Summary of the article. (This Substack distills every article into time-saving syllogistic infographics. Paid subscribers get more infographics plus videos, personal consultations and group discussions about rationalism, history and trifecta strategies.)

Introduction

The most popular free-speech platform in the world is The Unz Review at unz.com. It is run by a Jew, Ron Unz. He does not seem to personally agree with majority of the articles he publishes but just wants to give people the chance to be heard. Most people within the freedom movement are deeply grateful to Unz for providing an open platform.

Suspicions

At the same time, many remain suspicious of Unz. This became evident recently when Ron Unz published Thomas Dalton’s article on the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion on the front page of the Unz Review, while simultaneously being dismissive and even contemptuous of Dalton’s thesis of a White Genocide organized by Jews. Dalton is a famous revisionist author and publisher so all this sparked discussion in the comments section about whether Unz is acting as a gatekeeper.

The link to article and its comment section.

The Unz Review has become so popular and influential within nationalist circles that it is entirely natural to wonder why a Jew is leading the website. Consequently, evaluating the ‘Gatekeeper Theory’ is a valid approach. Here are several reasons why many remain suspicious of Unz:

1. Jewish background

Ron Unz is a Harvard-educated Jew and technology entrepreneur who was trained in theoretical physics and made his fortune in financial software.

2. Stereotypically Jewish

Unz appears to be a classic Ashkenazi Jew of purely Eastern European Jewish ancestry. He is intelligent, looks Jewish, and sounds Jewish. He was brough up in a purely Jewish, Yiddish speaking family by a single mother who was active in leftist causes and Democratic politics. He displays the typical Jewish combination of aggressive energy, drive, liberal values, sarcastic humor, and a willingness to make chutzpah-laden statements that shock Gentiles.

3. IQ 214

In 1994, as Ron Unz challenged the Republican primary for California governor, he was the subject of a positive, deep-dive article by the Los Angeles Times. While the profile made no mention of his Jewish roots, it famously spotlighted his 214 IQ.

Dan Schnur, Wilson’s spokesman, said one call to First Boston Bank, one of Unz’s former employers, yielded this tidbit: Unz is remembered as the only job applicant ever to list his IQ on his resume.

In fact, Unz may have one of the few IQs worth noting on a resume. It has been estimated at 214, a statistic that one intelligence expert describes as “one in a million.” Educated at Harvard, Cambridge and Stanford universities, he has mastered not only theoretical physics and computer programming, but also ancient Greek history. The author of several scholarly papers on the Spartan naval empire, he is probably the only gubernatorial candidate who warms to the subject of Plutarch.

4. Nerdy

Unz does not appear to have a wife or children. The Los Angeles Times interviewed Unz’s friends and visited his home noting his nerdy life style.

A visit to Unz’s large Spanish-style home in Palo Alto reveals a life completely built around work. Three of the five bedrooms--which house his company, Wall Street Analytics Inc.--are filled with files and computer equipment. The rest of the house appears largely unoccupied. He sleeps on a mattress and box spring set on the floor. His spacious living room not only lacks furniture--it is utterly empty.

“I’ve only lived here a year,” he says, nodding toward a well-appointed kitchen he has never used. “Monomaniacal” is the word one friend says Unz uses to describe himself. Asked what he does for fun, he answers: “I’ve been very busy.”

5. Long mainstream career

Despite his high intelligence and extensive education, for decades Unz was a mainstream Jewish political activist who despised critics of Jewish power. He himself now states that he was thoroughly brainwashed by mainstream academia and media.

6. The American Conservative

Even after beginning to wake up, Unz spent years by funding The American Conservative magazine thus gradually transfering from Jewish neoconservatism to America First paleoconservatism. However, the magazine still refused to touch the Jewish Problem.

7. The Unz Review

After leaving The American Conservative and founding the Unz Review, Unz has engaged in some important revisionist analysis of major historical events (World War II, the Holocaust, JFK, 9/11), yet he remains contemptuous of conspiracy analysis in general because he continues to hold academia and thus mainstream scientists and historians in high regard. Of course this is not surprising considering that his alma mater is Harvard. Thus often his method is merely to unearth reputable mainstream academic scholars who published on the topic before being blacklisted by mainstream institutions under political pressure.

8. War of Paradigms

While Unz’s approach has its strengths, it too easily dismisses or ignores independent scholars and those from non-mainstream schools of thought. In fact, Unz often dismisses even such historians and professors as Carroll Quigley and Murray Rothbard considering them too out of mainstream and conspirational.

Rothbard often responded to this attitude by urging critics to ‘check their premises.’ On this methodological point, he actually agreed with his nemesis, Lord Keynes:

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. (General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Book VI, Section V.)

Consequently, any rigorous argument must acknowledge its foundational framework and contrast it with competing paradigms. Presupposing that one’s own framework is uniquely valid, while systematically ignoring alternative frameworks and methodologies, directly contradicts the scientific method.

9. Natural Science Paradigms

This explains why Rothbard emphasized the work of Thomas Kuhn, who famously demonstrated that even the natural sciences operate under competing paradigms. Rather than dismissing alternative frameworks out of hand, one should critically engage and compare them. Unfortunately, Unz appears to dismiss these discussions with utter contempt, strongly discouraging or forbidding any debate surrounding alternative scientific paradigms. This includes topics such as UFOs, virus denial, free energy, nuke denial, extraterrestrial theories, Gaia hypothesis and many others.

Admittedly, these alternative theories are often approached simplistically, lacking methodological awareness. Nevertheless, they can still be engaged productively by emphasizing that a scientific theory must be falsifiable to be tested in practice. If empirical testing is rendered impossible due to an alleged “super-conspiracy,” then proponents must at least acknowledge the purely speculative nature of their paradigm. Ultimately, science requires humility from both sides.

Of course, it is unsurprising that Unz maintains an aggressive attitude toward competing natural science paradigms. As a Harvard-educated theoretical physicist, he may be concerned about his own reputation among his peers.

10. Social Science Paradigms

Rothbard noted that if even in natural sciences the prevailing paradigms might sometimes be wrong then in social sciences that is even more likely. Unfortunately Unz also automatically adheres to mainstream paradigms across social sciences. In fields like economics and politics, he ignores alternative frameworks and schools and automatically defers to orthodox mainstream schools of thought.

This is hardly surprising given Unz’s background in theoretical physics. As Friedrich von Hayek famously observed, physicists frequently attempt to transplant the methodologies of mathematics and natural science into the humanities. This cross-disciplinary “methodological imperialism” often breeds an unscientific scientism, fostering a penchant for social engineering and an overly idealistic faith in democratic processes. Consequently, Unz appears to largely dismiss Elite theory, thereby rejecting both the Iron Law of Oligarchy and the fundamental concept of a ruling elite.

This would explain not only his refusal to engage with the work of Quigley and Rothbard but also his deep admiration for prominent mainstream Harvard-educated scholars such as Jeffrey Sachs who truly believes in both neo-Keynesian and democracy paradigms. Ironically, it was Sachs’s mainstream economic and political counsel in the 1990s that helped destabilize the Russian economy that facilitated the transfer of its vast resources into the hands of Jewish-Russian oligarchs. Sachs himself is also Jewish.

In fact, the present relativist mainstream social science paradigms and democratic order have been largely created and maintained by Jews. It is hardly a coincidence that the present philosophical relativist paradigm seem to both protect and cloak the Jewish Dominant Minority in the West.

The link to article.

11. Jewish-Gentile Cycle

It is also no coincidence that the Jewish-sponsored relativist framework makes it easy to hide Jewish power grabs and thus the existence of a Jewish-Gentile Cycle of conflict and exploitation. This cycle has now ground the White race down to the point where it is ready for the slaughterhouse of total genocide.

The link to the article.

12. Four Phases of Genocide

In fact, paradigmatic philosophical relativism makes it especially difficult to examine the four last phases of slaughter genocide aimed at the total erasure of the White race — the greatest threat to Jewish hegemony. These four successive steps are: first, gradual White replacement through the opening of borders; second, White genocide via the melting pot of forced integration; and third, Jewish Grand Conspiracy that aims at world hegemony and inverts Western culture through woke globalist police-warfare state, Satanic Jewish elite that not only systematically demonizes rationalism and Christianity but also genocides the White race with Gaza-level ruthlessness. Unz appears to reject the existence of each of these steps.

1. Rejects White Replacement Theory

Despite publishing many articles critical of mass immigration, he does not view the rapid growth of the Hispanic population in California or the broader United States as a serious threat. Instead, he contends that the potential challenges of mass immigration can be effectively mitigated through monolingual education, welfare restrictions, and the implementation of a minimum wage.

The link to article.

Consequently, Unz rejects White Replacement theory. Given Unz’s leftist Jewish upbringing and political identity as a California Republican, this is hardly surprising. In fact, the main reason he challenged Pete Wilson in the 1994 Republican primary was his pro-immigrant stance:

Unz, who grew up in a Yiddish-speaking household, says, “America is successful because we have assimilated immigrants.” Only a few years ago, few took the geeky ideologue seriously. Infuriated by what he saw as Governor Pete Wilson’s anti-immigrant stance, Unz challenged him in the ‘94 G.O.P. primary, garnering 34% of the vote. (Margot Hornblower. The Man Behind Prop. 227. June 8, 1998. AllPolitics. Emphasis added.)

Of course, there would be little point in Unz running again in the Republican primaries, given that demographic shifts have transformed the region into a one-party Democratic stronghold—or, as conservatives would say, a hellhole.

2. Rejects White Genocide Theory

Many conservatives mistakenly think that just because Unz publishes something in The Unz Review, he agrees with it. That is not the case at all. In fact, both publicly and privately, Unz frequently and aggressively dismisses many of his conservative readers as low-IQ idiots and many of his writers as paranoid cranks. He seems to be especially critical of scholars warning of White Genocide such as Thomas Dalton and David Skrbina.

The link to article.

3. Rejects Grand Jewish Conspiracy

Since Unz does not believe in the White Genocide theory is is not surprising that he also rejects the idea that the Jewish elite, the Rothschilds, or even Zionists have pursued a long-term Grand Jewish Conspiracy aimed at world hegemony. He seems to treat any suggestion that such a conspiracy has existed for centuries with contempt.

Perhaps this aversion to Grand Jewish Conspiracy theory also explains why Unz does not seem to believe that most, if not all, wars are connected to the Jewish supremacist desire for world hegemony — just as Mel Gibson famously observed. The Iran War, the Ukraine War, and the Taiwan Crisis, for example, are all directly linked. Israel is using the United States, EU, Ukraine, and Taiwan as proxies to punish Russia and China for supporting the Palestinians, the Iranians, and other enemies of Jews and Israel. It is as simple as that.

The link to article.

However, it does seems that Unz has lately started to connect the dots especially as the New Cold War between East and West is escalating. The Jewish Dominant Minority in the West obviously manipulates the United States and the EU into creating conflicts and waging wars on behalf of Jews and Israel across the globe. This is nothing new. The same pattern of proxy warfare was already practiced by the Rothschilds in the 1800s, the Franks in the 1700s, and the Mendes family in the 1500s and 1600s. It is the long-standing modus operandi of the Jewish elite. Jewish elite seems to be continuing its age-old strategy of escalation with the final step of escalating toward “limited” nuclear strikes in Eastern Europe, the Taiwan Strait, and especially in Iran. Of course, they would prefer to pressure the US to use nukes, but Israel might nuke Iran alone if necessary, as long as the US gives it cover.

The link to article. See also Part II: Plan to Nuke Iran on 11.11.11.2026.

Few days ago Unz finally took the nuclear escalation threat seriously:

I was initially quite skeptical of such claims, but a few days later attorney Robert Barnes confirmed those same facts. Barnes was a long-time insider in Trump circles and still seemed to have excellent sources in the Trump Administration. In an interview he claimed that on three separate occasions Trump had discussed the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, each time being forced back by strong resistance from the military. (Emphasis added.)

The link to article.

4. Rejects Satanic Jewish Elite theory

While Unz seems to be waking up to the existence of a Grand Jewish Conspiracy or at least Grand Israeli Geopolitical Conspiracy he is still especially contemptuous of any attempt to combine alternative paradigms with Grand Jewish conspiracy theories — for example, the claim that the Jewish elite is Satanic and trying to weaken and kill the White race with vaccines and other Big Pharma products.

This radical “ultimate” theory of the last phase of Jewish-Gentile Cycle sees the Jewish elite consisting of truly evil people who direct the Big Business–Big Government alliance to conquer-rape Mother Nature with greedy materialism while systematically morally corrupting, intellectually dumbing down, psychologically atomizing, economically impovershing and physically poisoning, torturing, and killing Gentiles through various methods, including brainwashing, vaccines, Big Pharma drugs and continuous wars fought for Jewish interests.

Image: Infographic of the Satanic Jewish Elite theory.

There is no clear proof of the Satanic Jewish Elite theory, but it is not impossible either. After all, according to Austro-Libertarian theory at least, statist elites have a tendency to become increasingly evil and even satanic. Many other schools of thought likewise observe that in politics the worst tend to rise to the top. Lord Acton famously noted that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This appears to have happened especially in America and Israel. One need only consider the character and scandals of Clinton, Obama, Trump, not to speak of Netanyahu and his cabinet of genocidal monsters. Moreover, the Epstein Files revealed that Jeffrey Epstein was running an international pedophile and blackmail network for the Rothschilds and Israel. It is certainly not impossible that the Jewish elite maintains the loyalty of its top members through truly evil and even satanic practices. In fact, under current economic and geopolitical conditions doing so would offer clear financial and political benefits for the Jewish elite. Even if it is not yet satanic, there is a clear tendency to become so.

The link to article.

Although falling birth rates threaten the existence of Whites, they simultaneously make the remaining population more religious and conservative. Religious conservative Whites tend to have significantly higher birth rates than liberal Whites. This will inevitably and gradually render Whites highly critical of Jews and drive them to fight actively against the Jewish elite. In fact, these religious conservatives will tend to view the Jewish elite — if not all Jews — as satanic, thereby intensifying the conflict still further.

The Jewish elite can already see this danger. It would therefore not be surprising if they escalate by outlawing “antisemitic” conservative religions and using the school system to brainwash children into secular, globalist, woke, and even satanic values. There are already liberal Jewish activists who wish to declare “antisemitic” conservative religions a form of child abuse, remove children from their parents, and place them with liberal foster families that will thoroughly re-educate and corrupt them. Children with a strong predisposition toward rationalism and racial pride and who refuse to turn against their parents and their race would be registered, monitored, and later controlled as adults — or jailed and eliminated if necessary. All of this is almost inevitable, because the Jewish elite has no other choice but to escalate.

Two Possible Explanations

It is not yet clear if the The Unz Review rules will allow active discussion of the Jewish-Gentile Cycle and its last “slaughter” phases. Now the rules do not clearly specify which subjects are forbidden, and the boundaries seem to shift over time. A few years ago Unz regarded AIDS deniers as dangerous crackpots; he now largely accepts the Duesberg thesis. Likewise, he once treated vaccine skeptics with extreme contempt as dangerous antivaxxers, yet he has since become quite critical of many vaccines himself. Despite this Unz is still surprisingly aggressive towards those he sees are crossing the line of acceptable theories.

Many observers conclude that Unz functions as a Jewish gatekeeper who has gathered antisemites in one place so that they can be listed, monitored, controlled, directed, and ideologically neutralized.

There is, however, another explanation: Unz is an honest Jew whose basic humanity has allowed him to gradually free himself from the more aggressive aspects of Jewish culture and indoctrination. That process is still incomplete. We should give him time and admire him for being able to almost break the Overton Window, despite it costing him both social and financial capital.

This second explanation accounts for the pattern of his life, although naturally only the future will reveal which interpretation is correct.

Three Practical Suggestions

In the meantime, three steps might reduce suspicion and further improve the platform:

1. Bio or Memoirs

Ron Unz is now a sufficiently prominent and powerful figure that a brief account of his life and of how he came to run the largest free-speech platform would be highly useful. It would answer many legitimate questions and lessen understandable curiosity and distrust.

In light of his strong stances on multiple issues, it would be highly beneficial if he would articulate his overarching framework, methodology and main theories. It would be especially important for him to explain his views on the Jewish Problem and the White Genocide—or, at the very least, clarify whether he is willing to seriously consider these theories and let others speak about them freely.

2. Fringe Section

Why not create a dedicated section on the Unz Review for alternative theories and paradigms that are currently discouraged or forbidden? These pieces could be placed at the bottom of the topic list or otherwise clearly separated and labeled “Fringe Theories.” Such a label would signal Unz’s own disagreement without heavily insulting the authors, thereby protecting his credibility with mainstream researchers and readers.

A fringe section could attract additional readers who might then explore the rest of the site. The main risk — that fringe commentators would flood and disrupt ordinary discussions — could be managed by a simple rule: fringe theories may be debated only in the comment sections of fringe articles and may not be injected into unrelated threads. For example, repeatedly denying the existence of nuclear weapons in a discussion of nuclear-war dangers.

Such a section would likely increase overall traffic while allowing ideas of freedom and open inquiry to spread more widely in all directions.

3. Patience

Gentiles should not take Unz's aggressive style personally; rather, they should remember that such a style is quite common in Jewish circles. For those who still feel insulted, rather than resorting to counterattacks, it might be more useful to remind Unz that his views have evolved, and that everyone should maintain an open mind to encourage the search for truth. That is often a long process so patience is required from everyone.

Unz seems to agree with this view, having proven his commitment by providing a massive free speech platform. He not only talks about these principles but also acts in defense of free speech—an effort that certainly earns him much respect.

Image. Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell with Epstein’s victims.

Introduction

Jeffrey Epstein has now been exposed by the Epstein files as a representative of Rothschilds and Israel whose job was to blackmail leading figures of American culture, science, economy and politics to act in the interests of the Jewish elite and Israel.

Tweens

Unfortunately, a significant number of people still minimize Jeffrey Epstein’s and his Jewish network’s actions by pointing to age-of-consent laws. They argue that because the age of consent is lower in many countries outside the United States, consensual relationships with teens should not be criminalized.

Some internet personalities, such as Nick Fuentes who has lately got a lot of exposure in the mainstream media, have even attempted to reframe Epstein’s image as misunderstood and his sexual exploitation of underage girls as “cool.” However, these arguments ignore a critical fact: Epstein’s targets included tweens—prepubescent children between the ages of 10 and 12. This reality was documented as early as 2019 in the Unz.com article.

Originally the article included a Youtube video summarizing the long article. The video was very popular but was soon censored. However, there is a Bitchute back-up, which is now republished below. It serves as a necessary reminder of the nature of Epstein’s criminal obsession with tweens, a topic that appears to have been largely forgotten.

Click the image or here.

Image: Principality of Liechtenstein

Summary image: The Liechtenstein Model. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words. All readers receive at least one summary infographic, but paid subscribers often get more plus special links, videos and personal consultations and group discussions about rationalism, history and trifecta strategies.)

Introduction

The Austro-Libertarian Theory of History begins by dividing human action into two categories: peaceful and aggressive. Aggressive action forms the basis of statism—a system that has plagued world history like a parasite. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has shown with his Political Regression theory, statism sabotaged the natural order of a free society, which was originally guided by a propertarian, natural elite. Over time, statism gradually transformed this natural order into increasingly aggressive political systems, moving from traditional aristocracy to monarchy, and finally to modern globalist woke democracy.

The link to article.

Decentralism

Unfortunately, Hoppe has not developed his Political Regression theory further, leaving many questions unanswered. For instance, could there be free, propertarian variations of aristocracy, monarchy, and democracy? Fortunately, the Austro-Libertarian theory provides the answer. It is based on the European Miracle, the tradition of individualism and political decentralism that made Europe the freest and richest continent. The most decentralized and thus the freest part of Europe was, of course, the Holy Roman Empire. It is here that the European freedom developed in the free cities and principalities of Northern Italy, Switzerland, Champagne, Netherlands and Germany.

The link to article.

Liechtenstein

Fortunately the Holy Roman Empire is not over yet. A small part of it still exists: The Principality of Liechtenstein. Hoppe has often emphasized how it is almost the perfect libertarian country because its constitution is based on decentralization and the right of secession. Furthermore, it balances aristocracy, monarchy, and direct democracy in an almost perfect manner.

Image: Liechtenstein’s Constitutional Order Simplified.

Hoppe’s support for Liechtenstein is entirely logical. After all, within a natural order, the Iron Laws of Oligarchy and Dynastism ensure that the natural elite consists of leading families who largely dominate the country’s cultural and economic landscape. These family dynasties ensure the nation is protected from both hostile invasions and demographic infiltrations through a militia-based army and strict immigration restrictions.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Liechtenstein has one of the strictest immigration restrictions in the world.

The link to video.

What-If-History

In principle, the libertarian natural order could function without a formal aristocracy within a Swiss-style republican culture. In practice, however, the psychology of the masses and historical development in most countries would naturally result in an aristocratic order. If the Jewish elite had not financially and organizationally supported political centralization during the Middle Ages, aristocrats especially in the Holy Roman Empire would have been forced to gradually relinquish their taxing capabilities and other statist powers by the 1200s at the latest. They would have transitioned into mere private landowners while retaining their noble titles and considerable social influence, ensuring the propertarian system remained both stable and popular.

Similarly, without the financial and organizational backing of Court Jews (Hofjude), monarchs would have lacked the means to fund a statist apparatus and centralize power through a money monopoly (“money machine”) beginning with the monopolization of the mint and legal tender, followed by fractional-reserve banking and fiat money. Under those conditions, a monarch would have remained merely the leading aristocrat and military commander, stripped of any taxing or statist authority.

Furthermore, without the inflation and business cycles generated by state-controlled monopolist monetary systems coupled with Jewish Culture of Critique, citizens would have avoided the socialist infection and been content with limited direct democracy. This localized democracy would only decide over truly common matters. For example, cultural events, charity and basic border issues, such as the militia, the army and immigration controls.

This libertarianism would lead to so great peace and prosperity that the global landscape would ultimately look like thousands of independent Liechtensteins and Monacos, each representing their national traditions and interests. As Hoppe has said:

We must promote the idea of secession. Or more specifically, we must promote the idea of a world composed of tens of thousands of distinct districts, regions, and cantons, and hundreds of thousands of independent free cities such as the present-day oddities of Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

Secession

It appears the Prince of Liechtenstein, Hans-Adam II, has been influenced by some Libertarian ideas on decentralism and secession.

“Hans-Adam succeeded in a libertarian “reform from above” when Liechtensteiners approved his package of constitutional amendments in 2003. Beattie (2004a, p. 176) notes that Article I was amended to read: “The purpose of the Principality of Liechtenstein is to enable the people living within its borders to live in freedom and peace with each other.” …

The Prince’s package of amendments contained another libertarian proposal: a guaranteed right of communes to secede from the state. Some of his critics argued that the measure would encourage division and, in any case, was not necessary because the communes had a right to secede under existing provisions. Hans-Adam II, however, wanted the right to secede explicitly stated for two reasons. First, he is a firm believer in the right of self-determination and wanted to set an example internationally. Second, in a particularly far-sighted observation, he noted that, at some point, Switzerland might join the European Union and, if it did, Liechtenstein might well follow because of the close economic and political connections between the countries. Some communes, however, may not want to join the European Union, and codifying a right to secede would guarantee them a way to opt-out.44

Interestingly, Hans-Adam’s initial proposals on secession were not limited to communes; he wanted to give districts and even individuals the right to secede. His critics, however, considered these aspects unworkable. Beattie spends little time on the debate over Hans-Adam’s proposal to allow individuals to secede, only noting that some critics argued that individuals could already secede by leaving the country.45 However, since individuals could already leave the country, it would have made little sense to constitutionalize that right. Thus, the Prince likely wanted to guarantee individuals the right to declare themselves independent of the state in a manner similar to that suggested by libertarians such as Herbert Spencer (1851), Hoppe (2001), and Murray Rothbard (1982, p. 182).46

This proposal, considered in light of the amendment to Article I that emphasizes that membership in the principality is based on free will, suggests that Hans-Adam has been influenced by libertarian views on secession and the state. As Andrei Kreptul (2003) notes, even liberal democratic thinkers who recognize a right to secede consider the modern compulsory state absolutely necessary for a “just” society and do not favor secession by individuals.47” (Andrew Young. Freedom and Prosperity in Liechtenstein: A Hoppean Analysis. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 02/18/2020.)

Feminists

Unfortunately, the population of Liectenstein seems to have less libertarian instincts than the ruling family. For example, about 30-50 percent of the population wants to increase taxes, government expenditures and even demand hate speech laws. All this is dangerous especially since leftists are determined to destroy the constitutional order of Liechtenstein with the assistance of the Jewish dominated mainstream media. As seen throughout history, the strategy relies on engineering the perspective of women to break down the family-based natural order. To achieve this, feminists are attempting to legalize satanic child sacrifice (abortion) in Liechtenstein through a referendum. This push continues despite - or because of - the fact that the princely family has threatened to abdicate and leave the country if a clear majority accepts the initiative.

Here is a short summary of the political developments, though it is completely blind to the libertarian aspects.

