This part III is the sixth draft version updated 30.3.2021.
The kings and Holy Alliance had stopped democratization in Europe but not in America where egalitarianism and democratization was proceeding fast. The state was becoming supreme. Only a few years after the creation of the USA and the adoption of the constitution the federal state became a tool of different political parties. Both offered the vote to even those white men who had no property. Consequently egalitarianism and centralization proceeded with enormous speed. Sedition act of 1798 destroyed freedom of speech and created a police state.
Fortunately the culture of frontier freedom and the consequent Jeffersonian movement managed to push back the state. But it was only a matter of time before egalitarianism and centralism would make the state supreme again. It was the aristocratic visitor from France, the count Alexis Tocqueville who saw what was happening. He warned of a new despotism more horrifying than even the eastern despotism. This democratic despotism would turn you into a sacrificial lamb.
It would seem that if despotism were to be established among the democratic nations of our days, it might assume a different character; it would be more extensive and more mild; it would degrade men without tormenting them. …
I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it.
I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.
Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?
Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. (Alexis de Tocqueville. Democracy in America. 1835. Chapter VI.)
In Europe there were frantic attempts to stop egalitarianism and democratization. During the Congress of Vienna in 1815 democratization was stopped but all over Europe the demands for the extension of franchise continued and gradually grew stronger with the help of the Jews. The Rothschild were now the new more powerful court Jews. First they bribed their victims in order to dominate the bond market. Then they started to intimidate states and play them against each other.
Also in Britain the Jews were now more powerful than ever especially since Nathan Rothschild was bribing the whole royal family. However, they could not bribe all the aristocrats who still held the ultimate power. Thus democratization was stopped by the Tories and the income tax was repealed in 1816. However, this was not enough since the fractional reserve banking system soon caused an economic recession. It was made even worse by new 1815 Corn Laws which created huge tariffs on corn and thus greatly increased the price of food. Supporters of democracy took advantage of the situation and instead of demonstrations against banks, taxes and tariffs there were violent demonstrations demanding the extension of the suffrage. These were however soon suppressed by the police.
Kings now ruled Europe and supported each other against revolutions. This created a perfect balance of power where the kings did not dare to increase taxes and regulations but instead tried to increase their revenues by encouraging trade. Finally Turgot’s teachings were accepted by the kings. The Industrial Revolution was soon at full speed.
This was a watershed of history. If the Holy Alliance had been able to stop political rebellions and wars then Europe would soon have entered freedom. But it was not to be because Britain wanted to weaken the continental monarchs by supporting various rebellions and wars. This was especially clear in Latin America where Britain helped rebellions against Spain and Portugal because it wanted to take over the markets. Britain especially supported the new republican governments because that maximized its power over them. Since Britain controlled the seas The Holy Alliance could not help Spain and Portugal. The result was the permanent political and economic destabilization of the whole Latin America.
The architect of this policy seems to have been George Canning who came from an impoverished merchant family. It was Canning who purposefully tried to break the Holy Alliance.
His [Canning’s] most important achievement was the destruction of the system of the neo-Holy Alliance which, if unchallenged, must have dominated Europe. Canning realized it was not enough for Britain to boycott conferences and congresses; it was essential to persuade the Powers that their interests could not be advanced by a system of intervention based upon principles of legitimacy, anti-nationalism and hostility to revolution. (Paul Hayes. Modern British Foreign Policy: The 19th Century 1814–80. 1975. P. 89)
Naturally the Jews supported and encouraged the British policy in Latin America especially since they considered both Spain and Portugal “anti-Semitic” and wanted to open the markets for Jewish capital. The Rothschilds especially supported the Brazilian Empire which was in practice a slave state. However they objected when Canning as foreign minister wanted to help the Christians in the Ottoman Empire and help Greece become independent. Jews were more determined than ever to protect their old allies, the Turks even when it conflicted with British and Christian interests in general. Rothschilds denied the Tsar loans when he wanted to help the Greeks. With the help of their ally, duke Wellington the Jews gradually managed to turn Britain against Russia. The natural alliance between the biggest land power and sea power was broken.
Britain was destroying the old order not only in foreign policy but also in economic policy. It had returned to the gold standard in 1821 but did not reform the banking system. Thus the fractional reserve banking still kept alive the disastrous boom-bust business cycle. So in the Panic of 1825 the banks literally crashed and the economy went into a deep depression for many years. This strengthened all those who wanted to destroy the old order.
Here was again a watershed of history. The Tories led by the conservative king George IV had the power and could easily have reformed banking, reduce taxation and crush the reformists. However, at the crucial moment the supposedly arch-conservative Duke Wellington changed course by allying with the Jews. With their support in 1928-29 he turned not only against Russia but suddenly stabbed the ultras in the back by supporting further Catholic emancipation even in England. This broke not only the conservative front but also the separation of the state and society in England. It thus greatly decreased Catholic and other Nonconformist opposition to the growth of the state. Full democracy was now only a matter of time. Gates were open and gradually the franchise was extended with the Reform acts of 1832, 1867, 1884 and 1918.
Clark (1985) depicts England before 1828 as a nation in which the vast majority of the people believed in the divine right of kings, and the legitimacy of a hereditary nobility, and in the rights and privileges of the Anglican Church. In Clark’s interpretation, the system remained virtually intact until it suddenly collapsed in 1828, because Catholic emancipation undermined its central symbolic prop, Anglican supremacy. Clark argues that the consequences were enormous: “The shattering of a whole social order … What was lost at that point … was not merely a constitutional arrangement, but the intellectual ascendancy of a worldview, the cultural hegemony of the old elite.”
1820’s- American Bank War
After the creation of the USA not only democratization and centralization but also taxes and tariffs started to increase. Moreover the federalists created a money monopoly with a central bank and extensive fractional reserve banking. At the end of his life Thomas Jefferson realized that the creation of USA had been a mistake.
Horrified at the [statist] results [of USA], a retired Jefferson brooded at Monticello, and inspired young visiting politicians Martin Van Buren and Thomas Hart Benton to found a new party—the Democratic party—to take back America from the new Federalism, and to recapture the spirit of the old Jeffersonian program. When the two young leaders latched onto Andrew Jackson as their savior, the new Democratic party was born.
The Jacksonian libertarians had a plan: it was to be eight years of Andrew Jackson as president, to be followed by eight years of Van Buren, then eight years of Benton. After twenty four years of a triumphant Jacksonian Democracy, the Menckenian virtually no-government ideal was to have been achieved. It was by no means an impossible dream, since it was clear that the Democratic party had quickly become the normal majority party in the country. The mass of the people were enlisted in the libertarian cause. …
Out of the bitter experiences of the panic of 1819 emerged the beginnings of the Jacksonian movement, dedicated to hard money, the eradication of fractional reserve banking in general, and of the Bank of the United States in particular. …
The Jacksonians were libertarians, plain and simple. Their program and ideology were libertarian; they strongly favored free enterprise and free markets, but they just as strongly opposed special subsidies and monopoly privileges conveyed by government to business or to any other group. They favoured absolutely minimal government, certainly at the federal level, but also at the state level.
They believed that government should be confined to upholding the rights of private property. In the monetary sphere, this meant the separation of government from the banking system and a shift from inflationary paper money and fractional reserve banking to pure specie and banks confined to 100-percent reserves. (Murray N. Rothbard. For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. New York: Collier Books, 1978. P. 9, 90, 91)
Triumphantly re-elected on the bank issue in 1832, President Jackson lost no time in disestablishing the Bank of the United States as a central bank. … Van Buren finally managed to establish the Independent Treasury System, which would last until the Civil War. At long last, the Jacksonians had achieved their dream of severing the federal government totally from the banking system and placing its finances on a purely hard-money, specie basis. (Murray N. Rothbard. A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2005. P. 93, 104)
1840’s- Free banking fraud
After the radical Democrats had almost destroyed the fraudulent fractional reserve money machine then many corrupted Democrats and classical liberals started to obfuscate the issue with the theory of Free Banking. Not surprisingly they were financed by bankers.
The Democratic Party became ardently hard-money in the various states after the shock of the financial crisis of 1837 and 1839. The Democratic drive was toward the outlawry of all fractional reserve bank paper. Battles were fought also, in the late 1840s, at constitutional conventions of many states, particularly in the west. In some western states, the Jacksonians won temporary success, but soon the Whigs would return and repeal the bank prohibition. …
The Whigs, trying to find some way to overcome the general revulsion against banks after the crisis of the late 1830s, adopted the concept of “free” banking, which had been enacted by New York and Michigan in the late 1830s. From New York, the idea spread outward to the rest of the country and triumphed in 15 states by the early 1850s. On the eve of the Civil War, 18 out of the 33 states in the Union had adopted “free” banking laws.
It must be realized that “free” banking, as it came to be known in the United States before the Civil War, was unrelated to the philosophic concept of free banking analyzed by economists. As we have seen earlier, genuine free banking is a system where entry into banking is totally free; the banks are neither subsidized nor regulated, and at the first sign of failure to redeem in specie payments, a bank is forced to declare insolvency and close its doors.
“Free” banking before the Civil War, on the other hand, was very different. As we have pointed out, the government allowed periodic general suspensions of specie payments whenever the banks overexpanded and got into trouble—the latest episode was in the panic of 1857. (Murray N. Rothbard. A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2005. P. 112-113.)
What was the Jewish role in the development of banking in antebellum America? For some reason historians have not been interested in the issue at all. However, nobody denies that Jews and especially the Rothschilds had a prominent role in American banking and politics. Best example is the Rothschild’s Jewish representative, August Belmont. (Real name August Schönberg.)
Belmont attended the Philanthropin, a Jewish school, until he began his first job as an apprentice to the Rothschild banking firm in Frankfurt. He would sweep floors, polish furniture, and run errands while studying English, arithmetic, and writing. He was promoted to confidential clerk in 1832 and later traveled to Naples, Paris and Rome.
He arrived in the previously prospering United States during the first waves of the financial/economic recession of the Panic of 1837, shortly after the end of the iconic two-term administration of President Andrew Jackson, the nation’s first Democratic administration. Instead of continuing on to Havana, however, Belmont remained in New York to supervise the jeopardized Rothschild financial interests in America, whose New York agent had filed for bankruptcy.
Belmont postponed his departure for Havana indefinitely and began a new firm, August Belmont & Company, believing that he could supplant the recently bankrupt firm, the American Agency. August Belmont & Company was an instant success, and Belmont restored health to the Rothschilds’ U.S. interests over the next five years. (Wikipedia)
So the Rothschilds were already well entrenched in the American economy and greatly suffered from the elimination of the American central bank. However, they soon recovered with the support of their European banks. It is probably safe to say that the Rothschilds supported the Free Banking movement in order to defend fractional reserve banking. This was probably why Belmont became one of the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Also in Europe and especially in England there was a powerful movement that opposed fractional reserve banking. This was one of the most important watersheds of history that could have destroyed the monopolist money machine. The Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers certainly used all their connections and media power to protect their money machine.
The power of the Jews might have tipped the scale again. However, that is still no excuse. Fractional reserve banking is so obviously fraudulent that Whites should have understood this despite the obfuscations of Jewish and Gentile bankers.
Government paper, as pernicious as it may be, is a relatively straightforward form of counterfeiting. The public can understand the concept of ”printing dollars” and spending them, and they can understand why such a flood of dollars will come to be worth a great deal less than gold, or than uninflated paper, of the same denomination, whether ”dollar,” ”franc,” or ”mark.” Far more difficult to grasp, however, and therefore far more insidious, are the nature and consequences of ”fractional-reserve banking,” a more subtle and modern form of counterfeiting. It is not difficult to see the consequences of a society awash in a flood of new paper money; but it is far more difficult to envision the results of an expansion of intangible bank credit.
