General

Gilad Atzmon: Finally, I watched Naza, and I urge every human to do the same.

October 8, 2026/1 Comment/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

Gilad Atzmon

Finally, I watched Naza, and I urge every human to do the same.

Naza digs into the belly of the worst and most brutal beast the world has ever seen. It isn’t a case of a ‘banality of evil’. It is actually the opposite. It is the sophistication of the people who acted as the IT and technicians of that colossal crime against humanity. It is the systematic, satanic apparatus that paved the way for and facilitated the annihilation of a civilization.

Yet the most disturbing thoughts I was left with are:

1. The fact that the mad state that has proudly been carrying out the worst documented genocide in human history is still operating with impunity and is even more enthusiastic about accomplishing its catastrophic agenda.

2. This state, which is collectively dedicated to the destruction of everything around it, is in possession of a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, including hundreds of nuclear warheads.

3. The state responsible for the human sacrifice in Gaza refers to itself as the Jewish state. It is openly inspired by Judaic religion, Jewish culture, and spirit; yet only 2–5% of world Jewry openly denounce this Jewish state. Troublingly, when they do so, it is most often for the wrong reasons. They insist their Jewish state is not helping the Jewish reputation. This crowd will allow you to criticise Zionism but never to look at the J word and what it may entail. In that regard this miniature crowd is operating as a fig leaf for the state and its founding ideology, spirit and religion.

Naza is most certainly a very important documentary . It avoids the Zionism/Judaism topic altogether. The creators are Israelis who point the finger at the monstrous society around them. What motivates them is an open question. Do they really believe the Jewish state can change course? Do they see their compatriots relenting at any point in the future? These are no doubt interesting questions but far from the most important ones.

Murray Rothbard’s Secret Ancestry: “The Rothschilds of Russia”, Polyakov-Raskin Dynasty

October 8, 2026/3 Comments/in Featured Articles, General/by Marco de Wit

Creating Russian Railroads, Banks, Bolshevik Revolution and US Communist Party

Note: This article is an early draft of chapter one of a forthcoming revisionist biography of Murray Rothbard. It is part of the ongoing Rationalist Grand System Book Series, which also features upcoming revisionist biographies of Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand. Together, these biographical works demonstrate how these prominent libertarians were tied from birth to the Rothschilds and its revolutionary Jewish network that migrated from Eastern Europe to America, continuing its subversive efforts to transform the United States into an explicitly philosemitic nation dominated by the Jewish Dominant Minority. Drafts are well underway, but much work remains to be done. We welcome your assistance in sourcing information and developing the final books. Many thanks to the team that has done great work this far.

Introduction

Much like his mentor, the eminent economist Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard never authored a formal memoir or comprehensive autobiography, despite his central role in shaping the modern libertarian movement. Rothbard left his ancestry largely unexamined in his published work, keeping his family origins in Eastern European Jewish communities largely out of view; he never once publicly identified even his grandparents.

Fortunately, a single partial exception survives: an autobiographical essay written during Rothbard’s high school years. Curiously, this early reflection was distorted by his unofficial biographer, Justin Raimondo. Literally on his deathbed in 2019, Raimondo finally sent the essay together with other biographical material to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which houses Rothbard’s papers. The Institute acknowledged the receipt of these materials with an editorial note stating:

Recently the Mises Institute received a box of documents belonging to Murray Rothbard from our friend Justin Raimondo. We will make new material available online as we work through the collection.” (Murray N. Rothbard. Young Murray Rothbard: An Autobiography. (Mises Wire, 7 January 2019.)

While the Mises Institute published this particular essay online, extensive portions of the collection remain unscanned and inaccessible to independent researchers. This lack of transparency has effectively walled off vital primary sources from critical historical scrutiny, serving as a tactical component of the broader censorship project detailed in the Five Purges article.

The link to article.

Taboo Ancestry

The Mises Institute has never published an exhaustive, verified family tree of Rothbard, nor has it commissioned an independent genealogical investigation. Consequently, Rothbard’s essay takes on exceptional historical weight. It stands as his only deeper commentary on his family’s roots, a topic that has remained largely untouched by institute scholars, biographers, and the broader libertarian establishment.

This silence aligns with a broader pattern among leading twentieth-century libertarian figures. The prominent biographers of Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Rose Director Friedman, as well as their family friends and Fed chairmen, Arthur Burns and Alan Greenspan, have consistently directed attention away from detailed genealogical inquiry. David Friedman and many other prominent libertarians have followed the same course. Consequently, we are left without a documented family tree for any of these major figures, a notable absence in their existing biographical literature.

This is not surprising, as Ashkenazi Jews are often reluctant to discuss their ancestry—particularly when it links them to the slave trade or highly exploitative monopolist arenda system or other monopolist and terrorist activities directed against their host populations. Just as Germans are often reluctant to discuss their Nazi relatives, concentration camps, and connections to the SS, Jews are frequently unwilling to address their own links to Jewish bankers, slave traders, the arenda system, Bolsheviks, the Red Terror, Gulag concentration camps, the Cheka, and the KGB—especially when their transplanted network is actively seeking to reshape the government of their new country as well.

While everyone possesses a right to privacy, it remains suspicious that not one prominent Ashkenazi Jewish intellectual seems to have published his family tree, despite having a clear and obvious interest in the history and current politics of Eastern Europe. Thus, the discussion of one’s own or other Jews’ possible ancestral links to Jewish revolutionary activities serves as one possible litmus test for gatekeeping, alongside the topics of White genocide and the geopolitically motivated Jewish Grand Gonspiracy for hegemony. In any case, directly or indirectly advancing Jewish interests seems to be second nature, even to leading Jewish libertarians.

The link to the article. See also The Occidental Observer version.

In fact, it appears to be an unwritten rule that, unlike many Gentiles, all prominent modern Jewish intellectuals—such as David Friedman, Ron Unz, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Ben Shapiro—are exceptionally reluctant to publish or discuss their genealogical history in detail with family trees. One reason for this might be the American myth of the ‘self-made man,’ but another is the possibility that the ancestral families of most, or even all, of these prominent and highly intelligent and driven Jews—from libertarians to neoconservatives—are part of an interlocking Jewish elite family network that, under the Rothschilds, organized political activities in Eastern Europe and now in America. While they may hold different perspectives on how to manipulate America, they all work to turn it into a multicultural philosemitic country. We will now examine whether Murray Rothbard’s family belonged to this Rothschild-led Jewish network.

