“Logically, if you grow up here and you are open minded, you go to college and never come back. If you like it here, which means that you are happy living in the same house, with the same people and ideas as the generation before, then you stay. If you stay, you marry someone just like you. It’s like inbreeding.” 

– G.P.Ching 

I am sure that there is no more exciting place for camping within the USA than it is the hidden pearl of West Virginia, especially during the autumn season. The golden brown colors of the woods and the eternal mystery of the Appalachian Mountains have turned this area into one of the most beautiful in America. This is not just an attractive  tourist statement but a fact. If we consider all tips about West Virginia, we will immediately decide to move to live there and to feel the sense of adventure in the nature for a whole year and not just for a holiday time. Lindy Point Overlook is definitely the heart of the Mountain’s rich offer but we will not forget The New River Gorge Bridge and the breathtaking picture from the bridge which melts into the thousands vibrant colors and senses. While we are eating memorable  Pepperoni rolls, typical West Virginian delicate, we will maybe think to look for a famous  Glade Creek Grist Mill or paradise in  Elakala Falls, but we will also try to capture the glorious shine of The Big Bear Lake in some of our mountain bike’s attempts. After all, open road on the Highland Scenic Highway is something which will remind us of the nature’s pure beauty and intact and wild innocence.
 Like the moon, this image has also two sides.One is a dark one, covered by legends, veiled by myths, camouflaged by local fears and  unrevealed for years. The story of inbreeding, which is not only linked to rural parts of West Virginia but also with the Eastern Kentucky.
The inter-marriages in one community is the phenomena what has hit all societies and countries, during the history and social and cultural development but it is eliminated through the urban and  progressive efforts of the community and immigration in and out. The inbreeding as itself followed all  countries  and even the royal families but the main point was on keeping blood line pure and safe from the insiders as well as the wealth of the home or dynasty:“Perhaps the most famous example of the perils of inbreeding is King Charles II, the last of Spain’s Hapsburg rulers.The result of 200 years of intermarriage, Charles’s tongue was so large that he could barely speak, and his infamous Hapsburg jaw was so pronounced that he was unable to chew.” Then, there is Monomotapa of Zimbabwe and the practice of incest.Legendary Cleopatra VII was married to both of her brothers and Princess Nahienaena in Hawaii was in so deep love with her own brother since the childhood. In that period of time, 19th century, the incest was taken as a privilege for a royal family. The ancient Incas Empire hasn’t been immune on inter-marriages. In public, incest was prohibited but the noble had practiced and justified by concerns for the power.Maria I of Portugal married her uncle Pedro in 1778 and their son Joseph married Maria’s sister, Benedita.   Elisabeth of Austria, King Rama V, Princess Victoria Melita and :”Queen Victoria is well known as a prolific matriarch who believed that intermarriage between European royalty could guarantee peace.” The antique Rome and  Greece share also the shame of inbreeding but history tried to connect this incest web with the royal aspirations and drives for power. The ordinary people in ordinary houses also had their own primitive ways to deal with inter-marriages and taboo of incest. Some of they still do.
The horror film “Wrong Turn” from 2003, has opened the book of horror for West Virginia reputation. The group of hikers are lost in the West Virginian woods and they fell into the traps of cannibalistic mountain people, who are disfigured due the long line of incest tradition within the generations. Rob Schmidt, the director of the movie and Alan B. McElroy, the writer of the story haven’t thought that this horror will change the whole perception about the West Virginia and West Virginians. Inspired by the movie, just one year later,  Abercrombie & Fitch released the T-shirt with a map of the Appalachian state and the words “It’s all relative in West Virginia.” and then the problem was there. People who enjoyed to camp in Appalachian Mountains gave up because of the possible hillbillies from the woods and their sadistic ideas of torture. Nobody really solved the mystery but the inbreeding in this area is older than any Schmidt’s movie about wrong turn.
 Back in 1880s and 1890s, explorers and writers like  Mary Noailles Murfree and John Fox Jr. have been fascinated by Appalachia and local customs. The isolated life  of those communities was something which impressed those researchers so they shared their impressions by the rest of America. Missionaries who reached the far away closed communities also have written and reported about the high level of poverty and ignorance as well as about the wide spread practice of inbreeding among the family members. Through the 19th century, the lack of transportation and the natural obstacles  kept the people oriented  to each others and closed for new comers. The main reason for inter familiar marriages and breeding is the absence of those from outside part of the world, intruders. In 1980, scientist  Robert Tincher came out with the study “Night Comes to the Chromosomes: Inbreeding and Population Genetics in Southern Appalachia” based on 140 years practice of inbreeding.:”He concluded that inbreeding levels in Appalachia  are neither unique nor particularly common to the region when compared with those reported for population elsewhere or at earlier periods in American history.”
Today, West Virginia has strict anti-incest laws and if you expect to see the mountain facial  monster described in the Wrong Turn episodes, you will be disappointed  when you meet one of the friendliest  people ever. What is really happening in some of the  farms deeply hidden in the Appalachian dark woods, that is just a matter of imagination and something nothing only usual for this region but for every isolated place on the Earth. The attractive folklore of West Virginia takes responsibility for the science fiction expectations when it comes to the story telling. The Mothman monster has a worldwide popularity also achieved through the movie “The Mothman’s Prophecies” and also covered by Appalachian’s enigma. The creature Snarly Yowl from Harpers Ferry, the Braxton County Monster, the White Creature and the Grafton Monster are just some of the names from the urban legends from the West Virginian hills. The deeper we go there, the deeper is the darkness we are facing with…but at the end of the day, it is just a perspective which could be changed by rational scientific explanations. Inbreeding in the isolated communities is an outcome of the closed farm living and absence of diversity so the blood line stays within the one family, without the mixing of genes which cause the genetic deformations in the long period of time.
The same problem is in the Eastern Kentucky, also well known for isolated life of the locals.The scientific reports inform us that inbreeding in Eastern Kentucky dates back to 1750, when first settlers were start coming:“Many families were secluded from surrounding towns which then forced them to inbreed. They did not know the mental and physical effects it would have on their children. Inbreeding mainly consisted of cousins marrying cousins, and occasionally brothers and sisters would get married (this was not as common). As time went on and more people moved to Kentucky, more towns evolved and inbreeding became less common. The percentage of inbreeding in Kentucky had dropped 18% from 1870 to 1930, and then there was a plateau in numbers from 1930 to 1950. Since the 1950’s the numbers have continued to gradually drop each decade. So not all communities is Eastern Kentucky have families that inbreed within their communities like everyone seems to assume. Laws were passed in the late 19th and early 20th century which made  marriages, and inbreeding to the first cousin level within family illegal in the bulk of the United States.Nevertheless there are still at least four known communities in Eastern Kentucky that do have families that have inbred children. One particular county still has quite a high inbreeding rate of 95%. These particular children have been reported with severe medical problems.” So the inbreeding as a problem itself today should be considered under control, even in the rural communities which are strongly encouraged to open themselves for the outside’s influence and radiation of new ideas, people and blood. There is no chance that the goverment and the cultural and social authorities can stop every single chance for inter-marriages or incest nowadays, especially in the isolated regions but the effort must be made through the education and active social contribution.
There are no monsters from the woods but only the unhappy people who wait to be discovered and helped. The enlightenment is the only force which is able to stop any regression and  back-warded customs but the problem must be addressed properly and without mystification. Only man can hurt another man, scary creatures are afraid of us and our ugliness.



      1. Hi,
        Long time no see!

        We often hear people say,

        “If only Jews would return to the Law of Moses!
        “Instead, they follow their secular, atheistic, and Zionist ways!”

        They express horror at the recent deliberate slaughter of Gazans, particularly the slaughter of women and children. (1)
        But haven’t these folks ever read the Hebrew Bible? Are they unaware of the influence of the Old Testament on Judaism?
        Please open your Hebrew Bible. For the moment, focus your attention on the Book of Numbers.
        You are about to learn that Moses, the great “law giver,” was a war criminal who ORDERED his followers to commit war crimes. The most heinous were crimes were committed against women and children.

        NUMBERS 31:13-18:
        (13) Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp.
        (14) But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains who had returned from the battle.
        (15) “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded.
        (16) “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people.
        (17) So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man.
        ( 18 ) Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

        For further discussion of Jewish teachings on sex with children, see the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 60b, Soncino 1961 Edition, page 402. Discussion and links at

        Should we be surprised at how women and children were treated in Gaza?
        (1) New Evidence of Gaza Child Deaths, BBC, 22 January, 2009

        For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
        Matthew 5:18

        “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46 If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”…
        John 5:45 47

        Laurent Guyénot • April 8, 2019

        What’s a neocon, Dad?
        “What’s a neocon?” clueless George W. Bush once asked his father in 2003. “Do you want names, or a description?” answered Bush 41. “Description.” “Well,” said 41, “I’ll give it to you in one word: Israel.” True or not, that exchange quoted by Andrew Cockburn[1] sums it up: the neoconservatives are crypto-Israelis. Their true loyalty goes to Israel — Israel as defined by their mentor Leo Strauss in his 1962 lecture “Why We Remain Jews,” that is, including an indispensable Diaspora.[2]

        In his volume Cultural Insurrections, Kevin MacDonald has accurately described neoconservatism as:

        “a complex interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel.”[3]

        [1] Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, His fall, and Catastrophic Legacy, Scribner, 2011, p. 219. Cockburn claims to have heard this repeated by “friends of the family.”
        [2] Leo Strauss, “Why we Remain Jews”, quoted in Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss and the American Right, St. Martin’s Press, 1999 (on, p. 31-43.
        [3] Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilizations, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism, The Occidental Press, 2007, p. 122.


  1. First, thank you so much for shedding light on this topic. Again, the writing of the author is mesmerizing and the reader is rivited from beginning to end!

    Having driven through West Virginia and the Appalachian mountains, I can avouch for the veracity of the picture with the dense green trees and the arroyo at the bottom !

    In fact, at one of my favorite restaurants here in Michigan, I got to know an older gentleman originally from West Virginia. He told me how mining was the only job there when he was growing up and how his father wanted him to be a miner. His father took him to the mines with him one day to show him what it was like to work in mines. He told me how his hands were full of soot and how much he disliked it.

    He then told me he decided to run away and join the military to get away from that life ! This is in line with what the author is mentioning herein regarding the seclusion and isolation of West Virginia and West Virginians !

    Hopefully, with the new and modern era in the U.S. in general, and in West Virginia in particular, inbreeding will come to an end !

    Thank you again for your wonderful and enlightening article!

    Liked by 1 person

    McNamara’s Folly
    In 1966, the U.S. war in Vietnam was heating up rapidly, and President Lying Lyndon Johnson and his moronic Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, were faced with a problem of their own making: The Armed Forces needed more and more troops for the war zone, but there was a shortage of men who were considered fair game for the military draft. There were plenty of men of draft age (18-26) in America, but most of them were unavailable. Many were attending college, using student deferments to avoid the draft. Others had found safe havens in the National Guard and Reserves, like Trump, which by and large were not sent to Vietnam. Still others were DISQUALIFIED because they scored poorly on the military’s mental and physical entrance tests.

    How could the Gringos, LBJ and Mac round up enough men to send to war? They realized that they would anger the vote-powerful middle class if they drafted college boys and if they sent National Guardsmen and Reserves to Vietnam. So instead they decided to induct the DISQUALIFIED low-scoring men, whom Johnson referred to (in a secret White House tape) as “second-class fellows”.

    On October 1, 1966, McNamara launched a program called Project 100,000, which lowered mental and physical military standards. Men who had been unqualified for military duty the day before, were now deemed qualified. By the end of the Vietnam war, McNamara’s program had taken 354,000 substandard men into the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy, Among the regular troops, these men were often known as “McNamara’s Morons” or “The Moron Corps”.

    Military leaders – from Westmoreland, the commanding general in Vietnam, to lieutenants and sergeants at the platoon level – viewed McNamara’s program as a disaster. Because most of the Project 100,000 were mentally and physically incompetent and it was next to impossible to train them, ESPECIALLY for the SLAUGHTER FIELDS OF VIETNAM.

    A total of 5,478 of McNamara’s Morons were killed in Vietnam. Their fatality rate was THREE (3) times as high as that of other GIs. An estimated 20,270 were wounded and many were permanently disabled.


    McNamara’s Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War, by Hamiliton Gregory

    Joseph L. Galloway – McClatchy Newspapers

    In the wake of the death of one of the main architects of the Vietnam War, former Defense Secretary Robert Strange McNamara — old, gray, frail and full of his 93 years of living — many have rushed to examine and weigh his life and times.
    The more charitable, politicians for the most part, have declared that at least McNamara, three decades after his war and Jack Kennedy’s war and Lyndon B. Johnson’s war ended so badly, had confessed to errors and apologized in his 1995 book

    His acknowledgement that he’d known what the U.S. government was doing in Vietnam was wrong but for 30 years couldn’t bring himself to publicly admit that truth, could hardly comfort the parents, children, widows, siblings and friends of the 58,249 young American men and eight young American women who were killed in his war.
    Nor were they much comfort to the huge number of Vietnamese — some say two millon, others three million — who were killed in the war an unbelieving McNamara still prosecuted vigorously and defended strongly.

    He was a charter member of what LBJ derisively called the “You Harvards,” and David Halberstam profiled in The Best and The Brightest — the bright young wizards JFK brought to Washington to help us stand astride the world.

    But the ink was barely dry on the pages of those McNamara memoirs before a New York Times editorial writer, on April 12, 1995, dismissed McNamara’s apologies and confessions as entirely irrelevant:

    “His regret cannot be huge enough to balance the books for our dead soldiers. The ghosts of those unlived lives circle close around Mr. McNamara. Surely he must in every quiet and prosperous moment hear the ceaseless whispers of those poor boys in the Infantry, dying in the tall grass, platoon by platoon, for no purpose. What he took from them cannot be repaid by prime-time apology and stale tears, three decades late.”
    Amen, brother.

    While McNamara was confessing and apologizing he conveniently left out a detail, a damning little detail. They say the Devil is in the details, and he certainly lives in this one.

    Who out there remembers Mr. McNamara’s — he was the ultimate bean-counter who knew the cost of everything but the worth of nothing — Project 100,000?

