How Did It Come to This?

/8 Comments/in , /by
Reposted from:

Danmarks Frihedsraad

The last white people

This article was originally published in Danish on December 30, 2017.

Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

Just 50 short years ago, you would have been considered delusional if you had told anyone what Denmark would look like in the year 2024. In your wildest nightmare, you would not have been able to imagine a multicultural Denmark with representatives of all the world’s exotic peoples walking freely in the streets, a country where Danish schoolchildren are in the minority in their school classes, where an ever-increasing part of the state budget is spent directly or indirectly on foreigners while our infrastructure is in decay, our hospitals have to save on both treatment and patient care, and our elderly are left to lie in their own filth. And no one seems to protest vociferously. The few who do are quickly shamed by the united media mafia, and the particularly stubborn dissidents are hunted down by the system’s storm troopers from Redox, Demos1 and whatever else these criminal organizations are called. But this is really unnecessary, because such difficult individual who persist in demanding free speech are quickly excluded from the labor market and the community of the saved, and their voices are not heard. No wonder, so few dare to speak out, and when some few do, they do so with so much flour in their mouths that they are shrouded in a dust cloud of nonsense and contradictions.

How has it come to this? How has a healthy and thriving society on the rise been turned around in such a short time so that it is now headed towards not only cultural, but biological extinction at the speed of light?

Well, you do it like this:

First you destroy the family, and you do this by destroying the woman, because she is responsible for the family and the next generation2. She is made to believe that she cannot “realize” herself as a mother, even though the maternal role is her natural biological role. In media and movies, the housewife is portrayed as stupid3, naïve, and bland, and the job market courts her so that she can get out and “realize herself” at an assembly line or a cash register for a few pennies. The children, who used to roam freely and play naturally with the neighbors’ children, are now caged in kindergartens where they are looked after by young girls and boys who know nothing about children, and the culture that has been passed on from generation to generation through the mother for millennia is suddenly no longer passed on. The kindergarten staff are just looking after the children, that’s all there is time for. But let us face it: a random assortment of teachers and helpers with no real education wouldn’t be able to do this important job – even if they had time. The children have become the property of the state, just as they are in other totalitarian regimes. The resources that strong and well-educated parents previously passed on to their children are now lost to society. Everyone must be equal (i.e. disadvantaged), and as the labor market in the 1970s succeeded in attracting foreigners whose children also go to kindergarten, there can be no question of transmitting any culture at all, because now there are suddenly several cultures, and emphasizing the country’s own culture is considered discrimination. Gradually, the staff also become multicultural. Danish culture disappears from kindergarten and later from schools and universities.

Parents, schools and institutions are forbidden by law to educate children. Neither teachers nor parents are now allowed to put power behind their words, and both families and schools are transformed into discussion clubs where the 6-year-old’s words carry as much weight as those of parents and schoolteachers. All discipline disappears and with it the basis for concentration and “readiness to learn”. Children, who used to be a blessing, are now, in far too many cases, ill-mannered, impudent egotists who spread fear and terror wherever they appear in a crowd.

Women are then fed birth control pills so that they have fewer children – never mind the side effects – and if they do get pregnant, they are allowed to kill their child before it is born, even encouraged to do so – it is called “an adult decision”. A woman is the sole master of her own body, of course. However, she probably should have considered the possibility that she might get pregnant, before it happened, because now it is no longer her body. It is a small independent being that is now being killed. Abortion is genocide and the doctors who perform it are murderers. The women are helpless victims. And the father is left out of the equation. It seems like such an easy solution, but they often suffer the physical and psychological consequences for the rest of their lives. This ensures a sharp drop in the number of children and thus, in the long term, in the population. Where there used to be numerous flocks of 4 and 6 lovely children, it’s today considered to be a flock if you have 2, and many have none at all.

As women no longer have the time to cook from scratch, we are seeing more and more industrially processed food, while agriculture, which used to employ half the population, is turning into industrial companies owned by corporations. The farmer becomes a food producer. People are gradually losing all connection to the land, and the connection to nature that was once taken for granted disappears. The land, once sacred, is reduced to a means of production. Most farmers leave the profession and become industrial workers. Often they move to the cities. In the pursuit of profit, endless amounts of pesticides are poured over our food. Disease and increased infertility are the results. This is deliberate – it lowers the numerical strength of the people.

The rise of women in the labor market puts family life under pressure. The number of broken families is increasing. The moral stigma of extramarital affairs is being condemned and is disappearing. At the same time, it becomes economically feasible to break up families, which was previously more difficult. Children are now growing up outside the safe confines of a strong coherent family. They are no longer automatically part of a community because the family itself is no longer a small community, only perhaps a shared address. The adults put their selfishness above the children, who are just left to the “care” of the state. The family members live their own lives without having anything really important in common.

Not only the family, but also all other natural human communities are under attack. Singing is an essential factor when it comes to strengthening a community. We know this from the community singing during the German occupation. People gathered in public squares to sing – a kind of protest, for sure, but a positive protest – a protest in the form of a cultural expression of the people’s hopes and wishes, based on the love of their country! Today, there is no community singing, even though the situation today is a lot worse than the situation during the occupation. However, hardly anybody can sing anymore – that is, sing properly. This used to be taught in school – more or less. Proper singing lessons are long gone, as is the communal morning song. It ensured that people got to know the most important songs and hymns, it strengthened the cohesion of society and showed that people had something in common. That’s why it had to go. The church is the last place where you can still cultivate the community of song to some extent, but because no one has learned to sing, many people flee to the theology less and the Africanized universe of free churches with gospel singing and other things that simply do not belong to our culture and our community.

The natural historical geographical communities have also been torn apart by various municipal mergers, with many rural municipalities being incorporated into the big cities, where they quickly lost their identity, the merging of police and judicial districts, the closure of hospitals, medical practices, schools and railways, the centralization of tax services, emergency services, etc. Areas that naturally and historically belonged together were torn apart and areas that had never had anything to do with each other were forced together. As a result of this catastrophic development, many jobs disappeared. Doctors, lawyers, judges, teachers, nurses and many others left the small cities and villages, simply because their jobs disappeared. This spread like ripples in the water. There were fewer customers, businesses closed, people fled, and the remaining craft and industrial companies followed. Suburban Denmark had emerged, rural areas were depopulated, people lost their roots and their connection to nature. Cemeteries, which for centuries had been monuments to family cohesion, were transformed into grassland. There was no longer anyone to look after them and visit the graves of the deceased, and the churches’ inflated prices for the purchase and care of grave sites accelerated this sad development. Instead of the community, the individual, the rootless isolated human being, is cultivated.

The large state institutions that connected the nation as a powerful symbol were privatized and disappeared. Today DSB – the Danish State Railroads – is just one commercial company among many other railway companies. The postal service no longer exists. The state’s daily contact with every Dane in the form of the postman is gone. The impressive headquarters of the postal service and DSB, which in themselves represented the power and splendor of the state and the community, have been sold for hotel and residential purposes. The same goes for the military’s historic buildings. Earlier, there used to be magnificent barracks in almost every major city, which represented the power of the state and connected it to the people. Today there are only a few modernist facilities left – far from the rest of the population, so that the military is not part of people’s daily lives. Conscription has of course been abolished in practice. There is no longer anything to defend. The defense is just a business that seems to have no real purpose.

In school, culture and history are abolished, along with homework and the necessary memorization training. Effective teaching time is drastically reduced and, in reality, it becomes even shorter as a result of the lack of discipline. Higher education is de facto abolished, and the country’s three real universities are transformed into vocational schools. Classical education is abolished. The church is dismantled as an authority. Theologically, it is degraded to being part of the goodness industry, where everything is acceptable as long as it fits into the politically correct picture. People lose their moral compasses. Television and radio degenerate into the most banal form of so-called entertainment, and the language is degraded to the point where you can’t express deeper thoughts. The “heroes” of the new age are football players and pop stars, not Absalon, Niels Ebbesen or Voldemar the Great, who are completely unknown. A hero is someone who puts his life on the line for the sake of others, for the sake of the people – not a bunch of fools who, for sky-high wages, produce bland or insipid entertainment.

