The Paradigm War: Good vs. Evil

 

I made this diagram almost 20 years ago. It has stood the test of time. I hope I can program AI to improve it visually. Even better if it would be possible to add links to the text.

Karl Marx’s Rothschild Connection to the First Crimean War. Part II. Jewish geopolitics

Revolutionary Ideology: Prioritizing Anti-Antisemitism

Karl Marx’s communist theory legitimized radical revolutionary action, yet combating antisemitism often took precedence over opposing capitalism. This is evident in his contradictory political priorities. His materialist theory of history posited that industrialized nations like Britain were primed for revolution, yet he tempered agitation there while advocating it in less-industrialized Russia. This may be attributed to Britain’s relative tolerance toward Jews, contrasted with Russia’s antisemitism, characterized by Pale of Settlement restrictions and intermittent pogroms. In Russia, Jews faced discrimination and violence, whereas in Britain, Jew Lionel de Rothschild rose to become the leading banker. Elected to Parliament during the Europe-wide revolutionary “Crazy Year” of 1848, Rothschild refused to swear a Christian oath. Sustained Jewish advocacy ultimately secured parliamentary approval of the Oath of Abjuration Bill, known as the “Jew Bill,” in 1858, enabling Rothschild to serve as an MP. Shortly thereafter, his Jewish protégé from the Conservative Party, Benjamin Disraeli, returned to the cabinet and, in 1868, became prime minister.

Niall Ferguson observes that Benjamin Disraeli, in his novels Coningsby (1844), Sybil (1845) and Tancred (1847) celebrated Lionel Rothschild and his wife, Charlotte:

Another Rothschildian passage has Eva ask Tancred: “Which is the greatest city in Europe?” “Without doubt, the capital of my country London.” ... “How rich the most honoured man must be there! Tell me, is he a Christian?” “I believe he is one of your race and faith.” “And in Paris; who is the richest man in Paris?” “The brother, I believe, of the richest man in London.” “I know all about Vienna,” said the lady, smiling, “Caesar makes my countrymen barons of the empire, and rightly, for it would fall to pieces in a week without their support.”

Where Disraeli diverged from Charlotte was in his provocative—and to contemporaries, scandalous—assertion that, in “supply[ing] the victim and the immolators” at Christ’s crucifixion, the Jews had “fulfilled the beneficent intention” of God and “saved the human race.” Nor would she likely have endorsed his claim in Sybil (1845) that “Christianity is completed Judaism, or it is nothing. ... Judaism is incomplete without Christianity." (The House of Rothschild, pp. 82-83.)

Ferguson also notes that in Coningsby (1844), Disraeli openly addresses Jewish influence:

When Disraeli seeks to illustrate his point about the extent of Jewish influence, he draws with extraordinary directness from recent Rothschild history when he has Sidonia say: “I read of peace and war in newspapers, but I am never alarmed, except when I am informed that the Sovereigns want more treasure. A few years back we were applied to by Russia. Now, there has been no friendship between the Court of St Petersburgh and my family. It has Dutch connections, which have generally supplied it; and our representations in favour of the Polish Hebrews, a numerous race, but the most suffering and degraded of all the tribes, have not been very agreeable to the Czar. However, circumstances drew to an approximation between the Romanoffs. … So you see my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” ...

Hannah Barent Cohen-Rothschild wrote to her daughter, Charlotte: “in dwelling upon the good qualities of Sidonia’s race; in using many arguments for their emancipation he cleverly introduced many circumstances we might recognise and the character was finely drawn ... I have written a note to him expressing our admiration of his spiritual production. (The House of Rothschild, p 80-81.)

Most probably also Marx had read Disraeli’s books and was very proud of both the Rothschilds and Disraeli. In fact, so proud that the only time in his life he let slip his true Jewish feelings was in a reference to Disraeli. Daniel Schwarts notes this when reviewing Shlomo Avineri’s book Karl Marx: Philosophy and Revolution:

Avineri appears to presume that Marx’s lifelong silence on the matter of his Jewish origins—broken only once when, in a letter to his Dutch uncle (likewise converted), he referred to Benjamin Disraeli as “our fellow tribesman”—speaks volumes about the degree to which his ancestry lurked in his consciousness. (Daniel B. Schwartz. Marx and the Jewish Fingerprint Question. 2020)

Few contrasts are starker than those between Russia, where Jews faced stringent restrictions, and Britain, where a Jew could mock Christianity, boast of enormous Jewish influence, and, with Rothschild support rise in the Conservative Party and finally become prime minister. Unsurprisingly, Karl Marx championed the British Empire while condemning the Russian Empire. But his Jewish pride and Russophobia were further amplified by a distinct racialist ideology. In 1884, a year after Marx’s death, partly based on Marx’s notes Friedrich Engels published The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, asserting that superior nutrition among Aryans and Semites during pastoral eras “may, perhaps, explain the superior development of these two races” (p. 22, 1893 ed.).

Erik van Ree’s Marx and Engels’s Theory of History: Making Sense of the Race Factor (2002) demonstrates that Marx shared Engels’ racialist views, endorsing a hierarchy that placed Jews and Germanic peoples above Slavs, Blacks, and Asiatic populations. Jews and Germanic peoples were considered more adept at advancing production. Such racial hierarchies, prevalent in the 19th century, underpinned Marx and Engels’ markedly disparaging view of Slavs, particularly Russians. Marx supported Franciszek Henryk Duchinski’s claim that Russians were not Slavs or part of the “Indo-Germanic race” but rather Mongols and Finns. He further posited that Russian soil “Tartarizes” Slavs. Marx and Engels went so far that they even deemed the Balkan Slavs unfit for progress, outrageously regarding the Turks as “most competent to hold supremacy.”

Revolutionary geopolitics: British vs. Russian imperialism

Marx's racialist philosemitic views coincided strikingly with his deep-seated antipathy toward Slavs and Russians, whom Jewish and Muslim slave traders had targeted for centuries. They also aligned with his perception of the British Empire as the spearhead of a coalition against Russia. Indeed, Marx so admired the British Empire that, in his 1853 New-York Daily Tribune articles The British Rule in India and The Future Results of British Rule in India, he defends British imperialism as a catalyst for progress, even portraying it as “a tool of history.”

