the family moved to Israel. So in the end they were more loyal to their Jewish heritage. Considering the past of the Director family it is not surprising that Rose and Milton never mentioned a word about the Jewish nature of Bolshevism.
The communist past of the Director family is even more evident in Rose’s brother Aaron. After emigrating to America he became a communist agitator who preached that a communist world revolution was imminent. However, at the same time he went to Yale! This probably indicates that the Director family had a lot of money or at least important connections.
[Aaron] Director was born in Staryi Chortoryisk, Volhynian Governorate, Russian Empire (now in Ukraine) on September 21, 1901.[1] In 1913, he and his family immigrated to the United States, and settled in Portland, Oregon.[1] In Portland, Director attended Lincoln High School where he edited the yearbook.[1]
Director had a difficult childhood in Portland, then a center of KKK and anti-communist hysteria in the wake of World War I. He encountered anti-Semitic slurs and was excluded from social circles.[2] He then moved east to attend Yale University in Connecticut, where his friend, artist Mark Rothko also attended. He graduated in 1924 after three years of study.[1] (Wikipedia)
It would be interesting to know the name of the Yale University dean of admissions who got the two immigrant communist Jews, Aaron and Mark into Yale.
Aaron graduated from Lincoln High in January 1921, and about that time the Yale University dean of admissions visited the school, with the result that Aaron and a slightly younger friend enrolled in Yale in the fall of 1921 as scholarship students. The younger friend was Mark Rothkowitz, later famous as an abstract painter under the name Mark Rothko. (ProMarket.org)
Not surprisingly Aaron and Mark detested Yale as racist and anti-Semitic. They anonymously published a satirical newspaper that accused Yale of being full of stupid anti-Semitic racists.
While at Yale, Director was influenced by Thorstein Veblen and H.L. Mencken, both elitist academics who believed the public lacked the intelligence to make democracy successful, and he eventually came to hold these views as well.[2] He and Rothko[3] anonymously published a satirical newspaper called the Saturday Evening Pest in which he wrote “the definition of the United States shall eternally be H. L. Mencken surrounded by 112,000,000 morons” and called for an “aristocracy of the mentally alert and curious.[4](Wikipedia)
Rothko dropped out of the university but Aaron stayed and graduated.
Rothko received a scholarship to Yale. At the end of his freshman year in 1922, the scholarship was not renewed, and he worked as a waiter and delivery boy to support his studies. He found Yale elitist and racist. Rothko and a friend, Aaron Director, started a satirical magazine, The Saturday Evening Pest, that lampooned the school’s stuffy, bourgeois tone.[8] (Wikipedia)
Mark and Rothko were especially irritated that sports played such a big role at Yale. They explained in their newspaper:
We believe
That in this age of smugness and self-satisfaction, destructive criticism is at least
as useful, if not more so, than constructive criticism.
That Yale is preparing men, not to live, but to make a living. …
That athletics hold a more prominent place at Yale than education, which is endured as a necessary evil. (ProMarket.org)
It is also probably safe to assume that they did not get an invitation to the elitist Skull and Bones. Nor did Yale administration look kindly at Aaron and Mark. Could it be that their antics helped uphold the Jewish quota at Yale? At the time Chicago had a reputation of being Jew-friendly while Yale and Harvard had a reputation of being “anti-Semitic”.
They evidently came under fire from the administration; their last issue contains a supporting letter solicited from Sinclair Lewis, a distinguished alumnus of Yale. Rothko did not return the next fall, and Aaron graduated in 1924 after only 3 years, probably to the relief of the Yale administration. (ProMarket.org)
After Yale Aaron continued his socialist activism, became a teacher at a labor college and also traveled to Czechoslovakia.
He taught at a labor college in New Jersey, and he traveled to Europe, to England, and as far to the east as Czechoslovakia, before returning to Portland as an educational director at the Portland Labor College. (ProMarket.org)
Why Czechoslovakia? Could it be that Aaron visited Carpatho-Ruthenia, the ancestral home of the Friedman family and many other Jews, which at this time between the world wars was annexed by Czechoslovakia?
3. Were Directors and Friedmans fronts of the Rothschilds?
Apparently no one has ever tried to find out if the Landau and Friedman/? families had contacts with the Director/? and Burns/Burnseig families already before the First World War. Or if these families had contacts with Jewish bankers and politicians such as the Mises-Landau family. They all lived in the same strategically important region of Eastern Europe but research is difficult since nobody seems to know the real surnames of the Friedmans and Directors.
Had the Director family been part of anti-Tsar undercover resistance and terrorist movement? Did they have connections with the neighboring Galician Mises-Landau family? That would not be surprising since as the leading Jewish family in Galicia, the Mises-Landau family probably run an intelligence network not only for Jews but also for the Austrians and Germans.
The Director family could well have been part of the intelligence and resistance network on the Russian side of the border. Is that why Rose’s father had to flee to America? Did the banker led Jewish network help the Director family to emigrate to America and then help Aaron to get to Yale despite – or because – being a fanatical Jewish communist agitator?
Similarly, was Milton Friedman’s father, Jeno Friedman also part of a Jewish communist network in imperial Austria-Hungary? Was this why Jeno changed his name? Was that network in contact with Jewish bankers and the Russian Jewish communist network? That would not be too surprising since Jews have traditionally been very good at networking.
