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?
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s Solzhenitsyn and the Right here.
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 terse 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.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s young adult novel The No College Club here.
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.
28 comments
I’d heard about this briefly when it was rounded upon and then it went by the way of all cultural and social decency that alludes Jews – the offending politics of Iceland disappeared. Great article. It shows GroinBlatt for what he is, a beast, purveyor of harm to children and the epitome of obnoxious expectant obsequiousness. Like the child catcher in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, children of all faiths and none should run a mile in his presence.
Foreskin man doesn’t even need to be a good graphic novel, the fact it exists is enough.
I knew I’d read something about this before.
https://www.newsweek.com/rabbi-infant-penis-herpes-1460790
That is utterly repellent and indefensible.
A future white ethno-state will have to face the question of who precisely is white. Often it is obvious, but sometimes it is not. Some people are white while others merely look white at first blush.
A ban on genital mutilation should be inscribed in the constitution of our future Whitetopia. Make this barbaric practice punishable by death if performed on children so that its practitioners will get the message loud and clear. People like Greenblatt who aren’t white but “look white” will self-select and self-deport.
Rich Houck alerts me of an article on this topic he wrote a few years ago. Check it out.
https://counter-currents.com/2018/07/eric-cloppers-sex-circumcision/
“Should Iceland ban male circumcision, making it impossible for Jews and Muslims to raise families in your country,…”
Jews & Muslims have their own countries, hence, should not be in Iceland.
It is good that Greenblatt explicitly acknowledged that Iceland is the country of Icelanders saying, “making it impossible for Jews and Muslims to raise families in your country.”
Yes. Well it is their country not yours. There is a schizophrenic misunderstanding of sovereignty here. He acknowledges it as their country, but then wants to deny its people their sovereignty, thus meaning it isn’t really theirs. The arrogance is astounding. It is as if he forgets, that his country was granted to him by the Occidental Gentile and that its financial and military well-being are entirely underwritten by the Occidental Gentile.
That is what is so galling about this situation. They have a country of their own, thanks to us. Yet, that isn’t enough. We are the guarantor of his nation and rather than having the gratitude to respect our customs, habits, and laws, we must forfeit our sovereignty in our countries because he says so? The lack of emotional intelligence, humility, gratitude and capacity for mutual respect is absolutely monumental. I thought that the Ashkenazi were the world’s leaders in that type of IQ. If they are the leaders in it, then they are also the leaders in gall.
It is a ludicrous position when you look at it in totality. Go to your homeland and practice your rites. Sovereignty for me but not for thee.
As astounding is that the Occidental Gentile is so brow beaten and cowed that he allows himself to be treated like this. He has the whip hand. Why we don’t or can’t say, ‘do you want your gift basket of military tech, munitions, medical care and transportation infrastructure this year? Oh you do? Then stay out of our affairs, and btw Greenblatt is being deported. If he or one of you ever meddles in our media and legislative process again, be it from our soil or yours, he is being extradited and will be subject to prosecution as a foreign agent undercutting the sovereignty of our people.’ It is truly shameful and humiliating the position we permit ourselves to be in.
“As astounding is that the Occidental Gentile is so brow beaten and cowed that he allows himself to be treated like this.” Exactly! This is on the people of Iceland to allow themselves being controlled by others. (The Icelandic Parliament ultimately rejected the circumcision ban,).
it’s not what our enemies do, it’s what we don’t do.
A frozen island nation way out in the North Atlantic passes a law saying you can’t cut on a child’s private parts, and the alarm bells go off at some big Zionist foundation? It must really suck to be that neurotic. Pitiable.
Anyway, I feel bad for all the kids (Jewish and otherwise) who got cut as babies and then grow up and decide they want to be atheists or some religion that doesn’t require Bronze Age genital surgery.
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1420457
And Bobby also made sure that he was buried in a Christian cemetery in Iceland. Just for revenge, I think; I don’t believe he was religious.
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/24023886/bobby-fischer
I think the rhetoric about the ADL acting like a mafia regarding this matter is spot on. The, “We urge you to consider the significant media attention, in the U.S, and internationally, paid to ADL reports on extremism” is a mirror image of a mafia shakedown. It also begs the question if this law was a sort of artifice to keep Jews and Muslims out of the country without being overtly racial about it.
With that in mind, I don’t think there is anything wrong with infant circumcision. I don’t particularly get the “the baby doesn’t consent to it!” argument. There are many decisions parents make for their children. As opposed to the barbaric practice of female circumcision, there are documented health benefits of circumcision. Therefore, parents deciding to circumcise their son is a health/medical decision in addition to a cultural/religious choice where applicable. My beef, maybe not the best word be be using in this context, with the article is it mentions how thigs like penile cancer is something a man, not a boy is more likely to deal with. This argument is disingenuous as that is precisely a reason why a parent would want to circumcise their son as a prophylactic against penile cancer, phimosis, reduced risks of STD’s should he end up a libertine Lothario, etc.
