Counter-Currents
What could be more wholesome than a “Montana mom”?
Extortionist Tanya Gersh
2,180 words
Given that my early political development was on the Left, I believe the earliest experiences exposing me to a macro view of Jewish political behavior were in debates on circumcision.
The matter seemed pretty clear cut to me for this reason: even if the proposed benefits of infant circumcision were real, they were still only even supposed to materialize in those who (a) were incapable of basic hygiene, or (b) were highly promiscuous.
Even these benefits have been seriously questioned: a 2007 meta-analysis concluded that the impact of circumcision on HPV is non-existent; yet, apart from HIV, HPV was always used as the strongest evidence point for the efficacy of circumcision in disease-prevention because the evidence for an effect in other STDs is much, much weaker. There is quite strong evidence to suggest that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV, but I’ve just discussed in two recent articles how difficult HIV actually is to catch in the first place—HIV is a disease that generally only affects the most extreme of the extremely promiscuous. And it’s not irrelevant to note that the strongest evidence for the efficacy of circumcision in reducing risks of HIV comes from Africa: it isn’t white first world children who have lost their right to keep their foreskins by anal raping their way into mass epidemics of HIV.
Since there are at least some documented harms in at least some cases resulting from infant circumcision—evidence quite strongly suggests average reductions in sexual functioning and satisfaction in both men and women, even if not every single circumcised individual is harmed—why should the rule be to circumcise infants instead of waiting to target the intervention towards those whose unclean or extremely promiscuous behavior marks them as actually bearing high risks of facing the conditions that circumcision might benefit? How does it make sense to automatically circumcise every single infant at birth, reducing the sexual functioning of some of them, so that over a decade later the most extremely promiscuous will be less likely to acquire a disease through their own actively chosen behavior? Think about it: the argument here quite literally is that we should rescue people from their own poor choices by punishing their betters in infancy.
Inevitably, accusations of anti-Semitism would encroach into this debate.
Those who know me, I believe, would rank me as being capable of an unusually high degree of calm diplomacy in religious and political discussions of all kinds (even if I don’t always exercise that capacity to the absolute best of my ability). During this phase of my life, I was almost never an intentionally offensive edgelord, but I did wade deliberately into a very wide range of controversial topics out of curiosity. I found that I could ask questions and spur intriguing conversations with almost anyone, almost regardless of their point of view. Despite that, from the very beginning of these interactions it became clear to me that something about Jewish psychology was very unique.
I began to reply to the prevalent Jewish accusation that the anti-circumcision movement was motivated by anti-Semitism like so. When faced with the argument that the anti-circumcision movement was anti-religious freedom, I would ask: what if Christian parents were demanding the right to ink or scar Christian crosses all the way down their infants’ backs?
Would any of us feel the same way if the argument we were having was on whether Christian parents have the right to brand their children with Christian tattoos? The obvious answer is: of course we wouldn’t. In fact, even the most extreme Christians I’ve ever come to know in my personal life would never defend something like this.
To the extent that “religious freedom” is the real concern in this equation, shouldn’t that specifically be a reason to oppose the practice? Properly applied, shouldn’t that right belong to children who should have the freedom to grow up and choose their own religious beliefs and not be branded with the permanent religious symbols of their parents, and not the parents who so want to brand them?
Thus, to the extent that circumcision was a matter of “religious freedom” and not any purportedly objective medical benefits to the procedure, it seemed clear to me that this “religious freedom” argument was faulty. And in this case, no less, I was applying that principle specifically to include ethnically Jewish children themselves. At this time, my premises were still universalistic enough that I really did mean this with the utmost sincerity. So I tried to spur continued thought, discussion, and reasoning through the use of this particular analogy.
I was probing for an open, philosophically oriented conversation of a kind that I had found that I could, by and large, have with most people on almost any side of almost any argument I had encountered yet, from animal rights topics to environmentalism. Exceptions to this trend existed, of course, but they were always in the minority. Most Christians would engage with my sincere critical questions about Christianity by granting sincerity in return. Most libertarians would engage with my sincere critical questions about the libertarian stance on environmentalism by granting sincerity in return.
Yet, I found that no matter how calmly or politely I tried to challenge this view that the anti-circumcision movement was being fundamentally driven by hatred of Jews, the very fact that I was even trying to challenge that argument at all simply meant that I also hated Jews. I had, quite earnestly, never encountered a debate on any other topic in which any party to it was simultaneously so hostile and aggressive towards the other parties involved and yet also so hair-trigger sensitive to see themselves as the innocent, aggrieved victims of abuse themselves.