What is often forgotten is that the Jewish bankers and communists on both side of the border worked together to topple the Tsar and rule Russia. It was not about ideology but what was good for the Jews. It seems that Lenin’s Uljanov-Blank family had Jewish ancestors and Trotsky certainly had international Jewish bankers in his Bronstein-Zhivotovsky family. This is why many have speculated that Russian communist groups were just one of the many fronts of the Jewish-American banker Jacob Schiff.
In fact, Schiff was quite open about his mission to destroy the Tsar. It was Schiff who had financed the Japanese to attack Russia in 1905. It was also then that Trotsky’s revolutionary activities almost managed to topple the Tsar. Fear of banker power would also explain why the Tsar was so lenient towards communist revolutionaries and terrorists. Instead of executions they were sent to Siberia from where they habitually escaped to the West. After the 1905 Russian revolution also Trotsky was only sentenced to Siberia and so allowed to escape to West again! Was this part of the deal? Had Schiff promised that there would be no more assassination attempts against Tsar’s family if the life of leading Jewish revolutionaries was spared?
Moreover, what was the role of Schiff and the Jewish network in starting the First World War? One thing is certain: They desperately wanted to start a World War where Tsar and the Russian army would be annihilated by Germanic armies. Only then could Jews dominate Russia. But Russia was modernizing and becoming more powerful by the day. It was the Germanic imperialists and especially the Jews who desperately wanted war and fast.
Were Burns, Director, Greenspan, Friedman-Landau and Mises-Landau families part of this revolutionary network led by Jewish bankers and ultimately by Jacob Schiff and the Rothschilds? Could this explain why it was so easy for Arthur Burns, Aaron Director, Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan not only to turn from fanatical communists into powerful neoconservatives? Were they just fronts for Jewish bankers?
But for some reason historians have not been interested to study the connections between Jewish bankers, Russian revolutionaries and Jewish economist. Not even the amazing banker background of Trotsky’s Bronstein-Zhivotovsky family has interested historians. So it is not surprising that historians have also not been interested to study the Jewish-European backgrounds and banker connections of the Burns, Director, Friedman, Greenspan and Mises families. The topic is clearly too politically incorrect. This can also be seen in the Wikipedia wars concerning Jacob Schiff’s role in the Bolshevik Revolution. Schiff’s role is obvious but too embarrassing for Jews.
Similarly it is obvious that Schiff family were the American fronts of the Rothschild family. Americans were too suspicious of the Rothschilds for them to operate openly. So they supported the American Kuhn Loeb banking firm and sent their man Jacob Schiff to take it over. However, this does not mean that the Rothschilds were the dictators of the Jews. On the contrary, they were only first among equals. For 2000 years the Jews had developed a network of leading rabbis and banking dynasties. It was this network that ruled the Jews together with the Rothschilds. It was also this network that toppled the Tsar. Directors and Friedmans were probably part of this operation directly or at least they certainly were part of the larger Jewish network.
It was a great honor for a Jewish family to have an intelligent son who could work as a front for the ruling Jewish dynasties. Certainly Burns, Director, Friedman and Grennspan were proud to serve not only their masters but also Jewish interest. That was the highest calling for a Jew. They were proud to serv not only the the Rothschilds but Jewish bankers in general.
4. Friedman helps turn conservatism into neoconservatism
Only after the quarter-Jewish Lenin died and Jewish Trotsky lost power to Stalin in the late 20’s many Jews started to realize that capitalism could be better for the Jews than socialism. Especially if Jews could dominate capitalism and its banking system with economic interventionism. This realization and Stalin’s increasing anti-Semitism convinced many Jews not only to abandon socialism but also to join conservatives in denouncing the Soviet Union. However, this did not mean that these Jews became conservatives. Instead they developed neoconservatism that supports relatively free markets but allowes economic interventionism especially in banking, modernist egalitarian values, secularism, philo-Semitism, open borders and especially interventionist foreign policy.
Like so many other socialist Jews also Aaron Director gradually became a neoconservative. He abandoned his promising career as a communist agitator and became a teacher of statistics at Chicago University. That in itself is quite amazing since he had been a high profile communist agitator and only had an undergraduate degree. Obviously Aaron had powerful friends who kept helping him. One of those friends was the economist Paul Douglas whose wife was a wealthy Jewess, Dorothy Wolff.
In 1927, he [Aaron Director] decided to come to Chicago for graduate study in labor economics with Paul Douglas, then a member of our [Chicago] economics department and later a US Senator from Illinois. After 3 years as a student, Aaron joined the staff in 1930, teaching and assisting Douglas on a book on unemployment. (ProMarket.org)
While at Chicago Aaron also influenced the Jewish Paul Samuelson who would subsequently not only dominate economics with his popular economics textbook but also win the Nobel Prize in economics. In fact, Aaron was Samuelson’s first teacher.
Aaron was evidently a very effective teacher— the Nobel economist Paul Samuelson recalls that it was a course of Aaron’s that introduced him to economics when he was a college student here and that course first excited his interest in the subject. (ProMarket.org)
Soon Aaron also helped Rose to become not only a student at Chicago University but also a paid researcher for Paul Douglas. It was also in Chicago in late 1932 that the Director family took Milton Friedman under their wing. Together with Arthur Burns they not only gradually converted Milton to neoconservatism but also helped him in his career.