We get closer to the nub of the problem when we realize that, historically, there has existed a very different type of ”bank”. In the history of the U. S. grain market, grain elevators several times fell prey to .. temptation, spurred by a lack of clarity in bailment law. Grain elevators issued fake warehouse receipts in grain during the 1860s, lent them to speculators in the Chicago wheat market, and caused dislocations in wheat prices and bankruptcies in the wheat market. Only a tightening of bailment law, ensuring that any issue of fake warehouse receipts is treated as fraudulent and illegal, finally put an end to this clearly impermissible practice. Unfortunately, however, this legal development did not occur in the vitally important field of warehouses for money, or deposit banking. (Murray N. Rothbard. The Case Against the Fed. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1994. P. 30, 33.)
If ”fractional-reserve” grain warehousing, that is, the issuing of warehouse receipts for non-existent goods, is clearly fraudulent, then so too is fractional-reserve warehousing for a good even more fungible than grain, i.e., money (whether it be gold or government paper). Unfortunately, since bailment law was undeveloped in the nineteenth century, the bankers’ counsel were able to swing the judicial decisions their way. …
In the final culminating case, Foley v. Hill and Others, decided by the House of Lords in 1848, Lord Cottenham, repeating the reasoning of the previous cases, put it lucidly if astonishingly: The money placed in the custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy, if he engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal; but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted.
The argument of Lord Cottenham and of all other apologists for fractional-reserve banking, that the banker only contracts for the amount of money, but not to keep the money on hand, ignores the fact that if all the depositors knew what was going on and exercised their claims at once, the banker could not possibly honor his commitments. In other words, honoring the contracts, and maintaining the entire system of fractional-reserve banking, requires a structure of smoke and mirrors, of duping the depositors into thinking that ”their” money is safe, and would be honored should they wish to redeem their claims. The entire system of fractional reserve banking, therefore, is built on deceit, a deceit connived at by the legal system.
A crucial question to be asked is this: why did grain warehouse law, where the conditions—of depositing fungible goods—are exactly the same, and grain is a general deposit and not an earmarked bundle—develop in precisely the opposite direction? Why did the courts finally recognize that deposits of even a fungible good, in the case of grain, are emphatically a bailment, not a debt? Could it be that the bankers conducted a more effective lobbying operation than did the grain men? (Murray N. Rothbard. The Case Against the Fed. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1994. P. 42-44.)
The legal and ideological acceptance of fractional reserve banking doomed mankind to suffer the ever worsening boom-bust business cycle. This inevitably led to ever bigger states and the birth of the socialist movement. The classical liberal movement had committed suicide. The Jews obviously helped in this but the fault was Whites alone. The idea of free money corrupted them.
1840’s- Law monopoly
Classical liberals betrayed the people not only in the field of money and banking but also in the even more important field of law and security.
The young [Gustave de] Molinari, however, hit the laissez-faire-oriented Societe d’Economie Politique like a thunderclap in 1849, with his most famous and original work. He delivered a paper expounding, for the first time in history, a pure and consistent laissez-faire, to the point of calling for free and unhampered competition in what are generally called uniquely ’public’ services: in particular, the sphere of police and judicial protection of person and private property. If free competition is better and more efficient in supplying all other goods and services, Molinari reasoned, why not for this last bastion, police and judicial protection – a view that over a century later would come to be called ’anarcho-capitalism’.
Molinari first set forth his view in the Journal des Economistes, the periodical of the Societe, in February 1849. (18) This article was quickly expanded into book form, Les Soirees de la Rue Saint-Lazare, a series of fictional dialogues between three protagonists: the conservative (advocate of high tariffs and state monopoly privilege); the socialist; and the economist (clearly himself). The final, or eleventh, Soiree elaborated further on how his concept of free market protective services could work in practice. (Murray N. Rothbard. An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 2: Classical Economics. Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar, 1995. Pp. 453-454.)
A meeting of the Societe d’Economie Politique in 1849 was devoted to Molinari’s daring new book, the Soirées. Charles Coquelin opined that justice needs a “supreme authority,” and that no competition in any area can exist without the supreme authority of the State.
In a similarly unsupported and a priori fulmination, Frederic Bastiat declared that justice and security can only be guaranteed by force, and that force can only be the attribute of a “supreme power,” the State. Neither commentator bothered to engage in a critique of Molinari’s arguments. Only Charles Dunoyer did so, complaining that Molinari had been carried away by the “illusions of logic,” and maintaining that “competition between governmental companies is chimerical, because it leads to violent battles.”
Dunoyer, instead, chose to rely on the “competition” of political parties within representative government – hardly a satisfactory libertarian solution to the problem of social conflict! He also opined that it was most prudent to leave force in the hands of the State, “where civilization has put it” – this is from one of the great founders of the conquest theory of the State!
Unfortunately, this critical issue was barely treated in the meeting, since the discussion largely centered on Dunoyer’s and the other economists’ criticizing Molinari for going too far in attacking all uses of eminent domain by the State. (Murray N. Rothbard. An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 2: Classical Economics. Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar, 1995. Pp. 455-457.)
This classical liberal betrayal was a momentous watershed in history. Jews might have helped again in the betrayal but Whites and especially the classical liberals were the main culprits. They really believed in the state. Socialists wanted to rise against the state while classical liberals defended the state. Socialists promised to protect workers while classical liberals promised economic hardships in an unstable boom-bust state capitalist economy. Many socialists also dared to criticize the Jewish bankers and fractional reserve banking while classical liberals defended them! No wonder the socialists won the intellectual and political battle.
One man would have been enough to turn the wheel of history towards liberty. But instead of an inspiring Libertarian Manifesto and a radical liberty movement led by Whites we got the Communist Manifesto and a radical socialist movement led by Jews.
Ironically, the Communist Manifesto essentially plagiarized its famous opening line from the classical liberals.
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another..
Professor Ralph Raico points out that it was a neat trick.
According to Pitirim Sorokin (1947), Marx never presented a consistent conception of social class; the groups mentioned at the beginning of the Manifesto, for instance, include “castes, feudal orders, oppressors and oppressed of all kinds, hierarchies of the medieval corporation.”
Marx, in Sorokin’s view, was well aware of this central defect in his theory, and his abruptly terminated chapter in the last volume of Capital was a failed attempt to remedy it. The enduring confusion among Marxists regarding the meaning of class, Sorokin held, may also be traceable to Marx’s own intellectual confusion. Cf. Mises 1957: 113: “Marx obfuscated the problem by confusing the notions of caste and class.” (Ralph Raico. Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School. 2012. p. 183-184)
It was a trick that changed the course of history because the classical liberals never countered with their own true exploitation theory. Instead they absurdly claimed that the state is not exploitative but contractual! Now even the confused socialists sounded more sane. Classical liberals doomed mankind into statism.
Karl Marx and the Rothschilds
The Rothschilds were again a step ahead. They run the money machine and understood how it made the whole economy unstable. They realized that the recurrent depressions would create strong opposition to their money machine. So they decided to lead the opposition themselves. This was made easier by the fact that in 1806 Nathan Rothschild had married Hannah Barent-Cohen. Her first cousin, Nanette Baren-Cohen was the mother-in-law of Heinrich Marx and the grandmother of Karl Marx.
Historians have been very reluctant to study the connection between Karl Marx and the Rothschilds. The standard biographies of Marx do not mention his grandmother, Nanette at all. This despite the fact that Nanette was a close in-law of the Rothschilds. She was probably also invited to the fabulous wedding of Nathan and Hannah. After all, it was Nanette’s father and uncle who had helped Nathan to start his banking business in England. There was a dynastic alliance between the Rothschilds and the Barent-Cohens. Nanette certainly passed on this alliance to not only to Heinrich but also to Karl who was already 15 years of age when Nanette died.
The Rothschild connection certainly improved the business of Nanette’s husband Isaac Pressburg so it is probably not a coincidence that they moved to a bigger house in 1808. Now Nanette would have to find suitable spouses for her children. In 1814 she married her oldest daughter, Henrietta to Herschel Mordechai Levi who belonged to the nobility of Jews and came from a very long line of rabbis of Trier.
Herschel did not continue the rabbinic tradition but instead became a lawyer and represented Jews especially in their relations with the Gentiles. It is safe to assume that from the beginning of his career Herschel also represented the Rothschilds or their fronts. The young Herschel was so connected and powerful that he even had the gall to demand the Prussians ruling Trier to stop discriminating the Jews.
..Heinrich Marx’s ‘conversion’ to Christianity was one made solely in order to be able to continue his profession. .. On the transference of the Rhineland to Prussia, Heinrich Marx addressed a memorandum to the new Governor-General in which he respectfully requested that the laws applying exclusively to Jews be annulled. He spoke of his ‘fellow believers’ and fully identified himself with the Jewish community. But the memorandum was without effect. … These laws, while granting Jews rights equal to those of Christians, nevertheless made their holding of positions in the service of the state dependent on a royal dispensation.
The President of the Provincial Supreme Court, von Sethe, made an inspection tour of the Rhineland in April 1816 and interviewed Heinrich Marx, who impressed him as ‘someone of wide knowledge, very industrious, articulate and thoroughly honest’. As a result he recommended that Heinrich Marx and two other Jewish officials be retained in their posts. But the Prussian Minister of Justice was against exceptions and Heinrich Marx was forced to change his religion to avoid becoming, as von Sethe put it, ‘breadless’. He chose to become a Protestant – though there were only about 200 Protestants in Trier – and was baptised some time before August 1817.8 (David McClellan. Karl Marx. A Biography. p. 3-4. Emphasis added.)
Only when the Prussians refused to remove discrimination did Herschel convert to Lutheranism as a last resort to be able to continue his occupation and businesses. During this conversion Herschel changed his name to Heinrich Marx. However, his wife – and Nanette’s daughter – Henriette did not convert nor were Karl Marx and their other children baptized until many years later in order to avoid social ostracism. Heinrich and his family had clearly converted only under duress and the family had no intention to assimilate. This is probably also why Karl Marx was homeschooled until the age of twelve. Heinrich also did everything to oppose Prussian conservatives by strongly supporting liberals and revolutionaries. It is safe to assume that he was an agent of the Rothschilds.
Another obvious Rothschild connection was Heinrich’s best friend and supporter, Baron Ludwig von Westphalen. Together they led the liberal movement in Trier and Western Germany. They wanted to see the repeat of the French Revolution. So close was their connection that Ludwig in large part helped raise Karl Marx and introduced him to socialism and revolutionary ideas.
[Marx’s] friendship with Baron von Westphalen who was a third important influence on the young Marx in addition to his home and school. Ludwig von Westphalen was twelve years older than Heinrich Marx, being born in 1770 into a recently ennobled family.
The Baron devoted much of his time to the young Marx, and the two went for intellectual walks through the ‘wonderfully picturesque hills and woods’ of the neighbourhood. As well as being a man of culture, the Baron was keen on progressive political ideas and interested Marx in the personality and work of the French Utopian socialist Saint-Simon. (p. 47-48. Emphasis added.)
Heinrich and Ludwig were so close they decided to join their families by marrying Karl Marx to Ludwig’s daughter Jenny von Westphalen. This despite the fact that it was practically unheard of that a daughter of Prussian nobility would marry a Jew.
