Richard: “What is the essence of the Jewish Question?”
Kevin MacDonald: “As a close-knit group, and talented, they have [moved] to the top of every society they have been in… They become a dominant elite… You have huge Jewish wealth which fuels everything else… The neo-conservatives are a great example. This is not something you and I could set up. You need a lot of money. They financed think tanks. They had access to the media…so they could promote their wars. They were on both sides of the [political] fence… They’ve had incredible influence… You probably have 75% of Democrat donations from Jews and 50% of Republican donations from Jews. Donald Trump was fortunate to get elected with minimal financial support from Jews.”
“It wouldn’t matter that Jews were an elite except that they have such radically different interests. There’s a strong streak of hatred towards the West. If you were socialized in a Jewish milieu, they paint of picture of Jewish persecution in the West starting with the Romans, and then the Crusaders who killed Jews, and then all these expulsions in Western Europe, then you have the Czar and the pogroms… Most Jewish persecutions are wildly exaggerated. But that’s the perception they get, culminating in the Holocaust. That’s Western history. That’s the chip on their shoulder. They don’t identify with the West.”
What is Kevin MacDonald talking about when he says that “Most Jewish persecutions are wildly exaggerated”? He’s not referring to the number of Jewish dead in the Holocaust. He’s referring to things like the Kishinev pogrom:
Wikipedia: The Kishinev pogrom was an anti-Jewish riot that took place in Kishinev, then the capital of the Bessarabia Governorate in the Russian Empire, on April 19 and 20, 1903. Further rioting erupted in October 1905.In the first wave of violence, which coincided with Easter, 49 Jews were killed, large numbers of Jewish women were raped and 1,500 homes were damaged. The incident focused worldwide attention on the persecution of Jews in Russia…
A large number of artists and writers addressed the pogrom. Russian authors such as Vladimir Korolenko wrote about the pogrom in House 13, while Tolstoy and Gorky wrote condemnations blaming the Russian government—a change from the earlier pogroms of the 1880s, when most members of the Russian intelligentsia were silent. It also had a major impact on Jewish art and literature. After interviewing survivors of the Kishinev pogrom, the Hebrew poet Chaim Bialik (1873–1934) wrote “In the City of Slaughter,” about the perceived passivity of the Jews in the face of the mobs. In the 1908 play by Israel Zangwill titled The Melting Pot, the Jewish hero emigrates to America in the wake of the Kishinev pogrom, eventually confronting the Russian officer who led the rioters.
Some of this doubtful Jewish testimony had been published by the foreign press and further elaborated upon, so that the versions that reached foreign audiences were often even more sensational and unreliable. It was, of course, a natural temptation for Jewish organizations, in their frantic efforts to elicit sympathy and funds for the victims and to discredit Russian authorities, to present the most damning, sensational accounts possible… An indication of the lengths to which such fabrications about Kishinev ultimately could reach is seen in a letter from Chaim Weizmann (at the time of Kishinev a Zionist activist, later president of the state of Israel) to Dorothy de Rothschild:
“Eleven years ago, I happened to be in the cursed town of Kishinev. In a group of about 100 Jews we defended the Jewish quarter with revolvers in our hands, defended women and girls. We ‘slept’ in the cemetary – the ‘safe’ place, and we saw 80 corpses brought in, mutilated dead…”
Thus Weizmann reports that he personally saw 80 mutilated corpses in a single place, when the death toll for the entire city was later generally recognized to be 45. But there is another problem with the account he provides. It is pure fantasy. Weizmann was in Warsaw at the time…
[Prince] Urussov was also distressed by the tendency of Jewish spokesmen, who on other occasions expressed outrage that Jews were held collectively responsible for the acts of Jewish assassins, to hold the Christian residents of Kishinev collectively responsible for acts by non-Jewish criminals… (Pg. 164-165)
There was a long lull in anti-Jewish violence in Russia after the pogroms of the 1880s. But the events in Kishinev on 6–7 April 1903 surpassed in fury all which had gone before. Capital of the province of Bessarabia (now Moldova), Kishinev was a town of 50,000 Jews, 50,000 Romanians, 8,000 Russians (mostly Ukrainians), and several thousand of various other nationalities. Solzhenitsyn bases his account primarily upon the speeches for the prosecution in the ensuing trial, which were in turn based on the results of the official investigation. There were forty-two fatalities in this pogrom, thirty-eight of them Jewish. 1,350 houses were sacked, amounting to nearly one third of the houses in the city. Solzhenitsyn considers that the police were both disorganized to the point of incompetence and culpably negligent. It was the soldiers of a nearby garrison who finally quelled the rioting.