Despite Aaron’s encouragement, similar ideologies and backgrounds it took Milton Friedman and Rose Director six years to get married. Later Milton explained that they were not financially secure enough. That sounds like an excuse because they certainly were not poor and Rose was approaching her thirties. Perhaps Milton was not that interested but eventually the families pressured him into marriage? After all, dynastically Milton and Rose made a good match. Both were Jews from Eastern Europe with similar backgrounds.
Both were also secretive about their ancestry. In fact, this might also have delayed their marriage. In the thirties many Americans were getting more suspicious of the Jews. Government officials did not look kindly on Jews who had communist connections and had “lost their papers” while immigrating to the United States. No wonder Rose had not been able to get American citizenship. Only in 1936 was she able to gain citizenship. Soon after Milton and Rose were married. Larry Ebenstein explains this with remarkably passing manner:
Instead, she went to Washington later in 1936 to be with Milton. Milton helped Rose to obtain employment there, which was not too easy because Rose had never officially become a citizen of the United States, which she did at this time. (Bio. p. 36)
Officially? You either are a citizen of not. There are no “unofficial citizens”. Moreover, why was it so difficult for Rose to get a citizenship if she had immigrated over 20 years earlier? And if Rose gained citizenship only in 1936 what about her family and especially Aaron? Was he an alien when he studied at Yale and even later when he became a teacher at University of Chicago? The highly mysterious and suspicious background of the Director family emphasizes how remarkable their careers were. They must have been getting a lot of help from very important persons.
The Jewish economist and Nobelist Paul Samuelson noted that it was Aaron Director and Milton Friedman who together created the second generation Chicago school. Samuelson emphasized especially the role of Aaron despite the amazing fact that as a professor he published nothing. Milton was the writer but Aaron was the organizer who used his mysterious contacts and extensive Jewish network to organize the intellectual foundations for the neoliberal and neoconservative movements that defended big business and especially the big banks. Samuelson explains:
My very first teacher, Aaron Director (now around 100), I liked as an iconoclastic teacher. He was the only man alive who could (later) speak of “my radical brother-in-law Milton Friedman.” Long without Chicago tenure, his bibliography was epsilon. But without any database, he was a primary creator both of the second Chicago School—of Friedman, Stigler, Becker after Knight, Viner, Douglas, Schultz, Nef, and Simons—and present-day antitrust inactivism.
Director’s published works are nearly nil, but his was later a major influence on (or against?) antitrust policy, and his stubborn iconoclasm had a significant role in creating the Second Chicago School of Friedman, Stigler, Coase, and Becker. (Samuelson interview, p. 528)
Even Wikipedia notes Director’s dominating role and hints at the Jewishness of the Chicago School.
Director’s greatest contribution to the Chicago school lay in his ability to recruit and convert scholars to the school’s neoliberal doctrine. Some of his students compared taking his antitrust or economics courses to a religious conversion with Nobel laureate Ronald Coase joking that “I regarded my role as that of Saint Paul to Aaron Director’s Christ. He got the doctrine going, and what I had to do was bring it to the gentiles.”[7] Rather than penning the great works of the Chicago school himself, he was, according to former University of Chicago Law School dean Paul Baird “a teacher of teachers.” [8]
Director founded the Journal of Law & Economics in 1958, which he co-edited with Coase, that helped to unite the fields of law and economics with far-reaching influence. In 1962, he helped to found the Committee on a Free Society. Behind the law and economics movement lay the narrative of scientific consensus. The Chicago school was not the first group to show interest in empirical economics but they used the language of science as a strong rhetorical tool. Director viewed human nature deterministically so he argued that the law could be replaced by the scientific principles of economics through efficiency measurements. (Wikipedia)
In short, Aaron was the master mind of the whole operation. But who was Aaron’s master?
This Second Chicago school was not only much more Jewish and interventionist but also placed a greater emphasis on mathematics. Milton’s Essays in Positive Economics created a methodological revolution in economics. Deductive reasoning from the logic of action was replaced with fancy mathematical formulas, statistics and econometrics. They were needed for economic interventionism especially in banking.
This extreme empiricist-positivist methodology was a success in the sense that it made neoconservative interventionist policy recommendations sound more scientific. Gradually Chicago school took over a large part of academia and many private policy institutes to the extent that Chicago school became almost synonymous with free market economics. Competing less mathematics oriented, more conservative and less interventionist free market schools such as the Austrian school were pushed to the sidelines.
Professor Kevin MacDonald has shown how neoconservatism is basically a Jewish movement that is part of the culture of critique. However, he failed to notice how such economists as Arthur Burns, Milton Friedman, Aaron Director and Alan Greenspan were also important neoconservative intellectuals. They were also active in the Republican party. Friedman became a close confidant of the Arizona senator and neoconservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, whose Jewish grandfather Michel Goldwasser had emigrated from Poland. Friedman became his chief economic adviser but did not actively campaign. Perhaps Friedman was worried that their Jewish backgrounds might become an issue.
Friedman in fact did become Goldwater’s chief economic adviser during the 1964 campaign, although he did not actively campaign. He mostly wrote memos and drafts of possible speeches for the candidate. (Bio, p. 152)
It was Goldwater who destroyed the last vestiges of the Old Right paleoconservatism and turned republicans into neoconservatives. Later Friedman would also be an advisor to neoconservative presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan who both had an uneasy alliance with neoconservative Jews.
Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan presented themselves as true conservatives but their policies were very neoconservative. Goldwater even presented himself as a conservative cowboy who defended American way of life when actually he was a Jewish member of the semi-Communist NAACP. Later the Jewish mafia connected proverbial neocon, John McCain succeeded Goldwater as the senator from Arizona.
One reason why Friedman is not usually considered a neoconservative is because he often described himself as a libertarian. However, this is an example of deliberate confusion where Jewish intellectuals change the definitions of words. They needed to change the definitions of conservatism and libertarianism to include open borders (especially for Jews), a central bank led banking cartel (led by Jews) that finances an interventionist foreign policy (that fights anti-Semites). This is why they needed to develop both neoconservatism and neolibertarianism. They were so successful that the true paleoversions of conservatism and libertarianism hardly even exist anymore. Now conservatism usually means neoconservatism.
True original conservatives support the gold standard but neoconservative support paper money and flexible international exchange rates. It was Friedman who feverishly pushed Nixon to go off the gold standard. Only then could America not only bail out the banks but also finance the welfare-warfare state.
In the 1968 election, Arthur Burns, at Nixon’s request, put together an advisory committee on the economy to provide recommendations to Nixon in the event that he was elected. Friedman was one of the committee members. After the 1968 election but before Nixon was inaugurated, Friedman met with him in New York, giving the president-elect a memorandum recommending flexible exchange rates, which Friedman had long advocated. He wrote in Newsweek the year before: “We should set the dollar free and let its price in terms of other currencies be determined by private dealings. Such a system of floating exchange rates would eliminate the balance of payments problem… and informal exchange controls, and [would allow the ability] to move unilaterally toward freer trade.”2 (Bio, p. 185-186)
Neoconservatism is just one intellectual movement that defends Jewish interests. It is backed by Jewish bankers like all other powerful Jewish movements. This is also why the Jewish economists are so important. It is they who made sure that Jews largely control the money machine, the Fed. This naturally not only helped them to cartellize the economy but also finance the take-over of academia, media, conservative movement, Democratic party and especially the foreign policy of America. It is one thing to have an extensive Jewish network but quite another thing to have a Jewish network backed by a money machine. This is what made it easy for Jews to develop and effective culture of critique and turn many Western values, ideas and civilization itself on its head.
5. Friedman helps to defeat the Germans
Milton and Rose Friedman’s family backgrounds makes it easy to understand why banking and economics was so personal for them. It was literally about life and death for their families. First their families helped to topple the Tsar and then they had to help topple Hitler. Banking and the economy had to be manipulated so as to finance the battle against anti-Semitism. Therefore it is also not surprising that Milton believed America should do everything in its power to crush Nazi Germany. This often led to fights with other students and professors who believed that America should stay out of the World War II. Not surprisingly, Wikipedia turns this into an anti-Semitic incident.
During 1940, Friedman was appointed an assistant professor teaching Economics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, but encountered antisemitism in the Economics department and decided to return to government service.[35][36] (Wikipedia)
However, later Wikipedia does note the pro-war attitude of Friedman.
In 1940, Friedman accepted a position at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, but left because of differences with faculty regarding United States involvement in World War II. Friedman believed the United States should enter the war.[39] (Wikipedia)
There was also another reason: He did not get tenure. Lebenstein explains:
Friedman enjoyed teaching students, but he became involved in a dispute be tween different factions in the economics department over whether he should receive tenure. Ultimately, the economics department, though not the school administration, opposed him for a tenured position. The chairman of the department, Edwin Witte, Friedman recalled years later, still smarting from the nonappointment, showed the “courage of a fish”1 in the matter. … Friedman could have remained at Madison in a nontenured post, but he chose not to accept this opportunity. (Bio, p. 42)
Milton was only 28 and without a PhD or any significant scientific publications but he immediately demanded a tenured position. Why such chutzpah? Perhaps because “the powers that be” had already promised it to him? Milton’s powerful connections can be inferred from the fact that when Milton did not get tenure he went straight to Washington and became one of the top aides to secretary of treasury Henry Morgenthau who was from a very powerful Jewish Morgenthau family.
In his work for the Treasury Department from the fall of 1941 through March 1943, he [Milton] was one of the top ten or so aides to Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, meeting with Morgenthau frequently and accompanying him to congressional hearings. Friedman also participated regularly in luncheon meetings with Marriner Eccles, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. (Bio, p. 42-43)
Henry Morgenthau was a fanatical Jew who hated Germans with a passion. He literally wanted to destroy Germany and authored the infamous Morgenthau Plan. Its implementation would have resulted in up to 25 million Germans starving to death. Friedman seems to have never criticized that plan. In fact, he might even have helped to create it.
When America did enter the war Friedman did everything in his power to help crush Germany. Despite being a member of the relatively pro-free market Chicago school, Friedman helped create the withholding tax which libertarians consider the most destructive tax of all.
From 1941 to 1943 Friedman worked on wartime tax policy for the federal government, as an advisor to senior officials of the United States Department of the Treasury. As a Treasury spokesman during 1942 he advocated a Keynesian policy of taxation. He helped to invent the payroll withholding tax system, since the federal government badly needed money in order to fight the war.[37] (Wikipedia)
It was the withholding tax that made warfare-welfare state possible but Milton never had any regrets. Anti-Semites had to be destroyed.
I have no apologies for it, but I really wish we hadn’t found it necessary and I wish there were some way of abolishing withholding now.[38] (Wikipedia)
Financing the crushing of Germany was not enough, however. Germany had to be also nuked. Friedman obviously had a very high security clearance and was eager to help.