Aristocratic Lineage

Rothbard’s youthful essay breaks this pattern of secrecy at the outset. He describes his father, David Rothbard, as an industrious immigrant of modest middle-class origins, while characterizing his mother, Rachel “Rae” Babushkin, as the daughter of a family possessing immense wealth, social distinction, and aristocratic connections in pre-revolutionary Russia.

My mother’s background, though different, is just as colorful. Her family abounded in the traditions and characteristics of the old Russian aristocracy. My grandmother’s family, especially, had reached the highest pinnacle that the Jews in Czarist Russia could have achieved. One ancestor founded the railroads in Russia, one was a brilliant lawyer, another was a prominent international banker; in short, my mother’s family was raised in luxury and wealth,

My grandfather, even though lower in the Russian social ladder, was still respected and beloved as a, member of the upper middle class. Unfortunately, the kindness of his heart was his undoing, and he lost nearly everything due to his lack of business sense, and to the fact that he persistently gave away large sums of money, sometimes neglecting his family’s interest. Finally, my mother’s family was forced to immigrate to America.” (Murray N. Rothbard. Young Murray Rothbard: An Autobiography. Mises Wire, 7 January 2019. Emphasis added.)

This amazing disclosure raises an immediate question: to whom exactly was Rothbard referring when he wrote of ancestors who “had reached the highest pinnacle” and who were “founders of railroads, a brilliant lawyer, and an international banker”?

Justin Raimondo’s biography of Rothbard notably fails to address this: though he possessed Rothbard’s own autobiographical essay, he suppressed any mention of the family’s immense wealth and aristocratic connections, portraying Rothbard’s mother, instead, as a divorced-from-reality, dream-world escapist. Raimondo wrote:

Murray’s mother, Raya Babushkin, was born in a tiny Jewish village near the Russian-Polish border and came to America with her mother and sister in 1916. She ‘had been brought up without any necessity of facing the realities of life,’ writes her young son, ‘and consequently she shut herself up in a dream world of books and literature, much as Keats had escaped to a dream world of beauty.’6 (Justin Raimondo. An Enemy of the State. The Life of Murray Rothbard. Prometheus Books, 2000.)

For some reason, Raimondo also does not name the ‘tiny Jewish village,’ nor does he specify which ‘Russian-Polish border’ he means. Does he refer to the period of the Partitions of Poland, the First World War, or the Second World War? Why hide the name of the village and the region of Raya Babushkin’s birth?

Because also other biographers and the Mises Institute have refused to study Rothbard’s ancestry in detail—particularly through Eastern European Jewish archival records and imperial Russian financial history—answering the question of Rothbard’s true ancestry requires systematic, albeit speculative, historical deduction.

Image: Murray Rothbard and his parents, David Rothbard and Rachel Babushkin.

Mystery Grandmother

One possibility is that Rachel Babushkin embellished her family’s standing, presenting an exaggerated version of their position to her son. Yet, this is highly unlikely. First, even as early as high school, Rothbard demonstrated exceptional intellect alongside a keen interest in historical study and methodology. Consequently, he was not easily deceived. Second, David Rothbard was a logical, analytical industrial chemist, and he would have easily detected an outright fabrication within his own household. After all, Rachel was not recounting vague folklore about distant ancestors, but describing her immediate family and her own youth in Russia.

Who, then, were Rachel’s parents? Neither Rothbard’s adult writings, nor Raimondo’s biography, nor any official publication provides these names. The Mises Institute’s Jewish chief editor, David Gordon—widely considered the foremost scholar on Rothbard’s life work—has stated that he does not know them.

Jeff Deist, the former president of the Mises Institute, recently admitted to his ignorance of Rothbard’s maternal ancestry. Yet, he fails to explain why the Institute has not commissioned a professional genealogist to investigate the matter, particularly since basic information regarding Rothbard’s maternal family should be readily accessible. Instead of pursuing such research, Deist appears skeptical of Rothbard’s own claims concerning the vast wealth of his forebears.

His mother’s family’s roots trace to an undisclosed region of Russia—though possibly having roots in the Russian upper class or intelligentsia. (Jeff Deist. “Rothbard and the Paleo Right.” Property and Freedom Journal. September 27, 2026. Emphasis added.)

Even the family gravestone is unusually bare, lacking an exact date of birth and spelling Rachel’s first name as “Ray.” More curiously still, Rachel’s ancestral names are omitted entirely, despite her evident pride in her pedigree.

Fortunately, Rothbard’s early autobiographical essay offers critical clues. He seems to imply that Rachel’s parents had not personally reached the “highest pinnacle” of power and wealth, attributing that stature instead to the preceding generation. Furthermore, he makes a clear social distinction between the Babushkin family of his maternal grandfather, who were prosperous merchants, and his maternal grandmother’s family, which occupied a far higher rung in the imperial hierarchy. The direct link to the prominent bankers and railroad magnates runs squarely through his maternal grandmother.

For decades, prominent genealogical repositories like Geni maintained no records for Rothbard’s maternal grandparents. Recently, however, new documentation identifying this line has surfaced on the public genealogical database Find a Grave, opening a potential path toward verifying this lineage.

Image: Find a Grave, Murray Rothbard’s mother and maternal grandparents.

The Roskin-Polyakov Alliance

Find a Grave, geneological websites, search engines and AI models fail to return more information on Sima/Sema “Sylvia/Sonja” Roskin or her kin. However, the surname can be transcribed in many different ways, such as Raskin or Rashkin, depending on the regional dialects of the Russian Empire; these variants may hold the key to the mystery.

The Jewish Roskins/Raskins seem to have been merchants in Belarus’s second biggest city and railroad hub, Gomel. The majority of the population in the city were Jews, and it served as a de facto capital of Central Russian Jewry. Identifying Gomel as his mother’s birthplace aligns perfectly with what Rothbard claimed about her family. It also squares with Raimondo’s reference to the ‘Polish-Russian border’—provided he was referring to the historical boundaries established during the Partitions of Poland that created the famous but now politically incorrect Pale of Settlement.