Jenny, with her dark auburn hair and green eyes, was widely noticed in Trier and had even been chosen as Queen of the Ball. The young Marx, who later described himself as ‘a really furious Roland’, was an insistent suitor: there had been an understanding between them before Marx left for Bonn and in the summer of 1836 this was turned into a formal engagement.
By the standards of the time, the engagement was an extremely unusual one: Marx was only eighteen, Jenny was four years older, and there was also a certain difference in social status. At first only Marx’s parents, and his sister Sophie – who had acted as go-between for the lovers – were let into the secret. Jenny’s father gave his consent in March 1837. Marx’s parents were not (initially at least) very keen on the match; and the pair had also to sustain ‘years of unnecessary and exhausting conflicts’ with Jenny’s family.” (David McClellan. Karl Marx. A Biography. p. 13-14. Emphasis added.)
Karl Marx and Jenny Westphalen got married in 1843 once Karl had finished his studies and found a regular job as a journalist. By this time both of their fathers had died and money was tight. Despite this they started to spend money like crazy. Was this because they were certain that the Rothschilds and their fronts would always finance this dynastic alliance?
Marx and Jenny left immediately for a honeymoon of several weeks. … Jenny later told a story that illustrated how extraordinarily irresponsible they both were (and continued to be) in their attitude to money. Jenny’s mother had given them some money for the honeymoon and they took it with them, in a chest. They had it with them in the coach during their journey and took it into the different hotels. When they had visits from needy friends they left it open on the table in their room and anyone could take as much as he pleased. Needless to say, it was soon empty. (David McClellan. Karl Marx. A Biography. p. 102. Emphasis added.)
Already before his birth Karl Marx was destined to become a tool of the Rothschilds. He was supposed to become a lawyer and join his father and von Westphalen in the fight against conservatives. However, Karl Marx was too intelligent for that. Sure, he wanted to help the Jews and the Rothschilds to destroy conservatism but not by becoming a lawyer, businessman or a petty politician. He had in mind something much bigger. He wanted to become a leading intellectual and change the world through ideas.
Marx saw the Jewish problem clearly but wanted a comprehensive change that would not only save the Jews but totally change the world order by destroying the state itself. He studied the radical classical liberals and kept their anti-statist theory alive while they themselves were abandoning it. However, at the same Marx bastardized the theory by joining it with an absurd labor theory of value. This confusion can already be seen in the 1848 Communist Manifesto that not only confused caste and class but also included two different definitions of the state. Professor Ralph Raico explains:
It seems, therefore, that there are two theories of the state (as well as, correspondingly, two theories of exploitation) within Marxism. There is the customarily discussed and very familiar one, of the state as the instrument of the ruling class (and the concomitant theory which locates exploitation within the production process). And there is the theory of the state which pits it against “society” and “nation”. … Moreover, it would seem suggestive that it is the second theory that predominates in those writings of Marx which, because of their nuanced and sophisticated treatment of concrete and immediate political reality, many commentators have found to be the best expositions of the Marxist historical analysis.
Now, although it would be difficult to demonstrate, it appears highly probable that the second theory of the state (linking it with parasitism and exploitation) must surely have been influenced by the classical-liberal writers. The view that exploitation of and parasitism upon society were attributes of the nonmarket classes, of the classes that stood outside of the production process, was a very widespread one in the early and middle 19th century. It is the basis of Saint-Simon’s famous Parable (itself a residue from earlier liberal influences on that writer). It is the real meaning, it seems to me, of the celebrated typology of “military” vs. “industrial” societies — a typology founded on the distinction between market and nonmarket forces. (Ralph Raico. Classical Liberal Exploitation Theory. Emphasis added.)
This anti-statism is also why Marx was critical of the Jewish alliance with state capitalism. Marx was not a “self-hating Jew” but he saw how it was the Jews who had helped both the market economy and the state to grow. In his essay On The Jewish Question he defended Jewish emancipation but at the same time denounced the Jewish preoccupation with money-making as “hucksterism”. Marx wanted the Jews to help mankind return to primitive communist property order but with modern technology. This would not only solve the Jewish problem but also make it possible to create an utopia “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. However, at the same time Marx made it clear that this utopia was far in the future. Not humans but the laws of history would someday create this utopia. In the meantime Jews should be emancipated. Naturally Jews and others should also finance and support Marx to elucidate these laws of history.
Marx understood the history of the world as a battle between the state and freedom. His philosophy of history was essentially correct. He understood the disease but offered the wrong remedy: Communism. Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains:
First, I will present a series of theses that constitute the hard-core of the Marxist theory of history. I claim that all of them are essentially correct. …
(1) “The history of mankind is the history of class struggles.” It is the history of struggles between a relatively small ruling class and a larger class of the exploited. The primary form of exploitation is economic: The ruling class expropriates part of the productive output of the exploited or, as Marxists say, “it appropriates a social surplus product and uses it for its own consumptive purposes.”
(2) The ruling class is unified by its common interest in upholding its exploitative position and maximizing its exploitatively appropriated surplus product. It never deliberately gives up power or exploitation income. Instead, any loss in power or income must be wrestled away from it through struggles, whose outcome ultimately depends on the class consciousness of the exploited, i.e., on whether or not and to what extent the exploited are aware of their own status and are consciously united with other class members in common opposition to exploitation.
(3) Class rule manifests itself primarily in specific arrangements regarding the assignment of property rights or, in Marxist terminology, in specific “relations of production.” In order to protect these arrangements or production relations, the ruling class forms and is in command of the state as the apparatus of compulsion and coercion. The state enforces and helps reproduce a given class structure through the administration of a system of “class justice,” and it assists in the creation and the support of an ideological superstructure designed to lend legitimacy to the existence of class rule.
(4) Internally, the process of competition within the ruling class generates a tendency toward increasing concentration and centralization. A multipolar system of exploitation is gradually supplanted by an oligarchic or monopolistic one. Fewer and fewer exploitation centers remain in operation, and those that do are increasingly integrated into a hierarchical order. Externally (i.e., as regards the international system), this centralization process will (and all the more intensively the more advanced it is) lead to imperialist interstate wars and the territorial expansion of exploitative rule.
(5) Finally, with the centralization and expansion of exploitative rule gradually approaching its ultimate limit of world domination, class rule will increasingly become incompatible with the further development and improvement of “productive forces.” Economic stagnation and crises become more and more characteristic and create the “objective conditions” for the emergence of a revolutionary class consciousness of the exploited. The situation becomes ripe for the establishment of a classless society, the “withering away of the state,” the replacement of government of men over men by the administration of things and, as its result, unheard-of economic prosperity.
All of these theses can be given a perfectly good justification, as I will show. Unfortunately, however, it is Marxism, which subscribes to all of them, that has done more than any other ideological system to discredit their validity in deriving them from a patently absurd exploitation theory. …
What is wrong with Marx’s theory of exploitation, then, is that he does not understand the phenomenon of time preference as a universal category of human action. That the laborer does not receive his “full worth” has nothing to do with exploitation but merely reflects the fact that it is impossible for man to exchange future goods against present ones except at a discount. Contrary to the case of slave and slave master where the latter benefits at the expense of the former, the relationship between the free laborer and the capitalist is a mutually beneficial one. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe in The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, Chapter 4, Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis. Pp. 117-118, 122)
Marx’s theory was absurd in also in the sense that he believed that the division of labor and the use of machinery would decrease wages. Obviously the reality is just the opposite. This did not stop Marx making this outlandish assertion in the Communist Manifesto:
But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of machinery, etc. (Karl Marx. Communist Manifesto, Chp. 1)
Why did Marx ignore the fact that industrial revolution was obviously not only supporting more and more people but also increasing their wages? Why did Marx reject modern economics and Libertarianism in favor of absurd labor theory of value and Communism? Perhaps because of two reasons. First, he really hated Libertarianism because as so many other intellectuals he believed that the world owed him a living. He was a spendthrift who really hated the accountability and discipline money and the monetary economy forced on people. He really dreamed of a future without money, a Communist utopia. He really wanted to realize his slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” He even tried to live by it himself when he gave money to his friends in need and expected them to give him money when he was in need.
Second, Marx was power-hungry and ruthless. He understood the evil power of the state but believed he could use it for the “greater good”. He wanted to lead the dictatorship of the proletariat and create the Communist utopia. This is also why he never continued his criticism of the Rothschilds. He hoped to have their help in transforming the West. This is also why Marx came to oppose proletarian revolutions. It was never the right time. After all, that could hurt the Jews and especially the Rothschilds.
The Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin saw through Marx.
Suspiciously, Bakunin nor the other leading anarchists and communists never made a big point about the fact that Marx’s brother-in-law was the Prussian spy chief. Neither have the standard Marx biographies noted this amazing fact well known to historians.
In public life the situation was equally bad due to the policies of Count Ferdinand von Westphalen (1799-1876), who held the key position of minister of interior in the Manteuffel cabinet. Strangely enough, although he was the brother-in-law of Karl Marx, he was the chief confidant of the Kamarilla among the ministers. The orgnization of an intense spy appartus shadowing both friends and foes was his work. Even Prince William, heir to the throne came under surveillance after he had crticized Prussian policy during the Crimean War. (Hajo Holborn: A History of Modern Germany 1840-1945. p. 110. Emphasis added.)
Marx would have been the perfect spy. First, he was a Jew closely connected to the Rothschilds and their Jewish spy network through his mother’s family. Second, through his aristocratic wife, Jenny von Westphalen he was closely connected to the Prussian spy chief. Third, through his best friend, Friedrich Engels he was connected to the British intelligence.
The interests of Jews, Prussians and the British were largely aligned. All saw both communists and Tsarist Russia as the main threats to their rule. All wanted to neutralize the communists and create a strong Prussia and even a united Germany that would be powerful enough to attack Russia. Marx’s version of communism was perfect for them because it gave an excuse for the revolutionaries not to start a revolution. It was never the right time.
Marx was insistent, now as later, that the industrial crisis would bring revolution, not the other way round. He wrote to Weydemeyer in December 1849 that the outbreak of a revolution before the next crisis ‘would in my opinion be a misfortune because just now, when business is still expanding, the working masses in France, Germany, etc., are perhaps revolutionary in word but certainly not in reality’. (David McLellan. Karl Marx. Biography. 1994, p. 219. Emphsis added.)
It was never a right time for a Communist Revolution but always a time for a war against Russia.
The second plank in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung’s platform was a revolutionary war against Russia. On the model of the French offensive against feudal Germany after 1789, it seemed to Marx that only an attack on Russia could enable the revolution to survive. Russia was Germany’s most dangerous enemy who, as the backbone of the Holy Alliance, would eventually crush any revolutionary movement unless crushed by it. Such a war would also achieve the otherwise impossible task of uniting Germany’s democratic forces. (David McLellan. Karl Marx. Biography. 1994, p. 184-5. Emphasis added.)
The biographers of Marx have noticed his pathological hatred of the Slavs and especially of the Russians. This was not because Russian serfdom or imperialism. After all, Marx supported British imperialism and the conquest of India. Marx also downplayed slavery as a necessary stage of history. In fact, Marx and Engels had a racialist world view where they saw that some races and nations had more hereditarily defined ‘civilization-potential’. In their books and especially in their extensive correspondence Marx and Engels saw the British, Germans and Jews as massively superior to the Slavs, Latins, Chinese and especially the blacks.
In a letter dated 24 June 1865, Marx informed Engels of the Polish ethnographer Franciszek Henryk Duchiński’s hypothesis that the Russians were no Slavs and did not belong to the ‘Indo-Germanic race’ but were really Mongols and Finns. Marx suggested that this was somehow tied in to the fact that, ‘from the geological and hydrographical angle’, Asia begins east of the river Dnepr. Marx hoped Duchiński was right.
