Skip to content

Old Rothschild- and Rockefeller hands controlled the Libertarian-Communist dialectic

by on March 11, 2012

(left, Bernard Baruch, the Zionist millionaire who sponsored both the Bolshevik Revolution and the Libertarian movement in the United States)

Closing the circle, in this article Memehunter connects the founding fathers of the Libertarian party directly to the top of the Money Power chain of command. It was Alfred Kohlberg, fronting for his boss Bernard Baruch, who played a key role in both the cover up of Jewish involvement in Bolshevism and building up the other side of the dialectic: Libertarianism.

By Memehunter
For Henry Makow and Real Currencies

In How the Illuminati $pawn Libertarians, Anthony Migchels explained how a myriad Libertarian organizations were funded by the Illuminati Money Power. Today, we follow up on this article by explaining a key incentive behind this funding: To cover up the Illuminati Money Power’s connection with Communism.

The Illuminati Jewish bankers who were promoting Communism and had organized the Bolshevik Revolution were aware that many observers were beginning to connect the dots and to notice the importance of the Jewish involvement in Communism. Thus, in order to deflect criticism, they sought to show that there were Jews against Communism.

The American Jewish League against Communism
As explained in Illuminati Bankers controlled Joseph McCarthy, there were only two purposes for the founding of the American Jewish League against Communism, or AJLAC: “the number one purpose was to take the heat off the Jewishness of Communism, and a secondary aim was to get the Jews out of Communism and to support Zionism.”

The chairman of the AJLAC was Jewish businessman Alfred Kohlberg, head of the so-called “China Lobby”. The same Kohlberg, a close ally of Senator McCarthy, also co-founded the John Birch Society with Robert Welch and Fred Koch, head of Koch Industries.

Moreover, Kohlberg was a major sponsor of Plain Talk, which merged with the Freeman, a libertarian journal still published today by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), itself a direct offshoot of the William Volker Fund and an active supporter of the Mont Pelerin Society (see Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati Ploy).

Who was hiding behind Alfred Kohlberg?
Although the connections between the AJLAC, the John Birch Society, and Libertarian outlets such as the FEE are already very revealing, Kohlberg seems at first to be merely another wealthy sponsor of Libertarianism. Things get more interesting, however, when we consider who Kohlberg was fronting for.

In fact, 90% of the funding for the AJLAC came from prominent Zionist millionaire Bernard Baruch, according to Norman Marks, a member of the national board of the AJLAC. But Baruch explicitly asked for his contribution to be unknown. He was essentially hiding behind Kohlberg.

Baruch, who had bought Woodrow Wilson’s letters to his mistress for $65,000 (an enormous sum at the time), wound up directing Wilson’s presidency from behind the scenes along with “Colonel” Edward Mandell House. As head of the War Industries Board during World War I, Baruch practically controlled the entire industrial output of the United States.

After the war, Baruch went to Versailles as a major advisor to the Zionist delegation who brought up the Rothschild-concocted Balfour Declaration and clamored for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Later, the same Baruch was, once again, the unofficial dictator of the United States during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency.

Of course, Baruch himself was an agent of the Rothschild, as several conspiracy historians have pointed out.

So, in a nutshell: The Rothschilds, who controlled the “socialist” Roosevelt administration and backed the Bolshevik Revolution, were also, via Baruch, via Kohlberg, behind the “right-wing” John Birch Society and the funding of the Libertarian movement in the United States.

The Rockefeller connection
The Rothschild dynasty was not the only one involved with funding Libertarian outlets and sponsoring Austrian economists. Not wanting to be outdone, the Rockefeller family also contributed its fair share.

Initially, William Volker did not apparently intend for his foundation to support Libertarian think tanks. However, when Volker’s nephew Harold Luhnow took control of the Volker Fund, its orientation changed.

During the 1930s, Luhnow had come into contact with longtime activist Loren Miller, who worked for and eventually headed the Detroit Bureau of Governmental Research (BGR). The BGR was directly funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, and Miller was most probably a Rockefeller agent.

It was Miller who introduced Luhnow to Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek and convinced him to bring Hayek to Chicago. Miller went on to oversee the activities of the Volker Fund and attended the first Mont Pelerin Society meeting. In fact, both the Volker Fund and the Rockefeller Foundation supported the Mont Pelerin gatherings for over a decade.

