Classic Essays

Jews and the Radical Left

marcuse_and_frommFor decades before they took over the conservative movement, Jews were leaders of the the radical Left. Their sincerity in both cases may reasonably be doubted. Their ostensible purposes are not their real purposes.

ON MAY 4, 1970, Ohio National Guardsmen, who had been called to the seething campus of Kent State University to restore order, found themselves threatened by a ululating mob of “student” demonstrators. Almost every headline-reader in the world knows what happened in the next few minutes. But not too many are aware that three of the four “students” killed were Jews, a ratio which closely approximates the overall percentage of Jews in the far-out Left, both then and now. (ILLUSTRATION: Jewish New Left “intellectuals” Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm)

Lest we be accused of anti-Semitism, we refer to establishment writer Klaus Mehnert’s Twilight of the Young: The Radical Movements of the 1960s and Their Legacy (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977).

On page 304 Mehnert writes:

In 1967 a survey of “radical students” found that Jews comprised 61 to 66 percent of radicals in and around Chicago, 65 percent at Harvard University, 83 percent at Berkeley, and 93 percent at the University of Michigan. At the same time, Jews comprised a large proportion of the younger faculty; as a rule they felt a special attachment to Jewish students, many of whom belonged to the New Left.

Mehnert devotes a lengthy chapter to “Teachers and Gurus,” in which he discusses seven intellectual leaders of the New Left, six of whom are Jews: Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erik H. Erikson (Homburger), Erich Fromm, and Wilhelm Reich. What are the reasons for this striking disproportion? Mehnert considers several, most of them flattering to Jews. One is less flattering: “The urge to find universalistic ideas in order to secure, once these ideas have been generally accepted, leadership for the Jewish minority over the non-Jewish majority” (p. 305).

Mehnert then quotes from a “not-yet-published paper” by Stanley Rothman:

The Jew’s supposed identification with the “underdogs” of the society is based less on identification with their suffering than upon a desire to use these underprivileged groups as a means for undermining the establishment. In short, the aim of the Jewish radical is to estrange the Christian from society as he feels estranged from it.

Is it unfair to suspect that what Mehnert terms “leadership for the Jewish minority over the non-Jewish majority” may really amount to a desire for domination over us? Rothman says that the aim is to undermine the established society. What could be more explicitly stated than that?

It’s a wonder some Jewish and establishment spokesmen would write so frankly about this matter. It could be they think the hicks in the “provinces” don’t know how to read.

* * *

Source: based on an article in Instauration magazine, December 1978

Previous post

The Congo

Next post

The Shame of Reconstruction, part 2: The Whites Fight Back

Notify of
1 Comment
Inline Feedback
View all comments
Anthony Collins
Anthony Collins
25 April, 2016 12:02 am

If one reads Dwight D. Murphey’s account of Kent State, one might well think that the National Guard should have shot a lot more of the rioters dead, and after a lot less provocation.

To his discredit, Murphey fails to mention that three of the four “students” who were shot dead were Jews, and his discussion of the response of the left and the mass media doesn’t address or even seem to recognize the Jewish factor in the “alienation” and “nihilism” that he mentions.