This intimation had a follow-up in 1866, when he and Engels carried on a fascinating discussion by correspondence about the French ethnographer, Pierre Trémaux’s, 1865 book Origine et transformations de l’homme et des autres êtres (‘Origin and transformations of man and of the other beings’). Marx believed Trémaux had explained what Darwin failed to explain, i.e. the process of the ‘differentiation’ and ‘degeneration’ of organisms: the single most important factor was the ‘condition of the soil [Erdformation]’. Marx continued that all this was very relevant for human history: ‘Here we have the natural basis for particular questions such as nationality’. The same soil would always produce ‘the same nature, the same faculties’.
Marx believed, for example, that the Russian soil ‘Tartarizes’ the Slavs. He also suggested that the soil had caused the degeneration of an earlier, higher ‘Negro type’ into the present ‘nasty [gemeine]’ one.45 (Erik van Ree. Marx and Engels’s theory of history: making sense of the race factor. Journal of Political Ideologies. Volume 24, 2019. Issue 1.)
Both the standard Marx biographies and Wikipedia have censored these facts despite the extreme language of Marx who often pejoratively called blacks niggers. Not Negroes but niggers. He even criticized his Jewish communist rival, Ferdinand Lassalle as a nigger!
Marx and Engels reserved particularly negative comments for black-skinned people, who, the latter suggested in so many words, stood a degree closer to animals than the rest of humanity.78 Engels assumed ‘savages’ had reverted to a ‘more animal-like condition’ through ‘regression of the organism [körperlicher Rückbildung]’.79
On one occasion Marx indicated that the form of the skull of the ‘Jewish nigger’, Ferdinand Lassalle, betrayed his descent. ‘Now, this way of linking a Jewish and a Germanic element with the Negro substance is bound to produce an extraordinary product. The pushiness of the fellow is also niggerlike’.80 This passage is again particularly telling because Marx was tracing character, ‘pushiness’, directly to skull and race. (Erik van Ree. Marx and Engels’s theory of history: making sense of the race factor. Journal of Political Ideologies. Volume 24, 2019. Issue 1.)
The Marxian theory of historical materialism is also a racial theory.
Marx and Engels were endowing ‘races’ with inferior and superior qualities all the time. Whites were more intelligent than blacks, the Aryans and Semites more capable than other races, the South Slavs were lacking in the innate energies and thrust displayed by Magyars and Germans. Whereas the Americans could, the Mexicans could not economically develop California. Whereas the English industrial and colonial triumphs were partly due to the innate character of that nation, the Asians were defeated because they lacked the entrepreneurial spirit of the European races. And so on.
It goes without saying that neither man accepted the Gobineau thesis of race as master concept and main motive force of history. Marx and Engels conceptualized race as no more than one element of humanity’s natural conditions. But they did give it a specific place in their materialist interpretation of history: by defining race as part of the natural conditions upon which production rests and depends, they made it theoretically possible for the development of national economies and labour productivity to be influenced by the racial human material available. Even though race never became history’s main motive force, it mattered. ‘Races’ endowed with superior qualities would serve as generators of production; the less endowed ones would hold humanity back. Thus, in either inhibiting or boosting the process of economic development, race to an extent modified the dynamics of history as conceptualized in the theory of historical materialism. (Erik van Ree. Marx and Engels’s theory of history: making sense of the race factor. Journal of Political Ideologies. Volume 24, 2019. Issue 1.)
But why see only Germans, British and Semites more capable than other races? That was an almost unheard of combination. No-one except Jews proposed such a racial theory. But it fitted well with Marx’s own Jewishness and his alliance with the Germans and the British. It also fitted well in the sense that the “inferior” races did not appreciate the Jews as the British and Germans did. Marx especially hated the Slavs and the Russians because he considered them totally “anti-Semitic”.
Marx hated the Tsar because he opposed the power of the Jews. In fact, Marx hated the Russians so much that he not only criticized the Prussians for being too soft on Russia but also the Jews and the British. Marx was enraged that Jews helped even the “anti-Semitic” Russian state grow. He made this very clear in his essay Russian Loan where he denounced the Jews for helping the Tsar to get loans from the West. They essay also shows how knowledgeable Marx was about the Jewish banking dynasties. He even pointed out the role of the Rothschilds though did not dare to go into details.
Thus we find every tyrant backed by a Jew, as is every pope by a Jesuit. In truth, the cravings of oppressors would be hopeless, and the practicability of war out of the question, if there were not an army of Jesuits to smother thought and a handful of Jews to ransack pockets.
But the Hopes [Dutch Gentile banking dynasty trading in Russian loans] lend only the prestige of their name; the real work is done by the Jews, and can only be done by them, as they monopolize the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter trade in securities. …
Here and there and everywhere that a little capital courts investment, there is ever one of these little Jews ready to make a little suggestion or place a little bit of a loan. The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveler’s valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader. …
Thus do these [Russian] loans, which are a curse to the people, a ruin to the holders, and a danger to the governments, become a blessing to the houses of the children of Judah. This Jew organization of loan-mongers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organization of landowners. It principally sprang up in Europe since Rothschild was made a Baron in Austria, enriched by the money earned by the Hessians in fighting the American Revolution. The fortunes amassed by these loan-mongers are immense, but the wrongs and sufferings thus entailed on the people and the encouragement thus afforded to their oppressors still remain to be told. …
The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, and that the moneychangers of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coincidence. The loan-mongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose and stigmatize their organization.
(Karl Marx. The Russian Loan. New-York Daily Tribune on January 4, 1856. Source: The Eastern Question: A Reprint Of Letters Written 1853-1856 Dealing With The Events Of The Crimean War. pp. 600-606. Emphasis added.)
Marx was also upset that the British did not start a world war against Russia. Marx even went so far that he claimed the British Prime minister Palmerston was practically an agent of the Russians.
.. against the ‘asiatic barbarism’ of Russia. His almost pathological hatred of Russia led him to his bizarre view of Palmerston as a tool of Russian diplomacy and prompted an ‘exposure’, in a series of articles, of Palmerstonian duplicity. (David McLellan. Karl Marx. Biography. 1994, p. 278)
Only with the help of Britain and Prussia is it possible to destroy Russia and start a pogrom against the Slavs.
To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood which we are being offered here on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply that hatred of Russians was and still is the primary revolutionary passion among Germans; that since the revolution [of 1848] hatred of Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution.
We know where the enemies of the revolution are concentrated, viz. in Russia and the Slav regions of Austria, and no fine phrases, no allusions to an undefined democratic future for these countries can deter us from treating our enemies as enemies. Then there will be a struggle, an “inexorable life-and-death struggle”, against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and ruthless terror – not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!”[Wikipedia]
Jews, Prussians and the British wanted to have an agent that could neutralize communist revolutionaries and help them make war against Russia. They found their man in Karl Marx.
After the 1814-15 Congress of Vienna the Jews used all their connections and enormous amounts of money to try to turn the European rulers into Philo-Semites but with little success. Prince Metternich did not relent and neither did the Holy Alliance. As long as Austria and Russia were united against democratic reforms and revolutionaries the Jews could not do much. Except secretly support various revolutionary movements. Then in 1848 revolutions started all over Europe and Karl Marx published his Communist Manifesto.
Significant numbers of Jews participated in the liberal revolutions of 1848 in central Europe. In Germany, Jews fought at the barricades in Berlin and helped to lead the Prussian national assembly and Frankfurt parliament. Such intellectuals as Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne were major publicists and propagandists for the liberal cause. (Fatal Embrace. p. 32)
Revolutionary Jews were careful to distance themselves from the proletariat that the did not yet control. The Jews wanted a revolution that would emancipate Jews and maybe create a constitutional monarchy but not totally transform the society. Even Karl Marx agreed. In 1848-9 his newspaper Neue Rheinische Zeitung did not support a communist revolution but a liberal one. Marx was again working for his masters.
Neue Rheinische Zeitung did not preach a socialist republic nor exclusively a workers’ one. The programme was universal suffrage, direct elections, the abolition of all feudal dues and charges, the establishment of a state banking system, and the admission of state responsibility for unemployment. Capitalism (even state capitalism), private property and class antagonism would still exist and, indeed, expand. The essence of the programme was the emancipation of the bourgeoisie with some concessions to workers and peasants.
This position implied a certain standing apart from the efforts of workers’ organisations for self-improvement, and lay behind Marx’s criticism of Gottschalk’s policies in Cologne and his lack of enthusiasm for Born’s success in Berlin in founding an all-German workers’ movement and various mutual-aid funds and co-operatives. Marx declared that, in this context, ‘the proletariat has not the right to isolate itself; however hard it may seem, it must reject anything that could separate it from its allies’.
This policy was so carefully carried out in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung that, with one exception and notwithstanding the declaration of Engels above, neither Marx nor Engels published anything during 1848 that dealt with the situation or interests of the working class as such. (David MacLellan. Karl Marx. Biography. p. 183. Emphasis added.)
With the help and under the manipulation of the Jews the revolutionaries kept up the pressure and forced the the rulers to accept new liberal constitutions that emancipated the Jews.
In Austria, Jews participated in the Vienna uprising and helped to formulate a new liberal constitution. In Hungary, 20,000 Jews enlisted in the national army formed by Louis Kossuth. The constitutions of most of the liberal regimes established in 1848 provided for emancipation of the Jews. (Fatal Embrace. p. 32)
Even Metternich had to flee Vienna. However, the Tsar Nicholas I would not budge and inch. He sent troops to help the young emperor of Austria, Franz Joseph I to crush the revolutionaries and especially the Hungarian rebellion. Now other rulers also dared to strongly resist the Jews and other revolutionaries. The old order was saved all over Europe.
The constitutions of most of the liberal regimes established in 1848 provided for emancipation of the Jews. After these regimes were overthrown by conservative forces, however, many of the Jews’ new privileges were rescinded. Central European Jews continued to support liberal movements even after the revolutions of 1848 were defeated. (Fatal Embrace. p. 32)
Also in France the Jews were at the forefront the revolution but then were pushed aside by Napoleon III. Now all great powers were united in their opposition to Jewish led revolutions.
In France, Jews supported the liberal revolution of 1848. Two prominent Jews, Adolphe Cremieux and Michel Goudchaux, served the Second Republic as ministers of justice and finance, respectively. The accession of Napoleon III brought an end to this short-lived regime, and Jews played little role in the Second Empire that followed. (Fatal Embrace. p. 32)
1853 Crimean War
The Jews realized that somehow they had to break the united front of the monarchs and especially the Holy Alliance. So the Rothschilds probably offered a deal to the young emperor Franz Joseph of Austria. The deal was simple: Brake the Holy Alliance and you will dominate the Balkans, Italy and the Germanic lands with Rothschild support. Franz Joseph evidently agreed to the deal. Then the Jews helped organize an international coalition that attacked Russia in the Crimean War.
Franz Joseph refused to help the Tsar Nicholas I who had saved him only a few years before. This was a huge betrayal that would change the course of world history and open the gates of power to the Jews. It also diplomatically isolated Austria. Franz Joseph had stabbed Nicholas in the back and nobody trusted him anymore.
By the time the military situation and an Austrian ultimatum had brought Russia once more to the peacetable, and the treaty of Paris (30 March 1856) had put an end to the war, a clear-sighted observer could no longer have doubted that [Austrian foreign minister Ferdinand von] Buol’s policy of close co-operation with Britain and France was a fatal, though probably unavoidable mistake. While permanently alienating Russia, that policy had not gained Austria the friendship of the Western powers.