    If nothing else, Project 100,000 surely guarantees that Judgment Day and eternity will not be very comfortable for Mr. McNamara, now arriving on Track 12.

    Beginning in 1965 and for nearly three years McNamara each year drafted into the military 100,000 young boys whose scores in the mental qualification and aptitude tests were in the lowest quarter — so-called Category IV’s. Men with IQ’s of 65 or even lower.

    They were, to put it bluntly, mentally deficient. Illiterate. Mostly black and redneck whites, hailing from the mean big city ghettos and the remote Appalachian valleys.
    By drafting them the Pentagon would not have to draft an equal number of middle class and elite college boys whose mothers could and would raise Hell with their representatives in Washington.

    The young men of Project 100,000 couldn’t read, so training manual comic books were created for them. They had to be taught to tie their boots. They often failed in boot camp, and were recycled over and over until they finally reached some low standard and were declared trained and ready.

    They could not be taught any more demanding job than trigger-pulling and, so, all of them were shipped to Vietnam and most went straight into combat where the learning curve is steep and deadly. The cold, hard statistics say that these almost helpless young men died in action in the jungles at a rate three times higher than the average draftee.
    McNamara’s military even assigned the Project 100,000 men special serial numbers so that anyone could identify them and deal with them accordingly.

    The Good Book says we must forgive those who trespass against us — but what about those who trespass against the most helpless among us; those willing to conscript the mentally handicapped, the most innocent, and turn them into cannon fodder?
    I can only hope that the last voices Robert S. McNamara heard before he was gathered into the darkness at long last were those of the poor boys in the Infantry, the poor boys of Project 100,000, the poor victims of Agent Orange, the poor Vietnamese farm families whose lives and the very land itself were torn apart by millions of tons of bombs rained on them by the best and the brightest.

    Save your tears for them. Bob McNamara certainly doesn’t deserve them.

    Joseph L. Galloway – McClatchy Newspapers

    “I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.” —Clarence Darrow (1857 – 1938)

    Well, the aptly named Robert Strange McNamara has finally shuffled off to join LBJ and Dick Nixon in the 7th level of Hell.

    McNamara was the original bean-counter — a man who knew the cost of everything but the worth of nothing.

    Back in 1990 I had a series of strange phone conversations with McNamara while doing research for my book We Were Soldiers Once And Young. McNamara prefaced every conversation with this: “I do not want to comment on the record for fear that I might distort history in the process.” Then he would proceed to talk for an hour, doing precisely that with answers that were disingenuous in the extreme — when they were not bald-faced lies.
    Upon hanging up I would call Neil Sheehan and David Halberstam and run McNamara’s comments past them for deconstruction and the addition of the truth.

    The only disagreement I ever had with Dave Halberstam was over the question of which of us hated him the most. In retrospect, it was Halberstam.

    When McNamara published his first book — filled with those distortions of history — Halberstam, at his own expense, set out on a journey following McNamara on his book tour around America as a one-man truth squad.

    McNamara abandoned the tour.

    The most bizarre incident involving McNamara occurred when he was president of the World Bank and, off on his summer holiday, he caught the Martha’s Vineyard ferry. It was a night crossing in bad weather. McNamara was in the salon, drink in hand, schmoozing with fellow passengers. On the deck outside a vineyard local, a hippie artist, glanced through the window and did a double-take. The artist was outraged to see McNamara, whom he viewed as a war criminal, so enjoying himself.

    He immediately opened the door and told McNamara there was a radiophone call for him on the bridge. McNamara set down his drink and stepped outside. The artist immediately grabbed him, wrestled him to the railing and pushed him over the side. McNamara managed to get his fingers through the holes in the metal plate that ran from the top of the railing to the scuppers.

    McNamara was screaming bloody murder; the artist was prying his fingers loose one at a time. Someone heard the racket and raced out and pulled the artist off.
    By the time the ferry docked in the vineyard McNamara had decided against filing charges against the artist, and he was freed and walked away.

    PROJECT 100,000

    At various times in its history, the US military has recruited people who measured below specific mental and medical standards. During the Vietnam War, “McNamara’s Moron’s” as they were called, were barely literate, or could not read or write, or did not speak English. They were underweight, or obese, were too short, or semi-blind, or missing fingers. In basic training, they often could not tie their shoes, button their uniforms, and march in drills. Many failed at physical exercise, at tossing hand grenades, could not quickly assemble weapons, or smartly shoot at moving targets.

    These clearly unqualified men were deliberately sought by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who in 1966 required more troops but did not wish to alarm the middle class. Under Project 100,000, pitched as a way path out of poverty, service entry standards were drastically lowered. In addition to men of low intellect, tens of thousands of other inferior men were inducted, including criminals, misfits, even men physically disabled.

    Men in the Moron Corps scored near the bottom of the Armed Forces Qualification Test. But Project men were enrolled in basic training with normal recruits, and held to normal standards. Unable to keep up, they were often demeaned and humiliated by other trainees, drill sergeants and officers. In Kubrick’s 1987 film “Full Metal Jacket” the slow thinking, thumb in mouth, pants round his knees Private Pyle struggles to keep up with his platoon.

    It is an image of pure degradation, and accurately depicts how Project 100,000 men were treated.

    Project men who failed Basic training were sent to Special Training Units, only to endure increased physical and emotional harassment, and punishing physical demands.

    Altogether, 354,000 substandard men were drafted–many sent directly into combat. In time, sergeants and officers, even General Westmoreland, called Project 100,000 a disaster. The low IQ soldiers were incompetent in combat, putting themselves and their comrades in danger.

    Inevitably, their death toll was appallingly high.

    Hamilton Gregory has written

    “McNamara’s Folly, The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War”, a compelling, fast paced, factual and first person account of Project 100,000. Two excerpts follow:

    “Drill Sergeant Stoner told one incident that seemjim-nabors-as-gomer-pyleed straight out of Gomer Pyle, but actually happened while he was checking recruit’s two pair of boots for correct fit by having them stand on a footlocker, which was place outdoors. ‘One recruit I was inspecting appeared on my footlocker wearing two right boots. I couldn’t believe it! I yelled at the private: “You idiot! What in hell are you doing wearing two right boots?’ He replied “Sir, thee must have been a mix up and the private was issued two right boots, sir!’ I immediately got right into his face and screamed ‘Private, get your dumb ass back inside and get the other boots and get back here right away. Do you understand me?’ ‘Sir, yes sir!’ and off he went to the Quonset hut. Moments later he was back. He jumped up on the footlocker, this time wearing two left boots. In a very exasperated voice he said, ‘Sir, the privates’ other two boots were two left boots, sir!’ ”

    “In his first day at basic training, Peter Tauber saw a company pass by, running in step as a drill sergeant calls cadence. Twenty yards behind them a whale of a recruit stumbles donofrio-modine-emeryforward, lurching to keep up, falling further behind. On his tail is a small slight drill sergeant. The fat boy runs a jagged route, spinning to his right and his left as he goes, his head lolling from side to side, drooling and wearing an expression of imminent death. From time to time, he closes his eyes, as if to pray for a merciful tumble. Fifty yards past us he falls. We can hear the sergeant yelling at him as he wallows on the ground. But the fat boy, who must weigh what two of us do, just lies there. The sergeant yells some more and tires to pull him up. The next thing we hear is a scream. The sergeant is standing over the fallen boy and is kicking him in the stomach and backside, sometimes prodding, sometimes letting go with a field goal kick. Screaming sobs fill the air, wails of torture and pain. The sergeant takes off his pistol belt and begins to whip his prey. The boy holds up his hands to protect his face and the sergeant kicks them away. The boy pleads then cries and screams for the sergeant to stop, but the sergeant keeps beating him. Eventually the sergeant relents and lets the trainee get up and rejoins his platoon.”

    Project 100,000 was highlighted in a 2006 op-ed in The New York Times. Kelly M. Greenhill, a former Wesleyan and Tufts assistant professor, writing in the context of a contemporary recruitment shortfall, concluded that :

    “Project 100,000 was a failed experiment. It proved to be a distraction for the military and of little benefit to the men it was created to help.”

    Less understated, Joe Galloway, a war correspondent who won a Bronze Star with V in Vietnam for carrying wounded men to safety at the battle of Ia Drang, wrote a column shortly after McNamara died. Entitled “100,000 Reasons to Shed No Tears for McNamara” he wrote that Project 100,00 men were,

    “to put it bluntly, mentally deficient. Illiterate. Mostly black and redneck whites, hailing from the mean big city ghettos and the remote Appalachian valleys.”

    “By drafting them the Pentagon would not have to draft an equal number of middle class and elite college boys whose mothers would raise hell with their representatives in Washington. The young men of Project 100,00 couldn’t read…They had to be taught to tie their boots. They often failed (in basic training), and were recycled over and over until they finally reached some low standard and were declared trained and ready.”

    “They could not be taught any more demanding job than trigger-pulling, so most of themarmy-firing-range went straight into combat where the learning curve is steep and deadly. The cold, hard statistics say that these almost helpless young men died in action in the jungles a rate three times higher than the average draftee…The Good Book says we must forgive those who trespass against us–but what about those who trespass against the most helpless among us, those willing to conscript the mentally handicapped, the most innocent, and turn them into cannon fodder?”

    To learn more about this sad and shameful chapter of America’s war in Vietnam, read Hamilton Gregory’s excellent book.

    Excerpts by permission of the author.

    McNamara’s Folly



    On January 21, 1971, a Vietnam veteran named Charles McDuff wrote a letter to President Richard Nixon to voice his disgust with the American war in Southeast Asia. McDuff had witnessed multiple cases of Vietnamese civilians being abused and killed by American soldiers and their allies, and he had found the U.S. military justice system to be woefully ineffective in punishing wrongdoers. “Maybe your advisors have not clued you in,” he told the president, “but the atrocities that were committed in Mylai are eclipsed by similar American actions throughout the country.” His three-page handwritten missive concluded with an impassioned plea to Nixon to end American participation in the war.1 The White House forwarded the note to the Department of Defense for a reply, and within a few weeks Major General Franklin Davis Jr., the army’s director of military personnel policies, wrote back to McDuff. It was “indeed unfortunate,” said Davis, “that some incidents occur within combat zones.” He then shifted the burden of responsibility for what had happened firmly back onto the veteran. “I presume,” he wrote, “that you promptly reported such actions to the proper authorities.” Other than a paragraph of information on how to contact the U.S. Army criminal investigators, the reply was only four sentences long and included a matter-of-fact reassurance: “The United States Army has never condoned wanton killing or disregard for human life.”2 This was, and remains, the American military’s official position. In many ways, it remains the popular understanding in the United States as a whole.

    Today, histories of the Vietnam War regularly discuss war crimes or civilian suffering only in the context of a single incident: the My Lai massacre cited by McDuff. Even as that one event has become the subject of numerous books and articles, all the other atrocities perpetrated by U.S. soldiers have essentially vanished from popular memory. The visceral horror of what happened at My Lai is undeniable. On the evening of March 15, 1968, members of the Americal Division’s Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry, were briefed by their commanding officer, Captain Ernest Medina, on a planned operation the next day in an area they knew as “Pinkville.” As unit member Harry Stanley recalled, Medina “ordered us to ‘kill everything in the village.’” Infantryman Salvatore LaMartina remembered Medina’s words only slightly differently: they were to “kill everything that breathed.” What stuck in artillery forward observer James Flynn’s mind was a question one of the other soldiers asked: “Are we supposed to kill women and children?” And Medina’s reply: “Kill everything that moves.”3 The next morning, the troops clambered aboard helicopters and were airlifted into what they thought would be a “hot LZ”—a landing zone where they’d be under hostile fire. As it happened, though, instead of finding Vietnamese adversaries spoiling for a fight, the Americans entering My Lai encountered only civilians: women, children, and old men. Many were still cooking their breakfast rice. Nevertheless, Medina’s orders were followed to a T. Soldiers of Charlie Company killed. They killed everything. They killed everything that moved. Advancing in small squads, the men of the unit shot chickens as they scurried about, pigs as they bolted, and cows and water buffalo lowing among the thatch-roofed houses. They gunned down old men sitting in their homes and children as they ran for cover. They tossed grenades into homes without even bothering to look inside. An officer grabbed a woman by the hair and shot her point-blank with a pistol. A woman who came out of her home with a baby in her arms was shot down on the spot. As the tiny child hit the ground, another GI opened up on the infant with his M-16 automatic rifle. Over four hours, members of Charlie Company methodically slaughtered more than five hundred unarmed victims, killing some in ones and twos, others in small groups, and collecting many more in a drainage ditch that would become an infamous killing ground. They faced no opposition. They even took a quiet break to eat lunch in the midst of the carnage. Along the way, they also raped women and young girls, mutilated the dead, systematically burned homes, and fouled the area’s drinking water.4

    There were scores of witnesses on the ground and still more overhead, American officers and helicopter crewmen perfectly capable of seeing the growing piles of civilian bodies. Yet when the military released the first news of the assault, it was portrayed as a victory over a formidable enemy force, a legitimate battle in which 128 enemy troops were killed without the loss of a single American life.5 In a routine congratulatory telegram, General William Westmoreland, the commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, lauded the “heavy blows” inflicted on the enemy. His protégé, the commander of the Americal Division, added a special note praising Charlie Company’s “aggressiveness.”6 Despite communiqués, radio reports, and English-language accounts released by the Vietnamese revolutionary forces, the My Lai massacre would remain, to the outside world, an American victory for more than a year. And the truth might have remained hidden forever if not for the perseverance of a single Vietnam veteran named Ron Ridenhour. The twenty-two-year-old Ridenhour had not been among the hundred American troops at My Lai, though he had seen civilians murdered elsewhere in Vietnam; instead, he heard about the slaughter from other soldiers who had been in Pinkville that day. Unnerved, Ridenhour took the unprecedented step of carefully gathering testimony from multiple American eyewitnesses. Then, upon returning to the United States after his yearlong tour of duty, he committed himself to doing whatever was necessary to expose the incident to public scrutiny.7