Solzhenitsyn finds no evidence that the pogrom was fomented “from above,” a view which still has its advocates.6 He traces such speculation to the desire of those times “to exploit the suffering as a means to striking a blow against Tsarist power,” and laments that the pogrom has been used “to blacken Russia and mark it forever with a seal of infamy” (p. 361). It certainly was: hysterical exaggerations, including grisly stories of rape and torture, were widely reported in the international press and almost everywhere laid at the doorstep of the Imperial government. A forged letter supposedly written by Interior Minister Plehve made the rounds to give apparent substance to the charge. The Hearst papers called upon the God of Justice to wipe Russia off the face of the earth.
In the months following the Kishinev pogrom, Jews throughout the Pale armed themselves and formed self-defense organizations. In Gomel (White Russia), a town about evenly divided between Christians and Jews, the young were trained in the use of revolvers. Many went out of their way to provoke Christians and express contempt for them in the weeks following the events in Kishinev.
On the 29th of August a fight broke out in a marketplace, and a group of Jews began beating a Christian. When some nearby peasants attempted to come to the man’s aid, the Jews whistled, an agreed-upon signal to summon other Jews in the area. According to government prosecutors at the subsequent trial, what followed amounted to an anti-Russian pogrom carried out by the Jews of Gomel: only Russians were killed during this day. Attacks continued through the afternoon and, as in Kishinev, were only put down when soldiers were called in. Three days later, violence broke out again among the Russian workers at a factory, but troops were on hand. The way into town was blocked, but some 250 Jewish houses in the suburbs were sacked. The Jews behaved violently on this day as well. Five Christians and four Jews were killed. Solzhenitsyn asserts that “no description of these events is found in the work of any Jewish author.”
The Jewish movement for equal rights continued during these years, although this was now joined by a demand for Jewish national autonomy which was blandly assumed to be a compatible aim. An eminent Russian-Jewish jurist remarked: “it must be admitted that those who made these demands had no clear idea of their content.” Solzhenitsyn points to an ambiguity many readers will be familiar with from other contexts:
“The Jewish intelligentsia did not at all renounce its national identity. [Things had changed greatly since the 1870s!] Even the most extreme socialists tried as best they could to reconcile their ideology with the national sentiment. At the same time, however, no voice arose among the Jews to say that the Russian intelligentsia, which wholeheartedly supported its persecuted brothers, did not have to renounce its own national sentiment. Equity would have demanded this. But no one perceived the disparity at that time: by the notion of equal rights, the Jews understood something more.” (p. 523)
Another wildly exaggerated slaughter of Jews was the Khmelnytsky Pogroms (1648-1657). Wikipedia:
Most Jewish communities in the rebellious Hetmanate were devastated by the uprising and ensuing massacres, though occasionally a Jewish population was spared, notably after the capture of the town of Brody (the population of which was 70% Jewish). According to the book known as History of the Rus, Khmelnytsky′s rationale was largely mercantile and the Jews of Brody, which was a major trading centre, were judged to be useful “for turnovers and profits” and thus they were only required to pay “moderate indemnities” in kind.
Due to the widespread murders, Jewish elders at the Council of Vilna banned merrymaking by a decree on July 3, 1661: they set limitations on wedding celebrations, public drinking, fire dances, masquerades, and Jewish comic entertainers. Stories about massacre victims who had been buried alive, cut to pieces, or forced to kill one another spread throughout Europe and beyond. These stories filled many with despair. There was a revival of Hasidism and the ideas of Isaac Luria, and the identification of Sabbatai Zevi as the Messiah.
The entire Jewish population of the Commonwealth in that period (1618–1717) has been estimated to have been about 200,000. Most Jews lived outside Ukraine in territories unaffected by the uprising. The Jewish population of Ukraine of that period is estimated at about 50,000.