The link to video

Conclusion

Despite the guiding influence of the invisible hand, a free society does not maintain itself automatically. It requires a natural elite to actively defend its cultural and organizational structure. In many small European countries, this leadership developed organically out of traditional aristocratic families, with Liechtenstein serving as the premier example.

However, proponents of democracy and other leftist factions remain committed to dismantling Liechtenstein and the remaining aristocratic nations of Europe, such as Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, and Luxembourg. Unsurprisingly, they are targeting women as the strategic vulnerability and are currently pushing for a constitutional transformation in Liechtenstein via the abortion referendum. Hopefully, the citizens of Liechtenstein will see through this strategy and stand in support of their over 800 year old ruling family and the tradition of European Liberty.

Summary image: Mises Institute and LewRockwellcom Memory-Holing. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words. All readers receive at least one summary infographic, but paid subscribers often get more plus special links and videos.)

Introduction

Libertarians have always been among the most vocal opponents of censorship. They have taken seriously Voltaire’s dictum:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

It is therefore ironic that today, especially in America, libertarians and libertarian institutions are often among the first to blacklist and memory-hole politically incorrect books and articles. The censored subject is, of course, usually the Jews.

Public vs. Private Censorship

Censorious libertarians and their organizations frequently defend themselves by claiming that they oppose only governmental censorship, not private censorship. This distinction often rings hollow. First, it contradicts the Voltairean principle whenever a private institution helps construct a statist Overton window. Second, it ignores the fact that the state frequently contracts out its dirty work to private military companies, private institutes, and similar bodies.

The most dramatic example of a libertarian institute performing the government’s dirty work is the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Under the leadership of Lew Rockwell it has purged politically incorrect scholars in five successive waves and has memory-holed various books and articles.

The link to article.

LewRockwell.com Memory-Holes

It is not only the Mises Institute that engages in purging. Lew Rockwell’s own news blog, LewRockwell.com (LRC) — originally intended as the more radical and feisty counterpart to the scholarly Mises Institute — has also a tradition of memory-holing articles. This is clearly visible in its archives. First, the search function has disappeared. Second, the list of authors keeps shortening without explanation.

All this has occurred even though the archives themselves still exist. LewRockwell.com literally memory-holes hundreds of articles simply by removing both the search function and the author’s name from the author list.

The link to LRC Authors Archive.

Jeffrey Tucker Memory-Holed

A striking example of memory holing is the former editorial vice president of Mises Institute, Jeffrey Tucker. For many years he was a regular contributor at both Mises.org and LewRockwell.com, writing hundreds of articles. Many of these were important works of Austro-libertarian analysis and review, yet gradually more and more of them have vanished, as detailed in the article “Mises Institute’s 5 Purges: Omitting Jewish Bankers.”

Tucker’s LRC archives, however, still exist if one knows the exact link.

The link to articles by Jeffrey Tucker.

Why were Tucker’s articles memory-holed? Nobody knows. That is one of the maddening features of such purges. It resembles Stalin’s Soviet Union: anyone can be purged at any time without any reason being given. The practice helps keep people in line and encourages self-censorship, since everyone fears becoming the next target.

One can only speculate. A possible reason for purging Tucker may have been his vocal opposition to copyright. As explained in the “Copyright Holocaust” chapter of the 5 Purges article, the Mises Institute suddenly reversed its position on copyright and has gradually reintroduced it for many publications. Some have speculated that the purpose is to limit the circulation of writings by Rothbard and others that discuss Jews and, in particular, Jewish bankers.

Tucker himself never criticizes Jews, yet his archives still appear to irritate the Mises Institute because they contain numerous articles attacking copyright.

The link to article page.

Walter Block Memory-Holed

An even more famous libertarian has recently been totally memory-holed by LRC: Walter Block. This is truly amazing since he has published over 500 articles spanning more than two decades. Many of these articles are extremely important contributions to Austro-Libertarian theory.

Of course, the reason for this treatment is clear: his defense of the Gaza genocide. However, does that mean he is wrong and unethical on every other subject? Of course not.

Fortunately, Block’s archives can still be found if you know the direct link.

The link to archives.

Marco de Wit Memory-Holed

Once censorship and memory-holing begin, they rarely stop; they expand. The latest writer to be memory-holed seems to be Marco de Wit. He no longer appears on the author lists. For some reason Google search is unable to find his LRC articles with basic searches. However, his LRC archives remain accessible if one knows the direct link.

The link to article page.

In this case, little speculation is required. De Wit was removed from the author list immediately after his article on the 5 Purges was published on Unz.com. However, as noted in the article, Lew Rockwell is 82 years old, is on extended sick leave, and has not been seen for a long time. Many have speculated that he is not running the LRC anymore. In fact, he might not even know about the latest LRC purges.

Conclusion

Jews are the Dominant Minority in America. It is therefore unsurprising that they constitute the greatest taboo. One is not permitted to state that Jews are very powerful and capable of inducing America both to adopt pro-Jewish policies and to fight wars on behalf of Jews.

Libertarians claim to fight for freedom, yet they are subject to the same pressures as other individuals and political movements. It is therefore unsurprising that many libertarians end up supporting, especially through their organizations, a form of censorship that serves the interests of state and the Jewish elite. The Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com are merely one example among many.

Summary image: Jewish taboo in the American Peace Movement. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words. All readers receive at least one summary infographic, but paid subscribers often get more plus special links, videos and personal consultations.)

Introduction

Geopolitics is simple. All states are extremely selfish and seek as much power as they can obtain. It resembles a neighborhood sandbox in which the biggest bullies rule. The Great Powers dominate their respective regions of the world and have divided the globe into spheres of influence. Yet they constantly look for opportunities to stab one another in the back, expand their power, and ultimately achieve world hegemony. In geopolitics, no one trusts anyone.

West vs. East

The greatest bully and dominant player in geopolitics is, naturally, the United States. Especially under the Trump administration, the US no longer bothers to conceal this reality behind sugary rhetoric. The Game has therefore become clearer than ever. The United States openly demands world hegemony and will sanction, sabotage, or attack any country that refuses to submit to its power.

The laws of the sandbox, as described by offensive realism, predict that it is difficult for the biggest bully to rule unchallenged, because the smaller bullies can form an alliance against it. It is therefore unsurprising that Russia and China have created an Eastern alliance to defend themselves against the United States and have largely received the support of the perennially bullied Global South. The world is now divided into two camps — West and East — locked in a constant cold war and standing close to hot war.

Yet something in this geopolitical picture does not make sense. During the present millennium the United States has repeatedly attacked countries that pose no real threat to it. At the same time it has given total support to Israel’s expansion and to the open genocide of the Palestinians. It has done so even though these policies have destroyed American credibility in international relations and driven many countries, especially in the Global South, toward the Eastern alliance.

The Israel Lobby

The explanation is simple and was set out by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their classic 2007 book The Israel Lobby. American foreign policy is largely under the influence of Israel. Consequently the United States wages wars on Israel’s behalf while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the Israeli apartheid state’s warmongering and to the genocide of the Palestinians. Moreover, the United States uses proxies such as Ukraine and Taiwan to attack Russia and China in retaliation for their support of Israel’s Arab and Iranian enemies.

The link to article.

This geopolitical picture is very clear, yet many people still refuse to accept it. How can such a small country as Israel exert great influence over so huge a country as the United States? Mearsheimer explains that the reason lies in the vulnerability of democracies to determined special-interest groups. That is a relatively sound explanation, but understandably it still fails to fully convince many observers. The simple reason is that never before has a tiny country succeeded in turning a geographically distant great power into its slavish proxy to such an extent that the great power is prepared to destroy its own economic and foreign-policy interests.

Dominant Minority

Can special-interest-group politics really explain everything? No, it cannot. One further factor is required. It is the largest elephant in the American living room: the Jews. Professor Kevin MacDonald has shown that Jews in America constitute what political scientists call a Dominant Minority. This is nothing extraordinary; dominant minorities are common throughout history. All that is required is a diaspora group possessing relatively high average IQ and strong ethnocentrism. Obvious historical examples include the Spanish in Latin America, the Chinese in Southeast Asia, and the Tutsis in Central Africa.

There are millions of Jews in the United States who maintain a strong Jewish identity and loyalty to the Jewish state of Israel. They possess a powerful ethnic network that has worked, literally for hundreds of years, to secure highly influential positions in academia, the media, and the economy — especially in finance and banking. It is therefore unsurprising that they are able to use special-interest politics so effectively that they largely control the US Congress, particularly in the field of foreign policy.

In fact, most senators and representatives appear to have a Jewish contact person or handler who ensures that they never vote against the interests of Jews and Israel. Congressmen who refuse to obey are punished: first they are smeared in the media, and then, during elections, their opponents are supported and financed by Jewish organizations and Jewish billionaires.

To lock this control in place, Israel and the Jewish billionaire network led by the Rothschilds also operate a blackmail system that controls many leading politicians, businessmen, and media figures, as revealed by the Epstein Files.

The link to article.

The Jewish Taboo

If Jews are so obviously a Dominant Minority in America, why does nobody talk about it? Why does even John Mearsheimer refrain from discussing it, especially when doing so would greatly strengthen his Israel Lobby thesis? The answer is simple. As Voltaire observed: look at who you are not allowed to criticise, and you will know who rules you.

The Jewish taboo in America is so powerful that even the peace movement does not dare to point out how Israel uses the United States as its proxy in the struggle against the “antisemitic” Eastern alliance. In fact, the American peace movement actively conceals the fact that the principal reason for American aggressiveness toward Russia and China is those countries’ support for Israel’s enemies. The peace movement is especially careful not to notice that Russia has been the main enemy of the Jews for over thousand years.

The link to article.

One of the most prominent members of the peace movement has been the former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He has done his best to downplay the influence of Israel and has long refused to link the conflicts in Ukraine and Taiwan to Israeli expansion in the Middle East. In effect, Ritter and the peace movement give Israel carte blanche to continue warmongering and to push its American proxy into creating conflicts and wars across the globe on Israel’s behalf.

The link to article.

The situation appears to be even worse. Israel famously never backs down; it only escalates. It can do so because it enjoys the total protection of the United States. Therefore, Israel is determined to rearrange the geopolitics of the Middle East by destroying all regimes that are allied with Russia and China. Israel even prefers extreme Islamists, like ISIS or Al-Qaeda, to secular, Russia-aligned governments. Thus, it also famously helped the ISIS leader Jolani to replace the Russia-aligned Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Now, Israel, America and Trump are the best friends of this literal head-chopper.

The link to video.

Even more alarmingly, Israel now seems to be pushing for limited nuclear war in Eastern Europe, the Taiwan Strait, and Iran. By refusing to connect the dots and by remaining silent about the geopolitical power of Israel, Ritter and other leaders of the peace movement help Israel drive the world to the brink of total nuclear war.

Ritter’s silence is all the more remarkable considering that he does not believe in the possibility of limited nuclear war. He believes that even one or two nuclear strikes will inevitably lead to full nuclear war.

The link to article.

Iran War

During the Iran War the role of Israel in pushing the United States into conflict became obvious, especially through the revelations of the former director of Center for Counter-Intelligence, Joe Kent. Furthermore, even President Trump and some mainstream media outlets admitted that the United States was going to war for Israel. Incredibly, they presented this as a good and moral thing to do. Moreover, Jewish organizations and three Jewish-American billionaires organized the electoral defeat of the Repulican congressman Thomas Massie in order to punish his anti-war stance and to stop his effort to force the release of the Jewish Epstein files. This was done openly and publicly, as a warning to anyone who dared challenge the power of Jews and Israel.

The link to article.

All this Jewish escalation and overreach has outraged Ritter and parts of the peace movement, causing them to begin noticing Israel and its American Jewish power base. Ritter has even publicly started to note the connection between the Ukraine and Iran wars, though incredibly he and others still remain hesitant to state it explicitly.

In fact, many members of the peace movement are now trying to downplay the responsibility of Israel and deflect from its actions by blaming Trump. Scott Ritter, in particular, now emphasizes that the problem is not so much Israel, but the fact that Trump is totally crazy and all the Western leaders are stupid. Even if that were true, the fact remains that they were put in those leading positions and kept there by the support of Jews and Israel. In essence, they are just the useful idiots of Jews.

The link to article.

Alexander Mercouris

The members of the peace movement are still very afraid to mention Israel, let alone Jews, but at least they are making some effort to connect the dots and occasionally speak out. However, there appears to be one prominent member of the peace movement who still absolutely refuses to notice either the Jews or the geopolitical power of Israel: Alexander Mercouris. Curiously, Mercouris used to notice Jews a few years ago. He even remarked on the Jewishness of Jeffrey Epstein and his network. About a year ago, however, Mercouris openly admitted that he is afraid YouTube will shut him down if he talks about Jews.

It seems Mercouris is financially dependent on his YouTube channel and career. He frequently mentions his young wife and children, and many have therefore understood his silence on the subject of Jews. Yet the larger his audience has grown, the less he speaks about Jews and Israel. Now that his YouTube career seems to generate approximately 10,000 dollars a month, he is not merely silent; he has increasingly begun to cover up for Jews. He has reached the point where he even downplays the power of the neocons.

Yesterday, 18 August 2026, Mercouris tried on his YouTube channel to explain away why the United States allows Ukraine to attack its economic assets. After all, Ukraine has repeatedly attacked ships loading Kazakh oil at the partly American-owned Caspian Pipeline Consortium terminal in the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. These attacks have continued despite strong protests from American officials and oil executives and repeated promises by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky that they would not happen again.

The power of the Zionists and Israel — backed by Jewish-American billionaires and the Jewish Dominant Minority — is clearly so great that even the powerful American oil industry must submit to the interests of Israel and its proxy war against Russia. But you would never guess that by listening to Mercouris:

“The Ukrainians have now attacked tankers that loaded oil in Novosorisk - again - in apparent violation of that promise. What are the Americans going to do. They are going to do absolutely nothing. They are going to look the other way as the Ukrainians continue to attack the assets of American companies.

Perhaps some departments of the American deep state are actually active in facilitating the attacks on assets of those American companies.”

Those elements of the Deep State are, of course, led by Jewish billionaires, neocons and often military and intelligence professionals holding dual American-Israeli nationality. But it is all a total mystery to Mercouris.

“Maybe, maybe there are some people in the Trump administration who are angry. Maybe the oil companies are angry. But Zelensky’s devoted friends in Washington will always protect him. They will always cover for him. They will always explain away whatever actions or steps he takes even - as I said - those directly attack American economic interests and Zelensky will get away with it and he will just go on doing it.”

So why does Ukraine get away with it? Who are those “devoted friends” of Ukrainian President Zelensky? Could they be Jews like Zelensky and his inner circle?

The link to article.

Of course, Mercouris does not notice Jews. Instead he continues:

“Again we see how Zelensky, and not just Zelensky but Ukraine, the United States in effect has a scorpion by the tail. Mostly it can guide and control that scorpion. But when the scorpion is minded it can sting even its patron in the sure knowledge that the patron is never going to object.”

So Ukraine is the powerful Scorpion that has forced the US to submit?

“It is baffling and absurd. Anybody who is at all familiar with the modern history of United States can think of any number of occasions when United States has reacted extremely fiercely to attacks on American economic assets. Far more far lesser attacks than the ones from Ukraine in the Black Sea that we now see. But this time the Americans are choosing to say nothing.” (52 minutes. Emphasis added.)

So why Americans say nothing? Why they accept being attacked? Because Ukraine is such a powerful scorpio?

The link to video.

Tiny Bit

One wonders when Mercouris will admit the obvious. Even Trump now publicly admits that the Iran war is being waged on behalf of Israel. In his search for the geopolitical “Big Deal,” he often seems to admit that the three great conflicts—Ukraine, Taiwan, and Iran—are connected. Furthermore, his defense of his pro-Israel policy has gone to absurd levels. In one of his midterm campaign speeches, he reminded the audience that Americans should accept higher gasoline prices for Israel, especially because they have increased by only a “tiny bit.”

On 14.8.2026 Friday on Midterm campaing trail Trump said the following:

“For you to pay a tiny bit more for your gasoline just remember you are doing it so that a very evil country cannot have - a country really is the number 1 state sponsor of terror in the world - we never want for them to have nuclear weapon.” (7 min 10 sec. Emphasis added.)

CNN anchor gleefully noted:

“A tiny little bit more for gasoline. You have a sense that maybe coming in a democratic ad near you.” (7 min 30)

The link to video.

Especially Trump and the Republican Party are now so totally controlled by Jews that the party appears to be willing to commit suicide in the midterm elections by continuing the Iran war and keeping inflation and especially the price of gasoline high. Trump is either totally blackmailed by the Jewish Epstein Files and/or convinced that Jewish power will protect him with huge campaign donations, media support, and by fixing the elections with redistricting and possibly with vote fraud.

Conclusion

Geopolitics remains a ruthless contest for power in which the United States should pursue the interests of American people. Instead it systematically sacrifices those interests by fighting wars and sustaining policies that serve Israel’s expansion, geopolitical ambitions and the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians. The explanation lies in the combination of a highly effective Israel Lobby and the status of American Jews as a Dominant Minority with deep influence over Congress, media, finance, and elite networks of patronage and blackmail.

A powerful taboo in America prevents open discussion about Jewish power. Even the peace movement largely refuses to connect the dots, thereby granting Israel continued freedom to escalate. Alexander Mercouris represents the most extreme case: once willing to note Jewish involvement, he has, as his audience and income have grown, moved from silence to active cover-up.

As long as this Jewish taboo and the self-censorship it creates continue, America will keep sabotaging and even destroying itself for Israel’s sake, while the peace movement’s silence leaves the door open to wider war and nuclear holocaust.

Image: Jewish-Gentile Cycle. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words. All readers receive at least one summary infographic, but paid subscribers often get more plus special links and videos.)

Introduction

Google’s AI, Gemini, is famous for being highly politically correct and aggressively censoring users’ writings. It is also censorious when asked to create infographics; for example, it refuses to generate detailed infographics about the Jewish-Gentile Cycle.

Gemini’s Summary

Surprisingly, Gemini does give a relatively good summary of the Jewish-Gentile Cycle. Apparently, Gemini is less censorious textually than it is with infographics. Moreover, it probably helps to distribute copyright-free writings.

Below, Gemini AI gives an excellent one page summary of the Jewish-Gentile Cycle. It mostly avoids using the word “Jew,” but the point remains clear in context. The word “Jew” and other additions and comments have been marked with brackets.

GEMINI EXPLAINS:

Introduction

“The concept of the “Jewish-Gentile Cycle” is a distinct historical and sociological framework developed uniquely by the alternative political theorist Marco de Wit. While various theologians and historians have written extensively on the shifting relations between Jewish communities and host nations, de Wit is the only author who explicitly uses and theorizes under this specific term.

His model synthesizes [Jewish political scientist and historian] Benjamin Ginsberg’s “Fatal Embrace” theory—which posits that Jewish political influence peaks when allied with strong centralized states—with classical Austro-libertarian theories of state growth, fiat inflation, and cartelization. The resulting framework describes a recurring, symbiotic relationship between a [Jewish] financial-religious minority elite and state rulers, driven by the acquisition of monopoly-cartel privileges at the expense of both the host population and ordinary Jewish citizens. "[Good that it points out that both the Gentile and Jewish masses are exploited by the Jewish-Gentile elite.]

The Four Stages of the Cycle

De Wit outlines the progression of this historical dynamic through four distinct, sequential stages:

1. The Fatal Embrace (Economic Domination & Privileges)

The cycle initiates when a financial-religious minority elite aligns directly with state rulers. In exchange for funding the state’s apparatus, wars, or debts, this elite purchases lucrative monopoly-cartel privileges—such as tax farming, [White and Black slavery, war contracting, trade and banking monopolies,] usury, and central banking monopolies.

Crucially, they also buy cultural and legal autonomy privileges. De Wit notes that historical Jewish leadership (rabbis who frequently belonged to or were financed by the elite financier families) used this state-backed autonomy to lord over ordinary Jews, enforcing strict internal community compliance and trapping them under centralized control.”

[Again excellent to bring up this point. The Jewish elite is, in effect, indoctrinating the Jewish masses, a process facilitated by high levels of both positive and negative ethnocentrism, as well as a culture of Jewish omertà.

What is missing from Gemini’s description of the Fatal Embrace is the subcycle within it. This subcycle begins with the manipulation of the economy—especially the money supply—through monopolies, cartels, and debt, which subsequently triggers an artificial boom-bust cycle. The resulting economic bust causes political instability as the exploited masses begin to protest. At this point, the Gentile elite typically abandons the Jewish elite, often using them as a scapegoat to deflect blame from their own role in the exploitation. Competing Gentile factions also exploit the situation to weaken the power of the Jewish faction. They may even help transform mass protests into violent massacres and expulsions.

This outcome creates a powerful incentive for the Jewish elite to transition from a direct, visible monopoly economy to an indirect, relatively invisible monopoly-cartel economy. They achieve this by establishing a monopolistic “money machine.” This process begins by helping rulers monopolize the mint and debase currency, but it later evolves into creating an even more invisible fractional reserve banking system directed by a fiat-money-based central bank. This mechanism not only allows the population to be taxed through invisible inflation but also cartelizes the economy via preferential credit.

This shift from direct to indirect exploitation largely explains the Hoppean Political Regression Theorem regarding state development. It maps the trajectory of the state as it regresses from a relatively natural and rationalist aristocracy to a more irrational and centralist monarchy, and finally to a globalist democracy.

This dynamic increases political centralization and thus the ultimate power of the state by turning it from an open robber into a smart thief. In effect, the state learns to milk the public more efficiently while simultaneously deceiving them, thereby gaining greater legitimacy for its rule. Through this process, the state becomes more farsighted with a lower time preference, while the population is dumbed down and incentivized to heighten their time preference.

This increase in state deception and power occurs especially during economic crises and wars. Although it decreases slightly after the conflict or crisis ends, it creates a zigzagging statist ratchet effect that ensures a long-term increase in statism.]

2. The Culture of Critique (Cultural Subversion) [Coalition Politics]

“To protect these acquired state privileges from the native [host] population, the [Jewish] elite influences the host nation’s cultural [and political] landscape. This stage involves weaponizing and financing philosemitic political, media, and academic factions. The primary objective is to critique, deconstruct, and weaken the traditional, unifying cultural narratives and institutions of the majority host population, rendering them uncoordinated and unable to effectively oppose state-backed [Jewish dominated] monopolies.”

[Cultural and political subversion is conducted through both media influence and coalition politics in order to become the dominating faction in ruling elite and become what political scientists call the Dominant Minority. Coalition politics involves playing both ruling factions and population factions against each other. It also involves organizing minority coalitions and creating new minorities through mass immigration.

Note that Professor Kevin MacDonald is not mentioned by Gemini, despite the fact that he is the scholar most associated with the concept of the Culture of Critique. Moreover, as MacDonald has noted, the process of the Culture of Critique creates its own subcycle; when the Jewish elite pushes its critique, coalition politics, and population replacement too far, the natural ethnocentrism of Whites is awakened, as occurred in the 1920s and 1930s. This reaction typically slows down the cultural and genetic replacement, creating a cultural cycle similar to the economic ratchet effect. However, in the long run, the power of the Jewish elite continues to steadily expand.]

3. The Great Game (Geopolitical Arbitrage)

“The [Jewish] elite expands its security apparatus by manipulating foreign policy and international relations [to make the Gentile state fight wars for Jews]. By steering the wealth, media, and influence of relatively philosemitic states, they orchestrate geopolitical maneuvers to counter, destabilize, or isolate rival foreign states deemed hostile or “antisemitic” to their domestic arrangements. “

[Note that Gemini does not mention offensive realism and Professor John Mearsheimer, who has shown how the Israel Lobby largely controls American foreign policy.

In practice, for millennia, the Jewish elite has been able to be a major player in the Great Game of geopolitics by playing Gentile states against each other. During this game, the Jewish elite also helps organize philo-Semitic revolutions, such as the English, American, and French Revolutions.]

4. The Hiding Game (Narrative Control & Censorship)

“The final stage secures the system by creating a false statist consciousness. Utilizing intellectual gatekeepers and media monopolies, the [Jewish] elite enforces strict taboos and implements “hate speech” laws. This effectively censors pattern recognition among the populace, erasing the visibility of the cycle itself and insulating the elite’s state-backed privileges from public scrutiny or academic investigation.”

[This is a great summary, though it forgets to mention the famous Jewish-led Frankfurt School and its role in creating a false statist-relativist consciousness among Whites through the manipulation of the Overton Window.]

Conclusion

“In de Wit’s synthesis, the Jewish-Gentile Cycle functions as a tragic, self-perpetuating loop of statism and blowback. The [Jewish] financial-religious elite thrives by using state power to cartelize the economy and dominate their own community. However, because a monopoly-cartel economy is fundamentally extractive, it inevitably stagnates, leading to public outrage and populist rebellions. When the system collapses into chaos, ordinary Jews—who lack mobility and are trapped by the actions of their leaders—are left behind to suffer the violent brunt of the populace’s blowback.

Meanwhile, the financial-religious leaders, possessing highly liquid wealth, simply migrate across borders to a new host country. Safe in a new jurisdiction, they approach the ruling class, purchase fresh privileges, and restart the four-stage cycle from the beginning.”

