Libertarians’ Jewish Dilemma Fuels Genocide and Nuclear War?
Image: Three renowned Jewish libertarians—Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Ludwig von Mises—stand out in intellectual history. Friedman and Rand were ardent Jews and Zionists, potentially even endorsing the current hardline Zionists who threaten "limited" nuclear conflict. Ludwig von Mises, a more complex figure, was deeply rooted in his Jewish identity but prioritized individual freedom over ethnic Jewish interests. A forthcoming article explores his Jewish heritage and connections to the ruling elite.
Introduction
From a libertarian standpoint, the world is dominated by states that oppress their populations through breaches of the non-aggression principle. These states are steered by an exploitative ruling elite, which privatizes profits while socializing losses, accumulating ever-increasing wealth through cartels and by generating money from thin air with fiat currency. To sustain its political dominance and control of the money machine, this elite exploits people politically (curtailing self-ownership and property rights), economically (through taxation and cartels), and culturally (via indoctrination and censorship), while safeguarding its interests through wars that are now poised to lead to nuclear conflict and global annihilation.
One straightforward solution exists to halt exploitation and avert nuclear annihilation: expose the ruling elite and its machinations. Their actions are so egregious that exposure would curb warmongering. The elite’s power depends on the democratic state and its ability to deceive the public into supporting its policies and wars. By exposing the ruling elite, public opposition could halt, or at least slow, the state’s expansion into a global warfare-police state.
Prospects for improvement could grow even stronger: the state’s inherent inclination to shrink through decentralization and secession becomes evident when its expansion via wars and the accompanying ratchet effect halts. Ultimately, war serves as the lifeblood of the state, while peace acts as its poison. In the optimal scenario, revealing the ruling elite’s wars could greatly promote freedom; at the very least, it might prevent perpetual conflicts and their escalation to nuclear war.
Ruling elite
Unveiling the ruling elite seems a straightforward task for libertarian economists and historians, yet they hesitate, daunted by the specter of political correctness and potential career setbacks. A singular notable exception arises: the libertarian scholar Murray Rothbard, who painstakingly outlined methods for analyzing the ruling elite. He often sharply criticized fellow libertarians for their reluctance to investigate this powerful group.
Anytime that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who our rulers are, of how their political and economic interests interlock, it is invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and conservatives (and even by many libertarians) as a “conspiracy theory of history,” “paranoid,” “economic determinist,” and even “Marxist.” ….
It is no wonder that usually these realistic analyses are spelled out by various “extremists” who are outside the Establishment consensus. For it is vital to the continued rule of the State apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted to the “public good.” Once let the cat out of the bag that these spirits are all too often grounded in the solid earth of advancing a set of economic interests through use of the State, and the basic mystique of government begins to collapse. …
Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals. Hence, if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes. It is the opponents of “conspiracy” analysis who profess to believe that all events—at least in government—are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning. …
There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline. The bad conspiracy analyst tends to make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the Establishment charge of “paranoia.” First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore X and Y were responsible. He fails to realize that this is just a hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y really did so. …
Secondly, the bad conspiracy analyst seems to have a compulsion to wrap up all the conspiracies, all the bad guy power blocs, into one giant conspiracy. Instead of seeing that there are several power blocs trying to gain control of government, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in alliance, he has to assume—again without evidence—that a small group of men controls them all, and only seems to send them into conflict. (Murray Rothbard. The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited. April 1977, Reason.)
It could be noted that a third type of bad conspiracy analyst exists: one who focuses almost exclusively on a single power bloc within the ruling elite. For instance, Carroll Quigley concentrated solely on the WASPs, Eustace Mullins on the Jewish elite, and Gary Allen on the Rockefellers. Only Murray Rothbard recognized—or dared to acknowledge—the existence of three distinct and almost equally powerful power blocs that occasionally collaborated but also clashed with one another. However, as a Jewish scholar, Rothbard, like many prominent Jewish libertarians, tended to downplay the Jewish component within the ruling elite. Under intense pressure to further minimize this aspect, he devised a significant compromise: he revealed their role without explicitly using the word “Jew,” though their Jewish identity was evident through references to the Rothschilds and Kuhn-Loeb group. Thus arose his seminal exposé, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, which did not include the J-word but still managed to elucidate the ruling elite’s evolution throughout the twentieth century until the 1980s.
Rothbard delineated three ethnic power blocks within the ruling elite:
WASP Elite, split into two distinct branches: the British-Commonwealth (notably Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) faction, driven by royals, aristocrats, Round Table movement and the City of London, and the American faction, guided by the Boston Brahmins and the House of Morgan. The WASP elite sustains a tight alliance with Dutch royalty, multinational banks (ABN Amro) and businesses (Shell) and the historic New Amsterdam elite.