The Statistical Research Group (SRG) was high in the nation’s scientific brain trust. … He [Milton] was indirectly involved with the Manhattan Project. One of the projects on which he worked was to design a statistical procedure to ensure that the detonator for the atom bomb worked, though he did not know this purpose at the time. He thus helped to design the trigger for the atomic bomb. He visited Alamogordo, New Mexico—the base for Los Alamos (where the atom bomb was to be tested)—on assignment during the war, which gives an idea of his and the SRG’s stature. (Bio p. 45)
6. Milton Friedman defends the money machine of the Jewish Fatal Embrace
The original Chicago school was almost unique in defending free market also in banking. Many of the members of the school presented the Chicago plan which supported free banking and 100% reserves because money is the lifeblood of the economy. If you let the government manipulate and control money and banking it controls the whole economy. Milton agreed in principle that free market in money and banking is the best alternative but in practice wanted the central bank to control the money supply and thus the whole economy.
Why this interventionist exception to the rule of free market? Perhaps because banking is traditionally a Jewish business. Better bailouts than bankruptcies. Furthermore, without government bailouts gentiles might become upset during bank panics and blame the Jews. Better to have bailouts than anti-Semitism.
Friedman’s interventionist attitude was probably also encouraged by the fact that Jacob Schiff had a crucial role in creating the Fed. First Schiff and Jewish bankers were pushed to the sidelines by the Morgan Wasp network. However, in the thirties the alliance between Schiff and the Rockefellers managed to break the Morgan power. When Friedman was studying at university the chairman of the Fed was a Jew, Eugene Meyer. That was very important for Jews because it proved that they could also dominate the American economy like they had dominated the European economies.
However, the most important factor in Friedman’s interventionism was Arthur Burns who convinced Milton not only about the importance of economics but probably also that banking is the key to battling anti-Semitism. Milton’s interest in banking grew even more with the rise of the Nazis. He believed that Nazis would never have gained power without the stock market crash of 1929 and the consequent great depression.
Like his ancestors for over 2000 years, professor Arthur Burns taught his three top Jewish proteges Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan and Murray Rothbard that Jews could and should have an active role both in politics and banking. Only with economic and political interventionism it is possible to efficiently fight against anti-Semitism. Politics and banking are two sides of the same interventionist coin. Professor Benjamin Gingsberg calls this Jewish strategy the Fatal Embrace because throughout history it has led to pogroms and other anti-Semitism.
First Jews enter the country and offer loans to the kings and aristocrats in exchange for tax-farming, monopolies and banking cartels. Then they take over the economy and start exploiting the native population. This makes the people hate them and eventually the pogroms start. First the king defends the Jews but sooner or later he joins the people, cancels all the debts owed to Jews (including his own debts), robs the Jews of all their valuables and kicks them out of the country. Then Jews move somewhere else and the cycle starts again. The embrace of the central power first helps Jews to become rich and powerful but then at some point the central power turns on them.
The best example of the Fatal Embrace is the history of Poland. There the Jews had autonomy and more power than anywhere else because they became the caretakers of the estates of the king and aristocrats. In effect Jews became the middle men between the Polish and Ruthenian/Ukrainian native people and the Polish aristocracy. They became the enforcers of the aristocracy and practically run the monopoly economy of Poland. The more Jews collected taxes and raised rents, interest rates, prices and especially their alcohol monopoly prices the more they could bankrupt the peasants and confiscate their lands. Kings and aristocrats did not mind as long as Jews kept sending them most of the exploitation profits. The people started to hate and attack the Jews who then gradually isolated themselves from the native population but kept economically exploiting them. Jews became a hostile elite.
This exploitative nature of the Jewish elite was especially clear in Volhynia and Galicia, Southern Poland from where many famous Jewish economists such as Arthur Burns, Aaron Director, Ludwig von Mises and probably also the Friedman and Greenspan families originated. So one would expect them to write about the exploitation of the serf peasants. However, not a word. Historians have not been any better. Gentile historians have been the worst since they have not only been silent about the exploitation but denied it altogether. The famous American historian William M. Johnston went so far as to claim that the Jews had actually been helping the serfs!
In contrast to German cities like Frankfurt and Berlin, which had long had a Jewish settlement, Vienna first attracted Jews in large numbers after 1848. They came from small villages in Bohemia, Moravia, and Galicia, where Jewish culture had been preserved in relative isolation for hundreds of years. These were Jews who had lived in the countryside. In Bohemia, some of them had been farmers, and few had been touched by city life. They had been small merchants, often trading between towns or providing financial services to gentile landowners. Anti-Semitism had been rare in these regions because the Jews provided services that the gentile lords and peasants wanted but would not perform themselves. The economic complementarity of the countryside had guaranteed the Jews security and modest prosperity. (Emphasis added.) (William M. Johnston, Vienna, Vienna—The Golden Age, 1815–1914. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1981. p. 200.)
When in the Middle Ages Jews were being expelled from virtually every Western European country Poland became their promised land.
Poland became so weak that it was easy for Germany, Russia and Austria to conquer and divide it.
The Jews lost their position as privileged middle men and started to complain about anti-Semitism. The Tsar was especially determined to break the Jewish monopolies and cartels. Jewish movement was also restricted to the Pale of Settlement, the areas that were annexed from Poland. Jews were forbidden to move to Russia proper because the Tsar was afraid they would take over the economy and organize revolutionary activities.