Indeed, many of their leaders – men like Palmerston, Clarendon, Russell, and Napoleon III – harboured an undying hatred of the Habsburg monarchy, and influential sectors of British public opinion appear to have shared their feelings. Thus while Buol had managed, for the time being, to spare his country the costs and risks of war, he had led it into dangerous isolation;and within the next decade history was to exact a high price from Austria for her recent exercise in Concert diplomacy. (Karl F. Helleiner. Review: Austria, Great Britain and the Crimean War: The Destruction of the European Concert by Paul W. Schroeder.)
1859 Italian unification
Franz Joseph was now confident that with the help of the Rothschilds he could dominate Europe. However, the Rothschilds also supported the French Emperor, Napoleon III and especially the leader of the Italians, Camillo Cavour. Together the French and the Italians defeated Austrian forces at Solferino in 1859. This led to the Italian unification that destroyed one of the great cradles of European liberty with the high tax and massively corrupt state of Italy. The Jews were strongest supporters of the unification of Italy because they wanted to destroy the Papal States and decrease the power of the Pope and Church in general.
Jews in substantial numbers supported Mazzini’s “Young Italy” movement and took part in the uprisings of the 1830s. In addition, Mazzini received considerable financial aid from the Jewish banking firm of Todros in Turin. Subsequently, the Jewish banking houses of Rothschild, Bendi, and Tedesco financed Cavour’s efforts to unify Italy. Jews were also important in Cavour’s inner circle, serving as publicists for his cause and members of his cabinets. From early in his career, Cavour was a staunch advocate of Jewish emancipation. (Fatal Embrace, p. 32)
Austria lost the war because Russia stayed neutral. The Tsar would not help Franz Joseph because he had stayed neutral during the Crimean War. The Rothschilds had been no use either since they were supporting all sides of the conflict. There was nothing Franz Joseph could do because he had painted himself in the corner. The Jews were the real winners. Franz Joseph was now at the mercy of the Rothschilds and submitted himself to them. The peace terms would be quite lenient and he could stay emperor but only if he gave the Jews more power and adopted a new liberal constitution. Franz Joseph agreed again and the gates of Vienna were literally opened to the Jews who now started to move in by the thousands.
Francis Joseph only reluctantly accepted the anathema of constitutionalism. He had no choice, given the financial crisis, and the group of Viennese bankers, many of them Jewish, who were the only realistic source of funds, and whose attitude was summed up by Anselm Rothschild in 1860 as ‘no constitution, no money’. (Steven Beller, A Concise History of Austria,Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press 2006, p. 155.)
This was one of the watersheds of history. Franz Joseph was now in the pocket of the Jews. Austria was greatly weakened and the balance of power was broken. Unification of Italy weakened Austria to the extent that it also made possible the unification of Germany. But it was not the fault of Franz Joseph alone. Tsar Alexander II could have let bygones be bygones and saved Austria and the old order. Alexander decided otherwise and thus gave the Jews even more power.
Despite Jewish manipulation of culture and politics rationalism and natural law tradition were still strong and able to develop an understanding of absolute economic laws. This made the kings realize the limits of state power. It also presented kings a luring possibility: By freeing the people from monopolies and cartels the living standards and technology could rise exponentially to new unimaginable levels. This is exactly what Turgot had proposed to Louis XVI but then hardly anyone could even conceive exponential economic growth. But with industrial revolution and the advancement of economic science the kings finally started to realize the possibilities of liberty. Milk the cow less and it will grow exponentially. Then you can milk it even more. Everybody benefits from the increase of liberty.
Although it is an outworn generalization to say that 19th century economists were stalwart champions of laissez faire, it is still true that deductive economic theory proved to be a mighty bulwark against government intervention. For, basically, economic theory showed the harmony and order inherent in the free market, as well as the counterproductive distortions and economic shackles imposed by state intervention. (Murray N. Rothbard. “World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals.” in The Costs of War: America’s Pyrrhic Victories, by John V. Denson, ed. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1999. P. 278-9)
From the Christian Middle Ages through Spanish Scholasticism to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of Enlightenment, parallel to and intertwined with the development of “normative” natural rights theory, a systematic body of economic theory developed, culminating in the writings of Cantillon and Turgot. According to this intellectual tradition—carried on in the nineteenth century by Say, Senior, Cairnes, Menger, and Böhm-Bawerk, and in the twentieth century by Mises, Robbins, and Rothbard— economics was viewed as a “logic of action.” Starting with self-evident propositions and combining these with a few empirical and empirically testable assumptions, economics was conceived as an axiomatic-deductive science and economic theorems as propositions which were at the same time realistic and nonhypothetically or a priori true.48
Consider, for instance, the following economic propositions: In every voluntary exchange, both partners must expect to profit, they must evaluate the things to be exchanged as having unequal value, and they must have opposite preference orders. Or: Whenever an exchange is not voluntary, but coerced, such as highway robbery or taxation, one exchange party benefits at the expense of the other. Or: Whenever minimum wage laws are enforced that require wage rates to be higher than existing market wages, involuntary unemployment will result. Or: Whenever the quantity of money is increased while the demand for money remains unchanged, the purchasing power of money will fall.
Or: Any supply of money is equally, “optimal,” such that no increase in the money supply can raise the overall standard of living (while it can have redistributive effects). Or: Collective ownership of all factors of production makes cost accounting impossible, and hence leads to permanent misallocations. Or: Taxation of income producers, other things remaining the same, raises their effective rate of time preference, and hence leads to a lower output of goods produced. Apparently, these theorems contain knowledge about reality, and yet they do not seem to be hypothetical (empirically falsifiable) propositions but rather true by definition. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The Great Fiction, p. 462)
All the kings of Europe started cutting monopolies and especially tariffs. All were also opposed to paper money and supported the gold standard though in its corrupt fractional reserve mode. Even Czar Alexander II abolished serfdom and freed the economy. Napoleon III radically cut tariffs with the Cobden – Chevalier free trade agreement in 1860. Economic freedom had created the greatest miracle in history: Exponential economic growth. First time in history the standard of living were increasing everywhere.
1860-65 The War of Northern Aggression
The most striking example of liberty was in America. The federal constitution had created a strong federal state but it was kept at check by the culture of liberty and the new economic science. Even the central bank had been eliminated. In the 1840′ and 50’s America was truly becoming the land of the free. South had slavery but both culture and technology was phasing it out. North had corporatism but free competition was eliminating it.
There was only one serious problem. The federal constitution had created an efficient machinery to collect tariffs. Not surprisingly tariffs kept increasing. This created a conflict with the free trading South and the corporatist North. With the election of Abraham Lincoln this conflict turned into a War of Northern Aggression.
Lincoln was supported in his bid for the presidency by the rich industrialists of the North. He was their man and he had long been their lawyer. At the heart of his platform was a return to high import taxes, reminiscent of the “tariff of abomination” of 1828. No sooner had Congress assembled in 1861 than the high tariff was passed into law and signed by President Buchanan before Lincoln was inaugurated. The Morrill Tariff, as it was called, was the highest tariff in history, doubling the rates of the 1857 tariff to an average of 47 percent of the value of imports. Iron products were taxed over 50 percent.
This was the Republicans’ big victory, and their supporters were jubilant. They had fulfilled their IOUs to the industrialists and commercial men of the North. But by this outrageous tariff for the South, the doors of reconciliation were closed. In Lincoln’s inaugural address he had committed himself to collect customs in the South even if there was a secession. With slavery, he was conciliatory; with the import taxes, he was threatening.
Fort Sumter was at the entrance to the Charleston Harbor, filled with federal troops to support U.S. Customs officers. It wasn’t too difficult for angry South Carolinians to fire the first shot. (Impact of Taxes, p. 337)
The Jews had long supported slave trade and slavery in the Southern United States. The Democratic Party therefore had strong Jewish support. Andrew Jackson had destroyed the Jewish backed central bank of America but the Rothschilds could not give up. America was the fastest growing market. Jews had to dominate it one way or another. At the eve of the Civil War the chairman of the Democratic Party was the Rothschild Jewish representative August Belmont.
The South was confident that the Jews would support secession or at least keep neutral. But Belmont and large part of the Northern Democrats sided with the Union. Many people believed that it was the Belmont who broke the Democratic Party and destroyed the South.
Why the stab in the back? Perhaps because the Confederate Constitution was far too libertarian. It did allow slavery but otherwise left hardly any role for the government. It made impossible major bank cartels or even major internal improvements that would have required the federal state to loan money from the banks. The Southern Confederate constitution practically forbid high taxes and tariffs to finance federal loans. Rothschilds could not accept such economic libertarianism. Belmont and the Rothschilds wanted both slavery and big government. The federal state should grant many monopolies and cartels to big businessmen, take big loans from the big banks and pay back by collecting high taxes and tariffs. This support for the big government is also why many slave states joined the Union.
Southerners knew that economic science was on their side. If they would secede and maintain free trade then the living standards in South would greatly increase. The South would become by far the richest country in the world.
At the time the Republicans were pushing a high tariff through the Congress, the Southerners were doing just the opposite. Their new constitution was adopted, patterned after the U.S. Constitution, with a unique provision banning high import taxation. The Confederate Congress couldn’t create a high tariff even if it wanted to. Jefferson Davis, the first president of the Confederacy, justified secession in his inaugural address by making reference to the Declaration of Independence, then emphasizing the import tax issue Duties and customs and trade restrictions would be held to an absolute minimum, he said.
With low duties the trade of North America would shift from New York, Boston, and Philadelphia to Savannah, Charleston, and New Orleans. This would compel the North to set up a chain of customs stations and border patrols from the Atlantic Ocean to the Missouri River, and then some. Northerners would clamor to buy duty-free goods from the South. (Impact of Taxes, p. 337)
Many abolitionists supported Southern secession because it meant that soon slavery would be doomed. First, the culture of liberty would make slavery anachronistic. Second, manumissions would increase since private slavery always tends to disappear. Third, the Union would not anymore help defend slavery by upholding the fugitive slave laws. With the break-up of the Union it would be much more easier for slaves to escape to the North. This is one important reason why the libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner supported the Southern secession. He believed that secession would increase liberty for both the Whites and Blacks while at the same time it would destroy the Northern bankers and industrialists who had bought monopolies and cartels from the American government with their blood money. Spooner made it clear that Lincoln was not trying to help the blacks but the corporatists.
Lincoln, following his mentor Henry Clay, favored a nationalist economic program of which high tariffs, a national bank, and governmentally financed “internal improvements” were key elements. This program, he thought, would promote not only the interests of the wealthy industrial and financial powers he always faithfully served but would benefit white labor as well. ..
To Spooner, the primary motive of Lincoln and the war party was to preserve and consolidate Northern control of the Southern economy. The Southern states could not be allowed to evade the tariff, a key element of the mercantilist American system that Lincoln favored. “He wrote that the war ‘erupted for a purely pecuniary consideration,’ and not for any moral reason. He labeled the economic lifeblood of the Republican Party, Northern bankers, manufacturers, and railroad corporations, ‘lenders of blood money’ …
To Spooner the Northern financiers of the war who had lent money to the Lincoln government did so not for ‘any love of liberty or justice,’ but for the control of [Southern] markets’ through ‘tariff extortion.’ … Spooner interpreted the crushing of the Southern secessionists … as suggesting that Southerners should ‘Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have your peace'” (pp. 57–59). (David Gordon. Who Was This “Great Liberator”?)
Spooner was consistently anti-statist. He realized that the problem was the state, the monster parasite. The solution was not to give it more power but less.