The Jewish elite, led by the Rothschilds who have forged a formidable network through strategic intermarriages with distinguished Jewish dynasties, including the Barent-Cohens, Montefioris, and Sassoons. The Rothschilds later leveraged American Jewish proxy dynasties, including the Belmonts and Kuhn-Loebs who then intermarried with the Schiffs and Warburgs.
Rockefeller Dynasty’s oil money gave it great power in the Republican party. The Rockefeller dynasty also forged matrimonial ties with the Aldrichs (in politics) and the Stillmans (in banking). Additionally, the Rockefellers established proxy dynasties, including the Harrimans and Walkers (aligned with Democrats) and the Bushes and Trumps (aligned with Republicans).
Each power block is a loose collection of dynasties but sustains distinct ethnic, cultural and economic foundations and banking networks. The WASP elite, anchored in the City of London, historically dominated Barings bank in Britain and J.P. Morgan bank in America. The two branches of the Rockefeller dynasty controlled Citibank and Chase Manhattan, while Jewish elites managed Rothschild banks in Europe and Belmont, Kuhn-Loeb, Lehman, and Goldman Sachs banks in America.
Rothbard notes that although banks and industries have evolved and some have even merged, these three dynastic power blocks have remained distinct and collectively governed the United States as a power cartel. They have collaborated to establish the Federal Reserve and the international dollar system, harnessing the American military-industrial complex to counter nations that challenge its dominance. At the same time they have contended among themselves over primacy within the ruling elite, vying for dominance over the Federal Reserve, U.S. presidency, and the two major political parties.
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.
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. ….
Indeed, much of the political history of the United States from the late nineteenth century until World War II may be interpreted by the closeness of each administration to one of these sometimes cooperating, more often conflicting, financial groupings: Cleveland (Morgan), McKinley (Rockefeller), Theodore Roosevelt (Morgan), Taft (Rockefeller), Wilson (Morgan), Harding (Rockefeller), Coolidge (Morgan), Hoover (Morgan), and Franklin Roosevelt (Harriman–Kuhn, Loeb–Rockefeller). (Murray N. Rothbard. A History of Money and Banking in the United States: The Colonial Era to World War II. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2005. P. 185-88.)
Coalition wars
In Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, Murray Rothbard elucidated 20th-century conflicts among the three ruling dynastic power blocks regarding war strategies. Tensions peaked during World War I, as the Morgans supported the Entente of Britain, France, and the Russian Tsar against the Central Powers, while Jewish elites and Rockefellers opposed aligning with their adversary, the Tsar. This dispute was resolved by overthrowing the Tsar with Jewish and communist assistance in the February Revolution, enabling U.S. entry into the First World War once the three ruling elite groups concurred. A comparable issue arose in World War II, with Jews and WASP elites seeking European dominance and Rockefellers focusing on Asia. A two-front war against Germany and Japan resolved the conflict, fostering relative harmony among the ruling dynasties. Rothbard explains this dynamic succinctly though forgets to mention the Jewish group which naturally was strongly supporting the WASPs against Nazi-Germany.
During the 1930s, the Rockefellers pushed hard for war against Japan, which they saw as competing with them vigorously for oil and rubber resources in Southeast Asia and as endangering the Rockefellers’ cherished dreams of a mass “China market” for petroleum products. On the other hand, the Rockefellers took a noninterventionist position in Europe, where they had close financial ties with German firms such as I.G. Farben and Co., and very few close relations with Britain and France. The Morgans, in contrast, as usual deeply committed to their financial ties with Britain and France, once again plumped early for war with Germany, while their interest in the Far East had become minimal. Indeed, US Ambassador to Japan, Joseph C. Grew, former Morgan partner, was one of the few officials in the Roosevelt administration genuinely interested in peace with Japan.
World War II might therefore be considered, from one point of view, as a coalition war: the Morgans got their war in Europe, the Rockefellers theirs in Asia. (Murray Rothbard. Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy)
Rothbard observes that despite a semblance of peace among the ruling elite, the three dynastic power blocks continued to compete for dominance, each aspiring to claim the role of senior partner. Following the Second World War, this position was secured by the Rockefellers, who established what Murray Rothbard termed the Rockefeller World Empire (RWE). However, note how Rothbard again forgets to mention the Jewish part of the ruling elite though he appears to refer to it as “other financial groups”.
After World War II, the .. new prominence of oil made the Rockefellers the dominant force in the political and financial Eastern Establishment. … Since World War II, indeed, the various financial interests have entered into a permanent realignment: the Morgans and the other financial groups have taken their place as compliant junior partners in a powerful "Eastern Establishment," led unchallenged by the Rockefellers. (Murray Rothbard. Case Against the FED. LvM Institute 1994. p. 133.)
Rothbard never asserted that the ruling elite possesses absolute power. Quite the opposite, it consistently encounters fresh competition, both from foreign entities and domestic sources. Note also below that Rothbard now explicitly groups the Jewish Kuhn-Loeb faction with the Rockefellers and Morgans under the ruling Eastern Establishment, though he once again avoids using the J-word.
After World War II, the united Rockefeller-Morgan-Kuhn-Loeb Eastern Establishment was not allowed to enjoy its financial and political supremacy unchallenged for long. “Cowboy” Sun Belt firms, maverick oil men and construction men from Texas, Florida, and southern California, began to challenge the Eastern Establishment “Yankees” for political power. (Murray Rothbard. Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy)
The power of the ruling elite was further limited by the fact that often controlling politicians through blackmail or bribes proves challenging. Rothbard noted that when a politician or political dynasty resists or goes completely independent, a “lone nut” assassin may emerge, but only with the acquiescence of other ruling elite power blocks.
John F. Kennedy; Malcolm X; Martin Luther King; Robert F. Kennedy; and now George Corley Wallace: the litany of political assassinations and attempts in the last decade rolls on. (And we might add: General Edwin Walker, and George Lincoln Rockwell. In each of these atrocities, we are fed with a line of cant from the liberals and from the Establishment media. In the first place, every one of these assassinations is supposed to have been performed, must have been performed, by “one lone nut” – to which we can add the one lone nut who murdered Lee Harvey Oswald in the prison basement. One loner, a twisted psycho, whose motives are therefore of course puzzling and obscure, and who never, never acted in concert with anyone. ...
Without going into the myriad details of Assassination Revisionism, doesn’t anyone see a pattern in our litany of murdered and wounded, a pattern that should leap out at anyone willing to believe his eyes? For all of the victims have had one thing in common: all were, to a greater or lesser extent, important anti-Establishment figures, and, what is more were men with the charismatic capacity to mobilize large sections of the populace against our rulers. All therefore constituted “populist” threats against the ruling elite, especially if we focus on the mainstream “right- center” wing of the ruling classes. Even as Establishmenty a figure as John F, Kennedy, the first of the victims, had the capacity to mobilize large segments of the public against the center-right Establishment.
And so they were disposed of? We can’t prove it, but the chances of this pattern being a mere coincidence are surely negligible. (Murray Rothbard. Another Lone Nut. The Libertarian Forum, June-July, 1972.)
The Jewish Question
Rothbard has been labeled a political opportunist due to the peculiar alliances he forged throughout his career, spanning from the far left to the extreme right. Yet, there was a deliberate method behind this apparent chaos: Rothbard held that wars—both hot and cold—serve as the lifeblood of the state. By halting such conflicts, he argued, social power would prevail over state power. This perspective accounts for his leftward shift in the 1960s and his rightward shift in the late 1980s. It also clarifies why, in the 1990s, Rothbard grew increasingly unrestrained, incensed by the mounting influence of the Jews and the Jewish neoconservatives’ relentless warmongering even after the Soviet Union’s collapse. At this juncture, Rothbard finally became more forthright:
The composition of the Republican Eastern Establishment, however, has changed over the decades. From World War II until the 1970s, they consisted of the Rockefeller World Empire; since the late 1970s, however, the RWE has been joined by the neocon-Wall Street forces. In fact, the neocons have successfully achieved primacy over their Rockefeller allies in dominating the Republican party. (Murray N. Rothbard. 1996! Rothbard-Rockwell Report, February 1995.)
Once again, Rothbard refrained from using the J-word but subtly highlighted the ethnic dimension by pointing out the neocons’ Jewish Trotskyite origins, their deep-seated animosity toward “antisemitic” Russia, and their singular focus on the Jewish state Israel as their primary—or sole—concern. He even asserted that it was the neocons who brought down the Rockefeller proxy, President George H.W. Bush, along with his key ally, James R. Baker.
How about the Rockefellers? Unlike the old days, there are no Rockefeller stooges in this [1996 Republican presidential primary] race; the unlamented George Bush was one, and his fate demonstrates where the straight Rockefeller types are today: nowhere. The only possible such nominee is the once famed James R. Baker, Bush‘s former heir apparent. Once the prince of the liberal media, Baker’s total floperoo as alleged savior of the Bush campaign has knocked him totally out of the box. Actually, before that debacle, Baker, as Secretary of State, was stabbed in the back by fellow Cabinet member Jack Kemp and the neocons for what they deemed insufficient devotion to the State of Israel, which was the major reason-and not his tax increase-for the neocon knifing of Bush in 1992 and their overt as well as covert support for Bill Clinton. (Murray N. Rothbard. 1996! Rothbard-Rockwell Report, February 1995.)
Rothbard was so opposed to the neocon push for wars to expand Israel and combat antisemitism that he initiated his paleolibertarian drastic “turn to the right” by aligning with paleoconservatives under attack from Jewish-led neocons. Rothbard defended Patrick Buchanan against antisemitism charges and even spoke favorably of critics like David Duke, arguing America’s issue was not antisemitism but excessive anti-antisemitism. Rothbard's untimely death in January 1995 at age 69 curtailed further exploration of the ruling elite, particularly a sequel to Wall Street Banks and American Foreign Policy.
Since Rothbard’s death, no scholar—libertarian or otherwise—has pursued his rigorous examination of the ruling elite, a striking oversight given the elite’s increasing aggression in instigating wars through deception and false flags. A clear genocide is unfolding in Gaza, while wars rage across Europe and the Middle East, risking nuclear escalation. Many libertarian media, institutes and other organizations profess to “fight for peace, freedom and truth” but despite acknowledging the drift towards police-warfare state, genocide and nuclear peril they inexplicably refrain from examining the ruling elite and its wars in detail.
The rationale behind this silence is evident: fear of acknowledging Jewish influence. This is scarcely surprising, considering that, alongside Rothbard, numerous prominent libertarians—Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, David Friedman, David Gordon and Walter Block—are Jewish, along with many others. In addition there are also many of half- or crypto-Jewish background. Furthermore, Jewish dominance within libertarian institutions and among their funders stifles open discourse. All this creates a curious paradox: The people best equipped to study and expose the ruling elite remain the most silent.
[PART II. The Origins and Development of the Jewish Elite]
Jewish privilege
The Jewish elite are clearly the elephant in the libertarian room, unmentioned when analyzing the ruling elite. To maintain conscience and credibility, many libertarians resort to a compromise, attributing issues to Zionism rather than elite Jews. Yet, can Zionism account for the great influence wielded by the Jewish elite in the United States? Does it also elucidate the historical emergence of statism and the ruling elite? Furthermore, does it help to explain how, over the past 150 years, the ruling elite has reshaped politics, media, science, and culture into a realm of aggressive absurdity?
It cannot. One must rather search for the explanation in the unique intelligence and ethnocentricity of elite Jews, who, for millennia, have enjoyed the remarkable privilege of crossing borders and residing in various nations with minimal assimilation. This phenomenon is not rooted in inherent deceit but in evolutionary psychology and institutional dynamics driven by natural self-interest. Among diaspora groups, Jews alone have maintained their distinct identity over thousands of years without assimilating. This extraordinary achievement stems from the fiercely competitive environment of the Middle East, which fostered the intense positive and negative ethnocentrism of the Jewish people, manifesting in its extreme form as a perception of themselves as nearly divine (a light unto nations) and others as almost subhuman (goyim). By contrast, mere positive ethnocentrism, as demonstrated by the Parsis, who endeavor to benefit their host populations through charity, constructive diplomacy, and highly advantageous business dealings, almost inevitably results in assimilation in the long run.
Unassimilated for thousands of years, Jews remain aloof and adversarial within host societies, subtly undermining local cultures as if guided by an invisible hand. Consider a European in China or a Chinese in Europe refusing assimilation: naturally, they would seek to weaken the dominant culture and manipulate political structures for self-preservation. Similarly, an unintegrated, adversarial teenager adopted into a family would likely pit members against each other to gain influence.
Historically, elite Jewish groups were granted unique privileges to immigrate in exchange of serving as exploitative intermediaries between ruling elites and the populace—roles such as slave traders, tax farmers, monopoly bankers, monopolist merchants and state advisors. They may have been pivotal in the emergence and expansion of Western statism following the Roman Empire’s collapse, countering the decentralizing tendencies of Germanic and Celtic societies through financial and administrative support to medieval states.
Libertarians like Ralph Raico and Hans-Hermann Hoppe attribute the European Miracle—marked by greater freedom and the Industrial Revolution—to political decentralization, enabling mobility of people and capital. They highlight medieval Europe’s natural order and decentralization that in some areas like Iceland and Ireland even led to the withering away of the state. However, they overlook why statism ultimately always prevailed over natural decentralist and secessionist forces. Jewish elite’s financial and administrative contributions may have been not only necessary but sufficient to tip the balance.
Exploitation services
Under a natural order of liberty and voluntary cooperation, peaceful producers seek the highest price, while peaceful consumers pursue the lowest, yielding mutually beneficial trade. Under statism, providers of exploitation services seek the highest price, whereas victims influence prices only through active or passive resistance. During the Middle Ages, the alien Jewish elite offered services, such as slave trading, tax farming, monopoly banking, monopoly trade, tariff collection, regulation enforcement, war financing and intelligence networks to ruling elites. By leveraging Europe’s decentralization, they sought the highest exploitation price. When population resistance grew too formidable, eroding profits, the Jewish elite could persistently explore new strategies in various jurisdictions until they refined the formula for state formation. Ultimately, nearly all rulers found it essential to have their own Hofjude (court Jew) to remain competitive with their peers.
In a natural order characterized by liberty and voluntary cooperation, culturally hostile and unassimilable groups are not permitted to immigrate. Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains:
Under the scenario of a natural order, then, it can be expected that there will be plenty of interregional trade and travel. However, owing to the natural discrimination against ethno-cultural strangers in the area of residential housing and real estate, there will be little actual migration, i.e., permanent resettlement. And whatever little migration there is, it will be by individuals who are more or less completely assimilated to their newly adopted community and its ethno-culture. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem. Journal of Libertarian Studies. Volume 16, no. 1. Winter 2002.)
In a natural order, hostile and non-assimilable groups would not be permitted to shop around offering exploitation services, particularly since the populace would strongly reject such conduct. Indeed, for centuries the Catholic Church frequently stood with the people against exploitative statist rulers and their agents. However, the alien Jewish elite managed to navigate various regions, refining the blueprint for state formation by leveraging Muslim countries as their operational base. Indeed, the Jewish elite provided similar exploitation services to Arab and Turkish rulers, who initially governed Christian subjects and later ordinary Muslim populations. Christian countries were thus imperiled by aliens from within and without, undermining the natural forces of decentralization and secession.
Similarly, in developing the fractional reserve banking scheme, which generated money ex nihilo—effectively devaluing existing currency—the Jewish elite persisted until they found an effective model. For centuries, the Catholic Church restricted such practices, but after the Jewish elite supported Protestants in undermining Catholic authority, they intensified their efforts. The Bank of Venice, Amsterdam, and Hamburg, however, steadfastly rejected fractional reserve banking. Subsequently, the Jewish elite funded the so-called Glorious Revolution in England, aiding the establishment of WASP governance and the fractional reserve-based Bank of England. Since that time, the Jewish and WASP elite have sustained a symbiotic partnership within the largely autonomous City of London.
Fatal embrace
Aiding the growth of a predatory state is very profitable but perilous. Those who ride the tiger will sooner or later face its claws. Occasionally, Jewish elite lost control of a state, facing catastrophic backlash, though typically only ordinary Jews suffered, while rabbinic and financial elites relocated to neighboring states.
The state empowered the Jewish elite, who, as its allies, historically depended on it not only for financial and other privileges but also for authority over ordinary Jews. In effect, the state helped the Jewish elite to run their own mini-state. The dominion of Jewish rulers—rabbis and prominent merchants who controlled the kahal—was totalitarian, as the highly ritualistic nature of Jewish law imposed myriad restrictions on individual liberty, concentrating power and wealth in the hands of the rabbinical and financial elite. While the Jewish elite provided a rudimentary welfare system for ordinary Jews, it demanded strict obedience to their authority and laws. The Jewish economist Walter Block underscores the totalitarian nature of this traditional Jewish way of life:
Capitalism … has only one “regulation”: the libertarian notion prohibiting the initiation of violence against another person or his property. Judaism, in contrast, has no fewer than 613 different rules and regulations, covering virtually all conceivable aspects of life. No two systems could be further apart in terms of intrusiveness into the life of the individual. (Walter Block. The Mishnah and Jewish dirigisme. International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 23 No. 2, 1996, pp. 35-44. MCB University Press)
Caught between this dominant elite and a hostile Christian populace, the ordinary Jew had little choice; while conversion and assimilation offered a potential escape, the Jewish community would sever all ties with the convert, leaving obedience to the elite as the only viable path. In essence, the Jewish elite privatized profits while externalizing costs, forcing ordinary Jews to act as pawns in a statist game, occasionally enduring attacks, pogroms, and other massacres incited by the aggrieved host population. Benjamin Ginsberg’s Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State vividly illustrates this dynamic.
Having facilitated statism and especially state capitalism through state service, Jewish elites sought to control the state to prevent its betrayal, a natural response to historical risks. In Western nations and especially in the US, they used their money power to gain media power and further employ divide et impera tactics, forming coalitions of minorities to undermine traditional values and White conservative leadership as Kevin MacDonald details in his Culture of Critique trilogy. This culture of critique gained gradually momentum in the United States but reached its fullest development in the Soviet Union as detailed in Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together.
Jewish elites needed to extend their influence further, as dominating a few states was insufficient when others could unite against them, as occurred in the 1930's during the Great Depression and again in the 1940's during Israel’s founding. Thus, they pursued geopolitical dominance through proxies, influencing especially U.S. and British foreign policy without necessitating total control. Political parties, focused on domestic power, readily delegated foreign policy to Jewish elites in exchange for support as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt detail in Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy.
Jewish geopolitics
By integrating Murray Rothbard’s paleolibertarian theory of the cartel-like ruling elite, comprising three power blocs, with an evolutionary psychological analysis of the Jewish elite’s embrace of the state and an offensive realist perspective on geopolitics, the modern evolution of the ruling elite and the Jewish elite’s role within it becomes clearer. The pivotal moment appears to be the assassination of JFK, which significantly strengthened the Jewish elite’s position within the ruling elite.
In his later review of Oliver Stone’s movie, JFK, Rothbard reiterated that the assassination was a clear false flag and a coordinated coalition effort, as Kennedy opposed the ruling elite’s imperialist wars. However, Rothbard did not disclose that the assassination was significantly driven by elite Jewish outrage over Kennedy’s efforts to register the Jewish lobby and block Israel’s nuclear program. While the entire ruling elite was involved, Jewish leaders orchestrated the operation, meticulously planning and rehearsing it in the safety of Israel. This arrangement suited the Rockefellers and other WASP elites, as it shielded them from direct implication while also providing leverage over the Jewish elite. Predictably, Lyndon Johnson's coalition-led presidency sparked Rockefeller-backed wars in Asia and Jewish-supported wars in the Middle East. He even sanctioned the Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, resulting in American losses. This, alongside other examples of overreaching Jewish influence sparked tensions with the Rockefellers and their proxy Nixon.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Jewish elite challenged the Rockefellers, seeking to assume the role of senior partner within the ruling elite by initiating the cultural revolution and opposing the Vietnam War and the military-industrial complex, though their actual aim was simply to shift its focus from Asia to the Middle East. However, stability was reestablished during the Yom Kippur War when the Rockefellers harnessed the strength of the American military-industrial complex to save Israel, negotiated a petrodollar agreement with Jewish, WASP, and Saudi elites and forged a de facto alliance with China. Subsequently, to further placate Jewish interests, they facilitated the removal of President Nixon, deemed “anti-Semitic”.
David Rockefeller, yearning for unity within the ruling elite, embraced this newfound power balance, fostering alliances through bank mergers and matrimonial bonds among elite dynasties. Nevertheless, the three dynastic factions remained distinct, necessitating their collective agreement for major wars and geopolitical maneuvers. Yet, a significant rift emerged. The Jewish elite was shocked by the near-collapse of Israel during the Yom Kippur War, strengthened by Soviet backing of Arab states. This ignited their fury when the Rockefellers cultivated peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, incorporating it into the oil cartel and granting substantial loans to prop up its regime. In retaliation, the Jewish elite, led notably by the Rothschilds, crafted a plan to dismantle the Soviet Union: First, they partnered with the WASP elite to position the City of London as the hub of a vast money laundering and elite tax-free network, exploiting the vestiges of Britain’s colonial empire. They then backed WASP-controlled North Sea oil production and other non-OPEC sources to depress oil prices. Second, leveraging their media influence, the elite Jews championed neocons and helped Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to intensify the arms race. Third, they subverted the Soviet Union from within through Jewish networks, including that of Robert Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
The plan unfolded with precision. The plummeting oil prices and intensified arms race triggered rampant inflation within the Soviet Union, heightening calls for reform that elevated the crypto-Jewish KGB chief Yuri Andropov to power. Swiftly, he began transferring authority to Gorbachev and his circle of Jewish allies. However, when old-guard communists attempted a counterstrike, both the Rockefellers and the Jewish elite backed Yeltsin’s ascent. This, too, was a collaborative effort: the Jewish elite rejoiced in creating several Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia’s natural resources, plunging the economy into chaos—a scenario that suited the Rockefellers, as it crippled the oil industry and sharply reduced Russian output.
This same coalition tactic was at play during the First Gulf War, where the Jewish elite sought to neutralize their foe, Saddam Hussein, while the Rockefellers aimed to limit Iraq’s oil production. This compromise accounts for why Saddam remained in power post-war, offering a justification for sanctions that restrained Iraq’s oil output. The toll—half a million dead children—preserved harmony among the ruling elite.
In the 1990s, Jewish-led neoconservatives and neoliberals wielded significant influence within the Clinton administration. Leveraging CIA-Mossad-MI6 intelligence networks, they expanded their reach in Russia through Jewish oligarchs under Yeltsin and in China via Hong Kong and segments of the Hakka elite. The ruling elite had finally secured hegemony, establishing a unipolar world order where David Rockefeller and Jacob Rothschild, together with Wall Street and the City of London, functioned as its guarantors.
Yet, for the Jewish elite, this hegemony was insufficient, as they sought to eradicate the persistent specter of anti-Semitism and pursued an ambitious series of global regime changes. This necessitated a catalytic event akin to Pearl Harbor. Employing coalition tactics reminiscent of the JFK assassination, Mossad orchestrated the 9/11 attacks with assistance from the CIA and MI6, creating a pretext for the War on Terror. This campaign protected the petrodollar, Rockefeller oil interests, and especially Israel’s geostrategic objectives.
Anglo-American-Zionist ruling elite
The War on Terror is evidently a three-way affair through which the Anglo-American-Zionist ruling elite further strengthens their hegemony. The ruling elite remains evidently active. Rothbard’s classification of the ruling elite into three power blocs remains valid. Consequently, it is relatively straightforward to analyze the past 150 years through the lens of the ruling elite. The key is to study the interplay of the three ruling power blocks.
Image: Work in progress. Contribute by offering ideas and sources.
Maintaining hegemony is as difficult as attaining it, especially when fueled by greed. Following the 9/11 attacks, the ruling elite started overplaying their hand. Former General of the US Army, Wesley Clark explained these strategic objectives:
We are going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing it off with Iran.
The three major power blocs—Rockefellers, WASPs, and the Jewish elite—unanimously agreed to first eliminate Iraq’s Hussein in the Second Gulf War. After that they decided to take out Libya’s Gaddafi, who had become uncontrollable. He not only aimed to abandon the petrodollar but also started exposing the ruling elite’s machinations. Gaddafi repeatedly asserted in speeches, including his 2009 UN address while erecting a Bedouin-style tent on a New York lot owned by Donald Trump, that Israel assassinated JFK to prevent him from blocking Israel’s nuclear weapons development.
The three power blocs were united in the elimination of Hussein and Gaddafi. However, they were less aligned regarding Syria’s Assad. Despite Israel’s demands and several chemical weapons false flags, the U.S. and Britain refrained from directly attacking Syria to overthrow Assad. This reluctance likely arose from the Rockefellers, WASPs, Russia, and China’s shared unwillingness to grant Israel unchecked dominance in the Middle East. In response, Israel, through neoconservatives, orchestrated a coup in Ukraine with support from fascists and Nazis. Putin countered with Russian intervention in Syria, which infuriated Israel, particularly since David Rockefeller, prioritizing geopolitical balance, seemed to tolerate Russia’s involvement.
The Minsk accords briefly stabilized the situation, but David Rockefeller’s death in 2017 emboldened the Jewish elite to act decisively. Together with neocons they pushed the West to flagrantly violate the Minsk accords and retaliated against China by orchestrating the Western-backed Hong Kong protests of 2019–2020. However, Xi Jinping maintained control, and criticism of the Jewish elite’s influence has intensified under his leadership, as evidenced by the increasing popularity of the Currency Wars trilogy. More troubling for the Jewish elite, Russia and China forged a robust geopolitical alliance, bolstered by proxies such as nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran’s Shia Crescent network, encompassing Hezbollah in Lebanon, Alawites in Syria, the Mahdi Army in Iraq, and Houthis in Yemen.
The ruling elite remains steadfast in safeguarding its financial system (“global money machine”), anchored by the Federal Reserve and the petrodollar. This cohesion fuels the rise of a globalist police-warfare state. However, Russia and China do not oppose this system, nor do they seek to supplant the petrodollar. Their sole aim is to secure equal partnership within the ruling elite and thus obtain security guarantees. While the Rockefellers and WASPs might entertain this prospect, the Jewish elite steadfastly resists. Thus, the Zionism of the Jewish elite complicates geopolitics by pursuing ultimate dominance, not only to establish a Greater Israel in the Middle East by committing genocide but also to encourage Diaspora Jews to resist assimilation by weakening the cohesion of host nations. Consequently, two primary forces originating from the Anglo-American-Zionist ruling elite shape the statist globalist order: Dollar imperialism (led by the White elite, namely the Rockefellers and WASPs) and Zionist imperialism (driven by the Jewish elite).
