by Revilo P. Oliver – Liberty Bell, October 1989
In the August and September issues I commented rather sardonically on the recent appearance of two periodicals, each of which claims to be the legitimate continuation of the Truth Seeker while repudiating the principles on which its editorial policy was long based. I therefore hasten to report that the Truth Seeker which is published from P.O. Box 2832 in San Diego, California, has given proof of a rational courage that deserves recognition and sincere commendation.
Its issue for July-August 1989 is entirely devoted to “crimes of genital mutilation,” and it has dared to offend the aliens who now control the United States. The crime which concerns us is, of course, the barbaric and disgusting rite of circumcision, which is ably discussed in Nicholas Carter’s Routine Circumcision, the Tragic Myth (London, Londinium Press, 1979).
A section of the periodical is devoted to the circumcision of females (clitoridectomy and even more drastic forms of sexual mutilation), which is practised by the savage Congoids and Australoids and some Semitic tribes as a counterpart of male circumcision.(1) The details, which are often suppressed by pudibund ethnologists, will shock many naive readers, but are interesting to us only as evidence of the irremediable savagery of savages, although “do-gooders” will doubtless feel their morbid itch to filch part of the income of the stupid tax-payers to waste on sentimental folly.
(footnote 1. Although the Christians’ venerated Jew-Book, of which the oldest portions were written in the late sixth century B.C., contains no certain reference to the sexual mutilation of females, it was probably practised by the barbarians earlier and may have been practised as late as the Tenth Century A.D., when it was denounced by a rabbi because it scandalized the goyim (although it is now argued that he cannot have meant what he said). Cf. Edward Masters, Erotica Judaica (New York, Julian Press, 1967), pp. 27-29. It evidently is not part of the degradation routinely inflicted on Jewesses today.)
Several articles deal with the sexual mutilation of males by barbarians and Christians. I note especially the one by Gerald A. Larue; it is a pleasure to read an article by a man who knows when the text of the Septuagint is to be preferred to the Hebrew text, which was revised by the Masoretes, and who sees that while the early Christians naturally insisted on circumcision, Paul and Jews like him realized that their poisonous superstition could not be peddled to even the dregs of the population of the Roman Empire so long as it required a sexual mutilation to which no sane man of the less barbarous races would submit.
The practice of sexual and other mutilations (e.g., deformation of skulls by strapping the heads of infants between boards) doubtless arose in the fetid mass of the innately savage races, whence it spread, for reasons no sane man can imagine, to Hamitic and some Semitic peoples. As everyone knows, it had become normal among the mongrelized Egyptians when Herodotus observed them, late in the long history of that country. If we can rely on the tales incorporated in the “Old Testament” when it was put together, the Jews derived it (like their tribal god, the Yah whom they took from a Canaanite tribe) from other barbarians. What is noteworthy is that the two races that are capable of high civilization, the Aryans and the Mongolians, must have felt an instinctive repulsion from the obscenely insane custom, for there is no slightest trace of it in their oldest records.
When Aryans became infatuated by the cleverly adapted Jewish superstition, their natural abhorrence of the disgusting practice was checked by the notion that it was practised by the barbarians who had been, and perhaps still were, the pets of the ferocious deity they worshipped. They thus reluctantly tolerated the odious barbarians in their midst, but it is significant that although the Jews have long had great, though partly surreptitious, power in Europe and now control it, it is only in the United States that they found Aryans so culturally (and perhaps biologically) depleted that they could be persuaded to mutilate their own children and thus made it easy for Jews to conceal their race, whenever that is expedient.
Several articles deal with the psychic malformation of infants who have been subjected to the sadistic cruelty of circumcision, and add a little to Chapters VIII and X of Mr. Carter’s book. Infants are not fully conscious, since only the lembic part of their brain is operating and the neo-cortex will develop only slowly in the following years, but it is surely obvious from the effects of painful abuse on other mammals that the savage mutilation of infants must produce a shock from which the victim will never recover, although he will have no conscious recollection of it.
Several articles expose the foolish pretenses by which even educated men have tried to justify the atrocious custom as medically or morally justified. It is likely that in the Nineteenth Century the fictitious claims were partly motivated by a reluctance to recognize the barbarity of the disgusting rite to which, according to the “New Testament,” one-third of the Christians’ god was subjected in his terrestrial infancy.(2)
(footnote 2. Cf. the insane Jewish boast that “Great is circumcision, since but for it heaven and earth would not endure…. So great is circumcision that but for it the Holy One [i.e., Yahweh]…would not have created the universe,” quoted from the Talmud by Masters, loc. cit.)