Spooner, born in the New England pietist tradition, began his distinguished ideological career as an all-out abolitionist. Despite differences over interpretation of the US Constitution, Spooner was basically in the anarchistic, “no-government” Garrisonian wing of the abolitionist movement — the wing that sought the abolition of slavery not through the use of the central government (which was in any case dominated by the South), but by a combination of moral fervor and slave rebellion. Far from being fervent supporters of the Union, the Garrisonians held that the Northern states should secede from a pro-slaveholding United States of America.
So far, Spooner and the Garrisonians took the proper libertarian approach toward slavery. But the tragic betrayal came when the Union went to war with the Southern states over the issue of their declared independence. Garrison and his former “no-government” movement forgot their anarchistic principles in their enthusiasm for militarism, mass murder, and centralized statism on behalf of what they correctly figured would be a war against slavery.
Only Lysander Spooner and a very few others stood foursquare against this betrayal; only Spooner realized that it would be compounding crime and error to try to use government to right the wrongs committed by another government. And so, among his pietistic and moralizing antislavery colleagues, only Spooner was able to see with shining clarity, despite all temptations, the stark difference between vice and crime. He saw that it was correct to denounce the crimes of governments, but that it was only compounding those crimes to maximize government power as an attempted remedy. (Murray Rothbard. Lysander Spooner. Libertarian Pietist)
Virtually all Jews – North and South – seem to have abhorred Spooner and the abolitionists in general. None were interested in true liberty. In fact, virtually all Jews supported slavery. Not even those Jews who had immigrated to America after the failed 1848 revolutions seem to have supported the anti-slavery campaign. This was also noted by abolitionists themselves.
Surveying the views on slavery of American religious groups in 1853, the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society had reported that Jews “deem it their policy to have every one choose whichever side he may deem best to promote his own interest and the welfare of his country…They do not interfere in any discussion which is not material to their religion.”
Yet the report concluded with a sly taunt, implying that the question of slavery was perhaps not as immaterial to Judaism as many of its American adherents preferred to admit. “The objects of so much mean prejudice and unrighteous oppression as the Jews have been for ages,” the report lamented, “surely they, it would seem, more than any other denomination, ought to be the enemies of caste and the friends of universal freedom.” (Richard Kreitner. The Powerful Example Of The Jewish Abolitionists We Forgot)
Jews provided the intellectual defense for the slavery by emphasizing that The Old Testament allowed and regulated slavery. The most prominent Jews in America were in intellectual war with the abolitionists.
American Jewish leaders of the mid-19th century were concerned, above all, with expediency. The most prominent Jew in the United States, Mordecai Manuel Noah … became such an outspoken opponent of emancipation that the first-ever black newspaper in America, Freedom’s Journal, was specifically founded to counter Noah’s venom, and William Lloyd Garrison was moved to describe him as a “Shylock” and a “lineal descendant of the monsters who nailed Jesus to the cross.” (Richard Kreitner. The Powerful Example Of The Jewish Abolitionists We Forgot)
Virtually all Southern Jews were hard-core slavery supporters. They wanted a strong Southern state that would uphold slavery. Therefore it seems likely that they also tipped the scales against the arming of the slaves. Lord Acton lamented:
The opinion we must form on the revolution that followed ought to be guided by the events which led to it, not by the motives of the leaders. In point of fact they were divided, like the Union, by the question of slavery.
To one party it was the real object of the war; they believed it could not be safe against the assaults of Northern politicians, whatever might be the pledges of the federal government. Another party desired secession in order to establish a new union on the old principles which the North had disavowed.
The great issue between them was the arming of the slaves. Those who deemed it too dear a price to pay for independence succeeded in preventing it by narrow majorities until the eve of the fall of Richmond. When the Act was passed by which the Negroes would have acquired the benefits without the dangers of emancipation, it was too late, and the end was at hand.
“The North has used the doctrines of democracy to destroy self-government. The South applied the principle of conditional federation to cure the evils and to correct the errors of a false interpretation of democracy.”
These were the political ideas of the Confederacy, and they justify me, I think, in saying that history can show no instance of so great an effort made by republicans to remedy the faults of that form of government.
Had they adopted the means which would have ensured and justified success, had they called on the Negroes to be partners with them in the perils of war and in the fruits of victory, I believe that generous resolution would have conferred in all future ages incalculable blessings on the human race.
In the North there were only a handful of Jewish abolitionists. But they were extremely radical. In fact, they were part of the Lincoln’s Marxists, the revolutionary Forty-Eighters network with direct connections to Karl Marx and other European socialists. They opposed chattel slavery but supported statist slavery. They supported a big state that would in practice make all slaves. They wanted to destroy and subjugate the South.
These abolitionist Jews had actively supported the socialist terror organization led by John Brown who was practically hacking innocent Southerners to pieces.
During the mini-Civil-War known as “Bleeding Kansas” in the mid-1850s, three Jews accompanied John Brown on his raids against pro-slavery settlers. The archives of the American Jewish Historical Society contain a 1903 letter in which one of them, the Viennese-born August Bondi (another veteran of the 1848 revolution), recalled an exchange between himself and Theodore Wiener during one of the posse’s first attacks.
As they followed Brown up a hill to assault a Border Ruffian camp, Bondi wrote, “Wiener puffed like a steamboat, hurrying behind me. I called out to him, ‘Nu, was meinen Sie jetzt.’ [‘Now, what do you think of this?’] His answer, ‘Was soll ich meinen, sof odom muves.’ [‘What shall I think of it? The end of man is death.’]” (Richard Kreitner. The Powerful Example Of The Jewish Abolitionists We Forgot)
Despite supporting slavery the Rothschilds were also sympathetic towards the Forty-Eighters. There was a method to this madness. The Rothschilds were alarmed by the conservative wave that was sweeping the West after the failed revolutions of the 1848. In France, Austria and Britain conservatives and aristocrats did their best to stop the Jewish instigated egalitarianism and democracy. Conservative “anti-Semites” such as Thomas Carlyle, John Ruskin, Alfred Tennyson and Charles Dickens dominated the culture.
European conservatives strongly defended both the Confederacy and the new Habsburg Empire in Mexico. If the South had been allowed to secede then that would not only have saved the Habsburgs in Mexico but greatly increased the power of conservatives and monarchists all over the world. Many Jews were worried that the process of democratization and egalitarianism would stop and on its place would develop aristocratic culture of freedom where the aristocrats, kings and emperors would maintain their power but liberalize the economy by protecting private property rights and erasing cartels.
No wonder the Rothschilds and other big Jewish bankers turned against the Southern secession. It was just too culturally conservative and too economically libertarian. Alarmed by this betrayal the Confederacy appointed the Jewish Judah Benjamin as the Secretary of War and then Secretary of State. Benjamin traveled to Europe to persuade the Rothschilds and European powers to join the war on the side of the Confederacy.
The Rothschilds refused to help unlike Napoleon III and the British aristocracy led by the secretary of state lord Russell. Both Napoleon III and lord Russell wanted to save the confederacy but just as Britain and France were joining the war on the side of the Confederacy the Tsar Alexander II of Russia stopped them. He sent his fleet to New York and San Francisco to defend the Americans. The Tsar saved the Union.
This was an enormous mistake though understandable. The diplomatically isolated Tsar did gain an ally against the British Empire but in the long run he helped egalitarianism and modernism defeat conservatism. Contemporaries were amazed that that the most conservative ruler saved the most modernist ruler. In time America would become the headquarters of the Jews, destroy the Tsar and help Bolsheviks take over Russia. The historian Allan Nevis (laudingly) explains how the Tsar changed the course of history:
It is hardly too much to say that the future of the world as we know it was at stake. A conflict between Great Britain and America would have crushed all hope of the mutual understanding and growing collaboration which led up to the practical alliance of 1917-18, and the outright alliance which began in 1941. …
Anglo-French intervention in the American conflict would probably have confirmed the splitting and consequent weakening of the United States; might have given French power in Mexico a long lease, with the ruin of the Monroe Doctrine; and would perhaps have led to the Northern conquest of Canada. The forces of political liberalism in the modern world would have received a disastrous setback. No battle, not Gettysburg, not the Wilderness, was more important than the context waged in the diplomatic arena and the forum of public opinion. The popular conception of this contest is at some points erroneous, and at a few grossly fallacious…. (Allan Nevins. War for the Union, II. 1960. p. 242)
The Jews must have become highly alarmed. They realized that with Russian help Lincoln could became independent of the Jews. Lincoln had even bypassed the bankers by printing pure government paper money, the greenbacks. This was a huge threat to the Rothschilds and other bankers. Moreover Lincoln seemed to have seriously planned to ship the blacks out of America to Africa or Central America. Would Jews be next?
Blacks, in his [Lincoln] opinion, would be better off outside the United States; and, throughout his life, Lincoln supported schemes for repatriation of blacks to Africa and elsewhere. If blacks left the country, they could not compete with whites, the primary objects of Lincoln’s concern. (Lincoln, by the way, did not see this program as in any way in contradiction to his professed belief that all men are created equal. Blacks, he thought, have human rights but not political rights).2 (David Gordon. Who Was This “Great Liberator”?)
As so often happens to independent minded presidents Lincoln was soon assassinated. It was an obvious conspiracy but for some reason all of the culprits that were caught were hanged very fast. We still do not know what really happened. Not one historian seems to have studied the possible Jewish angle of the assassination. All we know is that all the big Jewish businessmen and bankers had greatly profited from the war. And the strong federal union with big spending and debts promised them even more profits.
It is true that there during the Civil War Jews were not of one mind. Some supported the South and other the North. However, they had one thing common. They supported a strong state. The Southern Jews were hard-core supporters of slavery and wanted a strong state that could protect it. The Northern Jews wanted a strong state to protect their bank and business cartels. And those few Jewish abolitionists who really wanted to end slavery were practically Marxists who wanted a superstate and destroy the South. So it was the old story. Left or right, North or South, the Jews liked to ally with the state. And since the battle between the North and South was even the Jews probably tipped the scales in favor of statism.
1866 Austro-Prussian War
The Austrian emperor Franz Joseph had naively thought that by submitting to the Jews they would help him stay the dominant power in Germany. However, the Jews supported even more Prussia and its chancellor, Otto Bismarck. This was surprising since traditionally the Rothschilds were supporters of the Austrian Habsburgs. Even Wikipedia is aware of this conflict of interest.
In one of his last actions before leaving Frankfurt for St. Petersburg, Russia, Bismarck consulted Baron Mayer Carl von Rothschild for the name of a banker in Berlin to whom he could turn for personal as well as Prussian state business. Just why Bismarck would turn to the Rothschild Bank to supply him with the name of a competing bank to whom Bismarck and the Prussian nation could turn may not be as hard to understand as first thought. Everyone in Frankfurt knew that the Prussian nation would have to distance themselves from the Rothschild Bank given the Rothschilds’ close diplomatic relations with Prussia’s main rival—Austria-Hungary. Yet neither Bismarck nor the Prussian nation wanted to burn their bridges and totally alienate the Rothschilds. What better way to avoid this fissure with the Rothschilds than to ask the Rothschilds to provide the name of an alternative bank.