Miller and Luhnow pulled out all the stops in bringing Milton Friedman and Hayek to Rockefeller-controlled University of Chicago. As pointed out by scholars Philip Mirowski and Robert Van Horn, “Luhnow and the Volker officers were not mere accessories to the rise of the Chicago school: they were hands-on players, determined and persistent in making every dollar count.”

Importantly, the involvement of the Rockefeller dynasty in promoting Austrian economics predates the Volker Fund. Indeed, Rockefeller, who was taught by Hayek in London, “had been intermittently subsidizing Hayek since his Vienna days at Mises’ business cycle institute” according to Mirowski and Van Horn.

Already in 1926, Ludwig von Mises’s first tour in the United States was paid by the Rockefeller Foundation. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which supported Mises in the 1940s, was also heavily sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. Mises’s salary in New York was paid by Lawrence Fertig, Kohlberg’s colleague at the AJLAC, and by the Volker Fund.

Working both sides of the dialectic
As shown by Antony Sutton, the Wall Street funding for the Bolshevik Revolution was organized from 120 Broadway Street in New York, in what Sutton called “the Morgan-Rockefeller complex”, which also included Rothschild agents such as Baruch and Jacob Schiff. In the late 1910s and 1920s, both Roosevelt and Baruch worked at 120 Broadway Street, where several major financial concerns were located, including the general offices of the American International Corporation and the New York branch of the Federal Reserve.

Working both sides of the dialectic, Baruch, who was a lover of Clare Booth Luce, future wife of media mogul Henry Luce, and a friend of editor William L. White, arranged for the Reader’s Digest to publish, in 1945, a widely circulated condensed version of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. This successful marketing ploy greatly contributed in disseminating Hayek’s work and in paving the way to increased funding and support for Libertarian thinkers and Austrian economists in the United States.

Ironically, it is Baruch, once again, who is credited with coining the term “Cold War” in a speech given in 1947. He must certainly have known what he was talking about.

Escaping the Illuminati dialectic
Both the Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties supported and backed, directly or through their agents, frontmen, and puppets, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the rise of the Libertarian movement in the United States.

As we have shown in previous articles, the Illuminati elites did not merely provide financial support for both sides of the dialectic. Indeed, the Jesuits a.k.a Illuminati formulated the ideological content that led to the modern versions of both Libertarianism and Communism. Moreover, both movements were corrupted by Satanic influences.

The Illuminati elites are toying with us, trapping people into a deceitful dialectic whose poles both lead to a domination by a transnational plutarchy, and sidetracking them away from the truth. More than ever, it is time for us to exit the Matrix by escaping the Illuminati dialectic and starting to devise our own solutions.

Previously in this series:
How the Money Power spawns Libertarians
The Satanic Core of Libertarianism
The “Catholic” Arm of Libertarianism
How the Money Power created Libertarianism and Austrian Economics
Austrian Economics still is ‘Jewish’ Economics

Henry Makow: Illuminati Bankers controlled Joseph McCarthy

Here’s a chart visualizing the historic ties between the main players.

Solid lines refer to funding and dashed lines refer to mostly ideological connections

  1. Libertarianism thought extends back to Classic Liberalism, from the previous centuries. Many people involved with Libertarianism also view the John Birch society as controlled. And, many Libertarians even call Milton Freeman and the Chicago School Pinkos. 🙂 Because of the economics they advocate. Also, you’re not making a distinction between the libertarians who are total anarcho-capitalists, and the others who are minarchists (similar to what Ayn Rand advocated). And now, I will read Makow’s material you linked and your other articles. I may not like what you say, but I give your material an honest chance to filter out what is correct and otherwise.

  2. is this.. a joke ?

  3. Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes the laws.
    (attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild)

  4. Kevin Degidon permalink

    How can Communism and libertarianism be connected? Are not these fundamentally opposing philosophies?

    • It’s all about dialectics Kevin. They own both seemingly opposing forces. Both actually provide what they want, centralization of power, either through the state or the ‘free’ market.

  5. required permalink

    >>>>As shown by Antony Sutton, the Wall Street funding for the Bolshevik Revolution was organized from 120 Broadway Street in New York

    Just to set the record straight:

    Michael Pearson, The Sealed Train:

    ” There is little doubt that his [Lenin’s] decision
    for the immediate leap into the second stage of revolution was made after leaving Switzerland and before arriving in Russia.”

    The most intriguing question of all centers on the result of any discussion that may have occurred, for this places it in a context of immense historical importance :  Was information obtained at a secret meeting the reason that Lenin changed his mind on the strategy of the revolution ?