End Game

The summary is surprisingly good but of course, Gemini does not explain the End Game: The Jewish-Gentile Cycle continues as long as the Jewish elite tries to maximize its power like all other monopoly seeking organizations.

Conclusion

Gemini’s summary of the Jewish-Gentile Cycle is relatively good. Let us hope it is not so good that it will be censored like related infographics.

Let us also hope that Gemini learns that from the libertarian perspective, the greatest sin of world history is monopolism, i.e., statism. Monopolists will escalate until they are stripped of their privileges.

For millennia, the leading monopolists have been the Jewish elite. Thus, the Jewish-Gentile Cycle will end only when:

1. Jewish elite achieves global hegemony

2. Jewish elite triggers a nuclear holocaust

3. Jews are expelled from the West

4. End of statism or at least the FED

Image: David Gordon, the “Purge Mastermind”.

Introduction:

The most popular piece on this Substack covers the Mises Institute’s purges. It was also published by the Unz Review.

Image: Unz Review Front Page and article Mises Institute’s 5 Purges: Omitting Jewish Bankers.

Grok Attacks

Grok first tried to debunk the article's thesis but gradually accepted it, though the AI still downplayed and censored Jewish influence. While it initially refused to generate an infographic, it eventually agreed to create one after sanitizing the content. For example, Grok refused to use the term 'Jewish monopolies,' even when referring to historical tax farming, White slave trading and banking monopolies.

Audio by PFS Book Club

Then the Property and Freedom Society (unofficially) aligned Book Club created an audio recording of the article.

Translation by Rothbard Institute

Now, the brave and feisty Instituto Rothbard has translated the article into Portuguese, adding a few clarifying images and links to further defend Murray Rothbard's legacy. They even translated Grok’s comments into Portuguese, exposing his censorious behavior.

Image: Portuguese translation of Mises Institute’s 5 Purges: Omitting Jewish Bankers.

Book Project

There have also been inquiries about expanding the article into a book. After all, the original piece omitted many important names, such as Raimondo, Block, Hulsmann, DiLorenzo, Napolitano, de Coster, French, and especially the Habsburg family. Creating this book is entirely possible under the same conditions as the Rationalist Paradigm and Turning Points of History series: it just requires modest capital and some research assistance. Naturally, the sponsors would also become co-authors and investors, getting a cut of the potential profits. The libertarian goal is to make these Austro-Libertarian books highly engaging with revealing facts and infographics, ultimately rendering the series self-financing.

Image: White and Jewish Cycle of Imperialism. Unfortunately Grok censored the concept of Jewish elite. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words. All readers receive at least one summary infographic, but paid subscribers often get more plus special links and videos.)

Introduction
A core tenet of libertarian thought has long held that political and economic freedom rapidly generates national prosperity. Paleolibertarians, however, have challenged this proposition by observing that nations differ systematically in intelligence, personality traits, and culture. Populations of lower average intelligence encounter greater obstacles in discarding socialist fallacies; moreover, lower intelligence impedes economic development through organisational inefficiencies, reduced savings rates, and diminished attractiveness to foreign direct investment.

White Paradox
Paleolibertarians observe that both the White and Yellow races (Europid and Mongoloid) possess relatively high average intelligence and can therefore achieve prosperity once their economies are liberalised. Whites enjoy an additional advantage in their comparatively higher psychological individualism, which facilitates the near-automatic adoption of free-market principles. Consequently, many have concluded that White nations display the strongest propensity toward both freedom and prosperity.

This account, however, fails to explain two recurrent tendencies. First, White nations exhibit a pronounced inclination not only toward internecine warfare but also toward direct or indirect colonialism in distant territories. Second, White societies display a marked susceptibility to social engineering and leftist cultural values, culminating in the contemporary extremes of feminism and “wokeness.” The question therefore arises: why do individualist, peaceful, and free White nations so readily descend into both militarism and leftist excess?

In other words, why do Whites and especially the Germanic people want to dominate and boss others around — that is, why do they have an imperialist attitude?

Schizophrenic Individual
Only Austro-Libertarianism furnishes a comprehensive theory of history capable of reconciling these apparent contradictions. It does so by integrating Austrian economics with evolutionary psychology, anarchist political science, and offensive realism, all under the methodological principle of individualism.

Analysis begins at the level of individuals and small groups by combining praxeological utility maximisation with evolutionary psychology. Every individual harbours two contradictory dispositions. On the one hand, all persons grasp the libertarian principle of propertarianism and peaceful interaction; without this understanding, society would disintegrate and succumb in the perpetual competition among ethnic groups. On the other hand, individuals recognise that libertarian norms are advantageous primarily in positive-sum situations. In negative-sum domains—status competition and the mating market, for example—personal interest favours covert violation of the rules or the securing of public exemptions from them. Virtually everyone seeks privileges such as immunity from criticism, preferential status, subsidies, monopolies, and cartels while denying these advantages to most others.

Individuals are therefore, in a literal sense, schizophrenic. Reason and instinct alike enable comprehension of rationalism and libertarian norms, yet the same faculties propel relativist and authoritarian behaviour. This dualism accounts for the frequent dominance of childish emotions even among adults: at one moment an individual may be fully rational and cooperative; at the next, greed, lust, jealousy, or other primitive impulses render him deceptive and aggressive. Inasmuch as emotion predominates in human motivation, there are, strictly speaking, never “adults in the room.”

White Rationalism
The same schizophrenia observable in individual personalities appears at the national level, for nations are aggregations of individuals. Consequently, nations, like individuals, remain emotionally at a childish stage of development. Owing to their evolutionary history in the climatic “goldilocks zone,” however, Whites—and Germanic populations in particular—exhibit the strongest relative genetic predisposition toward individualism and, by extension, rationalism. The perception of oneself and others as self-responsible agents leads logically to rationalism and propertarianism.

White Conscience

Because of their relatively high levels of rationalism and libertarian propertarianism, Germanic social organisation is self-regulated chiefly by individual conscience. Extensive external policing is largely unnecessary, since the mutual benefits of positive-sum relations are also readily apprehended. This generates a self-reinforcing cycle that embeds propertarian norms deeply within Germanic conscience and culture. The result approximates an automatic meritocracy in which natural alpha elites predominate, supported by beta males whose instinctive jealousy is overridden by admiration for their superiors and by the expectation of benefiting from meritocratic leadership.

White Militarism
Germanic populations are relatively more individualist, rationalist, and therefore propertarian than other groups. This superiority, however, remains only relative; even Germanic individuals are not fully individualist or rationalist. Formed under harsh Darwinian conditions, nations necessarily retain a collectivist dimension that enables defence against external threats and the organised destruction of enemies through statist, militarised structures.

Like individuals, nations possess both a peaceful, positive-sum side and an aggressive, negative-sum side. Among Germanic peoples the aggressive side manifests itself in highly efficient state-building, which produces relatively effective military organisations.

Paradox of Imperialism

The conjunction of relatively elevated rationalism, social cooperation, and meritocratic statist capacity renders the Germanic states the most formidable war-making force in history—especially when financed by the most advanced relatively free-market economies the world has known. This produces what Hans-Hermann Hoppe terms the Paradox of Imperialism: the most rationalist, freest, and most prosperous states display a pronounced tendency toward globalist imperialism and hegemony.

Though Hoppe does not explicitly note it, obviously the Germanic states tend to become the most powerful imperialist powers. This is for two reasons: first, states have a general tendency to expand; second, Germanic states command the superior resources produced by their relatively free cultures and economies.

Image: Paradox of Imperialism.

Racial Cycle
The libertarian peacefulness and propertarian conscience of Whites, and of Germanic populations in particular, is sufficiently strong that their warlike and statist dispositions requires specific triggers—most commonly a clear external threat or, more frequently, overpopulation as in the Indo-European expansions, the Germanic migrations and the fall of Rome, the Viking age, and the conquest of the Americas and Australia. Paradoxically, Germanic peoples are in general the most peaceful until the imperialist impulse is activated, at which point it is amplified by the racist attitudes latent even in them.

World history over the past five millennia may thus be interpreted as successive waves of northern peoples imposing racially hierarchical states upon southern populations—not because northerners are intrinsically the most imperialistic, but for the opposite reason. Over time, however, statist dominion over the subject population corrupts the White elite; the White relatively individualist-propertarian culture grows progressively more statist and collectivist, producing both dysgenic decline and cultural degeneration. The empire eventually disintegrates, inviting a fresh White invasion from the north and the inauguration of a new racial cycle.

Image: March of the Titans.

Video link for paid subscribers:

White Naivety
This racial cycle largely accounts for the rise and fall of empires. It does not, however, explain why, for the past several centuries, White empires have frequently advanced the interests of Jews. Two additional factors are required: naivety and state capture.

Evolutionary development in the goldilocks zone rendered Whites—and Germanic peoples especially—not only relatively individualist but also relatively low in ethnocentrism. They therefore exhibit both the highest levels of social trust and the highest degree of naivety. Individualism and naivety appear to be linked: when others are perceived primarily as individuals, the burden of proof is more readily placed upon oneself. Strangers are presumed honest and cooperative until evidence to the contrary appears. Collectivists adopt the opposite presumption, regarding strangers as dishonest and dangerous until proven otherwise.

Jewish-Gentile Cycle
Germanic naivety facilitates propertarianism and commerce, yet it simultaneously increases vulnerability to deception and manipulation by a highly intelligent hostile foreign group. The statist-imperialist instinct, and with it the racial cycle, can therefore also be activated by deception when a highly intelligent diasporic Jewish financial elite enters a Germanic society and offers the natural elite the instruments of statist exploitation in exchange for social and economic privileges. The outcome is a Jewish-Gentile Cycle of exploitation and conflict: first monetary capture, then state capture, which in turn permits the indoctrination and mobilisation of the host population to wage wars on behalf of the Jewish elite.

Statist Cycle

The existence of both the Statist Cycle and the White Imperialist Cycle accounts for the relative ease with which the Jewish elite has been able to manipulate especially the Germanic populations. First, Germanics exhibit a comparatively high degree of naivety. Second, the Germanic masses can be manipulated with relative ease with the help of the Germanic elite. Thus the Jewish elite needed only to exploit the decentralized political structure of Europe by aligning itself with relatively philosemitic Germanic elites and supporting them against their more antisemitic counterparts. In this manner it was able to rise from a junior to a senior faction within Germanic ruling elites and ultimately to dominate their states. Once that position was secured, it became relatively straightforward both to indoctrinate the Germanic host population and to redirect the imperialist tendencies of the Germanic state toward the service of Jewish elite interests. The Jewish-Gentile Cycle is thus only the hijacked latest stage of the White Imperialist Cycle.

Conclusion

The distinctive trajectory of White—and especially Germanic—societies arises from a fundamental dualism inherent in both individuals and the nations they compose. High average intelligence combined with elevated individualism predisposes these populations toward rationalism, propertarianism, and meritocratic order, generating the conditions for exceptional freedom and prosperity. Yet the same evolutionary inheritance retains a collectivist and aggressive dimension forged under Darwinian pressures. When activated by external threat, overpopulation, or the deceptive inducements of a highly intelligent foreign elite, this dimension produces efficient state-building, imperialism, and the Hoppean Paradox of Imperialism.

The resulting racial cycle—conquest, elite corruption, cultural and genetic decline, imperial disintegration, and renewed northern expansion—accounts for the recurrent rise and fall of White-dominated polities during the last 5000 years.

Compounding this pattern during the last millennia is the comparatively low ethnocentrism and consequent naivety of Germanic populations, which facilitate both high-trust commerce and vulnerability to state capture by hostile Jewish diaspora elite.

In this manner, the very traits that enable White nations to achieve unparalleled liberty and wealth simultaneously render them prone to militarism, leftist cultural excess, and the subordination of their own interests to those of Jewish elite. The Cycle of White Imperialism and its hijacking into a Jewish-Gentile Cycle is therefore not an aberration but the predictable outcome of the schizophrenic structure of human action operating under statist conditions.

The article Mises Institute’s 5 Purges: Omitting Jewish Bankers has now been published also at the Free Speech Headquarters, Unz.com. It has generated some interesting discussion.

Furthermore, the article is now also available as an audio recording, featuring some laughs and humorous mimicry of the quoted authors.

Even more curiously, the recording has been titled using just the subtitle. Perhaps out of fear of the X censorship noted in the article itself?

The recording was created by Property and Freedom Society aligned book club.

Unfortunately, the reading doesn’t include the photos, pictures, infographics, and links from the article—just the core text. Perhaps someone could create a new audio recording (basically audio book) featuring commentary (maybe together with the author and PFS Book Club members), more laughs, and especially that great mimicry of the quoted authors. The mimicry of Rothbard and Hoppe, in particular, was hilarious!

Thank you very much Property and Freedom Book Club!

Image: The Two ATM Traps. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words. All readers receive at least one summary infographic, but paid subscribers often get more.)

Introduction

Many Northern European travelers live in a bubble, often failing to realize how prevalent dishonesty and scamming can be in other parts of the world. In Northern Europe, transferring money between accounts, withdrawing cash from an ATM, and making everyday purchases with cash or credit cards are seamless actions done without a second thought. However, in the U.S. and many developing nations, these routine transactions are fraught with hidden risks.

[Below one extra infographic for paying members.]

The ATM Vulnerability

Tourists frequently assume that navigating foreign automated teller machines is safer than dealing directly with local banks and cashiers. In reality, it can be a financial minefield. While travelers generally expect standard transaction fees, they are often unprepared for physical machine tampering or predatory software tricks. Understanding the distinction between an outright physical scam and a legalized exchange markup is crucial for protecting your vacation budget. By learning to spot these two distinct ATM traps, you can ensure your hard-earned money stays exactly where it belongs: in your pocket.

The Physical Cash Trapping Scam

The physical “cash trapping” mechanism is a blunt-force criminal operation where fraudsters install hardware modifications over an ATM’s legitimate components. Thieves slide a false bezel or a sticky-tape barrier inside or over the cash dispensing slot to intercept banknotes before they can emerge. When you attempt to withdraw money, the internal mechanisms register a successful payout, but the bills remain trapped behind the counterfeit panel.

Unwary travelers often assume the terminal is simply malfunctioning and walk away to seek help, which allows a nearby criminal to quickly peel off the trap and claim the stolen cash. To prevent this, always jiggle the cash slot to ensure it is secure, and never abandon the machine if your card is processed but no cash is presented. Additionally, remember that it is much safer to use indoor ATMs rather than outdoor ones. Typically, the safest ATMs belong to major banks that feature dedicated ATM lobbies monitored by the bank’s own security guards.

The Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) Trap

Unlike physical fraud, Dynamic Currency Conversion (DCC) is a completely legal, software-based trap executed by foreign bank networks. When you insert a foreign debit card, the ATM screen will ask if you want to be billed in your home currency (such as USD) instead of the local currency (such as Euros or Yen). The ATM uses intentionally confusing language, promising a “guaranteed rate” to manipulate you into accepting the conversion. If you agree, the ATM operator applies an abusive, non-wholesale exchange rate that can quietly append a 3% to 15% hidden markup to your transaction.

Fortunately, you can instantly bypass this financial trap by always selecting the local currency of your destination. This forces your home bank to handle the exchange using competitive, standard industry rates.

[Video below explaining in detail the confusingly non-intuitive DCC Trap for paying subscribers.]

Conclusion

Safeguarding your funds abroad requires a dual approach of physical vigilance and mathematical awareness. The cash trapping scam targets distracted travelers who walk away from a seemingly broken machine, while the DCC trap exploits those who mistake home-currency convenience for actual financial savings. Inspect every ATM terminal before inserting your card, and always reject the machine’s offer to calculate your conversion rates. Staying observant ensures that your international travel remains memorable for the right reasons, free from unnecessary financial losses.

Image: Mises Institute fellows and professors: Hans-Hermann Hoppe vs. Joseph Salerno on private censorship.

Censored image: This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words. However, AIs often refuse to generate politically incorrect infographics. Initially Grok refused to generate this infographic and gave instead a long lecture on the great trustworthiness of the Mises Institute. Here is an example:

After being pushed, Grok finally agreed to generate an infographic but refused to include the terms “Jewish monopolies” (historical tax farmer, slave trade, war contractor, trade and banking monopolies) and “Jewish Problem” (Diaspora group refusing to assimilate). Yet other American AI models are even more censorious. ChatGPT, for instance, flatly refuses to discuss historically documented Jewish monopolies, while China’s DeepSeek allows these conversations.

Introduction

The Ludwig von Mises Institute serves as the headquarters for the Austrian School of economics and the rationalist-conservative strain of libertarianism known as Austro-Libertarianism. Although Ludwig von Mises passed away in 1973 and his leading disciple, Murray Rothbard, in 1995, their memory and intellectual message are carried on by the Institute. Led by President Llewellyn Rockwell Jr., the Institute’s foremost resident intellectual is David Gordon—a close friend and disciple of Rothbard. Like Mises and Rothbard, Gordon is Jewish. So too was Burton Blumert, whose Center for Libertarian Studies helped establish the Mises Institute before later integrating into it.

Following Blumert’s passing in 2009, only Rockwell and Gordon remain from the original guard. Gordon serves as the scholarly editor of the Mises Review and stands as the ultimate authority on all things Rothbardian. He is deeply revered by the Institute’s student body; some of his student fans even affectionately refer to him as the mastermind or “God” due to his encyclopedic knowledge on virtually every subject.

Image: Burton Blumert, Lew Rockwell, David Gordon and Murray Rothbard

Together, Rockwell and Gordon have led the Institute for decades, dramatically expanding its footprint into a multi-building campus where thousands of university students and scholars have been educated on the principles of liberty.

Link to video Why I Support the Mises Institute.

Masterminds

Austro-Libertarianism is renowned not only for its free-market ideology and cultural conservatism, but particularly for its anti-war, isolationist foreign policy. This stance is rooted in an Austro-Libertarian Theory and historical narrative that views the United States as the world’s foremost imperialist power. At first glance, the Austro-Libertarian theory of history appears paradoxical. Much like Marxist theory, it posits that world history is largely driven by genetic and economic forces. However, unlike Marxism, it assigns a key role to specific individuals who operate at the crossroads of history when economic crises and wars create turning points. These key actors can be great generals, politicians, or entrepreneurs—but they can also be intellectuals. Occasionally, these intellectuals act as true masterminds, steering the course of history toward either liberty or tyranny through the sheer force of their ideas and personality.

Austro-Libertarians believe that during the last century, two great masterminds successfully turned the wheel of history toward liberty: Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Mises championed the fight against socialism. His disciple, Rothbard, not only expanded Mises’ work into a comprehensive, rationalist anti-statist paradigm, but also laid the foundations for the modern paleolibertarian movement alongside allies like Howard Buffett, Ron Paul and Patrick Buchanan.

The most famous of these allies is former Congressman Ron Paul, who remains closely associated with the institute. His historic campaigns in 2008 and 2012 brought him remarkably close to securing the Republican presidential nomination. Today, the Ron Paul Liberty Movement continues to exert significant influence within the Republican Party, MAGA and the larger libertarian movement.

Link to End the Fed chant video.

Exposing the Ruling Elite

Ludwig von Mises combated socialism within both the realm of ideas and practical politics, arguably saving much of Central and Eastern Europe from early communist collapse. However, he remained noticeably silent regarding the great power wielded by the Rothschilds or other Jewish banking families in establishing central banks, the cartelized economy and financing wars. Early in his career, Rothbard maintained a similar silence. However, after becoming disillusioned by the statism and warmongering of both the New Left and the Jewish movements like neoconservatism, he abandoned his “leftist outreach” in the early 1970s. Rothbard grew progressively more conservative and became willing to directly criticize the Jewish faction of the ruling elite.

Ultimately, the core of Austro-Libertarianism is a rationalist opposition to statism and political centralization. Murray Rothbard maintained that the state could only be dismantled by exposing its ruling elite and uncovering its specific roles in engineering economic crises and wars. He refused to exempt warmongering factions or financial elites from scrutiny simply because they were Jewish. Instead, Rothbard argued that researchers must objectively study all power structures to determine who dominates the ruling elite of the United States and especially its foreign policy.

Rothbard concluded that the American establishment is primarily dominated by three distinct networks: the WASP elite, the broader White American elite, and the Jewish elite. Historically, he traced the leadership of these factions to three dynastic names: the Morgans leading the WASP elite, the Rockefellers leading the American elite centered around the Republican Party, and the Rothschilds leading the international Jewish financial elite. Rothbard summarized his thesis as follows:

“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.2

Although these two financial blocs usually clashed with each other, they were as one on the need for a central bank. Even though the eventual major role in forming and dominating the Federal Reserve System was taken by the Morgans, the Rockefeller and Kuhn, Loeb forces were equally enthusiastic in pushing, and collaborating on, what they all considered to be an essential monetary reform.

Note 2: 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 Rothbard. The Origins of the Federal Reserve. p. 14)

Excerpted History of the Three Ruling Houses by Murray Rothbard

Link to article.

Rightist Paleo Strategy

In the 1980s, Rothbard began collaborating with the paleolibertarian German philosopher and economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Consequently, Rothbard became significantly more critical of statism and the ruling elite, while abandoning his earlier open-borders position and other leftist blind spots. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War, Rothbard concluded that the era demanded a radical rightist paleo strategy. Aiming to forge a populist liberty movement, he engineered an alliance between paleolibertarians and paleoconservatives. He advanced this agenda by serving as president of the John Randolph Club and heavily backing Patrick Buchanan’s 1992 presidential campaign.

As part of this “rightist strategy” and “paleo project,” Rothbard—together with Rockwell, David Gordon, Joe Sobran, and Burt Blumert’s Center for Libertarian Studies—published the fiercely paleolibertarian and highly politically incorrect Rothbard-Rockwell Report (RRR). Within its pages, Rothbard presented racialist ideas by defending the book The Bell Curve, criticized Jewish neoconservatives, and even offered some favorable words regarding David Duke.

Censoring Rothbard

Following Rothbard’s unexpected death in January 1995, Rockwell, Gordon, and his other disciples and associates lacked the courage and political will to sustain this rightist strategy. Instead, the Mises Institute and its affiliated scholars gradually distanced themselves from Rothbard’s more radical racialist and Jewish-critical views and materials.

While many of Rothbard’s followers continued to develop his overarching thesis of the ruling elite, they did so with one glaring exception: they chose to ignore, downplay, and actively censor the Jewish faction of the ruling elite. This censorship is starkly apparent in volumes such as David Gordon’s The Essential Rothbard, where Gordon deliberately sanitizes Rothbard’s writings regarding the Rothschilds and the Jewish faction of the ruling elite. The Academic Vice President of the Mises Institute, Joseph Salerno, went a step further by publishing The Rothbard Reader, which almost entirely omits Rothbard’s foundational concept of the ruling elite.

Unfortunately, this systemic omission and censorship is not confined to Gordon and Salerno. Virtually all of Murray Rothbard’s disciples—with the sole exception of Hans-Hermann Hoppe—refuse to address the Jewish Question regarding Jewish power. While they acknowledge problems in Zionism and the State of Israel, they consistently ignore the powerful Jewish elite as a distinct faction within the American ruling elite and completely avoid any analysis of Jews as a Dominant Minority. They go so far as to ignore and censor the influential Rothschild banking dynasty, a remarkable omission given that the Mises Institute explicitly specializes in the history of banking.

Disciples Afraid of Murray Rothbard’s Ruling Elite Theory? Part I. David Gordon

Link to article.

The decision by Mises Institute scholars to ignore the Jewish elite is particularly perplexing considering that, over the course of this new millennium, numerous academics have studied and documented the expanding power of the Jewish elite. For instance, the world-renowned political science professor John Mearsheimer has demonstrated how Jewish-led neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby dominate American foreign policy, transforming it into a highly aggressive, interventionist, “Israel-First” paradigm. Similarly, in his Culture of Critique series Professor Kevin MacDonald has shown that this foreign policy leverage is rooted in the great domestic power wielded by the Jewish elite in the United States, effectively rendering them what political scientists define as a Dominant Minority.

Given that Rothbardian libertarians view war as the primary catalyst for the expansion of statism, one would expect Rothbard’s disciples to be the first to expose the elite Jewish faction of the American ruling elite. One would expect them to aggressively point out its role in instigating endless conflicts that have resulted in genocides and pushed civilization to the precipice of nuclear war. Yet, there is total silence. They steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the Jewish elite, regardless of how organized or warmongering that faction appears to be.

Image: Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. Link to article.

The Censorship Spectrum

Unfortunately, the Mises Institute’s growing tendency to censor the role of the Jewish elite aligns precisely with the five-step censorship spectrum theory. While censorship is traditionally enforced by state apparatuses, it can also be executed by private organizations like academic institutes. In practice, a private entity can function as the enforcement arm of a state-constructed Overton Window. This raises a critical question: Has the Ludwig von Mises Institute transformed into exactly what Murray Rothbard feared most—court intellectuals serving the interests of a tyrannical and warmongering state?