    Ridenhour’s efforts were helped by the painstaking investigative reporting of Seymour Hersh, who published newspaper articles about the massacre; by the appearance in Life magazine of grisly full-color images that army photographer Ron Haeberle captured in My Lai as the slaughter was unfolding; and by a confessional interview that a soldier from Charlie Company gave to CBS News. The Pentagon, for its part, consistently fought to minimize what had happened, claiming that reports by Vietnamese survivors were wildly exaggerated. At the same time, the military focused its attention on the lowest-ranking officer who could conceivably shoulder the blame for such a nightmare: Charlie Company’s Lieutenant William Calley.8 An army inquiry into the killings eventually determined that thirty individuals were involved in criminal misconduct during the massacre or its cover-up. Twenty-eight of them were officers, including two generals, and the inquiry concluded they had committed a total of 224 serious offenses.9 But only Calley was ever convicted of any wrongdoing. He was sentenced to life in prison for the premeditated murder of twenty-two civilians, but President Nixon freed him from prison and allowed him to remain under house arrest. He was eventually paroled after serving just forty months, most of it in the comfort of his own quarters.10 The public response generally followed the official one. Twenty-five years later, Ridenhour would sum it up this way. At the end of it, if you ask people what happened at My Lai, they would say: “Oh yeah, isn’t that where Lieutenant Calley went crazy and killed all those people?” No, that was not what happened. Lieutenant Calley was one of the people who went crazy and killed a lot of people at My Lai, but this was an operation, not an aberration.11

    Looking back, it’s clear that the real aberration was the unprecedented and unparalleled investigation and exposure of My Lai. No other American atrocity committed during the war—and there were so many—was ever afforded anything approaching the same attention. Most, of course, weren’t photographed, and many were not documented in any way. The great majority were never known outside the offending unit, and most investigations that did result were closed, quashed, or abandoned. Even on the rare occasions when the allegations were seriously investigated within the military, the reports were soon buried in classified files without ever seeing the light of day.12 Whistle-blowers within the ranks or recently out of the army were threatened, intimidated, smeared, or—if they were lucky—simply marginalized and ignored. Until the My Lai revelations became front-page news, atrocity stories were routinely disregarded by American journalists or excised by stateside editors. The fate of civilians in rural South Vietnam did not merit much examination; even the articles that did mention the killing of noncombatants generally did so merely in passing, without any indication that the acts described might be war crimes.13

    Vietnamese revolutionary sources, for their part, detailed hundreds of massacres and large-scale operations that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths, but those reports were dismissed out of hand as communist propaganda.14 And then, in a stunning reversal, almost immediately after the exposure of the My Lai massacre, war crime allegations became old hat—so commonplace as to be barely worth mentioning or looking into. In leaflets, pamphlets, small-press books, and “underground” newspapers, the growing American antiwar movement repeatedly pointed out that U.S. troops were committing atrocities on a regular basis. But what had been previously brushed aside as propaganda and leftist kookery suddenly started to be disregarded as yawn-worthy common knowledge, with little but the My Lai massacre in between.15 Such impulses only grew stronger in the years of the “culture wars,” when the Republican Party and an emboldened right wing rose to power. Until Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the Vietnam War was generally seen as an American defeat, but even before taking office Reagan began rebranding the conflict as “a noble cause.” In the same spirit, scholars and veterans began, with significant success, to recast the war in rosier terms.16 Even in the early years of the twenty-first century, as newspapers and magazines published exposés of long-hidden U.S. atrocities, apologist historians continued to ignore much of the evidence, portraying American war crimes as no more than isolated incidents.17 But the stunning scale of civilian suffering in Vietnam is far beyond anything that can be explained as merely the work of some “bad apples,” however numerous. Murder, torture, rape, abuse, forced displacement, home burnings, specious arrests, imprisonment without due process—such occurrences were virtually a daily fact of life throughout the years of the American presence in Vietnam. And as Ridenhour put it, they were no aberration. Rather, they were the inevitable outcome of deliberate policies, dictated at the highest levels of the military. * * *

    1. Charles R. McDuff, letter to Richard M. Nixon, Public Correspondence—White House, M–Z, War Crimes and Other Topics, 1971, Record Group 319, Records of the Army Staff, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODSPER), Records of the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group, Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Central File, National Archives and Records Administration (hereafter cited as NARA), College Park, Maryland, Box 5.

    2. Franklin M. Davis, letter to Charles R. McDuff, in ibid.

    3. Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim, Four Hours in My Lai (New York: Penguin, 1993), 381, 97–99; Michal Belknap, The Vietnam War on Trial (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002), 171.

    4. Seymour Hersh, Cover-Up (New York: Random House, 1972), 3–4; Bilton and Sim, Four Hours in My Lai, 111–14, 117, 128–34, 216; Seymour Hersh My Lai 4 (New York: Vintage 1970), 57.

    5. Many detailed works on the My Lai massacre exist. Among the best are Bilton and Sim, Four Hours in My Lai, and Hersh, My Lai 4. For a unique and often-ignored account of child victims of My Lai, see Betty Lifton and Thomas Fox, Children of Vietnam (New York: Atheneum, 1972), 100–109.

    6. Hersh, Cover-Up, 27, 165–66.

    7. Committee to Denounce the War Crimes of the U.S. Imperialists and Their Henchmen in South Vietnam, Crimes Perpetrated by the US Imperialists and Henchmen against South Viet Nam Women and Children (Saigon: Giai Phong, 1968), 25; “The American Devils Devulge Their True Form,” attached to Oran K. Henderson, “Report of Investigation (April 24, 1968), 224-04 ROI Concerning Atrocities Committed by Members of C Co. 1/20th Inf, TF Barker, Americal Divison, NARA. Henderson, “Report of Investigation (April 24, 1968)”; William M. Hammond, Public Affairs: The Military and the Media, 1968–1973 (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, 1996), 223–24. Bilton and Sim, Four Hours in My Lai, 215–20, 305–6; Joseph Goldstein, Burke Marshall, and Jack Schwartz, The My Lai Massacre and Its Cover-Up: Beyond the Reach of Law? The Peers Commission Report with a Supplement and Introductory Essay on the Limits of Law (New York: Free Press, 1976), 34–37; Jonathan Unger, “Electric Message,” Far Eastern Economic Review (July 3, 1971), 6–7.

    8. “Pentagon Says Viet Killings Exaggerated,” Washington Post, November 17, 1969; Philip Knightly, The First Casualty: From Crimea to Vietnam; The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth Maker (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975), 392; Tom Engelhardt, The End of Victory Culture: Cold War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 219; Bilton and Sim, Four Hours in My Lai, 253– 64.

    9. Goldstein, Marshall, and Schwartz, The My Lai Massacre and Its Cover-Up, 3, 317–45; Bilton and Sim, Four Hours in My Lai, 307.

    10. Bilton and Sim, Four Hours in My Lai, 307, 322–23, 337; “Calley, William Lawes,” in The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, ed. Spencer Tucker (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 53.

    11. David L. Anderson, ed., Facing My Lai: Moving Beyond the Massacre (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1998), 56.

    12. Nick Turse and Deborah Nelson, “Civilian Killings Went Unpunished,” Los Angeles Times, August 6, 2006.

    13. Ibid.; John Prados, Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable War, 1945–1975 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2009), 10; Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies (Boston: South End Press, 1989), 158–60; Neil Sheehan, “Should We Have War Crimes Trials?” New York Times Book Review, March 28, 1971; Knightly, The First Casualty, 434–35; Seymour Melman et al., In the Name of America: The Conduct of the War in Vietnam by the Armed Forces of the United States as Shown by Published Reports, Compared with the Laws of War Binding on the United States Government and on Its Citizens (New York: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam, 1968), 20–21.

    14. For examples, see U.S. Imperialists’ “Burn All, Destroy All, Kill All” Policy in South Vietnam (Saigon: Giai Phong, 1967); Committee to Denounce the War Crimes of the U.S. Imperialists, Crimes Perpetrated by the U.S. Imperialists; Committee to Denounce the U.S.-Puppets’ War Crimes in South Viet Nam on the U.S.-Puppets’ Savage Acts Against Patriots Detained by Them, “Appendix: U.S.-Puppet Massacres of the Population in South Vietnam (From 1965 to 1969)”; The American Crime of Genocide in South Viet Nam (Saigon: Giai Phong, 1968); A Crime Against the Vietnamese People, Against Peace and Humanity (Hanoi: Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Commission for Investigation of the American Imperialists’ War Crimes in Vietnam, 1966); Wholesale Massacres Perpetrated by U.S. Mercenary and Puppet Troops in South Vietnam in the period between the Son My case (3/68) and the End of 1970; communiqué of the Committee to Denounce the U.S.-Puppets’ War Crimes in South Viet Nam on their Crimes in 1969; Liberation Press Agency (in English), “Document Lists Allied ‘Massacres’ during Nixon’s Tenure,” January 8, 1972.

    15. For examples of such books, see Edward S. Herman, Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities (Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press, 1970); Eric Norden, America’s Barbarities in Vietnam (New Delhi: Mainstream Weekly, 1966); Labor Committee for Peace in Vietnam, The Unspeakable War (New York: Prometheus Paperbacks, 1966); Ralph Schoenman, A Glimpse of American Crimes in Vietnam (London: Goodwin Press, 1966); Bertrand Russell, Appeal to the American Conscience (London: International War Crimes Tribunal, 1966); Ronald Dellums, The Dellums Committee Hearings on War Crimes in Vietnam: An Inquiry into Command Responsibility in Southeast Asia (New York: Vintage Books, 1972); John Duffett, ed., International War Crimes Tribunal, 1967: Stockholm, Sweden, and Roskilde, Denmark; Against the Crime of Silence; Proceedings (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970); Richard A. Falk, Gabriel Kolko, and Robert Jay Lifton, Crimes of War: A Legal, PoliticalDocumentary, and Psychological Inquiry into the Responsibility of Leaders, Citizens, and Soldiers for Criminal Acts in Wars (New York: Random House, 1971); Indochina Peace Campaign, Women Under Torture (Santa Monica, Calif.: The Campaign, 1973); Erwin Knoll and Judith Nies McFadden, eds., War Crimes and the American Conscience (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970); James S. Kunen, Standard Operating Procedure: Notes of a Draft-Age American (New York: Avon, 1971); Melman, In the Name of America; Vietnam Veterans Against the War, eds., The Winter Soldier Investigation: An Inquiry into American War Crimes (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972); Sheehan, “Should We Have War Crimes Trials?”; Knightly, The First Casualty, 426–28, 434–39.

    16. “Roots of a War (1945–1953),” from Vietnam: A Television History, PBS, 1983. For examples of revisionist works, see Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981); Harry G. Summers Jr., On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War (Novato, Calif.: Presidio Press, 1982); Mark W. Woodruff, Unheralded Victory: Who Won the Vietnam War? (London: HarperCollins, 2000); B. G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley, Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and History (Dallas, Tex.: Verity Press, 2000); and Lewis Sorely, A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America’s Last Years in Vietnam (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1999).

    17. For examples of evidence of war crimes that emerged in the twenty-first century, see Gregory L. Vistica, “What Happened in Thanh Phong,” New York Times Magazine, April 29, 2001; Vistica, The Education of Lieutenant Kerrey (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2003); Michael D. Sallah and Mitch Weiss, “Day 1: Rogue GIs Unleashed Wave of Terror in Central Highlands,” Toledo Blade, October 22, 2003; Sallah and Weiss, “Day 2: Inquiry Ended Without Justice: Army Substantiated Numerous Charges—Then Dropped Case of Vietnam War Crimes,” Toledo Blade, October 22, 2003; Sallah and Weiss, “Witness to Vietnam Atrocities Never Knew about Investigation,” Toledo Blade, November 30, 2003; Nick Turse, “Kill Anything That Moves: U.S. War Crimes and Atrocities in Vietnam, 1965–1973,” PhD diss., Columbia University, 2005; Heonik Kwon, After the Massacre (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006); Sallah and Weiss, Tiger Force: A True Story of Men and War (New York: Little, Brown, 2006); Turse and Nelson, “Civilian Killings Went Unpunished”; Deborah Nelson and Nick Turse, “A Tortured Past,” Los Angeles Times, August 20, 2006; Nelson, The War Behind Me (New York: Basic Books, 2008); Heonik Kwon, “Anatomy of U.S. and South Korean Massacres in Vietnamese Year of the Monkey, 1968,” Japan Focus, June 15, 2007; Nick Turse, “War Crimes Hunter: On the Trail of Atrocity in Vietnam,” In These Times, July 28, 2008; Nick Turse, “‘We Killed Her … That Will Be With Me the Rest of My Life’: Lawrence Wilkerson’s Lessons of War and Truth,”, November 23, 2008,; Nick Turse, “A My Lai a Month,” Nation, December 1, 2008; Bernd Greiner, War Without Fronts: The USA in Vietnam (London: Bodley Head, 2009)


    Not only were low-quality enlisted men sent to Vietnam, but low-quality officers as well. Lieutenant William Calley, convicted in the murder of more than 100 unarmed civilians in the My Lai Massacre in 1968, was one of McNamara’s 100,000 Morons. According to Arnold R. Isaac, the Vietnam war correspondent for the Baltimore Sun, Calley:

    “flunked out of Palm Beach Junior College with 2 Cs, a D, and 4 Fs in his first year and reportedly managed to get through officer candidate school without even learning to read a map or use a compass.”

    Arnold R. Isaac, VIETNAM SHADOWS: The War, It’s Ghosts, and its Legacy (Baltimore, MD) The John Hopkins University Press, 1997) p. 40


  4. Hello 🙂
    Do you have any additional information about the photo of the badly inbred family of seven?
    I’ve seen that picture many times but have never found any info at all about when/where that picture was taken, for what purpose, and who those people were.
    Any help is appreciated, good article!
    (And, if it means anything, I always assumed those accounts were exaggerated, from a time long passed, and rather unavoidable, considering the circumstances.)



      The Oxford Dictionary defines incest as sexual intercourse of near relations.
      Elaborating on this Encyclopaedia Britannica (CD ROM version) writes:
      Generally speaking, the closer the genetic relationship between two people, the stronger and more highly charged is the taboo prohibiting or discouraging sexual relations between them. Thus, sexual intercourse between a father and daughter, a mother and son, or a brother and sister is almost universally forbidden. Sexual relations between an uncle and niece or between an aunt and nephew are also generally taboo, and relations between first cousins are prohibited as well in some societies.
      On the harmful effect of incestuous relation Encyclopaedia Britannica also writes:
      Highly inbred populations have diminished reproductive success and become gene pools for hereditary disorders.