Marx's own family had probably also played a role in the defence of the British Empire. One important reason why the Rothschilds had formed a dynastic alliance with the Barent-Cohens was the latters unparalleled Jewish elite connections, trade routes, and intelligence web across Europe and especially in Britain and Netherlands. Barent-Cohen-Rothschild network enabled covert transfers of funds from London to European allies, largely via Dutch channels, to finance anti-Napoleonic coalitions. Nanette Cohen and her husband, Isaac Pressburg, a descendant of Nijmegen’s rabbinic leaders in a strategic Dutch-German border town, likely played a role in these operations, bolstering the Rothschilds’ geopolitical ambitions. Marx’s refusal to write a lucrative biography or memoir, despite severe financial difficulties, probably arose from concerns that such accounts would spark scrutiny of his Jewish elite ancestors and networks.

Herbert H. Kaplan notes that without the help of the Rothschilds Wellington might not have been able to fight the French efficiently.

Using funding from his father to make initial purchases, he employed experienced smuggler seamen to transport the cargoes across the Channel, and with his younger brother, James, organized a network of merchants, dealers, and bankers on the Continent to sell his specie and bullion. Nathan grossed millions of English pounds sterling from these transactions and, for as long as the war continued and the market price of gold and silver remained well above their Mint prices, he could have looked forward to a comfortable income. 

But the most significant opportunity for Nathan arose—and his importance in history became assured—when the desperate British government recognized that his skills and network were what it needed to supply large amounts of French specie to Wellington to pursue the war against Napoleon in France. He accomplished this commission by mobilizing his brothers and staff to fan out across Europe to purchase, collect, and deliver more than one million French coins to Wellington in the south of France. Given that Wellington had threatened not to pursue the war unless he received the money he demanded, it can be said that the efforts by the Rothschilds were as crucial to the defeat of Napoleon as any battle that was fought. (Herbert H. Kaplan. Nathan Mayer Rothschild and the Creation of a Dynasty. The critical years 1806–1816. (2006) p. 175-176)

The Rothschilds and their Jewish network played a significant role in Napoleon’s defeat. Consequently, they felt deeply betrayed when after the Napoleonic Wars The Holy Alliance led by Russia reintroduced many restrictions on Jews. Marx’s own family experienced this painfully when it was semi-forced to convert. The Jews, particularly the Marx family, had an ax to grind.

Over three decades, the Rothschild-led Jewish intelligence networks worked to support liberal change in continental Europe. Then came the “Crazy Year” of 1848, when Europe was swept by liberal revolutions promising Jewish emancipation. Naturally, Marx played a role in these revolutions with his Communist Manifesto and various revolutionary activities. However, just as the revolutions seemed poised to succeed, they were suppressed by the political and military intervention of the Russian Tsar, Nikolai I. His military support for conservative regimes, notably Austria, crushed revolutions in Hungary and Italy, preserving the geopolitical order. The Tsar’s belief in his role as guardian of this conservative, “antisemitic” order, reinforced by Russia’s restrictive Jewish policies made him a priority for Jews to topple.

The Rothschilds and other Jews now had to create a grand alliance against Russia. It was essential to enlist Britain to lead this alliance due to its vast navy and financial power. This was a formidable task for several reasons. First, Britain was a monarchy with the largest revolutionary proletariat. Why should it support revolutionary movements abroad, especially since they could easily spread to Britain? The Rothschilds presumably convinced Britain that Jewish networks could assist British intelligence in manipulating revolutionary forces to topple only governments hostile to Britain. Such an arrangement would have granted British intelligence greater influence over other countries and protection against its own British revolutionaries.

But why should Britain undermine and topple other governments at all? Would that not disrupt the balance of power achieved after decades of Napoleonic wars? Here, the Jews had to invoke the specter of danger: the Tsar was intent on expanding his empire and had to be stopped before seizing the Turkish straits! This raised another awkward question: Was Britain not also expanding its empire? Did it not control the ever expanding global empire including also in Mediterranean Gibraltar and Malta and aspire to control the Suez and build a canal? Furthermore, why would a Christian country support a Muslim empire that regularly massacred thousands of Christians in the Balkans and enslaved Christians? Was Britain not opposed to massacres, slavery and the slave trade?

The politically rational approach for Britain would have been to maintain the balance of power by negotiating spheres of influence with Russia, protect Christian values and culture, limit revolutionary activity in Europe while allowing gradual change, free the Balkans, end slavery, and possibly partition the Muslim Ottoman Empire. However, this did not suit the Rothschilds, as it would have yielded little profit. Liberal revolutions, military build-ups and limited wars were far more lucrative and allowed Jews to play states against each other and pressure conservative monarchs to grant privileges and emancipation. Abandoning the Muslim Ottoman Empire was also opposed because it had sustained a centuries-long alliance with Jewish communities, often opposing Christian powers, with many Jews such as Sassoons occupying prominent roles within the Empire.

Following the Napoleonic Wars, British foreign policy became increasingly Russophobic. After the revolutionary upheavals of 1848, this sentiment intensified, culminating in a British-French-Ottoman alliance determined to defeat Tsar Nicholas I in the Crimean War. Unsurprisingly, Marx emerged as a vocal critic of Russia and an ardent advocate for the Crimean War, denouncing Russia as a “barbaric” power. During the Crimean War Marx claimed that Russia could be defeated. What Charles XII and Napoleon started should be finally finished:

Not that we think ‘Holy Russia’ unassailable. On the contrary, Austria and Prussia united are quite able, if merely military chances are taken into account, to force her to an ignominious peace. … The strategy of an attack upon Russia from the west has been clearly enough defined by Napoleon, and had he not been forced by circumstances of a non-strategic nature to deviate from his plan, Russia’s integrity would have been seriously menaced in 1812. (Karl Marx. New York Tribune, 1 January 1855.)

Prussian King Frederick William IV’s neutrality, aligning with Russia, prevented the Tsar’s overthrow, dealing a blow to the Rothschild-backed coalition. This setback underscored the need for a broader anti-Russian alliance encompassing Prussia. Consequently, post-Crimean War, the Rothschilds prioritized intelligence networks, enhancing the strategic importance of Karl Marx’s connections to multiple intelligence networks.

Revolutionary Practice: Jewish Intelligence Networks

The Rothschilds were renowned for their private intelligence network, leveraging ancient Jewish intelligence systems and utilizing Jewish merchants, bankers, and community leaders across Europe. The Marx family, through the Pressburgs and Henriette’s sister Sophia’s marriage to Lion Philips, was likely part of this Rothschild intelligence network. Lion was a converted Jew and a tobacco industrialist with great wealth. His son Friedrich became a banker and also the founder of the famous Philips company. Lion's daughter Antoinette became a communist taking also part in the First Socialist International. All three actively helped Marx in his communist career both financially and organizationally. The Philips family were probably also part of the Rothschild intelligence network.