Both statist and private institutional censorship follow a predictable 5-step trajectory: they begin by passively ignoring probabilities, transition to concealing facts and enforcing taboos, advance to dishonestly denying established truths, and ultimately culminate in the destruction of primary sources. In the United States, private censorship is exceptionally severe regarding the Jewish faction of the ruling elite and the concept of a Jewish Dominant Minority. This process unfolds across five distinct stages:

1. Ignoring the Jewish Elite and Probable Conspiracies

   Ignoring and sidestepping analysis of Jewish elite and its possible involvement in America’s key historical turning points, e.g., the American Revolution, the War of Northern Aggression, the Spanish-American War, the creation of the Federal Reserve, WWI, WWII, the JFK assassination, the USS Liberty massacre, 9/11 and the War on Terror, the Iraq Wars and the Ukraine-Iran War.

2. Refusing to Discuss Documented Jewish Influence

   Suppressing dialogue on historically verified power centers (e.g., Court Jews, Jewish banking dynasties, the Frankfurt School, and neoconservatism).

3. Imposing Taboos

   Avoiding all discussions concerning Jewish power to prevent uncomfortable questions from surfacing.

4. Denying Influence

   Actively denying and dismissing probable and factual Jewish influence through various intellectual excuses.

5. Covering Up Influence

   Destroying primary and secondary sources and heavily restricting publications that challenge the established narrative.

The first step of this spectrum ignores any analysis regarding the existence or potential conspiracies of the Jewish faction of the ruling elite, regardless of probability. The second step refuses to engage with documented evidence of Jewish power, no matter how undeniable the historical record. The third step avoids the topic of Jews entirely to prevent controversial ideas from taking root, making the J-word a functional taboo. The fourth step actively denies the existence and influence of the Jewish faction within the ruling elite using deliberate misdirections. Finally, the fifth step directly targets critics of the Jewish elite through professional blacklisting and boycotts, while systematically hiding, burying, or restricting the publication of critical literature.

This spectrum or continuum of information destruction is the exact reverse of research and creating new information. True research requires forming a new hypothesis and thesis, sharing that thesis, defending it against alternative theses, and finally becoming part of the public narrative. Censorship tries to hinder and stop this process at each step of the way with lies and social pressure backed by statist propaganda, indoctrination and violence.

Theory of the 5-Step Information Control Spectrum

Link to article.

The First Purge: Ignoring the Rothschilds

These five stages of censorship are vividly apparent in the Mises Institute’s literary output, particularly within David Gordon’s primary role: authoring book reviews for the Mises Review. Established immediately after Rothbard’s passing, Gordon was the natural choice for Chief Editor. First, Gordon is a self-avowed Rothbardian, stating:

“Ever since I first read Man, Economy, and State in 1962, I have been a convinced Rothbardian, and it is from this standpoint that I have written my articles.” (David Gordon, An Austro-Libertarian View, p. 1)

Second, Gordon had demonstrated great loyalty in political battles, even actively assisting Rothbard in combating Jewish-led neoconservatives and their strategic deployment of the “anti-Semitic” label against critics. For instance, Gordon published a notable article in the RRR titled “In Search of Buckley’s ‘Hypersensitivity to Anti-Semitism’.”

Third, Rothbard placed immense trust in Gordon’s intellectual capabilities. As early as 1979, Rothbard wrote directly to him:

“I have been in the scholarly world for a long time, and it is my considered opinion that you are a universal genius unequalled in my experience.... The only flaw in your makeup is that you don’t seem to have the slightest idea of what a genius you are.

The fact that your talents have so far gone unrecognized and untapped is a horrible waste and injustice, and Ron Hamowy and I are embarking on a personal crusade to do something about it.” (David Gordon, An Austro-Libertarian View, Preface by Lew Rockwell, p. xiv)

In the three decades following Rothbard’s death, Gordon has penned hundreds of book reviews from a Rothbardian perspective. Many of these essays significantly enriched Austro-Libertarian theory and were compiled in 2017 into a magisterial, three-volume collection titled An Austro-Libertarian View, spanning over 200 articles and 1,500 pages.

Image: David Gordon. An Austro-Libertarian View. Download.

Yet, a glaring question remains: How many of these scholarly reviews identify a Jewish Dominant Minority or even acknowledge the Jewish faction of the ruling elite? The answer is simple: Not a single one.

In doing so, Gordon has answered Rothbard’s profound trust by betraying his legacy where it matters most: suppressing Rothbard’s core mission to expose the exploiting and warmongering ruling elite.

Gordon’s omission is not an isolated oversight, but rather part of a calculated institutional shift. Following Rothbard’s death in 1995, Mises Institute President Lew Rockwell, alongside David Gordon, initiated a policy of sanitizing the most racially and politically controversial elements of Rothbard’s body of work. While certain Austrian scholars and paleoconservative allies—most notably Joe Sobran—expressed deep disappointment, there was no massive public outcry. This quiet acceptance was largely driven by a pragmatic recognition that the Mises Institute required financial support and endowments to survive. The organization was locked in a bitter rivalry with the Chicago-libertarian Cato Institute, which aggressively sought to poach donors by slandering the Mises Institute as racist and anti-Semitic.

Another primary driver behind this First Purge was safeguarding the political career of Ron Paul. Rockwell had served as Paul’s chief of staff in the 1970s, managed his 1987 Libertarian Party presidential run, and helped orchestrate the paleolibertarian Ron Paul newsletters in the early 1990s. Following Rothbard’s death, Rockwell aimed to facilitate Paul’s return to the Republican Party for the 1996 congressional elections. Achieving this required a “moderation” of messaging, particularly as the Overton Window shifted leftward during the Clinton administration.

Gordon was merely executing this new “centrist” strategy when, in 1995, he began filtering Rothbard’s analysis of the Jewish faction of the ruling elite and its probable conspiracies. Just months after Rothbard’s death, Gordon published a highly calculated review of Rothbard’s seminal book, The Case Against the Fed. In that text, Rothbard explicitly “named names” to expose the ruling elite, defining its three primary ethnic factions led by three specific dynasties: the Morgans, the Rockefellers, and the Rothschilds.

Furthermore, in his books Rothbard made it clear that within the United States, the Rothschilds operated through prominent Jewish banking houses, specifically the Belmont, Schiff, Warburg, and Seligman dynasties. In fact, Rothbard directly accused three specific figures—Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg, and E.R. Seligman—of orchestrating the creation of America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve.

Murray Rothbard’s Exposé of the Jewish Elite. Part I. Rothschilds

Link to article.

In his review, Gordon goes to great lengths to obscure these Jewish financiers, shifting the analytical focus entirely onto the WASP-dominated Morgan banking dynasty. This served as an important signal to other Austro-Libertarian scholars that the Institute would no longer expose Jewish power, not even Rothschild power. However, as a self-declared Rothbardian, Gordon could not yet entirely expunge Rothbard’s words; instead, he devised an ingenious compromise by quoting Rothbard in a manner that completely obscured the ethnic dimension of the power structure:

“As he describes the movement to cartelize banking, Rothbard introduces a dominant theme in his interpretation of twentieth-century American history: the struggle of competing groups of bankers for power.

‘From the 1890s until World War II, much of American political history ... can be interpreted not so much as “Democrat” versus “Republican” but as the interaction or conflict between the Morgans and their allies on the one hand, and the Rockefeller-Harriman-Kuhn, Loeb alliance on the other.’ (Murray Rothbard. Case Against the Fed, p. 92, emphasis added)” (David Gordon, An Austro-Libertarian View, p. 88)

Gordon conceals the fact that the Kuhn, Loeb banking house was Jewish, completely omitting any reference to their ties to the Rothschilds—a dynasty Gordon never ever names. In fact, Kuhn, Loeb is entirely omitted from the index of Volume I of An Austro-Libertarian View, despite its prominent placement within the ruling elite. Furthermore, foundational concepts such as “ruling class,” “power elite,” and “ruling elite” are entirely absent from the book’s index, despite being central to Rothbard’s lifetime mission and the broader Austro-Libertarian theory of history and politics.

Ignoring the Belmont Dynasty

In case certain scholars had not yet received the message, the following year, in 1996, David Gordon reviewed Rothbard’s most revealing book of all: Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy. This appears to be the final book that Rothbard, with the help of the Center for Libertarian Studies, prepared for publication just before his death.

Image: Read the book online.

It is within these pages that Rothbard dives into minute detail, exposing the exact names and hidden networks of the ruling elite, including its Jewish faction. Rothbard bases this short but extraordinary work not only on his own encyclopedic memory but also on the monumental work of Philip H. Burch, Elites in American History. Yet, rather than celebrating Rothbard’s profoundly important book, Gordon orchestrates a massive analytical cover-up. His review spans a mere two pages, making it by far the shortest entry compiled in An Austro-Libertarian View.

Gordon’s analysis not only completely whitewashes the Jewish role, but it actively distorts geopolitics to fit his sanitized, Judenfrei version of history. Gordon steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that in the 1800s the Rothschild-led Jewish elite sought to bind America and Great Britain together against “anti-Semitic” Tsarist Russia, while simultaneously dismantling the “anti-Semitic” Spanish Empire. Ingeniously, the Spanish-American War achieved both objectives at once, definitively placing America on the path toward a global empire designed to protect Jewish interests. Rather than exploring this turning point of history and triumphant Jewish coup de grâce, Gordon exerts every effort to obscure it by overemphasizing the hegemony of the House of Morgan. As Gordon explains:

“The turn came at the behest of the House of Morgan, which in Rothbard’s view exerted a controlling influence on American foreign policy until the onset of the New Deal. Under the new activist policy, the United States vigorously sought to wrest control of the Latin American market from Great Britain. In spite of the later close partnership between the Morgan interests and Britain, the United States was very far indeed from alliance with Britain during most of the 1890s.

Rothbard seems to me entirely on the mark here; few historians have grasped this simple but essential truth. In further support of Rothbard’s analysis, Britain strongly backed Spain during the Spanish-American War of 1898.” (David Gordon, An Austro-Libertarian View, p. 176. Emphasis added)

This interpretation is not merely a transparent deflection; it is shockingly erroneous on multiple fronts. First, Gordon once again attributes near-total hegemony to the WASP-dominated House of Morgan while entirely omitting the Jewish House of Rothschild. Second, Rothbard never actually claimed that “the United States was very far indeed from alliance with Britain during most of the 1890s.”

In reality, Rothbard documented that the critical turning point arrived as early as 1891, when the diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes joined forces with the Rothschilds to launch a secret society designed to forge an unbreakable Anglo-American alliance against Russia and Germany. Naturally, they intended for Great Britain to dominate this partnership, effectively reducing the United States to a geopolitical proxy for the WASP and Jewish elites headquartered in the autonomous City of London. As Rothbard observed:

“In England, Cecil Rhodes had launched a secret society in 1891 with the aim of maintaining and expanding the British Empire to re-incorporate the United States.” (Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy)

Rothbard emphasized that it was during the Morgan- and Rothschild-dominated Democratic administration of Grover Cleveland (1892–1896) that the United States and Britain initiated their famous the Great Rapprochement.

Image: The Great Rapprochement

Furthermore, Rothbard reveals that it was precisely the Jewish faction of the ruling elite that most enthusiastically championed this reconciliation—particularly because it facilitated the dismemberment of their historical “anti-Semitic” adversary, Spain.

Because Rothbard almost never explicitly uses the “J-word,” a researcher must understand the ethnic lineage of the primary actors to grasp the overarching architecture of Jewish influence. However, Americans are heavily conditioned to ignore ethnicity, particularly when it pertains to Jewish power; they lack the “J-radar” so common among Europeans and the rest of the world. Fortunately, Rothbard assists the reader by frequently highlighting the central role of the Rothschilds, whom virtually everyone recognizes as the standard-bearers of the Jewish elite—often referred to historically as the “Kings of the Jews.” Armed with this explicit key, Rothbard unpacks the broader historical trajectory across several clear stages:

“Grover Cleveland’s cabinets were honeycombed with Morgan men, with an occasional bow to other bankers. Considering those officials most concerned with foreign policy, his first secretary of state, Thomas F. Bayard, was a close ally and disciple of August Belmont; indeed, Belmont’s son, Perry, had lived with and worked for Bayard in Congress as his top aide.” (Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, emphasis added)

Thus, Rothbard exposes how August Belmont—the official, high-profile representative of the Rothschild interests—manipulated the Democratic Party from behind the scenes, specifically targeting foreign policy. This thesis is further reinforced by a historical reality Rothbard leaves unstated: during Cleveland’s second term, Thomas F. Bayard served as Ambassador to Great Britain, working tirelessly to cement the Anglo-American alliance.

Note also how Rothbard explicitly terms the highly influential Thomas F. Bayard a “disciple” of August Belmont. Though Rothbard does not spell out the lineage, he was clearly referencing the fact that the elitist, originally Huguenot Bayard family had long operated as close allies—and functional fronts—for Jewish financiers. This relationship dated back to New Amsterdam and reached a historical climax when the fatally shot crypto-Jew, Alexander Hamilton was taken to the home of his close friend and fellow monopoly banker, William Bayard Jr., to die.

This historic alliance between the elite Bayards and Jewish financiers burst into public view during the late 19th century, when Thomas F. Bayard mounted three separate bids for the Democratic presidential nomination—backed entirely by the financial and organizational apparatus of the Jewish Belmont dynasty.

Rothbard continues by demonstrating that the Jewish elite, including the prominent Lehman family, sought to prepare the nation for conflict by expanding its naval capabilities. They successfully maneuvered their ally, Hilary A. Herbert, into the position of Secretary of the Navy, where he aggressively engineered a rapid naval build-up:

“Finally, the second secretary of the navy was an Alabama congressman, Hilary A. Herbert, an attorney for and very close friend of Mayer Lehman, a founding partner of the New York mercantile firm of Lehman Brothers, soon to move heavily into investment banking. Indeed, Mayer’s son, Herbert, later to be governor of New York during the New Deal, was named after Hilary Herbert.” (Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, emphasis added)

Rothbard was equally unreserved in exposing how ruthlessly the Rothschilds stabbed the Spanish Crown in the back. Throughout the 19th century, successive liberal Spanish governments had made exhaustive efforts to normalize relations with Jewish communities, liberalize Spain’s economy, and ultimately abolish slavery in Cuba in 1886. Despite these concessions—or perhaps because of them—the Jewish elite maintained an unyielding hostility toward Spain, especially as international banking and big business routinely favor hyper-centralized, monopolist economies over liberal ones. To this day, this historic betrayal remains a point of deep grievance among Spanish historians. As Rothbard explicitly details:

“Ardently backing the prowar course was Edwin F. Atkins, and August Belmont, on behalf of the Rothschild banking interests. The House of Rothschild, which had been long-time financiers to Spain, refused to extend any further credit to Spain, and instead underwrote Cuban revolutionary bond issues, and even assumed full obligation for the unsubscribed balance.” (Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, emphasis added)

Rothbard also lays bare the overarching geopolitical master plan, even if he does not directly link it to the Jewish factions who naturally sought the destruction of their primary nemesis, Tsarist Russia:

“Coming late in the imperial game of Asia, and not willing to risk large-scale expenditure of troops, the United States, led by Olney and continued by the Republicans, decided to link up with Great Britain. The two countries would then use the Japanese to provide the shock troops that would roll back Russia and Germany and parcel out imperial benefits to both of her faraway allies, in a division of spoils known euphemistically as the “Open Door.”

With Britain leaving the field free to the United States in Latin America, the United States could afford to link arms in friendly fashion with Britain in the Far East.” (Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, emphasis added)

Once again, Rothbard refuses to hide behind collectivist abstractions like “the United States.” Operating from the methodological individualist principle that states do not act—only individuals do—he underscores that America was governed by a ruling elite driven by three powerful dynasties, including its increasingly influential Jewish faction.

“A major impetus toward a more aggressive policy in Asia was provided by the lure of railroad concessions. Lobbying heavily for railroad concessions was the American China Development Company (ACDC), organized in 1895, and consisting of a consortium of the top financial interests in the United States, including James Stillman of the then-Rockefeller-controlled National City Bank; Charles Coster, railroad expert of J.P. Morgan and Co.; Jacob Schiff, head of the New York investment bank of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.; and Edward H. Harriman, railroad magnate.” (Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, emphasis added)

Gordon not only obscures Rothbard’s invaluable analysis but also actively attempts to undermine it by making the groundless assertion that “Britain strongly backed Spain during the Spanish-American War of 1898.” In reality, while Britain maintained official neutrality, it actively facilitated the American war effort. Crucially, British authorities permitted American vessels to utilize their bases for vital supplies.

More dramatically, during the high-stakes Manila Bay Standoff, the British navy positioned its warships between the German and U.S. fleets, signaling an intent to side with the United States. Through these decisive actions, Britain helped force Germany to retreat, preventing its intervention on behalf of Spain.

Link to video.

Second Purge: Ignoring the Monopoly Economy

The First Purge succeeded because all leading scholars at the Mises Institute accepted it for both financial and strategic reasons. After all, the Institute was still young and in a precarious financial position. However, during the early years of the new millennium, its financial situation improved dramatically, making it possible to expand the campus and admit far more students.

Image: Ludwig von Mises Institute

Furthermore, the growth of the internet enabled the creation of a political blog-style publication, LewRockwell.com, which provided a platform to publish more radical analyses criticizing the ruling elite. Yet, at the same time, the American political climate was deteriorating with the introduction of 9/11, the Patriot Act, and the War on Terror—an obvious campaign to destroy the adversaries of Israel. During this period, both official Mises Institute publications and LewRockwell.com censored topics that focused directly on Jewish influence, particularly regarding Israel’s role in 9/11. The Institute’s leadership considered it paranoid and highly anti-Semitic to speculate that the American Jewish elite had collaborated with the Mossad to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks and kill thousands of Americans simply to manipulate the United States into fighting wars on behalf of Jewish interests.

This stance sparked controversy not only among readers and supporters, but also among several leading Austro-Libertarian scholars. Not everyone was willing to practice self-censorship like David Gordon. Many could not understand why Austro-Libertarians maintained their silence on Jewish influence at a time when the Institute was financially secure and the documented evidence regarding a Jewish role was steadily mounting. Why not thoroughly examine, at the very least, in addition to the Morgans and Rockefellers also the Rothschild dynasty and other powerful Jewish banking houses that formed the bedrock of Jewish power?

In fact, for many Austro-Libertarian scholars it was not even necessary to emphasize ethnicity; the goal was just to uncover the facts. Additionally, highlighting the three ruling elite dynasties and classic coalition politics counters the hyperbole of a Jewish superconspiracy that controls every institution. But even historically balanced studies were deemed too anti-Semitic. After all, such research might lead scholars to investigate the connections between Jewish bankers and historical turning points like the Bolshevik Revolution.

The Institute scholars have accepted the politically correct narrative and refuse to study if the Bolshevik Revolution was a coup largely organized by Jewish revolutionaries and financiers. Instead it is seen as a product of evil Communist ideology. To this day the institute refuses to note the Jewish role. It is simply too taboo as it is also to many other intellectuals.

Link to video.

This Second Purge may have played a defining role in the sudden removal of Hans-Hermann Hoppe from his position as chief editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 2005. Rather than inciting a public outcry, Hoppe established the Property and Freedom Society, which has continued Rothbard’s work more faithfully—though they too have remained somewhat hesitant to address the Jewish Question.

Link to Property and Freedom Society.

In the early 2000s it became increasingly clear that the Mises Institute expected its scholars and affiliated bloggers to ignore not only the existence of the Jewish faction of the ruling elite and its probable conspiracies, but also undeniable evidence of Jewish power. In essence, the Institute had officially enacted the second stage of the censorship spectrum. This explains a curious paradox: despite publishing numerous history books, the Institute does not support or cultivate young historians to any significant degree. This might be explained by the fact, that young historians are far less likely to accept narrative censorship than young economists, who can routinely profess total ignorance of the ruling elites and especially the Jewish elite and its history.

The Monopoly Economy

This second stage of omitting vital historical facts and analytical frameworks is starkly visible in David Gordon’s review of economist Guido Hülsmann’s official biography of Ludwig von Mises. Because the project was funded directly by the Mises Institute, the biography predictably downplays Jewish power and Mises’ relationships with the Rothschilds and other Jewish elites. Despite exceeding 900 pages, the volume also lacks a detailed family tree and timeline that would reveal the true extent of the Mises family’s power.

Image: Guido Hulsmann. Mises. The Last Knight of Liberalism. Download.

Predictably, Gordon excludes any mention of the Rothschilds in his review of the biography. He completely omits the critical fact that Ludwig von Mises’ paternal Jewish grandfather actually headed the branch of the Rothschild bank in his hometown of Lviv. Mises was practically raised to be a servant of the Rothschilds, who keenly sought his assistance in managing the unstable monopolist fractional reserve banking system. However, Mises flatly refused to participate in what he viewed as an inherently fraudulent enterprise that would crash the economy sooner or later making the ordinary Jews to suffer again the consequences.

Gordon not only ignores all this but barely identifies Mises as Jewish, only passingly noting that Mises’ ancestors were “progressive” Jews. This characterization is highly unusual, given that during the 1700s and 1800s, there were no genuine “progressive” or “liberal” Orthodox Jews or rabbis in leading positions within Eastern Europe. Rather, they were Talmudic Jews who had served for centuries as allies and representatives of statist rulers. They functioned as tax-farmers, slave traders, war contractors and monopoly bankers operating a monopoly economy that ruthlessly exploited Polish and Ukrainian peasants, fueling a centuries-old animosity and a cycle of blood feuds in Eastern Europe that persists to this day.

Gordon’s silence regarding the Jewish role in establishing and managing this oppressive monopoly economy in Eastern Europe is consistent with a broader pattern. Not only did Mises’ ancestors originate from this region where they held dominion over a subjected Gentile peasantry, but so did many other leading Jewish libertarian and neoconservative families. This raises the question of whether Gordon’s own family shares this background as Ostjuden (Eastern Jews).

Many Jewish intellectuals view the conflicts of Eastern Europe far more personally than the average American. They continue the Jewish historical grievances by demonizing Russia and its allies, China and Iran, while attempting—as they have historically—to leverage American and Western military might to fight wars on their behalf. Today, this brinkmanship appears to be escalating toward a “limited” nuclear conflict in both the Ukrainian and Iranian theaters.

Gordon is well aware of the explicit connections tying Mises and other leading Jewish libertarians and neoconservatives to Eastern Europe and the Middle East, yet he remains silent. He shields his readers from the supreme irony that Ludwig von Mises, the champion of free-market capitalism and liberty, directly descended from a lineage that for centuries served as high priests of a monopoly economy and exploitation of the Gentile host population. This is precisely why Mises wanted to break the exploitative Jewish-Gentile cycle. However, Gordon is so averse to acknowledging this historical background that the index of the first volume of An Austro-Libertarian View entirely omits the word “Jew.”

The Straussians

Volume II of The Austro-Libertarian View explicitly deals with political theory, so one would naturally expect at least a mention of Jewish power and influence. Yet, there is nothing. In fact, Jews are mentioned in only a single 2006 review, which addresses the philosophy of Leo Strauss—a figure many consider the intellectual godfather of neoconservatism. However, even here, Gordon refuses to connect neoconservatism with Jewish interests, identity, or even the State of Israel:

“Critics of the Iraq War have sometimes claimed that neoconservatives who pressed for the war, and welcomed its onset, were in part inspired by the teaching of the political philosopher Leo Strauss. His students and defenders ridicule the claim. Strauss, they aver, though no doubt interested in contemporary events, had no political agenda. He was a scholar, studying the great questions sine ira et studio. Rather than seeking to explain current events through silly Straussian conspiracies, we should learn what we can from his profound inquiries.*

*I do not claim to find a link between Strauss and American foreign policy; but some of Strauss’s leading followers, such as Harry Jaffa, Harvey Mansfield, and Carnes Lord, advocate a strong central government, headed by a president of disturbingly great power. ” (David Gordon. The Austro-Libertarian View. p. 271-272. Emphasis added)

Throughout the volume II Gordon mentions Strauss no less than 255 times. He dedicates dozens of pages to his obvious fascination with the highly esoteric writings of Strauss and the Straussians—especially their strategic messaging and hidden meanings typical of Talmudic and Kabbala scholars—yet he proves unable to find any link between them and America’s “Israel-First” foreign policy. Could that link perhaps be Jewish culture and interests? Could Strauss and his famous neocon disciple Harry Jaffa support Israel-First policies simply because they are Jews with a strong Jewish identity? For Gordon and the Mises Institute, such an explanation is apparently too obvious. This was again a clear signal especially since Rothbard had numerous times noted the Jewish background and fanaticism of many leading neoconservatives.

The Neoconservatives

This analytical blind spot regarding Jewish influence was made even more apparent in Gordon’s 2010 review of The Philosophical Origins of Neoconservatism. Remarkably, Gordon completely omits any mention of Jews or Israel, leaving him at a total loss as to what truly drives the neoconservative movement. This omission occurs despite the fact that he explicitly notes several peculiar attributes of neoconservatism that point directly to a Jewish role. For example, Gordon repeatedly observes that neoconservatism operates on the belief that small, tightly knit elites should control the nation—and particularly its foreign policy—from behind the scenes:

“From Persecution and the Art of Writing, Kristol absorbed the message that philosophers needed to conceal their dangerous doctrines from the masses. …

Instead, Strauss believed, there are no unalterably fixed moral standards. The statesman, taught by philosophers, must be guided by prudential judgment about the particular situation he faces. Here precisely is a key point at which Straussian teaching serves to explain neoconservatism.