      Incest in the Qur’an: Marriage between father and his biological daughter
      Muslims will find it hard to believe that Allah in the Qur’an has violated the universal condemnation of incest. Let us read verse 4:23 24 which lists the categories of women that a Muslim man may not marry.
      QURAN, Sura 4.023 (Yusuf Ali)
      YUSUFALI: Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father’s sisters, Mother’s sisters; brother’s daughters, sister’s daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives’ mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-
      Sura 4.024
      YUSUFALI: Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.

      One might think that verse 4:23 specifically prohibits a man from marrying (that is, to have sex) with his biological daughter. However, this may not be so. Hashim Kamali, one of the most eminent scholars of Islamic Jurisprudence and currently the Professor of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence at International Islamic University Malaysia writes:

      An example of the zanni in the Qur’an is the text which reads, ‘prohibited to you are your mothers and your daughters’ (al Nisa’ 4:23). The text is definitive in regard to the prohibition of marriage with one’s mother and daughter and there is no disagreement on this point. However, the word banatakum (‘your daughters’) could be taken for its literal meaning, which would be a female child born to a person either through marriage or through zina, or for its juridical meaning. In the latter sense ‘banatukum’ can only mean a legitimate daughter.
      The jurists are in disagreement as to which of these meanings should be read into text. The Hanafis have upheld the first of the two meanings and have ruled on the prohibition of marriage to one’s illegitimate daughter, whereas the Shafis have upheld the second. According to this interpretation, marriage with one’s illegitimate daughter is not forbidden as the text only refers to a daughter through marriage. It would follow from this that the illegitimate daughter has no right to inheritance, and the rules of guardianship and custody would not apply to her. (Hashim Kamali, pp. 21 23)

      Note: The Qur’an scholars divide the Qur’anic verses into two classes: qati—definitive, no speculation and zanni—speculative. Even the eminent Sharia expert Professor Hashim Kamali admits that the Qur’an is ambiguous. (Hashim Kamali, p. 33.)

      This will be a bombshell to the Muslims. Hashim Kamali testifies that at least one sect of Islam (that is, Shafi) allows a Muslim man to marry his biological daughter and have sex with her if the daughter has been born illegitimate.

      We may wonder how a Muslim man could have an illegitimate daughter since in Islam all sex out of marriage, except sex with one’s sex-slaves, is forbidden. Let us ponder on the following situations:

      A Muslim unmarried man has sex with a Muslim unmarried woman.
      The woman gives birth to a daughter. Because of their Zina, both of them receive one hundred lashes. The punishment over, they depart—going their own way, or they decide to marry, but the daughter remains illegitimate. When the daughter turns eight or ten the biological father marries his daughter.

      This incestuous marriage is allowed by the Shafi rule, according to professor Kamali. If they are Hanafi or other sect the father may not marry the illegitimate daughter.

      A Muslim unmarried man (of Shafii sect) has sex with a Kafir woman. She gives birth to a daughter. The father receives the Islamic lashing. The woman may go scot free depending on which Islamic country she resides, because in some Islamic countries non-Muslims are exempt from Sharia laws. The illegitimate daughter lives with her mother. When the illegitimate daughter turns eight or more she becomes halal for her biological father. He marries his biological daughter.

      A Muslim unmarried man commits adultery with a married Muslim woman. She becomes pregnant. As per Sharia law the man receives one hundred lashes and the woman is sentenced to be stoned to death. However, her stoning is postponed until she gives birth to her child and weans the baby of breastfeeding. This condemned woman gives birth to a daughter. At age two the baby girl is taken away from her mother. Then the mother is stoned to death. The hapless child may be sheltered in a foster home or even live with her biological father. When the daughter turns eight her biological father marries her.

      Let us ponder on what might happen if a Hanafi unmarried man has illicit sex with a Shafi married woman.
      Presumably, Malaysia follows Shafi, Bangladesh follows Hanafi.
      Malaysian married Muslim woman + Bangladesh unmarried man = Zina and adultery.
      Malaysia’s religious police catch them in action. Both of them receive Islamic punishment as per Shafi law. The woman may not receive stoning–as it is not enforced in Malaysia.
      The woman gives birth to a girl–this is the illegitimate daughter to the man.
      Let us call her daughter A.
      What about the woman? Will the daughter be illegitimate to the mother? As per Islamic rule, yes. Later, the woman’s husband divorces her. She moves on, along with her illegitimate daughter.
      The sex offender man marries the woman. May be, the wife gives birth to another daughter–this time legitimate. Call this daughter B.
      Now, as per Islamic Law can we say A and B are sisters? Nope.
      The entire family lives under one roof. When A, the illegitimate daughter, turns 8 or more, the biological father marries her.
      He now has two wives–his sex partner wife + his own illegitimate daughter. That is, the man is simultaneously married to the mother and the daughter.
      So, Islamically, he may have sex with his biological daughter and her mother— perfectly legal as per Shafi rule.

      I am not sure if this incidence happened, say in Bangladesh or India or Pakistan, what would happen as these countries follow Hanafi Muslim laws.
      We must remember when a Muslim lives in Malaysia whether he is a Malaysian citizen or not he must abide by the Islamic Sharia of Malaysia which is largely Shafi.

      Sex between sons and their father’s concubines
      Stepping further on verse 4:23 24, it may even be Islamically possible for a son to have sexual intercourse with his father’s concubines or father’s sex partners. In this case the mother is not a biological mother, but still a mother, no matter what — just as step mother.
      On the restrictions women who can be married as depicted in 4:23-24 Maulana Maududi writes:

      The word ‘mother’ applies to one’s step-mother as well as to one’s real mother. Hence the prohibition extends to both. This injunction also includes prohibition of the grandmother, both paternal and maternal. There is disagreement on whether a woman with whom a father has had an unlawful sexual relationship is prohibited to his son or not. There are some among the early authorities who do not believe in such prohibition. But there are others who go so far as to say that a woman whom a father has touched with sexual desire becomes prohibited to the son. (Maududi 4/34.)

      Incestuous marriages among close blood relations
      Here is another verse from the Qur’an that may suggest that incestuous marriages are permissible in Islam.
      025.054 YUSUFALI: It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things).
      Eminent tafsir writer Jalalyn writes:
      And it is He who created human beings from water (sperm) and then gave them relations by blood and marriage — because men and women marry to seek progeny. Your Lord is All Powerful, possessing the power to do whatever He wills. (Tafsir Jalalyn, Tr. Aisha Bewley, p. 781).
      Some scholars say this verse allows Muslim men to have sex with their daughters [incest]:

      Marriage between father-in-law and wife of an adopted son
      In the Arab society in which Muhammad lived the tradition of adoption was noble and sanctified. Their adopted sons were like their own biological sons and the wives of adopted sons were like their own daughter-in-laws. Zayd bin Haritha was Muhammad’s adopted son. Muhammad even got Zayd married to his (Muhammad’s) cousin sister Zaynab bt. Jahsh (Tabari, p. ix.134). But later, when Muhammad saw her beauty and sex appeal, he became passionate to have sex with her. In the Arab society this kind of marriage between father-in-law and daughter-in-law, whether of adopted son or not, was considered incestuous. But Muhammad did not care. He sought Allah’s help, and Allah promptly sent down appropriate verses to let Muhammad satisfy his desire. Zaynab became Muhammad’s eighth wife. Accordingly, Allah also changed the adoption rule—He permitted Muslims to marry their adopted sons’ wives after they obtain divorce from their husbands (33:37). Even Tabari and Waqidi admit that Muhammad married his cousin sister Zaynab bt Jahsh out of last (Tabari, p. viii. xii). Here is what the eminent Islamic historian Tabari writes about this ‘incestous’ marriage of Muhammad.

      Muhammad had uncontrolled fascination for Zaynab bt. Jahsh
      The Messenger of God came to the house of Zayd b. Harithah. (Zayd was always called Zayd b. Muhammad.) Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that moment, so as to ask, “Where is Zayd?” He came to his residence to look for him but did not find him. Zaynab bt. Jahsh, Zayd’s wife, rose to look for him but did not find him. Because she was dressed only in a shift, the Messenger of God turned away from her. She said: “He is not here, Messenger of God. Come in, you are as dear to me as my father and mother!” The Messenger of God refused to enter. Zaynab had dressed in haste where she was told “the Messenger of God is at the door.” She jumped up in haste and excited the admiration of the Messenger of God, so that he turned away murmuring something that could scarcely be understood. However, he did say overtly: “Glory be to God the Almighty! Glory be to God, who causes hearts to turn!” (Tabari, p. viii.2)


      “Glory be to God the Almighty! Glory be to God, who causes me to be horny”!

      While the Messenger of God was talking with A’ishah, a fainting overcame him. When he was released from it, he smiled and said, “Who will go to Zaynab to tell her the good news, saying that God has married her to me?” Then the Messenger of God recited: “And when you said unto him on whom God has conferred favour and you have conferred favour, “Keep your wife to yourself…” (33:37)—and the entire passage. (ibid, p. viii.3)

      In breeding: Cousin Marriages
      In Islam cousin marriage is quite popular and widely acceptable. Cousin marriages, especially among first cousins, are a potentially harmful practice because the children born out of such marriages suffer from many genetic disorders.

      Let us find out why Muslims are more likely to indulge in first cousin marriage than other communities.
      YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

      This verse unabashedly permitted Muhammad to have sex with his first cousin sisters even without marrying them. Why Allah permitted Muhammad to indulge in such a reckless incestuous relationship? For the answer, we need to know the context of this verse. A hadis in Tirmidhi (print version) tells us this:

      Muhammad proposed Umm Hani, his cousin sister, to marry him. She declined. So Allah revealed that Muhammad could have sex with his cousin sisters who had migrated to Medina without marrying them (33:50). Umm Hani said though she was Muhammad’s cousin sister, Muhammad could not have sex with her as she did not migrate to Medina. She only embraced Islam after Muhammad had conquered Mecca. (Daif)…(Tirmidhi 5.3214)

      Here is the complete Hadis:
      Tirmidhi, vol. 5, Hadis 3214, p. 522
      Umm Hani bint Abu Talib said: “The Messenger of Allah proposed to me, but I asked him to excuse me, so he did excuse me. Then Allah [Most High] revealed: “Verily We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their due, and those whom your right hands possess—whom Allah has given to you, and the daughters of your paternal uncles, and the daughters paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles, and the daughters of your maternal aunts, who migrated with you, and a believing woman, if she offers herself to the Prophet… (33:50). She said: “So I was not lawful for him because I did not perform Hijrah; I was one of the Tulaqa.(Daif)

      [Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan [Sahih] we do not know of it except from this route as a narration of As Suddi
      [In a footnote the translator describes the Tulaqa are those who accepted Islam after the conquest of Makkah.]

      The readers should note that Abu ‘Eisa is Imam Tirmidhi’s kunya (that is, father of ‘Eisa). According to Imam Tirmidhi this Hadis is Hasan, meaning it is a reliable Hadis.
      Umm Hani was the daughter of Abu Taleb, Muhammad’s uncle. AbuTaleb brought up Muhammad in his home. Muhammad fell deeply in love with Umm Hani, but was greatly aggrieved when he asked to marry her but Abu Taleb refused. This meant Abu Taleb, a Meccan pagan, did not like first cousin marriage. But, as demonstrated in the above verse, Allah found a way to satisfy Muhammad’s desire to have sex with his old flame.

      The truth was: although Allah said in the verse that those of Muhammad’s first cousin sisters who had migrated with him to Medina were eligible to have sex with him, Muhammad never followed Allah’s instruction. The great Islamic scholar Maulana Maududi writes:

      The ladies from among his first cousins, who emigrated along with him. The words “who emigrated with you” do not mean that they accompanied the Holy Prophet in his migration journey but this that they also had migrated in the way of Allah for the sake of Islam. The Holy Prophet was given the choice to marry any one of them he liked. Accordingly, in A.H. 7 he married Hadrat Umm Habibah. (Incidentally, in this verse it has been elucidated that the daughters of one’s paternal and maternal uncles and aunts are lawful for a Muslim. In this regard the Islamic Law is different both from the Christian Law and from the Jewish Law. Among the Christians one cannot marry a woman whose line of descent joins one’s own
      anywhere in the last seven generations, and among the Jews it is permissible even to marry one’s real niece, i.e. daughter of one’s brother or sister. (Maududi 33/87.)

      To justify the marriage between first cousins among Muslims, Maulana Maududi cites irrelevant matters of the Jews and the Christians. While currently, the first cousin marriage among the Jews and the Christians is indeed rare, the same may not be true for the Muslims as the statistics from the above article demonstrates.

      In fact, Dr. Mahathir the former Prime Minister of Malaysia was so concerned about the first cousin marriages among the Muslims in Malaysia that he wrote a book, The Malay Dilemma. In this book Dr Mahathir postulated that one of the main reasons for the absolute backwardness of Malays is due to their practice of in breeding. He was a medical professional. He wrote that because of in breeding the Malays have a very limited genetic pool.

      Here are a few excerpts from Dr Mahathir’s book The Malay Dilemma.
      Generally speaking, modern ideas on the evolution of man are not acceptable to Muslims and therefore to Malays. But even Malays admit that certain characteristics are passed from parents to offspring. “Bapak borek, anak beritek” is a well-known Malay saying which means “A spotted father begets a speckled son.” The meaning is obvious. If this is so for an individual then hereditary influence must play a role in the development of a collection of individuals which constitutes a race. What is not generally known by the Malays is the effect of in breeding.

      In this book I have explained how the laws of genetics, which govern the transmission of hereditary characteristics, are affected adversely by in breeding and other marriage practices.

      There has been a lot of scientific thinking on the subject of in breeding and the effect on human society. Cyril Dean Darlington, a British geneticist, in his book, The Evolution of Man and Society, takes the extreme view that the evolution of human society is the product of genes. According to him, civilizations flourish and decay in obedience to genetic decrees. He pointed out that once a ruling class fixed itself in power, it sought to conserve that power by in breeding, thus denying the infusion of fresh stock. It was this habit, according to Darligton, that expedited the decline of the Pharaohs, the Ptolemies and the Caesars.