Marx’s connection to British intelligence was likely facilitated through his close friend, Friedrich Engels, whose family owned cotton mills not only in Cologne, Prussia but also Manchester, Britain granting him access to both Prussian and British industrial and political elites. Engels’ detailed knowledge of economic and military affairs, shared in their correspondence, suggests he relayed Marx’s insights on revolutionary movements to authorities, aligning with their anti-Russian goals.

Engels background as an industrialist made him highly suspicious. Why would an industrialist support communists unless he was somehow sabotaging and neutralizing them? Engels was well aware how many communists were suspicious of him. McLellan explains:

In 1865, as Marx and Engels were breaking with Lassalle’s successor, Johann Baptist von Schweitzer, Engels warned Marx that Schweitzer’s followers would say, “What does that Engels want, what has he been doing all these years, how can he speak in our name & tell us what we should do, the guy sits in Manchester and exploits the workers, etc.” (McLellan, David. 2006. Karl Marx: A Biography. p. 380.)

Wolfgang Waldner’s Der Preußische Regierungsagent Karl Marx (2009) argues that Marx’s connection to Prussian intelligence was likely facilitated through his wife, Jenny von Westphalen, who came from a prominent Prussian aristocratic family with deep ties to the Prussian bureaucracy, rooted in their elite ancestry. Her father, Ludwig von Westphalen (1770–1842), a liberal Prussian civil servant in Trier, descended from Scottish nobility through his mother and Brunswick nobility through his father, who served as chief of staff to the Duke of Brunswick during the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763). Ludwig’s access to elite networks positioned him within trans-European intelligence networks, including those linked to the Rothschilds.

Ludwig became a close friend of Karl Marx’s father, Heinrich Marx in Trier before the latter’s conversion to Lutheranism (1816–1817). Suspicions suggest Ludwig encouraged Heinrich’s conversion by promising connections to Prussian and British elites, protection from antisemitic restrictions, and potential intelligence work for anti-Russian strategies. Ludwig’s mentorship of Karl Marx, fostering his intellectual development and introducing radical ideas, further tied the Marx and Westphalen families together. As a key figure, Ludwig facilitated their integration into a broader intelligence community working to form a British-Dutch-Prussian front against Russia, leveraging his noble ancestry to access high-level networks.

Ludwig’s children strengthened these intelligence networks. His son, Ferdinand von Westphalen (1799–1879), Jenny’s half-brother from his first marriage to Elisabeth von Veltheim, was a highly conservative and reactionary Prussian official who served as the Prussian Minister of the Interior from 1850 to 1858, a period marked by intense repression of revolutionary movements following the 1848 uprisings and overlapping with the Crimean War. As Interior Minister, Ferdinand oversaw Prussia’s police, surveillance, and intelligence operations, including the monitoring of radicals like Marx, who was expelled from Prussia in 1849. Despite their ideological opposition, Ferdinand’s position made him a powerful conduit for Marx’s intelligence activities. Waldner argues Marx leveraged Ferdinand’s high-ranking role to infiltrate socialist movements and steer them in directions favorable to Prussian interests, such as suppressing internal revolutions while focusing unrest on Russia, aligning with the goal of integrating Prussia into a new anti-Russian coalition.

Jenny’s full brother, Edgar von Westphalen (1819–1885), a lifelong friend and schoolmate of Marx in Trier, was a communist politician and early member of the Brussels Communist Correspondence Committee (1846) and the Communist League. Despite his radical credentials, Edgar is suspected of being closely connected to Prussian intelligence, possibly acting as an informer within socialist circles. His ability to travel freely, including immigrating to Sisterdale, Texas, in the 1840s as part of the Adelsverein-sponsored German settlement, fighting for the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War (1861–1865), and later returning to Berlin with support from Ferdinand, suggests protection by Prussian authorities. Edgar’s activities in the U.S., particularly in Texas, a hub for German immigrants and Confederate networks, raise suspicions of connections to early Prussian or American intelligence networks, possibly facilitated by German-American political networks or Prussian diplomatic channels linked to Ludwig’s British contacts. Waldner implicates Edgar as a secondary agent in Marx’s Prussian intelligence network, with his U.S. activities potentially monitoring transatlantic radical movements to serve Prussian or broader anti-Russian interests.

Karl Marx was distinctively positioned among multiple dynastic intelligence networks: the Rothschild-Jewish network through his Jewish relatives, including the Pressburgs, and Philipses; the Prussian networks via his wife’s Westphalen family (Ludwig, Ferdinand, Edgar); and the British network through Friedrich Engels. This strategic positioning enabled Marx to evade imprisonment despite his revolutionary activities and to operate with considerable autonomy within the intelligence sphere. However, Marx was not merely a Rothschild, British, or Prussian agent but served as an ideological and geopolitical operative, seeking to forge a British-led coalition against Russia to overthrow the antisemitic Tsar, thus unleashing revolutionary forces to establish a communist society. His racialist worldview, which exalted Jews and Germanic peoples while disparaging Russians and Slavs, and his eschatological vision of transforming reality through violent revolution, reinforced this anti-Russian focus. By restraining revolutionary activity in Britain and Prussia/Germany, Marx likely sought to stabilize these nations, bolstering their capacity to confront Russia, possibly through a conflict akin to the Second Crimean War.

Revolutionary Strategy: Marx vs. Bakunin
Karl Marx’s political behavior was so contradictory—defending British imperialism while fixating on Russia—that it was inevitable that someone would notice. Indeed, one of Marx’s early friends and collaborators, Mikhail Bakunin, did so. The contrast between these two men—Jew and Russian, communist and anarchist—was stark. Marx sought to establish freedom from above by seizing state power, whereas Bakunin advocated freedom from below by dismantling the state. Bakunin urged revolutions across Europe, particularly in Britain and Prussia/Germany, leveraging their growing working classes, while Marx resisted revolutionary action there, favoring gradual political reform and promoting revolutions in Russia instead.