Many Jews emigrated to America from Eastern Europe including from Carpatho-Ruthenia, Galicia and Volhynia. Burns and all his proteges originated from Eastern Europe and must have known about the Fatal Embrace. Milton and Alan also knew but did not care. However, Burns’ third and most talented protege, Murray Rothbard did care. Or rather was appalled.
7. Milton Friedman vs. Murray Rothbard on The Fatal Embrace
Murray Rothbard’s Jewish parents had emigrated to the United States from Poland and Russia. However, unlike so many other Jews the Rothbard family were assimilationists. They believed in America. Thus it was not surprising that Murray had chosen the Austrian school over Chicago school. He believed in the free market, gold standard, free banking and 100% bank reserves because that would keep the state totally away from money and banking. This would also be good for Jews because then they could not corrupt the economy the way they had done in Europe. In fact, Rothbard believed that one reason why there had been so little anti-Semitism in America was because the banking system and economy in general had been relatively free. He greatly admired the early nineteenth century Jeffersonian-Jacksonian anti-bank movement that fought for free markets and even abolished the early American central bank.
Arthur Burns was surprised and dismayed by Rothbard’s hard-core libertarianism. Burns had expected something very different because he had been the neighbor and close family friend of the Rothbard family. Burns had even promised Murray’s father, David Rothbard that he would take care of Murray. Apparently the idea was to make Murray into a successful economist and banker like his ancestors.
Burns had already mentored Milton Friedman to become an economics professor at the University of Chicago. Now Burns was mentoring both Alan Greenspan and Murray Rothbard who were almost exactly the same age. Murray was born 2 March and Alan 6 March 1926. Both had East European Jewish ancestors. Murray was not only the most talented of Burns’ proteges but also had an illustrious ancestry full of Jewish businessmen and bankers. For some reason Murray never spoke about his banker ancestors but two years ago the Mises Institute came into possession of an autobiographical essay written while Murray was still a high school student.
Murray tells about his father’s roots very little though with remarkable honesty notes how Jews had refused to assimilate in Poland.
My father has a very interesting and complex character, combined with a vivid background. Born near Warsaw, in Poland, he was brought up in an environment of orthodox and often fanatical Jews who isolated themselves from the Poles around them, and steeped themselves and their children in Hebrew lore. ..
When my father immigrated to the United States, at the age of seventeen, he had only this spirit to urged him forward. He had a great handicap in that he did not know any established language, since he had spoken only Jewish [Yiddish?] in Poland. The isolation of the Jews precluded any possibility of their learning the Polish tongue.
Rothbard tells more about his mother’s family but again fails to name names. For some reason he took them to his grave and nobody seems to have studied the subject.
My mother’s background, though different, is just as colorful. Her family abounded in the traditions and characteristics of the old Russian aristocracy. My grandmother’s family, especially, had reached the highest pinnacle that the Jews in Czarist Russia could have achieved, One ancestor founded the railroads in Russia, one was a brilliant lawyer, another was a prominent international banker; in short, my mother’s family was raised in luxury and wealth.
So Burns had great expectations for Murray. Apparently Burns dreamed that together with Friedman, Rothbard and Greenspan he would not only dominate the academia but also American banking and thus the whole world economy. And now Rothbard refused to play ball!
Rothbard was appalled that the great Jacksonian anti-bank movement had been nullified by the creation of the Fed in 1913. Even worse, it was just a front for three mighty dynasties of the ruling elite: Morgans, Rockefellers and the Schiffs/Rothschilds. Rothbard saw history as a battle between liberty and the tyrannical ruling elite. He was totally against central banking that made the fraudulent and highly destructive fractional reserve banking possible. Bankers were literally the cancer of history. And Jacob Schiff with the help of Warburgs and Rothshilds was at the center of it. Rothbard wanted nothing to do with them!
The praxeological foundations of Murray Rothbard’s study of the ruling elite
Rothbard not only refused to embrace central banking and economic interventionism but also opposed the mainstream empiricist philosophy which used econometrics and statistics to manipulate the economy. Instead Rothbard embraced Aristotelian rationalist philosophy and Austrian School free market economics. Rothbard even started to think that all government statistical research bureaus should be eliminated so that it would be impossible for the government to regulate businesses and society in general!
Burns was not amused especially since he was director of research at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and a Fellow of the American Statistical Association. He soon started to sabotage Rothbard’s studies. Burns even blocked Rothbard’s PhD thesis The Panic of 1819 because it claimed that America’s first depression was the result of central bank overexpanding the money supply. Only many years later when Burns left Columbia University to government service did Rothbard finally get his PhD.
But the intellectual war was only starting. For the rest of his life Rothbard would criticize Arthur Burns, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan and all other interventionists as statists and socialists. Often when Friedman wrote a book then Rothbard answered with his own book that showed the errors of Friedman’s logic. The most dramatic episode of this intellectual war dealt fittingly with the monetary history of the United States.
Together with Anna Schwartz in 1963 Milton Friedman published his magnum opus, A Monetary History of the United States. It blamed the Fed for the Great Depression because it did not expand the money supply and so could not bail out enough banks.
On the very same year Murray Rothbard published his own book America´s Great Depression which had a diametrically opposite analysis. Rothbard blamed the Fed for expanding the money supply too much and bailing out many banks!