      This interesting hypothesis is perhaps too extreme to be generally accepted even by non-Muslims. In any case, Darligton was referring mainly to incest, a practice which is unknown among the Malays. However, the modern definition of in breeding includes marriages between first cousins and other close relatives, a practice fairly common among the Malays. Hereditary influence also produces an adverse effect in a society which, abhorring celibacy, insists that everyone, fit or unfit, should marry. Thus, the deformed in mind and body are somehow paired off and reproduce.

      While it must be admitted that inbreeding is not general among the Malays, what cannot be denied is that the instances of in breeding are greater among them than among the other major races in Malaysia—the Chinese. In fact Chinese marriage customs specifically prevents in breeding. And so it is correct to say that in breeding together with forced marriages of the unfit produce a much greater percentage of human failures among Malays as compared with other races.

      This explanation is offered in mitigation and defence of my views. Nevertheless it is not expected that they will be easily accepted. The implications are too depressing and hold no promise of easy or rapid remedies.

      (Dr Mahathir Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma, p. 1, 2.)

      Mendel’s law states that offspring are not intermediate in type between the two parents, but that the type of one or the other is predominant according to a fixed law. The importance of this law lies in its rejection of the popular concept that offspring must be a dilution of the opposing characters of the parents.

      Mendels’s Law is best illustrated by experiments in breeding white and brown mice. Provided that a sufficiently large series of experiments is carried out, the mating of white and brown mice will produce not spotted or brownish white mice but white mice predominantly. But if this (sic) first generation of white mice are mated among themselves, the offspring are not all white but a mixture of pure white and pure brown in the proportion of three whites to one brown. The point this illustrates is that white is a dominant characteristic which shows up in the first generation. However, even though the first generation appears pure white, it has a hidden brown factor which is transmissible to the next generation. But this brown factor is weak as shown by the fact that only one in four of the second generation is brown in colour.

      (Dr Mahathir Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma, p. 17)

      A dominant characteristic tends to cancel a recessive characteristic, and it is clear that if the parents have different sets of dominant characteristics, then the offspring will have a combination of all the dominant characteristics of the parents. It follows therefore that the best offspring are those resulting from parents with different good dominant characteristics. Thus since close relatives tend to resemble each other and the chances of carrying similar recessive characteristics are greater, marriage between such relatives will not produce the best offspring. On the other hand, as unrelated people have more differences in characteristic, a marriage between such people would tend to produce ideal offspring with good dominant characteristics of both parents, while the recessive characteristics are cancelled.

      (Dr Mahathir Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma, p. 18 19)

      Predictably, after the first publication of The Malay Dilemma, the Malaysian Government banned it, and Dr Mahathir was expelled from the Malaysia’s most dominant Muslim party UMNO (United Malays National Organisation). Malaysian Law stipulates that all Malays are, by definition, Muslims. A few years later, Dr Mahathir was again admitted into UMNO, and he finally became the UMNO president, but his book The Malay Dilemma remained proscribed. Only after Dr Mahathir became the Prime Minister of Malaysia, the ban on this controversial book was lifted, and republished in 1981.
      Admittedly, Dr Mahathir is very knowledgeable in genetics and his courage to tell the truth is admirable.
      But Dr Mahathir did not have the supreme intrepidity to blame the genetic root of Malay backwardness to Islam—more precisely that the Malays, being deeply Islamic religious, are simply following Islamic rules on first cousin marriage and emulating their prophet, Muhammad. Dr Mahathir was too fearful to be seen as anti-Islam. He blamed the Malays for their proclivity towards in breeding and not Islam. It was too dangerous for him to do so.


      Like it or not, Incest in Islam is alive and kicking well as can be illustrated from several verses of the Qur’an. The various interpretations, often contradictory, just prove that these words could not be from Allah. Allah cannot be so dim-witted not to know what is best for His Ummah. All knowing, almighty Allah cannot be so careless that He would leave His words in such a manner that what one group of Muslims means to be halal may be death to another group of Muslims. The topic of incest in Islam is such a dangerous game. It also possible that the inherent backward of the Muslim in general might be rooted in their limited genetic pool because of incestuous marriage practiced in many Islamic nation.
      al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir, The Victory of Islam, vol. viii. Translated by Michael Fishbein. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1997. ISBN 0 7914 3150-9
      al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir. The Last Years of the Prophet, vol. ix. Translated by Ismail K. Poonwala. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1990. ISBN 0-88706-692-5.
      Encyclopaedia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite CD ROM version.
      Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At Tirmidhi, Jami’ At Tirmidhi (vol. 1-6), Tr. Abu Khaliyl, Final review by Islamic Research Section Darussalam, Darussalam, P.O. Box 22743, Riyadh 11416, Saudi Arabia, First Ed. November 2007.
      Jalalu’d-Din Al Mahali and Jalal’ud Din As Suyuti. Tafsir Al Jalalyn, translated in English by Aisha Bewley. Dar Al Taqwa Ltd. 7A Melcombe Street, Baker Street, London NW1 6AE, 2007. ISBN: 1 870582 61 6
      Kamali, Mohammad Hashim. PRINCIPLES OF Islamic JURISPRUDENCE.First published by the Islamic Text Society of Cambridge, U. K.1991. Second Revised Edition, sixth printing, 2009. ILMIAH PUBLISHERS SDN. BHD. Regalia Business Centre, no. 33, Jalan USJ 1/1C, USJ 1, 47620 Subang Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
      Mohamad, Mahathir Dr. The Malay Dilemma. FEDERAL PUBLICATIONS SDN BHD. 8238 Jalan 222, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. 1981. First published 1970.
      The three translations of the Qur’an:


      Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring’s intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings
      The most famous example of inbreeding is in ancient Egypt, where several Pharaonic dynasties collapsed after a couple of hundred years. In order to keep wealth and power within the family, the Pharaohs often married their own sister or half-sister and after a handful of generations the offspring were mentally and physically unfit to rule. Another historical example is the royal houses of Europe where royal families often married among each other because tradition did not allow them to marry people of non-royal class.

      The high amount of mentally retarded and handicapped royalties throughout European history shows the unhealthy consequences of this practice. Luckily, the royal families have now allowed themselves to marry for love and not just for status.

      The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also predates the world’s oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.

      A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called “consanguinity”) and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants”

      Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.).
      A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred – which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequenses greatly.

      The amount of blood related marriages is lower among Muslim immigrants living in the West. Among Pakistanis living in Denmark the amount is down to 40 percent and 15 percent among Turkish immigrants (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants”.).

      More than half of Pakistani immigrants living in Britain are intermarried:
      The research, conducted by the BBC and broadcast to a shocked nation on Tuesday, found that at least 55% of the community was married to a first cousin. This is thought to be linked to the probability that a British Pakistani family is at least 13 times more likely than the general population to have children with recessive genetic disorders.” (Times of India, 17/11 2005 Ban UK Pakistanis from marrying cousins).

      The lower percentages might be because it is difficult to get the chosen family member to the country, or because health education is better in the West.

      Low intelligence
      Several studies show that children of consanguineous marriages have lower intelligence than children of non-related parents. Research shows that the IQ is 10-16 points lower in children born from related parents and that abilities related to social behavior develops slower in inbred babies:
      “Effects of parental consanguinity on the cognitive and social behavior of children have been studied among the Ansari Muslims of Bhalgapur, Bihar.

      IQ in inbred children (8-12 years old) is found to be lower (69 in rural and 79 in suburban populations) than that of the outbred ones (79 and 95 respectively). The onset of various social profiles like visual fixation, social smile, sound seizures, oral expression and hand-grasping are significantly delayed among the new-born inbred babies.”

      (Indian National Science Academy, 1983 Consanguinity Effects on Intelligence Quotient and Neonatal Behaviours of nsari Muslim Children”).

      The article “Effects of inbreeding on Raven Matrices” concludes that “Indian Muslim school boys, ages 13 to 15 years, whose parents are first cousins, were compared with classmates whose parents are genetically unrelated on the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices, a nonverbal test of intelligence. The inbred group scored significantly lower and had significantly greater variance than the non-inbred group, both on raw scores and on scores statistically adjusted to control for age and socioeconomic status.” (Behaviour Genetics, 1984).

      Another study shows that the risk of having an IQ lower than 70 goes up 400 percent from 1.2 percent in children from normal parents to 6.2 percent in inbred children: “The data indicate that the risk for mental retardation in matings of normal parents increases from 0.012 with random matings to 0.062 for first-cousin parentage.” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1978 Effect of inbreeding on IQ and mental retardation”). The study A study of possible deleterious effects of consanguinity concludes, that “The occurrence of malignancies, congenital abnormalities, mental retardation and physical handicap was significantly higher in offspring of consanguineous than non-consanguineous marriages.”

      Mental and physical diseases and death
      The risk of stillbirth doubles when parents are first cousins (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants). One study analyzed the risk of perinatal death (the child dies during its own birth), infant death (child dies while still infant) and autosomal recessive disorders (serious and often deadly genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy):

      Perinatal mortality in the Pakistani children was 1.5 times higher than that in the Norwegian children, and infant mortality in the Pakistani children was more than double that in the Norwegian children. Deaths due to autosomal recessive disorders were 18 times more common in the Pakistani children. Similarly, deaths due to multiple malformations, which may be part of unrecognized autosomal recessive syndromes, were 10 times more common.
      (BMJ, 1994 Infant death and consanguineous marriage.)

      There are also evidence suggesting that inbred people has a higher risk of developing mental disorders: “The clinical observations indicated that depression is very high in some communities where the consanguinity of marriages is also high.” (Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 2009 “Relationship between consanguinity and depression in a south Indian population”.

      Another study focused on the relationship between intermarriage and schizophrenia: “The closer the blood relative, the more likely was there to be a schizophrenic illness.” (American Psychiatric Press, 1982 The role of genetic factors in the ethiology of the schizophrenic disorders.

      The increased risk of insanity among children of marriages between cousins might explain why immigrant patients are stressing the psychiatric system and are strongly overrepresented among insane criminals: “In Sct. Hans Hospital, which has the biggest ward for clinically insane criminals in Denmark, more than 40 percent of the patients have an immigrant background.” (Kristeligt Dagblad, 26/6 2007 Ethnic minorities overrepresented among the criminal insane).

      Implications for the Western and the Muslim World
      Kaled’d father Mohammed says: “From the beginning I was a bit sad and she was abased. She started crying but I said in the end we can’t do anything. That’s how God created him. Even if we cry from now on until 100 years, you can’t do anything .” FROM The Sun-Herald (Sydney, 28th May, 2006), pages 79-80

      The consequences for offspring of consanguineous marriages are unpleasantly clear: Death, low intelligence or even mental retardation, handicaps and diseases often leading to a slow and painful death. Other consequences are:

      Limited social skills and understanding, limited ability to manage education and work procedures and painful treatment procedures. The negative cognitive consequences also influence the executive functions. The impairment of concentration and emotional control most often leads to anti-social behavior.

      The economic costs and consequences for society of inbreeding are of course secondary to the reality of human suffering.

      However, inbreeding among Muslims has severe implications for both the Western societies and the Muslim world.

      Expenses related to mentally and physically handicapped Muslim immigrants drains the budget for other public services: “When cousins have children together, they are twice as likely to have a disabled child – it costs municipal funds dearly. Disabled immigrant children costs Danish municipalities millions. In Copenhagen County alone, the number of disabled children in the overall increase of 100 percent at 10 years. … Meredith Lefelt has contacted 330 families with disabled children in Copenhagen. She estimates that one third of their clients have a foreign cultural background.” (BT, 10/11 2003Immigrants inbreeding costing one million.

      On top come the expenses for Muslim immigrants who – because of different consequences of being born from blood related parents – are not able to live up to the challenges of our Western work market: Muslim immigrants and their descendants in Europe have a very high rate of unemployment.
      The same goes for Muslims in USA, where the Gallup Institute made a study involving 300.000 people concluding “The majority of Muslims in USA have a lower income, are less educated and have worse jobs than the population as a whole.” (Berlingske Tidende, d. 3. marts 2009: Muslims thrive in USA.
      The cognitive consequences of Muslim inbreeding might explain why non-Western immigrants are more than 300 percent more likely to fail the Danish army’s intelligence test than native Danes: “19.3% of non-Western immigrants are not able to pass the Danish army’s intelligence test. In comparison, only 4.7% of applicants with Danish background do not pass.” (TV 2 Nyhederne, 13/6 2007 Immigrants flunk army test.

      It probably also explains – at least partly – why two thirds of all immigrant school children with Arabic backgrounds are illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system: “Those who speak Arabic with their parents have an extreme tendency to lack reading abilities – 64 percent are illiterate. … No matter if it concerns reading abilities, mathematics or science, the pattern is the same: The bilingual (largely Muslim) immigrants’ skills are exceedingly poor compared to their Danish classmates.” (Rockwool Foundation Research Unit, May 2007: Ethnic students does not make Danish children worse.

      The high expenses on special education for slow learners consumes one third of the budget for the Danish schools. “Immigrant children are clearly overrepresented on Copenhagen’s schools for retarded children and children with physical handicaps. … 51 percent of the children on the three schools in Copenhagen for children with physical and mental handicaps har immigrant back ground and on one of the schools the amount is 70 percent. … These amounts are significantly higher than the share of immigrant children in the municipality, which is 33 percent. The many handicapped children are a clear evidence that there are many intermarried parents in the immigrant families.” (Jydske Vestkysten, 4/4 2009 Tosprogede i overtal på handicapskoler).

      Our high level of education may also make it harder for inbred students to follow and finish their studies: “Young people with minority backgrounds have a significantly higher dropout rate at secondary schools than youth with a Danish background. For trade school education, the dropout rate among immigrants is 60 percent, twice as high among adolescents with a Danish background….