The accounts of contemporary Jewish chroniclers of the events tended to emphasize large casualty figures, but since the end of the 20th century, they have been re-evaluated downwards. Modern historiographic methods, particularly from the realm of historical demography, became more widely adopted and tended to result in lower fatality numbers. According to Orest Subtelny:
Weinryb cites the calculations of S. Ettinger indicating that about 50,000 Jews lived in the area where the uprising occurred. See B. Weinryb, “The Hebrew Chronicles on Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Cossack-Polish War”, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 1 (1977): 153–77. While many of them were killed, Jewish losses did not reach the hair-raising figures that are often associated with the uprising. In the words of Weinryb (The Jews of Poland, 193–4), “The fragmentary information of the period—and to a great extent information from subsequent years, including reports of recovery—clearly indicate that the catastrophe may have not been as great as has been assumed.”
Back to Kevin MacDonald:
Kevin: “Serious Jews don’t identify with the people and culture of the West. They don’t identify with Christian Europe. One of the big areas of Jewish activism is on behalf of immigrants and refugees. They don’t want to see a white Christian Europe.”
Richard: “Where does this quest for multiculturalism, for weakening cohesion among white nations, where does this derive from? From Judaism itself? From the Torah and the Talmud or from the more modern experience?”
Kevin: “The origins of it have to do with the rise of Hitler and the rise of National Socialism in the 1930s. It was shocking to Jews at the time that the working class was voting for Hitler. Marxism was mainstream among Jewish intellectuals but now [they saw] it was not really class struggle, but ethnic struggle… So you had the Frankfurt School, they developed theories that white ethnocentrism was the problem, that this was a psychiatric disorder, ignoring their own massive ethnocentrism. That’s the fundamental change that happened after WWII.”
Nobody can study Torah and Talmud and think that these documents are left-wing and multicultural. Only someone with a complete ignorance of these works could attribute Jewish leftism to these ancient origins.
Richard: “So you think this is very modern?”
Richard: “So you don’t think this derives from the ancient world.”
Kevin: “I don’t think this derives from the ancient world. It’s a tactic that they see as necessary and good for the Jews now.”
You can see how hard it is for Richard Spencer to let go of the idea that the Torah and the Talmud and Judaism themselves are essentially left-wing and anti-white. Spencer doesn’t want to let go of the essentialist position that Jews in their essence are implacably hostile to whites and other gentiles.
My view is that Jews are like all other forms of life in that they pursue their own genetic self-interest and that they have no permanent friends or enemies, only shifting alliances. Sometimes Jews are on friendly terms with non-Jews because they have interests in common and at other times, they have opposing interests and hence are enemies.
Kevin MacDonald titled his famous book, The Culture of Critique, to emphasize that left-wing Jewish critiques of the West are a tactic and a cultural choice, not the predetermined result of DNA.
Richard: “Is there any opportunity for Jews to view a strong, racially coherent America or Europe as a good thing?”
Kevin: “I wish it would happen. That would be something. We would have a major part of our elite on board and things would change dramatically fast. You would see messages on TV that you have never seen before. Right now saying it is ok to be white is neo-nazi. I don’t think it is in the offing.”
Kevin: “…These Jewish intellectuals in France are cultural gods and they’re a disaster… There’s this hostility among Jews to the West and a desire for domination… Yuri Slezkine’s book, The Jewish Century, shows the rise of a Jewish elite in the Soviet Union… Mixed in there were statements from Jews showing hatred for the Russian peasant and for Russian culture and for destroying churches…
“Because of [Harvey] Weinstein, a Jewish writer brought up Portnoy’s Complaint, which is rife with hatred of non-Jewish women and wanting to degrade them and dominate them. If Weinstein just wanted sex, how hard would that be for someone with so much money? He wanted to dominate and humiliate these women. But it was — I’m gonna rape you and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
Richard: “It’s hard to get your mind around how that’s erotic [Weinstein’s reported sexual behavior].”
“Alpha males hitting on women, that’s how men have acted since the Stone Age, but this is mixed in with strange degrading sexual malpractice.”
“There seems to be something peculiar about the Jewish perverts Larry David spoke of [on Saturday Night Live].”
Kevin: “Yeah. There’s something mixed in there with degradation and domination. In Portnoy’s Complaint, he says he wanted to screw her background. That she was this upper-class WASPy type, that’s what the thrill was. It was the power over the group you are trying to displace by taking their women.”