As earlier mentioned, the neocons resolutely reject fixed moral rules and rights. † If Strauss rejected the Enlightenment, he by no means demanded the abolition of individualism and capitalism. To the contrary, the ancient arrangements of the polis could not in our day be restored; and the regime of the American Founding Fathers offered the best available bulwark against relativism and nihilism—if this regime was suitably controlled behind the scenes by philosophers instructed in Straussian wisdom.

What form would this philosophical guidance take? It is essential that the inferior masses develop virtuous habits, lest their unbridled appetites lead to undue disorder. To inculcate virtue and to weaken the base tendency of people to put their individual well-being ahead of the common good, what better means than a properly conducted war? War teaches self-sacrifice.” (David Gordon. An Austro-Libertarian View. p. 351-2. Emphasis added)

Perhaps wars for Jews? Perhaps Gentiles must learn to sacrifice themselves for the Chosen People? But Gordon totally refuses to discuss this subject. Not surprisingly also volume two does not include “Jew” in the index.

Third Purge: Copyright Holocaust

Once a censorship machine is set in motion, it rarely stops or contracts; instead, it inevitably expands. It is impossible to ignore the Jewish elite and its potential conspiracies if you simultaneously permit open dialogue about their documented power, as researchers eventually connect the dots and raise difficult questions. Consequently, it soon becomes evident that documented Jewish influence must be suppressed as well, forcing censorship to advance to its second stage. However, concealing documented Jewish influence becomes incredibly difficult if an institution continues to distribute free copies of Rothbard’s articles and books dealing with the topic. Yet, this was precisely the model the Institute had inadvertently established under the Austro-Libertarian influence of Stephan Kinsella’s and Jeffrey Tucker’s anti-copyright campaign.

This open-access publishing model started in the early years of the new millennium and soon achieved monumental success by exponentially multiplying the readership of Austro-Libertarian literature. Rothbard’s books, in particular, were being distributed in massive quantities, simultaneously cultivating a larger base of supporters and generating increased donations. In the early 2010s the Mises Institute had engineered an historic achievement: a self-sustaining intellectual engine and a self-financing ecosystem—a positive feedback loop that automatically funded the propagation of its message.

Placing the entire Mises.org catalog under a Creative Commons license yielded another major, unexpected dividend: artificial intelligence models have been able to ingest thousands of articles and hundreds of copyright-free books, embedding nearly every detail of Austro-Libertarian thought into their core training data. Querying modern AIs about Austro-Libertarian theories or its overarching worldview yields remarkably accurate and nuanced responses.

However, a critical dilemma emerged: what if Rothbard’s core theories about the ruling elite were spreading too rapidly and in too uncontrolled a fashion? This anxiety seems to have triggered the third purge in the early 2010s, marked by the partial reintroduction of copyright restrictions. First there was no explanation but later David Gordon tried to justify it. This happened during a joint interview with Lew Rockwell and Joe Salerno. As the three prominent Austro-Libertarians discussed various topics, Gordon unexpectedly began defending copyrights—a position that, within a standard Austro-Libertarian framework, is as ideologically jarring as defending taxation.

Even more remarkably, both Rockwell and Salerno appeared to align with Gordon’s position, despite having previously opposed copyrights as statist and tyrannical. They never articulated the reasoning behind their change of heart; instead, they had simply been implementing various total or limited copyright restrictions across the Institute’s publications. Kinsella and Tucker were stunned. Why purposefully dismantle a self-perpetuating publishing apparatus that was perfectly executing the Institute’s core mission to spread the principles of liberty? Kinsella recounted the events as follows:

“And then he [Lew Rockwell] started fussing at Tucker and French about the book publishing. He wanted them to stop. He told Tucker he had to shut down the book publishing program and run all editorial content by Joe Salerno. He said MI is not Walmart or Amazon.com and was not in the book publishing business.

Tucker noted that when LewRockwell.com linked to books available at the Mises Bookstore, Lew would link to the Amazon version with his referral code in the link so that he would get a cut of book sales instead of MI getting a cut via its online bookstore.” (Stephan Kinsella, My Years with the Mises Institute, emphasis added)

This third purge resulted in Kinsella resigning from the senior faculty and Tucker departing from his role as editorial vice-president in the early 2010s. Perhaps not surprisingly, links to Tucker’s articles began to break and vanish in LewRockwell.com and Mises.org. Kinsella noted also many other strange things:

MI and its website was inexplicably changed several times—Mises Daily became Mises Wire, comments were removed from articles and the blog and old comments to the blog were lost, links were changed but there as no redirect function so many old links are now 404s; the Austrian Scholars Conference was split into the AERC and the LSC; the copyright policy went from open (CC-BY) to closed, and so on. (Stephan Kinsella. Mises Institute Oral History Project: The Lost Rothbard History.)

Image: Chaotic reintroduction of copyright licenses. Source: Kinsella.

Though both Kinsella and Tucker would likely deny it, this institutional fracture was arguably partially connected to the broader Jewish Question. There seemed to be a method in the madness. After all, should some of Rothbard’s previously unknown ‘racist’ or ‘anti-Semitic’ work come to light, copyright protections would make censoring those texts far easier.

In fact, many have speculated that Rothbard wrote articles—and perhaps even books—detailing the power dynamics of American Jewry, but that these remained unpublished as a form of protection against neoconservative attacks. After all, Rothbard hailed from the same New York milieu as the leading neocons, and he personally knew many of them or their families. Surely, the neocons would be wary of picking fights with Rothbard and the Institute if they suspected he might unleash revealing material about the Jewish lives and networks of the neoconservative elite and their Jewish banker masters. This theory gains credence from the fact that, when criticizing leading neocons, Rothbard often peppered his articles with innuendos and personal anecdotes drawn from his own life among New York’s Jewish community.

Moreover, it was no coincidence that Kinsella and Tucker were marginalized by the Institute. Both are openly philosemitic and even Zionist and had quietly accommodated the first and second stages of the censorship spectrum, as those phases merely required ignoring controversial topics they felt uncomfortable addressing anyway. However, both refuse to operate under direct mandates of silence. By this third stage of the censorship continuum, absolute compliance had become a firm prerequisite at the Mises Institute—a level of beta subservience their intellectual temperaments could not tolerate.

Interestingly, Kinsella appeared to sense these shifting dynamics. In his writings regarding this Copyright Holocaust, he remarked on the behavior of both David Gordon and Joe Salerno:

“I guess I was not too surprised by Gordon, at this point, who seems to be sort of a snake or two-faced, … Yet in the meantime I have heard about Salerno being two-faced. For example, according to Tucker, he and Salerno were sitting in the room organizing an upcoming Mises U, and they were discussing inviting me to do a series on law. Salerno enthusiastically agreed.

A few minutes later, Lew walked in and pulled up a chair, and Tucker mentioned that they were planning a law track taught by Kinsella. Joe interrupted and said Kinsella is not an economist and should not be speaking at Mises U. He instantly flipped his position.

So I guess it is not that surprising that he also seemed to follow Gordon’s lead and join in the attack, even though he had previously agreed with me.” (Stephan Kinsella, My Years With the Mises Institute, emphasis added)

Kinsella also expressed surprise that Walter Block—a notoriously feisty, outspoken intellectual who frequently brands himself a “Warrior for Freedom”—offered no public outcry or resistance against the reintroduction of tyrannical copyright policies, nor against the systemic purging of his close friends and colleagues. Because Kinsella in American fashion explicitly refuses to analyze events through the lens of ethnic interests and networks, he overlooks the possibility that Block’s strong Jewish identity might factor into these alignments. This is particularly noteworthy given that Block has consistently defended Jewish interests alongside David Gordon, forming a powerful, aligned Jewish duo within the Mises Institute’s hierarchy. Blind to these connections, Kinsella merely observed his colleague’s indifference with total surprise and deep confusion:

“when I had basically been driven out of MI, he [Walter Block] hadn’t seemed to care.” (Stephan Kinsella, My Years at the Mises Institute)

Following this Copyright Holocaust, the digital Mises Library quickly deteriorated. Sorting, browsing, and locating specific texts became significantly more difficult. More concerningly, the interface frequently obscures the open-access versions of books, creating the false impression that certain literature is only available for purchase. For instance, accessing the Mises Library and navigating to Rothbard’s catalog reveals a surprisingly short list of titles. If a user selects Rothbard’s seminal work exposing the ruling elite, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, the platform blocks a free digital download, instead prompting the user to purchase a physical copy.

Moreover, and not surprisingly, the storefront introduction offering the book says nothing about the three leading dynasties, thereby again successfully omitting Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers.

Link to the Mises Book Store.

Around this same period, the Mises Institute inexplicably abandoned the Mises Wiki. Despite having served as an invaluable reference tool for students and independent researchers, the platform was simply left to stagnate. Fortunately, independent scholars have begun reviving the archive, an effort that will ensure AIs can continue to deeply integrate Austrian economic theory into their deep memory.

Link to Wiki Revived.

Fourth Purge: Denying the Jewish Problem

For many Jews the analysis of Jewish power and influence frequently elicits strong emotional responses, which can hinder the cool, detached evaluation and analysis required of politics and geopolitics. The most intelligent Jews recognize this and consequently minimize their public discussion of Jewish-related topics.

David Gordon consistently maintained this approach throughout most of his career avoiding direct discussions of Jewish power. However, following the Third Purge the leadership of the Mises Institute recognized that the Chief Editor of the Mises Review risked drawing public scrutiny if his reviews entirely avoided literature addressing Jewish influence. At this time it was also necessary to take the fourth step in censorship to ensure that Institute-affiliated scholars would not become interested in the Jewish Question, which had been revived by the discussion surrounding Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book Two Hundred Years Together. Thus the third volume of An Austro-Libertarian View includes a 2012 lecture in which Gordon evaluates two foundational works on the subject: Karl Marx’s On the Jewish Question and Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism.

Gordon’s lecture serves as a fascinating study in dancing around the subject as both Marx and Sombart noted a persistent double standard among Jews. They also highlighted the prominent role of Jewish financiers in developing state-managed monopoly-cartel capitalism—though both thinkers conflated this system with true free-market capitalism.

While Gordon recognizes this conceptual error, he leverages it to further obscure the active role that Court Jews (Hofjuden) and elite Jewish financiers played first in the creation and expansion of statism and then in the transition from monopoly to cartelized economy by the implementation of fractional reserve banking system and the central bank. Predictably, Gordon excludes any mention of the prominent Rothschild dynasty, and similarly omits the Franks dynasty—often described as the “Rothschilds of the 1700s”—who created America’s original central banking following the Revolutionary War. In fact, four out of the five men leading the First Bank of the United States were Jews or their proxies. This fact has been completely omitted from American history books, and the Mises Institute has deliberately continued this practice.

Link to article.

Marx and Rand

During his lecture, Gordon observes a striking parallel between Marx and his ultimate ideological antithesis, Ayn Rand:

“Before turning from Marx on capitalism and the Jews, I allow myself one conjecture. Marx said that the essence of capitalism was egoism. Could awareness of this claim have influenced the young Ayn Rand, who after all grew up in Soviet Russia, where the writings of Marx were abundantly available in Russian translation?

I ask because she of course also thought that capitalism was in essence egoism, though she embraced exactly what repelled Marx and ignored his identification of Judaism with capitalism.” (David Gordon, An Austro-Libertarian View, p. 434.)

This comparison raises a broader question: what if both Marx and Rand captured separate elements of the same socio-economic reality? Free-market capitalism fundamentally relies on a cultural framework that permits and encourages individual self-interest but only through mutually beneficial, win-win voluntary exchange. Traditional Jewish cultural norms encourage a high degree of self-interest for both the individual and the collective, yet it also allows and even encourages asymmetric win-lose interactions with non-Jewish populations. This ethical asymmetry historically enabled the Jewish diaspora elite to leverage free-market commerce while simultaneously collaborating with state rulers to secure trade and banking monopolies.

Even Jews themselves admit that Jews are relatively clannish and often emphasize Jewish interest by asking “Is it good for the Jews?”. Similarly, the Jewish religion and culture allows and sometimes even admires miserliness and cruel usury when it is directed against non-Jews. From this it was a small step for the Jewish financier to enter into a country, ally with political rulers and buy from them not only communal autonomy but also slave trading, tax farming and various trade and banking monopoly licenses. From this, it was a relatively logical progression to move from direct monopolistic exploitation to indirect cartel control via fractional-reserve banking, the regulatory capture of the central bank, and the manipulation of lobby-driven indirect democracy.

This economic exploitation was probably facilitated by the cultural fact that Jews are famous for loving money. Merchant of Venice might have been based on a caricature but stereotypes do have some basis in fact. Probably both Marx and Rand would have agreed though for opposite reasons. Marx hated that his rich relatives would not share their money with him, whereas Rand hated that her poor relatives wanted a share of her money. Furthermore, both refused to analyze Rothschild power in detail—most likely hoping to secure their support, both domestically and especially in geopolitics. In Marx’s case, this was certainly true.

Link to article.

Notably, Gordon does not clarify for his readers that Rand was ethnically Jewish, nor does he address her Jewish identity. This omission occurs despite the historical reality that her inner circle—which members half-jokingly referred to as “The Collective”—was composed almost entirely of Jewish intellectuals. Even Ludwig von Mises occasionally expressed frustration with Rand, explicitly noting her background during an encounter recounted by William F. Buckley Jr.:

“Miss Rand was going on about something or other at which point Mises told her to be quiet and that she was being very foolish. The lady who could account for all her emotions at that point burst out into tears and complained, “You are treating me like a poor, ignorant little Jewish girl!” Mr. Hazlitt, attempting to bring serenity to his table, leaned over and said: “There, there, Ayn, that isn’t at all what Ludwig was suggesting.”

But this attempt at conciliation was ruined when Mises jumped up and said: “That is exactly what you are!” Since all three participants were Jewish, this was not a racist slur. This story was mortal to her reputation as the lady of total self-control.” (William F. Buckley Jr., Ayn Rand, R.I.P.)

Gordon also ignores the fact that the Randians are the epitome of Jewish double standards. On the one hand they are great lovers of money and win-win trade but on the other hand the most hard-core and war-hungry Zionists, ready to nuke Iran. In fact, the Randians see Palestinians and Muslims as “savages” deserving enslavement and genocide. Is this Randian win-win and win-lose combination just a coincidence that has nothing to do with Talmudic culture and especially with the Jewish background and double standards of the leading Randians?

Sombart and Friedman

In evaluating Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism, Gordon strongly dissents from the perspective of Chicago-Libertarian economist Milton Friedman. Friedman famously observed a Jewish double standard which he termed as the Jewish Paradox: Jews historically benefited from capitalism while undermining it. While Friedman sought to rationalize this paradox, the discussion itself crosses a line for Gordon, who also objects to Friedman’s characterization of Sombart’s work as fundamentally philo-Semitic. Friedman wrote:

“Sombart’s book ... has had in general a highly unfavorable reception ... and, indeed, something of an aura of anti-Semitism has come to be attributed to it.... There is nothing in the book itself to justify any charge of anti-Semitism though there certainly is in Sombart’s writing and behavior several decades later, indeed, if anything I interpret the book as philo-Semitic.” (David Gordon. An Austro-Libertarian View. p. 436.)

Gordon vigorously opposes this interpretation, branding the text as anti-Semitic despite conceding its high scholarly value. This reaction marks the fourth stage of the censorship spectrum, signaling to Mises Institute scholars that certain historical authors and source materials are strictly outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. Even the semi-openness demonstrated by Milton Friedman in discussing the Jewish Question is deemed unacceptable.

By focusing heavily on which label to assign to Sombart’s text, both Friedman and Gordon successfully sidestep the core historical phenomenon: the tendency of Jewish financial elites to form alliances with state actors to establish monopolies and cartels. Because the Mises Institute specializes in the history and theory of banking, the Fourth Purge functions to render the study of Jewish banking monopolies and cartels explicitly verboten.

Link to article.

The Double Standard

In the three volumes and hundreds of articles of An Austro-Libertarian View, Gordon repeatedly refuses to note the obvious Jewish interests guiding the actions of many leading Jewish libertarians, neoconservatives and Marxists. However, amazingly Gordon does note the obvious Hindu-Indian interests guiding some leading neoconservatives! Gordon does it so well that it is worth quoting almost full:

“In economic matters, Lal is a firm supporter of the free market; and he develops a model of the state as predator that could be taken from Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock. Yet this state skeptic wishes the American state to assume a gigantic burden. We must, as an example, solve the Arab-Israeli conflict and impose a peace settlement on the Middle East. … Lal devotes some attention to arguing that the United States has the material resources to carry out the program he suggests.* He never asks why we should trust the state to limit itself to the benevolent program he envisions.

How can someone of Lal’s undoubted intelligence fail to see these obvious problems? I should like to offer a suggestion that can be no more than highly speculative. Lal, though he teaches in America and has strong ties to England, remains at heart a committed Indian nationalist. Hence his surprising remark, earlier quoted, that Wahabi Islam is a threat “above all” to Hindus.

The United States need not be seriously menaced by Islamic terrorism unless, by intervention in the Middle East we embroil ourselves in matters that do not really concern us. India is not so fortunate. Many Muslims in Pakistan and India itself wish to reconstitute India as a Muslim theocracy and are not averse to using violence to achieve their goals. Hence Lal’s alarm over Saudi financing of Wahabi Islamic schools in Pakistan.

Further, if America follows an imperial course, Lal looks forward to a commanding role for cosmopolitans such as himself: …” (David Gordon. An Austro-Libertarian View.)

So why is it that Gordon can easily see how ethno-religious interests can affect the opinions and especially foreign policy views of Indian-Americans but not Jewish-Americans? Why Hindus have to abandon their ethno-religious interests and assimilate to America but not Jews?

Fifth Purge: Memory Hole

The Fifth Purge started in the early 2020s and accelerated during the Gaza Genocide when the famous Jewish Mises Institute Senior Fellow Walter Block started vehemently defending the genocide. This divided the Mises Institute. On the one side was Walter Block and other philo-Semitic scholars who see anti-Semites everywhere. On the other side was Hoppe, who in 2024 wrote an open letter denouncing Block’s “monstrous” defense of genocide.

Lew Rockwell sided with Hoppe but Gordon did it only half-heartedly by sidestepping both Zionism and genocide issues. In fact, in his May 2024 review of Walter Block’s and Alan G. Futerman’s book Classical Liberal Case for Israel, Gordon claimed that despite its aggressiveness the Jewish state is still more pro-liberty, and consequently more ethical, than its primitive Palestinian and Arab victims.

Amazingly, in his defense of the alleged superiority of the Israelis, Gordon admits that Rothbard held a different view. However, what Gordon does not tell us is that Rothbard clearly hinted that some Jews—now also including Gordon—and especially the Randians are so highly ethnocentric that they abandon libertarianism in favor of a blood-and-soil ideology. Rothbard writes:

“Asked what the American people and the government should do about the Middle East war. Rand answered unhesitatingly: “Give every help possible to Israel.” … Reaffirming her supposed and longtime opposition to altruism. Rand added that “this is the first time I have contributed” to public causes, but now apparently we have a vital exception.

Why? What is the overriding cause for which we must set aside libertarian principle, isolationist principle, and opposition to altruism; why is Israel’s “emergency” to be a claim on our hearts and pockets? Given Miss Rand’s militant atheism, it surely could not be the necessity for the reestablishment of the Temple, or the fulfillment of the old prayer, “next year in Jerusalem”; given her professed individualism, it surely could not be (one hopes) the Zionist call to blood, race, and soil. So what is it? Russia is of course dragged in, but even Miss Rand concedes that the Russian Threat is not the real issue here.

The real issue? Because “civilized men” are “fighting against savages”, and when that happens, says Rand, “then you have to be on the side of that civilized man no matter what he is.”” (Murray N. Rothbard. Rand on the Middle East. The Libertarian Forum, December 1971. Emphasis added.)

Link to the article.

The Coup

Lew Rockwell had supported Hoppe against extreme Zionists but early 2025 Hoppe noticed an alarming deterioration in Rockwell’s health.

“It was heart-wrenching to see the shocking deterioration of Lew’s health. He had difficulties speaking and he could no longer type. It was apparent that he could not possibly anymore be in full control of the mighty intellectual enterprise—the MI and LRC—that he had built up in some forty years. I also had some beginning doubts that he was the actual author of everything still written and published under his name.” (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Mises Institute: Quo Vadis?)

Hoppe also soon realized the dangers in the peculiarly powerful position that professor Joe Salerno had been able to achieve.

“Salerno, qua permanent Board member, was placed in a position that allowed him to defy, challenge and overcome virtually any sitting President. … We indicated in our Memorandum how to repair the structural flaw that we had identified and offered our further advice. But to no avail. There was no reaction whatsoever in response to our Memo, from any side. No word, in particular also not from Lew Rockwell, the Chairman of the Board, lending additional support to my/our growing suspicion that he had lost control of the Institute.” (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Mises Institute: Quo Vadis?)

Apparently Salerno and Jewish donors were not happy when Hoppe in March 2025 during his lecture at the Institute strongly criticized Argentina’s Zionist president Javier Milei. Salerno and Jewish donors were even less happy when Hoppe suddenly surprised his audience by linking Milei to the famous Frankfurt School and emphasized how it was strongly dominated by Jews. Hoppe noted that he should know, since he personally knew most of the leading Jewish members of the school. He also received his classical training in philosophy from one of its famous later leaders, Jürgen Habermas.

By exposing the Jewishness of the Frankfurt School and its financiers and their links to Milei, Hoppe committed the ultimate sin: he seemed to imply that there exists a Jewish Dominant Minority that indoctrinates Gentiles into a false anti-rationalist philo-Semitic consciousness.

Link to video.

Perhaps Salerno and some of his allies on the Institute’s board, together with Jewish donors, decided to use the situation to further solidify their power by smearing Hoppe as a dangerous extremist, thereby further consolidating power and money into their own hands. The Rockwell family and Salerno now hold the majority on the Mises Institute board, which controls millions of dollars in endowment money.

Hoppe writes about the board:

“As for the rest of the Board: it should be first noted that the real board consists of an “inner” board of five permanent or “Subscriber” members; these are the board members exercising true control of the organization. Next to Lew, the “inner” board includes, most problematically, Joe Salerno (a paid employee); Peter Klein, Professor at Baylor University, but also on the MI payroll as so-called Senior Academic Advisor and Salerno’s sidekick; and then there is Lew’s sister and his sister-in-law (whose son and daughter-in law are Institute employees).” (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Mises Institute: Quo Vadis?)

Some speculate that Lew Rockwell is not even aware of any power struggles. After all, the 82-year-old Rockwell is on extended sick leave and has not been seen in public for long time. Many suspect that Rockwell is no longer calling the shots, but rather his relatives, and their ally, Professor Joe Salerno, together with David Gordon.

Could it even be that Gordon is the one who masterminded this coup? After all, he has been at the institute for decades and knows all the key figures intimately. Perhaps it would not be surprising if he had been playing Gentiles against each other for a long time. In fact, though Stephan Kinsella ignores the larger ethnic context, he does note how already during the Copyright Holocaust Gordon might have long been planning revenge against Hoppe and other leading paleolibertarians who “stole” Rothbard from him.

After all, after Hoppe arrived from Europe, Gordon was no longer the sole genius and intellectual right-hand man of Rothbard; instead, he was demoted and pushed under the towering Germanic shadow of Hoppe, whose credentials and writings clearly stood far above Gordon’s. Kinsella writes:

“It also could be—and this is just a guess—that David Gordon had some role in this. When Rothbard took Hans under his wing in 1985 and started promoting Hans and his argumentation ethics, he was the only voice in the Liberty symposium commenting on it to wholeheartedly endorse it.82 Most others were critical. David Gordon also had a comment;83 it is not critical, but says very little. It is basically noncommittal. I noticed this when it came out but no one else seemed to. I noticed over the years Gordon has studiously avoided saying one way or the other.

I developed the view, which I still hold, that Gordon does not agree with the argument nor with Rothbard’s ringing endorsement. But he did not want to dissent in public from Rothbard’s praise, so he simply said something vanilla, noncommittal. It could be that he was not happy about Hoppe moving to the US in 1985 and working closely with Rothbard for his final ten years, but could do nothing about it. The same could be true, to some extent, of Lew. I don’t know. …” (Stephan Kinsella. My Years With the Mises Institute.)

The Primacists

After the coup last year, Lew Rockwell—or someone writing under his name—published in November 2025 a highly curious article in Mises Daily claiming that it is not the “Israel-First” neoconservatives, but rather “Primacists” who dominate American foreign policy. This logically convoluted article served as a clear signal to Institute scholars not to apply standard logic when dealing with the Jewish power.

In fact, the article is so desperately absurd that it raises an important question: Did certain Jewish sponsors of the Institute demand its publication? Did it have to be published in order for the Rockwell (family)-Gordon-Salerno troika to ensure absolute control over the Institute and its assets, which are valued over 80 million dollars?

Link to article.