History is “deconstructed”, and “the people” is abolished as a concept. Everything that previous generations have revered and been proud of is ridiculed and “revealed” as “myths”. The people becomes a population, a seemingly random collection of individuals with no common religion, identity or history and no deeper sense of belonging. The concept of race is hated, indeed, races are said not to exist, even though every farmer, rabbit breeder or bantam keeper knows better. It is no longer allowed to see the difference between a Negro and a European – indeed, you can no longer even say ‘Negro’. “The only difference is the skin color,” they claim, even though the pharmaceutical industry, hormone and intelligence researchers, biologists, psychologists and physical anthropologists (not to be confused with today’s “anthropologists” who don’t even know what anthropology is) all know (or should know) better. However, it doesn’t pay to know. It pays to jump on the politically correct bandwagon. Universities are turning into spiritual brothels whose whores sell themselves to the highest bidder.

Instead, a wide range of unscientific and nonsensical ideas are put into circulation to keep people occupied and confused. Man-made climate change is a good example of such nonsense – and these and other crazy ideas can only be propagated in a population that is completely ignorant when it comes to history and science, a mass of people who are simply incapable of checking these distorted notions against reality and common sense. What these ideas and ideologies usually have in common is that they make people feel guilty (about the climate, slavery, imperialism, racism, refugees, eating meat, etc., etc., etc.) A population with a guilty conscience is not a proud people with a proud identity that upholds its culture and traditions. It is a people who has lost its bearings, a people who no longer has anything to commemorate, celebrate and be proud of, in short, a people marked for destruction.

Classical literature, painting and music that created a universe of beauty and harmony is abolished and replaced by talentless smears, bogus daubs and discordant noise – all preferably produced by foreigners who are presumed to be able to tell us so much more about the essential things in our life than our compatriots.

Literature revels in primitive depictions of the bottom of society. One need only think of Jakob Ejersbo’s Nordkraft, which is one of the most perverse, filthy and depressing works imaginable, yet its author was praised as “the greatest talent in Danish literature in generations”. That’s saying a lot. Obviously, forgotten are Jacob Paludan, Martin A. Hansen and a large number of other excellent writers who are no longer read. Another good example is the criminal Palestinian Yahya Hassan’s so-called “poems”, a talentless, infantile drivel from the gutter that was praised as brilliant by an almost unanimous group of critics and which sold more than 120,000 copies (where poems usually only sell a couple of hundred copies). The language was characterized as innovative, and indeed it is: a catalogue of oaths, insults, obscenities and other primitivities, the likes of which you have to look hard to find – thank goodness. Its popularity was largely due to the fact that, on the surface, the content seemed critical of immigrant communities. Bourgeois Denmark wanted to read it, even if they had to swim around in Hassan’s excrements along the way. Needless to say, Hassan was showered with important awards that have made him a wealthy man. He was laughing all the way to the bank, apparently having a great time in the environment he pretended to distance himself from. An overdose finally put an end to him.

When it comes to music, it doesn’t look any better. Who doesn’t remember Niels Viggo Benzon’s “piano concerto” that ended with the “artist” sawing the legs off a Steinway grand piano?

The different art forms have the task of uniting people around a common culture, each art form in its own way. Art should be a mirror of the people’s experiences and reflect its experiences reality – and its dreams and values. It can debate problems and important issues, but the result must be, in modern terms, cultural added value. In short, you need to gain a better understanding of the problems being raised. You need to get closer to a solution. Moral issues must be illuminated and clarified. Characters and issues must be relevant and credible. Art should not be glossy, but neither should it offend, it should be edifying in the broadest sense of the word. In this context, art should always be aware of its social and moral responsibilities. “Art” that sees its task as destroying the values that form the basis of national and popular unity dissolves the community and thus the precondition for an orderly and organized society, which is the condition for art to exist at all. It adds no value, but plunges mankind into an unmanageable chaos that only benefits the forces that want to destroy us!

Furthermore, art as a whole must be beautiful. People thrive best in beautiful and harmonious surroundings – this makes for harmonious people. Today, this beauty is deliberately trampled underfoot. Humans are accustomed to ugliness. Even the clothes we buy are ugly – with expensive holes in highly visible places. The body is desecrated with tattoos, piercings and the like. People have been purposefully prepared for ugliness, the ugliness that has entered all levels of society with immigration. An unaesthetic element has entered the streets, an element that does not fit into our world. Everywhere, ugliness is the great common denominator, and ugliness leads to physical and mental imbalance – to the loss of civilization as we understand it.

At the same time, the business community is crying out for foreign labor, even though we have over 100,000 unemployed people in Denmark. What the business community means is cheap labor. Moreover, this is a means of mixing populations, eroding borders and creating a large homogeneous global market. It will increase profits! And if we all just speak English, it will save a lot of money and effort. We must never forget that there is a political driving force behind business organizations and that business has always sided with profit at the expense of people’s unity.

All these things are the basic prerequisites for a healthy society to degenerate and head towards destruction.

However, all this is not just happening; it is being created to destroy Europe and the people who come from there. Behind it is a small, but highly influential, ethnocentric minority that has set itself the goal of eliminating the majority in order to maneuver more easily in a world that exclusively consist of minorities. Among the authors of all the evils listed above, not least the so-called student revolt of 1968,4 which greatly accelerated the development, or rather dismantling of society that we have witnessed, this minority is represented in large numbers, just as it has a decisive influence on the media world that peddles this madness.

Despite this, the right wing loves this minority and does not tolerate criticism of it. People who, like the Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlquist, have seen the connection between this minority and the dismantling of the homogeneous European nation-states are excluded by nationalist circles who suddenly fear being labeled anti-Semitic. But it is necessary to address this problem, to articulate it, as it is called today. How can it be that the overwhelming majority of this minority vigorously promotes immigration to Europe and its successor states, but does not make the same demands of Israel, which must remain a homogeneous Jewish community? As long as European nationalists refuse to open their eyes and analyze the situation as it is, but continues to talk about Muslims, burkas and all the other symptoms of impending doom, it will remain insignificant and unable to make a difference. The salvation of Denmark and the entire Western culture requires the courage of truth, however unpleasant that truth may seem! It is time to stop dealing only with the symptoms. You have to start calling a spade a spade and a shovel a shovel!

It is not the Palestinians who are destroying us!

Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

Translated by means of AI

  1. Redox and Demos are two notorious Anti-Fascist organizations that gather information and plan attacks on right-wingers. ↩︎
  2. This realization is not new. You find it in the Laws of  Manus, a some 2000-year-old Sanskrit collection of fundamentals for human life, which – by the way – has also been claimed to be one of the foundations of the Quran.   ↩︎
  3. See, for example, the extremely popular Dirch Passer movie “Dust on the Brain” from 1961!! ↩︎
  4. Pat Thomas: Did It! From Yippie To Yuppie: Jerry Rubin, An American Revolutionary. Fantagraphics Books; First Edition. August 29, 2017.
    ↩︎

The Power of Punim: Further Thoughts on the Nasty Nazi Nathan Cofnas

/21 Comments/in /by

“Point and splutter.” I think it was Steve Sailer who devised that term to describe a common tactic of the left. When leftists want to expose an academic or writer as a bad person who should lose his job and be driven out of respectable society, they don’t use facts, logic and reasoned argument. No, they simply quote something that is self-evidently wicked in the eyes of all right-thinking — that is, left-thinking — people. In other words, they point at wickedness and splutter in outrage. They don’t attempt to address the arguments of the anathematized.

