In his Culture of Critique trilogy professor Kevin MacDonald showed how many Jewish dominated intellectual movements developed a culture of critique that undermine the very ideas and values that protect White group interests. These intellectual movements include Freudian psychoanalysis, Boazian anthropology, Marxism, the New York Intellectuals, Frankfurt School. Later MacDonald added to the list neoconservatism.
Note the almost all encompassing nature of Jewish critique that includes everything from philosophy and psychology to literature, biology, economics and politics. It is this systematic 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.)
A. Jewish domination
This 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.
B. Jewish identity
The second step is much more difficult. Especially in America a Jew often does not want to advertise his Jewish identity and agenda but instead presents himself as an “American” defending American values of equality and liberty. How can you then prove that he has a Jewish identity?
You cannot. It is impossible to conclusively prove what is the “real” identity and motive of a Jew. (Or any other person for that matter.) Even if a Jew has at some point explicitly said that he has a Jewish identity he can later claim that it does not mean anything in practice. For example, many religious or Zionist Jews often claim that their Jewish identity does not make them Un-American. However, the self-identity of the Jew is not relevant if he anyway in practice defends Jewish group interests. Actions speak louder than words. Therefore MacDonald’s third criteria is crucial.
C. Jewish agenda
A Jew has an obvious Jewish agenda if he has a strong Jewish identity and openly serves Jewish agenda. However, especially in America Jews are afraid to sound Un-American and thus try to obfuscate the issue. We have to dig deeper. For example, is it possible for a Jew to not identify as a Jew but still act like it by defending Jewish group interests? Of course. This can be because of two reasons: Either he suffers from self-deceptive cognitive dissonance or/and he is a philo-Semite. For example, he considers Jews “a persecuted minority” whose specific Jewish interests must be advanced even if they conflict with White interests. Even many secular assimilated Jews believe that Jews have always been persecuted by Whites and thus think that Jews must always stick together to undermine White group interests.
But how to find out if someone serves Jewish interests with a Jewish agenda? The first method is biographical where one has to study the individual Jew in detail. Not only his intellectual history but also his personal, professional and other activities including possible covert activities.
The Biographical method
The first step in the biographical method is to study family background and ancestors. This is especially important because family and ancestral relations create family loyalties. Even if a Jew claims to be an agnostic socialist or libertarian who does not believe in a Jewish nation and does not actively support Jewish group interests he can still have a de facto Jewish identity and agenda because of family loyalty.
Jews are a relatively inbred group. Thus a Jew often has relatively strong psychological connections with his Jewish relatives and ancestors. Often he wants to protect their reputation and is ready to cover up their negative activities. Or at least does not want to expose them. This sort of loyalty is quite common in Jewish culture. Nobody wants to “snitch” on other Jews.
Family loyalty seems to be a surprisingly important issue among the leading libertarians because of their strong dynastic connections. They all come from Eastern Europe where Jewish families were often part of terrorist Jewish networks that tried to create violent revolutions. A Jew might not want to reveal how his family was working for Jacob Schiff and the Rothschilds in revolutionary activities. Especially if they helped the communists to topple the Tsar and exterminate Gentiles in the Soviet Union. Even worse, many of these dynastic Jewish terrorist networks emigrated to America and became powerful there too. Neoconservatives are just one example as MacDonald has noted.
The families of Milton Friedman, Rose Director, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard seem to have been heavily involved in these revolutionary networks. Perhaps this is why they have been reluctant to publish proper biographies of themselves. They seem to even have concealed their ancestry. For example, we do not know the real surnames of Milton Friedman and Rose Director. Also Murray Rothbard hid his maternal ancestral name. Also the biographers of Mises and Rand have clearly concealed and downplayed their families political connections and activities in Eastern Europe.
Milton Friedman’s Jewish agenda
Milton Friedman has been politically the most powerful libertarian. Therefore it is important to use the biographical method and study his ancestral (fanatical pure Jews), family (fronts for Burns/Rothschilds), personal (strong Jewish-Zionist identity), intellectual (acceptance of interventionism/Fatal Embrace) and professional history (serving Jewish bankers and covering up the central Jewish role in Fatal Embrace and the Culture of Critique). Friedman was an obvious Jewish partisan who defended Jewish interests all his life.