      There is great variation in educational outcomes when compared with national origin. For example, dropout among young people with Lebanese or Iranian background is far greater than among people of Vietnamese background.” (Center for Knowledge on Integration in Randers, May 2005 “Youth, education and integration“). ”Among immigrant children that are born and raised in Denmark, more than a third has no education. Among native Danes it is less than one fifth that do not get an education. (Statistics Denmark: “Indvandrere i 2007”.
      The negative consequences of inbreeding are also vast for the Muslim world. Inbreeding may thus explain why only nine Muslims ever managed to receive the prestigious Nobel Prize (5 of them won the “Peace Prize” – for peace that turned out not to last for very long).

      The limited ability to understand, appreciate and produce knowledge following a limited IQ is probably also partly the reason why Muslim countries produce 1/10 of the World average when it comes to scientific research: “In 2003, the world average for production of articles per million inhabitants was 137, whereas none of the 47 OIC countries for which there were data achieved production above 107 per million inhabitants. The OIC average was just 13.” (Nature 444, p. 26-27, 1. November 2006 ”Islam and science: The data gap”.

      The lack of interest in science and human development in the Muslim World is also clear in the UN Arab Human Development Reports (AHDR). AHDR concludes that there have been fewer books translated into Arabic in the last thousand years than the amount of books translated within the country of Spain every year:

      “The Arab world translates about 330 books annually, one fifth of the number that Greece translates. The cumulative total of translated books since the Caliph Maa’moun’s [sic] time (the ninth century) is about 100,000, almost the average that Spain translates in one year.” (Eugene Rogan ”Arab Books and human development”. Index of Censorship, vol. 33, issue 2 April 2004, p. 152-157). “70 percent of the Turkish citizens never read books.”(APA, 23 February 2009 “).

      There is no doubt that the wide spread tradition of first cousin marriages among Muslims has harmed the gene pool among Muslims. Because Muslims’ religious beliefs prohibit marrying non-Muslims and thus prevents them from adding fresh genetic material to their population, the genetic damage done to their gene pool since their prophet allowed first cousin marriages 1,400 years ago are most likely massive. The overwhelming direct and indirect human and societal consequences have been explained above.

      Compassion for the health of future generations should be enough to ban intermarriage among first cousins. The economic and societal consequences do also count. Such a ban would also lessen Muslim immigration to the West because many Muslim families would like to be able to continue their practice of intermarriage in order to live up to cultural and religious traditions and keep wealth and power inside their family.

      A legislative ban on first cousin marriages is a logical and compassionate imperative for both the Muslim world, for EU and our Western national governments.
      Nicolai Sennels (Dannish Psychologist who worked for several years with young criminal Muslims in a Copenhagen prison) – BLOG
      The above article was originally posted at Europe News
      Last Updated on Thursday, 25 November 2010 20:04


  5. Greets! I was looking at your site for a bit while at work and wanted to drop a line that I really enjoyed it. I wanted to share a site too. You can learn about who was I in my past life there. Check it out if you’re interested. Thanks!!


  6. I was curious if you ever thought of changing the page layout of your site? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or 2 images. Maybe you could space it out better?


    Authors of the book: Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira and Rabbi Yosef Elitzur

    The impact of the torching a mosque in the Upper-Galilee village of Tuba Zingerah, which lies within the Green Line, on October 3, 2011 by an Israeli underground organization, raises urgent questions on the motives of burning the mosque and the body behind this crime. The underground, Jewish terrorist organization, which burnt the mosque, left its mark at the crime scene, just as it did when it set fire to more than five mosques in the occupied West Bank recently. On the walls of the mosques it burnt the Jewish terrorist organization sprayed the Hebrew words tag mehir (literally translated as “price tag”). In such a crime, the primary suspect is a racist and extremist network that is rooted in the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, especially the Jewish religious schools (yeshivas) scattered in these settlements and their extensions across the Green Line. In order to scrutinize the background of these heinous crimes, and their underpinning in intellectual, religious and political basis, embraced and heralded by a very large number of West Bank settlers, as well as a growing number of Israelis inside the Green Line, it is useful to read The King’s Torah, a book written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, head of the Yeshivat Od Yosef Chai (Joseph Still Lives), in the Yitzhar settlement located in the West Bank, south of the city of Nablus.

    The book is co-authored by Rabbi Yosef Elitzur, a teacher at the same religious Yeshiva. It should be noted that this book is just the tip of the iceberg of extremist, racist, and anti-human ideas that poison the mobilized students’ minds of the Jewish religious schools in the West Bank settlements, in addition to the settler rabbis who foment hatred, racism, and hostility among their followers in the settlements, yeshivas or beyond toward the Palestinians.

    The King’s Torah aims to determine the position of the Torah and Jewish law on gentiles (non-Jews or ‘goyim’ in Hebrew), which the Jewish State and the Jews must be committed and adhere to. The book classifies mankind into multiple ranks. According to this classification, Jews are ranked higher. They are, immeasurably, better than any other human beings. It deems the Jews as the only real humans, while the gentiles are lower in rank – closer to the status of animals. Therefore, the Jewish State and the Jews should take discriminative attitudes toward them, at best, or allow them be killed, or they should often be killed, particularly in time of war.

    The King’s Torah … a guide to the killing of Palestinians
    The two authors extensively tackle an issue that dominates the entire book – that is, when will the Jews be allowed to kill the gentiles (goyim)? When should the Jews kill them? The gentiles must not be misidentified. Clarifying the ‘gentiles’ here as being basically the Palestinian Arabs, Rabbi Yitzchak Ginzburg, a revered religious figure among the religious Jews in Israel, says in the introduction to The King’s Torah that the issues addressed by the book:

    “are closely related to the situation in the land of Israel, which we should restore from our enemies.”

    He argued that the book serves the objective of achieving this goal, strengthening the morale of the Israeli people and soldiers, and explaining both the Torah’s deep comprehensive view and Jewish law on outstanding relevant issues.

    “In the war on the fate of the land of Israel, the gentiles must be killed,” the authors say, adding,

    “The gentiles, who claim this land for themselves, are stealing it from us, but it is a legacy from our forefathers.”

    This book really represents a guide for the perplexed, the hesitant and those who seek a religious Jewish legal opinion (fatwa) as to when it is allowed to kill the Palestinian Arabs and when this “should” take place according to the Jewish law. Moreover, it provides moral and religious support to many settlers and Israelis who are convinced of the content of this book before reading it.

    Written in ancient Hebrew similar to ancient religious Jewish writings, the authors consolidate their views in the book, especially those calling for the killing of gentiles (i.e., the Palestinians), with texts from Jewish law and a lot of quotes by senior Jewish rabbis through different ages. They make this a backdrop for any opinion they hold in the book, giving it a religious aura influencing many Jews, especially the religious. The outstanding religious sources of the Jewish law were a basis for the book. In addition to the written Torah, which they quote little, the authors depend as well on the oral Torah, Mishnah (about AD 200), and on post-Mishnah rabbinic interpretations compiled in the Babylonian Talmud (AD 5th Century Babylonia) and the Jerusalem Talmud (AD 4th Century Palestine).

    The King’s Torah is also based on Mishneh Torah, compiled and commented on by Moses Ben Maimon or Maimonides (Rambam) (1135-1204), and Rabbi Moshe Ben Nahman’s (Ramban) writings, as well as Rabbi Joseph Caro’s Shulhan Arukh (The Prepared Table) (published in the sixteenth century), and the writings and opinions of 20th Century senior rabbis who held a prominent place in the Zionist religious mainstream, such as Rabbi Kook.
    Although it is widely based on the most important sources in Jewish law, The King’s Torah reviews and cites the most extremist Jewish texts, legal opinions, and interpretations that permit, favor, call for or mandate the killing of ‘gentiles,’ overlooking the positive human values of the Jewish law. This makes the book more dangerous, as it incites and openly calls for the extermination of the Palestinian Arabs.

    Chapters of the Book

    Published in 2009 by the Biblical Institute in Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva, the 230-page The King’s Torah consists of an introduction, six chapters, and a summary. The Biblical Institute intends to issue a second volume of the book once the authors complete it. It will address a range of topics, such as the position of The King’s Torah toward the “minorities in the Jewish State”.

    In chapter one, the authors confirm that the biblical obligation “Thou shalt not kill” only prohibits the killing of a Jew by a Jew, but it does not apply at all to the Jew who kills one or more gentiles. The book points out that in many cases the Jew has the right to kill the gentiles. In many other cases, the Jew should kill the gentiles.

    In chapter two, entitled “The Killing of a Non-Jew Who Violates the Seven Laws (of Noah),” the authors stress that a non-Jew who violates one of the laws ordained on Noah’s sons “must be killed”. God, according to the authors, asked all human beings to accept His Torah, but only the Children of Israel responded while all other human beings rejected God’s ordinance. Therefore, God distinguished the Children of Israel from all other human beings, and gave them a very special and reputable status and drew them to Him.

    Conversely, God degraded the gentiles, whom the authors call “Noah’s sons” and classify them in lower ranks in a hierarchy of classification for the human beings set by The King’s Torah. Noah’s sons must commit themselves to the Seven Laws ordained by God through the Children of Israel, with any Jew having the right to kill anyone from Noah’s sons who violates one of the Seven Laws. The implementation of this murder, according to the authors, does not require a court of law or prosecution witnesses. It is enough for a Jewish person to see or know that a non-Jew violates one of the Seven Laws and thus kills him.

    In chapters three and four, the authors compare between Jews and gentiles, focusing on how far each side adheres to their respective beliefs and their position on murder. The Jews are freer to kill non-Jews than the gentiles can kill other gentiles, the authors conclude.

    Murder is the Master of Rulings

    In chapter five, entitled “The Killing of Gentiles in War,” the authors write that it is not only the fighters who engage in war against Israel that should be killed, but any citizen in the region or in a hostile state, who encourages fighters or expresses satisfaction with their actions, must be killed as well. They add that the citizens of a hostile state or region, who do not encourage their state to commit acts of war, can be killed, claiming that the Jewish law doubts that they do not want, in time of peace, to shed the blood of the Jews. This suspicion is growing to the extent that they want to shed the blood of the Jews in time of war, thus allowing the killing of those innocent civilian gentiles who do not participate at all in the course of war.

    The authors give other reasons for allowing the killing of innocent civilians. “A large part of the malice and evil that exists within these civilian gentiles stems from their violation of the Seven Laws,” the authors say.

    “Hence, we would enforce the ruling and kill them because of their violation of this. This is why our great sages ruled that the best gentiles during the time of war are ‘the dead’ – that is, there is no room for reforming the gentiles, given their intensive danger and malice. As for children from birth through adolescence, who of course do not violate the Seven Laws for not realizing or hearing about them, can be killed “because of the future risk they pose if they are allowed to live and grow up and thus become evildoers like their parents.”

    The authors add,

    “Of course, the children and other civilians, whom the evildoers seek their protection, are allowed to be killed too. Thus, the evildoers must be killed, even if this led to the killing of children and civilians.”

    Targeting Innocent Civilians

    In chapter six, “Targeting the Innocents,” the authors tackle the killing of the innocents in a “good state,” (i.e., Israel), saying that this “good state” used to force its innocent men to go to war and risk their life. Not only that, but the state used to appoint guards to stand behind the fighting soldiers to kill whoever escapes from them. The authors add that if the king could not harm his combatant citizens in order to participate in war and force them to make headway and be ready for death, his kingdom cannot face bad people who do not hesitate to kill to achieve victory. If the king, the authors conclude, is allowed to kill his innocent combatant men to force them to fight, he has the right and it is allowed to target the civilians belonging to the kingdom of evildoers.

    The authors emphasize Israel’s right to target and kill the citizens of a hostile state, regardless of their age and number. Even if they have just been born, elderly or on the brink of death, be they male or female, participating in fighting or not, Israel is entitled to target and kill them all.

    Their view is based on the Jewish law and rabbinic interpretations over ages. The authors use all provisions of Jewish law that allow for the killing of gentiles, such as the ruling of pursuing and persecuting the Jews, the din rodef (law of the pursuer), and slandering the Jews or din moser (law of the informant), all to justify Israel’s killing of Palestinians.

    Again the authors confirm that the Palestinians should be killed because they violate the Seven Laws, adding that the Palestinian civilians who help the “killers” must be targeted, even if the innocent were forced to do so.

    “Even if they are tied or imprisoned and no way to escape and have no choice but to stay in the same place, like hostages, they can be targeted, crushed and killed if this is the way to get rid of the evildoers. As we explained earlier, whoever helps to kill someone against their will can be targeted and killed. In many cases, children find themselves in such a case: they block, by their presence at the scene, the way of rescue. They are forced to do so unintentionally. However, they can be targeted and killed, for their presence helps murder.”

    Accordingly, it can be concluded that the The King’s Torah justifies Israel’s targeting and killing of hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians if they happen to be, willingly or forcibly, in a big building where a wanted Palestinian is in.

    The authors make a distinction between the laws of war that apply to non-Jewish States, and the laws that apply to Israel. In a war between two “fair” and “evil” non-Jewish States, if the military action carried out by the fair state leads to the killing of a large number of innocent citizens of the evil state to save a few citizens of the former, the latter is prohibited from carrying out this operation. However,

    “in war between Israel and gentiles, we simply prefer to kill non-Jews in order to save the Jews, because the lives of the Jews are more valuable and better, as we explained in Chapter Four. Moreover, the Jews are the ones who are reforming the world and also delivering the Word of God, especially the Seven Laws, to the whole world.”

    Revenge…revenge…on children

    The authors put revenge in an aura of veneration in chapter six of The King’s Torah, confirming that Israel should take revenge on the Palestinians. Revenge is a necessity that makes the killing of evildoers a must. It is an essential need to defeat and win. Therefore, it is possible to delay the burial of a dead body in order to take revenge. As manifestation of justice, revenge must be done with enthusiasm and “without accountability”. Revenge is not only necessary for those alive, but also for the dead.

    “In the world of the dead, there is a similarity between a person’s soul and justice. The soul demands justice, which is revenge.”

    The authors add,

    “No one must be excluded when Israel retaliates. All the Palestinians are vulnerable to retaliation. In the face of revenge, no one is innocent, be they old, young, children, men or women, and regardless of their health. Children and adults, men and women, whatever their condition, should be avenged.”

    Justifying the killing of children, particularly infants who have just been born, the authors say the Children of Israel had killed the young children of Midian (is a geographical place and a people mentioned in the Bible and in the Qur’an believed to be located in Saudi Arabia) in the bygone time.