Rothschild gave the name of Gerson Bleichröder, who took over Bismarck’s private banking transactions as well as the transfer of credits and/or placing of loans on behalf of the Prussian state and the German Empire. Thus, Bleichröder became intimately involved with not only Bismarck but also with the inner dynamics of the unification of Germany. (Wikipedia)
Why would the Rothschilds help Prussia? Simple: Prussia had remained neutral during the Crimean War and thus practically saved Russia. It was in the interest of the Jews to somehow get a hold over Prussia. Naturally Bismarck understood this and decided to use it to his advantage. He would ally with the Rothschilds but he would not be their slave. This explains Bismarck’s Grand strategy of breaking the balance of power only partially in the interest of Prussia but not totally. Bismarck never planned to attack or destroy Russia but only use it as a bargaining chip with the Rothschilds.
Bismarck had managed to obtain the full financial support of the Rothschild connected banks and so the Prussian army became very strong. Prussia easily defeated the diplomatically isolated Austria in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. Russia again remained neutral and so Hungarians and other nationalities decided to rise again. This time the Tsar would not save Franz Joseph from the Hungarians. He seemed to be doomed.
At the last moment the Jews offered Franz Joseph a full alliance with three conditions: First, Jews should have full civil rights and their business interests should not be threatened by the state. Second, Franz Joseph had to make a full alliance with the Jews against the Tsar. Third, he had to improve relations with Prussia in order to create a Germanic front against Russia. Franz Joseph agreed to the deal. This saved the empire from disintegration but made him dependent on the Jews and their close allies, the Hungarians. Soon Jews totally took over both the economy and the culture of Austria helping to create the degenerate Fin de Siecle cultural revolution in the West.
Jews even took control of the Vienna center by literally buying the famous Ringstrasse.
With almost half of the privately held lots owned by Jews, the boulevard was a symbol of Jewish economic success, patronage — and assimilation. … Aptly titled “Ringstrasse. A Jewish Boulevard,” ..
Of the privately held lots on the Ring, Jews soon owned 44%. A map in the museum shows around 20 Jewish palais, or mansions, at or near the Ringstrasse; they were named after the families — such as Todesco, Ephrussi, Lieben and Auspitz — that lived there. (Anna Goldenberg. Vienna’s Most Jewish Street. Forward.com. Emphasis added.)
This influx of Jews to Vienna and the rise of a new Jewish upper middle class were not welcomed by non-Jews in Vienna. Already around 1869 one anti-Semitic journalist wrote of “A brand new Jerusalem of the East”. In 1870 Franz Friedrich Masaidek wrote of “The Ringstrasse – the Zion Street of new-Jerusalem”. (Vienna’s Jews and the Ringstrasse. Jewishreneissance.com)
1870 German unification
The weakening of Austria had made Napoleon III the most powerful man in Europe. He was determined to stop the gradual unification of Germany. Soon war broke out between Prussia and France. Prussians easily crushed the French with their well financed and organized army. Jews also made sure that Franz Joseph refused to help Napoleon III. Neither did Tsar offer his help because he was afraid that Napoleon III could become as powerful as his uncle Napoleon I. The Tsar let the German Empire be born. This was again an enormous mistake since now the Tsar had on his borders four Philo-Semitic countries: Germany, Austria, Ottoman Empire and USA.
It can be said with confidence that hardly ever in world history has any ruler made more disastrous long term decisions than Alexander II. It was he who gave birth to Russia’s two greatest enemies: Germany and USA. Both were on Russia’s borders and both were supported by Jews. Russia was now the only Jew-critical country left. Jews had won even if most people did not know it yet.
Somehow more philo-Semitic states had always won. After the 1848 Revolutions Jews had a clear enemy list: Tsar, Franz Joseph of Austria, Pope and Napoleon III. The friend list on the continent only included Bismarck of Prussia and Cavour of Sardinia. It so happened that Bismarck and Cavour not only won but overwhelmingly so by unifying Germany and Italy. To top that they allied with their old enemy, Austria and created the Triple Alliance. The weakest had become the strongest. Such things just do not happen in geopolitics. Bewildered historians have seen only one explanation: Bismarck’s genius master plan. But what if it was the Jewish master plan? What if Bismarck was just their pawn that was needed to topple the Tsar?
1878 Everybody against Russia
The Tsar Alexander II started to realized his mistakes when the whole world ganged up on him after he had delivered the Ottoman Empire a crushing defeat. In the Congress of Berlin in 1878 all the other great powers – including Germany – made it clear they would support the Muslim empire and forced Russia to give up its fruits of victory.
Russia was so totally alone that the Jews were even able to create a Jewish financed and led terrorist network inside Russia. Soon with the help of the Jews a group of terrorists even managed to kill Tsar Alexander II in 1881.
Luckily Alexander had an energetic son Alexander III who hit back and destroyed the terrorist cells. Furthermore, he saved Russia from international isolation by allying Russia with France.
Now the balance of power was held by Britain. Jews were certain they could persuade Britain to side with Germany and Austria. Or at least stay neutral so that Germanic armies could topple the Tsar. But Otto Bismarck would not have it. He considered war with Russia madness from which nothing could be gained for Germany. Jews were not able to manipulate Bismarck but they had a plan. All that was needed was to wait for the extremely Philo-Semitic Crown Prince Frederick to succeed his over 80 year old father, Wilhelm I as the emperor of Germany. In 1888 Frederick became the emperor but only for three months before dying of throat cancer. His son Wilhelm II was much more critical of the Jews.
[In 1887] Wilhelm likened [Austrian] Crown Prince Rudolf to his own father as being a spineless, characterless popularity-seeker totally under Jewish influence. …
In 1888, when his father lay dying of throat cancer, Wilhelm came close to believing that there was an Anglo-Jewish plot, led by his mother, to take over Germany. In letters to his intimate friend Philipp Eulenburg he described the doctors in attendance on his father as ‘Judenlümmel’, ‘dogs’, ‘scoundrels’ and Satansknochen filled with ‘racial hatred’ and ‘anti-Germanism to the very edge of the grave’. (John C. G. Rohl. The Kaiser and his Court: Wilhelm II and the Government of Germany. 1995.)
Wilhelm II stopped the Jewish war plans. He was not eager to attack Russia. Instead he wanted colonial empire and started building a huge navy. This alienated the British. The Jewish master plan was going off the rails.
1894-06 Dreyfus Affair
The Jews had become dominant in France but they still had a serious problem with the French people who were very difficult to manipulate. It was the old story. The Jews were never able to control the absolutist Bourbon kings. They could manipulate the First Republic somewhat but not Napoleon I. After restoration in 1814 Louis XVIII accepted philo-Semitic constitutional monarchy but his successor Charles X tried to restore absolutism. Then Jews again helped the more liberal House of Orleans to take the crown in the 1830 July Revolution. But even constitutional monarchy was not enough and in 1848 Jews led by Cremieux helped create the Second Republic.
The Jewish led republic did not last long since Napoleon III managed to create the Second Empire in 1851. He was not hostile towards the Jews but was never close to them either. So the Jews preferred Prussia and helped it to destroy the Second Empire and create the French Third Republic in 1870. Now finally the Jews seem to have been satisfied and did everything in their power to defend the republic. Jews even managed to secularize government schools and remove religious instruction.
After the rout of French forces in the Franco-Prussian War and the collapse of the Second Empire in 1870, Jews were active in the founding of the Third Republic. The Rothschilds organized the payment of the German war indemnity, and a number of Jews participated in the early republican governments. Cremieux once again served as minister of justice; Eugene Manuel, Narcisse Leven, and Leonce Lehmann occupied important government posts; and several Jews served in the Chamber of Deputies. Throughout the history of the Third Republic, until its destruction at the hands of the Germans in 1940, Jewish politicians, financiers, and publicists were active participants in the defense of the Republic against those institutions and forces in French society—the army, aristocracy, and clergy in particular—that sought its downfall. (Fatal Embrace, p. 33)
Jews were very active in the political life of the Third Republic. Before the First World War, they were most closely identified with Leon Gambetta’s liberal “Opportunist” faction of the Radical Republican party. Prominent Jewish Gambettists included Cremieux, Leven, and Lehmann as well as Isaie Levaillant, Edouard Millaud, Joseph Reinach, and David Raynal. Cremieux was Gambetta’s first political mentor; Reinach was the owner and editor of the Gambettist newspaper. Jews figured so prominently in the Gambettist faction that its opponents often charged that Gambetta himself must be a Jew. After Gambetta’s death, Jews continued to be closely aligned with his most prominent political heir, Jules Ferry. (p. 35)
But there was one big problem for the Jews: Germany had annexed Alsace-Lorraine region in 1871 and the French wanted it back. The only way to do that was to ally with Russia. The Jews could not accept that and did everything in their power to stop the alliance. Thus it was natural for the army to suspect a Jew, Alfred Dreyfuss of spying for the Germans. The proof seemed clear and he was convicted of treason. The Jews could not accept that so together with their ally, the novelist Emil Zola they arranged an enormous propaganda campaign to free Dreyfus. Most Frenchmen would not be manipulated and became openly hostile to Jews. It was now clear that France would stand by Russia.
1899 Boer War
The Jews realized that France was an almost lost cause. It would stubbornly ally herself with the Tsar. But the Jews believed that they could strengthen their alliance with the British Wasp elite by together stealing the gold and diamond fields of the Boer republics. However, the plan backfired because the Germans almost sided with the obviously victimized Boers. Even worse, the Germany colony in Tanzania blocked the Cairo-Capetown railway the British Wasp elite led by the Rhodes-Milner group wanted to build. And if this was not enough the Germans started to build a strong navy in order to protect their colonies and challenge the British supremacy of the seas.
Now the British Wasp elite was becoming ever more hostile towards the Germans. But they were even more hostile toward the expanding empires of Russia and France so the Jews were not too worried. They figured that even if Britain would not ally itself with Germany against Russia it would never ally itself with France and Russia either.
1900s Railroad and oil wars
The Tsar had naively thought that by supporting the American North against Britain during the American Civil War then Russia would have a loyal ally. The Tsar did not understand the power of money. British gradually increased their power by supporting the Wasp banking house of Morgan who soon dominated the American economy. The Rothschilds also wanted a piece of America so they started to finance the Jewish Kuhn, Loeb banking firm and brought from Frankfurt, Germany the neighbor of the Rothschilds, Jacob Schiff to run it.
But now Jews had a problem in America. The Morgans were becoming uppity and wanted to be the senior partner in the American ruling elite. So the Jews needed an ally and started to finance the Rockefeller oil empire. It was Moses Taylor’s City Bank (later National City and City Bank) that largely financed the rise of both the Rockefellers and their allies, the Stillmans. The National City bank was later called the Rockefeller bank though Morgan always considered it a Jewish bank.
By the turn of the century the political economy of the United States was dominated by two generally clashing financial aggregations: the previously dominant Morgan group, which had begun in investment banking and expanded into commercial banking, railroads, and mergers of manufacturing firms; and the Rockefeller forces, which began in oil refining and then moved into commercial banking, finally forming an alliance with the Kuhn, Loeb Company in investment banking and the Harriman interests in railroads.
Indeed, much of the political history of the United States from the late nineteenth century until World War II may be interpreted by the closeness of each administration to one of these sometimes cooperating, more often conflicting, financial groupings: Cleveland (Morgan), McKinley (Rockefeller), Theodore Roosevelt (Morgan), Taft (Rockefeller), Wilson (Morgan), Harding (Rockefeller), Coolidge (Morgan), Hoover (Morgan), and Franklin Roosevelt (Harriman–Kuhn, Loeb–Rockefeller). (Murray N. Rothbard. A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2005. P. 188.)
Gradually the Jews and Rockefellers became so powerful that they could challenge the Morgans. This eventually lead to many railroad wars where the Jews supported the Rockefellers and Harrimans against the Morgan forces.