    “For although the events of that night in Berlin can only be the object of speculation, there is no doubt whatever that on the journey from Zürich to Petersburg, Lenin altered his whole tactical plan.  The scheme he was to outline within hours of arriving in the Russian capital was quite different from that he described at lunch at the Zahringerhof in Zürich just before boarding the train to Gottmadingen and which he had previously detailed in his long policy letters.

    “No historian–Soviet or Western–has yet been able to give an adequate explanation of his change of plan.  Lenin had been thinking and reading of revolution all his life.  He was a confirmed and avid Marxist, yet his new tactics were to trample on a Marxian precept that was accepted by all Russian Social Democrats–including Lenin himself until he boarded the Sealed Train.  He was not a man to change his mind on so basic an issue unless changed conditions demanded it.  And there is no doubt at all that his altered tactics conformed completely with Arthur Zimmermann’s policies.”

    For one factor existed after the journey across Germany in the Sealed Train that was not present when Lenin was in Switzerland:  massive German financing, enough to publish party newspapers throughout Russia, to spread propaganda on a scale that Lenin had never conceived before.”

    The extent of the funds that the Germans invested in Russia during these critical months is revealed clearly in an analysis of the Foreign Office budget for propaganda and special purposes in various countries that is among the department’s secret files that were opened after the Second World War.  Under a covering note dated February 5, 1918, it indicates that the funds allocated for use in Russia amounted to 40,580,997 marks, of which 26,566,122 marks had actually been spent by January 31, 1918.

    “Of this, according to other documents in the files, 15,000,000 marks were released by the Treasury the day after Lenin assumed power in November.  This means that 11,500,000 were invested in Russia before November.

    “By any standard, this 11,500,000 was a colossal outlay for propaganda.  In 1917, at current exchange rates, it was the equivalent of more than $2,000,000 or nearly 600,000 sterling.  It would be useful for comparison purposes to convert these sums to modern values but it is hard to find an adequate basis.  One writer, after discussion with a German currency expert, has valued 1 mark in 1917 at 40 modern Deutschmarks–which would put the expenditure at a fantastic $130,000,000 or £60,000,000 sterling.  But even if a more conservative estimate is used, one that assumed, for example, that $10 today would buy what $1 could purchase in 1917, it would still reflect an enormous expenditure for promotion.”


    “The officers and Cadets, who had remained loyal to the Provisional Government, related afterwards that the Red Guard in Moscow was commanded by German officers, that German talk was frequently overheard among the soldiers besieging the Kremlin.”

    “During the armed November coup d’état the Bolsheviks’ dispositions exhibited traces of a military organisation whose specialists were not to be found in their ranks. The Cossacks, who fought the Red Guards and sailors near Gatchina, were amazed at seeing the Reds execute a specific German maoeuvre.

    “As the civil war waxed stronger the participation of German officers and soldiers became ever plainer.”


    as to Wall street’s support of the “Trotsky-ites” after the take over was carried out, and after Germany was neutralized:—
    “Washington refused to recognize the counter-revolutionary regimes. Not, of course, because of any American sympathy with the Soviets. For diplomatic and military reasons the United States was and is opposed to dismemberment of Russian territory. Also, Standard, which by this time was seeking Russian oil, opposed recognition of counter-revolutionary Caucasian governments allegedly under the thumb of Downing Street and Deterding. ”
    ” I insisted that, unknown to him, the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia.”

  6. OK, would you edit the link in my above post; then delete this post ?

  7. deadeyeblog permalink

    I think the statement that Bernard Baruch was the “unofficial dictator” during the FDR administration is a pretty big stretch. He had a seat on some minor and was an unofficial “advisor” to FDR, along with a zillion other people. The banks would have had no interest in sponsoring New Deal infrastructure programs, bank regulations like the Glass Steagall law, or any number of initiatives made possible by having FDR in the white house.

    True, FDR had a Wall Street background – but he had a very good record as governor of New York. You should watch the LaRouche documentary “1932” which has a lot of good background on this time period.

    I think yours would be a fair statement about Woodrow Wilson, who accomplished nothing positive. It’s probably fair to say that Baruch played a role in dissuading FDR from nationalizing the Federal Reserve, and his advisory capacity to the war mobilization board gave him an inside track on matters of international trade and finance. But the fact that FDR was a mason (the substance of the linked article) doesn’t prove much.