“Racist, pseudoscientific phrenology”

For example, when leftists wanted to expose the Jewish philosopher Nathan Cofnas as a nasty Nazi, they quoted self-evident thought-crime in his writing. But they didn’t address his arguments or evidence. Cofnas has described their point-and-splutter like this:

[The leftist journalist Elizabeth] Haigh declares that my “paper was widely debunked by various scientists” and makes the assertion (of dubious grammaticality) that “He argued against the idea of racism and structural racism for difference between peoples’ achievements, saying some groups of people are ‘unfairly blamed’”. She doesn’t give any details about the alleged debunking of my article. The fact that some unnamed “various scientists” criticised me for saying something politically unpopular is enough to try to start a campaign to threaten my employment. Haigh revealed her intentions more explicitly later when she retweeted a thread about me by a linguistics PhD student which said, “we have to stop letting ‘intelligence researchers’ dress up their racist, pseudoscientific phrenology and pretend it’s anything other than nonsense. these people should not have jobs. they shouldn’t be tolerated in polite society.” (“My ‘debunked’ views,” The Critic, 2nd November 2022)

To leftists, ideas like those are self-evidently wicked and unacceptable. If someone espouses them in public, what more need be said? Cofnas is a crimethinker. Vaporize him! That’s point-and-splutter. Obviously, Cofnas thinks that this is a highly unfair tactic. But he also has to admit that it’s highly effective. Presumably that’s why he decided to employ it against the Occidental Observer and me. He pointed-and-spluttered in one of his critiques of Kevin MacDonald:

Here is a passage from a recent, representative article published in The Occidental Observer:

He’s Jugly, as you might say: that is, he’s ugly in a characteristically Jewish way. I agree with a fascinating article at [the neo-Nazi magazine] National Vanguard arguing that “Jews themselves are an unattractive and, on average, ugly people” and that “Jews, as a group, oppose beauty.”…And why are Jews and leftists “on average, ugly people”?…And ugly Jewish brains have consistently created ugly ideologies that war on the “indissoluble Trinity of Truth, Beauty and Goodness.” (Langdon, 2021)

So MacDonald thinks that “there are no good Jews, nor can they be good” is a “good rule of thumb.” […] As editor of The Occidental Observer and The Occidental Quarterly [MacDonald] regularly publishes nasty, scientifically baseless screeds against Jews. (“Still No Evidence for a Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy,” Evolutionary Psychological Science, Volume 9, pages 236—259, 6th January 2023)

First of all, this article is hardly representative. TOO has posted very few articles on the topic of facial appearance. Cofnas is clearly cherry-picking an article he thinks will be effective in appealing to his audience. How about this series of articles by Szilard Csonthegyi on Bela Kun and Jewish-Hungarian conflict?  Or pick anything by Andrew Joyce, Brenton Sanderson, Horus, or  Marshall Yeats—not to mention MacDonald’s refutations of Cofnas—just to name a few.

And it’s ridiculous to claim that MacDonald thinks “there are no good Jews, nor can they be good.” Ron Unz has established perhaps the premier website for the dissident right, with many articles critical of Jews, including articles from TOO. Amy Wax, who invited Jared Taylor to her class at UPenn is another one that comes to mind. And Stephen Miller, Trump-administration stalwart on immigration (disowned by his synagogue). There are many more. But they don’t represent the power and influence of the mainstream Jewish community which is the main topic of TOO.

But more importantly, Cofnas is pointing-and-spluttering at my article “The Cult of Ugly: Leftist Lies, Jewish Junk, and the Malign Martyrdom of George Floyd.” He regards it as an example of the “nasty, scientifically baseless screeds against Jews” regularly published by Kevin MacDonald. Leftists have, of course, dismissed Cofnas’ own work as “nasty, scientifically baseless screeds against” Blacks and other non-Whites. They would also be happy to “debunk” Cofnas by noting that “the neo-Nazi magazine” National Vanguard shares his views on racial differences in intelligence. Well, I think that leftists are wrong about Cofnas’ ideas just as I think Cofnas is wrong about mine. In his ironically titled article “My ‘debunked’ views,” Cofnas reached this conclusion: “The reason we’re not allowed — on pain of (at least attempted) cancellation — to have frank discussions about the hereditarian hypothesis isn’t because it’s been ‘debunked’, but because it hasn’t been debunked.”

A short guide to debunking nasty Nazis like Nathan

I agree with that conclusion. But I also think that it applies to my pernicious punim hypothesis (punim is Yiddish for “face”). The reason decent people do not have frank discussions about Jewish ugliness isn’t because it’s been “debunked,” but because the reality upsets Jews like Nathan Cofnas. That’s why the topic is covered only in “nasty” publications like the Occidental Observer and “the neo-Nazi magazine” National Vanguard. Oh, and at TakiMag, where the Jewish writer David Cole once issued this “nasty, scientifically baseless screed”:

Christmas is supposed to be a holiday for Christians, but this year Santa’s bringing a very special present for America’s Jews: the gift of seeing Ruth Bader Ginsburg the way we wish she looked. Opening in theaters December 25th, On the Basis of Sex tells the story of a plucky young RBG as she risks everything in a quest to become a nationally known feminist hero. …

The actress portraying the young Ginsburg is Birmingham-born Felicity Jones, a Brit who is most definitely not Jewish, unlike the brittle SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] scarecrow she’s portraying. In fact, Jones could not look less Jewish if she tried. This girl is so Aryan, she could give Himmler’s corpse a boner. And yet she’s portraying a woman who — hmm, how to put this gently? — is the reason Jewish men often date outside the flock. Not since Warren Beatty decided to portray Dick Tracy without facial prosthetics has there been a greater physical disconnect between actor and subject. […]

So we [Jews] don’t mind the idealized images, because in a way they give us comfort. We don’t see what we can never become, but what we can [with the help of plastic surgery]. … She [Ginsburg]’s probably as pumped as everyone else to see her ethnically cleansed onscreen depiction.

Well, actually, not everyone’s pumped. It took some searching, but I finally found a roaring dissent in the sea of silence regarding the Ginsburg/Jones ethnic switcheroo. Marissa Korbel is a self-described “bleeding heart lawyer” and “award-winning essayist” who writes for Harper’s Bazaar, Guernica, and Bitch magazine. Last week, she penned a piece for the online literary journal The Rumpus that I’d wager is the single most honest piece of writing on the ’net regarding Jews and the Aryanization of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. … But don’t expect Korbel’s essay to be picked up by national Jewish news and opinion sites. Even its concluding and comforting descent into leftist banality can’t make up for the disquieting honesty of the rest of it. We Jews are generally an introspective lot, but every now and then we encounter an abyss into which even we prefer not to gaze, lest we find Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Semitic mug gazing back at us. (“Ruth Bader Ginsburg… Shiksa?”, Taki Mag, 25th December 2018)

Yucky yenta becomes yummy shiksa: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Felicity Jones

Like the neo-Nazis at National Vanguard and the anti-Semites at the Occidental Observer, David Cole at TakiMag is what might be called an ideological outlaw. Like them and us, he isn’t scared of “cancellation” and exile from respectable society because he’s already been cancelled and exiled. I’ve already said that I admire the moral courage of Nathan Cofnas and his willingness to address the dangerous topic of racial difference. But his moral courage will only take him so far. He doesn’t share Cole’s honesty and willingness to address the dangerous topic of Jewish ugliness and Jewish envy of White beauty. That’s perfectly understandable. What would happen if Cofnas addressed that topic, even without Cole’s bluntness and brutality? He’d anger and upset his fellow Jews, of course. Literally or metaphorically, he’d make his yiddishe momme cry. And he doesn’t want to do that.

Ashkenazi inbreeding

I think that’s why Cofnas pointed-and-spluttered about my article “The Cult of Ugly.” But I don’t think he was fair to the article. First of all, it argues that ugliness is characteristic of leftists, not just of Jews. Does Cofnas agree with that description of leftists or at least accept it as legitimate? Does he accept the scientific work finding that the right tend to be more attractive and healthier in various ways than the left? I linked in the article to the scientific ideas of Edward Dutton, who argues that leftism in general, and antifa in particular, is the ideology of “spiteful mutants.” Modern life and vastly reduced rates of infant mortality have relaxed selection against deleterious mutations, which are now affecting the brains and psychology of far more people. Leftists would, of course, reject Dutton’s ideas as “nasty” and “scientifically baseless.” Does Cofnas agree with the left?