This was the beginning of a long string of experiences of which I never noticed the obvious pattern until much later. There was the Jewish girl I spent hours talking to and almost formed a significant relationship with who suddenly snapped into a violent, abusive top-of-the-lung screaming fit I could do absolutely nothing to pull her out of when I made a very brief, tepid joke comparing someone whose authoritarianism we were bonding over our mutual dislike towards with Hitler. During the entire screaming fit in which she ranted about how I didn’t understand Jewish people, I just couldn’t stop facing the irony that she had far more privilege in her individual life than I ever came close to having—her parents had been able to afford sending her overseas more than once, and were able to pay to get her into a really good college; these were things that I could only dream of.
More recently, there was the debacle in which Jewish realtor Tanya Gersh initiated contact with Sherry Spencer—Richard Spencer’s mother—and began demanding she sell her apartment building and donate some portion of the proceeds to pro-diversity and pro-Jewish causes. In Ms. Spencer’s own words:
On November 22, Gersh and I spoke on the phone. She relayed to me that if I did not sell my building, 200 protesters and national media would show up outside — which would drive down the property value — until I complied.
Quite rightly, our people as well as people who have nothing to do with us saw the injustice of attacking the man’s mother because of her son’s political views. In a different world, these people would be celebrated for their sense of justice towards women and refusal to accept punishing a woman for the (supposed) sins of a man. And so people spoke out in large numbers to call this what it was: extortion.
Tanya Gersh ended up appearing in a video for VICE News in which she made bewildered complaints about the supposed “anti-Semitism” she faced as a result of her supposedly innocent behavior. Yet, even when VICE News pre-selects the supposedly most racist examples of horrific hate mail Ms. Gersh received, we can pause the frames for ourselves and see just exactly how chilling this supposed racist hate mail actually is. At 5m33s into this clip, a prime example reads:
“Dear Tanya, You must have realized by now that what you did to Mrs. Spencer was not only illegal, but very, very ugly . . . Perhaps your heartfelt and public apologies are in order. What do you think? This is not the intolerant (sic) attitude towards others that you embrace. Stop hating. Two wrongs do not make a right. Bob.”
At 5m28s, another example reads:
“Dear Mrs. Gersh: Thanks to your attempts to extort money from Sherry Spencer, a private citizen of Whitefish, by threatening political protests because you disagree with the political beliefs of her son, please understand that outraged Americans (NOT NEO-NAZIS) find your conduct un-American and unbecoming . . .”
Sherry Spencer (Right): Some Montana moms matter more than others.
And yet, despite the fact that extortion is in fact exactly the accurate description for the behavior Mrs. Gersh employed towards Mrs. Spencer, the mainstream American media has never given any sympathetic display of the plight faced by Mrs. Spencer, attacked for views they have no reason whatsoever to believe she personally holds—but Mrs. Gersh is allowed to cry on air about how awful it was to receive letters that simply described her behavior accurately.
There is a saying dating all the way back to the 19th century in Poland that goes, “The Jew cries out as he strikes you.” If I were exposed to this kind of statement earlier on in my youth, I would have immediately recoiled at what would have felt like bizarrely blatant racism. And were Mrs. Gersh herself to read these words, I’m quite certain the fact that I’ve mentioned it would totally discredit any soul-searching she might possibly have been otherwise inclined to consider performing over her behaviors towards Mrs. Spencer, while only further validating in her mind the notion that only livid Jew-haters could possibly object to the way she behaved towards an innocent mother.
But at some point, I simply couldn’t help wondering if it was merely coincidence that a saying that came all the way from the 19th-century in Poland applied perfectly to my experiences in the 21st century in America. How could a statement derived in such a vastly different time and place be so obviously apt here and now? Here Tanya Gersh was literally crying as she struck someone on TV right in front of me.
I could see Jews crying out as oppressed victims as they demanded that we continue cutting up infant penises, even dropping the pretense of claiming medical benefits to the procedure to explicitly advance the argument that the bottom line is that branding a child with symbols of the parents’ religion should be a fundamental religious right. And I could see them crying out at my supposed hatred as they struck me for seeing children as the most important parties here and attempting to engage in a sincere debate about where the appropriate limits of “religious freedom” in a humanistic democracy ought to lie. I could see Jews crying out that books authored by other Jews detailing the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy were anti-Semitic even as they organized to advocate for striking innocents in foreign country after foreign country with bombs. Now I see Tanya Gersh crying out that sincere letters that merely ask her to refrain from her manipulative behavior are abusive even as she strikes an innocent mother with extortionist threats.
One might want to argue that this psychological and behavioral tendency developed as a particular historical response to the Holocaust, let’s say. In doing so, one would be giving the tendency a contingent explanation rooted to a particular place and time. But how then to explain that the exact same observation really was made two centuries ago in a completely different part of the Earth?