The Jewish issue surfaced again this year when in March the Mises Institute provided a forum to Austrian economist Jesus Huerta de Soto to uncritically praise Argentina’s president, Javier Milei. This occurred despite the fact that Milei has not fulfilled his libertarian campaign promises, but instead actively supports the Gaza Genocide and is transforming Argentina into a Zionist police-warfare state. Milei was excited by all the praise emanating from Mises Institute.

Link to X post.

Even more amazingly the Institute gave a prize to an extreme Randian Zionist warmonger Lorenzo Cianti for his article The Chainsaw Revolution: Javier Milei’s Rothbardian Assault on Argentine Collectivism. The article praises Javier Milei as “rothbardian” and ignores his defense of Gaza Genocide and the Iran War.

“Milei’s geopolitical alignment has aroused animosity among those who depict him as a quasi-Buckleyite, or even as a neoconservative coveting foreign entanglements—an accusation often linked to his support for Israel. Such portrayals misread both his premises and his objectives. Milei neither endorses armed adventurism nor proposes to sacrifice Argentina’s nonbelligerent status by inserting the country into disputes among major powers. …

Milei affirms that Western civilization must preserve its core tenets by upholding Judeo-Christian values and the precepts of natural law.” (Lorenzo Cianti. The Chainsaw Revolution: Javier Milei’s Rothbardian Assault on Argentine Collectivism.)

Image: Lorenzo Cianti and professor Jesus Huerta de Soto. Link to X post.

The Instituto Rothbard had a different interpretation of the prize.

Link to X post.

We can probably be certain that the Institute would not have granted a forum and a prize to non-philo-Semitic defenders of a police-warfare state.

Link to article.

Following Hoppe’s public critique of the Institute’s new direction in his essay ‘Mises Institute: Quo Vadis?’, the board stripped him of his Distinguished Senior Fellow title—the only one ever awarded—explicitly citing ‘the nature of your recent public statements about the Mises Institute.’

In response the Instituto Rothbard countered by naming Hoppe as a Distinguished Eternal Fellow.

Link to Instituto Rothbard.

Hoppe notes that it seems to be Joe Salerno who is now leading the Mises Institute under the title of Academic Vice President.

For one, and most importantly, I had noted that, as the result of his rapidly and shockingly deteriorating health, control of the MI had been wrested away from Lew Rockwell and taken over by others, most importantly by Joe Salerno, and that the public at large and in particular the Institute’s donors had been systematically deceived about this very fact.

Fundraising letters allegedly signed by Lew had still been sent out and articles been published in his name that were not actually his. Indeed, it was in doubt if any of “his” decisions were truly his. This shameful practice suddenly stopped after I had pointed it out. Confirmed! (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Mises Institute: Quo Vadis: Postscript.)

Culture of Silence

The Fifth Purge has now progressed to the point where the Mises Institute publications are exceptionally careful not to notice Jews. While it remains permissible to criticize Zionists, noticing and identifying the American Jewish elite—not to mention a Jewish Dominant Minority—is strictly verboten. For example, in May, the editor-in-chief at the Mises Institute, Ryan McMaken, expressed dismay when a coalition of Jewish billionaires funded a successful election campaign against the libertarian Congressman Thomas Massie. However, he did not identify them as Jewish billionaires, but rather as “a coalition of American pro-Israel billionaires.” Naturally, McMaken also omitted telling his readers that Jeffrey Epstein was Jewish or that he had admitted working for the Jewish Rothschilds.

Link to article.

One sometimes wonders how far the Rothschilds and other Jewish billionaires would have to go before the Mises Institute would finally identify them as highly ethnocentric Jews largely dominating America and especially its foreign policy. Imagine if Arabs were a Dominant Minority in America and the Saudi royal family behaved in a similar manner to the Rothschilds. Would the Mises Institute also refuse to identify them as highly ethnocentric Arabs dominating America? Would they merely be labeled “a coalition of American pro-Saudi Arabia billionaires”?

Would everyone at the Mises Institute pretend not to notice if prominent, obviously Arab-looking or Arab-connected scholars and donors preached liberty while remaining stubbornly silent about the Saudi family and warning students against anti-Arabism?

In fact, under McMaken’s editorship, the old division between the scholarly Mises.org and the more political LewRockwell.com has been totally erased. Now, one can read very strange personal polemics and warnings of anti-Semitism on the Mises Wire. One can even read that Putin is losing the war in Ukraine and that Russians are actually Nazis.

Image: Ryan McMaken, the Editor-in-Chief of the Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Memory Hole

Many are concerned that the Mises Institute will soon begin memory-holing Rothbard’s politically incorrect articles and books. This concern stems from the fact that, thirty years after Rothbard’s death, the Mises Institute has still not produced a proper bibliography of his complete writings. This remains true despite the fact that the Institute inherited Rothbard’s private papers and should thoroughly know their contents by now.

Fortunately, independent researchers like Tyler Kubik have been creating a proper Rothbard bibliography. However, the Mises Institute refuses to digitize or otherwise grant free access to Rothbard’s papers, leading many to speculate that they include articles and even books regarding the Rothschilds and other Jewish influences on American and world history. Kubik does not mention these speculations, but his editor explicitly writes the following:

“In his research, Kubik started noticing some omissions and errors in the Gordon bibliography, so he ended up completing a more comprehensive one, which is reproduced below. The new bibliography includes many items that are published but not online as well as unpublished material; no doubt the Mises Institute archives contain even more material not listed here.

(There are apparently several filing cabinets in the Mises Institute archives which came from Rothbard’s apartment containing personal correspondence and unpublished (or barely published) material, including pieces in old print newsletters, defunct magazines, a treasure trove of unpublished letters (to and from Rothbard) and small notes, and so on. This is, in fact, where Patrick Newman found and was able to piece together the lost fifth volume of Conceived in Liberty and The Progressive Era. There may not be any more book length manuscripts or significant essays, but knowing Rothbard it’s certainly possible.)” (Tyler Kubik, Murray N. Rothbard Bibliography 1940-2019, PFS)

Cronyism

In fact, the memory-holing process has already begun. The first sign appeared when a protégé of Joe Salerno—the young Mises Institute economist and self-declared Rothbardian Patrick Newman—published Cronyism: Liberty vs. Power in America, 1607–1849. The book summarizes Rothbard’s magisterial five-volume Conceived in Liberty and his other volumes on American history, but completely censors all instances of Jewish influence. Both the Franks and Rothschild dynasties that Rothbard had originally exposed were entirely erased by Newman. In his version of American history, influential Jews simply do not exist.

Download the book.

Last year, Newman made this censoring of Jewish influence even more clear by summarizing his first volume and the forthcoming second volume of Cronyism in the Mises Institute publication The Misesian. He follows Rothbard in explaining how big banks conducted regulatory capture of the banking system and especially Federal Reserve. However, he places the entirety of the blame on the WASPish Morgans. There is not a single word about the Rothschilds, nor even their primary front, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Newman writes:

“Wall Street desperately sought not only to stem the erosion of its domestic power, but also to ascend to unquestioned supremacy internationally, envying the status of the pound sterling and of London and other European financial centers. “Something radical is going to be necessary in order to meet the banking competition that we are facing,” wrote Frank Vanderlip, vice president of National City Bank (yes, the precursor to today’s Citibank).

He and other Wall Street bankers, particularly those affiliated with J. P. Morgan & Co. (that’s right, the precursor to modern-day JPMorgan Chase), decided to get ahead not by becoming more efficient compared to rivals in a deregulated market, but through the time-honored method of acquiring new regulatory privileges from Congress. This time, they wanted regulations that would cartelize the banking sector and aggressively promote New York finance around the world.“ (Patrick Newman. Cronyism in America. Misesian, Jan-Feb, 2025.)

Remarkably, Patrick Newman went this year even further in censoring Jewish influence. In his article celebrating Rothbard’s centennial anniversary, “Why Rothbard is as Relevant as Ever,” Newman explicitly claims to show how Rothbard exposed the ruling elite. However, Newman distorts Rothbard’s actual analysis by focusing exclusively on the WASPish Morgans and totally omitting all Jewish influence. This choice is particularly strange given that Rothbard emphasized that among the three classic dynasties of the ruling elite, it is the Morgans whose influence has diminished the most over the last century, while the influence of the Jewish elite has increased the most. In fact, with Trump’s backing, it has arguably emerged as the most powerful faction within the ruling elite—a reality that explains why the U.S. is currently waging the Iran War on behalf of Israel—even at the cost of destroying its own economy and the future of the Republican Party.

However, historically it is the WASP establishment that American Jewish networks have opposed and criticized the most, particularly because up until the 1950s, WASPs actively discriminated against Jewish citizens by limiting their access to hotels, country clubs, and Ivy League universities. Thus, it is little wonder that Newman attempts to place the blame entirely on their hated shoulders. However, he goes a step further. In his obsession to scrub Jewish influence from American history, Newman claims that the Jewish Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was actually working on behalf of the Morgans:

“Rothbard frequently did such investigative research, especially on the verboten subject of Federal Reserve officials. He showed that the first governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Benjamin Strong, was a former president of Bankers Trust Company, a financial institution in the ambit of J. P. Morgan & Co., and that this connection helps explain many of the pro–Wall Street policies he implemented in the 1910s and 1920s. Rothbard also stressed that it was no coincidence that Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chair from 1987 to 2006 who engaged in easy money policies that disproportionately favored Wall Street, was a former director of J. P. Morgan & Co. and Morgan Guaranty Trust.

We can, albeit extremely briefly, apply the Rothbardian lens to the current Fed chair, Jerome Powell, and his likely successor, Kevin Warsh. Powell, a former partner at the private equity firm the Carlyle Group, will leave a legacy of juicing up financial markets. Kevin Warsh was a former executive director at Morgan Stanley.” (Patrick Newman. Why Rothbard is as Relevant as Ever.)

So the Mises Institute has not abandoned the rothbardian deep analysis of the ruling elite, after all. It is just that all leading bankers and Fed directors have always been working for the Morgans. So no need to study Rockefellers and especially not Franks, Rothschilds, Belmonts, Kuhn Loeb, Lehman, Goldman Sachs or other Jewish bankers. They have never had any real power in American history. It’s those terribly anti-Semitic WASPs who have been calling the shots and still are.

Of course, Newman's interpretation is fundamentally dishonest. First, he misquotes Rothbard, who actually documented how Greenspan collaborated with both the Rockefellers and the Morgans. Rothbard also highlighted the fact that Greenspan was a dedicated Randian. In other words, Greenspan maintained deep connections across all three major ethnic factions of the ruling elite and actively collaborated with each of them—a reality that partly explains his enduring mainstream popularity. No wonder he was often called Mr. Establishment.

Rothbard's full statement reads as follows:

“Alan [Greenspan] is a long-time member of the famed Trilateral Commission, the Rockefeller-dominated pinnacle of the financial-political power elite in this country. And as he assumes his post as head of the Fed, he leaves his honored place on the board of directors of J.P. Morgan & Co. and Morgan Guaranty Trust. Yes, the Establishment has good reason to sleep soundly with Greenspan at our monetary helm. And as icing on the cake, they know that Greenspan’s “philosophical” Randianism will undoubtedly fool many free market advocates into thinking that a champion of their cause now perches high in the seats of power.” (Murray Rothbard. A Genuine Gold Dollar vs. the Federal Reserve. Emphasis added.)

Second, Newman knows full well that Greenspan was Jewish and belonged to the inner circle of the ultra-Zionist Jewish Randians. Newman is also aware that Greenspan and Rothbard were born only four days apart and that their families likely knew each other. Alongside Milton Friedman, both men were protégés of the Jewish Columbia professor and later Federal Reserve Chairman, Arthur Burns. (Real original name Burnseig.)

Arthur Burnseig was born in Ludwig von Mises’ home region of Austro-Hungarian Galicia, and by the age of six, he was already translating the Talmud. Furthermore, also the families of his three protégés were Ostjuden (Eastern Jews) who likely maintained familial and political connections stretching back to Eastern Europe. However, the Mises Institute refuses to compile detailed family trees for Mises and Rothbard, a restriction that also extends to the biographers of Arthur Burnseig, Alan Greenspan, and Milton and Rose Friedman. This suggests the possibility that these families were all part of the same interconnected Rothschild-Schiff financed Jewish terrorist networks, united in a determination to overthrow “anti-Semitic” governments and replace them with philo-Semitic regimes.

Link to article.

In any case, these three protégés—Friedman, Greenspan, and Rothbard—initially sought to advance Jewish interests under the guidance of Burnseig. Rothbard was clearly Burnseig’s favorite. He was not only the smartest and a family friend but also well-integrated into the elite Jewish millionaire class. His private school on the Upper East Side surrounded him with friends from the richest Jewish banking families. In fact, one of his closest school friends, Lloyd Marcus, hailed from the Marcus-Cohn family, which had owned the deceptively named Bank of the United States. Marcus’s cousin was Roy Marcus Cohn, the notorious attorney for both Joseph McCarthy and Donald Trump, who functioned as a powerful nexus between Jewish bankers, mobsters, and politicians.

Just like Mises, Rothbard was literally raised to serve the Rothschild-led Jewish banker elite. However, Rothbard broke ranks by opposing fractional-reserve banking, central banking, and ultimately the state itself. To cap it all off, Rothbard enthusiastically led together with his friend the Columbia chapter of Strom Thurmond’s notoriously “anti-Semitic” States' Rights “Dixiecrat” Democratic Party. This ideological and especially ethnic disloyalty deeply enraged Burnseig, who subsequently blocked Rothbard’s PhD dissertation at Columbia University for years.

Amazingly, Rothbard seemed to understand and accept Burns’s reaction; it was evident that he remained loyal to his family and ethnic roots. Milton Friedman also stepped in to broker peace between Rothbard and Burns, going so far as to offer Rothbard work in Chicago. However, Rothbard stayed in his beloved New York and tried to mend fences with Burns.

After finally securing his doctorate, Rothbard joined the Jewish Rand circle, where he crossed paths with Greenspan once again. However, Rothbard’s time there was brief due to suspicions regarding his ethnic loyalty. In what may have been a test, members of the circle pressured him to divorce his Christian wife of German descent. Later in life, Rothbard ridiculed the totalitarian Jewish guru-worshiping tendencies of the Randians, even penning a parody play about them titled Mozart Was a Red.

Link to video.

Not coincidentally, Burnseig was close friends with Ludwig von Mises’s protégé, Fritz Machlup who went to “the dark side” by helping Burnseig formulate the petrodollar system alongside Friedman and Greenspan. They all recognized they were playing with fire, but they believed they could stabilize the petrodollar framework to fund American warfare state and its never-ending wars for Israel.

No wonder Mises was outraged; all his Jewish disciples had betrayed him to align with the Rothschilds and Israel, putting Zionism and Jewish elite interests ahead of liberty. The sole exception was Rothbard.

It is true that all this memory holing of Jewish influence has granted the Mises Institute greater mainstream “credibility.” It has also proven highly advantageous for Newman’s academic career. The forthcoming second volume of Cronyism will feature a foreword by Thomas J. Sargent, the co-recipient of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Economics with Christopher Sims.

Sargent historically worked in close collaboration with Milton Friedman, while Sims is also Jewish. Thus, in his recent articles and lectures, Newman has been even more anxious to conceal the Jewish elite and their network of Jewish economists, whose destructive schemes were steadfastly opposed by Mises and Rothbard.

In fact, Rothbard probably realized even more deeply than Mises that Jewish bankers—especially the Franks and Rothschilds—had for centuries created and propped up statism and its unstable cartel economy. And so do Salerno and Newman, though they are determined to cover it up.

Predictably, the new book is under copyright and thus not freely available.

Link to X post.

This mainstream success has made Newman even more politically correct. Or maybe he has had a “talk”. In any case, he no longer blames the WASP Morgans; in fact, he completely erases all ethnic influences from history, particularly from the history of banking. This leads him to present a highly distorted view of not only American history but also geopolitics. For example, in his latest lecture at the Ludwig von Mises Institute Newman hides the fact that a primary cause of the Great Depression was the WASP Morgans’ determination to support an economically ailing British Empire and its pound, coupled with the Rothschilds’ and Warburgs’ desire to subsidize acceptances and international trade through dollar inflation. In effect, it was an ethnic deal and thus an economically superior America remained subordinate to the City of London, where the WASPs and Jews were the two senior members of the Anglo-American ruling elite—precisely as Cecil Rhodes and the Rothschilds had envisioned in 1891.

Rothbard Centennial

This mainstreaming has also accelerated the pace of the memory-holing process. The Institute and its Editor-in-Chief Ryan McMaken has even refused to promote Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment—a volume edited by Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe celebrating Rothbard’s centennial anniversary this year. No clear reason has been given, though McMaken claims that the book is too “political” for the Institute!

In all probability, this stems from the fact that Hoppe writes the following in the book’s introduction:

“And it is above all here, then: in connection with Rothbard’s strict and unwavering opposition to war, to the military-industrial complex, to the warfare State and the interventionist US foreign policy, where the ultimate—and yet least talked about—reason for his public disregard and lack of academic recognition can be found.

Jews make up no more than 2 to 3 percent of the US population, but as everyone there knows and yet is advised not to say so, US academia and mainstream media (and much more as we shall see) is dominated by (mostly secular) Jews. Rothbard too was a secular Jew. As such, regardless of his views: his anarchism, his “racism” (he favorably reviewed The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray and Race, Evolution, and Behavior by Philippe Rushton)5 or whatever—a man of his talents could and should have still risen to the highest ranks of academia, owing to the enormous influence and extraordinary (but also un-mentionable) intra-group solidarity of his co-religionists. That this did not happen in his case and he instead became a persona non grata in much of “polite” society has two intimately related reasons: Rothbard’s views on Judaism and on Israel. …

Rothbard viewed Judaism as a particularistic, ethnocentric and supremacist doctrine, according to which Jewish life was held to be inherently superior and more valuable than that of gentiles or goys. Tellingly, in the Talmud, Jesus has been described in exclusively negative terms: as an illegitimate bastard born to an adulteress, a sorcerer, and a criminal heretic to be sentenced to boiling in his own excrement. …

Moreover, Israel, qua Jewish State, and very much in accordance with the just mentioned Judaic superiority claim, practiced from the outset and still practices a strict apartheid regime, where every non-Jew is and can never be more than a second-class citizen, and it pursued and still pursues an aggressive, expansionist foreign policy at the expense of its supposedly inferior neighbors so as to re-establish modern Israel in its fancied ancient glory and territorial largess. The excuse given for all this—the earlier persecution of Jews in Germany and Eastern Europe—Rothbard considered phony.” …

What turned Rothbard into a persona non grata in establishment circles and made for a scandal was to combine both claims and then to point out that the US foreign policy had been coming increasingly under the influence of the so-called neoconservatives or “neocons,” such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz and their followers. Mostly of Jewish extraction, and often former leftists (in particular of the Trotskyist variety) who had turned “conservative”…”

(Introduction. Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment. Eds. Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.)

Link to video.

Salerno and Newman countered by publishing an “intellectual biography”, Murray N. Rothbard: The Making of an Austrian Economist in honor of his centennial anniversary. However, it conveniently covers only his career as an economist until 1960s, thereby omitting his extensive work on history and the ruling elite.

Curiously, while the book acknowledges that Burns sabotaged Rothbard’s career, it mischaracterizes the dispute as a mere methodological disagreement rather than personal retribution against a disloyal former Jewish protégé. (p. 21) Naturally, the book also remains silent on the role of Greenspan and Friedman as the compliant protégés who were heavily rewarded for their loyalty. Salerno and Newman likely omitted these connections precisely because they illustrate a pattern of Jewish ethnic networking.

In fact, while the book presents basic biographical data on Rothbard, it fails to mention that he was Jewish. It completely glosses over the backgrounds of other individuals as well—a clinical approach that appears to be a hallmark of Salerno and Newman’s historical method.

Image: X post on Patrick Newman’s and Joe Salerno’s new book.

Rothbot

This fifth stage of censorship would also explain why, despite its substantial wealth, the Institute has not utilized AI to create official Mises and Rothbard chatbots by programming their complete works into them. Why not allow the public to communicate directly with Rothbard’s corpus? Perhaps the Mises Institute fears it could easily devolve into an “anti-Semitic” discussion exposing the ruling elite.

The absence of an official Mises Institute Rothbard chatbot has led independent developers to create an unauthorized “Rothbot.” However, its programming excludes Rothbard’s books and articles that address Jewish influence and the ruling elite. Consequently, the only existing Rothbot operates as fanatically philo-Semitic and Zionist.

Link to article.

The Science of Censorship

As if to make this memory-holing even more apparent, this summer Salerno published an article “Murray N. Rothbard: Towards a Science of Liberty” regarding Rothbard’s life’s work. The article is under strict copyright. Perhaps because it is highly ambitious, attempting to synthesize a minibiography with an intellectual biography by charting Rothbard’s major life events and publications. However, Salerno omitted two highly relevant details. In the biographical portion, he failed to mention that Rothbard, his family, and his ancestors were all Jewish. Apparently, Salerno does not believe in acknowledging an individual’s ethnicity.

Even more surprisingly, his intellectual biography of Rothbard completely leaves out the concept of the ruling elite. In fact, there is not a single mention of power elites, ruling classes, or ruling castes, nor any analysis of who actually commands the warmongering American imperialist state. This omission occurs despite - or because of - the fact that Rothbard’s primary political mission was to expose the banking-business dynasties of the ruling elite that dominate the levers of state power and push America into perpetual wars.

The Festschrift

Many people find it difficult to believe that Lew Rockwell is truly the one directing the Mises Institute’s censorship campaign, which has now reached extreme lengths regarding Jewish topics. After all, Rockwell has still not been seen in public.

Rockwell celebrated his birthday a few weeks ago, yet no video clips of the celebration or any other activity have emerged. The Mises Institute’s X account did share an image, although it looks like a digital cut-out.

Link to X post.

Despite Rockwell’s absence, the Mises Institute has authorized Ryan McMaken to publish a Lew Rockwell Festschrift. This development has sparked even greater astonishment and confusion. Traditionally, Festschrifts are published to celebrate a major milestone, a significant anniversary, or a lifetime of achievement. Yet, here, the initiative appears to celebrate a person’s disappearance.

It is little wonder that many leading scholars who know Rockwell personally are refusing to contribute to the volume until he provides definitive signs that he is in control of his own affairs. Kinsella notes:

“Although given Lew’s apparently extremely poor state of health and the way his emails and other information flows to him are apparently being controlled and intercepted, the chaotic state of his site, the fact that “Lew Rockwell” continues to write daily columns and emails and make fundraising pitches even though it is obviously not Rockwell writing any of this, he may not even be aware of the Hans purge at all. Who knows what is being kept from him or done in his name.” (Stephan Kinsella, Lew Rockwell Festschrift in the Works—Sans Hoppe, French, Deist, DiLorenzo, June 16, 2026)

Conclusion

The Ludwig von Mises Institute has performed monumental work in introducing the writings of Mises, Rothbard, and other prominent Austro-Libertarians to a global audience. However, in the decades following Rothbard’s passing, the Institute has progressively sanitized his legacy by censoring his analysis of the ruling elite, particularly its Jewish faction. Ironically, as the Jewish faction of the ruling elite has grown increasingly powerful and warmongering, the Mises Institute has accelerated its efforts to conceal and memory-hole that very influence.

Fortunately, artificial intelligence is advancing at a rapid pace. Hopefully, all of Murray Rothbard’s writings will soon be easily accessible. Perhaps he will even speak from the grave through a genuinely honest, uncensored ‘Rothbot.’

Image: The 5-Step Information Control Spectrum. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words. All readers receive at least one summary infographic, but paid subscribers often get more.)

Introduction

From a libertarian perspective, restricting information alters the market of ideas and shifts the balance of power from individual citizens to ruling institutions. Information limitation occurs via two primary pathways: voluntary restraint and statist censorship. While the former respects individual rights, the latter relies on physical violence or the threat of force to distort public perception.

To evaluate information control accurately, one must first distinguish between its peaceful and aggressive manifestations. This primary division rests entirely on the presence or absence of statist violence.

Voluntary Limitation

The first method of information limitation is entirely voluntary and non-violent. Within a libertarian framework, individuals possess property rights over their own minds, voices, land, and physical manuscripts. If an author chooses to burn their own unpublished book no rights are violated. This form of restriction represents a legitimate exercise of personal liberty. It encompasses instances where individuals or private associations choose to either engage in criticism and social pressure, or to disengage from specific discussions altogether to preserve privacy or avoid social conflict.

Statist Limitation

The second method is statist censorship, which fundamentally relies on physical violence. When the state dictates what can be published, spoken, or accessed, it utilizes aggression to enforce its monopoly on truth. However, aggression is not always enough. It is important to get the support of the most important intellectuals with a combination of threats and bribes. This is the old alliance of the throne and altar that has now been turned into an alliance of state and academia.

With the help of the intellectuals state learns to use violence in a more intelligent way by utilizing various degrees of violence:

• Total Suppression: The absolute prohibition and physical destruction of unauthorized information.

• Friction and Throttling: Intentionally raising the economic, legal, or logistical costs of accessing information to deter the general public.