I also said this in the article: “As for Jews and the ugliness of both their punims [faces] and their brains, note the studies that have identified marked inbreeding and higher rates of mental illness among Jews.” Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending have famously argued that selection among Jews for higher intelligence has also produced higher rates of neurological disease. Emil Kirkegaard has argued that raw intelligence and mental illness both contribute to Jewish genius. These studies are perfectly scientific. Does Cofnas accept that Ashkenazi Jews like himself are highly inbred and subject to higher rates of mental illness? If so, does he agree that this might influence the appearance, art and ideologies of Jews for the worse? Or is that completely impossible?

Distinctive personalities (and punims)

Let’s examine an interesting statement made by Cofnas in his anti-KMac paper at Evolutionary Psychological Science: “The fact that stereotypes tend to have a basis in reality (Jussim et al., 2015, 2016) and that Jews have been consistently stereotyped as having distinctive personalities — for example, as being ‘shrewd’ (Brigham, 1971) — provides preliminary support for the hypothesis of personality differences.” As Cofnas is presumably well aware, Jews have also been consistently stereotyped as having distinctive punims. To be blunt, there is a stereotype of Jewish ugliness. Does Cofnas accept that this stereotype could have “a basis in reality”? And is Cofnas himself distressed or disturbed by references to Jewish ugliness? He characterizes my article as “nasty,” which is an emotive rather than a scientific term. I can assure him that, to the best of my conscious knowledge, I was not seeking to distress Jews or leftists in any way. Instead, I was seeking to explore what I regard as a real and important phenomenon: the relationship between harmful leftist ideologies and the disproportionate ugliness of the people who espouse them.

Stereotype and reality #1: drawing of Jew by David Cole’s friend Nick Bougas, aka “A. Wyatt Mann;” photograph of Alan Ginsberg

Stereotype and reality #2: Jews have been consistently stereotyped as having distinctive punims (I can’t identify the couple in the photograph)

Cofnas himself undoubtedly recognizes that many Blacks and other non-Whites are distressed and disturbed by his claims about racial differences in intelligence. His work is “nasty” for them. It does not follow that it is also “scientifically baseless.” Now, I can perfectly understand and sympathize with non-Whites who are distressed by any claim that their particular racial group is of lower average intelligence. I can also see that their distress will be greater, not lesser, if the claim is scientifically strong and realistic. As the saying goes: The truth hurts. That’s why a crude statement like “Blacks are stupid” is hurtful to Blacks. It conforms to what Blacks reluctantly recognize as reality. The truth hurts.

The power of punim: some examples of characteristically Jewish ugliness

However, “Jews are stupid” isn’t at all hurtful to Jews. They know it doesn’t conform to reality. What’s hurtful to many or even most Jews is the crude statement “Jews are ugly.” And I think it’s hurtful to Jews because the it conforms to what Jews reluctantly recognize as reality. I also think that Nathan Cofnas is among the Jews who are emotionally hurt by claims about Jewish ugliness. Whether or not Cofnas will admit this is up to him. My evidence would include this selfie posted by Cofnas at his Substack site:

Jewish punim, gentile architecture: Nathan Cofnas poses at Emmanuel College, Cambridge

I don’t think that Nathan Cofnas is (hmm, how to put this gently?) a facially attractive individual. I also wonder about his full motives for choosing to pose in that particular location. The architectural background is beautiful. The facial foreground is less so. Now, I’m sure that Cofnas recognizes and appreciates the beauty of Cambridge University. And it would be perfectly understandable and acceptable that he felt pride at being a high-flier there. But I wonder whether the selfie was also expressing triumph over those surroundings in some way. The handsome goy Robert Taylor once starred in a movie called A Yank at Oxford (1938). Is Cofnas’ selfie intended to proclaim “A Kike at Cambridge”? (Please note that I’m using the term “kike” as an ironic Jew like Cofnas might use it, not to insult Cofnas.) After all, it contains an obvious contrast between beautiful gentile architecture and an unattractive Jewish punim.

That Jews can have hostile feelings about beautiful gentile architecture is proved by the Jewish writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely, who promoted the not-so-infamous hate-hoax about a female student being raped on broken glass by a fraternity at the University of Virginia (UVA). Erdely set the scene for the non-existent crime by describing “throngs of toned, tanned and overwhelmingly blond students [who] fanned across a landscape of neoclassical brick buildings” at UVA.

Why would Jewish Sabrina Rubin Erdely resent “toned, tanned and overwhelmingly blond” gentiles? (image from Wikipedia)

As Steve Sailer pointed out, dark-haired Erdely’s hate-hoax was clearly powered by anti-gentile malice. That’s why she wrote of “overwhelmingly blond students” and “neoclassical brick buildings.” I’d hypothesize that unattractive Nathan Cofnas shares some of unattractive Sabrina Erdely’s resentment about the beauty of White gentiles and their architecture. That isn’t a scientific hypothesis, of course. But that doesn’t make it impossible to verify. If Cofnas confirmed such feelings in himself, that would be a good proof. But if Cofnas denied them, I don’t think that would be a good disproof, just as I don’t think leftist denials are a good disproof of Cofnas’ claims about racial difference. Leftists think that Cofnas’ ideas are “nasty” and “scientifically baseless.” Cofnas thinks they’re wrong. So do I. But I also think that Cofnas is wrong to describe “The Cult of Ugly” as “nasty” and “scientifically baseless.” There is science to support the idea of a connexion between physical ugliness and pernicious ideologies.

But let’s suppose that no such science exists or ever could exist. That would still not enable Cofnas to dismiss “The Cult of Ugly” out of hand as worthless. It may indeed contain worthless ideas and conjectures, but more work would be needed to establish this. As a philosopher, Cofnas is no doubt aware that there is a large and ancient branch of philosophy known as aesthetics, which studies topics like beauty and ugliness, and their relation to politics and morality. Due to its antiquity, aesthetics was “scientifically baseless” for many centuries. Much or even most of aesthetics is still “scientifically baseless” today. Does Cofnas regard that as a good reason to dismiss this field and reject all of its political and moral conclusions? I hope he doesn’t.

Resentment and distress

I also hope that Cofnas doesn’t reject Steve Sailer’s writing on ethno-aesthetics as “nasty” and “scientifically baseless.” Just as Sailer has devised the term “point and splutter” to satirize leftist dishonesty, so he’s devised the term “World War Hair” to satirize Black women’s resentment about the greater sexual attractiveness of White women. The ability to grow long, straight, glossy hair in various natural colors is one of several strong advantages White women possess over Black women in the sexual marketplace. And over other non-White women. Naturally enough, non-White women resent this trichological toxicity, which is part of why non-White women in the media so often announce “Let’s Talk About My Hair” (as Sailer again puts it). We already know that Cofnas regards my article about leftist and Jewish ugliness as a “nasty, scientifically baseless screed.” Does Cofnas regard Sailer’s writing on Black women’s resentment as “nasty” and “scientifically baseless” too? I very much doubt it.

If I’m right, then Cofnas’ double standard would be understandable, but also ethnocentric. Indeed, it would be understandable because it was ethnocentric. It would be perfectly natural that, as a Jew, Cofnas could accept discussion of Black imperfections in a way he couldn’t accept discussion of Jewish imperfections. But there are some imperfections that Blacks and Jews have in common. For example, both of them are groups that, in my opinion, don’t belong in White societies partly because of the resentment they feel about superior White beauty. I don’t think that Nathan Cofnas is the “nasty Nazi” that, because of his racial views, many leftists would describe him as. But I do think that he is one of the many Jews who feel resentment about White gentile beauty and concomitant distress at any discussion of Jewish ugliness. It’s up to him whether he confirms, denies or ignores this allegation.