Americans began to mutilate their male children only after the medical profession had been Judaized by Fishbein, who may have been sent to this country for that purpose, where his success was virtually guaranteed by the Americans’ cherished social disease, “democracy,” which reduces all social values to money or the current substitute for it. Medical men could not doubt the indisputable benefits of a rite by which they could make fifty bucks with a single clip. They talked, of course, about hygiene or repression of precocious sexuality or whatever the boobs were ready to believe, since it would have been tactless to mention the transcendental therapy of fifty bucks. And, no doubt, the assiduous propaganda carried on by their medical associations convinced many of them that there must be some physiological justification of the quickie surgery. Of course, a few infants do not survive the operation or are permanently crippled by its consequences (many instances cited and illustrated in the Truth Seeker), but the certain benefits outweighed the occasional risks–or did so until juries began to return large verdicts in malpractice suits.
Most readers will be astonished to discover, on page 51 of the periodical, that the California Medical Association, doubtless dominated by Sheenies, has become so brazen in its malice and greed that it officially claims that the sexual mutilation of male children serves to prevent syphilis, gonorrhoea, and other diseases of which the aetiology is well-known even to persons who have no medical knowledge at all.
The rabbi of a “Humanistic Jewish Congregation,” quoted on page 18 of the Truth Seeker, opines that the mutilation of male infants serves as a prophylactic against “AIDS,” and I think that Dr. Martin S. Alschul is right when he predicts (p.45) that this absurd claim will be taken up by Jews and venal physicians of other races who have a vested interest in perpetuating outrageous cruelty to newborn children. It will be particularly absurd because there is considerable evidence that a greatly disproportionate number of Jews have died and are dying from the African Plague, for which they evidently have a strong diathesis.
What makes this issue of the Truth Seeker so very remarkable is that the periodical is sponsoring (p.54) petitions for legislation by the various state legislatures that would make the barbaric rite a crime, a felony punishable by imprisonment and a fixed fine of $100,000, to be put in trust for the benefit of the mutilated child. An exception is made for the rare instances in which children are born with malformation that makes surgery necessary, but there is no exception on religious grounds. The protection of the law is extended to Jewish children.
I wonder whether the editors can have been fully aware of the risk they have taken. It is true that it would not be feasible to dynamite a post-office box, but they have an office and residences that can be discovered by the terrorists who destroyed the offices of the Institute for Historical Review by arson and dynamited the homes of several insubordinate goyim.
Aryans have in the past tried to suppress the revolting practices of the barbarians, but without success. In the second century B.C., the Seleucid monarch, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, forbade the sexual mutilation of children, but the Kikes in Palestine revolted and the colonies they had planted in all the nations of the civilized world abetted their fellow tribesmen, making particular use of the Romans whom they had cozened with professions of friendship and mutual interests, and Antiochus, who had intended to deal effectively with the infestation of his territory, turned eastward to deal with revolts in that part of his empire, leaving his civilizing work unfinished.
Although the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, tried hard to conciliate the Jews in the early part of his reign, he finally realized that nothing could abate the malice of the barbarians. He made no exception for them when he forbade castration and circumcision throughout the Empire. After his legions, in A.D. 135, suppressed the revolt let by a Jewish christ who called himself Bar-Kokhba, he converted Jerusalem into a civilized town, Colonia Aelia Capitolina, and forbade Jews to reside in it (though not, of course, in the rest of Palestine). When he died, three years later, his successor, the mild Antoninus Pius, relaxed the wholesome legislation, vainly hoping to conciliate the unappeasable hostes generis humani, but, of course, they conspired against him and he had to deal with another revolt.
So far as I can recall at the moment, Septimius Severus, who was not even a Roman but was of Punic or Berber stock from North Africa, was the last Roman Emperor (193-211) who tried to prohibit the obscene rite by which Jews were made “sons of the Covenant” with old Yahweh, who would help them take possession of the whole world.
No one has succeeded in solving the Jewish problem, not even prudent Roman Emperors, who had virtually unlimited authority and loyal legions to enforce it. It will be interesting to see what happens to the audacious editors who have now challenged the world’s wily and triumphant parasites.