To achieve ‘the pinnacle of success’ under a restrictive Tsarist regime, the Roskins would likely have had to form a powerful alliance—and perhaps even marital ties—with the legendary Polyakov brothers: Samuil, Yakov, and Lazar. Known throughout Europe as the ‘Rothschilds of Russia,’ the Jewish Polyakovs were originally monopolist alcohol merchants and tax farmers who hailed from the same Belorussian Mogilev Governorate as the Roskins. Again, everything would fit perfectly.

Sponsored by the powerful Tolstoy family, the Polyakov brothers earned their moniker as the “Railroad Kings” of the Russian Empire by pioneering a quarter of the imperial rail network, driven by the central idea of connecting Ukrainian resources directly to the global marketplace. Their vital transit lines, such as the Kursk–Kharkov–Azov Railway, were designed specifically to facilitate the export of both the plentiful grain from the Black Earth region and the vital coal and metals from the rich mines of the Donbas out to the world market.

The staggering profits from these railway monopolies allowed the Poliakov-Roskin Jewish network centered around its major commercial hub in Gomel to expand into banking. The Polyakovs’ Oryol Commercial Bank greatly benefited from Gomel’s export boom and allowed them to create a banking empire that included several financial institutions across Saint Petersburg and Moscow, most notably the Moscow International Commercial Bank.

The influence of the Polyakov brothers eventually reached the highest levels of the imperial court. Furthermore, the Polyakovs also leveraged their Jewish network to help the Tsarist regime solidify critical political, military, and trade relations with the Persian Empire and other Muslim nations. In recognition of these contributions, the Tsar broke with strict precedent and formally ennobled the Polyakov family, elevating them to the Russian nobility. All this—railroads, banks, immense wealth, aristocracy—would perfectly fit Rothbard’s description, including ‘the highest pinnacle that the Jews in Tsarist Russia could have achieved.’

Anna Karenina

When Belarus was transferred to Russia during the Partitions of Poland in the late 1700s, the highly exploitative, Jewish-run arenda monopoly economy was not abolished. Instead Catherine the Great placed the aristocratic Tolstoy family in charge of vast lands in Eastern Belarus and ordered the gradual removal of these Jewish monopolies and their power. Instead, the Tolstoys allied with the originally Polish Polyakov tax-farmers, allowing them to operate vodka distilleries on Tolstoy lands, thereby effectively leveraging noble holdings to profit from the lucrative state liquor tax-farming system. This relationship reached its zenith under Count Ivan Matveevich Tolstoy, a high-ranking minister in the Imperial government who acted as a critical patron. Through his influence, the Polyakovs secured not only monopoly licenses for alcohol but also the government contracts that established them as railway magnates, transitioning from local monopolist liquor merchants to the monopolist builders of the Russian Empire’s primary rail arteries.

This deep integration of nobility and Jewish monopolies left an indelible mark on Russian literature, most notably in Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. The author utilized the figure of “Bolgarinov”—a thinly veiled caricature of the Polyakovs—to capture the disruptive influence of Jewish monopolistic finance on traditional Russian society. In the novel, the Jew Bolgarinov enjoys humiliating Anna’s brother, the honest high Russian aristocrat Prince Stepan ‘Stiva’ Arkadyevich Oblonsky—’a descendant of Rurik’—who, finding himself in financial difficulties, applies for a ‘post of secretary of the committee of the amalgamated agency of the Southern Railways, and of certain banking companies,’ a clear reference to the railways and banks dominated by the Polyakov dynasty (Part 7, Chapter 17). Thus, Tolstoy dared to challenge the stereotype of the ‘persecuted Jew,’ demonstrating a profound understanding of the millennial-long conflict between Russians and Jews.

1000-Year War Between Jews and Russia

Jan 17

Ruling Elite Studies is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Link to article.

Anna Karenina is a foundational masterwork of world literature; usually, every page of such a famous book is meticulously mapped out by artists, set designers, and actors. Amazingly, however, it seems the character of Bolgarinov has never been visualized or portrayed in print, theater, or film over the last 150 years, either in the West or the East. Despite this visual absence, the book itself has seldom been censored. For instance, the more faithful 2015 edition contains the following explicit translation: “My business was with a Hebrew, so I had to knee-brow.”

Murray Rothbard’s Maternal Family: Proxies of the Tolstoy Dynasty?

Sep 26

Image: Murray Rothbard and Leo Tolstoy.

The link to article.

Revolution

This golden age of Jewish influence proved temporary. First, the Polyakov railways developed a reputation for corrupt and shoddy construction, leading to lethal accidents—even Alexander III and members of the imperial family were victims of these derailments. Second, following the assassination of Alexander II, the Tsarist regime intensified its Russification policies. The Polyakovs faced increasing pressure from both the Tolstoys and the imperial court to abandon their Jewish faith and convert to Christianity—a path toward total social integration that many other elite Jewish dynasties had navigated.

The youngest brother, Samuil Polyakov (1837–1888), had distanced himself from the Jewish community and appeared to consider converting to Christianity; however, he died suddenly at the age of 51. This was apparently interpreted as “heavenly retribution,” and the two older brothers, Yakov and Lazar, steadfastly refused conversion and further assimilation. Consequently, imperial favor gradually evaporated. Simultaneously, the younger generations of the Polyakov-Roskin network grew disillusioned with autocracy. During the attempted Russian Revolution of 1905, members of the network—including various radicalized Polyakovs and Raskins—likely began to aggressively bankroll and support the anti-Tsarist opposition, a subversive effort heavily instigated and financially backstopped across the Atlantic by the Jewish Wall Street financier and Rothschild front, Jacob Schiff.

It is probably no coincidence that the Jewish commercial and transport hub of Gomel, dominated by the influential Polyakov network, alongside the vital Kursk–Kharkov–Azov Railway created by the Polyakovs, routinely served as the absolute center of the 1905 Russian Revolution. The interconnected Jewish-led transit and financial network concentrated thousands of radicalized railway employees and industrial laborers into an organized force. When the uprising ignited, this shared infrastructure allowed revolutionary organizations like the General Jewish Labour Bund to seamlessly coordinate labor movements and crippling general strikes, fund underground printing presses, and establish highly organized armed Jewish self-defense units that paralyzed Tsarist control, especially over the Gomel region.