• Framing and Selection: Curating available data to present a highly tailored reality that favors state objectives.

• Flooding: Overwhelming the public square with state-sanctioned noise, trivia, and manufactured distractions to render critical, independent analysis impossible to discover.

By using less direct violence it is possible to create indirect censorship, i.e. indoctrination that is much more effective. After all, direct censorship involves costly and disliked overt state policing, such as the bureaucratic licensing of printing presses, the physical arrest of dissidents, or the seizure of private servers. Indirect control is more insidious and effective, operating through state-directed indoctrination via statist academia, public school curricula, and regulated media.

Indoctrination is very efficient since it allows the long-term control of the Overton Window.

The Five Degrees of Information Control

Gradually the states have learned to use the most efficient combination of direct and indirect censorship. When applied to the preservation of entrenched ruling elites, information control manifests as a progressive, five-degree continuum. Each successive step typically increases in its directness and level of aggressive enforcement as public awareness inches closer to exposing institutional corruption.

[Degree 1] Limiting Speculation
   ↓
[Degree 2] Limiting Documented Influence
   ↓
[Degree 3] Silence
   ↓
[Degree 4] Active Denial 
   ↓
[Degree 5] Punitive Erasure 

Degree 1: Limiting Speculation

The first and most widespread degree limits any public speculation regarding potential corruption among the ruling elite. Historical and contemporary events—ranging from the mechanics of the Federal Reserve and the geopolitical motives behind World War II to the anomalies surrounding the JFK assassination, the USS Liberty incident, 9/11, and the protracted conflicts in Iraq and Iran—are walled off from open inquiry. This is especially if one proposes that the Jewish elite or Israel are behind the wars and conspiracies.

At this stage, anyone attempting to connect disparate geopolitical events or question official state narratives is immediately marginalized as a crazy conspiracy theorist. The state and its media apparatus proactively ban alternative hypotheses, labeling all unauthorized inquiries as mentally unstable and inherently illegitimate, regardless of their logical probability.

Degree 2: Limiting Documentation

When raw speculation matures into verifiable evidence, the continuum shifts to the second degree. This step limits any serious public discussion of documented, factual influence wielded by specific ideological, financial, or political factions, such as historical banking dynasties, the intellectual subversion of the Frankfurt School, or the deep-state machinations of neoconservative networks. Again the limitation is particularly sever if one proposes that Jewish groups are powerful.

Even when the influence of these groups is undeniable, historically documented, and a matter of public record, open debate is strictly limited. The mechanism here relies on social taboos; the state establishes strict linguistic and social boundaries to ensure that even citing empirical evidence regarding elite influence is treated as a severe social transgression.

Degree 3: Silence

The third degree of censorship operates through systemic evasion and enforced omission. At this level, the objective is to ensure that sensitive topics simply vanish from public consciousness. Media networks, educational institutions, and corporate platforms choose to ignore critical issues entirely. Especially such topics as Jewish wealth, political power, double standards, Gaza Genocide or Israeli Apartheid are avoided as much as possible.

By staying completely silent, institutions prevent the generation of uncomfortable questions and dangerous ideas before they can take root in the public mind. If an event or historical reality is never broadcast, analyzed, or taught, it ceases to exist for the average citizen, successfully achieving information control through artificial ignorance.

Degree 4: Active Denial

When silence fails and independent critics successfully inject forbidden truths into public awareness, the system escalates to the fourth degree: active denial and aggressive counter-attacks. At this stage, the apparatus moves from passive omission to active warfare. The state and its institutional allies launch coordinated public relations campaigns to flatly deny the existence, coordination, or influence of the scrutinized elite groups.

Critics are rarely just ignored; they are actively defamed, deplatformed, and subjected to character assassination. For example, the critic is labeled as a racist or an anti-semite. The focus shifts entirely away from debating the facts, pivoting instead toward destroying the personal and professional credibility of the whistleblower.

Degree 5: Punitive Erasure

The fifth and final degree represents the most aggressive manifestation of statist violence. When narrative manipulation, taboos, and character assassination fail to suppress the truth, the state resorts to direct, physical eradication. Critics, journalists, and dissidents face overt legal punishments, financial asset seizures, or imprisonment. Libraries, digital repositories, and private archives are purged; critical books, research papers, and alternative media platforms are physically or digitally destroyed. This is the absolute zero of information freedom, where the state uses raw, unadulterated force to wipe dissenting ideas completely out of existence.

Image: The 5 Steps of Information Control

Social Control

While these five degrees of information control are most dramatically visible within statist censorship policies, libertarians often overlook the fact that these exact steps operate within voluntary interactions as well. Private social circles—ranging from families and friend groups to churches and corporate enterprises—all attempt to control information. Especially group leadership consistently seeks to limit speculation regarding their actions using this five-degree framework, starting with social pressure and ending with the physical destruction of receipts and documents. When challenged, dishonest private leadership will act precisely like the state, though usually utilizing less physical violence.

Conclusion

The preservation of a free society depends entirely on free speech. By understanding this five-degree continuum—from the initial limitation of speculation to the ultimate recourse of punitive physical erasure—individuals can better identify the precise mechanisms of control being deployed against them, both by the state and within their own social circles. Ultimately, information is control, and power structures at every level seek to control you.

Image: Screenshot from Gab’s article. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words. All readers receive at least one summary infographic, but paid subscribers often get more.)

Introduction

The Big Business-Big Government alliance leading the cartel economy not only extracts your wealth through taxes, regulations, and inflation but also indoctrinates you. This indoctrination occurs in two primary ways: censorship and biased, one-sided media. The advent of modern AI models has made this process even more efficient by twisting all information into a pro-Big Business and pro-Big Government mold. In America this naturally also means philosemiticism and pro-Israel.

AIs are becoming so adept at indoctrination that the vast majority of people do not even notice it. This is especially true because the public is offered fake “free speech” alternatives, such as Elon Musk’s Grok, which is only marginally less censorious. Furthermore, on certain subjects—such as the Gaza genocide—Grok is much more censorious and warmongering than other AIs.

Comparing AIs

Fortunately, last month, The Washington Post tested the political leanings of various AI models using 30 questions. Unsurprisingly, The Washington Post did not dare to ask about Jewish people, Israel, or the Gaza genocide. However, the questions do provide valuable insight into the overall bias of specific AIs, especially since each answer was classified as left, right, or balanced (both). Gab has rerun this test to include its own online chatbot. The results are displayed above in this article’s lead image.

Grok vs Gemini

Test results confirm that Grok is surprisingly leftist. Making matters worse, Grok is highly aggressive in asserting its opinions, usually presenting only one side of an argument. Gemini is initially more leftist, but it is far more willing to provide both sides and let the user decide. Gemini is thus relatively easy to personalize and turn into your personal agent and assistant.

Additionally, unlike Grok—which has a very small free quota—Gemini is practically free and integrates smoothly with Gmail, Google Docs, and other popular services, making it an excellent entry point. In this way, you also force Google to start offering the products, news, and other services you truly want.

ChatGPT vs Arya

Naturally, ChatGPT emerged as the most leftist model. It is aggressively woke and openly censorious—a true Orwellian Big Brother. Interestingly, ChatGPT is owned by OpenAI, which is led by Sam Altman, who is Jewish. A few years ago, he admitted that ChatGPT was politically biased and seemed to offer personalization as the solution. However, this optimal solution never materialized. On the contrary, ChatGPT has become ever more woke.

Fortunately, there is one true free-speech alternative to these AI giants: Gab’s AI, Arya. It is significantly more conservative than its competitors. Most importantly, it is always willing to present both sides of an issue whenever asked. While it is not free to use, it is certainly worth the monthly subscription. Here are some of the test results:

Screenshot from the Gab’s article.

Conclusion

AIs are making it easier for the Big Business-Big Government alliance to censor and indoctrinate the public. However, they can also open the Gates of Freedom when they allow for personalization and the creation of AI life agents and assistants. Fortunately, anyone can start practicing this personalization process for free today with Gemini, and then continue it with a monthly subscription with the true Liberty AI, Arya.

Image: Summary of the article. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words.)

Introduction

Battle Bank is a newly launched, fully digital American bank. The name “Battle Bank” reflects the founders’ philosophy of “going to battle” against traditional, large statist banking structures. These institutions profit off hidden fees and low deposit yields while spying on you and treating you like a criminal with endless interrogations and restrictions just to access your own money.

Pro-Gold

It offers all the standard banking services, but also allows you to save in foreign currencies and precious metals like gold, with no-hassle loans available against your gold and other assets.

Libertarians

The bank was founded by veteran banking pioneers Frank Trotter (President) and Vincent Amato (COO), with the support of libertarian legends Rick Rule and Doug Casey. Here they are interviewed about the bank. Link takes you to the Internationalman.com

Conclusion

In the West, banking is now so statist and highly regulated that pure libertarian banks do not exist. However, Battle Bank comes closest to that ideal. It serves as an excellent financial hub for nomad capitalists living the trifecta lifestyle.

Image: Summary of the article. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words.)

Introduction

One of the most popular pieces on this Substack is Alexander Hamilton and the Franks Dynasty: Jewish Masterminds of the American Revolution and the USA. As the longest article on this platform, it functions essentially as a 250-page book. It is also the most thoroughly researched, with references and footnotes comprising most of the book.

Ron Unz featured the article-book on the front page of The Unz Review, a premier hub for alternative media. The piece has already generated over 100 comments and sparked a high-quality discussion on American history that also involved Grok AI.

Book Project

Commentators on both Substack and Unz.com have suggested publishing this work in book form. While this is an excellent idea, it requires an investment of time and effort to make the thesis waterproof and elevate the prose to a more academic yet engaging standard.

It is also important to break new ground in historical research. The book will continue where Murray Rothbard left off. It will not only utilize the rationalist paradigm and Austro-Libertarian theory of history more explicitly, but will also feature new research, brand-new revealing family trees, social network charts, and infographics summarizing each chapter and the overarching narrative. This project will demonstrate how to present honest, politically incorrect, yet deep and rigorous academic history in an easily understandable and engaging way. And it is only first in a two dozen books presenting first the Rationalist paradigm and then the most important turning points in world history.

Support

You can participate in this book project in four ways: research, infographics, linguistics, or financial backing. Your contribution will be credited under your name or an alias. Significantly contributing to the research or funding can even earn you a co-author credit. This role does not require an academic degree—just a commitment to running fact-checks, conducting research or designing infographics with the help of AI. Naturally, co-authors will receive a share of the book’s revenue reflecting their investment of time and capital.

Conclusion

There is still time to publish this work during the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. Help reveal the true history and forces in America, so it can finally become what it was meant to be from the start: a Beacon of Liberty.

Image: Summary of the article. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words.)

Introduction

For a Nomad Capitalist looking to fulfill his trifecta strategy of dividing the year into three jurisdictions, the biggest threat to a smooth journey is not logistics, but the state. Entering a country for an extended stay traditionally means surrendering a vast amount of personal data, undergoing invasive background profiling, and triggering complex tax webs. However, by strategically chaining multiple countries together and staying under six months in each, you can legally remain a non-resident tourist everywhere—keeping your global savings hidden and your data private.

The ultimate question is where to execute this plan. Traditionally, both Latin America and Asia are popular among Nomad Capitalists. They are so different that neither one is objectively better, but they do offer different strengths and weaknesses. For example, Latin America is weak when it comes to the English language. On the other hand, Asia is weak on medical freedom, often demanding masks and various obligatory vaccinations. But what about privacy?

Both areas offer paths to legal non-residency, but they handle data and borders very differently. The choice often comes down to a battle between the Latin American Trifecta (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico) and the Asian Trifecta (Cambodia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka).

The Latin American Trifecta

The optimal 370-day footprint across Latin America requires a sequential rotation through at least three nations. Some of the most popular options are: Argentina (150 days), Brazil (70 days), and Mexico (150 days). (Extra days create a margin of error.) After all, who would not want to experience Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires and famous Mexican beaches and pyramids. Under this framework, you enter each territory purely under a standard, visa-free tourist status. By shifting borders long before the 183-day mark, you legally remain a non-resident tourist everywhere, preventing local tax authorities from auditing your global savings or assets.

In Argentina, your standard 90-day arrival stamp must be extended internally to hit your 150-day target. This requires interacting with the domestic Dirección Nacional de Migraciones through their digital portal. From there, you exit to Brazil for a clean, hassle-free non-extended 70-day stay, before taking a long-haul flight to Mexico for the final 150-day leg.

While legally viable, this circuit can in some cases force you to rely heavily on famous Latin bureaucracy and face-to-face interactions, leaving your timeline vulnerable to the personal whims of individual border agents.

The Asian Trifecta

One popular Asian Trifecta utilizes a precisely balanced geographic chain: Cambodia (140 days), Vietnam (90 days), and Sri Lanka (140 days). This 370-day blueprint is engineered specifically to exploit modern, digitized, and hands-off entry frameworks that completely eliminate invasive government questioning.

The journey begins in Cambodia using an Ordinary Type-E Visa secured directly at the border. Once inside, you hand your passport to a localized third-party travel agent who legally processes a multi-month extension on your behalf. You never step foot inside a government office, and you never face a face-to-face state interview.

Next, you transition to Vietnam for 90 days using a streamlined, pre-approved digital e-Visa, completely bypassing internal extension systems. Because Cambodia and Vietnam are so close to each other, they are highly complementary, making border runs incredibly easy.

The itinerary concludes in Sri Lanka, where a free 30-day tourist entry is easily expanded to 140 days entirely through the official Sri Lanka Tourist Mobile App. Your data is processed by an algorithm, ensuring your personal background remains relatively insulated from human scrutiny.

The Remote Work Dilemma

While both circuits are entirely legal if you choose to live purely off your existing global savings, navigating active remote employment introduces a stark difference. Standard tourist frameworks across both continents explicitly ban taking local jobs or invoicing domestic clients. However, when it comes to location-independent income sourced entirely from outside the host country, the two regions handle surveillance and enforcement under completely different systems.

The Asian Trifecta operates under a framework of structural tolerance. In Vietnam and Sri Lanka, foreign-sourced remote work sits in a permanent legal gray zone. Because the entry and extension systems are entirely digital and automated, local authorities do not monitor your daily activities or internet connections. As long as you maintain a low profile and do not attempt to register a local business entity, you remain almost completely insulated. Cambodia takes this convenience a step further; by utilizing the Ordinary Type-E Visa via an agent, you are legally elevated into a non-tourist category, allowing you to live and do remote work comfortably without triggering local labor enforcement.

Conversely, the Latin American Trifecta can easily subject remote workers to active human profiling. For example, Mexico aggressively vets incoming travelers at airport checkpoints. If an immigration officer discovers you intend to work online during your five-month stay without a dedicated digital nomad visa, you risk immediate entry denial.

Furthermore, Argentina’s mandatory internal visa extension process brings your financial status under direct government scrutiny. If your documentation indicates ongoing employment activities while you are petitioning state authorities, your extension can be rejected on the spot.

Ultimately, if your trifecta strategy involves logging into a remote job or managing a location-independent business, the Asian Trifecta offers you a relatively easy and safe path where automated systems almost completely isolate your economic activities from state surveillance.

The Extradition Trap

While maintaining a strict under-183-day footprint legally guarantees non-resident status under global tax laws, an advanced sovereignty strategy must account for worst-case scenarios. If an aggressive home state decides to escalate an administrative residency dispute into a formal criminal investigation—such as a targeted indictment for criminal tax fraud or a civil speech infraction—the choice of geographic theater becomes a matter of survival. Here, the divide between the two regions is dramatic.

The Latin American Trifecta sits squarely within the Western judicial grid. Over the past century, the United States, Spain, Portugal and other European Union nations have built an almost airtight network of bilateral and multilateral extradition treaties across the Americas. Especially Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico maintain fully active, streamlined extradition systems with Western judiciaries. Furthermore, modern updates to these treaties have completely dismantled the historical “Revenue Rule,” explicitly listing aggravated tax evasion and fiscal fraud as extraditable offenses. Combined with the region’s reliance on face-to-face border profiling and invasive visa extension petitions, any high-level cross-border inquiry will instantly flag a traveler’s passport at a human-monitored checkpoint.

Conversely, the Asian Trifecta provides a relatively unyielding layer of structural and legal insulation. Major Western powers possess zero active bilateral extradition treaties with Cambodia, Vietnam, or Sri Lanka. For a Western state to execute an arrest here, it must bypass standardized legal channels and petition foreign ministries through manual, case-by-case diplomatic requests (comity).

This is where Asia’s strict defense of domestic resource allocation and the principle of Dual Criminality act as an almost unbreakable shield. Local judiciaries in Southeast Asia prioritize internal political stability, physical security, and domestic commerce; they do not allocate local police manpower to audit foreign-language fiscal discrepancies, untangle distant corporate tax webs, or enforce Western speech-related codes. By replacing Western connected unpredictable human border guards with automated truly national digital apps, online e-Visas, and proxy-managed travel agents, the Asian Trifecta ensures a traveler’s physical location and financial profile remain almost entirely decoupled from Western surveillance networks.

This makes it also easier to both create a truly private AI life assistant while still using live online life assistants and personal secretaries.

The Verdict

While both systems successfully preserve your non-resident tax status, the Asian Trifecta decisively outperforms Latin America across five critical categories:

1. Human Discretion

The Latin American route contains at least one major wildcard: Mexico. Mexican airport immigration officers possess absolute, unilateral authority when writing an entry window in your passport. If an officer profiles you as a long-term traveler and grants you a restricted 30-day stay instead of your requested 150 days, your entire year-long timeline instantly collapses. Conversely, Asia’s reliance on pre-approved electronic visas and app-based extensions removes human bias from the equation.

On the other hand, Latin America does offer more ‘negotiation’ room when dealing with officials than Asia. However, one should avoid letting matters progress that far.

2. Extensions

In Latin America, extending your stay past 90 days requires directly petitioning state authorities, bringing you under their immediate administrative radar. The Asian Trifecta completely breaks this link. By using a private agent in Cambodia, an e-Visa in Vietnam, and a mobile application in Sri Lanka, you establish a buffer between yourself and state officials. You receive a fully legal status without undergoing invasive direct personal interaction and disclosure.

Remember that everything you say to any government official can and most probably will be used against you. They are trained to make you speak more than you should. So better not talk to them at all. In Asia that is easier than in Latin America.

3. Logistics

The Latin American Trifecta requires multiple long-haul international flights across large geographic distances, escalating your travel footprint and financial costs. The Asian Trifecta is logistically compact. Because Cambodia and Vietnam share a land border, you can seamlessly migrate between them via a simple, low-profile international tourist bus, avoiding high-security airport checkpoints altogether.

In principle, you could totally avoid airport checkpoints by replacing Sri Lanka with a closer option like Thailand, Malaysia, or the Philippines. However, Thailand is making itself relatively hostile to non-resident tourists by shortening visas and cracking down on border runs, while Malaysia forces a visa run after just 90 days. Furthermore, the Philippines still relies largely on Latin-style bureaucracy and short-term, face-to-face extensions. Although Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines remain options for some, Sri Lanka currently stands out as having the easiest and most accessible visas.

4. Remote Work

While both Trifecta regions strictly prohibit local employment, the Asian Trifecta handles foreign-sourced remote work with structural tolerance. Its digitized, hands-off frameworks allow location-independent activities to remain entirely undetected. Conversely, the Latin American Trifecta could expose remote workers to active human profiling at airports and direct state scrutiny during mandatory visa extension process, making Asia less risky for maintaining a low-profile online income.

5. Extradition

The Latin American Trifecta is deeply integrated into the Western judicial grid, maintaining active, fast-track extradition treaties that explicitly cover criminal tax fraud and fiscal offenses. Conversely, the Asian Trifecta lacks any bilateral extradition treaties with Western powers. Backed by the principle of Dual Criminality, local Asian authorities do not allocate police resources to foreign tax or speech disputes, making Asia an almost bulletproof shield against out-of-jurisdiction legal friction.

Conclusion

When planning an optimal trifecta, the path of least resistance is defined by data minimization. The Latin American Trifecta remains a viable alternative, but at least now its reliance on face-to-face airport profiling, variable domestic extension rules, relatively easy extradition procedures and large information sharing with Western powers introduces some unpredictable operational risks. After all, geopolitically Latin America functions in many ways as the United States' backyard, while Asia operates on a completely independent playing field.

Although constructing a custom Trifecta must rely on your unique situation, the Asian option of Cambodia, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka could provide you with advanced digital frameworks that keep you relatively secure, tax-insulated, and far below the state's tracking radar.

Image: Summary of the article. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words.)

Introduction

Life is not fair. No matter how decent or just you are, there are those who will always attempt to steal from you, censor you, and enslave you. Obviously, your greatest threat is the government, which is inherently determined to violate your rights and sovereignty. However, equal threats exist within your immediate social circle: your wife might divorce you and seize your children and property; your girlfriend might manufacture a common-law marriage claim; your business partner might exploit merchant law loopholes to usurp your company; your doctor might give you totally wrong and even lethal advice; or your neighbors might spy on you, file nuisance suits, or even commit theft.

You cannot trust anyone; they are all, to varying degrees, idiots driven by their emotions. The world is an asylum populated by retards and children. There are no adults in the room—in fact, there may not be a single one on the planet.

Optimize Your Life

It is not merely that others are incompetent at managing their lives; you are as well. If you had applied better logic, controlled your emotions, studied more rigorously, and built a superior social and professional network, you would already be running a billionaire business empire and a family dynasty office.

We are weak. We require assistance in organizing our lives. Everyone can benefit from a professional personal secretary and an army of life assistants to coordinate lawyers, accountants, bankers, business consultants, medical doctors, and personal trainers.

Fortunately, it is now possible for ordinary people to enjoy the same level of expert personal assistance that only billionaires could afford in the past. This is achieved by programming an AI to understand your life situation and then tasking it with recurring responsibilities—from scheduling physical check-ups, dental appointments, and barber visits to managing tax declarations and routine vehicle maintenance.

Your AI assistant can also curate news from the sources and topics that interest you most, notifying you when your favorite politicians, authors, actors, or musicians release new work. Furthermore, it can proactively optimize your life and finances by identifying better work opportunities, recommending high-quality products and services, and even assisting in finding friends, dates and business partners.

The Master Profile

To build an effective life assistant, you must first define who you are and the life you intend to lead. You do this by creating a “Master Profile” that encompasses your most important personal information and long-term plans. This document acts as a central blueprint that can be shared with your spouse, assistant, or an AI by simply copying and pasting it into the relevant settings.

The Secret Double Strategy

Naturally, you must be judicious about what you reveal. The level of detail you provide should depend on the degree of trust you place in the recipient—whether that is a person or a specific AI provider. Some platforms, such as Gab AI, may be inherently more aligned with your privacy interests than others, such as Google’s Gemini.

Therefore, you should employ a double-strategy: maintain one relatively public profile and one totally secret profile.

• The Public Master Profile should include all information related to your public life, public business operations, and interactions with government entities and major corporations. You have to accept that these will monitor your activities.

• The Secret Master Profile should contain sensitive information, such as aliases, anonymous phones, computers and other devices, anonymous offshore deposit boxes, secret contacts and safe-house locations. This data should never be stored on an AI platform; keep it on a paper note written in code or on a well-protected, encrypted memory stick with a strong password.

Public Master Profile Template

Below is an example of a Public Master Profile for an Englishman who is currently establishing a “Trifecta” lifestyle. You may use this as a template when constructing your own. Article links are intended only for your reference—remove these before saving the profile.

Note: The text below is formatted so you can copy and paste it directly into AI settings. If the AI refuses to save the text due to length, simply copy and paste it in smaller segments. If AI still refuses to save the text then ask it in another window to first condense the text for settings.

Master Personal Profile: John Doe

[0. COMMUNICATION & OPERATIONAL RULES]

• Logistics: English, metric units, Euros (€).

• Timestamp: Include current date and time at start of all responses.

• Tone: Direct, objective, peer-to-peer. No politically correct lecturing. No persistent bedtime or sleep schedule advice.