This divergence fostered opposing geopolitical perspectives. Bakunin viewed Britain and Germany, with their efficient states and propaganda, as the greatest threats to freedom, whereas Marx identified autocratic Russia and its anti-revolutionary policies as the primary obstacle. These irreconcilable political and strategic visions led to the dissolution of the First Socialist International when Marx expelled Bakunin’s faction, further straining their once-close relationship. Bakunin began to assert, or at least strongly imply, that Jews were dominating the Socialist International to bolster the relatively philo-Semitic governments of Britain and Germany.

In Statism and Anarchy (1873), Bakunin accused Marx of aspiring to dictatorship.

According to Marx’s theory, however, the people not only must not destroy it, they must fortify it and strengthen it, and in this form place it at the complete disposal of their benefactors, guardians, and teachers – the leaders of the communist party, in a word, Marx and his friends, who will begin to liberate them in their own way. They will concentrate the reins of government in a strong hand, because the ignorant people require strong supervision.

They will create a single state bank, concentrating in their own hands all commercial, industrial, agricultural, and even scientific production, and will divide the people into two armies, one industrial and one agrarian, under the direct command of state engineers, who will form a new privileged scientific and political class. (p. 545.)

In his correspondence, Mikhail Bakunin explicitly linked communism to Jews and the Rothschilds. These letters, still untranslated into English and unavailable online, have spawned erroneous or low-quality translations, paraphrased quotations, and fabrications that undermine credibility. Nevertheless, also in Statism and Anarchy, Bakunin strongly suggests that Jews were problematic, portraying Wilhelm Liebknecht—who had a Jewish wife and half-Jewish children—as Karl Marx’s instrument: “This was the German Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. It was headed by two very talented men, one a semi-worker, the other a writer and direct disciple and agent of Marx: Bebel and Liebknecht.” (p. 544)

Bakunin prophetically cautioned Russians and other Slavs against joining Marxists, deeming it suicidal:

Therefore we will refrain from urging our Slavic brothers to join the ranks of the Social Democratic Party of the German workers, which is led first and foremost by Marx and Engels in a kind of duumvirate vested with dictatorial power, with Bebel, Liebknecht, and a few Jewish literati behind them or under them.

On the contrary, we must exert all our efforts to dissuade the Slavic proletariat from a suicidal alliance with this party, which is in no way a popular party but in its orientation, objective, and methods is purely bourgeois and, furthermore, exclusively German, that is, lethal to the Slavs. (p. 222.)

Conclusion: Marx’s Hidden Legacy and the Crimean War
Karl Marx’s revolutionary ideology, rooted in his Jewish elite heritage, transcended his public persona as a communist theorist. His unique position between Jewish and Gentile intelligence networks allowed him to operate as an ideological and geopolitical agent, true to his communist vision while protecting Rothschild and British interests and advancing anti-Russian goals through political, racialist and eschatological justifications. 

Historians’ deliberate omission of Marx’s Jewish pride, resentment, vengeful motives, Satanic poetic imagery, radical eschatological visions, racialized ideological convictions, and Jewish geopolitical alignment obscures a critical truth: his Jewish elite heritage, values, and intelligence networks shaped his mission to eradicate antisemitism and capitalism through a universal Jewish-led revolution and dictatorship, intricately linked to the Crimean War era’s Jewish geopolitical objectives, which persist covertly even today.

References:

Berlin, Isaiah. 1996. Karl Marx: His Life and Environment.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.54900/mode/2up

Engels, Friedrich. 1893. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State.

https://archive.org/details/originoffamilypr00fred/page/22/mode/2up?q=superior+development

Ferguson, Niall. 1998. The House of Rothschild.

https://ia903409.us.archive.org/33/items/the-house-of-rothschild-ferguson-niall/The%20House%20of%20Rothschild%20-%20Ferguson%2C%20Niall.pdf

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1990. “Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis.” Journal of Libertarian Studies.

https://mises.org/journal-libertarian-studies/marxist-and-austrian-class-analysis

Herbert H. Kaplan. Nathan Mayer Rothschild and the Creation of a Dynasty the critical years 1806–1816. (2006)

https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/Nathan_Mayer_Rothschild_and_the_Creation.html?id=khxKMg6wjH4C&redir_esc=y

Kengor, Paul. 2020. The Devil and Karl Marx: Communism’s Long March of Death, Deception and Infiltration.

https://ia600600.us.archive.org/31/items/hybridphilosophy-collection/The-Devil-and-Karl-Marx-Paul-Kengor.pdf

Marx, Karl. 1843. On the Jewish Question.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

Marx, Karl. 1848. The Communist Manifesto.

https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/61

Marx, Karl. 1853a. “The British Rule in India.” New-York Daily Tribune, June 25.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/25.htm

Marx, Karl. 1853b. “The Future Results of British Rule in India.” New-York Daily Tribune, August 8.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/07/22.htm

Marx, Karl. 1855. “Russia Articles.” New-York Daily Tribune, January 1.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/russia/crimean-war.htm

Marx, Karl. 1867–1894. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Volume I (1867)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm;

Volume II (1885)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/index.htm;

Volume III (1894)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/index.htm

McLellan, David. 2006. Karl Marx: A Biography.

https://archive.org/details/karl-marx-his-life-and-thought/mode/2up

Raico, Ralph. 1978. Classical Liberal Roots of the Marxist Doctrine of Classes. Mises Daily.

https://mises.org/mises-daily/classical-liberal-roots-marxist-doctrine-classes

Al Raven. 2021. Translation of the antisemitic section of Bakunin's "Letter to Comrades of the Jura Federation".

https://libcom.org/article/translation-antisemitic-section-bakunins-letter-comrades-jura-federation

Rothbard, Murray. 1988. “Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist.” Mises Daily.

https://mises.org/mises-daily/karl-marx-religious-eschatologist

Rothschild Archive. 2025. “Rothschild Family Tree.”

https://www.rothschildarchive.org/genealogy/

Schwartz, Daniel B. 2020. “Marx and the Jewish Fingerprint Question.” Jewish Review of Books, Spring.

https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/7219/marx-and-the-jewish-fingerprint-question/#

Shahak, Israel. 1994. Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years.

https://archive.org/details/JewishHistoryJewishReligionTheWeightOf3000Years

Sperber, Jonathan. 2013. Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life.

https://archive.org/details/karlmarxnineteen0000sper/mode/2up

van Ree, Erik. 2002. “Marx and Engels’s Theory of History: Making Sense of the Race Factor.” Journal of Political Ideologies.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569317.2019.1548094#d1e244

Waldner, Wolfgang. 2009. Der Preußische Regierungsagent Karl Marx.

