There are many who will dismiss this book as “anti-Semitic;” some without even reading it. Others have already pointed out that the term “anti-Semitic” is a misnomer, since the Arabs are Semites and the Ashkenazi Jews are not. But leaving aside this etymological point, I would reply to such critics that most of my sources and references are Jewish. The commentary laced in between the quotations is totally my own, and I do not have an anti-Semitic bone in my body. In any case, why is that nowadays one can usually proffer criticism of any social group — Protestants, Catholics, Poles, Mexicans, even Blacks — except for the Jewish group? To describe or even to criticize any group’s behavior patterns is not the same as wishing to destroy that group. For anyone to immediately jump to that conclusion — particularly if they are a member of that group themselves — suggests that there is indeed a profound psycho-social and psycho-historical phenomenon in play. A social and psychological phenomenon which causes people to react in such a bizarre, paranoid manner is sorely in need of rigorous examination. Such reactions in fact become a part of the study.
Then there are others who will dismiss this study as the product of an unqualified author. My reply must be that if the “qualified” academics fail in their duty to examine all areas of society and history, then it is up to laymen to do it instead. When Historians failed to apply to other historical events, then amateurs and academics from other disciplines had to step in. Research must not be allowed to fail by default. Our horizons of knowledge must be forever widened. The history of progress tells us that advances are often made by dissenters — very often amateur dissenters. In Medieval times, dissenters in astronomy were persecuted. In Victorian Britain, Charles Darwin was laughed at. It is sad but true that academics often behave like priests. Theory is only “qualified” if it has been approved, blessed and ordained by the High Priests of Knowledge, the academics. And any theory which deviates from the priests' dogma is shunned, regardless of its content or value. Particularly in the field known as “the humanities” there is also a tendency for the academics to turn inward, and develop an exclusive jargon, and a mystique with which to baffle and therefore impress outsiders. Once in a while one of the “club members” will rebel against the authority of the group, and will publicly condemn the operation of this “in crowd” syndrome, and all the intellectual constipation that goes with it. But, often as not, one dogma will simply be replaced by another, just as Martin Luther rebelled against the dogma of the Catholic church, only to replace it with another kind of dogma.
Sometimes history throws up egotistical, eccentric individualists who delight in bursting the dogmatists' overinflated sense of their own self-importance. The “muck-raker” Henry L. Mencken was certainly one. So too is today’s Tom Wolfe, who takes literary swipes at artists, politicians, philanthropists and architects, with one biting satire after another. The iconoclastic scholar Harry Elmer Barnes was qualified in many areas, but he also put forward radical theories in peripheral subjects, and it is largely thanks to Barnes' inspiration that the Revisionist movement of history is so much in the news today.
The Psychohistory movement today is part academic and part lay. The editor of The Journal of Psychohistory is a layman, but most of his contributors are academics in the field of psychology. Speakers at Psychohistory conventions come from all walks of life. My introduction to the field came while I was working as Director of the Institute for Historical Review at Torrance, near Los Angeles. Although I had initially been recruited as an Editor for The Noontide Press — a conservative book publishing house — I suggested to the proprietors that a Revisionist history institute would be a most timely venture. The suggestion was taken up with great enthusiasm and I was to be Director of the IHR from its inception in late 1978 until my departure at the end of April 1981.
A supporter first drew my attention to the Institute for Psychohistory, and its publications. I was immediately fascinated by its work; my only previous encounter with the term was in Isaac Asimov’s science fiction Foundation trilogy. I developed an exchange of publications and correspondence with the IFP Director, Lloyd de Mause and one of their prominent contributors, Dr. Howard F. Stein, who is a professor at the University of Oklahoma. I was greatly impressed with the sincerity, intellectual integrity and intelligence of these two men. I was particularly struck by the intellectual and physical courage it took for the Fall 1978 issue of The Journal of Psychohistory to be themed on the explosive topic “Judaism as a Group Fantasy". A brilliant article therein by Dr. Stein inspired me to invite him to contribute a similar piece to The Journal of Historical Review, and this was duly published in the Winter 1980 issue. I have made extensive use of both Stein’s articles in this book, and indeed the title Exiles From History is a Stein creation, as will be seen.
Around the same time, I developed a relationship with a young woman who was completing her BA at the University of California at Los Angeles. She and I lived together for six months, and at one time were engaged to be married. She studied Psychohistory under Professor Peter Loewenberg, and I therefore took considerable interest in her reports of the classes. I was disturbed that Dr. Loewenberg had condemned The Journal of Psychohistory in class, on the grounds that it was run by “laymen.” (He much preferred the “academic” Psychohistory Review.) Loewenberg apparently felt that just because a journal called itself that, and appeared academic, didn’t necessarily prove that it was. Why, there was even a “journal” of historical review which claimed the Holocaust had never happened! Anyone could start up a journal and call it whatever they liked!
I was also somewhat shocked by Loewenberg’s reaction when my friend, during a discussion, brought up the subject of the revisionist authors like Dr. Arthur Butz. Loewenberg dismissed the Butz book as “cross-quoting from other (revisionist) authors.” He claimed to have read the book and was supposed to be fully conversant with its thesis. It was obvious that Loewenberg had not read the book at all, otherwise he would not have made such unfounded claims. But her remarks must have made some impact on Dr. Loewenberg, for next day at the IHR offices, we received a book order for the Butz book from Dr. Loewenberg!