Rothbard believed that if you let banks fail the economy will soon recover like it did in 1921. Of course, some depositors and especially bankers would be wiped out but that would teach them a lesson for trusting fractional reserve banking. Rothbard did not deny that such shock-therapy might create an anti-Semitic anti-bank movement but he seemed to considered it a bonus! After all, what was needed was to destroy the fractional reserve banking altogether and reform the monetary system with pure gold standard and 100% reserve banking.
Burns and Friedman were enraged by Rothbard’s book. (According to rumors Alan Greenspan was not enraged but rather amused and almost sided with Rothbard until Burns had a small chat with Alan.) Instead of answering Rothbard’s arguments they did their best to stop Rothbard from gaining a position in any university. Finally years later Rothbard did manage to obtain a position as a professor but only in an obscure community college. However, in the end Rothbard did sort of win the battle of ideas because Paul Johnson presented Rothbard’s thesis in his international best seller, Modern Times.
On the other hand, Friedman won the political battle since Burns and Greenspan took over the Fed, destroyed the last vestiges of the gold standard and started feverishly expanding the money supply to finance the American welfare-warfare state. Each time there was a threat of a depression they greatly expanded the money supply. This is now standard practice and the interest rates have been pushed down to zero with dangerous consequences. Now the whole world economy is a house of cards at the brink of abyss. Also hatred against Jewish banks such as Goldman Sachs or Jewish bankers such as George Soros is stronger than ever before in America.
8. Milton Friedman helps to create U$Srael
Considering their backgrounds it is not surprising that Milton and Rose were also fanatical Zionists. In practice libertarianism and Zionism are incompatible though for some reason there has lately been hardly any discussion about this obvious fact in (neo)libertarian circles.
It is true that original Zionism was libertarian in the sense that the idea was to buy land for a new autonomous area. There were many Jews who wanted to create an autonomous Jewish state in sparsely populated Patagonia or Western Australia.
The libertarian Zionists strongly opposed the invasion and occupation of Palestine. However, politics won. During the First World War the Zionists led by Jacob Schiff made their famous stab-in-the-back deal (getting US into war) with the British Empire in exchange for Tsar and Palestine. After that Zionism became synonymous with the invasion and occupation of Palestine.
Milton and Rose were not only Zionists but hard-core Likudniks. They often visited Israel and were very supportive of the extreme-right Likud party which has obvious terrorist roots. Milton seems to even have supported the annexation of the Palestinian West Bank. In his Newsweek column he downplayed the occupation and even stated: “I had no feeling whatsoever of being in occupied territory.”
Perhaps the Palestinians had a different feeling.
Milton Friedman not only identified as a Jew but was ready to ignore his libertarian principles when the interests of Jews were threatened. This is why he helped to institute the most dangerous and anti-libertarian tax of all: the withholding tax. And after Germany was destroyed he fully supported not only the creation of Israel but also its expansion. But also that costed money. Friedman seems not to have strongly opposed the huge subsidies America sends to Israel every year. However, those subsidies were nothing compared to what Friedman had in mind: The creation of globalist U$Srael and its war-machine.
Burns, Friedman and Greenspan seem to have been the brains and architects of the petrodollar system and its guarantor, U$Srael. The idea was to get off the gold standard which limited the expansion of the money supply and therefore the capacity to bail out banks and whole countries. And off the gold standard did America go in the early 70s when Arthur Burns was the chairman of the Fed. Milton had already laid the groundwork for this exit in his 1953 Essays in Positive Economics by claiming that flexible exchange rates have huge benefits. Ironically it was Friedman who was the greatest foe of gold standard despite admitting – only in principle, of course – the moral and economic superiority of the pure gold standard.
Ebenstein notes how it was Friedman who really was instrumental in destroying the gold standard with fiat monies and flexible international exchange rates. Perhaps without Friedman such an idea would have remained a fringe idea not taken seriously by anybody.
When Friedman first put forward the idea of flexible international exchange rates—whereby the value of national currencies would vary in relation to one another as determined by the market—he was in a small minority. When he discussed the concept on a 1948 University of Chicago Round Table radio program with Donald Gordon, deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Gordon had, according to Friedman, never “heard this solution put forth seriously.”26 … Few thought that the idea of flexible exchange rates had a chance of ever being implemented when Friedman first enunciated it. (Bio p. 72)
But how to maintain the value of mere paper dollars especially when their amount increases exponentially? Simple: Artificially increase the demand for dollars. Just make sure that international trade and especially oil trade takes place in dollars. All you need is US-Nato-Israel war machine that forces all countries to use dollars in international oil trade. Naturally this suited well the old allies of Israel, the Saudi family. And if some countries like Irak or Libya refuse to trade their oil in dollars then it would be easy to either organize a color revolution or if that fails then just bomb them into submission.
All this also fitted very well with the Jewish neoconservative world view where Russia is the enemy. It certainly has been biggest obstacle of Israeli expansionist foreign policy. The Fed, the petrodollar system and U$Srael were especially needed to destroy the Russians who stubbornly continue to cling to their nationalism and “anti-Semitic” alliance with Arabs. The Russians even have the gall to support Syria and other Israel’s opponents in the Middle East.
The Friedman-Director family had an impressive enemies list and track record: Tsar, Hitler, Soviet Union and finally Putin’s Russia.