It took years before I was finally willing to acknowledge this overwhelming pattern in my own first-hand experiences—for a long time I simply took these kinds of issues one by one. I would work to the best of my ability to convince Jews concerned about anti-Semitism in the circumcision debate that I really was concerned about giving justice to Jewish children as much as anyone else. And then I would work to the best of my ability to convince Jews concerned about anti-Semitism in the foreign policy debate that I really was simply concerned about the mass bombing of innocents, and would be concerned to oppose an Arab lobby advocating that we bomb Israel as strongly as I was concerned about the Israeli lobby at present. And then I would work to the best of my ability to get across to someone like Tanya Gersh why she ought to empathize more with the kind of experience she put Sherry Spencer through if her own experiences was as understandably traumatizing for her as it was.
It should go without saying here, of course, that none of this ever worked despite how genuine my sincerity always was. Jordan Peterson has argued that one of the best ways to damage a person psychologically is not to ignore them, and not to punish them too harshly for doing bad things, but to punish them for doing good things. My sincerest desires for humanism were hounded with verbal abuse to the point that they eventually underwent outright behavioral extinction. Yet, I still never once consciously formed racial stereotypes of these behaviors. But after a lifetime of experiences like these, I eventually became someone who was at least willing to listen to more fundamental explanations for why these kinds of behavioral trends exist when I was finally presented with them …
(To be continued…)
19 comments
I’ve often wondered about the impetus for the movement to circumcise white Christian babies. When and where did it start? I bet it was just a way for doctors to make money—they charge for procedures. Yes, babies have lost their penises from botched circumcision. It’s done without anaesthesia. I wonder if this is psychologically damaging to babies.
John Harvey Kellogg was a very vocal proponent of circumcision as a way to combat masturbatory urges, or “self-abuse” as the esteemed inventor of Corn Flakes termed it back in the late 1800s. Over time, the (extremely flimsy) medical justifications have changed and morphed with the times. And yes, babies exhibit increased cortisol (stress hormone) levels for months following the procedure.
But hey, at least nobody will think the baby is antisemitic, that’s what really matters.
Not to mention the Viagras of the world which only came into existence cause the babies they started circumcising en masse following WWII grew up and started losing feeling down there.
This theory has no basis in medical reality.
Really?
https://web.archive.org/web/20130831161657/http://www.mensstudies.com/content/2772r13175400432/?p=a7068101fbdd48819f10dd04dc1e19fb&pi=4
The foreskin has an abundance of nerve endings, enhancing sexual pleasure for men. And, certainly, traumatic circumcisions do occur, and result in compromised pleasure… potentially necessitating the use medications that induce tumescence. But sildenafil (the active ingredient in Viagra) was not developed to treat traumatized penises. It was studies for the purpose of treating high blood pressure and heart disease. It was found to be of almost no practical use for those conditions, but to help drastically with ED, so its clinical indications shifted. Not unlike how minoxidil (Rogaine’s active ingredient) was initially created to treat high blood pressure, but is now used almost exclusively for hair regrowth/retention.
Tanya Gersh’s Mafia behavior toward Richard Spencer’s mother had I think the following objectives :
1) Chase her out of the city as a punishment for her son’s political views.
2) Make a quick buck as a realtor by forcing her to sell her property via her.
3) Sell the property below the market price to a fellow Jew and then get some extra money from the buyer as a gift.
4) Force Richard Spencer’s mother to donate to Jewish (anti-White) causes.
When things didn’t go as desired she fell back to typical Jewish theatrical “victim” behavior, in which she was of course massively supported by the whole mishpucka.
Jews will always be Jews.
” I eventually became someone who was at least willing to listen to more fundamental explanations for why these kinds of behavioral trends exist when I was finally presented with them.”
The Jews are hardwired differently than us. You would not demand an explanation from a tiger, lion, or bear (Oh, My!) why it is eating you. You know why it is eating you–that’s what they do. White people need to wake up to this fact when dealing with Jews; the serpent is twined around our body, and its fangs are buried in our throat. We must rip the serpent off, and kill it!
I can’t say I agree with the “kill it” part, but you are correct that they are a prey species. Semites in general hate manual labor and only survive because of being sand dune Beverly hillbillies as in the case of the Saudis or masterful BS artists like (((our friends))).
One paragraph of the Hagaddah (translation: “telling over”) recited by Jews on Passover contains the following excerpt (translated): “For not only one, alone, has risen against us to destroy us; rather, in every single generation, [they] rise against us to destroy us, and the Lord saves us from their hands.”
The “they” is generic; it’s not a reference to any particular enemy. From youth, Jews are inculcated with a sense of perennial, unimpeachable victimhood. This pathology leads to a great number of deleterious effects on host societies – including the impossibility of arguing with Jews in good faith when it comes to religious matters. I wish more than most that it weren’t so, but it is.