https://archive.org/details/bod-marx/mode/2up; https://www.wolfgang-waldner.com/der-marx-engels-schwindel/

Wurmbrand, Richard. 1976. Marx and Satan.

https://archive.org/details/MarxAndSatanRichardWurmbrand1976_201904

Karl Marx's Rothschild Connection to the First Crimean War. Part I. Third cousin

 

Renowned for his revolutionary communist theories, Karl Marx is frequently studied for his economic critiques and advocacy of class struggle. Yet, a critical, overlooked aspect of his life—his descent from the Jewish rabbinic elite, and possibly even close Rothschild connections through his grandmother Nanette Pressburg —profoundly shaped his identity, ideology, and revolutionary politics. Nanette and his mother, Henriette, instilled in Marx deep Jewish pride and unwavering opposition to antisemitism. His cultural Jewish values, particularly the community’s ethos of mutual support, inspired his vision of a classless society. Fueled by his elite Jewish pride, resentment over a semi-forced conversion, staunch opposition to antisemitism, and a racialist worldview shared with Friedrich Engels that elevated Jews and Germanic peoples, Marx justified alliances and intelligence work for the Rothschilds against “antisemitic” Russia, particularly during and after the Crimean War (1853–1856).

Marx’s Elite Jewish Lineage and possible Rothschild Ties

Karl Marx’s (1818–1883) family tree is often noted for its distinguished rabbinic heritage, with numerous rabbis on both sides. This legacy likely fostered Karl Marx’s sense of Jewish pride while fueling resentment over his family’s semi-coerced conversion in his birth-town Tier. Undertaken to navigate Prussian restrictions on Jews, which mandated conversion for social acceptance, professional advancement, and educational opportunities, this pragmatic decision was marked by reluctance. Henriette Marx’s conversion, delayed nearly a decade after her husband Heinrich’s (1816–1817) and a year after Karl’s 1824 baptism, underscores this hesitation.

Another potential source of Marx’s Jewish pride was the Rothschilds, though this connection remains speculative. Some Jewish sources, genealogical websites, and Wikipedia suggest that Marx’s grandmother, Nanette Salomon Pressburg (née Cohen, 1764–1833), was the daughter of Salomon Barent Cohen, whose brother Levi’s daughter, Hannah Barent Cohen, married Nathan Mayer Rothschild in 1806. This dynastic union strengthened ties between the Barent Cohen and Rothschild families. If true, Nanette’s daughter, Henriette (Marx’s mother, 1788–1863), would have been a second cousin to Hannah’s son, Lionel Rothschild, sharing a common great-grandfather, and Karl Marx would have been Lionel’s third cousin. Numerous unsourced family trees depict this alleged Rothschild connection. Here is one example with red question marks added.

The third-cousin theory has gained such public traction that debates now focus on whether this kinship held significance for Marx. If valid, the Barent-Cohen family’s close-knit social bonds likely reinforced this connection, with Nanette and Henriette probably socializing with the Rothschilds. It is highly likely that Nanette and Henriette would have attended the pivotal 1806 Rothschild wedding, as it seems unlikely that the bride’s uncle (Nanette’s alleged father, Salomon Barent-Cohen), his daughter (Nanette), and granddaughter (Henriette) would have been excluded from such a significant event within the tightly knit Barent-Cohen family. At 18 and of marriageable age, Henriette was likely viewed by the Barent-Cohens as a potential match for Rothschild or other elite Jewish families, highlighting her early proximity to these circle.

Yet, the third-cousin theory’s validity remains uncertain. Was Nanette Cohen a first cousin to Hannah Barent-Cohen Rothschild? An online search for “Nanette” and “Levi Barent-Cohen” in the Rothschild Archives yields no results. Despite substantial resources, the Rothschild Archives website provides only a rudimentary family tree, noting Hannah Barent-Cohen’s 1806 marriage to Nathan Rothschild without detailing her ancestry (Rothschild Archives, 2025). Niall Ferguson’s authoritative The House of Rothschild (1998) lacks a family tree and omits the 1806 dynastic alliance, arguably central to the Rothschild fortune, as well as Hannah’s parents, grandparents of the renowned Lionel Rothschild. Similarly, respected Marx biographies, including Isaiah Berlin’s Karl Marx: His Life and Environment (1996), David McLellan’s Karl Marx: A Biography (2006), and Jonathan Sperber’s Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life (2013), do not mention Nanette, an omission enabled by the absence of a Marx family tree. No comprehensive academic family tree seems to exist to trace Karl Marx’s great-grandparents.

Why Historians Overlook Marx’s Jewish Elite Connections

Historians consistently acknowledge Karl Marx’s distinguished rabbinic ancestry but overlook the influence of his Jewish grandparents, particularly Nanette, until he was 15. Consequently, they dismiss his Jewish elite heritage, with or without direct Rothschild ties, as a formative influence on his worldview and political activism. Several factors explain this omission. First, Marx’s parents’ conversion to Lutheranism is often presumed to have severed ties with Jewish relatives, implying Karl lacked a Jewish identity. Yet, this overlooks Henriette Marx’s maintained close ties with her mother, Nanette, and her religiously Jewish family, as well as the pragmatic nature of the conversion to circumvent Prussian restrictions on Jews.

Second, despite his awareness of his distinguished rabbinic lineage, Marx never explicitly referenced it in his extensive writings or correspondence. He left no memoirs to reveal his Jewish pride or family ties. His children and associates, such as Engels, likely knew of his Jewish elite heritage but omitted these details from contemporary accounts, suggesting deliberate concealment. Moreover, Marx’s daughters destroyed many of his papers after his death, further obscuring primary sources about his family connections and personal motivations.

This deliberate silence by Marx, his family, and associates was partly driven by the climate of 19th-century Europe that was suspicious of Jews. Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin frequently derided Marx as a Jew, accusing him and other Jewish figures of authoritarianism and conspiracies. Publicly revealing Marx’s rabbinic ancestry or elite Jewish connections would have intensified suspicions of ulterior motives, potentially undermining his critique of capitalism in The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867).

Finally, political sensitivity contributes to this oversight. Modern historians avoid examining Marx’s family tree to prevent fueling conspiracy theories portraying him as a Jewish or even a Rothschild agent. To sidestep such inflammatory narratives, biographies omit Nanette’s social ties and Marx’s family tree, thus concealing connections to elite families.