With the support of the petrodollar system the Fed could expand the money supply as much as necessary to defend both American and Israeli interests. Finally a monetary system that protects Jewish interests and finances the fight against “anti-Semites” all over the world. All you need is a few intelligent and loyal masterminds running the New World Order and its heart: The Fed. This is also why after Burns almost all of the Fed chairmen have been (ethnically) Jewish like Paul Volcker(?), Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen.
The power of the Jewish led Fed became so enormous that hardly anyone dared to criticise it. Not even when Fed was granted total power over the economy. Practically the only critical voice was Rothbard’s.
Interestingly, the Friedman (Berehove), Director (Staryi Chortoryisk), Burns (Ivano-Frankivsk), Greenspan (Hungary and Romania), Bernanke (Boryslav), Landau (Brody) and Mises (Lviv) family roots seem to be located in the same strategically important region between Central and Eastern Europe. This is also where was born Ghislaine Maxwell’s father and Jeffrey Epstein’s mentor, Jan Hoch/Robert Maxwell who also seems to have had a big role in the neoconservative Iran-Contra Affair. It is safe to say that the shared ancestral background of all these Jewish families helped them to network and possibly also belong to a very powerful network run by Jewish bankers.
9. Milton Friedman helps to destroy the world economy
Rothbard was right. Friedman was no supporter of free market. On the contrary. Friedman together with Burns, Greenspan and the Directors continued the ancient Jewish tradition of court Jews creating monopoly state capitalists.
So it is easy to answer Kevin MacDonald’s three questions:
- Libertarianism and its Chicago subschool have been dominated by Jews such as Milton Friedman
- Milton Friedman strongly identified as a Jew
- Milton Friedman deliberately used the libertarian movement to advance specific Jewish interests
But why was Rothbard virtually alone in noticing all this? Because Friedman was a brilliant propagandist. He presented himself as a free market supporter even if he was an arch-interventionist and only relatively more libertarian than socialists. But more importantly, Friedman was a good liar. This could be seen in his famous article Capitalism and the Jews where he claimed that Jews have usually not benefited from government granted privileges.
To summarize: Except for the sporadic protection of individual monarchs to whom they were useful, Jews have seldom benefited from governmental intervention on their behalf.
How could Friedman be so mistaken? Or rather such a brazen liar. He must have known the truth. His own ancestors came from Eastern Europe where for many centuries Jews had been the king’s privileged state capitalists. Thousands of years Jews had been slave traders, tax-farmers and almost everywhere in Europe enjoyed state granted business and banking cartel privileges. Even now the Jews are the greatest beneficiaries of the Fed run cartel economy, petrodollar system and U$Srael.
Friedman’s trick was to only speak about two categories: capitalism and socialism, free competition and monopoly. In reality there are three categories: competition (libertarianism/propertarianism), cartels (fascism/corporatism) and monopolies (socialism/communism). Jews have always supported either corporatism or socialism but never pure libertarianism because that would allow the landowners, businesses and localities to kick the Jews out. Libertarianism allows the natives to decide that Jews, Muslims, Gypsies and other unassimilable groups are not tolerated but kept out of the country or at least highly discriminated against so that they cannot threaten the cohesion and group interests of the natives.
Jews never accepted pure libertarianism because on the one hand they wanted the right to travel freely from one country to another and on the other hand they wanted to enjoy monopoly and cartel privileges. This is why they essentially bribed and manipulated the kings, aristocrats and parliaments to grant them the right to immigrate, autonomy and other privileges. Naturally the most important cartel privilege was fractional reserve banking. This is also why for centuries the Jewish banking experts were totally silent about its capability to create money out of nothing and the consequent dangers to the economy. After all, they did not want to endanger their own personal money machine. It was only in the twentieth century when two honest Jews, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard revealed how fractional reserve banking had not only had enormous negative consequences for Europeans but was literally destroying civilization itself.
The natural trend towards decentralization, free markets and liberty was stopped in the Middle Ages when Jews supported the unnatural trend toward ever greater centralization with its consequent wars, tyranny and economic crisis. Occasionally also the Jews became victims whenever the court Jews and bankers lost control of the central power. Mises and Rothbard emphasized that the embrace of the central power is fatal for Jews too. In the end it might even kill them off. Literally.
Instead of listening to Rothbard and history itself Milton Friedman fully embraced the role of the Court Jew. That is what he was born and bred for by his Jewish banker masters. In the end Milton pushed the world to the brink of economic collapse. Jewish bankers ignored Rothbard’s warnings and now Jews are at the end of their tether: Desperately try to rule the world economy by expanding money supply and make it ever more like a house of cards until it finally collapses. Then Jews will have to face the wrath of the people unless they can pin the blame on somebody or something else. A virus perhaps?
Friedman was an optimist. He believed the Jews could always manipulate the Goyim. That is certainly a risky strategy. After all, when you keep playing with ever bigger fire you tend to burn yourself.
Milton Friedman served his Jewish masters by helping to create the New World Order run by the budding globalist police state, U$Srael. However, that would not have been possible if the four other famous libertarians had strongly protested and revealed how Friedman was only serving his Jewish masters. Why did they not?
Perhaps because that would not be good for the Jews?
Next we study the case of Ayn Rand.
Read more:
It would be hard to think that Milton Friedman with his background wanted something good for “the group”. Everybody knows what does it mean to be a devout zionist and an extreme jew.