The Satanic Core of Libertarianism

Bernard de Mandeville, the Satanist who inspired Libertarianism and Austrian

It is one thing to point to
similarities between Satanism and Libertarianism. But, as we have seen with the
Fable of the Bees, Satanist
propaganda is actually at the core of the Libertarian doctrine and of Austrian

by Memehunter


In Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati ploy, we covered the
Jewish money Power’s ongoing involvement in Libertarianism.

In The “Catholic”
Wing of Libertarianism
, we explored the Jesuit a.k.a. Illuminati,
connections with Libertarianism.

In this article, we delve into another creed which is at the root of
Austrian economics and modern Libertarianism: Satanism. Yes, you read that

The obscure
hero of Libertarianism: Bernard de Mandeville

Born in Rotterdam in 1670, Bernard de Mandeville came to England
in the wake of William of Orange’s accession to the throne. A doctor by
profession, Mandeville became better-known as a satirist. More importantly,
Mandeville was also a Satanist,
the Blasters
and Hell-Fire Clubs
of 18th-century England.

Although Mandeville’s name has been all but erased from
contemporary mainstream economical discourse, many free-market thinkers lavish glowing
praise on his insights.

In a lecture delivered at
the British Academy
in 1966, Friedrich von Hayek extolled Mandeville as a “master
mind” and “great psychologist” whose theories anticipated those of David Hume,
Adam Smith, and Charles Darwin, and praised his poem The Fable of the Bees as a “remarkable” work.

According to Hayek, it is through the work of Carl Menger, the
founder of the Austrian School, that Mandeville’s ideas “returned to economic
theory” by way of 19th-century German historian Friedrich von Savigny.

Ludwig von Mises also paid tribute to Mandeville in his Theory and History, observing that

[Mandeville] pointed out that self-interest and the desire for material
well-being, commonly stigmatized as vices, are in fact the incentives whose
operation makes for welfare, prosperity, and civilization.

Even John Maynard Keynes, surely not an Austrian, recognized
Mandeville as one of his foremost precursors in
The General Theory of Employment and Money.

These days, Austrian economist Gary North introduces The Fable of the Bees on his website as “the most important poem in the last 300 years”.

But what is so special about the Fable of the Bees that this fairly obscure poem, and his author,
could have inspired such eulogies from Hayek, Mises, and Keynes?

Good comes from evil, and other perversions

Mandeville’s Fable
of the Bees or Private Vices, Publick Benefits
was initially published
in 1705, but was reworked and supplemented with abundant commentary over the
next 25 years.

In his
writings, Mandeville argues that liberty represents man’s uninhibited pursuit
of his natural, evil instincts, and that, rather than being evil, selfishness
and licentiousness lead to prosperity.

to Mandeville, evil is
grand principle that makes us social creatures, the solid basis, the life and
support of all trade and employment without exception”.

Adam Smith, influenced by Mandeville, came to the conclusion that
individual self-interest is the pillar of a prosperous society.
Hayek and Mises went
further and railed against altruism and solidarity as hindrances
to a society’s economic success.

Of course, Smith is right to identify the added value brought by
the division of labor and to point out that producers and sellers are primarily
motivated by self-interest. But that does not mean that self-interest should be
hailed as the most fundamental principle of civilization. To assert this is plain

Mandeville also claimed that inequality generated talent and art, and
that a nation’s wealth was predicated on the maintenance of an underclass of
poorly educated laborers.


Following in Mandeville’s hoof steps, Mises defended inequality, emphasizing
that “men are born unequal and that it is precisely their inequality that
generates social cooperation and civilization.”

The “right to
allow your child to die”

To his credit, anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard distanced himself from Mandeville’s ideology.
However, the same Rothbard advocated for parents
to have “a legal right not to feed [their] child, i.e., to allow it to die”,
and for the emergence of a “free market in children”.

Since Rothbard’s system denies that humans may have moral obligations
to each other, he ends up with a philosophy that rejects outright aggression (the
“non-aggression principle”) but allows outright neglect, even to the point of
causing death.

This is the evil outcome of taking the libertarian ethics to their
logical extreme. Clearly, the “non-aggression principle” is necessary but not
sufficient to design a just and humane society.

ideologies in modern Libertarianism

Below are three well-known quotes, one from a famous Satanist, one
from a prominent Libertarian author, and one from a leading Austrian economist.

Crowley’s Law of Thelema reads thusly:

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole
of the Law”.

Rand’s literary character Howard Roark proclaims in The Fountainhead:

 “Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law
is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral
obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily
upon other men.”

a passage from Mises, who admired
Rand’s elitist stance

 “The ultimate end of action is always the
satisfaction of some desires of the acting man. Since nobody is in a position
to substitute his own value judgments for those of the acting individual, it is
vain to pass judgment on other people’s aims and volitions.” (Human Action)

Beyond differences in wording, and even though Mises’s version is
more nuanced than Crowley’s or Rand’s in-your-face statements, these three extracts
are essentially saying the same thing.

Let that sink in for a while.

it is one thing to point to similarities
between Satanism and Libertarianism. But, as we have seen with the Fable of the Bees, Satanist propaganda is
actually at the core of the Libertarian doctrine and of Austrian economics.

The Satanic-Libertarian connection is very much alive today. Libertarian
candidate Ron Paul, a self-avowed Rand admirer, may strike the right chord on
many topics, but he has been linked to the Illuminati and has been seen displaying
Satanic hand signs

The Satanic dialectic

The Austrian School is not the only economic school infected with
Satanism, far from it. Like Hayek, Keynes was a member of the infamous Fabian
Society. He was also known
as a child molester
. Karl Marx was
himself a Satanist

In fact, Socialism, Zionism, and Satanism were originally joined
at the hip: 19th-century Jewish activist Moses Hess, an influential
precursor of modern Zionism, was also an early proponent of socialism and a
collaborator of Marx. It was Hess who initiated Marx and Engels into Satanism.

The end goal of all these ideologies is domination by a
transnational, oligarchic, Satanic, Illuminati elite. Marxism
and Austrianism
both oppose nationalism and support free trade.

collaborator, the arch-Zionist, Jesuit-trained, high-ranking Freemason Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi
the Illuminati dialectic

fight between Capitalism and Communism over the inheritance of the beseeched
blood aristocracy is a fratricidal war of the victorious brain aristocracy, a
fight between individualistic and socialist, egoist and altruist, heathen and
Christian spirit.

general staff of both parties is recruited from Europe’s spiritual leader race
[F├╝hrerrasse] the Jews.”

Rising above
the Illuminati dialectic

To be sure, Austrian
economics and Libertarianism have introduced useful concepts in both ethics and
modern economic theory. The same can be said about Keynes and Marx. Illuminati
ideologies always contain some savory morsels of truth, in order to make the Satanic
deception more palatable.

Our challenge, in rising above this Illuminati dialectic, is to chew
on these nuggets of wisdom, and to spit out the evil lies and half-truths that defile

the end, the real war waged by the Illuminati is a spiritual one. It is not merely
about which monetary system is conducive to prosperity or which economic model
is optimal. It is not solely about which political system is superior. It is,
at heart, a battle for our souls.

Special thanks to Anthony Migchels

(h/t to deadeyeblog
regarding Marx’s position on free trade)

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.