After the failed revolution, the state’s backlash was swift. Stripped of imperial monopolies and support, the Polyakov financial empire began to fracture. When the global economic depression of 1908 struck, the interlocking enterprises finally collapsed, probably dragging Roskin businesses with them.

In any case, the family was rapidly radicalized. While some branches remained to fight the autocracy from the underground, other bankrupt fragments of the clan—including Sima Roskin and her husband, Hyman Babushkin—turned socialist and fled the empire. They joined the mass migration to New York—also known as ‘Jew York’—to rebuild their lives using their remaining financial capital.

Bessie

For those who remained, the fight against the Tsar took an increasingly militant turn. The radicalized Polyakovs and Raskins probably operated in close coordination with Jewish underground networks, most notably the Babushkin and high-ranking rabbinic Charloff/Chertoff families. This alliance culminated in the exploits of a fierce revolutionary operative known as Bessie Charloff, whose family ran a clandestine printing press used to distribute inflammatory anti-government propaganda across Russia. Arrested by the Tsarist secret police as a teenager and sentenced to exile in Siberia, Bessie executed a daring escape, fleeing Russia to allegedly coordinate with Vladimir Lenin in Europe.

Bessie eventually reached America to continue organizing communist networks, but her defining moment came in 1917. Following the Rothschild-Schiff-Polyakov engineered abdication of the Tsar, she boarded a ship back to Russia allegedly alongside Leon Trotsky, actively participating in the Bolshevik Revolution. However, she grew disillusioned after losing her first husband to the Red Terror she had helped unleash. Returning to the United States, she redirected her revolutionary fervor toward the American public. Using her experience, she helped organize the early American Communist movement, helping to establish the Communist Party USA and its primary propaganda organ, Morgen Freiheit.

Bessie’s daughter, Jackie, married Morris ‘Morrie’ Bush—the son of Sima Roskin and the brother of Rothbard’s mother, Rachel. Morris had changed his Babushkin surname to Bush and established a chain of successful pharmacies with his brothers. Both Jackie and Morris were active in the American Communist Party. These were the fanatical, unnamed communists Rothbard alluded to when reminiscing about his upbringing and communist relatives in New York.

The link to video.

During the McCarthy era of the 1950s Bessie was running underground Communist cells. The FBI launched an investigation into the Bush family’s ties to Bessie’s activities, even going so far as to knock on door of the family home to demand information regarding her activities and whereabouts. This was witnessed by their son, Lawrence Bush, who later became a prominent progressive and editor of Jewish Currents. Under Bessie’s leadership, the family helped organize early civil rights protests in the South.

In the 1980s, Lawrence Bush authored a book about his beloved grandmother, Bessie, and recently revealed himself to be Murray Rothbard’s first cousin.

Interestingly, Bessie appears to have been a relatively ‘honest’ communist. While she naturally obfuscated the monopolist activities and immense wealth of the Russian Jewish elite, she was at least candid in admitting the deep-seated hatred that many of her Jewish contemporaries harbored for the Gentiles and especially the Russian peasants, whom they often systematically swindled.

“So, in Russia: The Jewish people were not allowed to own land, so they took on jobs, like trades, or f’rinstance they sold whiskey until the government took the license from us. But we owned shops, we sold goods, we fixed things, and always we were very poor.

But to a peasant, forget it, say the word ‘Jew’ and he spits. He might be a slave himself, but the Jews are not even human! The Jews, he says, make money off his back. The Jews, he says, won’t put a finger into the earth except to dig up buried treasure. Everyone tells him this; what else can an ignorant person believe if he’s hearing anti-Semitism from the priest—our priest was good, y’see, but most of them were rotten—and he hears it from the czar and from everybody else? Plus—don’t forget—the Jews killed the Messiah!

So then you get a pogrom, a riot against the Jews. The government doesn’t do anything to stop it, of course. In fact, the gendarmes help to start it. It’s just like the Ku Klux Klan does to the blacks in America—with the help of the FBI.

And the Jews didn’t behave much better, y’see. To a Jew, the peasant is an ox without a brain. You cheat him, and if he finds you out, you say you’re sorry and cheat him again! We were better than the goyim and scared of them at the same time.

There was no one to be a bridge between people. My father tried, he was a liberal man, but still, he had a mind like from a small town, a shtetl. ‘Pray and God will provide.’ And my brothers, especially Yeshua, like a lot of the revolutionaries, they forgot they were Jewish. They became assimilationists. They thought that Marx and Moses can’t be served on the same plate together. So they didn’t make the genuine connection with the Jewish workers until after the pogrom at Kishinev-1903.” (Lawrence Bush. Bessie: A Novel of Love and Revolution. Chapter III. Emphasis added.)

Of course, all this also raises the question of whether Michael Chertoff is related to Bessie Charloff, especially since both descend from prominent rabbinic families. Both surnames seem to be derived from the Russian word chert (”devil” or “demon”).

The American Raskins

Meanwhile, the branches of the Raskin family that settled permanently in America chose a different ideological path. Rejecting the authoritarianism of Bessie’s and the Babushkin family’s communist factions, the American Raskins focused on organizing labor activities during the Progressive E. Few decades later, this intellectual lineage converged with Sima Roskin’s grandson, Murray Rothbard. During the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Rothbard initiated his famous and ultimately futile “leftist turn,” seeking a strategic alliance with the antiwar New Left. This brought him into an alliance with his likely relative, Marcus Raskin, the famous progressive and founder of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Recognizing a shared enemy in the centralized imperialist state, Rothbard collaborated with Raskin to build an anti-imperialist coalition against the Vietnam War, even quoting Raskin’s critique of the national security state in his 1973 manifesto, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

The attitude and motivation of the contemporary national security intellectual bodyguard of the State has been caustically described by Marcus Raskin, who was a staff member of the National Security Council during the Kennedy administration. Calling them “megadeath intellectuals,” Raskin writes that:

their most important function is to justify and extend the existence of their employers. . . . In order to justify the continued large-scale production of these [thermonuclear] bombs and missiles, military and industrial leaders needed some kind of theory to rationalize their use. . . . This became particularly urgent during the late 1950’s, when economyminded members of the Eisenhower Administration began to wonder why so much money, thought, and resources were being spent on weapons if their use could not be justified. And so began a series of rationalizations by the “defense intellectuals” in and out of the universities. . . .