I determined to learn more about an academic who would blatantly deceive his students like this, so I attended a lecture with my friend at the Psychoanalytic Institute in west Los Angeles, where Loewenberg was hosting a semi-public lecture one night. The speaker’s subject was the Holocaust, but Loewenberg’s introduction turned out to be far more interesting than his guest. He claimed that we could detect all kinds of Freudian neuroses among the Nazis, for example their fixation on excrement. Why else would they have “literally” turned millions of Jews into excrement? The audience of students and psychoanalysts didn’t even bat an eyelid; I might have been the only person in the room to ponder on what kind of academic mentality could fantasize human beings turned into excrement — for such a thing is not scientifically or pathologically possible.
I gained a greater insight a few minutes later, when Loewenberg took a kind of “commercial break” to say that of course, all the horrors of the Holocaust only serve to underline the continuing need for a secure state of Israel as a refuge for the Jews. All in all, my “unacademic” study of Dr. Loewenberg’s academic ethics and behavior was most interesting.
But there was better yet. A few months later I travelled around the United States to visit all the various professors and contributors to the JHR. I talked with Lloyd de Mause in New York, and stayed with Dr. Stein and his wife in Oklahoma City. I was stunned to learn that Dr. Loewenberg had originally been on the Editorial Advisory Committee of the Journal of Psychohistory. Then, when they had announced that the theme of their forthcoming special issue was going to be “Judaism as a Group Fantasy", Loewenberg immediately resigned. He couldn’t even wait to see the articles in question.
I was fascinated and at the same time disturbed by the phenomenon of a highly-qualified professor, with doctorates both in history and in psychiatry, who could blatantly lie to his students; who could pretend that he had read certain books when he had not; who could condemn journals without mentioning his previous endorsement; who could use his academic privilege to peddle partisan political positions; and who could suffer from neurotic anal nightmares. In a way, this book should be dedicated to him, for it was the “clinical” Loewenberg case which first motivated me to seek an explanation for such behavior patterns. But as we shall see, the denial of reality, the seeking of refuge from facts, is a phenomenon to be found throughout Jewish life and Jewish history.
This is not just an intellectual exercise. It is a field of research that might very well have consequences for the future of the World. As I write, on Thanksgiving 1981, the sabers are being rattled around the globe for World War Three. Sensible folk in Europe and other places are protesting against this possibility. But this time around, unlike in the Viet Nam days, American Jews are on the side of the war-mongers. And just as Gentile supporters of the Viet Nam war were vilified and ridiculed, today those Gentiles who support peace are being attacked. According to today’s Los Angeles Times (26 November 1981) the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Richard N. Perle, believes that “the European anti-war movement (is) the product of Protestant angst …
“Perle, who is Jewish, drew a distinction between 'Protestant Northern Europe' which has been the scene of massive demonstrations against the new NATO deployment, and the 'Catholic South' where, he said, support for the new weapons is solid. The difference, he said, is that Protestants are suffering from angst — a gloomy, often neurotic, feeling of anxiety or depression …
“'There’s no question it’s angst,' Perle said. 'It’s a sense of fear and anxiety — troubled people, troubled governments, troubled coalitions. And it’s happened before and will happen again, and I think it’s a phase that they will go through, and we will have to go through it, holding their hand.'”
As we shall see throughout this study, there is no people on the face of the earth more tormented by fear than the Jewish people. One of the symptoms of this phenomenon appears to be the projection of it onto others. Another symptom is the striking of an arrogant, patronizing attitude — such as treating non-Jews as little children who need to be “held by the hand". The third most prevalent symptom (not evident in the above example, however) is a fixation on anal and sexual dysfunctions and torments.
My thesis focuses on three towering Jewish personalities: Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, and Sigmund Freud. In my opinion, these three men have influenced the modern world in a significant and unique fashion. Their imprint is on a host of different aspects of society. My argument is that we can trace their behavior back to their psychology. I examine the modern manifestations of the movements they founded.
I also examine three areas where Jews have a unique attitude — sexuality, power, and destruction (the last commonly known as “Holocausts"). I will argue that here too we can find significant evidence to suggest that Jews suffer from a tremendous sense of fear, together with very low self-esteem.
At the conclusion, I will offer a solution; or at least some hope that the Jewish Exile from History will not end with the ultimate nuclear Holocaust for all of us. Jewish genius has already given us nuclear energy (Einstein), the atom bomb (Oppenheimer), the hydrogen bomb (Teller) and now the neutron bomb (Cohen). Let us hope that Jewish neurosis does not bring about the use of these horrific weapons. (The nuclear work that was accomplished in the U.S. was founded upon information mainly pilfered from the Germans during the 1930s and brought to the U.S. by “survivors” of the yet future “Holocaust.” It was the “peace” loving Einstein who favored showering Germany with billions of “love” neutrons and gamma rays. The anticipated nuclear destruction of Germany was indeed a Jewish operation funded by the American taxpayers. See David Irving’s The German Atomic Bomb, publ. 1967)