Friedman was a master mind. He understood the big picture. He wanted to complete the 2000 year Jewish run centralist-interventionist statist process of the Fatal Embrace by protecting the Jewish controlled FED money machine (fractional reserve banking) with a globalist welfare-warfare police state, U$Srael. In fact, by helping to develop empiricist-positivist economics, fractional reserve banking with fiat/paper money, neoconservatism, Zionist-Israeli policies and the petrodollar system he practically became the father of U$Srael. However, Friedman was devious enough to claim that he was just an academic libertarian who only fought for liberty when actually he was protecting his Jewish banker mentors and the interests of the Jewish dominated ruling elite.
The Question method and five group categories
By using the biographical method it is possible to find Jews such as Friedman with an obvious Jewish agenda. They are partisan Jews who scheme and just flat-out lie in order to advance Jewish interests. However, what about Jews who are not that active in pushing Jewish group agendas and lies but still defend Jewish interests by hiding negative things about Jews? Many leading libertarian Jews seem to fall into this category. Thus they are also part of the Culture of Critique though in a more subtle way. For example, they refuse to speak about the role of Jews in the creation of the Communist Soviet Union. Or they try to hide the fact that Jews have had a very big role in the development of the Fed and U$Srael.
These lower profile libertarian Jews are also partisan Jews in the sense that they purposefully – though covertly – try to protect Jewish interests and agenda. There are thus two kinds of partisan Jews: Aggressive and passive-aggressive. The former try to aggressively defend Jewish interests and agendas while the latter tries to cover up the excesses and negative effects of the aggressive Jews.
It is difficult to prove if someone is a passive-aggressive partisan Jew. They hide their agenda and usually shy away from direct confrontations. Often they even claim not to be interested in Jews and ethnicity in general. The biographical method is often useless with them. So, how can you prove they are passive-aggressive partisans? Easy. Test them with questions. Just ask them a few questions like what do they think about the Jewish role in communism and Bolshevism. Or ask what do they think about books and articles that seem to show Jewish and Israel involvement behind JFK assassination, 9/11 and the Iraq War. Or if these questions require too much knowledge of history then ask about the obvious Jewish role in Culture of Critique, i.e. on cultural modernism, gun control, censorship and open borders promoted by the Jewish dominated Big Media. Especially older Jews must realize that Jews have been at the forefront of modernist movements.
Unfortunately, especially in America it is not considered polite to ask such questions. Answering them can be even more dangerous. Jewish power is so strong in America that merely discussing these topics might destroy you career and life. This has created the third category of Jews: Cowardly passivists. They are honest enough to know and admit to themselves that Jews have also had bad effects on Gentile nations but are too afraid to speak or otherwise to do anything about it. They do not actively cover up lies but just avoid politically incorrect topics altogether. They do not want to put their own neck out but are passive and just want to stay out of trouble.
The fourth and fifth category of Jews are the mirror image of the the aggressive and passive-aggressive partisan Jews. Instead of supporting Jewish agenda they oppose it. They are Jewish group dissidents. The passive-aggressive dissident Jews are honest enough to admit the negative effects of aggressive Jewish agendas but try to oppose them without naming the Jew. For example, they acknowledge the harmful effects of the Culture of Critique but keep silent about its Jewish creators. The bad Jews must be opposed but they must not be named to avoid anti-Semitism. Similarly, movements and groups promoting open borders and censorship must be opposed but without noticing how they are led by Jewish organizations with Jewish agendas. While the passive-aggressive dissident Jews refuse the name the Jew they can be very active in opposing the aggressive policies of Israel.
The fifth category are the aggressive dissident Jews who are courageous enough to name the Jew. They are vocal about all Jewish activities that are harmful to Gentile society. They are ready to discuss and call out not only individual Jews but also the harmful effects of Jewish group interests and agendas. They publicly lament the fact that many Jews have been in the forefront of highly harmful intellectual movements and political activities. They also totally oppose U$Srael.
The passivist and dissident Jews can have very different motivations. The more passive Jews usually believe that it is possible for Jews and their culture to harmoniously coexist with Gentiles in their lands. Aggressive dissident Jews do not believe in harmonious coexistence and demand that Jews should completely assimilate to Gentile society or move to Israel. Surprisingly, the aggressive partisan Jews agree because they believe that Jews cannot live honestly and harmoniously among Gentiles and thus all diaspora Jews must “return home” to Israel, which must be made into Greater Israel. These are the honest Zionist Jews.