Communist Ideology: Revolt Against Nature

Marx’s communist ideology likely drew from Jewish kehillah values of sharing and caring, which he sought to universalize, rejecting the double standard he perceived in traditional Jewish culture. The kehillah functioned as a welfare system, providing communal support such as charity, education, and healthcare to Jews, while interactions with Gentiles were often conducted on capitalist terms, emphasizing trade and profit. Some extreme Talmudic interpretations, as critiqued by scholars like Israel Shahak in Jewish History, Jewish Religion (1994), went further, viewing Gentiles as “goyim” or “cattle,” inherently lesser and excluded from moral obligations.

Marx vehemently opposed this double standard, advocating for the kehillah’s ethos to extend to all humanity, not just Jews. His seminal article, On the Jewish Question (1843), can be understood from this perspective. Marx defends Jewish emancipation unconditionally, but at the same time critiques their capitalist roles, urging them to abandon the double standard and embrace communitarian values universally. His statement, “the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of humanity from Judaism,” can be read as positioning Jews as pivotal to humanity’s liberation, reflecting a belief in their potential to lead this transformation.

However, Marx deemed kehillah values insufficient, believing the ultimate solution required a communist society of equality and harmony, free of money, exchange, competition, and hierarchy. This radical communist perspective appears to have stemmed from Marx’s spendthrift, abrasive, and antisocial nature. Marx’s communist maxim, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”, can be seen as an attempt to justify his chronic financial mismanagement—relying on his wealthy mother, relatives like the banker Frederik Philips, and wealthy friends like Engels.

As Marx’s financial situation grew more challenging and humiliating, his communism became increasingly radical. Ultimately, Marx challenged reality itself. He viewed the necessity of frugality as a form of exploitation and saw reality and its natural laws as inherently oppressive. This rejection of reality was fueled by four factors rooted in his Jewish identity: first, his megalomania, derived from pride in his descent from the highest Jewish intellectual elite; second, the Jewish tradition of prophets and gurus, positioning him as an intellectual leader destined to guide humanity; third, Marx’s sense of entitlement, stemming from his elite Jewish lineage and intellectual talents, led him to believe his abilities deserved communal support, a mindset evident in his extravagant spending; and fourth, his alienation, resentment, and desire for revenge as an elite Jew forced to suppress his identity and beg for money in a discriminatory capitalist Christian society. These traits drove his eschatological vision of a “new communist man” in a paradise where reality’s exploitative laws would be overturned, a vision first expressed in his youthful poetry and later in his ideological development.

Richard Wurmbrand’s Marx and Satan (1976) and Paul Kengor’s The Devil and Karl Marx: Communism’s Long March of Death, Deception and Infiltration (2020) interpret Marx’s youthful poetry as Satanic. In Feelings (1837), Karl Marx expresses desperation reflecting his urge to destroy the existing order to create a new one.

Worlds I would destroy forever,

Since I can create no world;

Since my call they notice never,

In Invocation Against Despair (1837), Marx envisions power and retribution.

I shall build my throne high overhead,

Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.

For its bulwark — superstitious dread.

For its marshal — blackest agony.

In Oulanem (1837), Marx intensifies, decrying reality depicting existence and natural laws as a prison:

…the leaden world holds us fast. And we are chained, shattered, empty, frightened,

Eternally chained to this marble block of Being, … and we

We are the apes of a cold God,

Finally, in Fiddler (1837), Marx grows more explicit:

With Satan I have struck my deal,

He chalks the signs, beats time for me.

I play the death march fast and free.

In later poems like Player (1841), Marx still identifies with Satan, viewing him as a rebel against the natural order:

The hellish vapours rise and fill the brain,

Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.

See this sword?

The prince of darkness Sold it to me.

For me he beats the time and gives the signs.

Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.

Murray Rothbard’s Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist (1988) sees the poems as flirting with satanism but considers them essentially an eschatological revolt against reality. Wurmbrand, Kengor and Rothbard are likely all correct, as the poems clearly demonstrate Marx’s rejection of reality’s “cruel laws” and his megalomaniacal ambition to forge a communist paradise, necessitating violent revolutions to destroy the antisemitic Christian culture he resented. However, later Marx masked his lack of self-discipline and vengeful impulses by gradually synthesizing several influences into a pseudo-scientific eschatology. As a young man, he was drawn to Christian eschatological ideas, particularly postmillennialism, which envisioned an apocalyptic process culminating in a paradise of equality and ease. At the University of Berlin, he joined the Young Hegelians, who secularized postmillennialism, emphasizing philosophical ideas and the state as drivers of history’s final stages. After becoming a full-fledged atheist and materialist, Marx reframed history as progressing from a “free and equal” hunter-gatherer society to an “exploitative” agricultural and industrial society, culminating in communism.

To bolster his scientific credibility, Karl Marx drew upon classical liberal writings that elucidated economic laws and distinguished free exchange from coercive state power. Ralph Raico’s Classical Liberal Roots of the Marxist Doctrine of Classes (1978) observes that Marx adopted anti-statism and class struggle concepts nearly verbatim from early 19th-century classical liberal theorists like Charles Comte, Charles Dunoyer, and Augustin Thierry, yet recast bourgeois producers as oppressors. Through his labor theory of value, Marx elevated proletarians as heroes, vilifying “greedy money-men” and the bourgeoisie to justify proletarian dictatorship and communism. Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis (1990) suggests that Marx’s appropriation of classical liberal class struggle theory explains the near-identical macro-level alignment between the Marxist materialist theory of history and the Austro-libertarian theory of history. Hoppe argues that the core of Marx’s historical theory is valid but stems from an erroneous foundation, namely the Marxist exploitation theory, which relies on the flawed labor theory of value.

Karl Marx likely recognized difficulties in reconciling his micro- and macro-level theories. These challenges intensified following the Marginalist Revolution of the 1870s, which supplanted the labor theory of value with subjective value theory. This may account for Marx’s inability to complete and publish the second and third volumes of Capital despite 16 years before his death. Presumably, Marx prioritized defending revolution and dictatorship over revising his framework, motivated by pride and a commitment to ideological objectives over truth.

Marx’s “hodgepodge” system was a religious eschatology disguised as science, rationalizing Marx’s personal failings and desire to punish Christian society for its capitalism and antisemitism. His belief in the necessity of violence aligned with his eschatological goal of transforming reality, viewing the cost—human suffering—as justified for the communist paradise.


Continued in Part II. Jewish geopolitics.