Richard: “Normal male behavior is screwing down… It’s not a cultural conquest.”
Kevin: “Donald Trump is an alpha male. On that famous tape, he says they want it. If you are a star, you can get a lot of sex.”
Eroticized rage is not unique to Jews. All groups experience it. For many, it is essential to sexual excitement.
All minority groups are likely to experience feelings of conquest when they bed a distinguished member of the majority.
Every outside group seems peculiar because their DNA and culture are different from yours. Every religion not your own seems at best weird if not outright perverse. For a person with an IQ over 120, however, it only takes a little bit of empathy to understand how others not only see the world, but experience the world. I feel like there’s no important historical figure I can’t understand.
Spencer and MacDonald act as though Weinstein exemplifies a weird Jewish sexuality. Well, my view is that most people have weird sexual proclivities, they just don’t have the opportunity to act them out in a way that eventually gets into the New York Times.
Not many men are going to get sexually aroused and successfully complete the act of intercourse without wanting to dominate and even degrade the object of their desire. The act of love is rarely a loving act.
In his novel Portnoy’s Complaint, Philip Roth writes: “What I’m saying, Doctor, is that I don’t seem to stick my dick up these girls, as much as I stick it up their backgrounds – as though through fucking I will discover America.”
In other words, shiksas are for practice. This is not an unknown attitude in not just Jewish life but among all insular tribes (that outsiders are to be used). I don’t think this attitude is weird or sick or beyond the pale. It is simply the result of having a highly ethnocentric view of the world. The stronger your in-group identity, the more likely you are to be hostile to out-groups. Middle Eastern peoples and Far East peoples are far more ethno-centric than northern European peoples. Only northern Europeans tend to a universalist morality (where there is one moral standard for how you treat everyone).
Philip Roth wrote in his novel Operation Shylock: “The radio was playing ‘Easter Parade’ and I thought, But this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin ‘Easter Parade’ and ‘White Christmas.’ The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ — the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity — and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit them.”
From Roth Unbound: A Writer and His Books by Claudia Roth Pierpoint (no relation):
* Roth may have had an all-American childhood, but he had come to suspect that he had never known any real Americans in Newark. The stories he wrote at Bucknell were about real Americans, and so he saw no place in them for Jews at all.
* …Roth now suspects it was the aspect of the [Portnoy] book that Jews found most upsetting, in its revelation of “Jewish rage, and in particular Jewish rage against the Gentiles.”
* But his biggest problem in writing about England was that “I don’t hate anything here.”
Jews have a much lower rate of criminal violence than other whites but they tend to be more verbally aggressive.
That there are Jews who have the desire to degrade and humiliate the other is not weird. Such desire to sin and dirty is essential for sexual excitement.
From the book Rethinking Power:
Robert Stoller wrote in his book Sexual Excitement:
f, I found that hostility-the urge to harm one’s sexual object -was a central dynamic in the sexual excitement I called “perverse.” There is not much challenge in looking for hostility-it is so blatant in some of the perversions, such as sadomasochism, so I tried to test the hypothesis more vigorously with cases in which hostility was not at the surface. In the perversion called exhibitionism, for example, you will find, if you get to talk with an exhibitionist, that his purpose in displaying his genitals is not to seduce a woman into making love with him but rather to shock her. If she is upset-is embarrassed, becomes angry, runs away-and especially if she calls the police, he has, he feels, absolute proof that his genitals are important. When you learn that he
is likely to exhibit himself following a humiliation earlier in the day, you will be alert to the hostile components he experiences in his excitement.
For him, this sexual act serves as a kind of rape-a forced intrusion (at least, that is how he fantasizes it) into the woman’s sensibilities and delicacy. If he cannot believe that he has harmed her, the act has failed for him. (He is mortified by the woman who is amused, not shocked, at his show.) Therefore, we find that the exhibitionist displays himself to strange women, not to his wife, who could hardly feel assaulted by a view so ordinary. To show his wife his genitals would be to risk further humiliation, for he knows she would never respond dramatically to the sight, with outrage or a sense of being invaded.