It is possible to divide Diaspora Jews into five groups in relation to their willingness to talk about Jewish issues publicly:
- Aggressive partisan
- Passive-aggressive partisan
- Passive-aggressive dissident
- Aggressive dissident
Naturally these five categories can be applied to any group and its members. Each group can include members who are either supporting or opposing its group interests and agenda. Aggressive opponents of the group agenda usually try to take over the leadership of the group and change its agenda. If they fail in this then they usually do not remain as dissidents but leave the group. The possibility of exit usually limits infighting and lying but in very large groups such as nations exit is more difficult. Exiting your nation requires you to move to a different nation. This can be very costly especially if you have to change your language and give up your personal and professional network. Thus it often becomes more profitable to stay inside your nation group and start lying and manipulating people.
Culture of lying
The problem of lying concerns especially the Diaspora Jews who want to live in Western countries but refuse to assimilate. This can easily make them into liars. An obvious example are aggressive Jewish partisans who see everything from the perspective of Jewish interests and try to make natives to submit to Jewish agendas. The native culture and society is demonized while Jewish culture is presented as vastly superior. This requires massive lying.
The passive-aggressive partisan Jew lies less but covers up the lies of the aggressive partisan. The passivist Jew in turn does not lie but does not expose Jewish lies either. On the one hand he does not want to antagonize the more aggressive Jews and on the other hand he benefits from their lies. The passive-aggressive dissident Jews try to limit Jewish lying but only the aggressive dissident Jews are totally honest.
In America there are hardly any aggressive White partisans. The White elite is mostly composed of aggressive White dissidents who actively try to oppose White interests and repeat the lies of the aggressive Jews. This is a natural consequence of a hostile ruling elite dominated by aggressive Jews and the coalition of minorities they have created. Whites who oppose their own group interests with lies and obfuscations are not sanctioned but rewarded. You get what you pay for and the Jews have the money machine (Fed).
The five categories are simple enough but how to tell who belongs to what category? After all, Jews often totally refuse to answer difficult questions. How then can you tell apart a passive-aggressive partisan Jew from a passivist Jew? Easy. Just check what he has been saying and writing. If he not only avoids talking about negative Jewish activities but also tries to actively hide and obfuscate them then you know that he is a passive-aggressive partisan Jew. The litmus test is to check if a Jew hides the guilty aggressive Jew either actively or passively.
Honesty Litmus Test
Often Jews do not like to answer sensitive questions about history. Questions make them nervous because the relationship between Jews and Whites has been full of conflicts. There are especially four big topics that dishonest Jews do not want to discuss: White nationalist history, Jewish Fatal Embrace, Jewish Culture of Critique and U$Srael. These topics not only emphasize the special capabilities of the Whites to create and maintain a free and prosperous civilization but also the tendency of unassimilable Jews to try to dominate it. This is why Jews so often refuse to talk about history. They engage in denialism and fail in the Honesty Litmus Test.
The test is especially easy to apply to leading libertarians because they have written a huge amounts of articles and books on various subjects including history. Furthermore, they are supposed to speak honestly and fight for liberty. They themselves emphasize that they want to criticize aggression, lies and statism in all forms.
The test is even easier to apply to leading Jewish libertarians because it is more difficult for them to plead ignorance of the historical relationship between Jews and Whites. They hardly can claim that they do not know anything about Jewish history. Especially the five most famous Jewish libertarians have a family backgrounds in Eastern Europe where the Fatal Embrace was strongest. It is in Poland and Soviet Union where the Jews exploited Whites the most. Some of their own relatives were certainly involved. Rothbard even admits that his family was full of (Jewish) communists both in America and the Soviet Union.
The five leading libertarians cannot plead ignorance of the Jewish money machine either. Except Ayn Rand they are all professional economists. They must know about the role of Jews in the development of the cartel economy and especially its money machine, the central bank (FED) led fractional reserve banking system. A Jew economist who writes extensively about the history of money and banking but refuses to mention the Jews is as unscientific and dishonest as a maritime historian who writes extensively about the history of navies and seafaring but refuses to mention the British.
You can quite easily determine to what category a leading Jewish libertarian belongs. Just check if and how dishonest he is about the four stages of White history:
1. The Jewish manipulation of White nations (Cuckoo nationalism and Court Jews)
2. The role of Jews in the development on cartel economy and the money machine (Fatal Embrace)
3. Demonization of Whites (Culture of Critique)
4. Jewish global domination (U$Srael)
Dishonesty severity scale
But what if the leading Jewish libertarian has simply refused to talk and write anything about the Jews? What if Jews do not even seem to exist for him except as victims of irrational anti-Semitism? Obviously we can then infer that something is very wrong and the Jew is dishonest. We can even determine his dishonesty on a severity scale.
