Direct Link to Latest News


Libertarian Role in Christian Subversion

February 27, 2012

north1.jpg(Gary North, left)

Libertarianism and related movements are trying to make Christians compromise their principles

A Response To Gary North

North's Christian Dominionism idea is eerily similar to the Novus Ordo Seclorum movement, except of course it puts an overtly theocratic spin on it. It is no surprise then that Mr. North would be more interested in representing a politically expedient position than in representing Jesus.

by Jake Shreffler

[email protected]

Jake Shreffler is a mathematician in Northeast Ohio.

Reading articles like Gary North's response
to Anthony Migchel offends me both as a Christian and as an Austrian economist. Just because Austrian theory is logically independent of ethics, doesn't mean Austrian economists are required to advocate evil.

While I have to be an Austrian economist to understand how the world system works, I do not have to join the majority of Austrians in supporting the world system.

Greenbacks are Compatible with Austrian Economics

Many of the same ideas used in the formation of
Austrian economics were supported by Spanish Jesuits in the Middle Ages, particularly as justification to circumvent usury laws.

So clearly economics has been used as a tool to support the agenda of the rich. Even if the elite are not bankrolling Austrian economics, that doesn't mean they aren't taking advantage of it.

Consider how much Libertarianism and Austrian economics is boosting the price of gold. That's definitely a business opportunity for the elite speculators. To think that these movements are not part of the elite's big game board would be extremely naive.

Ironically, contrary to the Ludwig von Mises Institute dogma, the strict theory of
Austrian economics does not actually favor gold and silver-backed currency. Greenbacks are nothing more than notes issued by a Hayekian Currency Board which is owned by the government.

An unbiased analysis of greenbacker proposals based on Austrian economics would conclude that greenbacks are no more susceptible to business cycle manipulation than a gold standard.

Gold has no intrinsic value and neither do greenbacks. Both can be manipulated by surprise government confiscations and disbursements as well as the activities of insolvent fractional reserve banks.

Austrian students are often led to believe that demand for gold in the jewelry provides a floor price for gold, but they don't often consider that jewelry can be taxed to knock the floor out of the price of gold.

So it would be very foolish for an
Austrian economist to argue for a mere gold standard without specifying many other pertinent policy details. It would be similarly foolish to give a blanket dismissal of greenbacker proposals without specifying these kind of details.

What Would Jesus Do?

While the ethics of
Austrian economists Mises and Rothbard should be viewed as products of secular humanism, as a professed Christian Dominionist, Gary North is supposed to reject secular humanism.

However, he preaches that Christians should conquer all the nations of the world before the prophesied return of Jesus. Apparently Mr. North thinks this is what Jesus meant by "take up [your] cross, and follow me."

This Dominionism idea is eerily similar to the Novus Ordo Seclorum movement, except of course it puts an overtly theocratic spin on it. It is no surprise then that Mr. North would be more interested in representing a politically expedient position than in representing Jesus.

So Mr. North has basically accused Anthony Migchels of being a nutcase greenbacker in this article
, because Mr. Migchels has put forward a conspiracy theory of libertarianism.

Mr. North is more interested in labeling Mr. Migchels a nutcase than in arriving at the truth. This is just the sort of thing that gives Christianity a bad name. So since Mr. North is ostensibly my brother in Jesus Christ, I'm taking this opportunity to apologize to Mr. Migchels for Mr. North's behavior.

Gary North's Mistakes

When it comes to the issue of whether the banker Otto Kahn discussed the support of Bolshevism by bankers, Mr. North's article claims that "there is no record that Mr. Kahn ever said this. [...] We have here another example of an invented quotation."

However, Henry Makow has previously identified
the alleged record as Geneva Versus Peace. Is Mr. North claiming that this record does not exist? If so, why should the reader accept such a claim? Because Mr. North says so?

Mr. North correctly disputes the claim that modern
Austrian economics was invented as a dialectic opposite to communism. However, the more fundamental issue to investigate is whether Austrian economics is in fact currently participating in a dialectic which manipulates and distracts voters and politicians.

I suspect that Mr. North fails to comprehend that the essence of Marxist dialectics is not in actually describing alleged forces of history, but rather as political theater which manipulates people. This would explain some of Mr. North's misunderstanding of Mr. Migchel's article.

Mr. North writes that we "may recall how well the Jewish Money Power did in Germany, 1933-45." This seems to imply that no rich Jews could avoid the Jewish Holocaust, but it is widely known that Mises himself did so by emigrating.
[Makow: Max Warburg's brother Otto worked at the Cancer Institute in Berlin until war's end, while his mother stayed at her comfortable apartment in Hamburg.] 

Mr. North writes that there "is no trace of any of Hayek's ideas in anything David Rockefeller has said or done" and that "
Austrian theory has about at (sic) much impact on mainstream economists as it had on Alan Greenspan, the bubble master."

However, Mr. Rockefeller's economics dissertation was on the efficiency of laying off factory workers in a depression. This is clearly a central idea in Austrian business cycle theory. Just because David Rockefeller supports the New World Order doesn't mean he isn't an Austrian economist.

Any system of ethics whatsoever can be plugged into Austrian theory. Also, the Greenspan comment is as if Alan Greenspan's understanding of Austrian economics were supposed to make him be a good libertarian, but this is absurd. Greenspan likely knew he was doing damage through the whole bubble. The man bragged publicly about misleading Congress with his Fedspeak for goodness sake.


The bottom line concerning this line of argumentation is going to be whether libertarianism and related movements are trying to make Christians compromise their principles.

Having been involved with libertarianism for years I concluded that this is precisely what these movements do. Libertarian movements operate under the same attitude as Blue Freemasonry: a strange compromise between satanism and Christianity. Satanists are expected not to engage in human sacrifice and Christians are expected not to mention Jesus.

Kudos to Meme Hunter for pointing out a connection between Ayn Rand and Aleister Crowley.

Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Libertarian Role in Christian Subversion"

Jacob replies to Marcos said (February 28, 2012):


I wrote that the libertarian movement operates with an attitude that encourages compromised Christianity. You may want to label Gary North as a bad libertarian, but he has participated in the libertarian movement for years. Gary North would claim that his version of Christianity is both linked to individual freedom and to Austrian economics.

Also, you are conflating Austrian economics with libertarianism. The whole point of Austrian theory is how to compare free markets with regulated markets. Which option seems better depends on one's goals, which may not include individual freedom.

Marcos said (February 28, 2012):

The article fails to make any connection between Dominionism and Libertarianism. I mean, it sounds like the title belongs to another article. The author brings a conclusion that is not supported anywhere in the text.

In fact, the author himself disproves the connection when he says Austrian is not inherently linked to any ethical view (he is wrong, it is linked with individual freedom by consequence and as a pre-requisite). Certainly not with Dominionism, which is a doctrine of theocratic control.

Texts should have internal logic.

Tom said (February 28, 2012):

Thanks for the expose on the "libertarian" movement, it would be so easy to be consumed by this "alternative" world view which seems, as your recent articles are anunciating, to lead to the same end, namely centralised world governance.

What I found very fascinating is the quote by Ron Paul where he states quite openly of his prediliction towards a centralised global system (I couldn't find the quote that I recently read on your site that verifies this).

What consolidates the idea that these people are part of the dialectic, to me at least, is the fact that Ron Paul, apart from the freemason connections and satanic gestures, is that he evidently "is a self-avowed (Ayn) Rand admirer". This is significant, I would suggest, when you consider the naming of his son. Maybe I am reading too much into this.

It's enough to convince me, though, that Ron Paul is just another puppet in the hands of satan.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at