Jack Ohman on Tucker Carlson

/6 Comments/in /by

From Wiki: Jack Ohman (born September 1, 1960)[4][5] is an American editorial cartoonist and educator. He is currently a contributing opinion columnist and cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle.[6] He formerly worked for The Sacramento Bee and The Oregonian.[7] His work is syndicated nationwide to over 300 newspapers by Tribune Media Services.[4] In 2016, he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning.[8]

NYTimes: Prof. Amy Wax Suspended for Believing in Race Realism

/2 Comments/in /by

This is way worse than what happened to me at CSU-LB. All I had to deal with was hate and ostracism. And faculty resolutions and faculty Inquisitions. Wax (who is Jewish) says she will sue. I hope she does and wins in the Supreme Court.

Penn Suspends Amy Wax, Law Professor Accused of Making Racist Statements

The case tested the limits of academic freedom and tenure.

A brick building with large windows on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania.
The accusations against the professor, who had invited a white nationalist to her class and said that Black people and women were less intelligent, led students and others to call for her to be fired.Credit…Rachel Wisniewski for The New York Times

By Vimal Patel and Stephanie Saul

The university issued a “public letter of reprimand” to Dr. Wax describing the terms of her suspension, which will begin in the fall of 2025 and which also includes the loss of her named chair and the loss of summer pay in perpetuity.

Disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Wax tested the tenure protections of professors and whether such protections allow them to voice opinions that might be seen as inappropriate or downright insulting [but not untrue]. Many students said that they could not trust Dr. Wax to grade students without bias. But many professors — even those who found her comments profoundly racist — objected to disciplining her, on the grounds of academic freedom.

Among allegations against her were that she had described some non-Western countries as “shitholes” [all countries are equal and all would succeed if not for White racism, just like all races are equally intelligent…] and had said that “women, on average, are less knowledgeable than men [a reasonable point of view given Richard Lynn’s findings; in any case, they are less politically based].  She has said that Black people from the United States and people from non-Western countries feel shame for the “outsized achievements and contributions” of Western people [nothing angers non-Whites more than bringing up the relative accomplishments of the West versus the rest], and has derided as unrealistic television ads depicting “Black men married to white women in an upper-class picket-fence house” [Good for her! Pisses me off]. 

Dr. Wax denied making some of the comments and said that others were taken out of context.

She has also invited a white nationalist, Jared Taylor, to class [I’d love to see that. Jared is very articulate and convincing for all but those in the leftist fever swamps].

In a 12-page complaint filed in 2023, Theodore Ruger, the law school dean at the time, wrote that Dr. Wax had demonstrated “callous and flagrant disregard” for students, faculty and staff, subjecting them to “intentional and incessant racist, sexist, xenophobic and homophobic actions and statements.”

Her statements, the complaint added, “have led students and faculty to reasonably believe they will be subjected to discriminatory animus if they come into contact with her”[far more realistic to suppose that White students would be downgraded by woke professors for being White. Notice that no examples are given.] Mr. Ruger declined to comment on Monday.

Dr. Wax declined to comment on the decision. She has previously warned that she will sue the university if she is disciplined. A lawyer for Dr. Wax, David J. Shapiro, also declined to comment.

For several free speech groups, the case represented a threat to one of the key tenets of academic tenure — the right of faculty members to speak freely, without fear of punishment, whether in public or in the classroom.

Reacting to the suspension, Alex Morey, an official with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech group, said that Penn’s decision “should send a chill down the spine of every faculty member, not just at Penn but at every private institution around the country.”

Ms. Morey, the group’s director of campus rights advocacy, argued that Penn had altered its customary disciplinary procedure to prosecute Dr. Wax. She added that she was gratified that Penn had not revoked Dr. Wax’s tenure — an indication, she said, of how flimsy the accusations were.

Peter Wood, president of the conservative-leaning National Association of Scholars, where Dr. Wax serves on the board, accused the university of a “serious error of judgment.”

“Professor Wax’s various statements on race, gender, ethnicity, immigration, inculturation and other matters were entirely within the zone of academic freedom,” he said, predicting that Dr. Wax would not “back down.”

A former assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, Dr. Wax argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. Though Dr. Wax’s outspoken viewpoints have been a subject of debate for years, student demands for sanctions began in earnest in 2017, after she co-wrote an opinion article arguing that “all cultures are not equal.”

The long-running disciplinary case had gone before a faculty hearing committee. The university’s hearing board has said it does not dispute that academic freedom protects Dr. Wax’s speech, but said that she had violated “behavioral professional norms” in the way she presented her views.

The reprimand letter to Dr. Wax, dated Sept. 24 and signed by the university’s provost, John L. Jackson Jr., said that while academic freedom should be “very broad,” professors must conduct themselves “in a manner that conveys a willingness to assess all students fairly.”

It said Dr. Wax’s conduct had included making “sweeping generalizations about groups by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and immigration status. It also said that she had breached “the requirement that student grades be kept private by publicly speaking about the grades of law students by race, and continuing to do so even after being cautioned by the dean that it was a violation of university policy.”

The letter said that the university’s interim president, J. Larry Jameson, had confirmed the decision to suspend Dr. Wax. Because the academic year has already started, the suspension, which was first disclosed by The Philadelphia Inquirer, will not begin until next fall.

The letter also said that, in future public appearances, Dr. Wax must say that she was speaking for herself and not on behalf of the university.

Johann von Leers: ‘Judaism and Islam as Opposites’ (1942)

/8 Comments/in /by

Translated by Alexander Jacob

Johann von Leers (1902–1965) was one of the most important of the National Socialist ideologues. He joined the NSDAP in 1929, although he was at first associated with the Strasserist wing of the party. However, in 1933, he was hired by Goebbels to work in the Ministry of Propaganda. At the end of the war, Leers fled Germany and, in 1950, he migrated to Argentina. He was later persuaded by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al Husseini, to move to Egypt, where he converted to Islam. In Egypt, he served as political advisor in the Information Department under Nasser.

Leers’ numerous works written between 1933 and 1945 include Adolf Hitler (1933), Entwicklung des Nationalsozialismus von seinem Anfang bis zur Gegenwart (The development of National Socialism from its beginning to the present,1936), Judentum und Gaunertum (Jewry and the Underworld, 1940), Juden hinter Stalin (Jews behind Stalin, 1941), Die Verbrechernatur der Juden (The criminal nature of the Jews,1944), etc. One of his most interesting works is his refutation of Spengler’s Jahre der Entscheidung (The Decisive Years, 1933) called Spenglers weltpolitisches System und der Nationalsozialismus (1934), which detailed the differences between Spengler’s globalist politics and National Socialism. The present article, ‘Judentum und Islam als Gegensätze’,[1] sheds interesting light on the early history of Islam in Arabia, which Leers considers as having escaped Judaisation solely through the staunch faith and military efforts of Mohammed.

*   *   *

It is not uninteresting to read Jewish historians sometimes — not because one might find the truth in them but in order to get a glimpse into the psychology of the Jews. Now, here one thing is extraordinarily unique — wherever the Jews come to represent Mohammed and Islam they become expressly hostile, indeed hate-filled. Thus, Simon Dubnow describing Mohammed in his Weltgeschichte des jüdischen Volkes[2]  does not fail to remark that he was illiterate and then writes the following:

In this way there matures in the soul of this half-Bedouin the idea of monotheism, which becomes in him a glowing passion that incites him to a ‘holy war’ for which any means seems good enough. The knowledge of God is not coupled in Mohammed’s mind in any way with that noble moral consciousness that allows the ethical monotheism of the Biblical prophets, and even the one-sided Evangelical doctrine, to appear so attractive.  The life-story of Mohammed shows us no magical personality, no embodiment of that high moral principle that can captivate the believing mind more than revealed abstract ideas. The life story of the ‘messenger of Allah’, as well as that of the Koran itself, is full of examples precisely of how a religious founder should not speak and act. Behind the mask of a prophet there stares at us too often the glance of a semi-savage: the illumination of the seer is obscured by the raw passion of the Bedouin who murders ruthlessly in war and does not refrain from dragging the wife or the daughter of the murdered man into his harem. All these character traits of Mohammed are expressed in his  conduct towards the Jews of Arabia.