I also think it’s going to be a tough sell for God-fearing people what with it being mentioned in the Bible. I can sort of see why. I couldn’t image the high priest about to do his yom kippur ritual in the holy of holies smelling of smegma. Sorry, an article on foreskin we got to have at least one smegma joke there.
I don’t particularly get the “the baby doesn’t consent to it!” argument. There are many decisions parents make for their children.
I agree with Mr Cato’s comments above, that a ban would be a further infringement on parental authority,
I’ll make it easy for you: when you circumcise a baby, you are circumcising a man. The loss stays for life. Capisce?
You know damn well that “making decisions for one’s children” does not include a right to consent to the removal of normal, healthy, functioning body parts. So quit yanking our chain.
Mind you, there’s lots of hopelessly brain-dead people out there who do whatever a Medical Doctor advises them to do, so I guess sending word as to the normalcy of the human body as born would be in vain.
You seem very exercised about the subject. I’m not.
The sons of two men I know have had infections of the foreskin which spread and in the absence of effective antibiotics would likely have threatened the viability of the penis. Now you could argue that such eventualities should just be allowed to play out and that’s nature’s way of ensuring fitness or you could argue that cultural practices which involve removing it in early infancy. when there will be no recall, were very defensible and may have even been very sensible in the very recent past when a skin infection could easily become life-threatening.
Whether you like it or not a ban on the practice would be another attack on parental authority, particularly if there were to be a squirm out for favoured ethno-religious groups which there would be. I would prefer that we focus on restoring parental authority to allow parents to seek whatever counselling they see fit for confused sexual identity as the adverse effects of drug and surgical treatments for this vastly outweigh those of circumcision.
But if you must ban infant circumcison, ban it completely with no exceptions for anyone.
“These claims may have some truth to them” – Nope, they’ve all been debunked countless times. Human males evolved with a foreskin for a reason, removing it gives no benefit unless you have extreme phimosis.
I would love to know the history of infant circumcision in Europeans. It certainly gained wide acceptance amongst the British in the twentieth century. Was this a masonic influence or directly picked up from Jews by the Calvinists?
I agree with Mr Cato’s comments above, that a ban would be a further infringement on parental authority, but of course it’s great that Iceland’s attempts to impose one got Greenblatt to tip his hand.
My assumption as to why English and American kids get circumcized so darn much is this: the Jews had bad relations with the Russians and the Russians countered their business practices by doing business exclusively in the sauna, effectively making any infiltrator visible. When Jews fled Russia they made sure this trick wouldn’t work in their new diaspora countries by convincing them to also circumcize their kids.
I can’t speak for Europe, but in the USA, it got started in the 19th century when Dr. Kellogg wanted all boys circumcised to prevent them from pleasuring themselves. (Yeah, sure that works.) Eventually circumcision came to be regarded as something that “has to be done” and parents just mindlessly agreed to that without asking why. Doctors liked that arrangement just fine, because it’s another extra charge to tack onto the bill.
This is true. It’s tempting to think that Jews must have been responsible for making circumcision a normal practice in the U.S., but it really was Christians obsessed with preventing masturbation that did it.
While there might be some truth to this about Dr. Kellogg, who was a whole-grain goodness vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventist Christian, the argument about circumcision being promoted by Christians to move the medical community in the postwar Anglosphere in order to inhibit masturbation is questionable.
This is basically a Feminist academic argument, and is about as substantiated, for example, as their claim that women started shaving their legs to imitate prostitutes. I’d say that this had more to do with the invention of the cheap safety razor and dresses hiking up since Victorian times.
Anyway, Jews were certainly involved with postwar medical policies in the Anglosphere. Advocating routine circumcision of infants is a postwar phenonmenon that we see once babies were born mostly in hospitals ─ and Jews have lobbied insurance companies to pay for it and still do. What could be more promoting of “better hygiene” than easy money like this?
Also, Jews howl to this day that the authorities in Vichy France during the war knew exactly which “orphans” in the hospitals were Jews in hiding and which were Gentiles based on a simple short-arm inspection.
Calvinists may like circumcision, perhaps, but many or most Protestants cite the New Testament itself that “circumision of the heart” is the new (and the real) covenant.
I don’t want to get into religion (and I am not a Christian) but if it were the Christians promoting routine infant cirumcision, then they would not be making lame and non-religious arguments in favor of this bizarre practice.
It is like veterinarians saying that you need to get your dog’s ears and tail docked to prevent ear and tail cancer or scurvy doggetry. (The American Veterinary Medical Association, however, refutes such prophylactic claims.)
I am not sure how many Calvinists or Adventists have a financial or other stake in cosmetic veterinary medicine, but Jews certainly do with circumcision. Unlike believing in God or the afterlife, or possibly even reverence for the Holy Land, circumcision is never not mandatory in Judaism.
🙂
What got Calvanists into circumcision?
I suppose the fact that all the big guys in the Bible had it done is an inspiration notwithstanding the circumcised in the heart verse in the New Testament. Sure, there is that verse, but it does not have the gravitas that the whole “this is an everlasting sign and covenant” vibe of the Old Testamaent.