    The killing of children en masse is not only meant to create a balance of terror, because those children belong to the evildoers, but for “the existence of an internal need for revenge,” and the killing of children, especially the young, responds to this need. Enumerating reasons for the killing of Palestinian children, the authors say it is possible to deal with the necessity of killing Palestinian children on the basis that they are chosen by fate to be killed to save the Jews. By the same token, by killing them, evil can be avoided.

    “In addition to what we mentioned in the previous chapter, they are, of course, accused of becoming evildoers when they grow up,” they say.

    It is noted that all penalties and provisions included in The King’s Torah book for any offense is murder and death. There are no penalties in the book but murder and death. Even the punishment prescribed by the book on the innocent is murder and death. Other penalties, such as imprisonment, fining or the like, have no room in the book. It is also noted that the book does not recognize international laws related to war, protection of civilians in time of war, or international humanitarian law on the prevention of genocide and punishment of the perpetrators.

    This is, perhaps, because the book assumes, as many Israelis believe, that Israel is above the international laws, and as long as the US administration supports Israel, the balance of power in the region will tilt in favor of Israel, while the Arab countries are subject to Israel and are unable to face or resist it.

    The danger of this book lies in the fact that its hostile theories and ideas – the worst ever inhuman theories that emerged in human history – are not confined to a few setters isolated from the rest of the Israeli society.

    These ideas are adopted by very large segments of the Jewish settlers in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, and large groups of religious Zionists as well as the ultra-Orthodox Jews, the Haridim, in Israel. The senior rabbis, who publicly support The King’s Torah and defend what is mentioned in it, are not marginal at all. They are known for being belonging to the religious mainstream of Israel, both religious ultra-Orthodox (Haridim) and national-Zionist wings.

    In addition, thousands graduate from the Jewish religious schools (yeshivas) in the Israeli settlements and inside Israel after they have learnt hatred, resentment, and anti-human values, such as the hostile, attitudes toward the Palestinians calling for their expulsion and killing. These values are also based on the teachings mentioned in The King’s Torah that advocate extermination of the Palestinians. The number of students is growing year after year as are the numbers in the Israeli army.

    The danger of this book does not lie in the adoption and preaching of these ideas, even though it is very dangerous. Rather, large sectors of the settlers turn from the adoption of these ideas into putting them into action. Under the auspices of the Israeli government and the protection of the occupying Israeli army, the settlers have been assaulting Palestinians, their property, and holy places. The rabbis and yeshiva students, who revere the ideas of The King’s Torah and deal with it as their original Torah, represent the spearhead of settlers and the occupation. They abuse the Palestinians, ravage their towns and villages, cut down their trees, and burn their farms, crops and mosques, thus turning their lives into a hell as a prelude to deportation. In this context, a secret, Jewish military organization named Tag Mehir emerged in 2009 from the ranks of those rabbis and their West Bank settlement yeshiva students, representing the military power of The King’s Torah-guided settlers.


    (1)The religion is the perfect cover for the Jews’ racial arrogance.
    If they claimed on any other grounds to be the Master Race and proclaimed that the members of other races were so inferior that they were little, if at all, better than swine, the Jews would arouse resentment from persons who were unwilling to accept that status. But peoples that have emerged from barbarism, even if still deeply imbued with superstitions themselves, have learned to be tolerant of many strange superstitions and strange gods and know that there is virtually no limit to what votaries can believe.

    The Jews further disarm resentment by professing to share their status as a Master Race with any ‘convert’ and profess to be eager proselytizers, but have taken the precaution to impose on proselytes sexual mutilations that alone suffice to exclude virile men and grotesquely barbarous taboos that are certain to repel every goy except a few females who are so light-headed that they will make useful puppets. Their faith in their innate superiority is thus shrewdly disguised.

    (2)The religion is a perfect cover for conspiracy.
    When the Jews invade a country, they normally make themselves inconspicuous by infiltrating, a few at a time, and planting a few of their number in every city, town, or even village where there is money to be made by exploiting the ignorant natives. If the scattered groups of invaders maintained a close liaison with other members of their race both within and without the nation they are attacking and claimed to do so on the basis of any common interest except religion, they would soon be identified as an alien and enemy conspiracy, but by claiming that they have a common interest in the worship of some god, they persuade the citizens to think of them as merely the votaries of some absurd, but harmlessly foolish, cult, and to overlook the real solidarity of the invaders.

    (3) The religion is the perfect means of making certain that Jews will be persecuted. It must be realized that the Jews’ success depends on their cunning in having themselves “persecuted.”
    By perpetually whining that they are a poor, helpless, persecuted minority, they effectively disguise their real power and their success in wrapping their tentacles about their victims, and by exciting the pity of soft-hearted and soft-headed goyim, they can use those goyim as weapons against the others.

    By establishing a reputation for being persecuted for their religion by awfully wicked pagans, they can make it seem that they, poor innocents, are suffering for their piety whenever their depredations and malevolence have so exasperated their victims that the latter try by legislation or violence to free themselves from the aliens who are exploiting and oppressing them.

    (4) The religion is perfect camouflage, whether or not it was consciously designed for that function.
    First of all, it enjoins on the race practices so barbarous and taboos so absurd and inconvenient that members of other races cannot believe that any rational beings would voluntarily submit themselves to what the Jews call their “Law” and therefore assume that the Jews do so only from a slavish fear of their capricious and ferocious deity: that convinces the goyim that the Jews never dare to disobey the supposed will of their god.

    The Jews have equipped themselves with holy books containing specific regulations, such as the so-called Ten Commandments, which were, of course, designed only to promote solidarity within the race and to apply only to members of it, but which can be represented to the stupid “Gentiles” as governing the Jews’ conduct toward them.

    Thus have the Jews enveloped themselves in a reputation for so fearing their deity that they obey his written instructions punctiliously, even in their relations with other races. So thoroughly have the Jews implanted this notion in people that many non-Jews, even if they have no religious preconceptions, almost automatically exonerate Jews from charges that are supported by evidence that would suffice to convict members of any other race.

    Every nation on which the Jews have fastened themselves since they first appear in history has been destroyed by internal subversion and corruption, but no one inquires to what extent the alien body lodged within the nation was responsible for its disintegration and final doom: the high-minded Jews would not harm their hosts. And so it goes. People have been conditioned automatically to accord to the Jews an exemption from the rules of evidence that we observe among ourselves. So far as I know, no non-Jew charged with theft or murder has even thought of proving his innocence by asserting he is a Christian and producing his Bible as proof that Christians cannot steal or murder. No one has ever claimed that the Thirty Years’ War must be an invention by pagan historians to slander Christians, since it is unthinkable that two sects of gentle, loving, lamb-like Christians would have so barbarously slaughtered one another.

    (5) The religion provides a means of penetrating even the inmost circles of nations and societies of credulous goyim.
    A Jew has only to claim that he rejects the religion and to have himself sprinkled with holy water to make Christians fancy that he has been miraculously transformed and is no longer a Jew; non-Christians are as gullible, for if a Jew does not observe some of the taboos and is seen to eat pork, and if he affects adherence to their culture, they accept him as one of themselves. The Jewish religion could have been designed to facilitate the planting of Marranos in the heart of invaded nations.

    (6) Their reputation as being on intimate terms with supernatural beings gives the Jews a great advantage in peddling sorcery and similar hokum in societies marked by a high level of ignorance.
    In the Middle Ages, for example, and even during the Renaissance and Reformation, the practice of magic to bilk the credulous and to impose even on the rulers of states and learn their secrets was almost as useful to the Jews as usury and commercial fraud in subverting European society. A quick glance at any book of spells of the time or at the summary in Arthur E. Waite’s Book of Ceremonial Magic (London, 1912; New York, 1961) will suffice to show that both terminology and practices come from Jewish sources, especially the Kabbalah, adapted to impose on the goyim.

    (7) Their expertise in superstition has always given the “God-people,” as the Jews like to call themselves, the ability to influence and divert native religions for their own benefit.

    Since such work is done covertly through Marranos and dupes, we can only suspect Jewish influence in many religious civil wars without being able to prove it. It is, for example, historically certain that when Cyrus the Great undertook the conquest of the Babylonian Empire, the Jews in that nation operated, as they always do, as agents of subversion to weaken and betray their hosts, and that after Cyrus captured Babylon without a prolonged siege and fighting, he repaid the Jews for their good work, which had spared the lives of many of his soldiers, and (as many another conqueror was to do later) rewarded them for their betrayal of his enemies with special privileges.

    The Jews, according to their traditions, flattered the triumphant goy by calling him their messiah, and probably rubbed their hands together in glee as they prepared to use those privileges to exploit the natives of various regions in the expanding Persian Empire, including eventually the native Egyptians, as we have learned from the Jewish papyri found at Elephantine. We may reasonably infer that the Jews stealthily opened the gates of Babylon to the Persians, so that Cyrus could take the strongly walled city without fighting, but we can only conjecture what contributions they made to the agitation and demoralization of the Babylonians that weakened the Empire before the Persians invaded it.

    The tale of the fall of Babylon in the Jews’ story-book is, of course, an impressive fiction, probably composed almost four hundred years after the event by an author who did not even know the name of the last king of Babylon, who was Nabonidus (= Nabu-na’id), and evidently a great benefactor of the Jews, who naturally knifed the sucker in the back when they had a chance to do so. There may be some truth however, in the Jews’ tradition that their hatred of the Babylonians was given a religious coloring, and the ranting attributed to Isaiah as well as parts of the tale called “Daniel” may preserve a memory of religious agitation carried out by the Jews in Babylon.

    Now one major cause of Nabonidus’s difficulties was what amounted to a religious civil war in his domains, ostensibly between votaries of Sin and the votaries of Marduk, carried out with a ferocious fanaticism that seems strange among peoples long accustomed to polytheism, even though some of them are Semitic by race. And there is evidence that some (we know not whether few or many) of the votaries of Marduk were peddling a kind of monotheism, claiming that he was the only (good?) god and that other gods were merely aspects of him. The Jews, of course, never hesitate to promote whatever god is useful to them (e.g., Sebazius in Rome and Osiris in Egypt during the second century B.C.) in manipulating goyim, and we may suspect that they were meddling with the Babylonian religion as well as contributing in all probability to the economic depression and inflation in Nabonidus’s realm – but, so far as I know, we have no proof. The same is true of many later events in history.

    Although a few obscurities remain, the origin and evolution of Christianity is now well known, but the subject is far too complex for full exposition here. We may note, however, one stage in that evolution, the Protestant Reformation, which was, if considered historically, a terrible calamity that drenched the streets and fields of Europe with much of the best blood of our race, impoverishing it genetically, while the Jews watched gleefully and profited enormously from both sides and, with the fragmentation of Protestantism, all sides.

    Now many causes contributed to that disaster, but if we try to identify one single incident that triggered the explosion, we must fix on the cleverness of the Jews in Florence, when, in 1485, they bamboozled and exploited Giovanni Pico, Count della Mirandola and titular Prince of Concordia, extracting enormous sums from the too wealthy young man while filling his vigorous, but adolescent, mind with Kabbalistic hocus-pocus, telling him it was the true essence of Christianity. From Pico the clue leads directly to Reuchlin, Pfefferkorn, Luther (who was tactfully guided by his helpful Jewish friends until late in his life, when he perceived how they had used him), Ulrich von Hutten, and the ghastly Wars of Religion that convulsed Europe for three centuries. It would be absurd to claim that the catastrophe was the result of a Jewish plot, but it is legitimate to pose the question to what extent Jewish intrigues and manipulations contributed to it. That is a problem that could be the organ of a diligent and objective historian willing to devote his life to the requisite research.

    (8) The Jews’ religion, which, as presented to the goyim, seems to validate their boasts of a peculiar “righteousness,” makes possible the greater part of their secular (i.e., economic and social) subversion and eventual destruction of the nations they invade.

    It must be remembered that the Jews operate by discovering and exploiting causes of dissent within nations, inciting classes and comparable groups within the nation to reciprocal antagonism, and exacerbating the rivalries to the point of civil war, until the nation is paralyzed and reduced to masses of individuals who no longer feel they have anything in common except the geographical territory they inhabit.

    The Jewish technique, as was too candidly explained by the notorious agitator, Herbert Aptheker, consists in finding large groups of goyim who can be isolated from the rest of the society on the basis of some economic, occupational, regional, cultural, sexual, or racial interest they have in common, persuading them that they are “oppressed” by the wicked society, inciting them to hatred of their “oppressors” and making them greedy for the profits they think they can gain by “demanding their rights,” and thus setting each group against all others until the nation is paralyzed by pseudo-legal contention that may hopefully be expected to eventuate in civil wars, massive massacres, and a reversion to total barbarism. The Jews, who are always careful to wail that they are a “persecuted minority” with a passion for godly “justice,” are thus ideally prepared to incite the “underprivileged” to outbreaks for “social justice,” and it is, of course, well known that all of the multiple forms of subversion are directed by Jews, often quite openly, although they usually try to associate with them some hired or light-headed members of each group they are inciting to what will be, in the end, self-destruction.

    (9) The same parade of religiosity facilitates the other principal offensive against the occupied nation, if it belongs to our race, which is morbidly susceptible to rhetorical appeals to sentimentality and “ideals,” i.e., fancied changes of the real world to make it more pleasant, usually by some magical transformation of human nature.
    Goyim, especially females, are easily intoxicated by rhapsodic talk about “all mankind,” “the brotherhood of man,” “world peace,” “equality of races,” “all men are born equal,” and similar nonsense.

    That adult Gentiles believe in such things without help from lysergic acid or even alcohol is simply proof of Kipling’s observation that:

    “Words are the most powerful drugs used by mankind.”

    The Jews cannot be held responsible for the mental weakness they exploit, nor even for their success in exploiting it. In the United States, for example, they have for decades been openly inciting the Blacks to plunder, beat, rape, and murder their White “oppressors,” and the White Americans are not only so craven and masochistic that they submit themselves and their children to the savages’ outrages, but so fatuous that they believe the Jews’ pretence that they are acting out of concern for the “underprivileged” savages rather than out of hatred for the Goyim as well as to profit from the misfortunes of the modern Canaanites, whose country they have effectively occupied. The Jews’ contempt for their befuddled and spineless victims is probably justified, but I think it obvious that their success was made possible in the United States, as, according to Philo, it was in Canaan, by the awe excited by their religious professions in the minds of the unwitting enemies whose country they invaded.


