The Jewish Takeover of the Historical Profession
by Lothar von Trotha
THE JEW Peter Novick’s 1988 book That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity” Question and the American Historical Profession is a lengthy treatment of the downfall of academic standards (i.e. destroying the myth of “objectivity” that late 19th century historians began the profession with, with their goyische kopf misreading of Leopold von Ranke’s works, according to Novick) and descent into Afrocentrism, “Women’s studies,” and other disgraces from the once lofty standards of Ivy League Anglo-Saxons from the early 20th century. Because he is a Jew, Novick is allowed to talk explicitly about things like Jews conspiring with Blacks against the once-dominant Anglo-Saxon establishment.
He does play games by kvetching about “anti-semitism” in the early 20th century keeping Jews out of the profession, even though he later admits they pretty much completely took over and all the madness of the 60′s followed ,but he blames it on Blacks and women because they identified explicitly as Blacks and women rather than “assimilating,” which of course really means that women and Blacks don’t have the Jew’s craftiness in subverting societies.
Selig Perlman, a professor of economics at Wisconsin, is said to have regularly summoned Jewish graduate students in history to his office and warned them, in a deep Yiddish accent, that “History belongs to the Anglo-Saxons. You belong in economics or sociology.”
Concern with lowering the status of the profession merged into concern with who should be entrusted with the guardianship of the Geist, and with reservations about the allegedly aggressive intellectual and personal style of Jews, a concern that discourse and social life within the profession would become less genteel if it became less gentile.
Naturally, during the interwar years, Novick keeps making references to the “allegedly” offensive and alien nature of Jews, which is apparently a crazy/stupid/evil fabrication in the minds of gentiles, even though Novick later documents in full exactly how offensive and alien Jews acted when they did enter the profession.
The book contains some interesting passages on William Jennings Bryan and the Populists/Silverites from the 1890s: Normally Jews are all about social revolutions, but this particular one was rather agrarian and within its ranks one heard quite a few remarks from various farmers and miners of the South and Midwest that the Panic of 1893 was brought on by Jews attempting to manipulate the economy, subsequently crashing it (which is exactly what happened). The money supply was largely controlled by the fall harvest at the time, and going to silver would have increased the power of the Populist types even more, so naturally the Jews jumped on JP Morgan’s back during the Panic of 1907 to eventually get the Federal Reserve Act passed in 1913 and do away with that pesky problem (subsequently financializing the entire economy with war bonds after Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow manipulated America into WWI)
With minor exceptions, those critical of the Populists were Jews and from the Northeast; those defending them were gentiles and from the South or Midwest. This feature of the controversy was well known to the participants and many contemporary observers, but was usually mentioned only obliquely, if at all.
In the early 1960s Carl Bridenbaugh outraged a good many historians with his AHA presidential address. In what was universally taken to be a reference to Jews, who were for the first time becoming a significant presence in the profession, Bridenbaugh deplored the fact that whereas once American historians had shared a common culture, and rural upbringing, the background of the present generation would “make it impossible for them to communicate to and reconstruct the past for future generations.” They suffered from an ‘environmental deficiency’: being ‘urban-bred’ they lacked the ‘understanding . . . vouchsafed to historians who were raised in the countryside or in the small town.’ They were ‘producers of lower middle-class or foreign origins, and their emotions not infrequently get in the way of historical reconstructions. They find themselves in a very real sense outsiders on our past and feel themselves shut out.’
Woodward, in an article critical of the ‘Hofstadter school,’ listed the viewpoints found among the anti-Populists. They included, he said, ‘the New Conservative, the New Liberal, the liberal-progressive, the Jewish, the Anglophile, and the urban, with some overlapping,’ and he noted the northeastern origin of the assault…Beale wrote a colleague that Hofstadter had ‘a sophisticated New Yorker’s lack of understanding of the rest of the country.’ Hesseltine pronounced The Age of Reform ‘not, technically speaking, a work of history . . . but an asphalt-oriented piece of professorial punditry.’
It’s curious to even consider the possibility of rural-oriented, explicitly Anglo-Saxon historians and academics who were not actually attempting to destroy a society, so far have we strayed since then. In any case, Bridenbaugh and Woodward knew the score, but it was far worse than they realized: The Jew is not merely an outsider, but an extremely hostile, crafty, clannish, and sneaky one, hence all that unfolded thereafter.