That is not historiography but, in fact, incitement and slander. First, Mohammed was not a Bedouin or a half-Bedouin but a member of the old urban, noble Quraish family in Mecca; then the Jewish Dubnow has clearly not read the Koran if he represents it in such a false way. But this passage betrays one thing definitely — the deadly hatred of the Jews even after 1400 years towards the man who created the youngest and, in many respects, most successful world religion.

The dispute between Mohammed and the Jews is not well-known but really very interesting. Already before the destruction of Jerusalem by Emperor Titus (A.D. 70) there were a few Jews in Arabia; after the destruction of Jerusalem large groups wandered in, settled in Arabian cities and conducted there a lively agitation for Judaism. In Arabia there dwelt particularly the three tribes, Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir and Banu Qurayza[3] in the city of Yathrib;[4] from there the Jewish agitation radiated; there the three above-mentioned Jewish tribes began their opposition to the two large Arabian tribes Aws and Khazraj,[5] incited one against the other and in this way acquired for themselves the mastery of the city.  It was an economic, settler- and trade penetration by the Jews, but especially an intellectual one. Of course, Christian influences also flowed alongside, from Byzantium and Abyssinia, but of all the foreign religious doctrines Judaism was the most widespread, most active and most successful.

The Jews have later tried to demonstrate how much Islam has borrowed from Judaism. It is part of the Jewish vanity to consider themselves always as the origin of all innovations. In reality many superficial things in which Islam and Judaism agree are not borrowed from Judaism but from ancient oriental folk customs. The prohibition of pork is an ancient hygienic practice in the orient because, in the climate there, this fatty meat is unhealthy, and besides there is the danger of trichinosis. If the Koran refers here and there to Jewish things, the reason for that is not that Mohammed learned from the Jews but rather that, through the active Jewish mission, a number of Jewish legends and ideas had entered among the Arabian folk. With the undisturbed continuation of this Jewish penetration there was the possibility that large parts of the Arabian people would be Judaised — just as they later accepted Islam.  Jewry would then have been able to unleash for their own benefit all those native military and political powers of the Arabian people with which the first caliphs established their powerful empire. The cavalry troops that later, under Omar,[6] conquered Egypt and Persia and which later pushed towards Spain and India would have been drawn into battle for the Talmud. The catastrophe for all of humanity would have been frightful.

The Arab people of the pre-Islamic period had little to fight the Jewish period with. The belief in their old city gods and nature gods was disintegrated and dissolved and no longer corresponded to the sober, clear intellectual thought of the people. We hear of men of that time who tried out many religions, of ‘hanifs’,[7] thinkers in search of religious clarity, of a healthy, clear lifestyle, of the will of God. The people were in a religious crisis and sought a way out.

Mohammed ibn Abdallah is supposed even as a boy to have encountered a Christian monk who recognized in him the future bearer of religious knowledge and urged his companions to protect him from the Jews, who would stalk him throughout his life. It is possible that the boy Mohammed already expressed something about the Jews at that time that revealed his perspicuity to the monk, who was perhaps well trained psychologically. But only as a man in his forties, after a highly successful life as a trader, did Mohammed become gripped and shaken by the religious question. Illumination came to him in the solitude of the mountain caves around Mecca. The German scholar Müller rightly says[8] — and this statement of a professional German clearly differs from the bursts of hatred of a Dubnow:

The mockers maligned him in all possible ways, that he was crazy, a fantasist, a swindler – but the logical certainty of his conduct, the uniformity of his entire life was never criticized and appears to us even today clearly from the Koran. … His total honesty in the Mecca period can even less be brought into doubt. The conditions of desperate anxiety that preceded the decisive vision, the truly admirable endurance with which the in-no-way stouthearted man had maintained his preaching for over a decade amidst the harshest persecutions, and finally under imminent danger to his life, without the least prospect of an eventual success, are clear proofs of the tremendous power of the idea, at first uncanny even to him, that had gripped him and that brought him, independently of his will, to the firm conviction that the inspirations that forced themselves onto his thought were revealed by God himself. Therewith we have the image of a genuine prophet.

For years he tried in Mecca to get through with his sermon that there is only one God, the only one, the merciful, the king at the Day of Judgement. To the Trinity of the Christians, he opposed the singleness of God, discarded the Christian doctrine of original sin and salvation and gave, rather, to every believer as a guiding principle the complete fulfilment of the commandments of the Good, given by a merciful and just God before whom every man must account for his deeds. As a consequence of the close relationship between the ruling strata in Mecca and the former idolatrous worship, he did not succeed in finding believers in his doctrine outside a small following in his own family. Then he came into contact with men from Yathrib, Arabs who had also heard of the Messiah prophecy of the Jews. These he united and converted to Islam. He succeeded through very clever dealings in reconciling to one another the two hostile Arab tribes of the Aws and the Khasraj in such a way that he had formed a political basis for himself when he left Mecca on 20 September 622 and moved to Medina.

Here he came, for the first time, in contact with the Jewish problem. He believed in the triumphant power of the Good in the world, he was of the firm conviction that the religion of the one God, with its easy, practical and reasonable principles for human life, was nothing but the original religion. He wished to lead men from all the confusion of the times, to the original clear vision of God and, since he had to deal with men who were influenced by Christianity as well as by Judaism, he said that this was the religion that Abraham (Ibrahim) had already had, that Christ and Moses had announced, except that men had every time disfigured it. This had been revealed to him anew by God. He wanted to make the path easier for the Christians as well as for the Jews; so he let the orientation of the prayers be directed right from the beginning to Jerusalem. He repeatedly stressed that he only wished to purify the existing religions and perpetuate the reestablished, the newly revealed, original religion.

At the same time he was a clever statesman. With the unification of the two Arab tribes the Jews became a minority in Medina. Mohammed guaranteed for them a sort of protectorate contract;[9] they could maintain their administration and their religion, help the believers in the defence of the city, not ally themselves with enemies of Mohammed and pay taxes for the wars of the believers. The Jews could have been contented with this. But they began a general incitement against Islam, which announced a pure concept of God and does not want to know anything about the world-rule promised to the Jews by Yahweh. The Jews took pleasure in driving Mohammed into a corner with scorn and devious questions and to pull apart his revelation with the indecent and cunning methods of Talmudic dialectics. They raged against him openly and secretly. This destroyed Mohammed’s patience and he complained:

The Peoples of the Book are pleased with what we have revealed but many of them have also joined together to dispute with one part of them. (Koran, Sura 13,36)

He now changed the direction of prayers to Mecca, he annulled the feasts on the days of atonement that coincided with the similarly named Jewish festival and introduced instead the fasting during Ramadan; he set up the call to prayer of the muezzin against the shofar, the horn of the Jewish synagogue. When the Meccans attacked him and in the victorious Battle of Badr Springs[10] — in which for the first time the triumphant call of victory ‘There is no God but God’ sounded — and were defeated by the believers, the Jews showed their deep hatred and enmity against Islam. The Jew Ibn al Ashraf[11] composed an elegiac poem for the fallen Meccans and declared that he preferred the old idols of the Arabs to the religion of Mohammed. The Jew Abu ’Afak[12] asks the Arabs of Medina, in an infamous satirical poem, to drive Mohammed out. It had become fully clear that the Jews combated the unification of the Arab peoples through Islam. Now the prophet struck back:

See the worst animals before God are those that do not believe, for they do not come to the faith — those with whom you have partly undertaken a contract, but they will shamelessly break your contract at every opportunity. Therefore, when you encounter them in war, make an example of them for those who stand behind them so that they may be warned, and if you fear betrayal from people throw, down their contract before them; God does not like betrayers. (Koran, Sura 8,57)

When the Jewish Banu Qaynuqa molested an Islamic woman, he had their quarter besieged and forced them to arms. Only the intercession of the influential Abdallah ibn Ubayy[13] saved them so that they could walk out, but even on his deathbed he said to Abdallah: ‘O Abdallah, did I not dissuade you from your love for the Jews? But you have not listened to me.’