Military procurement will continue to flourish, and they will continue to demonstrate why it must. In this respect they are no different from the great majority of modern specialists who accept the assumptions of the organizations which employ them because of the rewards in money and power and prestige. . . . They know enough not to question their employers’ right to exist.17 (Murray Rothbard. For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. 2nd ed. Ludwig von Mises Institute 2006. p. 76.)

This legacy of challenging imperialism continues through Marcus’s son, Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin. As a constitutional scholar in Congress, Jamie Raskin has channeled his family’s historic anti-imperialism, establishing himself as one of the few voices in Washington attempting to check the US warfare state and even Israeli aggression. Mirroring Murray Rothbard fifty years prior, Congressman Raskin has frequently crossed the aisle to ally with independent libertarian figures like the Republican Representative Thomas Massie, uniting the progressive left and the libertarian right in a shared, generational crusade against the warfare state and especially the ongoing Gaza Genocide.

In fact, Raskin was the only Democrat who dared to comment on Massie’s measure against genocide:

When the House of Representatives voted earlier this month on whether to strip military aid to Israel, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland approached the moment carefully. As a supporter of defensive weapons for Israel, Raskin, who is Jewish, has also become increasingly critical of the Israeli military’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank in recent years.

Raskin, who already co-sponsored a bill last year that would restrict transferring offensive weapons from the U.S. to Israel, was wary of the Republican influence behind the measure, put forward by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. But Raskin ultimately joined 102 other Democrats, seven of them Jewish, in backing the provision. …

However, even with a growing number of Democrats voicing criticism of Israel, the topic remains charged. RNS reached out to several Jewish Democrats who voted in favor of Massie’s provision, but only Raskin agreed to offer comment. Others either did not respond or declined. (Jack Jenkins. The House vote that split Jewish Democrats and is reshaping alliances. Religion News Service, 30 July, 2026.)

Rothschild Agents

Ultimately, stripping away the historical secrecy surrounding Murray Rothbard’s maternal lineage reveals that his ancestors likely occupied the top Jewish tier of the Russian imperial hierarchy, just as the young Rothbard claimed. Through his grandmother, Sima Roskin, Rothbard was likely direct flesh and blood of the wealthy Roskin family and its close partners and likely relatives, the Polyakovs. These corrupt railroad monopolists and ennobled international bankers once held the economic lifelines of the Tsarist Empire and ignited the Donbass economic miracle that remains a focal point of conflict today.

When that empire collapsed in the Bolshevik revolutions and the ensuing Red Terror, this potent Jewish revolutionary network and bloodline transplanted itself to America; Rothbard’s immediate family sought refuge in New York, while his ancestral ties bound him to the militant revolutionary Bessie and the Communist network. Operating within the broader Rothschild-Schiff-Polyakov-Roskin nexus, the Jewish network helped organize not only the Bolshevik Revolution but also the American Communist Party and the American Civil Rights Movement.

Rothbard’s relatives were thus likely an integral part of the Rothschild-led effort to manipulate both Russia and America. Thus it is unsurprising that Rothbard was from birth positioned to serve as a Rothschild agent, particularly in protecting the money machine of the Federal Reserve. However, unlike his family friend and university teacher Arthur Burns and friend Milton Friedman, Rothbard refused this role; as he matured, he increasingly exposed the Rothschild conspiracy. Tragically, he died suddenly at the age of 68, precisely when he had begun to directly challenge the Jewish elite and its warmongering grab of geopolitical hegemony.

Conclusion

The predominantly Jewish character of Tsarist Gomel likely explains its profound significance to Russian history—from the era of Jewish railroad barons and revolutionary agitation to the rise of long-time Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko and, later, the oligarch Andrey Melnichenko and current leader of Belarussian opposition, Sergei Tikhanovsky. Positioned within this strategically vital hub, the wealthy Roskin family would have almost inevitably forged alliances with the Poliakovs and other prominent Jewish dynasties. This network most probably provided the ancestral connection to the highest tiers of the Russian imperial hierarchy that the young Rothbard referenced in his essay, though only further professional genealogical study can make the connection certain.

By tracing these roots and connections, we see that the intellectual vanguard of modern American political thought—on both the Left and the Right—shares a singular ancestral hearth in imperial Russia. Rothbard’s strategic alliance with the New Left was a direct continuation of a generational war against both nationalism and imperialism, a mission he shared with his likely relatives, Marcus and Jamie Raskin. The proxies of the Rothschild-Schiff-Polyakov network have spent over a century carrying out this same fundamental mission, proving that much of the modern architecture of American political dissent was born long ago under Rothschild protection among the Jewish revolutionary masters of Gomel.

Subscribe to Ruling Elite Studies

Slut-Shaming FTW At Cornell: Sex Positivity Hits Brick Wall

October 7, 2026/1 Comment/in General/by Ann Coulter

Hey, anybody remember the Duke lacrosse case?

New York Times: Duke? Never heard of it.

How about the gang rape at the University of Virginia?

New York Times: Is Virginia a state?

Mattress Girl? Jamie Leigh Jones? Tawana Brawley?

New York Times: Nope. Not ringing a bell.

As the Cornell gang rape story demonstrates, the media cannot learn from the 49th kick of a mule. Reporters get so excited imagining they’ve finally found a case proving American men are huge rapists, they can’t slow down and calmly consider the possibility that the accusation might not be true.

In case you’ve missed one of the 3 trillion reports on the latest hoped-for rape, the pseudonymous “Jane Doe” recently sued Cornell University, Chi Phi, Delta Delta Delta, Moonies Bar, seven individual fraternity members and every living human being who was in Ithaca, NY on October 19, 2024, claiming she was gang-raped and possibly even disinvited to a Halloween party although that hasn’t been confirmed yet. And yes, it’s everyone’s fault but hers.

First, on the plausibility front: Universities have such a hair-trigger for nabbing any potential rapists on campus that, in the last decade alone, they’ve had to settle hundreds of lawsuits brought by male students subjected to Title IX investigations, paying out about a hundred million dollars. But now we’re supposed to believe that Cornell’s response to an alleged gang-rape at the Chi Phi house was to shrug and say, Boys will be boys!

If an Ivy League university with a dozen diversity administrators performed a Title IX investigation, producing a 100-plus page report that resulted in expulsions and suspensions, but didn’t provide grounds for a criminal prosecution, this isn’t a case crying out for re-investigation.

The real story of the “Cornell Seven” isn’t the sexual debauchery of a few lowlifes. It’s that, contrary to all the venomous denunciations of fraternities, it was the Greek system that stoutly rejected the depraved, sexually-liberated, free love ethos of Hollywood, academia and the media.

The basic facts, corroborated by Doe’s own statements and texts, are these. On October 19, 2024, she got drunk, and hauled herself across town to the Chi Phi house, hoping to have sex with a boy there. He proposed a threesome and she agreed — later texting Player Number Three, “honestly i really liked being w u and matt.”

Over the course of the evening, three more frat brothers joined the grisly proceedings, consuming Ketamine and engaging in various sex acts with Doe. Two others ducked in for five minutes, chatted with Doe, and left without touching her, according to them, which is consistent with her statement to the police.

Whenever one of the boys asked Doe if she was okay, she brushed off their concerns, saying things like, “We’re all consenting adults here,” and “This was normal in the medieval times.”

It wasn’t — but, boy, that sounds sophisticated! Doe should get a job writing for the Times.

Actual articles:

–Jake Nevins, “A Case for Hookups With Strangers” (Jan. 16, 2025)

— “Traveling for a Cuddle, or More, at European Sex Parties” (Nov. 13, 2024)

— Evan Sterrett, “A Throuple’s Tricky Geometry” (Oct. 28, 2022)

–Megan Nolan, “The Joys of Frivolous Sex” (Dec. 22, 2020)

— Valeriya Safronova, “Dating experts explain polyamory and open relationships” (Oct. 25, 2016)

What about the Ivy League university — only “nominally esteemed,” according to the Times — entrusted by Doe’s parents to educate her? Some recent offerings will give you the tenor of the moral instruction there, absolutely typical of academia:

— An exhibit on “Taboo-breaking sex” and “stereotype-breaking women,” intended to promote the view that “pleasurable, consensual sex could never be ‘anti-feminist’”;

— A lecture on “Throuples and non-monogamy”;

— A course called “Decadence” to study writers who “sought to free the pleasures of … sexual desire from their more conventional ethical moorings.”

Luckily, fraternities and sororities do not share the degenerate morals of the media and the universities. By the time Doe woke up the next morning, the story of what happened at Chi Phi had spread like wildfire through the Greek system. As she said, her reputation was “destroyed.” All week, Doe’s sorority sisters were fielding calls about Doe’s participation in an orgy.

Adopting the blase attitude toward sex promoted at places like Cornell and the Times, Doe texted Ingalls about the fallout, saying, “everyone needs to grow up ‘cause sexuality and sex … is changing and stuff like this is going to become more common.” She noted that she was “really open minded.” Yes, I think we all noticed that.

Good job, Cornell! Doe had successfully separated the pleasures of sex from “conventional ethical moorings” — just as the course offering had suggested.

But eventually, the normal human reactions emanating from the fraternities and sororities overwhelmed Doe’s urbane sophisticate act. Soon she was begging her roommate: “If anyone asks about this, say it didn’t happen.”

Alas, it was too late. The gossip mill was running wild. Ten days after the squalid incident, she was expressly disinvited from the Chi Phi Halloween party by the fraternity president, upsetting her greatly. On Nov. 8, three weeks after her messy downfall, Doe claimed she’d been raped. The only surprise is that it took her so long to get to this page in the playbook.

What we’re witnessing is not Doe’s needing three weeks of “internal processing” to recall that she’d been violently gang-raped. It’s the operation of “shame” that helps discourage knuckleheaded college kids from making stupid choices, even as popular culture encourages them to be — as the Cornell exhibit put it — “stereotype-breaking women” having “taboo-breaking sex.”

Absurdly, the Times acts as if fraternities are the problem and quotes a Cornell student demanding that they all be shut down. (That was from Delphi Lyra who spent 6 weeks in Ecuador last year “participating in a de-colonial unlearning education program” — something no self-respecting frat boy has ever done.)

The very reason the Greek system is so loathed by the left is that fraternal organizations tend to be the most conservative institutions on campus. (Also, liberals generally aren’t good looking enough to join a decent one.)

In the free-love sixties, colleges may have abandoned their parietal rules, but for any universities lucky enough to have them, fraternities and sororities have not. Ask Jane Doe.

Caitlin Johnston: No One Gives A Fuck About October 7

October 7, 2026/13 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

No One Gives A Fuck About October 7

Video reading by Tim Foley:

No one cares. They used to, but then Israel spent three years showing the world why October 7 happened in the first place. After witnessing the cruelty and savagery of the state of Israel, people get it now. Everyone understands.

After Hamas launched Operation Al-Aqsa Flood on the morning of October 7, there was an outpouring of love and sympathy for Israel from around the entire world. Every major landmark from the Eiffel Tower to the Sydney Opera House to the Empire State Building were illuminated blue and white in solidarity with the Israeli people. Grown men wept. Bono permanently ruined “Pride (In The Name of Love)” by changing the lyrics to “Early morning, October 7, as the sun is rising in the desert sky, Stars of David, they took your life, but they could not take your priiiiide.”

Anyone who hadn’t been following the Israel-Palestine issue very closely was on Israel’s side that day. And then the bombs started dropping.

And dropping.

And as the bombs dropped, Israel’s approval rating dropped with them.

There are only so many children you can see shredded to bits by Israeli military explosives before you start suspecting that there’s something terribly wrong with the Zionist project.

There are only so many pictures and videos you can see posted by IDF troops dressed in the underwear of dead and displaced Palestinian women before you start wondering if there’s something terribly wrong with the culture of the Israeli military.

There are only so many Israeli polls you can see published showing overwhelming support for the Gaza onslaught before you start believing there is something terribly wrong with Israeli society itself.

There are only so many mainstream humanitarian institutions who can determine that Israel is guilty of genocide before you start recognizing exactly what it is that you are looking at.

There are only so many bombed-out hospitals, so many miles of completely flattened neighborhoods, so many grizzly accounts of Palestinian prisoners being brutally raped and tortured by Israeli soldiers you can see before all the excuses, justifications and spin stop working on you.

And once the hasbara stops working, it’s just you and the unadorned reality of the situation, staring each other right in the eyes.

The propagandists and spinmeisters have been falling all over themselves trying to frame the world’s plummeting support for Israel as an epidemic of “antisemitism”, but that’s not working anymore either. Everyone knows it’s a lie. Nobody’s buying it. It just feels like they’re insulting your intelligence.

The Gaza holocaust was the single worst thing I have ever seen in my entire life. Day after day, month after month, year after bloody year staring right down the barrel of that waking nightmare changed me forever, and there is nothing in me that will ever forget the horrors I witnessed. And the world is full of people who had the exact same experience I had.

Support for Israel is never coming back. When the lights flicker on and you see that the room you’ve been standing in is full of scorpions, you’re not going to forget what you saw when the lights go out again.

All of the events which occurred after October 7 showed the world what life was like for Palestinians before October 7. Israel threw a stone into the air and spent three years crying after the stone came down on its head.

The hasbarists have been flailing all over the place trying to erase everything that happened before October 7 and to justify everything that has happened since, but their words are just words now. They have no power anymore. And now it’s just a matter of time before the world turns against Israel to right the wrongs of the past and set everything back the way it ought to be. From the river to the sea.

Thomas Edsall: The Gender Gap Has Taken a Strange Twist

October 7, 2026/3 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

Men — specifically white men — who see themselves as extremely masculine tend to support President Trump, while those who are weaker in their assessment of their masculinity — or in how they think about masculinity — are far less likely to support Trump. The gap between the two is just as significant if not more significant than the gender gap. …

A 2024 Pew Research Center report found that 53 percent of Republican-leaning men consider themselves to be highly masculine compared with 29 percent of Democratic-leaning men. The same survey found that a plurality of Republican-leaning men (45 percent) believe that Americans in general have a mostly negative view of “manly or masculine,” while a plurality of Democratic men believe Americans generally have a positive view of masculine or manly men (46 percent).

The Gender Gap Has Taken a Strange Twist

Oct. 6, 2026, 5:03 a.m. ET

Credit…Damon Winter/The New York Times

This recent development involves differences within each gender, as opposed to the gender gap between men and women, which came to the forefront in the aftermath of the 1980 election between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter,

Men — specifically white men — who see themselves as extremely masculine tend to support President Trump, while those who are weaker in their assessment of their masculinity — or in how they think about masculinity — are far less likely to support Trump. The gap between the two is just as significant if not more significant than the gender gap.

A similar, but more complex spread has emerged among women, although it is smaller and lends itself to competing interpretations.

While the invocation of intragender gaps instead of a “gender gap” may sound like an intellectual exercise relevant only in ivory towers, the size of these gaps provides insight into the distinct Republican and Democratic policy agendas that have emerged in recent years.

The Republican Party, long the champion of traditional family values, now draws an even larger share of voters who believe in traditional gender roles, conventional masculinity and heterosexual family norms. And the party has gotten more conservative on these issues over the past few years.

For example, the percentage of Republicans who view “gay or lesbian relations” as “morally acceptable” fell this year to 35 percent, according to Gallup, from 56 percent in 2022.

A 2024 Pew Research Center report found that 53 percent of Republican-leaning men consider themselves to be highly masculine compared with 29 percent of Democratic-leaning men. The same survey found that a plurality of Republican-leaning men (45 percent) believe that Americans in general have a mostly negative view of “manly or masculine,” while a plurality of Democratic men believe Americans generally have a positive view of masculine or manly men (46 percent).

These intragender gaps may have begun to open up before Trump took center stage, although his dominant presence has prompted an intensification of — and reverence for — hypermasculinity among Republican voters, especially men.

In the case of women in particular, the intragender gap is more subtle. But before going there, let me register a note of caution and frustration.

In comparison with scholarship on, say, voting or polarization, a disproportionate share of academic work that might provide objective analysis of gender and politics for a lay writer like me is riddled by advocacy in place of research. Fortunately, much of the work on hypermasculinity and femininity, while sometimes jargony, does not suffer these evidentiary weaknesses, with claims often backed up by polling and other data.

In their 2021 article “Beyond the Gender Gap: The Role of Gender Identity,” Elisabeth Gidengil and Dietlind Stolle, both longtime political scientists at McGill University in Montreal, sought to capture “a person’s gendered sense of self.”

In a survey, they asked white men and women “how feminine they feel and how masculine they feel, using seven-point scales.”

Having two dimensions, they wrote, was crucial

to identifying hypermasculine men: These men do not just exhibit an exaggerated form of masculinity; they fear feminization. In order to take account of the strength of their gender identity, respondents were also asked how important it was to them to feel feminine or masculine on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 7 (very important).

What did they find?

In comparison to the 13.6-point gender gap in support for Trump, the intragender differences between hypermasculine men (81.9 percent favored Trump) and men with a “weak” sense of their masculinity (a little less than 30 percent backed Trump) was much larger at over 50 points.

Put another way, the intragender gap for men is nearly four times as large as the gender gap between men and women.

There is evidence that the growth of gender identity among men was a key factor in Trump’s victories in 2016 and 2024.

In “Gendered Personalities and the Partisan Gender Gap,” a chapter in the book “Masculinity, Femininity, and American Political Behavior,” published three months before Trump’s 2016 presidential victory, Monika L. McDermott, a political scientist at Fordham, offered an

alternative theory for the perceived partisan “gender gap” (or sex gap) between men and women. The traditional explanation — that it is differences between men and women that drive this phenomenon — assumes that the presumed causal mechanisms, such as degree of compassion, split fairly cleanly along the lines of biological sex.

Gendered personalities demonstrate, however, that this assumption is out of place in today’s world. The analyses show that levels of both masculinity and femininity influence party affiliation, vote choice and ideology, regardless of an individual’s sex.

The more feminine an individual is, the more Democratic in both identification and voting, and the more liberal. The more masculine an individual is, the more Republican and conservative. These effects occur not only regardless of sex but also in place of them.

The argument receives support from a different vantage point from Melissa Deckman, the chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute, and Erin Cassese, a political scientist at the University of Delaware.