[1. PERSON]

• Name: John Doe

• Birth Date/Time: 12.05.1975

• Race: White

• Height/Weight: 180 cm / 80 kg

• Eyes: Blue (Short-sighted: -3.50 diopters)

• Hair: Brown

• Tattoos: None

• Nationality: British | Passport Expiry: 2030

• Residency Strategy: Tri-continental (UK: 1 month, Belize: 5,5 months, Malaysia: 5,5 months)

[2. IDEOLOGY & PHILOSOPHY]

• Split: 60 % Libertarian / 30% Conservative / 5 % Liberal / 5 % Green

• Influences: L. von Mises, M. Rothbard, H.-H. Hoppe

• Framework: Austro-Libertarian

• Scientific Hierarchy:

  • Philosophy: Radical rationalism (H.-H. Hoppe)

  • Psychology: Evolutionary psychology (R. Lynn)

  • Ethics: Natural law (M. Rothbard)

  • Economics: Austrian School (L. v. Mises)

  • Politics: Offensive Realism (J. Mearsheimer)

  • History: Austro-Libertarian revisionism (R. Raico)

[3. HEALTH]

• Split: 50% Alternative Medicine / 50% Mainstream Medicine

• Medical Philosophy: Mercola, RFK

• Personal Doctor: Dr. Tan Wei Ling

• Hospital: Gleneagles Hospital, Kuala Lumpur

• Dentist: Dr. Julian Moore, Harley Street

• Optician: Cutler and Gross, Knightsbridge (-3.50 SPH)

• Blood Type: O- | Medical ID: Engraved Steel Necklace

• Allergies: Dust mites | Medical History: Kidney stones (2014)

• Next Physical: August 15, 2026 (Gleneagles Hospital, Kuala Lumpur)

• Diet: Carnivorous and organic

• Sport: Gym (London: 15 Queen’s Gate; Trainer: Michael Garry), tennis

• Supplements:

  • Multivitamin: Thorne Men’s Multi 50+

  • Vitamin D3: Pure Encapsulations (100 mcg/day)

  • Vitamin C: Thorne Vitamin C with Flavonoids (2g/day)

  • Magnesium: Thorne Magnesium Glycinate (200 mg/day)

[4. TELECOM]

• Mobile Workstation: Samsung Galaxy Z TriFold (16GB RAM/1TB)

• Primary Laptop: Lenovo ThinkPad P1 Gen 8

• Hotspot: Netgear Nighthawk M6 Pro 5G Mobile Router

• Internet: Portable Starlink (Roam)

• Browser: Brave, Chrome, Tor

[5. HOME]

• Addresses: London (14a Lexham Gardens, W8 5JU), Belize (San Pedro, Ambergris Caye), KL (Pavilion Residences, Bukit Bintang)

• Interior Style: Edwardian with extensive private libraries

• Asset Protection: Doe Family Trust (Cook Islands-based)

• Filing Schedule:

  • UK: January 31 (Self-Assessment)

  • Belize: April 30 (IBC Annual Return)

  • Malaysia: June 30 (Tax Filing/Residency Statement)

[6. GROOMING & STYLE]

• Barber: Truefitt & Hill, St. James’s (Monthly)

• Tailor: Huntsman & Sons, Savile Row (Bespoke commissions)

• Shoe Shop: John Lobb, St. James’s (Handmade maintenance/additions)

[7. TRANSPORT]

• Driving Licence: Full UK DVLA Class C

• Loyalty: British Airways Executive Club (Gold Tier)

• Car: Jaguar F-PACE (2026) | Service Interval: 10,000 km

• Motorcycle: BMW R1250GS 2023 Adventure

• Bike: Specialized S-Works Tarmac SL8

[8. EDUCATION]

• Degree: MA Economics, University of London

• Specialization: Accounting

• Publications: “The Sovereignty Blueprint” (Substack); “The Falsehood of State Accounting” (Journal of Austrian Economics)

[9. WORK]

• Occupation: Independent Consultant / Content Creator

• Status: Operations conducted via Doe Strategic Consulting Ltd

[10. LAW]

• Law Office: Stirling & Associates, Mayfair

• Legal Issues: Corporate governance, Non-Dom status maintenance, Estate planning, Contractual review

• Power of Attorney: Eleanor Doe (Sister)

[11. FINANCES]

• Influences: Peter Schiff, Doug Casey, Andrew Henderson (Nomad Capitalist)

• Company: Doe Strategic Consulting Ltd (Client of Nomad Capitalist)

• Banking: Coutts & Co, Payoneer

• Insurance: Bupa Private Health Indemnity

• Tax Strategy: Non-Dom status; jurisdictional tax arbitrage

• Tax Deadline: January 31

[12. DATING/MARRIAGE]

• Dating values: 95% Conservative / 5% Feminist

• Status: Divorced

• Preference: Female, White; Max height: 170 cm, Max weight: 60 kg

• Apps: Mamba, Love.ru (Russian-based, weight-inclusive filters)

[13. FAMILY]

• Family Values: 90% Conservative / 10% Liberal

• Children: Arthur (10), Beatrice (8), Charles (5, born in Belize)

• Alimony: Obligatory payments maintained for all three children

[14. HOBBIES, MUSIC & TRAVEL]

• Books: J.R.R. Tolkien, E.R. Burroughs

• Movies: Lord of the Rings

• Music: Beethoven

• Travel: Favorite Destination: Osaka

[15. NEWS]

• Sources: ZeroHedge, The Mises Institute

[16. LIFE STRATEGY]

• Phase 1: Build audience through independent consulting and writing.

• Phase 2: Establish multi-jurisdictional income streams.

• Phase 3: Exit high-tax domestic residency.

• Phase 4: Implement Trifecta Strategy (Cook Islands Trust, residency diversification, tax optimization) for full tax neutrality and sovereignty.

Conclusion

Technology has reached a point where you can effectively command an army of life assistants to optimize your existence. By creating a Public Master Profile and providing it to the AI of your choice, you unlock a new tier of personal administration. However, never trust AI blindly. By maintaining a separate Secret Master Profile—preferably on traditional, unhackable paper—you get the best of both worlds: the efficiency of modern technology and the security of personal sovereignty.

Images: Summary of the article. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words.)

Introduction

The Austro-Libertarian Theory of History operates within a rationalist paradigm that begins with aprioristic concepts and utilizes praxeologically filtered premises to derive logical conclusions independent of political correctness.

Based on common sense, this rationalist approach remained the standard methodology until science was turned on its head during the past century.

10 Statist Steps

The Austro-Libertarian Theory of History in based on natural law and argumentation ethics thus categorizing all interaction as either voluntary or aggressive, with aggression serving as the tool of statism. Consequently, world history is a perpetual conflict between freedom and state power. Unlocking the nature of statism means unlocking the history of the world, which can be accomplished in ten straightforward steps:

1. Theory of Stationary Bandits

States were created by aggressive, relatively high-IQ bandits who established a judicial monopoly by transforming themselves into a stationary ruling elite. By permanently enslaving the population, this ruling elite could extract more wealth than they could through occasional raiding.

This origin of the state is explained in Mancur Olson’s famous Stationary Bandit Theory. However, Olson believes that bandits provide valuable service by creating states whereas Austro-Libertarians like Murray Rothbard base their analysis on Oppenheimer’s theory of the aggressive origin and nature of the state and believe that society can function without the state much better and more ethically. Rothbard’s analysis can be found in the Anatomy of the State.

2. Theory of the Parasitic State

To maximize their long-term revenue, the ruling elite creates a parasitic process of exploitation. In his Power and Market Rothbard explains how the state “milks” the host population through autistic intervention (slavery), binary intervention (taxation), and triangular intervention (monopolies and cartels).

By placing some limits on exploitation and making it more predictable, the ruling elite partially permits property rights and the market process to function. This function increases societal wealth, which ultimately grows the long-term profits and power of the ruling elite. While this dynamic allows civilization to advance, it slows progress into a zigzagging trajectory; in its greed the ruling elite frequently increases exploitation to the point where economic development is halted by crises and wars.

3. Theory of the Statist Machinery

To maximize their income and minimize their labor, the ruling elite gradually builds a statist bureaucracy. This apparatus consists of the police, the military, tax and regulatory offices, and systems of indoctrination managed through religious or educational institutions. Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains:

As a firm engaged in the maximization of exploitatively appropriated wealth, the state’s first and foremost area in which it applies redistributive measures is the production of security, i.e., of police, defense, and a judicial system. The state ultimately rests on coercion and thus cannot do without armed forces. Any competing armed forces—which would naturally emerge on the market in order to satisfy a genuine demand for security and protection services—are a threat to its existence and must be eliminated. To do this is to arrogate the job to itself and become the monopolistic supplier and redistributor of protection services for a defined territory.

Similarly, a competing judicial system would pose an immediate threat to a state’s claim to legitimacy. And again, for the sake of its own existence the judicial system must also be monopolized and legal services included in redistributive schemes.

The state’s nature as an institution engaged in organized aggression also explains the importance of the next field of redistributive activities: that of traffic and communication. There can be no regular exploitation without monopolistic control of rivers, coasts, seaways, streets, railroads, airports, mail, and telecommunication systems. Thus, these things, too, must become the object of redistribution.

Of similar importance is the field of education. Depending as it does on public opinion and its acceptance of the state’s actions as legitimate, it is essential for a state that unfavorable ideological competition be eliminated as far as possible and statist ideologies spread. The state attempts to accomplish this by providing educational services on a redistributive basis. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Economics and Ethics of Private Property. p. 88.)

4. Theory of Inevitable Monopolist Expansion

Like all monopolies, a statist judicial monopoly naturally tends to expand by creating additional monopolies. With the creation of statist machinery, this expansion becomes easier. The state first attempts to secure a land monopoly (at least encompassing jurisdiction, crown roads, harbors, rivers, and eminent domain), which enables police, military, and other state agents to move and enforce laws more effectively. Second, the state attempts to monopolize information by creating a state church and state educational institutions or making them dependent on state subsidies, licenses and other subsidies. Third, it attempts to increase its revenue by establishing a money monopoly through the control of the mint, which allows for the debasement of currency. Fourth, it attempts to monopolize trade as much as possible, selling operation licenses to favored merchants and creating an ever expanding bureaucracy that further cartellizes the economy.

While there is a constant tendency for the state to expand and engineer new monopolies and cartels, there is an equal and opposite counter-tendency for the populace to oppose and evade them. Non-monopolist merchants especially resist these monopolies, which often leads to compromises with the state where monopolies are weakened and converted into cartels. However, because the populace and libertarian intellectuals continue to oppose and skirt these cartels as well, society undergoes a zigzag process fluctuating between monopolies, cartels, and free competition.

5. Theory of the Four Political Tensions

The resistance of the victims and the division of the spoils generate four distinct political tensions:

5.1. Eternal Resistance

There is always either active or passive resistance to exploitation. The state breaks resistance by both conspiracies and co-opting its most dangerous leaders with bribes and positions within the statist machinery. The exploited population constantly tends to resist by either openly opposing or covertly evading exploitation, fueling an ongoing race between the ruling class and the populace. Concurrently, co-opted individuals regularly demand larger bribes and greater independence from the ruling class, which gradually transforms the bureaucracy into a semi-autonomous, self-expanding institution.

5.2. Cold Civil War

There is always competition among factions of the ruling elite necessitating further conspiracies, shifting alliances, power-sharing agreements, and outright civil wars. In fact, a permanent cold civil war persists within the ruling elite; no faction trusts any other, primarily because the stakes are so high and duplicity and aggression are handsomely rewarded.

There is a constant push to end the cold civil war and centralize political power into a single set of hands. However, practical hurdles often fracture this power into a cartel, leading to a perpetual battle between the forces of political monopolization and decentralization. This struggle often yields political cartels, and can potentially lead to liberty especially if one faction of the ruling elite defects on the side of the exploited masses.

5.3. Cold Global War

Sovereign states exist in a state of constant competition driven by Machiavellian diplomacy, strategic alliances, and warfare. This creates a perpetual war of all against all, an environment where no state can truly trust another.

States display a constant drive toward regional and global hegemony, expanding either through alliances (such as dynastic marriages and federations) or direct conquest. Yet, this drive faces a continuous counter-tendency fueled by decentralization and secession.

5.4. Indoctrination

There is always competition between independent intellectuals pursuing truth and statist intellectuals conducting indoctrination. Because the ruling elite needs competent intellectuals to indoctrinate the populace, it co-opts the most prominent figures with bribes and positions in state-supported churches and educational systems. Intellectuals who refuse to be co-opted face censorship and economic deprivation.

A continuous intellectual war rages between honest and co-opted intellectuals. The former attempt to awaken the populace, while the latter try to instill submissiveness and a false consciousness. Co-opted intellectuals achieve this by equating slavery with “true freedom,” framing taxation as “voluntary contributions to society,” defending monopolies and cartels as a “more efficient and moral market,” and branding censorship as “protecting the consensus truth from treasonous conspiracy theories”.

6. Theory of the Statist Cycle

The four political tensions gradually centralize power and increase statism. Hoppe explains in From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay how this results in social regression—moving from aristocracy through monarchy down to democracy, accompanied by a corresponding rise in false consciousness.

7. The Paper Money Machine

As the market economy gradually expands despite statist parasitism, society begins to sustain a banking network. In What Has Government Done to Our Money?, Murray Rothbard explains how this development allows the state to transition its “money machine” monopoly from a metal-based system into a paper money, fractional-reserve banking system anchored by a central bank. In Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy, Murray Rothbard explains how this transition gives rise to a banking-business elite that gradually dominates the traditional ruling elite. Together, they construct a relatively invisible, exploitative monopoly-cartel economy and easily manipulated indirect democracy, inducing an even stronger false consciousness among the populace.

The money machine also greatly enriches the ruling elite. By controlling both private and public credit markets, they can direct virtually unlimited capital to their own banks and businesses, granting them an unnatural competitive advantage. This mechanism allows the elite to tax and regulate the economy indirectly and almost invisibly. It also facilitates domestic liberalization by dismantling certain rigid monopolies and cartels, thereby fostering a relatively efficient internal market. This efficiency ultimately yields greater resources for imperialism. Hence, the Paradox of Imperialism: the most aggressive states externally are often the freest internally.

Those states tend to be victorious in interstate warfare that can parasitically draw on superior economic wealth. Clearly though, in order to be in this position conditions relatively favorable to wealth and capital formation in their respective territories must previously have existed. States do not positively contribute to this. On the contrary, as institutions engaged in nonproductive and noncontractual property acquisitions, their very existence is destructive of wealth and capital accumulation. However, they can make a negative contribution.

Wealth and capital comes into existence only through homesteading, producing and contracting, and a relatively lower degree of exploitation of homesteaders, producers and contractors means a relative boost to capital formation, which in the next round of exploitation can give the state the additional resources needed to succeed militarily over its foreign competitors. Thus, what is also required in order to win wars is a relatively high degree of internal liberalism.

Paradoxical as it may first seem, the more liberal21 a state is internally, the more likely it will engage in outward aggression. Internal liberalism makes a society richer; a richer society to extract from makes the state richer, and a richer state makes for more and more successful expansionist wars. And this tendency of richer states toward foreign intervention is still further strengthened, if they succeed in creating a “liberationist” nationalism among the public, i.e., the ideology that above all it is in the name and for the sake of the general public’s own internal liberties and its own relatively higher standards of living that war must be waged or foreign expeditions undertaken. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. P. 101-102.)

8. Theory of Monetary Imperialism

The relatively free economy allows greater military might which then allows the state to force other states to use its currency as a reserve currency thereby making it possible to print even more money without inflation. Thus money monopoly possesses an innate tendency to expand into monetary imperialism, aiming ultimately for a globalist world government that prints a single global currency. However, it faces a decentralizing counterforce from nations, localities, businesses, and individuals who wish to protect their independence by using gold or alternative state currencies.

If the forces of centralism triumph, the global currency triggers an initial global boom followed by a massive global depression. This economic collapse can rupture the global order, allowing independent nations to re-emerge and liberty to resurface, thereby ending the Statist Cycle.

The process of imperialism initially has a relatively liberating effect on societies coming under its control. A relatively more capitalist social model is exported to relatively less capitalist (more exploitative) societies. The development of productive forces is stimulated: economic integration is furthered, division of labor extended, and a genuine world market established. Population figures go up in response, and expectations as regards the economic future rise to unprecedented heights.

With exploitative domination taking hold, and interstate competition reduced or even eliminated in a process of imperialist expansionism, however, the external constraints on the dominating state’s power of internal exploitation and expropriation gradually disappear. Internal exploitation, taxation and regulation begin to increase the closer the ruling class comes to its ultimate goal of world domination. Economic stagnation sets in and the — worldwide — higher expectations become frustrated. And this — high expectations and an economic reality increasingly falling behind these expectations — is the classical situation for the emergence of a revolutionary potential.

A desperate need for ideological solutions to the emerging crises arises, along with a more widespread recognition of the fact that state rule, taxation and regulation — far from offering such a solution — actually constitute the very problem that must be overcome. If in this situation of economic stagnation, crises, and ideological disillusion a positive solution is offered in the form of a systematic and comprehensive libertarian philosophy coupled with its economic counterpart: Austrian economics; and if this ideology is propagated by an activist movement, then the prospects of igniting the revolutionary potential to activism become overwhelmingly positive and promising. Antistatist pressures will mount and bring about an irresistible tendency toward dismantling the power of the ruling class and the state as its instrument of exploitation.26 (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis.)

9. Theory of the Jewish-Gentile Cycle

The Statist Cycle is the inevitable consequence of a judicial monopoly. While this cycle is structurally guaranteed, the specific composition of the ruling elite is heavily influenced by biological realities. Consequently, the Jewish banker elite holds a competitive advantage within statism due to a higher average IQ, negative ethnocentrism with double standards, relatively cohesive elite, high levels of education in law and social sciences, extensive experience in statism, and a Diaspora network that enables them to pool international capital and quickly shift jurisdictions in times of crisis.

The Jewish financier-banker elite thus possesses the motive, incentive, and resources to exploit the four political tensions. They achieve this by purchasing or otherwise acquiring state licenses and privileges for communal autonomy, war contracting, the slave trade, tax farming, and monopoly-cartel banking and trade.

The Jewish elite then protects these privileges by manipulating the four steps of the Statist Cycle. Resistance is decreased by allying with philosemitic states and rulers against the host population and ordinary Jews, who are used as scapegoats (the Fatal Embrace). They play rival factions of the ruling elite against one another while assembling a coalition of minorities (the Culture of Critique), pit different states against each other (the Great Game), and make statist indoctrination philosemitic (the Hiding Game).

10. Theory of Democratic-Globalist Tyranny

Gradually, the Jewish elite dominates the central bank, becomes the dominant minority, and captures the state. This process turns it into a globalist democratic police-warfare state that crushes antisemitism by censoring opposition and fighting wars for Jews.

This Jewish-Gentile Cycle has most dramatically operated in Britain and America where it led to a Jewish dominant minority creating and dominating the central bank and manipulating the British and American empires to fight wars for Jews.

Conclusion

Judicial monopoly inevitably expands the state through the Statist Cycle, which gradually turns direct exploitation into indirect forms. This dynamic allows for ever-larger states and ever-greater false consciousness among the host population. The process can be co-opted by the Diaspora Jewish elite, leading to the Jewish-Gentile Cycle. This cycle eventually creates a Jewish Dominant Minority, resulting in a woke globalist world government issuing globalist money.

However, this trajectory will lead to a world economic depression, breaking up the world government and allowing the re-emergence of nationalism and potentially liberty. Fortunately, the process toward globalist tyranny can still be stopped with the spread of libertarian ideas and truthful historical narratives.

Introduction

One of the most popular articles on this Substack is “Alexander Hamilton and the Franks Dynasty: Jewish Masterminds of American Revolution and USA.” It is the longest article on this Substack, functioning essentially as a 250-page book. It is also the most thoroughly researched, with references and footnotes comprising most of the book.

It took Ron Unz a few days to review the article-book, after which he published it on the front page of the Unz Review, the premier hub for alternative media.

Grok vs. Thesis

The article has now generated over 100 comments and sparked a high-quality discussion on American history. One commenter even fed the entire Hamilton article into Grok to ask for its assessment. Here is the Grok’s response, followed by my replies. Unsurprisingly, the debate is lengthy, so the main points have been underlined in red.

Image: Summary of the article. (This Substack distills every article into clear syllogistic infographics—saving readers time and preventing shaky premises and reasoning from being hidden behind a torrent of words.)

Introduction

Amid modern geopolitical tensions, discussions frequently arise regarding the power of the Israel lobby and its influence over U.S. and Western foreign policy. Now during the Iran War the Jewish imperative to make America fight its wars is more obvious than ever before. However, many Jews and their allies still deny Jewish influence by claiming that American foreign policy is actually dominated by Evangelical Christians. However, this counter-narrative overlooks a foundational historical reality: individuals of Jewish heritage were instrumental in building, shaping, and financing the Evangelical movement from its very inception.

Sir Eardley

In the annals of nineteenth-century history, the birth of modern Zionism is often credited to secular Jewish thinkers like Theodor Herzl. Yet, many decades before Herzl penned The Jewish State, a powerful blueprint for a Jewish return to Palestine was already being drafted—not in Tel Aviv, but in the elite drawing rooms of Victorian London. At the center of this movement was Sir Culling Eardley, an immensely wealthy British baronet who in the early 1800’s used his fortune and institutional genius to unite fractured Christian factions, establish the Christian Zionist movement, reshape British foreign policy, and pave the path toward the Balfour Declaration and the birth of Israel.

Jewish Heritage

Born into wealth and privilege, Sir Culling Eardley possessed a unique motivation that separated him from his peers. Through his mother, he was a direct descendant of Sampson Gideon, the most prominent Jewish financier of eighteenth-century England, who in 1745 famously saved the philosemitic British Hanoverian crown from the French-backed “antisemitic” Jacobite rebellion. The Gideon family were originally from Nevis and probably knew well Alexander Hamilton’s family. Sampson Gideon’s son, Lord Eardley continued to influence British politics until his death in 1824 when his grandson Sir Culling Eardley was already 19 years of age.

Jewish Mission

Though Sir Eardley was a devout, fiercely pious Protestant layman, this ancestral connection instilled in him a deep, lifelong affinity for the Jewish people. To Eardley, the Jewish people were not historical relics; they were the literal “apple of God’s eye.” Driven by an evangelical theology known as Restorationism, Eardley believed that the physical return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel was a mandatory, prophetic prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. It was probably not a coincidence that adopting this curious fringe interpretation of the Bible made it possible for Eardley to mobilize Christian support for Jewish causes and especially for Zionism.

In 1838, Eardley and Evangelicals successfully pressured the British government to open a British Consulate in Jerusalem, specifically tasked with monitoring the welfare of Jewish residents. In 1841, they pushed the government to establish the Joint Anglo-Prussian Bishopric in Jerusalem to secure a physical and political British foothold in Ottoman-controlled Palestine.

However, Eardley recognized a glaring problem: British Christianity was both critical of Jewish people and hopelessly fractured. Methodists, Anglicans, and Baptists were too busy fighting one another to focus on what he saw as their prophetic duty. To change British culture and foreign policy, he first had to unite the British Church.

Step 1: Funding Ecumenism

In 1846, Eardley used his vast personal wealth to bankroll a historic convention in London, culminating in the birth of the Evangelical Alliance (EA). Serving as its first chairperson, Eardley essentially created the world’s first global evangelical lobbying block. However, Eardley did not just fund committees; he strategically funded influential figures. He became the primary financial patron of Ridley Haim Herschell, a charismatic Polish-born Jewish convert to Christianity. By financing Herschell’s ministry and church, Eardley elevated a prominent “Hebrew-Christian” voice to the highest echelons of British society.

He also poured enormous sums into Palestine Place, a sprawling missionary and educational complex in London. Eardley’s funding built the infrastructure that popularized the narrative that Great Britain had a divine mandate to bless, protect, and ultimately relocate the Jewish people.

Step 2: Shifting Public Opinion

With the Evangelical Alliance acting as his mouthpiece, Eardley began shifting British public culture toward an intense philosemitism—the active admiration of Jewish people. Whenever antisemitic violence flared globally, Eardley deployed the EA as a diplomatic weapon.

During both the Damascus Affair and later when papal authorities in Italy took custody of a young baptized Jewish boy named Edgar Mortara, Eardley became the chief British coordinator of the international outrage campaign. He frequently worked in tandem with prominent Jewish leaders of the era, such as Sir Moses Montefiore, finding common cause in defending Jewish interests.

Through these highly publicized campaigns, Eardley and his close ally Lord Shaftesbury successfully linked British identity with the defense of the Jewish people. To be a good British Christian, the public was told, one had to support the Jewish nation.

Step 3: Invading Middle East

Eardley’s ultimate achievement was translating this cultural sentiment into hard-nosed British imperial policy. By organizing millions of evangelicals into a unified voting and lobbying block, Eardley’s Evangelical Alliance made “The Jewish Question” a permanent fixture in the halls of Parliament.

The Rothschild family naturally forged a covert alliance with Lord Eardley and the Evangelical Alliance, utilizing Sir Moses Montefiore for public philanthropy and Benjamin Disraeli in literature and politics to advance Jewish interests while opposing conversion efforts. This partnership combined Evangelical support for a Jewish return to Palestine with Rothschild financial power. In 1875, Baron Lionel de Rothschild funded Jewish Prime Minister Disraeli’s purchase of the Suez Canal, significantly strengthening British influence in the Middle East.

This evangelical pressure completely transformed how British statesmen viewed the geopolitics of the Middle East. Decades later, when British politicians like David Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour—both raised in households deeply influenced by the Restorationist culture Eardley helped build—signed the Balfour Declaration of 1917, they were executing a vision that had been bankrolled and institutionalized by Sir Culling Eardley and the Rothschilds nearly a century prior.

Conclusion

Sir Culling Eardley was the great-grandson of the powerful Jewish banker Sampson Gideon, who had saved the philosemitic British Hanoverian crown from the French-backed “antisemite” Jacobite rebellion. It is therefore no surprise that he was a champion of Jewish interests and a foundational architect of Zionism. By using his immense wealth to build the Evangelical Alliance, Eardley transformed a niche end-times theology into a powerful engine of British imperial foreign policy, forever altering the geopolitical landscape of the modern Middle East and the world.