Edmund Connelly’s article on Harvey Weinstein and the shiksa phenomenon discusses revenge as a motive. From this perspective, what Jews like Weinstein are doing is the result of hatred toward the goyim because of their perceptions of the long history of anti-Semitism. Of course much of this narrative is false and exaggerated, but the point is that this “lachrymose” version of Jewish history is entirely mainstream among Jews and a cornerstone of Jewish education and Jewish self-conception.

Revenge is important — even critical — in understanding the main currents of Jewish behavior. However, several of the passages from Portnoy‘s Complaint seem to be much more about dominance and sexual competition than revenge. This suggests that another way to look at shiksa lust is from the perspective of evolutionary psychology which suggests that a central motive is domination over the women of the outgroup. In the competition for dominance among males, females are the ultimate prize. Recall that a constant theme of human history is that women are the spoils of war. Conquering males seize the women of their defeated foes — the Mongol harems throughout Asia come to mind, as well as the behavior of our Indo-European forebears.

This is from the Mark Oppenheimer article that, controversially, raised the revenge theme:

As a boy, Portnoy fantasized about attaining a mythical shiksa goddess whom he nicknamed Thereal McCoy (get it?), who ice-skates “in her blue parka and her red earmuffs and her big white mittens—Miss America, on blades! With her mistletoe and her plum pudding (whatever that may be),” but as a grown-up he graduates to the real woman he nicknames The Monkey. And what does he do to abase her? He has her perform with an Italian whore. Yes, he eventually joins in, but not before they enact a bad movie—not Hollywood, but San Fernando Valley triple-X. And his nickname for her, The Monkey? That comes from an episode in her life, from before Portnoy met her, when a couple swingers picked her up and wanted her to eat a banana while she watched them copulate. For having a past that gets him hot, she gets degraded with an animalistic nickname. Her history as an actor is what he wants her for.

Harvey is cut from the same cloth. Growing up in Queens, he fantasized of fame and fortune, and, once he got them, he struggled to maintain them by building himself into a larger-than-life figure. He yelled at employees like he was a studio boss from the 1920s—the only thing missing was a riding crop. He ran Oscars campaigns like they used to in Old Hollywood. And he harassed women not necessarily to use them as instruments of his pleasure, but to use them as instruments of his power.

It goes without saying that nearly every one of these women—Rose McGowan, Ambra Batillana, Laura Madden, Ashley Judd, etc.—was a Gentile, all the better to feed Weinstein’s revenge-tinged fantasy of having risen above his outer-borough, bridge-and-tunnel Semitic origins. But it turns out there was a Jew(ess) in the bunch, none other than Lauren Sivan, of the potted-plant episode. In that small way, he inadvertently broke out of the Portnoy mold, performing his inadequacies not for the great all-American odeon but for a woman who could be his cousin. Harvey can run from who he is, but he can’t hide.

Revenge for the history of anti-Semitism is never mentioned, but the desire for attaining power over shiksa females, and particularly to degrade them is very apparent — the ultimate symbol of dominance is the ability to degrade with impunity.

The evolutionary perspective also predicts that Jews would take greatest satisfaction out of conquering and debasing women who are relatively high status because these women are the most valued by their male competitors. Outgroup females  are especially valued if they are from a high-status group (e.g., sexually abusing WASP women from upper-middle class families would be more appealing than, say, sexually abusing lower class Black women; hence the satisfaction of the Portnoy character for his conquest of the “aristocratic Yankee beauty whose forebears arrived on these shores in the seventeenth century” and his comment 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.  Conquer American — maybe that’s more like it.” Conquering American means conquering the women of the previously dominant elite first and foremost, and that means the daughters of the White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants who dominated America until the 1960s.

From this perspective, sexually abusing gentile women with impunity and taking advantage of gentile women who willingly give sexual favors because of the advantages to be gained from wealthy, powerful Jewish men are the ultimate aphrodisiacs for Jewish men — and particularly if they are sociopaths like Weinstein. This would be especially the case if the women are very attractive and sought after in the game of intra-male sexual competition, such as movie stars.