An experiment was conducted in Canada sometime in the last decades whereby a male infant was circumcised whilst in an mri machine. The trauma induced permanently altered the childs brain structure. The rabbis know what they are doing.
This is just nonsense. The reported study involved an infant of unstated age being tightly restrained and placed in the extremely noisy environment of an MRI scanner. Circumcision was performed with non-metal instruments and no anaesthesia. Supposedly a follow-up MRI was performed and reported that the brain structure had changed permanently. Newsflash, the brain grows incredibly quickly after it gets through the mother’s pelvis and its changing all the time during early childhood.
Also, any parents out there will attest that babies in the first six months of life can spend a surprising amount of time crying inconsolably. Neonatal circumcision was traditionally performed in the very young without anaesthesia and undoubtedly caused some distress but it was not notably different from the many other causes of distress in young babes.
If you think you can get this up, so to speak, go for a ban on circumcision. If you succeed maybe all the Jews will leave America and allow it to go back to the way it was before they started meddling but I doubt it.
https://circumcision.org/circumcision-permanently-alters-the-brain/
Also, any parents out there will attest that babies in the first six months of life can spend a surprising amount of time crying inconsolably.
This is not normal at all. Some of us had babies who did not behave that way. They’d cry a little; we’d tend to their needs; and the crying would stop. Bawling children are not our enemies.
Babies will sometimes cry just because they have a buildup of “stress”, not from discomfort, pain or illness. They can’t speak, so they cry. The thing to do in this case is just pick them up and hold them til they quit howling, after which they fall into a nice sleep. Afterwards, they are so happy and pleasant to have around, with the tension having been discharged.
It would be nice if adults feeling bad would just cry, too. It’s a start, anyway.
There is a huge variation in parental experience of the infancy of their children. Many babies do suffer from colic though and they grow up to be perfectly fine. I’m pretty sure the same applies to circumcision. Perhaps you’d have to ask a very experienced courtesan (gentiles only) to find out whether there are psychological differences in adulthood because I certainly can’t tell just from talking to someone.
On the subject of crying, do we really need to be encouraging men to do this at this time? I’m surprised to see such an idea emanating from someone whose alias is Stronza.
No, I wasn’t encouraging men to snivel and blubber at the drop of a hat. But the reality is that sometimes there is a serious, long standing buildup of rage or grief and it suddenly erupts in uncontrollable crying whether you like it or not. When it happens, you will really surprise yourself.
I have a relative who boasted about letting his newborn daughter howl for 3 hours, alone in her crib in a room with the door shut, until she fell asleep from exhaustion. He had checked on her twice to see what the problem was and since there was no hunger, sticking diaper pin, discomfort or sickness of any sort (not a colicky baby), he decided that some boot camp treatment was in order; the spoiled little monster just wanted some attention and by Christ, she had to learn, at the age of a few months, that she needed to take care of her own needs for warmth and company, alone in a dark room.
So, anyway, this ignored baby girl grew up, ran away from home and still does not talk to her father, decades later.
If you had a house guest or an older family member alone in their bedroom and you heard them crying endlessly, how would you handle it? Hope to hell you’d be a bit kinder than my cousin was to his baby and figure out how you might be helpful in comforting them.
@Stronza
That is some hard core parenting but she was presumably also a difficult baby (who turned into a difficult young woman.) It’s impossible to extrapolate from one case that this controlled crying is the wrong method. I am imagining the mother was chronically sleep deprived when she handed over the reins to the almost as strung-out father. Uncontrolled crying can lead to marital breakdown.
@Antipodeon. I know the father. He is a four star, double barrelled, card carrying prick. No feelings for anybody or anything, a cold hearted bastard. I am not saying this to defend my viewpoint, which doesn’t need defending.
No normal human, exhausted or not, ignores a bawling baby for 3 hours. You don’t have to leap on a crying baby the moment you hear a bit of crying, but at some point both your heart + mind must take over and attend to the situation whether you feel like it or not.
I know about exhaustion from baby-tending, having experienced it personally, and with no help from the father. I just forced myself to take care of the babies. Did they “turn out” perfect? Nope – but “good enough”. I regret not one minute of doing what needed to be done for the sake of beings who could not look after themselves.
@Stronza
So the young woman ran away from home and doesn’t speak to her psychopath father and you’re blaming three hours of crying before she could roll over in bed?
@Antipodeon. No, I am not suggesting that it is that one event which caused this girl to run away and hate her father. The child did not remember what happened at the age of about 3 months. I am suggesting that a person who would do such a thing will, without doubt, continue to be cold hearted toward his children later on as well.
You can make a horrible mistake with your kids (at any age) but if you sincerely repent, apologize, and change your ways, a good relationship will eventually be established. Apologizing to your children is a powerful thing when it is heartfelt and genuine, though it may take a bit of time to take hold. It can turn a negative situation around completely.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to say these things.
A woman walking in Venice Beach chances upon an anti-circumcision activist (at 2 minutes into the video). They talk…
https://vimeo.com/285131515
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.