2,705 words

The Icelandic government considered a bill in early 2018 banning the non-therapeutic circumcision of newborn boys. If passed, the law would have found such acts punishable by up to six years in prison. The reason for the ban, according to Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir, the member of Parliament who created the bill, was simply humane concern for boys’ welfare. “The bill only wants to protect the rights of the child to control his own body, and to make sure that no unnecessary surgery that could potentially harm the child is performed that early,” she stated. Makes sense, right? If circumcising someone against their will is ethically grotesque, then wouldn’t doing it to someone who hasn’t yet formed a will also be ethically grotesque? Wouldn’t it be just and fair to allow boys to decide for themselves if they wish to shed their foreskins once they’re 18?

Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) had plenty to say about this when he was strong-arming Iceland into submission soon after. If anyone had doubts that the ADL is an anti-white gangster organization, this little episode should quickly dispel them. In his letter to the Icelandic Parliament in March 2018, he stated:

Should Iceland ban male circumcision, making it impossible for Jews and Muslims to raise families in your country, we guarantee that Iceland will be celebrated by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other extremists. Even though anti-Semitism was surely not the impetus for the proposal, the result of its adoption will be the glorification of Iceland by the most despicable bigots. They will celebrate the ban as the first legislation in Europe since World War II towards making a country Judenrein, free of Jews.

Of course he said this. His goal is essentially Jewish conquest. He wants to place influential Jews everywhere, and correctly saw such a ban as an impediment to his insidious design. Note also how he and the ADL cling to the “white supremacist” bugbear and refer to such people — that is, you and me, dear reader — as “despicable bigots.” But being a Zionist organization, the ADL still has good things to say about Jewish supremacy in the Jewish state of Israel, where they are currently turning a winning war effort into an excuse — predetermined or not — to ethnically cleanse their Palestinian minority. Does this make Jonathan Greenblatt a despicable bigot as well?

The letter goes on to list the alleged medical benefits of circumcision and promote the idea that the ban would limit religious freedom. Greenblatt cites a 2012 statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) which claims that the benefits include “prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.” These claims may have some truth to them, but the issue here was infant circumcision (the Judaic commandment known as brit milah), not circumcision of adults, who would be much more likely to benefit from such protections. How many boys compared to men are expected to suffer from penile cancer or sexually transmitted diseases? Answer: not many.

Greenblatt neglects the large body of data citing circumcision’s harmful effects. He blows off the evolutionary purposes of the foreskin (or prepuce), which include protecting the penis from friction and abrasion as well as keeping its urethral opening free from ammonia and feces during infancy. He ignores the ethical quandaries surrounding the non-consensual, unnecessary, and irreversible removal of functional tissue. He also fails to mention the large number of medical organizations that oppose the practice. These include the British Medical Association, the Dutch Royal Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the Canadian Paediatric Society.

According to Doctors Opposing Circumcision, non-therapeutic circumcision of male infants is entirely unnecessary:

There is no valid diagnosis, no conservative treatment plan, no histology, no pathology, and no urgent need for amputation of healthy, nerve-dense tissue. At best it is cosmetic; at worst it is a mutilation, and never therapeutic for a neonate.

As for its supposed benefits, the organization further states:

If we circumcise 100,000 boys we allegedly prevent 900 transient, curable UTIs [urinary tract infections] (0.9 percent — many possibly iatrogenic; some even diagnostic) and one penile cancer case, in an 80-year-old (American Cancer Society statistics). We have also caused between 1,000 complications (one percent, AAP stats) or 5,000 to 7,000 complications (five to seven percent, British urology stats) including hundreds of permanent, sexually crippling, botched circumcisions and at least one death. The STD studies are murky and inconclusive and do not suggest prophylaxis worth even the immediate risk, let alone the lifetime losses.

Greenblatt didn’t even follow up on his own source, the AAP, which further stated that the “health benefits [of circumcision] are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns.” Talk about cherry picking quotations! Doctors Opposing Circumcision drives the nail into the coffin of Greenblatt’s argument with this gem, which discredits the AAP:

It should be noted that the AAP made this claim without conducting any quantitative or longitudinal analysis of the risks and benefits, and while admitting that the true rate of complications and the full impact — financial, emotional, or otherwise — of circumcision complications is unknown.