His idea – his fantasy- of what is going on includes, then, the following features. He has done something hostile to a woman; he has been the active force, not the passive victim as he was earlier in the day when someone humiliated him. He has converted this trauma to a triumph, capped by his success in becoming sexually excited. In choosing a stranger as the object of his performance, he has protected himself from experiencing her as fully human. In other words, he has reduced her to a fetish. This idea that he is powerful, a dominating male who causes fear as he subdues a woman by the mere sight of his genitals, is, then, an illusion he has brought into the real world. He seems to be running great risks: he may be caught and arrested, his family and job put in jeopardy. But the true danger that perversion is to protect him from that he is insignificant, unmanly-is not out there on the street but within him and therefore inescapable. It is so fundamental a threat that
he is willing to run the lesser risk, that of being caught…
…our mental life is experienced in the form of fantasies. These fantasies are present as scripts — stories — whose content and function can be determined. And I want to emphasize that what we call thinking or experiencing or knowing, whether it be conscious, preconscious, or unconscious, is a tightly compacted but nonetheless separable-analyzable-weave of fantasies. What we consciously think or feel is actually the algebraic summing of
many simultaneous fantasies…
A fantasy can be conscious, preconscious (available to
consciousness if desired), or unconscious (out of consciousness and not retrievable just by willing it there).’ A script or scenario is a story line -a plot–complete with roles assigned to characters and a stream of action. When a script is conscious, it is, if private, either a spontaneous, unwilled emergence or a daydream. If published, the daydream takes such forms as novels, nonfiction, plays, films, music, or paintings. Unconscious scripts can be deciphered by means of psychoanalysis, unearthed from their hiding places in character structure, neurotic symptoms, sexual behavior, posture, clothing-in any behavior.’
I found this:
In 1975, Robert Stoller described perversion as the “erotic form of hatred.” At the core, he observed sexual behavior that breaks the rules. Social disapproval, judgment, and shame are key to arousal taking place. Currently, eroticized rage has been used as a term to describe the anger that is underneath sexual behavior that is socially unacceptable. This scale strongly taps into a sexual fantasy life that is very opportunistic. The behaviors described are all predatory at some level. The patient may never act on these fantasies, due to social inhibitions or lack of opportunity. More than likely, the affective underpinnings may manifest in other, “more acceptable” behaviors. A high score, however, would prompt the therapist to explore the behavioral dimensions of the SDI very carefully. Clearly treatment would also involve sifting through the collage of potential sources of sexualized rage. Almost always these include one or more of the following possibilities:
• Grievance – revenge, entitlement, and rule breaking are rooted in
some sense of betrayal, hypocrisy, or unfairness. Sexual, physical, and
emotional abuse often set the stage. Partners who are demanding,
difficult, and unresponsive are part of the betrayal scenario. Also
consider bosses, communities, and social injustices as part of
• Insufficiency of Self – a belief in insufficiency can unduly cause despair at meeting personal needs. Co-morbid personality issues would
emerge, including depression, dissociation, and the
compartmentalization of self, character disorders, or the self-absorbed
personality traits of narcissism.
• Vulnerability – arousal which hinges on the vulnerability of self or
others is vital to assessment and treatment. Some of the most
damaging consequences of human sexual behavior reside in the dark
corners of vulnerability. For the therapist, it is critical to determine if
sexual arousal is potentiated by the exposure or vulnerability of self or
Rage and anger have long been recognized as a component in sexual violence. Much has been written about the profiles of those who impose their sexual desires on others. Even more has been written about the cultural dynamics between men and women of which such violence is but the tip of the iceberg. As women have gained more political and economic power we also have an emerging clarity about the abuse of women, children – and men.
That clarity has resulted in a new accountability that extends into the most powerful circles of our culture. CEOs of business, church leaders, military officers, and even the nation’s most powerful political leaders have been held accountable for abusing the less powerful. We are in the midst of an incredible paradigm shift about the use of power and our responsibility to others. Many say that protection of the vulnerable and sexual accountability may result in the most significant change in the history of our species. I believe that is true.
Yet, I also believe there is anger that has been sexualized that is not connected to our larger social drama or at best, tangential to it. There are also forms of victimization based on anger that have never been considered in the larger debate. Anger and rage have many faces in human sexual behavior that have been obscured by their erotic content. We have tried to make sense out of sexual behavior without its affective component. Advances in our understanding of trauma, addiction, neurochemistry, and courtship place a whole new perspective on the role of anger in sex.
New sexual freedoms, especially in cyberspace, provide painful clarity about how destructive eroticized rage can be. Anger and sex can be fused in such a way that it is self-perpetuating, self-destructive, and once ignited, independent of culture and even family. Clinicians who do not look for the role of eroticized rage will miss the function or payoff of their patient’s behavior. The purpose of this article is to provide clinicians with a basic discussion of the range of sexual behaviors whose driving force is anger and what to watch for.
I had a powerful girlfriend who wished to be dominated in the bedroom and nowhere else. She had so much responsibility in her life, she wanted a zone where she could be free. Another powerful girlfriend never wanted to make a choice about where we went out, she had enough life and death responsibility as a doctor that she wanted our social time to be free. I had a powerful girlfriend who would implore me during sex, “F*** me like a whore!” That was exciting for her. That was exciting for me. It was an invitation to degradation and dominance.
If you look at romance novels, the heroine usually gets taken by a very strong man. I think most women want to be taken by the man they desire and dominated in the bedroom.
I’ve had numerous women complain about my overly-chivalrous behavior. They wondered, “Why are’t you being all letchy?”
Back to the interview:
Richard: “It is hard to separate leftism from this Jewish phenomenon.”
Yet there is nothing in the Jewish tradition prior to the 19th Century that is left. The Left-Right political spectrum only developed at the end of the 18th Century in Europe. Judaism goes back for thousands of years before that. The Jews who take Judaism the most seriously, the traditional Orthodox, are the least amenable to left-wing politicians and left-wing ideas while Jews the most estranged from Judaism are the most likely to be enthused by the Left. I think it is obvious that Judaism and Leftist are opposites. Most Jews in America today are on the left because only 12% of American Jews are Orthodox. The rest have rejected the Jewish tradition.
Richard: “Do you think there is something deeply Jewish or even Talmudic about leftist reasoning? Is there something inherently Judaic in left-wing thought?”
Kevin: “I don’t know. I’ve heard that. The Talmud is a wonderland of illogic and yet there is a sort of sense to it. We are in an intellectual wonderland now where they are creating theories that have no relation to reality and can’t be refuted… It’s well-established in universities now that truth is a white guy thing.”
Richard: “Something I agree with totally — Nietzsche famously said there is no truth or thing in itself, there’s perspectives on truth. When you are looking at an object, you are bringing your own subjectivity into your analysis. That’s clearly true.”
Kevin: “The commonsense of it is that there is an out there and we can understand it and get closer to the truth but that is what they don’t want anymore. They want a completely subjective world.”
“When you talk about Talmudic reasoning being central, Jews understood that truth was not important, you were trying to get a consensus among the elite to push their attitudes. Psychoanalysis never cared about truth, but they got a consensus and infiltrated medical schools and the media and it became dogma.”
Richard: “Do you think that Jews have a theological gift to create a meme?”
Kevin: “Jews would construct all these theories about anti-semitism…and had no basis in reality and that was the absolute consensus. It’s not like they were social scientists trying to figure this thing out, they were creating ideologies that would work for them… This was always about consensus [among elites]… People who dissent, throw them out.”
Richard: “When did you first start thinking seriously about the Jewish Question and discover these ideas of an evolutionary analysis of history and people?”
Kevin: “The first time I recall that I started saying that the Jewish community does not have the same goals as America was when Jimmy Carter was campaigning in 1976 in New York and made this massive pro-Israel speech. I’m thinking, what is that about? Jewish ethnic interests were not the same as American foreign policy interests. Those thoughts were percolating in my mind when I decided to write a book on group evolutionary strategy.”
“I decided I’m going to study Judaism to show that they can culturally create a group that is effective and cohesive… Who knows what is in the back of my mind. I remember especially with respect to Israel that this is not in our interest. I remember these Jewish leftists, anti-war and all that, in Madison, WI, when the 1967 war came along, and they are joyous that Israel won this war and…kill and rape all the Arabs. The viciousness came out. These were not pacifists. They were war-like and ethnocentric. I had Jewish roommates. I was part of this Jewish leftist scene. I could see the Jewish ethnic networking. All these Jews had heroes who were Jewish such as Marx, Trotsky, Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg…”
“I soaked it up [Jewish left-wing culture] but once I got away from it, I voted for Ford in 1976 and Reagan in 1980. I was very happy when Reagan won. I thought, now we’ve solved all our problems.”