But the other Jewish tribes were no better. A Jewish composer of satirical verses, Kaab ibn al Ashraf,[14] was killed by a Muslim because he publicly criticized Mohammed. The Banu Nadir with whom a new contract was undertaken used a defeat of the Muslims in the Battle of Uhud[15] to immediately become hostile again. Of this period His Eminence the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini,[16] provides the following authenticated record:[17]

While Mohammed was in a friendly relation with one part of the Jews, another section prepared an attack on his life. They persuaded a man to throw down a heavy block of stone on Mohammed’s head. An inner voice warned him to leave the square, and in this way the traitorous Jews could not carry out their plan. Mohammed sent one of his prosecutors to the Jews and had them say that they had to leave the city within ten days. They had broken the contract that they had undertaken with him since they sought his life. Every Jew who might be found in the city after ten days would be punished with death.

As soon as he had put down the attack of the Meccans, Mohammed proceeded against them and expelled them. In spite of their strong fortifications, the Jews had to leave. Mohammed has recorded his memory of this in Sura 59:

Whatever is in heaven and earth praises God and He is the powerful, the wise. It is He who drove the unbelievers among the Peoples of the Book from their homes and into the first exodus. You did not think that they would leave, and they thought their fortifications would protect them from God. But God came to them when they least expected and sowed fear in their hearts, they destroyed their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers. … They were like those who had lived recently before them; they tasted the evil of their affairs and they received a painful punishment.

But even the last Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza, violated trust and contract. They joined with the chieftain of the exiled Banu Nadir, the Jew Huyayy ibn Akhtab, and, when a great army of enemies of Mohammed was raised, offered to deliver the city to them. But Mohammed succeeded in forcing the retreat of the besiegers using a very skillful ploy — a big pit that he had dug out prevented the attacks of the hostile cavalry. Now he proceeded against the Banu Qurayza, closed down their quarter of the city and forced them to surrender. The Jews perhaps thought that they would get away with mere expulsion but Mohammed handed over the decision on their destiny to the sheikh of the Aws tribe, Saad ibn Muadh,[18]  whom they had wounded, and he demanded the execution of the Jews. In this way the 600 men of the tribe were killed. It was the only mass execution that the gentle Mohammed ever allowed to take place and it was, according to martial law, fully permissible since the Jews had conducted treason as armed allies. The Banu Qurayza were thereby exterminated but the remnants of them fled to Khaybar.[19] Mohammed besieged this city. In 628 he forced them to surrender. An old Islamic legend recounts that the Jewess Zaynab[20] invited Mohammed to a meal after the conclusion of the totally mild contract of capitulation. Here she offered a spicy roast meat. Mohammed’s armour-bearer, Bashir ibn al Baraa, hastily ate a piece of it but Mohammed did not swallow the first piece, which seemed remarkably evil tasting to him and stated immediately that the roast meat was poisoned. The armour-bearer died as a result of the poisoning. But Mohammed is supposed to have suffered poor health since then.

It is not well-known that the Jews contemptuously praise themselves even today that they poisoned Mohammed. Dubnow[21] writes with unconcealed joy:`

So even today the Jews rejoice in this crime! Even in Medina they sought once again to divide the Arab tribes there and to turn them away from Islam. They recited once again the old war- and battle-songs from the battles against one another and Mohammed himself had to ride to Medina and set things in order there. In his final years Mohammed combated the Jews systematically, drove them out of Tayma[22] and Wadi al Qura,[23] or at most permitted them to remain in certain places against the payment of a fee. The Koran is full of warnings regarding the Jews, who are called simply ‘Satans’. Mohammed also observed how many people are repeatedly corrupted by the Jews:

When they meet the believers they say ‘We believe’; but if they are alone with their Satans they say: ‘See, we stand with you and are just joking.’ God will mock them and let them go, blinded, farther astray in their rebellion. (Koran II, Sura 12,13)

Abu Hurayra[24] records the following statement of the great man of God: ‘The Day of Judgement will come only when the Muslims have defeated the Jews by exterminating them, when every stone and every tree behind which a Jew has hidden himself says to the believers: ‘Behind me stands a Jew, kill him’. Even on his deathbed Mohammed is supposed to have said: ‘There should not be two religions in Arabia.’ Among his successors Caliph Omar drove the Jews decisively from Arabia. They were placed under very restrictive and oppressive conditions that hindered Jewish activity completely. All the writers of that time, when the Islamic countries obeyed their own laws, agree that the Jews were especially mistrusted. On the other hand, the Jews hated Islam from the depths of their soul. One may remark here that even the Crusades were launched not in the smallest part by Jewish agitation, for the ‘Refutation’ of Islam written by the baptized Jew Petrus Alfonsi[25] was literally the only polemical literary source for the First Crusade from 1096 to 1099. The malicious distortion of the doctrines and the criticism of the personality of Mohammed that this Jew had concocted then passed into the literature of the Church against Islam and are found among the monks Petrus Reverendus, Gualterus de Sens, Guibert de Nogent Sous-Coucy,[26] Bishop Hildebert of Le Mans[27] and others, mostly French writers, who, through deliberate distortion of Islam –—but always based on the poisonous work of Petrus Alfonsi — unleashed the crusading fever in Europe.

Mohammed’s hostility to the Jews undoubtedly had one effect — eastern Jewry was fully paralysed by Islam. Its backbone was broken. The Jews of the east have had as little as no part in the powerful rise of Jewry to power in the last two centuries. Despised, the Jews vegetated in the dirty alleys of the mellahs,[28] lived under a special law that did not allow them, as Europe did, usury or dealing in stolen goods but held them under pressure and fear. If the remaining world had undertaken a similar procedure, we would not have had any Jewish Question today. To which one must add however that there were also Islamic rulers — among them the Spanish caliphs from the House of Muawiya[29] — who did not subscribe to the traditional Islamic hatred of the Jews — to their own detriment. But as a religion Islam has the immortal merit of having prevented the threatening conquest of Arabia by the Jews and having conquered the nightmarish doctrine of Yahweh through a pure religion that has opened the path for numerous peoples to a higher culture and given to its followers an education and human development such that even today a Muslim who is serious in his faith is one of the most admirable phenomena in this world of chaos.

[1] Published in Die Judenfrage, VII, pp. 275-278, 15 December 1942.

[2] Berlin, Vol. III, pp. 282ff.

[3] [The Jewish tribes seem to have moved from Judaea to the western coast of Arabia particularly after the Jewish-Roman wars of 66–135.] [All notes in box-brackets are by the translator.]

[4] [The old name of Medina]

[5] [These tribes had arrived in Arabia from Yemen. Mohammed’s great-grandmother belonged to the Khazraj.]

[6] [Omar ibn al Khattab (ca.583–644) was, after Abu Bakr, the second caliph and father-in-law of Mohammed.]

[7] [Hanifs are pre-Islamic Arabs who were Abrahamic monotheists though they were neither Jewish nor Christian.]

[8] August Müller, Der Islam im Morgen- und Abendlande, Vol.1, 57.

[9] [In the so-called ‘Constitution of Medina’ dated around 622.]

[10] [The Battle of Badr was fought in 624 near the present-day city of Badr in Saudi Arabia. It was won by Mohammed against the Meccan tribe of Qureshi led by Amr ibn Hisham. The Hashim clan to which Mohammed belonged was also part of the Qureshi, who were polytheists.]