Greenblatt’s religious freedom argument is also weak. Banning circumcision doesn’t prevent anyone going to temple or worshipping how they want. Further, if a particular religion is the one true religion — or if a particular people is God’s chosen people — then it shouldn’t matter if boys wait 18 years to get snipped. They’re going to line up for the procedure, because of course they’ll be devoted to the one true God. Who wouldn’t be? And if not, then perhaps their parents, communities, and religious leaders should have done a better job of selling their religion to their young. This is on them, not the Icelandic people.

Greenblatt phrases his concerns thusly in his letter:

Such a ban would mean that no Jewish family could be raised in Iceland, and it is inconceivable that a Jewish community could remain in any country that prohibited brit milah.

He’s therefore implying that a ban on infant circumcision would cause Jews to leave a country of their own accord. Thank you, Mr. Greenblatt for the [ahem] tip. But again, this is on the Jews, not the Icelandic people. No one is being herded off in cattle cars or forced onto barges at bayonet point. So why should the Icelandic government care if Jews choose to leave because of a circumcision ban? After all, brit milah is a Jewish tradition, not an Icelandic one.

This is what I mean by Jewish conquest. Jewish supremacists such as Jonathan Greenblatt wish to Judaize as many nations as possible, and because so many of these nations are the ancestral homelands of whites, we have to assume an anti-white animus behind these efforts. Of course, Greenblatt could deny it and express support for white people. But he doesn’t do that. His organization once defined “racism” as

the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.

It also never speaks out against anti-white defamation, so we must conclude that there’s something else going on beside not wanting to keep boy members in one piece.

That something appears in the final section of Greenblatt’s letter. In it, he outright threatens the entire country of Iceland:

ADL has studied the pervasiveness of anti-Semitic content on social media, and we know that a relatively small number of extremists are able to amplify their message quickly and broadly through social media. ADL regularly reports on such phenomena, and we will report on extremist praise for Iceland. We urge you to consider the significant media attention, in the U.S, and internationally, paid to ADL reports on extremism. In the past six months alone, our research and experts have been featured on CNN and other cable TV channels, NBC and other broadcast TV, on 60 Minutes, the most watched TV news magazine in America, and in leading newspapers, including The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Given that 28% of Iceland’s tourists came from North America in 2016, Iceland’s standing in the U.S. should be of great concern from an economic perspective. We are confident that the vast majority of American tourists will avoid a country whose reputation is associated with Nazism, even if that association is not justified.

Let that sink in for a moment: “. . . even if that association is not justified.” So Jonathan Greenblatt and the ADL do not care if the Icelanders are innocent or guilty; they are prepared to make them suffer regardless. This is what I mean when I call Greenblatt and the ADL gangsters:

Gee, this is a real nice country ya got here, Iceland. Would be a real shame if something was to happen to it, if ya catch my drift. See, we got a lotta people in the media back in the States. In fact, you can say we kinda run the media over there — although I wouldn’t say that too loud if I was you. People might get the wrong impression. Irregardless, these friends of ours could be friends of yours, too — or at least not enemies, which, believe me, you do not want. Anyways, we can do this the easy way or the hard way — and either way is fine by me. And I implore you, Iceland, man to man, don’t put me to the test.

That’s my way of putting it. Here’s Greenblatt’s — and tell me which is more honest:

Individually, any of these three arguments should convince you to oppose a ban on male circumcision. Collectively, they should compel you to make the right decision and oppose the proposed ban.

Compel? This is offensive on so many levels. Who does Jonathan Greenblatt, this unelected Jewish chauvinist, think he is to compel anyone, let alone an entire nation, for the sake of his 250-odd co-religionists who lived there in 2018? And it’s not as if these people couldn’t have packed up and left for Israel if mutilating their baby boys meant that much to them. The legend of the wandering Jew has now gone the way of feudalism and the divine right of kings. Jews have a homeland and they should go there if they wish to live by their ancient traditions. This means they have no excuse other than sheer conquest when they attempt to bend gentiles outside of Israel to their will.