“…One paragraph of the Hagaddah…”
Dov, I’m aware of that paragraph, but think about this: many virulent anti-White Jews are atheist, don’t believe in any “Lord” who can save them from anyone’s hands.
Their sociopathic mentality and behaviors go far beyond any religious origin, my friend. The religious peculiarities (in their Orthodox Judaism and their Talmud) are mere echoes of what was already there before their “religion” was dreamed up, echoes of their own innermost selves. That’s why, religious or not, every Jew is 100% a RACE-ist. They understand that race is everything in terms of importance. This intense ethnocentrism is actually admirable, apart from their parasitism that is. I wish we Whites were even half as ethnocentric towards our own! We used to be… back before we were forced into their Oz, placed under their “god-spell” (which is the actual meaning of the term “gospel”), and started diluting our blood with blood from inferior races.
Their religion(s) –both their Judaism/Talmud and “our” suicide-cult called Christianity– are but echoes of the races’ world-views who spawned them, as opposed to they, the religions, being the things that spawned the world-views of the believers.
I have always taken a different view, Jim – I understand the ethnic identity of Jews to be a consequence of thousands of years of religious incongruence with host societies.
This is a very brave essay that I can empatgise with and that sheds new light on the Jewish issue. I am saving it for later reference.
This seems like an attempt at justification. I suppose it comes because when you are raised in an environment of cultural Christianity (aka cultural Marxism), as we all have been, then you are told that God is love, and the brotherhood of man is assumed. Love doesn’t need a reason, but somehow, hatred must justify itself.
Actually though, you don’t need a reason to hate Jews, any more than you need a reason to love your race. Do dogs need a reason to hate cats?
Mearsheimer & Walt are not Jewish.
If the truth makes Jews look bad, it must be because the truth is antisemitic.
Most of the “health benefit” arguments for circumcision come from goys who are trying to retroactively justify their own/their children’s circumcisions, which they know on some level they only agreed to out of an unthinking herd like mentality.
Jews usually don’t try to justify it except to say that they do it because they’re Jewish, which is usually as much justification as they offer for literally anything.
I have noticed though, among under 35 liberal Jews, the kind of Jews who have bought into their own psy-ops and would probably earnestly support #openbordersforisrael, that they are turning against circumcision for the logical reasons that everyone else is turning against it, consent and whatnot.
So it’s only the older, ethnocentric, Zionist Jews who still defend circumcision. The young multi kulti Jews are starting to slowly abandon the practice.
It seems to me that in general Jews have strong internal social cohesion while whites have none. IOW their primary loyalty is to other Jews regardless of what country they live in. Thus the prevalence of dual citizenship with Israel. Even if not formalized, any Jew in the US can opt to live in Israel. Dual citizenship is almost by definition divided loyalty. Whites almost never have primary loyalty to other whites. The charge of racism is used as a weapon against whites (n only against whites) precisely to block this. Racism is not a crime. It’s a cultural phenomenon, a social value that is disapproved only when found in whites.
As I’ve said before, whites lack only 2 things to successfully defend themselves n regain their former internal cohesion: regaining ownership of the heights of mass media (which means expropriating them from disloyal Jewish ownership) n an excess of white babies.
American whites have never had internal cohesion, especially on the race question. During the Civil War mass media as we know it today didn’t exist, the country was almost 100% Christian, and yet among whites there was disagreement about race to the point of fratricidal violence. Immediately after the war whites advanced negroes to legal equality with themselves, amending their Constitution to do so. Segregation was a minority response that was doomed from the start. It wasn’t nationwide, but primarily concentrated in the South. Ineffectual organizations such as the American Colonization Society showed how unserious they were by only calling for and assisting voluntary repatriation. There were no calls by them, and still less by whites at large, for forced deportation. Unsurprisingly, only a tiny fraction of negroes, about 3%, ever volunteered to leave.
Miscegenation laws were spotty, just like the segregation statutes. Some states had them, others didn’t. Some barred certain combinations of races, but allowed others. There was no white unity, and never any federal statute about this.
The 1924 Immigration Act is sometimes falsely depicted as a moment of white unity, but this is a canard, easily dispelled by anyone who takes the trouble to read the Act itself. Was it against Jews? Hardly. The word “Jew” doesn’t even occur in the text. Was it racial? Not at all. Though it restricted immigration from Europe to quotas by country, it explicitly allowed for unlimited (i.e., non-quota) immigration from Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, and Central and South America. Section 4.(c) of the Act defined non-quota immigrants, and I quote:
Non-quota immigrants.
Sec. 4. (c) An immigrant who was born in the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland, the Republic of Mexico, the Republic of Cuba, the Republics of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, the Canal Zone, or an independent country of Central or South America, and his wife, and his unmarried children under 18 years of age, if accompanying or following to join him;
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment