In a fascinating, detailed, article in The Journal of Psychohistory, Fall 1978, Psychohistorian Stanley Rothman provides a useful summary of Jewish involvement with Communism throughout the western World in “Group Fantasies and Jewish Radicalism.” He writes:
“In the inter-war years this role was probably most visible in the countries of Eastern Europe, where Jews were prominent in Bela Kuhn’s abortive attempt to set up a Communist regime in Hungary and where they came to constitute over 40% of the cadres of the Polish Communist Party, and probably comparable percentages elsewhere. In Hungary, immediately after the Communist Party’s accession to power, the Politburo of the party contained only one non-Jew. It was jokingly suggested that this 'Goy' had been admitted to the inner circles only because someone was needed to sign decrees on Saturdays.
“In Germany the situation was rather different. Jews played a very important role in the revolutionary Spartacist Movement of 1918-1919. However … radical Jewish Intellectuals remained largely unaffiliated, serving as unattached (often bitter) radical critics of the Weimar Republic. The Frankfurt School which produced Adorn, Fromm, Marcuse, Horkheimer and others was almost entirely Jewish.
“In the United States, perhaps some 50% of the Communist Party was of Jewish background during the 1930s; the radical American Student Union was heavily Jewish and, just as importantly, the Soviet espionage apparatus in this country … was pretty largely of Jewish background.
“In Western Europe … Jews continued to take an active radical role. In France, during the 1968 upheavals, students of Jewish background dominated Trotskyite leadership cadres.
“Jews provided the critical mass for the student left and the counter culture in the United States during the early and mid-1960s. Studies indicate that in its initial phases, SDS leadership was about 67% Jewish.”
Rothman goes on to show how Jewish radicals even “ran the show” at mid-Western campuses. One (Gentile) SDS Organizer at Madison, Wisconsin, commented: “I am struck by the lack of Wisconsin-born people (in the left) and the massive preponderance of New York Jews. The situation at the University of Minnesota is similar.” In the faculties too, the radical factions were “largely Jewish".
In another article aimed at cognoscenti (American Jewish Historical Quarterly, December 1976) Arthur Liebman shows in “The Ties That Bind":
“The members and particularly the officers of the left organizations were predominantly Jewish … Andre Schiffrin, President of SLID in 1956-57, and himself of Jewish background, was very cognizant of the 'foreign element' within SLID. 'For a while, all our national officers, myself included, were 'foreign born' and the militant rhetoric within the organization was 'usually voiced in a heavy Yiddish accent'. Others noted the frequent usage of Yiddish expressions among the members. Another indication of the large Jewish component was the care taken to ensure that regional and national conventions of these left non-sectarian groups would not coincide with important Jewish holidays. No such attention was paid to Christian holidays and on one occasion a Protestant minister was sharply critical of SLID for scheduling a meeting on Good Friday.”
Indeed, Liebman shows that Jews have regarded Communism as an extension of Judaism for many years.
“The Jewish Daily Forward (a Yiddish socialist newspaper) to a large extent surpassed the rabbis and Orthodoxy as the educator of the Jewish community in the United States … The more astute and sensitive Jewish Socialists in the pre-World War I years … sought opportunities to demonstrate that Judaism, as they defined and interpreted it, was quite compatible if not supportive of Socialism. Socialism was presented to the Jewish masses as a secular version of Judaism. Thus, during a strike, the Law of Moses was cited in support of the strikers. The Socialist Party’s Rand School was lyricized by the Forward at its founding in 1906 as 'the socialist' yeshiva … where the rabbis and teachers of our movement were being prepared'…
“In their curriculum, these schools emphasized the inter-relatedness between Jewish and radical concerns. The progressive aspects of Judaism were stressed: for example in the case of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah:
“'The traditional blowing of the shofar was the clarion to rally for liberation of the Jewish people from oppressors … the shofar blowing for the laboring masses will drown out the trumpeting of the temporary ruling interests of the earth.'
“The accomplishments of these schools were summarized in an editorial in Jewish Life, a magazine with close ties to them, in the following manner:
“'The schools develop in the children a kinship with Jewish and non-Jewish laboring masses and with the history and progressive culture and traditions of the Jewish people. The children acquire an elementary knowledge of Yiddish. They are taught to identify their interest with those of the Negro people and other oppressed groups.'”
At this point we could enter into a tedious cataloging of names (and pseudonyms) of Communist leaders throughout the 20th century who “happened to be Jewish". Certainly such a roll-call would be useful for archival purposes, but it would undoubtedly be a boring and unnecessary chore for the reader. Such lists are already available in the British samizdat publication mischievously titled Let My People Go! and in the American: Behind Communism. But our purpose is not to go over again ground which has already been firmly established. Even our two Jewish writers cited above implicitly acknowledge the aphorism that Communism is, was, and probably always will be, Jewish. Our aim is to explore behind the pages of history; to read between the lines; to analyze and ask why. Why are Jews radicals?
Rothman writes that:
“Jerry Rubin ascribes his own radicalism to being Jewish, and finds that Cohn-Bendit shares the same feelings. It is clear, too, that his primary hostility is toward Christianity, 'telling Pat Boone that Christianity has murdered more people than any other ism in the history of the World.' Roger Kahn, writing about the Columbia conflict, keeps remembering how badly Jews were treated by the WASP establishment, and Paul Cowan is convinced, from his experiences at Choate, that the WASPS are all anti-Semitic racists as Teitelbaum has shown, Jews anxious to deny their Jewishness (those who feel marginal) are more likely to perceive Christians as anti-Semitic than those who continue to identify as Jews.”
Rothman argues that “Jewish radicalism (as well as Zionism) stems from the historically marginal position of Jews in Christian societies and to the family structure and personality patterns derived from that marginality. Jews have developed a particular set of perceptions and underlying motivations which can be described as a group fantasy.”
It may well be that Jews are marginal in western society in terms of religion, culture, lifestyle etc. But they are certainly less marginal than, say, the Orientals so one wonders why Orientals are not more radical than the Jews.
Rothman’s subsidiary point is more interesting. He suggests that Jews, perceiving themselves as being surrounded by a hostile, threatening host society, are too few in number to openly display hostility back. So instead they channel their hostility and aggression toward their own families (hence the “emasculating” Jewish mother) and into occupations which allow for much indirect (verbal) aggression. But as Rothman admits “Good studies of 'Jewish Personality Traits' are few in number for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is, as Sanua points out, that scholars have tended to avoid the subject.” (No mention of why, of course.) Rothman goes on:
“It is arguable that the European Diaspora and the ghetto experience encouraged among Jews the emergence of a particular family pattern; a pattern characterized by mothers who were 'protective' and controlling, especially with their male children. It was not enough to teach such children to curb the direct expression of aggression against the Christian enemy, for under such circumstances control might be lost in a crisis situation. Rather, aggression must be driven underground by appropriate child-rearing practices.
“The institutionalization of this pattern was to have profound effects upon both Jewish males and Jewish females, effects which have been alluded to in part and are spelled out in some detail by Bibring and Wolfenstein. The Jewish family became, in Bibring’s terms, a kind of matriarchy in which the husband was perceived by the children as more fearful, less capable, and weaker than the wife who cared for and somewhat dominated him in crucial areas, whatever his professional and/or business achievements.”
He goes on:
“Herbert Krugman, in a study of ex-Communists, found that middle-class members of the Party (mostly Jews) placed far more stress on the need for 'hardness' than did working-class members of the Party who were less likely to be Jewish. Krugman studied in greatest depth the case reports by analysts of 10 men and 8 women. Five of the men evidenced strong wishes to submit and 'some slight evidence of overt, passive homosexuality' during adolescence. The therapists described them as sado-masochistic, turning such aggression onto themselves. Their self-images varied between extremes — from worthlessness to superiority — and with many there was an attitude of martyrdom, a 'bittersweet' anticipation of revenge …
“Many Jewish males, then, seemed to have a character structure classified by Jules Nydes as 'paranoid masochistic' … The following represents a summary of Nydes' formulation:”
- Identifies with the aggressor.