None, so far as I can tell, ever advanced what seems to me the most compelling reason why a group of the background of Hofstadter, Bell, Lipset, and their friends should have taken such a uniformly and exaggeratedly bleak view of the Populists; they were all one generation removed from the Eastern European shtetl, where insurgent gentile peasants spelled pogrom.
In reality, these weren’t merely frightened paranoiacs having nightmares about neo-Cossacks come to pogrom them (like the putz Jew Mark Rothko), they knew that suppressing White uprisings against concentrated Jew York financial power would be bad for their plans, but Novick certainly goes further than any gentile historian could in discussing the motives of these people.
After World War II anti-Semitism in the historical profession, as in society at large, was an embarrassing legacy to be exorcised…Anti-semitism by no means completely disappeared…J. Rippy of the University of Chicago History Department complained in the early 1950s that
‘Alfred Knopf does all he can to promote the Jews…The Harris Foundation is now largely Hebrew controlled. The Guggenheim Foundation favors the Jews in its awards. Saturday Review of Literature is now in the hands of the Jews. Jewish influence has been responsible for the choice of Louis Gottschalk as a member of UNESCO’s committee to write a world history…Enrollments have declined…the main cause…probably is the distaste for such an overwhelming number of Jewish refugees in the faculties.’
It must have been frustrating to be one of the few people awake enough to realize what was going on after World War II, but being unable to arrest the momentum of the Jewing which was just setting up all that unfolded in the 1960s at this point.
Most members of the generation of young white historians who wrote the history of blacks in the seventies had left-wing backgrounds or involvement in the civil rights movement. Insofar as they were disproportionately Jews, they were products of the years when Jews were, in O’Brien’s terms, brooders rather than gloaters.
[T]hose who wrote of blacks as subjects, were overwhelmingly Jewish – Ira Berlin, Herbert Gutman, Lawrence Levine, Leon Litwack, George Rawrick…what is important for our purposes is the profound identification of all members of this latter group of historians, Jewish and gentile, with blacks.’ Though white, they prided themselves on ‘thinking black,’ of being the reverse of ‘oreos,’ — vanilla wafers with chocolate filling.
The black historian Nell Painter, arguing that black and white historians had quite different sensibilities, acknowledged that ‘not all whites hold what I’m calling ‘white’ views; Lawrence Levine and Herbert Gutman, for instance, are able to think about history in what I’d call ‘black’ ways.’
It goes on to talk about Lucy Davidowicz and other Jews creating the “magic negro” history of slavery because the Jew Stanley Elkins’s “Sambo theory” about blacks being beat and oppressed into their current stupidity, which was itself a pro-black explanation intended to excuse contemporary black behavior, was not as subversive as likening sneaky and ingenious slaves to courageous Jews surviving the Holocaust. The dumb oppressor Whites and the saintly Jewish and Black geniuses — we see much of this narrative still today.
Kenneth Stamp was told that militants that, as a white man, he had no right to write “The Peculiar Institution.” Herbert Gutman, presenting a paper to the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, was shouted down. A white colleague who was present reported that Gutman was ‘shattered.’ Gutman pleaded to no avail that he was ‘extremely supportive of the black liberation movement–if people would just forget that I am white and hear what I am saying…it would lend support to the movement.’
Just one look at Herbert Gutman’s disgusting face, in a way, almost tells the story of all Jewry from a single image.
Among the most dramatic incidents of this sort was the treatment accorded Robert Starobin, a young leftist supporter of the Black Panthers, who delivered a paper on slavery at a Wayne State University conference in 1969, an incident which devastated Starobin at the time, and was rendered the more poignant by his suicide the following year.
Starobin was, of course, a Jew, and I find it pretty hilarious that blacks bix nooding at him and shouting him off stage led the nervous fruit to off himself. Jews have been playing with fire in terms of Negroidal incitement for a long time; it’s a shame that they haven’t been burned like that more often.
Novick’s book, though written from a pro-Jewish perspective, will help us understand the Jewish invasion of academia. David Brooks’ The Chosen: Getting In is another good read on the subject.
* * *
Source: Age of Treason