After the turn of the century, a savage economic and political war developed between the Morgan interests on the one hand, and the allied Harriman-Kuhn, Loeb-Rockefeller interests on the other. Harriman and Kuhn, Loeb grabbed control of the Union Pacific Railroad and the two titanic forces baffled to a draw for control of the Northern Pacific.
The alliance of the Jews and the Rockefellers was very powerful but then something happened. Rockefellers started to dominate the world oil trade. Rothschilds also wanted to get in to this profitable business and started buying up oil wells in the Baku region of Russia. Soon they had about a third of the Baku oil while the Nobel brother had a third and independents another third. The Rockefellers considered the Baku oil a mortal threat and started to be hostile towards the Rothschilds.
The Jews became alarmed. Their alliance was breaking not only with the Rockefellers but also with the British Wasps who supported the House of Morgan in the railroad wars. The Jews did not want to fight the Morgans nor the Rockefellers. Least of all they wanted to fight them both especially if the British Wasp aristocracy would also turn against them. Some other way had to be found. The solution was obvious. Organize a grand economic alliance against the Tsar. It was easy because both the Rockefellers and the British aristocracy also hated the Tsar. The plan was to crush the Tsar and Russian oil production with the help of the Jewish terrorist network that included Bolsheviks and especially Stalin who was their union man in Baku. The stage was now set for the Russo-Japanese War.
LINK TO STALIN WORKED FOR THE ROTHSCHILDS ARTICLE
1904 Russo-Japanese War
The Jews and especially Jacob Schiff financed the Japanese military build-up so that it could check and even challenge Russian power. Also Britain and America were using Japan as their proxy to stop Russian expansion further into Asia. So Japan made a surprise attack against the Russian navy. At the same time the Jews unleashed their Jewish terrorist network against the Tsar. The Jew Trotsky almost managed to topple the Tsar in the 1905 revolution. But then the French decided to save the Tsar and pressured him to make peace with Japan, stop Russian expansion into Asia and give concessions to the revolutionaries. Then the French brought Russia and Britain together. The Triple Entente was born.
Naturally the Jews were shocked. They did everything in their to power prevent an alliance between Britain and Russia. They almost succeeded but the British Wasp elite led by Alfred Milner and his “Kindergarten” was convinced that an alliance with Russia and France against Germany made perfect sense. British aristocracy led by Winston Churchill agreed because they were also tired of Jewish manipulation. So Milner Group made sure that there was at least de facto alliance with Russia. Now things looked very bad for the Jews.
Progressivism and the FED
The British elite and the House of Morgan had abandoned the Jews by allying with Russia. Even Rockefellers were suspicious of the Jews. However, all agreed that the ruling elite must rule and therefore the state must be powerful. Thus the ruling elite systematically promoted the progressivist idea of social engineering.
Although it is an outworn generalization to say that 19th century economists were stalwart champions of laissez faire, it is still true that deductive economic theory proved to be a mighty bulwark against government intervention. For, basically, economic theory showed the harmony and order inherent in the free market, as well as the counterproductive distortions and economic shackles imposed by state intervention.
In order for statism to dominate the economics profession, then, it was important to discredit deductive theory. One of the most important ways of doing so was to advance the notion that, to be genuinely scientific, economics had to eschew generalization and deductive laws and simply engage in empirical inquiry into the facts of history and historical institutions, hoping that somehow laws would eventually arise from these detailed investigations. Thus the German Historical School, which managed to seize control of the economics discipline in Germany, fiercely proclaimed not only its devotion to statism and government control, but also its opposition to the abstract deductive laws of political economy.
It was a new social science that lauded the German and Bismarckian development of a powerful welfare-warfare state, a state seemingly above all social classes, that fused the nation into an integrated and allegedly harmonious whole. The new society and polity was to be run by a powerful central government, cartelizing, dictating, arbitrating, and controlling, thereby eliminating competitive laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and the threat of proletarian socialism on the other. And at or near the head of the new dispensation was to be the new breed of intellectuals, technocrats, and planners, directing, staffing, propagandizing, and selflessly promoting the common good while ruling and lording over the rest of society. (Murray N. Rothbard. “World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals.” in The Costs of War: America’s Pyrrhic Victories, by John V. Denson, ed. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1999. P. 278-9)
Especially the Jewish intellectuals were enthusiastically disparaging natural law ethics, economic laws and rationalism in general. Absolutist ideas and values had to be replaced by relativism. What state needed was modernist culture and pragmatist ethics. This was possible only with extreme empiricist philosophy called positivism.
The attitude toward economics that Positivism fuels is that of a relativist social engineer whose motto is “nothing can be known with certainty to be impossible within the realm of social phenomena and there is nothing that one might not want to try out on one’s fellow men, so long as one keeps an open mind.” Not surprisingly, this message was quickly recognized by the powers that be as a mighty ideological weapon in the pursuit of their goal of increasing their control over civil society and of enriching themselves at the expense of others.
Accordingly, lavish support was bestowed on the Positivist movement, and this movement returned the favor by destroying ethics and economics as the traditional bastions of social rationalism. It eradicated from public consciousness a vast body of knowledge that had once constituted a seemingly permanent part of the heritage of Western thought and civilization, paving the ideological ground of the twentieth century as the “age of unlimited social experimentation.”50 (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The Great Fiction, p. 464)
The ruling elite also agreed that the state must control the banking system since it was evidently in danger. Fractional reserve banking system made it possible to create money out of nothing but it also made the whole banking system unstable. There was always the danger of a bank run. Fortunately there was a simple solution for the banks: Create a central bank that can organize the banks into a huge cartel that can create even more money and support banks in case of bank runs.
The national banking system provided only a halfway house between free banking and government central banking, and by the end of the nineteenth century, the Wall Street banks were becoming increasingly unhappy with the status quo. The centralization was only limited, and, above all, there was no governmental central bank to coordinate inflation, and to act as a lender of last resort, bailing out banks in trouble. No sooner had bank credit generated booms when they got into trouble and bank-created booms turned into recessions, with banks forced to contract their loans and assets and to deflate in order to save themselves. (Murray Rothbard. Origins of the Federal Reserve.)
But who would lead the central bank? Naturally none of the three groups (Wasps, Jews, Rockefellers) of the ruling elite trusted each other. So there were long negotiations and finally in the Jekyll Island a power shareing agreement was reached. It took a few years to manipulate the Congress to pass the necessary laws but in 1913 the Fed was born. Rothbard explains:
The Federal Reserve was the outgrowth of … years of planning, amending, and compromising among various politicians and concerned financial groups, led by the major financial interests, including the Morgans, the Rockefellers, and the Kuhn, Loebs, along with their assorted economists and technicians. …
With the movement fully primed, it was now time for Senator Aldrich to write the bill. Or rather, it was time for the senator, surrounded by a few of the topmost leaders of the financial elite, to go off in seclusion, and hammer out a detailed plan around which all parts of the central banking movement could rally. Someone, probably Henry P. Davison, got the idea of convening a small group of top leaders in a super-secret conclave, to draft the bill. The eager J. P. Morgan arranged for a plush private conference at his exclusive millionaire’s retreat, at the Jekyll Island Club on Jekyll Island, Georgia. Morgan was a co-owner of the club. (Murray Rothbard. The Case Against the Fed.)
On November 22, 1910, Senator Aldrich, with a handful of companions, set forth under assumed names in a privately chartered railroad car from Hoboken, New Jersey to the coast of Georgia, allegedly on a duck-hunting expedition. …
The conferees worked for a solid week at the plush Jekyll Island retreat, and hammered out the draft of the bill for the Federal Reserve System. Only six people attended this supersecret week-long meeting, and these six neatly reflected the power structure within the bankers’ alliance of the central banking movement. The conferees were, in addition to Aldrich (Rockefeller kinsman); Henry P. Davison, Morgan partner; Paul Warburg, Kuhn Loeb partner; Frank A. Vanderlip, vice-president of Rockefeller’s National City Bank of New York; Charles D. Norton, president of Morgan’s First National Bank of New York; and Professor A. Piatt Andrew, head of the NMC research staff, who had recently been made an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Taft, and who was a technician with a foot in both the Rockefeller and Morgan camps. …
But despite the delay and numerous drafts, the structure of the Federal Reserve as passed overwhelmingly in December 1913 was virtually the same as the bill that emerged from the secret Jekyll Island meeting three years earlier. Successful agitation brought bankers, the business community, and the general public rather easily into line.
In form as well as in content, the Federal Reserve System is precisely the cozy government-big bank partnership, the government-enforced banking cartel, that big bankers had long envisioned. (Murray Rothbard. The Case Against the Fed.)
It did not take long for the Morgans to push the Jews and the Rockefellers to the side and dominate the FED. After all, the Wasp elite still ruled the world.
While the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in late 1913 was the result of a coalition of Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb interests, there is no question which financial group controlled the personnel and the policies of the Fed once it was established. …
[M]ore important than the composition of the Federal Reserve Board was the man who became the first Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and who single-handedly dominated Fed policy from its inception until his death in 1928. This man was Benjamin Strong, who had spent virtually his entire business and personal life in the circle of top associates of J. P. Morgan. (Murray Rothbard. Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy.)
Jews were furious but did not dare to push back too much because they still hoped to break the de facto alliance between Britain and Russia.
1914 The First World War
The Jews were in a tight spot. First, the relationship between Britain and Germany was becoming worse. The alliance between Britain and Russia might soon become official. Second, nationalism was disintegrating Austria. Third, Italy showed signs of exiting the Triple Alliance. Fourth, Russia was industrializing and becoming more powerful by the day. Jews could not wait. They had to start the war as long as Jews could keep Britain neutral and Germany, Austria and Italy still had a chance to beat Russia and France.
Jews and Freemasons probably helped the Serb terrorists to assassinate Franz Ferdinand in 1914 so that the war could finally start. Jews most probably encouraged Austria and Germany to attack Serbia by promising them that Britain would stay neutral. It was a close call. The British cabinet was divided on the question of war. But then the Germans invaded neutral Belgium. This gave the Milner group and Winston Churchill the pretext to get Britain into war on the side of France and Russia.
Britain was certain that its old ally the Morgan banking dynasty could get America to join the war on the side of the Entente powers. But Jews and their allies the Rockefellers stopped that and kept America neutral. Even the false flag operation, the sinking of Lusitania did not manage to get America into war.
The Jews also pushed the Donmeh crypto-Jews to get the Turkish Empire join the war against Russia. But then the British and the French countered by pressuring both Italy and Romania to stay neutral and later get into the war on the side of the Entente. This was a disaster for Germany and Austria. They had to now fight against four great powers.
In 1916 the war was in a stalemate and peace negotiations started. However, the Jews could not let peace break out because the Tsar was still in power. So the Jews and their allies, the Rockefellers proposed a devious deal for the Entente: Topple the Tsar and promise Jews Palestine and then America will join the war on the side of the Entente. The British and the French accepted the deal and helped the Jewish network topple the Tsar and replace him with Lenin’s Philo-Semitic friend Kerensky. After the Tsar was toppled it took only three weeks for America to declare war on Germany and Austria.
But the Jews were playing a double game or rather a double stab in the back. They allowed the Americans to enter the war but they still did not want the Germans to totally loose the war. Now they wanted peace. The Germans and the Jews decided to send both Lenin and Trotsky to Russia to create a Bolshevik revolution that would take Russia out of the war. The plan succeeded in early 1918 and now the Germans still had a chance. But it was too late. American troops were pouring into France and the Germans could not defeat the French even with reinforcements from the east. Germany and Austria stopped the war in the belief that the Jews would help them to get lenient peace terms.