The severest dishonesty is to make outright lies. For example, Milton Friedman claimed that in Medieval times Jews supported free market. He said this despite the fact that Jews often bought from kings various privileges such as slave trading, tax farming, cartel and monopoly licences. However, Friedman rarely made such obvious direct lies. So he was not an extreme liar. He was too intelligent for that. Mostly he used the other dishonesty techniques mentioned below.
Next level of dishonesty is to deny an obvious fact after someone has proven it. For example, Ayn Rand denied that Bolsheviks were initially financed and dominated by Jews. This despite the fact that she had lived in the Soviet Union at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution and certainly knew the truth. However, she avoided the topic and her denial seem to have been more definitional. She seemed to deny that a communist can be a Jew and vice versa. Therefore Jews could not have been involved in communism. She simply defined the problem away. In this sense her denialism was extreme intellectual dishonesty. In some ways it was even worse than outright lying.
The next level of dishonesty is to hide an obvious fact. For example, Ludwig von Mises hid the fact that Jews dominated the socialist movement in Austria and many other countries. This despite the fact that he himself knew many of these leading socialist Jews. Mises hid the fact by refusing to write his memoir and never identifying in his books who is a Jew and who is not. Unless, of course, they were victim of “anti-Semitism”. This double standard made the hiding even worse.
Next level of dishonesty is to purposefully ignore and disregard an obvious fact. For example, Murray Rothbard repeatedly ignored that many of the creators of the FED such as Jacob Schiff and the Warburgs were Jews. He just called them Germans. This despite the fact that he knew full well that they were Jews, probable fronts of the Rothshilds and certainly belonged to the ruling elite. Rothbard wrote many books about banking and history in general but almost always ignored the role of the Jews while at the same time emphasizing the role of the Wasps. Whenever he mentioned a Jew he failed to identify him as such. However, during the last few years of his life he started publicly noticing Jews but then he suddenly died.
The next level of dishonesty is to obfuscate by being purposefully confused and illogical. For example, Ludwig von Mises claimed that classical liberalism / libertarianism adheres to political supercentralism when it actually adheres to political decentralism. He claimed that a free society can be created through huge supercentralized multinational political unions like Eastern European Union, Western Union and American Union. He also claimed that even in America there should be conscription. This despite the fact that classical liberalism / libertarianism has always and absolutely opposed conscription.
This sort of illogical obfuscation is obviously dishonest because it changes the meaning of words and terms such as libertarianism. Moreover he seems to have started this illogical obfuscation after he became convinced that European, Nazi, Soviet and Arab “anti-Semitism” can be stopped only by big militarily strong supercentralised multinational political unions. Obviously he was being dishonest in order to serve the Jewish group interests.
These five levels of dishonesty help us to determine to what group category dishonest Jews belong. If a Jew is an out-right liar then he is an aggressive partisan. Denialist is part aggressive and part aggressive-passive partisan depending on his style of denial. For example, defining Jewish aggressiveness out of existence is aggressive partisanship but implicit denialism is closer to passive-aggressive partisanship. Concealing, disregarding and obfuscating are also passive-aggressive though the style determines if it is more or less so.
Jewish honesty scale
By studying the writings of the leading Jewish libertarians with the help of the four litmus question topics we can find out whether they were honest or to what degree they were dishonest (lier, denialist, hider, disregarder, obfuscator) and thereby determine to what Jewish group member category they belong. Applying the litmus test to the five most prominent libertarian Jews gives the following preliminary results:
None of these leading Jewish libertarians have been fully honest. Even Rothbard only gave hints but never dared to reveal the enormous influence of the unassimilable Jews on statist centralization, cartel economy, money machine and the drive towards a global police state. The other libertarians have been either aggressive or passive-aggressive Jewish partisans. Let us study them in more detail.
First Milton Friedman. The biographical method of study already showed that he is a Jewish partisan. But is he more of an aggressive or passive-aggressive partisan Jew? This can be studied with the question method and Honesty Litmus Test:
Politically the second most important Jewish libertarian is Ludwig von Mises. The biographical study of his life has not yet been completed but a preliminary Honesty Litmus Test has already been conducted.