    I think the truth lies somewhere between “the illuminati control everything” and “the illuminati try to subvert existing movements (like the Austrian commenter on this article at Henry Makow’s site suggested). If you’re Franklin Roosevelt, you can’t just tell Bernard Baruch to fuck off, or your career is over. But there are varying degrees of latitude, depending on the political conditions and the personality. Vladimir Putin has a number of nasty allies – but it doesn’t stop the anglo/American media and intelligence communities from trying to destroy him.

    • deadeyeblog permalink

      Excuse me – “…a seat on some minor war planning board…”

    • memehunter permalink

      deadeyeblog: “I think the statement that Bernard Baruch was the “unofficial dictator” during the FDR administration is a pretty big stretch.”

      From the linked article on Makow:

      “In January 1933, Bernard Baruch told FDR’s son-in-law Curtis Dall that he personally held 5/16ths of the world’s silver. Thus Baruch made a huge gain when the price of silver was raised, while American small businessmen and farmers suffered.”

      “At FDR’s first cabinet meeting, advisor Baruch provided each new cabinet member with a book by Italian Fascist theoretician Giovanni Gentile, who had introduced the term ‘corporatism’ – the merger of state and corporate power.

      The advisors that were placed close to FDR – Bernard Baruch, Harvard Professor Felix Frankfurter, Louis Howe, wife Eleanor, and later Harry Hopkins, were responsible for key government appointments and decisions. All had sympathies and favored the global bankers’ investment, the Bolshevik Soviet Union.”

      See also the following on “the Bernard Baruch corner on silver”:

      “The Goldsmiths 115 mentioned Baruch in the context of his secret and confidential visit to President-Elect Franklin Rosenfeldt/Roosevelt in Jan 1933. Curtis Dall, a young aspiring Wall Street stock broker, married to FDR’s daughter Anne, was present to report the visit. While no reporters were able to record precisely what words were said by Baruch and FDR, it is interesting that upon assuming the presidency, in March 1933, Rosenfeldt immediately moved to impact the gold and silver markets. He confiscated gold, dramatically increased the price of both of the metals, and started the profuse mintage of silver coins for use by the American people.

      In Dall’s later mention of the visit, he said that Baruch told him that he thought well of silver. At that time, Baruch admitted that he controlled 5/16th of the world’s then visible supply of silver. In the vein of the various writings on Baruch, it appears that he was quite devoted to both gold and silver during his entire life. His holdings in these two metals made up much of his portfolio and especially in the dark days of the great depression.

      While gold did better in holding its value, silver fell hard during the early days of the great depression–down to 25 cents an ounce. When FDR came to power (and after his secret meeting with the plutocrat Baruch), the administration upped the price of silver and the Treasury commenced a program of buying all of it produced. ”

      deadeyeblog: “I think the truth lies somewhere between “the illuminati control everything” and “the illuminati try to subvert existing movements.”

      I agree. I don’t think I wrote that they control everything. I would probably write something like: “The Illuminati control pretty much everything important”.

      • deadeyeblog permalink

        Like I said, I don’t doubt Baruch benefitted from having an inside track on FDR – I just wouldn’t call him the “unofficial dictator”, which implies (as Anthony Sutton and any number of pro-nazi theorists did) that the New Deal was some banker’s plot. The banker’s plot was to get rid of FDR – remember Smedley Butler?

        A lot is made of FDR’s ties to the Soviet Union (ie your suggestion that Harry Hopkins was a soviet “sympathizer”). This shouldn’t be a surprise as the Soviets and Chinese were the main allies of the US (and main targets of the Germans and Japanese) in WW2! It’s only looking backward through the fog of the red scare that collaborating with the Russians is seen as an accusation.

        As for the silver thing, an increase in the silver price means a drop in the dollar, meaning stronger exports, meaning industrial jobs. It’s not hard to imagine how Wall Street insiders could persuade a new administration to do something from which they would benefit. And I have agreed with 99% of what you’ve been writing. I just think this particular point is both superficial and dangerous, as “truthers” tend to dismiss FDR, one of the few great American leaders, based on association and innuendo.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. The hidden truth | thediplomaticwhore
  3. Wipler z głupoty zaczyna wysługiwać się Gowinowi i lichwie - |
  4. – Orban planuje nacjonalizacje zachodnich monopoli
  5. Orban planuje nacjonalizacje zachodnich monopoli - |
  6. The Daily Bell Hoax? « Real Currencies
  7. Subotaisbow
  8. THRIVE or Threat « Jennifer Lake's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: