From a libertarian perspective, the world is governed by states that exploit their populations. These states are controlled by an exploitative ruling elite that privatizes profits while socializing losses, amassing ever-greater wealth. To sustain its dominance, 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. Democracy’s key advantage lies in the people’s right to voice dissent. By exposing the ruling elite, public opposition could halt, or at least slow, the state’s expansion into a global warfare-police state.
Outcomes could improve further: the state’s natural tendency to contract through decentralization emerges when its expansion via wars and the associated
ratchet effect ceases. Thus, in the best scenario, exposing the ruling elite’s wars could foster freedom; at minimum, it could prevent wars and especially nuclear war.
Ruling eliteExposing the ruling elite appears straightforward for libertarian economists and historians, yet they shy away, fearing political correctness and career repercussions. Only one clear exception emerges: libertarian scholar Murray Rothbard, who meticulously delineated methods to study the ruling elite. He even critizized libertarians for failing to study the ruling elite.
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.” (Murray Rothbard. The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited. April 1977, Reason.)
As a Jew, Rothbard, like many other prominent Jewish libertarians, reluctantly downplayed the Jewish component within the ruling elite. Under intense pressure to 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 elucidated the ruling elite’s evolution throughout the twentieth century until the 1980s.
Rothbard delineated three dynastic groups within the ruling elite: the WASP elite, led by the Windsors, Boston Brahmins, and Morgans; the Rockefeller coalition of non-elite Whites; and the Jewish elite, headed by the Rothschilds alongside dynasties such as the Schiffs, Warburgs, Lehmans, and Goldmans. Each group sustains distinct economic foundations and banking networks. The WASP elite, anchored in the City of London, historically dominated J.P. Morgan in America and Barings and HSBC in Britain. The Rockefellers controlled Citibank and Chase Manhattan, while Jewish elites managed Rothschild banks in Europe and Belmont, Kuhn-Loeb, Lehman, and Goldman Sachs in America. Although banks have evolved and some have merged, these three groups collectively govern the United States, particularly its central bank, the Federal Reserve.
The three dynastic groups 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. Yet, they have collaborated to establish a global order safeguarding their international petrodollar system, leveraging the American military-industrial complex to neutralize nations that threaten it.
Coalition wars
In Wall Street Banks and American Foreign Policy, Murray Rothbard elucidated 20th-century conflicts among ruling dynasties regarding war strategies. Tensions peaked during World War I, as the Morgans supported the Entente of Britain, France, and the Russian Tsar against Germany and Austria, while Jewish elites and Rockefellers opposed aligning with their adversary, the Tsar. This dispute was resolved by overthrowing the Tsar with 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 Jewish elites and WASPs 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, particularly as David Rockefeller mediated internal disputes.
However, the ruling elite’s power is not absolute. Controlling politicians through blackmail or bribes proves challenging. Rothbard noted that when a politician or political dynasty resists, a “lone nut” assassin may emerge, but only with the acquiescence of other ruling elite factions.
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.)
Rothbard suggested JFK’s assassination was an obvious
coalition effort though he did not reveal it was driven by elite Jewish
outrage over Kennedy’s attempts to register the Jewish lobby and halt Israel’s nuclear program. Lyndon Johnson’s presidency delivered Rockefeller-favored wars in Asia and Jewish-backed wars in the Middle East. Johnson even permitted the Israeli
attack on the USS Liberty, resulting in American casualties. Stability ensued in the 1970's when Rockefellers forged a de facto alliance with China and secured a petrodollar agreement with Jewish elites and Saudis, establishing what Rothbard called as the Rockefeller World Empire (RWE).
The Rockefellers emerged as senior partners within the ruling elite, but the WASP and Jewish elites countered by establishing the City of London as the hub of a vast
elite tax-free network, leveraging Britain’s colonial empire. David Rockefeller embraced this new power balance, fostering alliances through marriages among elite dynasties. Nonetheless, the three dynastic groups remained distinct, requiring their consensus for major wars. During the Iraq wars, the Jewish elite sought to eliminate their adversary, Saddam Hussein, while the Rockefellers aimed to restrict Iraq’s oil production. This compromise explains why Saddam was not deposed after the First Gulf War, providing a pretext for sanctioning Iraq and curbing its oil output. The cost—
half a million dead children—preserved harmony among the ruling elite.
The Jewish QuestionIn the 1990s, Rothbard grew less restrained, incensed by the rising power of the Jews and the Jewish neoconservatives’ persistent warmongering despite the Soviet Union’s collapse. He opposed their push for wars to expand Israel and combat antisemitism, initiating 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 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 has continued his meticulous study of the ruling elite, a surprising lapse given the ruling elite’s escalating aggression in initiating wars through deception and false flags. Wars now rage in Europe and the Middle East, threatening nuclear escalation. Many libertarian media and organizations acknowledge this nuclear peril and the drift towards police-warfare state but inexplicably refrain from examining the ruling elite and its wars in detail.
The reason for this silence is clear: fear of acknowledging Jewish influence. This is hardly surprising, given that several prominent libertarians—Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, David Friedman and Robert Nozick—are Jewish. Moreover, Jewish dominance within libertarian institutions and their funders suppresses open discourse. To maintain conscience and credibility, many libertarians resort to a compromise, attributing issues to Zionism rather than elite Jews. Yet, can Zionism explain the historical rise of statism and the ruling elite? Does it account for how, over the past 150 years, the ruling elite has transformed politics, media, science, and culture into aggressive absurdity?
It cannot. One must rather search for the explanation in the unique intelligence and ethnocentricity of Jews, who, for millennia, have enjoyed the remarkable privilege of crossing borders and residing in various nations with minimal assimilation. This is not a matter of inherent deceit but of institutional dynamics rooted in natural evolutionary self-interest. Unassimilated, 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, hostile teenager adopted into a family would likely pit members against each other to gain influence.
Historically, Jews 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 societies through financial and administrative support to early 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 decentralization that in some areas like
Iceland led to the withering away of the state. However, they overlook why statism ultimately always prevailed over natural decentralist and secessionist forces. Jewish financial and administrative contributions may have been not only necessary but sufficient to tip the balance.
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 foreign Jewish elite offered exploitation services, such as tax farming, monopoly banking and monopoly trade, to natural elites. By leveraging Europe’s decentralization, they sought the highest exploitation price. When population resistance proved too strong, diminishing profits, the Jewish elite could repeatedly attempt new strategies in other jurisdictions until they perfected the formula for state formation.
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 Luther and other Protestants in undermining Catholic authority, they intensified their efforts. The Bank of Venice, Amsterdam and Hamburg, however, all rejected fractional reserve banking. Subsequently, the Jewish elite financed the so-called Glorious Revolution in England, helping to establish the fractional reserve based Bank of England. Since then, the Jewish and WASP elite have maintained a symbiotic relationship within the largely autonomous City of London.
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, Jews lost control of a state, facing catastrophic backlash, though typically only ordinary Jews suffered, while rabbinic and financial elites relocated to neighboring states. By exploiting Europe’s decentralized structure, the elite Jews adeptly manipulated rulers and nations to their advantage.
The state empowered the Jewish ruling elite, who, as state allies, have historically relied on it for financial support and control over ordinary Jews. They have privatized profits while socializing costs, often leaving ordinary Jews to face massacres. Benjamin Ginsberg’s
Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State vividly illustrates this dynamic.
Having facilitated statism 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 and Russia, they employed
divide et impera tactics, forming coalitions of minorities to undermine traditional values and White conservative culture as Kevin MacDonald details in his
Culture of Critique trilogy. This culture of critique gained 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 geopoliticsJewish 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 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.
In the 1990s, Jewish-led neoconservatives and neoliberals wielded significant influence in the Clinton administration. Leveraging CIA-Mossad intelligence networks, they expanded power in Russia via Jewish oligarchs under Yeltsin and in China possibly through some of the
Hakka elite. However, Jewish oligarchs lost influence under Putin, and China’s leader, Deng Xiaoping, during the
Tiananmen incident, and Xi Jinping during the
2019-2020 Hong Kong protests asserted independence from Western dominance. Especially in China the
criticism of Jewish elite influence has been strong as also exemplified by the success of the
Currency Wars trilogy.
Even more troubling for Jewish elites, Russia and China formed a geopolitical alliance, bolstered by proxies like 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. Over the past decade, Jewish elites and their neoconservative and neoliberal allies have relentlessly targeted Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, to no avail. They have now openly attacked the Axis of Resistance, backing Ukraine against Russia, Taiwan against China, and initiating genocide in Gaza and war against the Shia Crescent. The unnamed word that connects the Jewish elite's three-front war is the word Jew, as outlined in the article
World War Jew?These developments were readily foreseeable. Intelligent, adversarial, unassimilated groups have no choice but to keep on raising the stakes. Initially forging an alliance with the state, followed by divide et impera, then securing dominance over media, monetary, and foreign policy, and ultimately endeavoring to control geopolitics through proxies. The most perilous aspect of this escalating dynamic is that proxies enable the Jewish elite to operate largely undetected and try again and again. This is particularly perilous in geopolitics, where the use of proxy states allows wars to be instigated readily and even profitably.
The Jewish elite has now intensified its actions with its latest escalation: threatening “limited” nuclear strikes in Russia and Iran. Yet, American libertarians opt to remain silent on these underlying war causes, restricted by the pivotal Overton window shaped by Jewish dominance in American media and academia. This framework renders discussion of Jewish influence on government and foreign policy taboo. 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, nuclear war and global annihilation.