    Foreword — Daat Emet

    For a long time we have been considering the necessity of informing our readers about Halacha’s real attitude towards non-Jews. Many untrue things are publicized on this issue and the facts should be made clear. But recently, we were presented with a diligently written article on the subject, authored by a scholar from the Merkaz HaRav yeshiva — so our job was done by others (though we have already discussed some aspects of this issue in the weekly portions of Balak and Matot; see there). Since there is almost no disagreement between us and the author of the article on this issue, we have chosen to bring the article “Jews Are Called ‘Men'” by R’ David Bar-Chayim (in Hebrew) so that the reader will be able to study and understand the attitude of the Halacha towards non-Jews.
    In this article R’ Bar-Chayim discusses the attitude towards “Gentiles” in the Torah and in the Halacha and comes to an unambiguous conclusion:

    “The Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as ‘man,’ and a Gentile.”

    That is to say, any notion of equality between human beings is irrelevant to the Halacha. R’ Bar-Chayim’s work is comprehensive, written with intellectual honesty, and deals with almost all the aspects of Halachic treatment of non-Jews. It also refutes the statements of those rabbis who speak out of wishful thinking and, influenced by concepts of modern society, claim that Judaism does not discriminate against people on religious grounds. R’ Bar-Chayim shows that all these people base their constructs not on the Torah but solely on the inclinations of their own hearts. He also shows that there are even rabbis who intentionally distort the Halachic attitude to Gentiles, misleading both themselves and the general public.

    For the English readers’ convenience we will briefly mention the topics dealt with in R’ Bar-Chayim’s article:

    22. Laws in regard to murder, which clearly state that there is Halachic difference between murder of a Jew and of a Gentile (the latter is considered a far less severe crime).

    23. A ban on desecrating the Sabbath to save the life of a Gentile.

    24. A Jew’s exemption from liability if his property (e. g. ox) causes damage to a Gentile’s property. But if a Gentile’s property causes damage to a Jew’s property, the Gentile is liable.

    25. The question of whether robbery of a Gentile is forbidden by the Torah’s law or only by a Rabbinic decree.

    26. A ban on returning a lost item to a Gentile if the reason for returning it is one’s sympathy towards the Gentile and compassion for him.

    27. The sum which a Gentile overpays in a business transaction due to his own error is forfeit; whether a Jew is permitted to intentionally deceive a Gentile is also discussed.

    28. One who kidnaps a Jew is liable to death, but one who kidnaps a Gentile is exempt.

    29. A Jew who hurts or injures a Gentile is not liable for compensation of damage, but a Gentile who hurts a Jew is liable to death.

    30. One who overcharges a Gentile ought not return him the sum that the Gentile overpaid.

    31. A Gentile — or even a convert to Judaism — may not be appointed king or public official of any sort (e. g. a cabinet minister).

    32. One who defames a female proselyte (claiming that she was not virgin at the time of her marriage) is liable to neither lashes nor fine.

    33. The prohibition to hate applies only to Jews; one may hate a Gentile.
    34. One may take revenge against or bear a grudge towards Gentiles; likewise, the commandment “love your neighbor” applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles.
    35. One who sees Gentile graveyards should curse: “Your mother shall be greatly ashamed…”

    36. Gentiles are likened to animals.

    37. If an ox damaged a Gentile maidservant, it should be considered as though the ox damaged a she-ass.
    38. The dead body of a Gentile does not bear ritual impurity, nor does a Gentile who touches the dead body of a Jew become impure — he is considered like an animal who touched a dead body.
    39. One is forbidden to pour anointing oil on a Jew, but there is no ban on pouring that oil on a Gentile because Gentiles are likened to animals.
    40. An animal slaughtered by a Gentile is forbidden, even if the ritual slaughter performed was technically correct, because Gentiles are deemed like animals. (Daat Emet does not agree that this is the Halachic reason for invalidating a Gentile’s ritual slaughter — but this is not the place to delve into the subject).
    41. Their members(genitals) are like those of asses” — Gentiles are likened to animals.
    42. Between the Jews and the Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought

    R’ Bar-Chayim’s arguments and conclusions are clear, Halachically accurate, and supported by almost all the existent major Halachic works. It would be superfluous to say that R’ Bar-Chayim fully embraces this racist Halachic outlook as the word of the Living G-d, as he himself pointed out in the “Conclusion” of his article: “It is clear to every Jew who accepts the Torah as G-d’s word from Sinai, obligatory and valid for all generations, that it is impossible to introduce ‘compromises’ or ‘renovations’ into it.”
    On the other hand, we want to make it clear that Daat Emet — as well as any reasonable people who do not embrace Halachic laws as the word of the Living G-d — are repulsed by such evil, racist discrimination.
    In the Hebrew text we have abridged the second part of R’ Bar-Chayim’s article, “Between Jews and Gentiles — In the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and in Jewish Thought,” because, in our view, the Halacha is the law which obligates every religious Jew while concepts of the Aggadah, the Kabbalah, and Jewish thought are not binding on anyone, as our rabbis have already written: “And so the Aggadic constructs of the disciples of disciples, such as Rav Tanchuma and Rabbi Oshaya and their like — most are incorrect, and therefore we do not rely on the words of Aggadah” (Sefer HaEshkol, Laws of a Torah Scroll, p. 60a); we have expanded on this issue in the portion of Vayeshev.
    Tzfi’a 3
    Rabbi David Bar Chaim
    Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav


  8. Somebody necessarily lend a hand to make critically articles I might state. That is the very first time I frequented your website page and thus far? I amazed with the research you made to make this actual post extraordinary. Great activity!


  9. May I just say what a relief to uncover a person that genuinely knows what they are discussing on the internet. You definitely realize how to bring an issue to light and make it important. A lot more people need to read this and understand this side of the story. I was surprised you are not more popular given that you definitely have the gift.




      Noah had three sons (Genesis 10:1) after the flood; from one of which, Shem, there derives the word ‘Semitic’ – according to the Oxford Dictionary. One descendent of Shem is Abram (11:26) – i.e. he’s a Semite.
      The first son of Noah was Japheth, and his descendants include ‘Ashkenaz’. The Jews of Europe many centuries ago decided to call themselves Ashkenazi, indicating that they believed they had descended from that lineage. So they are not Semites. From the second son of Noah the line of descent goes to ‘Mizraim’ and the Egyptian Jews decided long ago to name themselves in this way, as Mizraim Jews. This applies to North African Jews, (‘Sephardic’).

      Modern Israel is mainly composed of Ashkernazi and Mizraim Jews, which means that only a small proportion maybe 10% or less of its citizens are what, based on the Bible, should be called Semitic.

      One of Shem’s descendants is called Eber, from whom the ‘Hebrews’ come. Thus The Book of Genesis alludes to Abram as ‘Abram the Hebrew’ (14:13). So he is both a Hebrew and a Semite.

      Yahweh makes his big promise to Abram, that his descendants will be as many as the stars in the sky (15:5). Near the river Jordan, He promises to give to Abraham’s descendants all the land that he can see – let’s say, a hundred square kilometres (13:15).

      We eagerly await to hear who his lucky descendants will be – as Hebrews and/or Semites – to gain this God-given inheritance.

      When Abraham and his wife Sarah were quite old, his first son Ishmael was born, from whom descend the twelve tribes of Arabia (17:20).
      When the couple journey into Egypt they meet the Pharaoh – on account of the beauty of Sarah:

      ‘…when Abram came into Egypt, the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful.’ (12:15)

      ‘When the palace officials saw her, they sang her praises to Pharaoh, their king, and Sarai was taken into his palace.’
      She’s taken to the pharaoh who marries her. Abraham offers his wife to the Pharaoh, explaining that she’s his sister (she is, it’s incest, they had the same father). We quote Ahmed Osman here:

      ‘The Hebrew original makes clear that the marriage between pharaoh and Sarai had already taken place. that is why Abram was given Sarai’s dowry.’ (Stranger in the valley of the Kings’ Osman p,39)

      Surely the beauty of Sarai in the eyes of the Pharaoh, is evidence that she was fertile for him. But, the Pharaoh’s marital bliss is soon interrupted, as Yahweh denounces him for taking another man’s wife and some divine punishment begins.

      Abram soon gets back his wife/sister and the two exit from Egypt, he being then a hundred years old (21:5). Sarah then has a child, Isaac, and it’s not too hard to guess to whom it belongs.

      The Talmud, an oral-tradition text, has people scoffing at Abraham because the child did not look like him [1]. Eventually he cannot bear it any longer, and takes the child to an altar to sacrifice him (Genesis 22) – but God stays his hand, and Isaac lives.

      Again we quote Ahmed Osman:

      ‘The critical question, upon which everything else turns, is; Who was Isaac’s father?’ (p.41)

      What is the point of this whole story? The point is, we suggest, that the grandson of Isaac, Joseph, can go into Egypt and get along with everyone there, and become the grand vizier, i.e. top advisor to the pharaoh. He can do that because he has got Egyptian blood in him. Indeed he has got royal blood – that of the Pharaoh.

      Abraham is given ‘the covenant of circumcision – and here the Bible conceals the fact that circumcision was normal in Egypt long before the Hebrews started doing it. Every male child in Egypt was circumcised. Why would it conceal this fact?

      ‘And Abraham became the father of Isaac and circumcised him eight days after his birth’ (Acts 7:8)

      That is evidence for the Egyptian princely lineage coming through there, that the Egyptian practice of circumcision is here used – for the first time as given in the Bible – on Isaac, son of the (unspecified) Pharaoh.

      If you don’t want to believe this, and accept instead the usual version, then the tale is merely silly and sordid: Abram pimps out his wife, ‘God’ colludes, and Abram in return gets a load of gold and silver. Do you really want to believe that?

      It’s worse than that: do you want to believe in a god who magically causes a hundred year old man to become fertile, and then inseminates his own sister? And then, for no reason, the Deity describes an operation called ‘circumcision.’ to be performed upon the child? Do you want to believe in a god who advocates incest?

      The promise made by the deity to Abraham about his wife was:

      ‘I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”‘ (17:16)

      That did indeed come to pass – if we accept Ahmed Osman’s argument that Joseph when he came into Egypt married into the royal dynasty. It’s an epic tale, as a result of which, four pharaohs had Hebrew blood – and this caused such a disturbance that they were blotted out from historical memory for three thousand years! Hebrew scribes were concerned to draw a veil over this marvellous process – i.e., where their ‘Moses’ had come from – but then, how could they claim that the prophecy has been fulfilled? They did so by making up the fictional and non-existent kingdoms of David and Solomon – but that’s another story.

      Isaac has two children and they have a row about the birth right that is inherited from their father. What birth right was that? Were they not just nomadic shepherds? Only if Isaac had princely blood in him, would that make sense.

      Returning to our original theme, what is a Semite? The twelve tribes of Israel descended from Isaac. We conclude that, any divine promise was given to Abraham, concerning his descendants, applied to Ishmael but not Isaac. It is the descendants of Ishmael who have to be the Semites and Hebrews and maybe they deserve to inherit that divinely-promised plot?
      [1] Quoted by Ahmed Osman, Stranger in the Valley of the Kings, 1987, p.41.

      YOU TUBE: “Anti-semitic, it’s a trick we always use it”
      •Jun 26, 2010
      257 subscribers
      Former Israeli Minister Shulamit Aloni “Anti-semitic”, “its a trick we always use it”

      YOU TUBE: Sarah Silverman says “I would kill Christ again”
      •Apr 24, 2011
      Is she speaking for her fellow Jews?


  10. Great article! Trying to ignore the ranting of the above creep who is co-opting this wonderful platform to spew hateful and ridiculous conspiracy theories, it’s disturbing! Sorry that’s happening to you, wishing you the best and thanking you for this important work!


  11. Wonderful blog! Do you have any recommendations for aspiring writers? I’m hoping to start my own website soon but I’m a little lost on everything. Would you propose starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option? There are so many choices out there that I’m completely confused .. Any ideas? Many thanks!


  12. Why doesn’t the lunatic and most likely radical Leftist Buddy Silver get his own platform ? It was an excellent article, unfortunately Buddy Silver sees fit to spam the comments with his conspiracy theories and hatred.


  13. I’m truly enjoying the design and layout of your site. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme? Great work!


  14. A person essentially help to make seriously posts I would state. This is the very first time I frequented your website page and thus far? I surprised with the research you made to make this particular publish amazing. Excellent job!


  15. Thanks on your marvelous posting! I genuinely enjoyed reading it, you happen to be a great author.I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and may come back in the foreseeable future. I want to encourage one to continue your great job, have a nice holiday weekend!


  16. fantastic put up, very informative. I wonder why the opposite specialists of this sector do not realize this. You should continue your writing. I am sure, you’ve a huge readers’ base already!


  17. May I just say what a comfort to discover someone that actually knows what they are discussing online. You actually understand how to bring an issue to light and make it important. A lot more people really need to check this out and understand this side of the story. I was surprised you’re not more popular given that you most certainly have the gift.


  18. An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a friend who was doing a little research on this. And he actually ordered me lunch due to the fact that I discovered it for him… lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending some time to talk about this issue here on your web page.


  19. Hi! Someone in my Facebook group shared this site with us so I came to look it over. I’m definitely loving the information. I’m book-marking and will be tweeting this to my followers! Great blog and great design and style.


  20. Hey there! I’ve been following your website for a long time now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Kingwood Texas! Just wanted to tell you keep up the good job!


  21. Have you ever thought about writing an e-book or guest authoring on other websites? I have a blog based upon on the same subjects you discuss and would love to have you share some stories/information. I know my viewers would value your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an e mail.


  22. Howdy! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and say I genuinely enjoy reading through your posts. Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that deal with the same topics? Thanks a ton!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

About Sarahowlgirl1982

I am a master of Political Sciences, with special focus on Security Studies, Islamic Counter Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction. I enjoy discovering and commenting things which are " in the air" but still not spoken.I also do like science writing and planing to move myself into the pure science journalism !