The same dynamic is going on throughout the West as a result of African and Muslim migration. Especially in the UK we read of grooming gangs that exploit White girls, unprecedented levels of rape and other forms of sexual assault. When you conquer another people, you take their women.

But the revenge motive is also critical and often difficult to separate from the desire to dominate. As Connelly emphasizes, it’s about, in Portnoy’s words, “Hating Your Goy and Eating One Too.” The hatred is real and is intimately tied in with sexual competition. A passage that is remarkably similar to Portnoy appears in my review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century recounting the theme of Jewish revenge in the USSR:

The migration of the Jews to the urban centers of the USSR is a critical aspect of Slezkine’s presentation, but it strains credulity to suppose that these migrants threw off, completely and immediately, all remnants of the Eastern European shtetl culture which, Slezkine acknowledges, had a deep sense of estrangement from non-Jewish culture, and in particular a fear and hatred of peasants resulting from the traditional economic relations between Jews and peasants and exacerbated by the long and recent history of anti-Jewish pogroms carried out by peasants. Traditional Jewish shtetl culture also had a very negative attitude toward Christianity, not only as the central cultural icon of the outgroup but as associated in their minds with a long history of anti-Jewish persecution. The same situation doubtless occurred in Poland, where the efforts of even the most “de-ethnicized” Jewish Communists to recruit Poles were inhibited by traditional Jewish attitudes of superiority toward and estrangement from traditional Polish culture.

In other words, the war against “rural backwardness and religion” was exactly the sort of war that a traditional Jew would have supported wholeheartedly, because it was a war against everything they hated and thought of as oppressing them. … There can be little doubt that Lenin’s contempt for “the thick-skulled, boorish, inert, and bearishly savage Russian or Ukrainian peasant” was shared by the vast majority of shtetl Jews prior to the Revolution and after it. Those Jews who defiled the holy places of traditional Russian culture and published anti-Christian periodicals doubtless reveled in their tasks for entirely Jewish reasons, and, as Gorky worried, their activities not unreasonably stoked the anti-Semitism of the period. Given the anti-Christian attitudes of traditional shtetl Jews, it is very difficult to believe that the Jews engaged in campaigns against Christianity did not have a sense of revenge against the old culture that they held in such contempt.

Indeed, Slezkine reviews some of the works of early Soviet Jewish writers that illustrate the revenge theme. The amorous advances of the Jewish protagonist of Eduard Bagritsky’s poem “February” are rebuffed by a Russian girl, but their positions are changed after the Revolution when he becomes a deputy commissar. Seeing the girl in a brothel, he has sex with her without taking off his boots, his gun, or his trench coat—an act of aggression and revenge:

I am taking you because so timid
Have I always been, and to take vengeance
For the shame of my exiled forefathers
And the twitter of an unknown fledgling!
I am taking you to wreak my vengeance
On the world I could not get away from!

Slezkine seems comfortable with revenge as a Jewish motive, but he does not consider traditional Jewish culture itself to be a contributor to Jewish attitudes toward traditional Russia, even though he notes that a very traditional part of Jewish culture was to despise the Russians and their culture.

As apparently in Portnoy’s and Weinstein’s case, the hatred is expressed in debasement  of the non-Jewish woman.

Revenge is also a theme of the Jewish leftists portrayed in Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critique.

Jewish members of the internal security force often appear to have been
motivated by personal rage and a desire for revenge related to their Jewish
identity:

Their families had been murdered and the anti-Communist underground was, in their
perception, a continuation of essentially the same anti-Semitic and anti-Communist
tradition. They hated those who had collaborated with the Nazis and those who opposed
the new order with almost the same intensity and knew that as Communists, or
as both Communists and Jews, they were hated at least in the same way. In their eyes,
the enemy was essentially the same. The old evil deeds had to be punished and new
ones prevented and a merciless struggle was necessary before a better world could be
built. (Schatz 1991, 226)…