Now, let’s compare Greenblatt’s brief demarche to the letter sent to the Icelandic Parliament by the Children’s Health and Human Rights Partnership (CHHRP) at around the same time. It duly goes over the hazards of the procedure as well as its ethical quandaries and the shortcomings of the 2012 AAP statement. It also links to three PDFs which cover these issues comprehensively. Most importantly, instead of making crude threats like the ADL, the CHHRP — perhaps naïvely — appealed to the Icelandic government’s better nature:

We write today to respectfully request your support for the proposed restrictions on non-therapeutic male infant circumcision in Iceland. Our hope is that you will take a strong stand in favour of allowing males — when there is otherwise no immediate medical need — to decide upon and consent to circumcision at an age when they can fully understand the consequences. Such a stand would be consistent with the international movement of child protection advocates, especially paediatric and medical societies and children’s ombudspersons in Nordic countries, who recognize this issue as an important human rights concern.

Compared to this, it seems the ADL, with its ters,e 613-word missive, wasn’t even trying. And why should they try? They’re the most powerful Jewish supremacist organization in America, and they’re sitting on hundreds of millions, if not over a billion dollars. They can grab anyone by the short hairs and yank them any which way they want. The least we can do is not expect them be nice about it.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that the villains won in this little kerfuffle. The Icelandic Parliament ultimately rejected the circumcision ban, and were patted nicely on the head by their new boss in appreciation.

Now it’s time to dial this back a bit and be fair to Jonathan Greenblatt and the ADL. They are not calling for the mandatory circumcision of infant boys. Okay, fine. This is probably why it is difficult to motivate gentile majorities over the issue; it’s something they can easily opt out of. Further, what we see as conquest and gangsterism Jews such as Greenblatt see as necessary protection for a population that is always on the brink of genocide. This is the neuroticism of the Ashkenazim at work. Just being honest, boychiks, and if you can prove you’re not the neurotic ones and we are, I’m all ears. You can start by explaining how there is no truth whatsoever behind counter-Semitism, and then you can move on to exonerating the embarrassingly large number of radical Soviet Jews of the murder of tens of millions from 1917 to 1959. Good luck with that.

And then we can start talking about your holocaust.

As for the takeaways from this six-year-old news item, I count three. First, even if infant circumcision remains legal in the West, gentiles should never circumcise their infant boys unless they have a good medical reason to do so. The risks, drawbacks, and questionable ethics of the practice are too much to ignore — and I haven’t even discussed the role of the prepuce in sexual function. If Jews wish to circumcise their boys, that’s their business.

Secondly, infant circumcision is a front in the culture wars against Jewish hegemony, and the dissident Right would be remiss not to fight on it. In the West, Left-wing diaspora Jews currently wield disproportionate power, which is malignant for white majorities. Pushing for circumcision bans from Anchorage to Vladivostok will force organizations such as the ADL not only to expend resources in playing defense but also to risk the sort of thuggish optics for which Jonathan Greenblatt has a blind spot as all-encompassing as his bald scalp. So call your Congressman today and see what can be done.

Something, by the way, has already been done in the United States — so we’re not exactly starting from scratch. Over ten years ago, a San Diego organization called MGM Bill (Male Genital Mutilation Bill) pushed for the end of infant circumcision. They do not appear to be active at the moment, but their website is still up and running. They have a list of endorsements and resources, and they have an activist page, as well as the wording of the proposed bill itself. They also have — get this — a comic book.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you . . . Foreskin Man!

I cannot attest to the comic’s quality, but it certainly gets an A for effort — and if it means anything, Jonathan Greenblatt proclaimed it “grotesque.” If that’s not a full-throated endorsement, I don’t know what is.

The final takeaway from all this, ironically, has nothing to do with Jews and nothing to do with the risks and ethics of circumcision. Rather, it has everything to do with another Semitic religion which emphasizes — although not necessarily requires — male circumcision: Islam. Banning circumcision in places such as the United States can be seen as a form of Islam insurance. One day, as Christianity continues to fade into fecklessness and irrelevance, I predict that many young white men will be tempted to turn to an ascendant Islam for answers. Islam, after all, is a militant, masculine religion which, despite its formalized barbarism, can inoculate one against the radical Left. Unlike Judaism, however, it also proselytizes. If such a religious shift were about to happen, our goal should be to lose as few white men as possible, since Islam suits the temperament and needs of white populations about as well as Judaism does — namely, hardly at all.

If young white men are not already circumcised, then they will be less likely to convert to Islam in the first place.

I find it is always good to think outside the box when it comes to the future. One often doesn’t know what curveballs are coming one’s way until it’s too late. Banning circumcision today, however, would give us one less curveball to worry about tomorrow. That alone makes the ban worth it.