[11] [Ka’ab ibn al Ashraf (d.ca.624) was a Jewish contemporary of Mohammed.]

[12] [Abu Afak (d. ca.624) was a Jewish poet who was killed on Mohammed’s orders.]

[13] [Abdallah ibn Ubayy (d.631) was a Khazraj chieftain in Medina.]

[14] [Kaab ibn al Ashraf (d.ca.624) was a Jewish leader and poet.]

[15] [The Battle of Uhud was fought after the Battle of Badr, where the Quraysh were defeated. At Uhud the latter succeeded in encircling the Muslims and stopping their advance.]

[16] [Amin al Husseini (1897-1974) was the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 to 1948. He also composed a tract in 1943 called Islam i Židovstvo (Islam and Judaism) for the SS Handschar, which was constituted mainly of Bosnian Muslims.]

[17] In the excellent work of Mohammed Sabry, Islam, Judentum und Bolschewismus [Berlin, 1938].

[18] [Saad ibn Muadh (ca.590-627) was a companion of Mohammed.]

[19] [Khaybar is an oasis near Medina that had been inhabited by Jewish tribes until the Battle of Khaybar in 628.]

[20] [Zaynab bint al Harith (d.629) was a Jewish woman who attempted to assassinate Mohammed after the Battle of Khaybar.]

[21] Op.cit., Vol.III, p.403.

[22] [An oasis in northwestern Arabia.]

[23] [A river bed north of Medina.]

[24] [Abu Hurayra was a companion of Mohammed who authored several hadiths, or narrations relating to the life of Mohammed.]

[25] [Petrus Alfonsi (d. ca.1116) was a converted Jew whose Dialogi contra Judaeos (1110) included refutations of Islam.]

[26] [Guibert de Nogent (ca.1055-1124) was a Benedictine historian and theologian who wrote a history of the First Crusade called Dei gesta per Francos (God’s deeds through the Franks, 1108).]

[27] [Hildebert de Lavardin (ca.1055-1133) was Bishop of Le Mans and, from 1125, Archbishop of Tours.]

[28] [A mellah is a fortified Jewish quarter in mediaeval Morocco.]

[29] [Muawiya (ca.500-680) was the first caliph of the Syrian Umayyad dynasty. An offshoot of the Umayyad dynasty ruled the Caliphate of Cordoba in Al Andalus.]

Wikipedia: The ADL is an unreliable source

/6 Comments/in /by

Wikipedia editors label the ADL as an unreliable source on the Israel-Palestine conflict | CNN Business

Wikipedia’s editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict [duh!], and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism. It’s a stunning rebuke to one of the world’s preeminent authorities on anti-Jewish hate and a significant advocate for the rights and causes of American Jews.

The editors, a group of volunteer moderators for one of the world’s most popular information websites, voted last week to label the ADL as a “generally unreliable” source on the Israel-Palestine conflict. That means that the ADL should usually not be cited in Wikipedia articles on that topic except for extraordinary circumstances. Other generally unreliable sources, according to Wikipedia editors, include Russian state media, Fox News’ political coverage and Amazon reviews.

The ADL also faces a vote from Wikipedia editors to potentially label the organization as unreliable on the topic of antisemitism [also obvious]. The editors overwhelmingly support that label but continue to debate the decision, which could ultimately deal a blow to the credibility of the leading source of research and information on antisemitism. JTA was first to report the vote.

The Wikipedia editors said in an online forum that the ADL’s dual role as an advocacy and research organization prevented it from providing unbiased accounts on Israel or antisemitism.

“The ADL is heavily biased regarding Israel/Palestine to the point of often acting as a pro-Israel lobbying organization,” [I’m shocked!] wrote an editor with the username Loki, who has edited more than 3,000 Wikipedia articles. “This can and does compromise its ability to accurately report facts regarding people and organizations that disagree with it on this issue, especially non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews and Jewish organizations.”

A minority of editors disagreed, arguing the editors voting in favor failed to provide evidence that the ADL has made false claims because of its advocacy work.

The ADL strongly rebuked the decision.

“It is deeply disturbing that the many editors who flagged the severe flaws and inaccuracies in both the reasoning and sources being used in this campaign to delegitimize ADL are being ignored,” an ADL spokesman said in a statement. “They have provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter.” [Facts have never stood in the way of anything the ADL says.]

Calling the decision “a sad development for research and education” and “devastating for the Jewish community and society,” the ADL said it would continue its work to fight antisemitism. But the spokesman warned Wikipedia’s action would prevent information on antisemitism from reaching the public. [Yes!]

ADL adapts to a changing world

Prior to Hamas’ deadly attack on Israel on October 7, the ADL had been largely focused on educating about and advocating for action against the rise in antisemitism around the world. That alarming trend included (and continues to include) a growing number of threats and anti-Jewish actions taken by White supremacist groups, and ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt became a frequent guest on television news, such as CNN. [The ADL has always had a lot of representation in the elite mainstream media. Of course, there are exceptions. They refused to come on Tucker Carlson’s show to discuss Jewish hypocrisy on their attitude toward immigration to the West versus immigration to Israel.]

After the events of October 7 and the ongoing war that followed, the ADL produced numerous reports about rising antisemitic hate speech and incidents, particularly on college campuses [but never provided appropriate contest, such as the 20-year blockade of Gaza]. It produced two report cards on universities’ actions to protect Jewish students, giving failing grades to more than a dozen colleges [with the result that, unlike BLM protesters who were treated with kid gloves, anti-Israel protesters face serious consequence, such as beating by Ziosnist thugs and campus police at UCLA, university discipline, etc.].

But the ADL faced some criticism for doubling down on what some detractors believed was an overly broad definition of antisemitism that included anti-Zionism and some anti-Israel speech and actions.

“ADL’s leadership has taken a much more aggressive stance than most academic researchers in blurring the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism,” said James Loeffler, professor of modern Jewish history at John Hopkins University. [Ya think??] “It’s clear from reading the Wikipedia editors’ conversation that they are heavily influenced by the ADL leadership’s comments.”

Greenblatt and the ADL made clear that political opposition to Israel’s government and policies were acceptable and not antisemitic. But those who denied Jews had the right to self-determination and freedom in their homeland were antisemitic, according to the ADL.

“Let’s make this very clear: Anti-Zionism is antisemitism,” Greenblatt said at an ADL “State of Hate” event in March. “Antizionism is a negation of Jewish history, a denial of Jewish humanity.”

That didn’t sit well with Wikipedia’s editors. For example, one editor, with the username Sameboat, claimed the ADL leader’s advocacy “demonstrates its skewed views and manipulative presentation on the IP (Israel-Palestine) topic and thus (is) highly unreliable.”  True.

Balancing advocacy with trusted information

The ADL has built an expertise in tracking antisemitic threats and hate groups and has done beneficial work in providing the world with information and data about antisemitism, particularly because so few organizations are doing that kind of research, noted Loeffler. And the fact that the ADL balances advocacy with research is not a new problem for the organization. [I.e., research that supports their advocacy.]

But Wikipedia’s decision may reflect a changing landscape that the ADL needs to reckon with. The war in Gaza has deeply divided people of all backgrounds, including Jews. The war has added significant ambiguity and complications to the world’s view of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

If Wikipedia’s editors are distancing themselves from the ADL, that could suggest media, academic and partnering advocacy organizations will think twice about how they approach ADL data in their own efforts to inform their audiences on antisemitism.

“The challenge to the ADL is to separate the advocacy from the data when it comes to the overall message,” Loeffler said. “I think this is going to be a difficult blow to the credibility to the ADL in its role on this issue. The staff there will continue to do rigorous work, but this will provide an opportunity for self-reflection.”

 

 

When Technology Kills

/2 Comments/in /by

When Technology Starts Killing – by Alexander Dugin (arktosjournal.com)