 The Praxeological Foundations of Murray Rothbard’s Study of the Ruling Elite

Introduction
Murray Newton Rothbard, a distinguished professor of economics and a luminary of the Austrian School, was profoundly influenced by Ludwig von Mises. In his seminal work, Human Action, Mises articulated a praxeological system grounded in the action axiom, from which he derived the core principles of economics. Rothbard, an ardent admirer of Mises, sought to extend this intellectual legacy, weaving together a comprehensive framework that illuminated the dynamics of power and society.

Theory and History
To grasp Rothbard’s analysis, one must begin with methodology. The Austrian School embraces methodological individualism, asserting that only individuals act, not collectives like states. Yet, these actions are inherently subjective, posing challenges for historical study. Ludwig von Mises addressed this in his final work, Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution. Mises developed a thymological method, blending scientific theory with subjective interpretation. As the book’s title suggests, history demands a theoretical lens to organize and interpret events coherently.

Rothbard continued Mises' work by systematically assembling the Austrian framework into a unified praxeological system. In the 1960s, he published Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economics, followed in the 1970s by Power and Market: Government and the Economy. These works, often published together, form a praxeological treatise on economics and political science. In the 1980s, Rothbard added into this system ethics with The Ethics of Liberty.

As a historian, Rothbard authored the multi-volume Conceived in Liberty, a history of colonial and early independent America. Unlike most historians, he insisted that ethical considerations are integral to historical analysis, viewing history as a struggle between good and evil, freedom and oppression. Central to his historical perspective were the exploitation theory and the concept of the ruling elite. While Rothbard’s writings on the ruling elite are scattered across his oeuvre, they have been meticulously compiled into an excerpted summary. This essay builds on that effort, focusing on the theoretical underpinnings of Rothbard’s work and demonstrating how his praxeological approach transformed the traditional theory of the ruling elite into a compelling exposé of what he termed the Rockefeller World Empire (RWE).

Laws of Social Science
Ludwig von Mises argued that the laws of logic and social science are more certain than those of natural science, as they rest on the apodictic categories of thought and action. Rothbard built upon these absolute praxeological foundations, emphasizing that human nature and existence are constrained by our physical reality in a universe governed by natural laws. As individuals in a world of scarcity, conflicts can only be resolved through property rules. Property, Rothbard noted, is acquired either voluntarily or through aggression. Economics studies voluntary exchange, while politics examines aggressive interactions. Both disciplines derive their principles from the action axiom, deducing laws such as marginal utility and supply and demand from the pursuit of value maximization.

Rothbard stressed that historians must master these laws, along with concepts like barter, money, banking, and the price system, which coordinates the exchanges of millions. Without this understanding, historians cannot comprehend the mechanisms driving societal dynamics. Given the economy’s role as the material foundation of civilization, policies that undermine private property, voluntary exchange, or the price system profoundly impact society. This insight underpinned Rothbard’s focus on economic and political factors in his study of history and the ruling elite.

Laws of Politics

The Austrian School underscores the centrality of property and property rules. In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard advanced this principle with absolute propertarianism, asserting that all rights stem from objective property rights, deduced from self-ownership and the Lockean homesteading principle of first-use-first-own. Individuals own themselves and acquire property through homesteading, production, or voluntary contracts. All rights, Rothbard argued, are property rights.

In a propertarian society, all interactions are voluntary. However, aggression—exemplified by criminals, mafias, and, most pervasively, the state—disrupts this ideal. Rothbard viewed the state as an institution of aggression, inherently violating self-ownership by monopolizing arbitration. Political science, in his view, studies this institutionalized aggression, rendering the state akin to a mafia-like entity. This perspective radicalized the Austrian School into what can be termed the Radical Austrian School.

Rothbard demonstrated how political processes exacerbate the state’s mafia-like tendencies, fostering special interest groups that manipulate the state for subsidies, monopolies, and cartels. The state thus becomes a “statist cartel machine,” with two dire consequences: it increasingly violates property rights, embodying socialism, and it divides society into exploiters and the exploited. Since history is dominated by states, Rothbard interpreted it as a struggle between elitist exploiters and the oppressed masses.

Laws of Ethics

While Mises maintained that science should remain value-free, Rothbard diverged, arguing in The Ethics of Liberty that ethical science reveals clear distinctions between right and wrong. Grounded in natural law ethics and the axiom of self-ownership, Rothbard deduced that all voluntary interactions are ethical, while all aggression is unethical. This ethical framework imbues Rothbard’s historical studies with a moral dimension, judging actions and ideas as just or unjust, in the tradition of classical liberal historian Lord Acton. His histories, far from neutral, read like gripping crime narratives, exposing the moral stakes of historical events.

Thymology

Scientific theories provide the framework for understanding history, but they are insufficient alone. Rothbard, a systematic thinker, applied methodological individualism to history, moving from individual actions to broader social phenomena. This thymological approach blends objective science with subjective interpretation, requiring historians to evaluate individual motives, costs, and benefits within their social context—ideology, family, friendships, and career. Connecting these details into a cohesive narrative transforms history into a vivid tapestry, both an art and a science.

Intellectual History

From a praxeological perspective, ideas are the bedrock of history. While not all ideas yield practical outcomes, all actions stem from ideas. Rothbard emphasized intellectual history as the foundation of all historical study, arguing that belief in statism shapes the course of history. The state, as a monopoly on arbitration and violence, represents the most pernicious idea in human history, inherently aggressive and prone to escalating evil. Rothbard contended that voluntary relations suffice to organize society, including security, as Gustave de Molinari argued in The Production of Security. Yet, classical liberals like Frédéric Bastiat dismissed this idea, reinforcing the false consciousness perpetuated by state-controlled academia, education, and media.

Political History
When public opinion accepts the state, politics permeates all aspects of life, dividing society into rulers and the ruled. In monarchical times, this division was overt, but Rothbard argued that democracy merely cloaks the ruling elite’s power. The hallmark of the elite is control over the central bank’s money machine. Rothbard’s historical analysis thus centers on monetary history, particularly banking and central bank development, which is easier to study than the complexities of voluntary market interactions. By examining legislation and banking regulations, historians can discern the trajectory of a politicized, aggressive society.

Rothbard’s focus on Anglo-American history highlights the clear battle between liberty and statism, aided by robust record-keeping and the significant power of political leaders. In Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, he organized American history by presidential reigns, revealing how political parties and presidents are influenced by special interest groups, particularly bankers. By asking “cui bono?”—who benefits?—Rothbard traced the flow of money to uncover the ruling elite’s true interests.

False Consciousness
Rothbard scrutinized special interest groups, peering beyond their rhetoric to uncover their pursuit of monopoly and cartel privileges. Manufacturers, labor unions, bankers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, and intellectuals all seek cartels for financial gain and to protect their reputations and networks. Modern democracy, Rothbard argued, is a vast cartel machine, with groups vying for privileges while denying them to others. Intellectuals, easily swayed by subsidies and cartel benefits, help the ruling elite shape ideologies and public debate, subjugating the public under a false consciousness that obscures their exploitation.

While the Chicago and Public Choice schools acknowledge the cartel nature of democratic states, Rothbard uniquely emphasized the central bank’s role as the most critical monopoly. He speculated that the central bank manipulates intellectuals through academia and media, and even buys off economic historians to obscure its power. Rothbard supported conspiracy research, cautioning against oversimplification but arguing that it uncovers the motives and responsibilities of the ruling elite. By discrediting conspiracy theories, the state deflects blame onto vague “social forces,” ensuring public compliance with its actions.

The War Between Bankers and the People
In America, the conflict between the people and bankers was starkly evident. The Jeffersonian-Jacksonian movement identified the money monopoly and banking cartel as the foundation of the ruling elite and the greatest threat to liberty. By the 1830s, President Jackson’s movement triumphed, dismantling the central bank’s privileges and extending this to other banks. However, classical liberals faltered ideologically, failing to advocate consistently for a pure gold standard and 100% reserve banking. Their ambiguous support for the gold standard, coupled with national currency names like the dollar, sowed confusion, enabling opponents to manipulate and abandon it. Similarly, weak opposition to fractional reserve banking, due to its complexity, allowed bankers to exploit the system.

Rothbard noted that fractional reserve bankers inherently lean toward statism, driven by the immense profits of such practices. Their symbiosis with the state—demanding bailouts in crises and financing state loans—becomes inevitable, particularly during wars like the American Civil War, which re-cartelized banking and the broader economy. By the early twentieth century, the power of cartels was evident, as highlighted in a 1911 McClure’s article identifying seven men—J.P. Morgan, James J. Hill, George F. Baker, John D. and William Rockefeller, James Stillman, and Jacob H. Schiff—as controllers of America’s fundamental industries through monopolies.

Rothbard echoed McClure’s thesis, systematically detailing the connections between bankers and politicians. Despite efforts by the elite to portray themselves as public-spirited, Rothbard exposed their self-interest. He highlighted how bankers cultivated economists as intellectual defenders and traced their personal networks—ownership, employment, friendships, and kinship. These networks revealed dynastic structures, a historical constant where successful business figures rely on family to form kinship-based dynasties, reducing information costs and fostering loyalty through genetic and emotional bonds.

Three American Dynasties
McClure’s identified three dominant dynasties—Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb. Rothbard integrated this with Carroll Quigley’s analysis of the British elite under Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Milner, forming the Anglo-American Establishment. The Morgans, elitist WASPs, faced challenges from the rising Rockefeller dynasty, which allied with ethnic minority dynasties. These dynasties operated hierarchical networks of families, businesses, and friendships—termed “ambits of influence”—with patriarchs like Junius Morgan, followed by J.P. and Jack Morgan, at the center. The Kuhn, Loeb dynasty, led by Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb, cemented alliances through marriage, with Jacob Schiff rising to prominence. The Rockefellers, initially outsiders, built their power through oil and strategic marriages into political and banking families, controlling major banks like Chase and Citicorp.

Rothbard demonstrated how these dynasties collaborated to create a cartelized economy, first in America and then globally. They manipulated public opinion by funding progressive intellectuals, who supported state regulation while the dynasties captured regulatory agencies and the state itself. By 1913, they had achieved regulatory and state capture, justified as a “state-business partnership.” They also pursued a global empire, enforcing American-led cartels through policies like the Monroe Doctrine and military interventions. Crucially, they united to establish the Federal Reserve in 1913, a misnamed central bank, and began advocating for a world central bank.

While united in their cartel ambitions, the dynasties clashed over control. The Morgans sought supremacy, targeting the Rockefellers and Kuhn, Loeb, particularly through political maneuvering, including the assassination of Rockefeller-allied President McKinley. Morgan-backed Theodore Roosevelt targeted Rockefeller trusts like Standard Oil, while Rockefeller-supported President Taft retaliated against Morgan trusts. The public perceived this as a progressive war on Big Business, but it was a struggle for cartel dominance. Economics explains this conflict: cartels are unstable, prone to internal and external competition, with each dynasty vying for control of the Federal Reserve.

The Morgans nearly prevailed, leveraging Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party to secure Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, which facilitated the Federal Reserve’s creation and Morgan control. Their alliance with the British Empire and profits from World War I cemented their global dominance. However, excessive money printing in the 1920s, supporting cartels and Britain, triggered the stock market crash and Great Depression, weakening the Morgans.

Rockefeller World Empire
Seizing the opportunity, the Rockefellers and Kuhn, Loeb allied with a coalition of ethnic minorities, electing Franklin D. Roosevelt. His New Deal targeted Morgan-dominated investment banking and utilities, undermining their power. Recognizing the Morgans’ British backing, the Rockefellers wisely made them junior partners alongside Kuhn, Loeb, establishing the Rockefeller World Empire (RWE) under their leadership.

Conclusion
Rothbard, a master system builder, transformed the Austrian School into the Radical Austrian School, crafting a praxeological framework from the action axiom to elucidate economics, politics, and ethics. Applying this to history, he depicted a struggle between the exploited and the exploiting elite, led by the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb dynasties. These dynasties collaborated to forge an imperialist cartel economy, centered on the Federal Reserve, but vied for its control. The Morgans initially triumphed, bolstered by the British Empire, but their overreach led to the Great Depression. The Rockefellers capitalized on this, forming a coalition to defeat the Morgans and establish the RWE, prudently integrating the Morgans as junior partners.

The RWE drives globalism, seeking a world central bank and the erosion of national sovereignty through centralized states and cultural Marxism. Rothbard believed the Austrian School equips historians to scrutinize the ruling elite, yet even sympathetic scholars have hesitated to continue his work. Over two decades after Rothbard’s death in 1995, the challenge remains for historians to emulate his courage, naming the exploiters and exposing their machinations.