Image: Work in progress. Contribute by offering ideas and sources.
Zionist imperialism now holds a dominant position in global geopolitics, bolstered by the alignment of British and U.S. foreign policy, which increasingly functions as a proxy for Israel’s interests. Jewish elite is now even ready to risk the fate of the petrodollar by provoking other countries with massive sanctions. Various intelligence activities are also escalated now that Mossad dominates both CIA and MI6. The Jewish-led neoconservatives and neoliberals have intensified their assaults on Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, who openly lead the Axis of Resistance and the BRICS nations. However, these attacks have proven unsuccessful, serving only to strengthen both Russia and China. In desperation, the Jewish elite has pursued dangerous strategies of encirclement, dismemberment, assassination attempts and other regime change strategies, including attempts at color revolutions. Adhering to the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” they have even formed alliances with Nazis in Ukraine, ISIS in Asia, and triads in China. They may also have strategically placed individuals susceptible to extortion—such as Macron, Starmer, and Charles III, long rumored to have unusual sexual proclivities and sham marriages—to lead the nuclear powers France and Britain.
When regime change efforts proved unsuccessful, the Jewish elite supported and armed Ukraine against Russia, Taiwan against China, and launched an overt genocide in Gaza while waging war against the Shia Crescent. The unspoken term linking the Jewish elite’s three-front war is the word “Jew,” as explored in the article “World War Jew?”
Escalating regression
These developments were entirely predictable. Intelligent, adversarial, and unassimilated groups have little option but to continually raise the stakes. This begins with forming an alliance with the state, progresses to a divide-and-rule strategy, then secures dominance first over monetary systems then media and finally foreign policy, and ultimately seeks to dominate geopolitics through proxies. The most dangerous facet of this escalating regression is that both divide et impera strategies and the use of proxies allow the Jewish elite to operate largely unnoticed and persist in their efforts repeatedly. This recurring pattern of escalation has persisted across millennia, yet it proves especially hazardous in geopolitics, where proxy states facilitate the easy and even profitable initiation of never ending wars.
This does not imply that the Jewish elite desires war. Rather, it reflects the inherent instability of all cartels—be they economic or political—which drives them toward monopoly. Failure to vie for supremacy within the power cartel risks swift decline, compelling the Jewish elite to struggle for dominance. However, this pursuit is far more challenging and perilous for the Jewish elite, as, unlike other cartel members, they lack a strong power base. As Jews are a tiny nation, the only means to engage in the power cartel game is through proxies, a strategy fraught with danger, especially when those proxies outnumber them by dozens or even a hundredfold. It seems only a matter of time before these proxies turn against the Jews repeating the historical cycle of the Fatal Embrace.
The Rockefellers and WASP elites also seek to dismantle Russia, China, and Iran by fragmenting them into smaller entities, thereby securing the dominance of the Western ruling elite. However, like their Russian and Chinese counterparts, the WASPs and Rockefellers command vast geographic and high-IQ demographic power bases, allowing them to adopt a patient approach. They resent the Jewish elite’s impulsive, aggressive and genocidal tactics. In particular, the Rockefellers and their proxy, the Trump dynasty, are cautious about starting a three-front war. While content to capture especially European energy markets from Russia and Iran, they strive to avoid escalating conflicts with nuclear powers. The Rockefellers and WASPs are also willing to wait a decade for leaders like Putin, Xi and Khamenei to weaken or pass from power due to age.
In contrast, the Jewish elite, driven by an urgent need to capitalize on their influence while it endures, lack such patience. They feel compelled to raise the stakes swiftly to defeat their formidable adversaries, establish Greater Israel, and shape a global order that ensures their security. They have to win the cartel game and soon.
Conclusion
The Jewish elite has now intensified its actions with its latest escalation: intensifying genocide in Gaza and provoking “limited” nuclear strikes in Russia and Iran. Yet, American libertarians opt to remain silent on the ruling elite and the escalating regression toward war, restricted by the pivotal Overton window shaped by Jewish dominance in American media and even academia. Although many nations prohibit critical discourse about the Jewish elite, U.S. free speech protections endure, yet American libertarians exhibit pronounced self-censorship. To avoid offending Jewish sensitivities, American libertarians choose to remain silent, risking a police-warfare state, genocide, nuclear war and global holocaust.