They argue in their 2019 paper “Gendered Nationalism and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election: How Party, Class, and Beliefs about Masculinity Shaped Voting Behavior” that the 45 percent of American voters who agreed that the United States had become “too soft and feminine” were exhibiting “gendered nationalism” and provided Trump a key bloc of votes.

These findings, Eric Knowles, a professor of psychology at New York University, wrote by email,

make a great deal of sense. One thing that “highly masculine” men and “highly feminine” women have in common is their adherence to traditional American gender norms.

Since the G.O.P. has long been the party of culturally conservative values — including those around sex and gender — it makes sense that these men and women would be relatively likely to vote Republican.

Knowles argued that Republican consultants and strategists “are thinking specifically of sex and gender” as vital in fending off defeat in the midterm elections next month. “Republicans are banking on traditional gender values to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.”

He cited Ken Paxton, the Republican Senate candidate in Texas, who has portrayed James Talarico, his Democratic opponent, as “Tofu Talarico,” “Six-Gender Jimmy,” “James Tala-freak-o” and “Low-T Talarico.”

For men, the gender identity gap is relatively straightforward. For women, it’s complex and seemingly contradictory.

The women whom the Bem Sex Role Inventory test identified as high in femininity favored Democrats over Republicans. Conversely, women who self-identified as feeling highly feminine were more likely to support Trump and identify as Republican than those who ranked themselves lower on femininity.

White women who say they feel highly feminine, according to Gidengil and Stolle, are the “most closely linked to the traditional binary gender system.” It follows they would support traditional sex roles, marriage, heterosexuality, motherhood and religious observance — all values linked to the Republican Party.

The Bem Sex Role Inventory, in contrast, uses a series of questions to determine whether the subject is affectionate, compassionate, gentle, sympathetic, sensitive to the needs of others, warm and understanding. These traits are associated with the Democratic Party, and women high on these personality characteristics are more likely to support Democratic candidates.

I asked Stolle for help explaining the antithetical outcomes for women depending on the measurement test used.

“Our measure of hyperfemininity,” she replied,

is how feminine do you feel / how masculine do you feel? (it sometimes adds a measure of salience). This is essentially a subjective gender-identity measure.

A woman who places herself very high on femininity and very low on masculinity is saying something like: “I am distinctly feminine, and not masculine,” is part of how I understand myself. That can capture a more strongly differentiated or traditional gender identity, which could plausibly be associated with Trump voting.

The B.S.R.I. femininity items, by contrast, select characteristics that have been traditionally associated with being female and being male. For feminine traits, these are mostly communal personality traits and include being affectionate, compassionate, gentle, sympathetic, understanding, warm, sensitive to others, tender and so on. In contemporary politics, those traits could quite plausibly correlate with Democratic voting.

The expanding role of sex, masculinity and femininity in American politics has been a long time in the making.

With considerable prescience, Winter argued that there were “interrelated developments in the late 1970s and early 1980s that we might expect to have mapped masculinity and femininity — already important for politics — onto the Republican and Democratic Parties, respectively.”

These include:

“The polarization of party elites over the Equal Rights Amendment and other issues of women’s equality in the late 1970s.”
“Republicans are thought to handle better such issues as defense, dealing with terrorism and controlling crime and drugs; these are precisely the sorts of issues that Americans associate with men or with masculine traits.”
“The association of women with the Democratic Party is further reinforced by the fact that substantially more women have been elected as Democrats than as Republicans over the past several decades.”
“The concept of leadership and the political realm itself both carry symbolically male connotations. Perhaps because of this, since the early republic presidential candidates and their campaigns have often emphasized their own masculine credentials and tried to undermine those of their opponents.”

The growing differences between the parties and their voters over masculinity, femininity and sex generally are sharpening the split between Democrats and Republicans over matters of life and death.

Amid rapid advances in technology, artificial intelligence and scientific research, the use of stem cells, the advents of state laws allowing assisted suicide and the disposition of embryos have all become partisan issues, following the path of abortion.

The basic question of whether differences between men and women are rooted in genetics or provoked by social expectations has also become intensely political. Pew Research reports that “majorities of Republicans point to biology as the main driver of differences between men and women,” while, on many issues, Democrats tend to believe these differences are “mostly based on the expectations society has for the two genders.”

Tucker Interviews a White small farmer on South Africa’s White Genocide

October 3, 2026/22 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

This is indeed sickening and difficult to listen to. Mr. Lotz is weeping throughout much of the interview as he recounts his personal experiences as a small farmer at the hands of African psychopaths who, e.g., raped his wife and then put their shit on her. “And when you rape a woman, burn her with that iron in the inside of her thighs, on her face, while you rape her, bite pieces out of her lip, and carry on for days in a shack. I know of people that they’ve taken off the pipes of the washing machine while they tie the wife to a chair. The husband had to look, she had to, look at the husband, push the pipe down his throat, cook the kettle and pour the boiling water down his throat.” They also killed his father-in-law, and he notes that if he called the police to investigate, he would be put in jail at least briefly and nothing would happen to the perpetrators: ” when you do get attacked, you stay away from the police. Because if you do report, or they do catch one, the first thing that will happen to you is they will open a case of assault against you. So they will lock you up first. And then hopefully you’ll be out in two, three days out of jail, whatever, depends on who you know as attorneys or whatever will happen. Most of these cases, the murders don’t get investigated. The dockets are empty.” Death certificates are falsified to say it is not murder, so don’t trust government statistics showing that White farmers are not being murdered. He also expresses his belief that the ANC will take the property of Whites, claiming that Whites stole their property and that Whites are responsible for Black poverty. (Look at other African countries; but wait, that’s the fault of White colonialism.}

Carlson refutes the media consensus that Whites are just fine in South Africa. Importantly, he notices Jewish hatred for European, calling out the ADL and their talk about “White Extinction Anxiety”: in the context of supporting the Great Replacement idea, noting the declining percentages of Whites throughout the West. As he notes, “Noticing is hate; noticing is violence.” The end of the White government in 1994 led to economic decline and no decrease in racism.

Video: “Tucker on the Most Sickening Story the Media Says Doesn’t Exist: South Africa’s White Genocide”

They’ve told us that ethnic cleansing against whites in South Africa isn’t happening. They say it’s a racist conspiracy theory. Leon Lotz knows they’re lying. He’s a South African farmer. His story will shock and sicken you.

Chapters

5 chapters in this episode