Again, there is the strong suggestion that social criticism and feelings of cultural estrangement among Jews have deep psychological roots that reach far beyond particular economic or political interests. As indicated in Chapter 1, one critical psychological component appears to involve a very deep antipathy to the entire gentile-dominated social order, which is viewed as antiSemitic—the desire for “malignant vengeance” that Disraeli asserted made many Jews “odious and so hostile to mankind.” Recall Lipset’s (1988, 393) description of the many Jewish “families which around the breakfast table, day after day, in Scarsdale, Newton, Great Neck, and Beverly Hills have discussed what an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society the United States is.” These families clearly perceive themselves as separate from the wider culture of the United States; they also view conservative forces as attempting to maintain this malignant culture. As in the case of traditional Judaism vis-à-vis gentile society, the traditional culture of the United States— and particularly the political basis of cultural conservatism that has historically been associated with anti-Semitism—is perceived as a manifestation of a negatively evaluated outgroup.

This antipathy toward gentile-dominated society was often accompanied by a powerful desire to avenge the evils of the old social order. For many Jewish New Leftists “the revolution promises to avenge the sufferings and to right the wrongs which have, for so long, been inflicted on Jews with the permission or encouragement, or even at the command of, the authorities in prerevolutionary societies” (Cohen 1980, 208). Interviews with New Left Jewish radicals revealed that many had destructive fantasies in which the revolution would result in “humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors” (Cohen 1980, 208) combined with the belief in their own omnipotence and their ability to create a nonoppressive social order—findings that are reminiscent of the motivating role of revenge for anti-Semitism among the Jewish-dominated security forces in communist Poland discussed above.  …

My personal experience at Wisconsin during the 1960s was that the student protest movement was originated and dominated by Jews and that a great many of them were “red diaper babies” whose parents had been radicals. The intellectual atmosphere of the movement closely resembled the atmosphere in the Polish Communist movement described by Schatz (1991, 117)—intensely verbal pilpul-like discussions in which one’s reputation as a leftist was related to one’s ability in Marxist intellectual analysis and familiarity with Marxist scholarship, both of which required a great deal of study. There was also a great deal of hostility to Western cultural institutions as politically and sexually oppressive combined with an ever-present sense of danger and imminent destruction by the forces of repression—an ingroup bunker mentality that I now believe is a fundamental characteristic of Jewish social forms. There was an attitude of moral and intellectual superiority and even contempt toward traditional American culture, particularly rural America and most particularly the South—attitudes that are hallmarks of several of the intellectual movements reviewed here (e.g., the attitudes of Polish-Jewish communists toward traditional Polish culture [and American Jewish intellectuals toward populism in Chapters 5 and 6). There was also a strong desire for bloody, apocalyptic revenge against the entire social structure viewed as having victimized not only Jews but non-elite gentiles as well.

And finally, Freud combined both revenge and the desire to conquer:

[Freud] was proud of his enemies—the persecuting Roman Catholic Church, the hypocritical bourgeoisie, the obtuse psychiatric establishment, the materialistic Americans—so proud, indeed, that they grew in his mind into potent specters far more malevolent and far less divided than they were in reality. He likened himself to Hannibal, to Ahasuerus, to Joseph, to Moses, all men with historic missions, potent adversaries, and difficult fates. (Gay 1988, 604)

… Attesting to the intensity of Freud’s Jewish identification and his self-concept as a Jewish hero, all of Freud’s childhood heroes were related to Judaism: Hannibal, the Semitic combatant against Rome; Cromwell, who allowed the Jews to enter England; and Napoleon, who gave Jews civil rights. Early on he described himself as a “conquistador” rather than as a man of science. (Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique)

Freud the conquistador: hatred and revenge combined with the desire to overcome and subject. Fundamentally, that is the underlying theme of The Culture of Critique and the meaning of the phrase “hostile elite” as applied to our Jewish elite — a hostile elite that sees the West as fundamentally evil and deserving of revenge for past crimes against Jews; that sees the West as a people and culture that must be conquered and destroyed.

Competition and domination also figure in an updated account of the Jewish left I wrote in “Memories of Madison: My Life on the New Left.” I first make the case for hatred and revenge as a motive, citing a wonderful passage from John Murray Cuddihy’s The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity. Here is the central quote from Cuddihy:

“With the advent of Jewish Emancipation, when ghetto walls crumble and the shtetlach begin to dissolve, Jewry—like some wide-eyed anthropologist—enters upon a strange world, to explore a strange people observing a strange halakah They examine this world in dismay, with wonder, anger, and punitive objectivity. This wonder, this anger, and the vindictive objectivity of the marginal nonmember are recidivist; they continue unabated into our own time because Jewish Emancipation continues into our own time.”

But it’s more than just hatred. It’s the desire to dominate and dispossess:

Jewish activism on behalf of non-white immigration can be directly traced back to Jewish activists on the left—people like Rudd. Massive non-white immigration into Western societies has been a project of the Jewish left for pretty much the entire last century. The Jewish left has been the most influential component of the organized Jewish community. And even when a significant number of Jews defected from the left, giving rise to the neoconservative movement, they retained the traditional Jewish attitudes on immigration.

That`s why I think the real explanation of Jewish involvement in the Left includes an additional component. It`s certainly true that, as Cuddihy wrote, Jews emerged from the ghetto with hostility toward the culture around them. This fits with modern psychological data on how people with a strong ingroup identity, like Jews, perceive outgroups. Jewish hostility toward the culture of non-Jews has been a constant throughout Jewish history. The difference was that, as Cuddihy notes, they and their preferences suddenly became part of mainstream Western culture, with a great deal of political influence and access to the media and the academic world.

But it was more than that. It`s about displacement and domination. Thedisplacement of the genteel white Protestant culture at Columbia that Rudd hated is part of the general displacement of non-Jewish whites. Rudd doesn`t consider the fate of that other very influential group of leftist Jews—the Jewish radicals who fled the shtetls of Eastern Europe and, instead of going to Ellis Island, became dominant elite in the USSR after the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. These Jewish radicals were able to actually carry out in the USSR the fantasies the New Left Jewish radicals in the US—i.e., the “humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors” mentioned above….

This group of Jewish radicals became an integral part of the machinery of mass murder and oppression in the USSR. In doing so, they displaced the older non-Jewish elites of Russians and Germans. (Doubtless, they were too genteel and had other faults that warranted their displacement.) At least through the 1950s, political radicalism was popular among American Jews in large part because the Bolshevik Revolution was good for Jews. Jews had risen to the heights in the USSR, and the USSR had crushed fascist Germany.

Even though the New Left rejected Stalinism, there is no doubt it was bent on a similar displacement of white elites. All of its policies led inexorably in that direction. To a considerable extent, the current malaise of whites in the US can be directly traced to the triumph of the attitudes of the New Left—especially non-white immigration, the rise of multiculturalism, and the steady erosion of whites as a percentage of the electorate. (The last Democratic president to get a majority of white votes was Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.)

The consequences of Jews becoming a hostile elite in the USSR were horrific — 20,000,000 mainly Russians and Ukrainians murdered by their own government. If Weinstein is any indication — and I believe that he is — the hatred that motivated this slaughter remains very mainstream among the Jewish elite. From my review of Slezkine:

Hatred toward the peoples and cultures of non-Jews and the image of enslaved ancestors as victims of anti-Semitism have been the Jewish norm throughout history—much commented on, from Tacitus to the present.

It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow. The descendants of these overly backward and religious people now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections. Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.” And as Elliott Abrams notes, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” These attitudes are well captured in Steven Steinlight’s charge that the Americans who approved the immigration restriction legislation of the 1920s—the vast majority of the population—were a “thoughtless mob” and that the legislation itself was “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.”

In the end, the dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture that facilitated the participation of so many Eastern European shtetl Jews in becoming willing executioners in the name of international socialism is not very different from the views of contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen.

The displacement of Whites is advertised in high-flown rhetoric about universal peace and brotherhood, but fundamentally it is motivated by revenge, hatred, and the desire to dominate and dispossess. The implications are obvious: for Whites to become a minority in a society with a strong Jewish presence among the elite and surrounded by hostile minorities motivated by leftist, anti-White identity politics would be a cataclysmic disaster for our people. We must do everything we can to avoid this.