- Hostility is reactive and compensatory.
- Effect of rage is accompanied by a sense of malicious triumph and release is experienced as effect is discharged.
- The motive for aggression is to hurt someone who seems unable to fight back, and the effect is often intimidation of the victims.
- Identifies with the victim in the sense that he is being persecuted.
- Hostility is defensive against anticipated attack because of unconscious feeling of guilt.
- Effect of rage is accompanied by self-righteousness and often leads to mounting fury rather than relief.
- The apparent motive for aggression is to avoid being hurt by counter-attacking an assumed aggressor. The effect is often to provoke punishment — gratification of a repressed wish — and a reality confirmation of preconceived persecution.
Rothman cites several profound examples of this exclusively Jewish phenomenon. He quotes from an interview with a Jewish ex-Weatherman who recalls the motivations of himself and his peers in the 1960s:
“A lot of the Weatherman leadership was Jewish and had never been tough street kids, and I really believe that a tremendous amount of what they were doing was overcoming their own fears about their masculinity … Most of them … had been intellectually aggressive, but all of a sudden they were trying to be tough street kids … I think there was a lot of self-hate going on.”
Rothman even draws on fictional, though highly accurate, caricature, such as Philip Roth’s highly personal Portnoy in Portnoy’s Complaint.
“Portnoy, of course, is only a quasi-radical but, whatever he would like to think his real motives are, his tirade to the analyst makes it quite clear that his love for suffering humanity is far less important than his envy and hatred of WASPS and his desire to literally 'screw' the 'goyim', despite the fact that he despises his parents for their 'anti-goyish' attitudes. As he puts it:
“'I was on the staff of the house sub-committee investigating the television quiz scandals. Perfect for the closet socialist like myself; commercial deceit on a national scale, exploitation of the innocent public, elaborate corporate chicanery — in short good old capitalist greed. And then of course that extra bonus, Charles Van Doren. Such character, such brains, such breeding, that candor and school boyish charm — that WASP wouldn’t you say? And, turns out he’s a fake. Well, what do you know about that, Gentile America? Super-goy, a 'gonif'! Steals money … Goodness, gracious me, almost as bad as Jews — you sanctimonious WASPS!
“'Yes, I was one happy Yiddle down there in Washington, a little Stern gang on my own, busily exploding Charlie’s honor and integrity, while simultaneously becoming lover to the aristocratic Yankee beauty whose forebears arrived on these shores in the seventeenth century.'
“The situation is not quite so simple, for, as the quotation indicates, Portnoy also wants to become one of these strong, blond, 'goyim' who own America and whose brothers are 'the engaging, good-natured, confident, clean, swift and powerful halfbacks for the college football teams'. His unconscious hope is that he can somehow become a Goy by sleeping with the 'shikses'.”
There is much truth in Rothman’s analysis. Jewish bourgeois Communism is not just a bunch of Jewish Capitalists suddenly discovering a more profitable venture — State Capitalism. It is also a symptom of the eternal Jewish neurosis; the envy of all things goyish that in turn becomes hatred of all things goyish. Portnoy caricatures for us the eternal Jew: he would like nothing better than to have blue blood flowing through his veins, and by sleeping with the shikse he hopes that some of her blond, aristocratic ways will rub off on him. But when nothing much seems to change, and Portnoy stays pretty much the same little Yiddle he started off, then his envy turns to hate, and his sleeping-with becomes “screwing.” We are immediately reminded of Eldridge Cleaver’s Soul on Ice where he tells us that he raped White women in order to get his own back on Whitey. We also observe the extraordinary disproportion in inter-racial rapes (both male-female and male-male) which are almost 100% Black against White.
Can it be that “Marxism” is no more than an expression of Jewish self-hate redirected against the rest of us?