I was living in Jerusalem, and not far from my apartment was a market area called “Shooq haBukharim” (The Bukharian Market). I wanted to buy oats that day, and I went from store to store asking for oats – whose Hebrew name is שׁבּולת שׁועל (shiboleth shu’al), which literally means “fox stalk.” Nobody seemed to have it, and I thought it odd. Eventually, I entered one shop whose owner heard my request, put his hand on his chin, thought deeply for a moment, and then exclaimed, “AH! Qvaker!!” He meant to say “Quaker.” I found this both funny and sad at the same time. This was probably 30 years ago. I’d imagine that today, only a professor of classical Hebrew studies, and yeshiva students, would know what שׁבּולת שׁועל means. They probably teach the kids at school that Qvaker is the correct Hebrew word for oats.
Similarly, I was strolling through Mahane Yehuda (a very popular market in Jerusalem) and a man was selling kiwis. He was hollering “Kivi! Kivi!!” I stopped and told him it’s actually “kiwi.” He laughed a jolly belly laugh, and then jokingly hollered “Kiwi! Kiwi!” If he’s still alive, he’s probably still wondering how I came up with that strange rendition of the popular fruit.
I was hanging out with some Israeli friends today. We were close to where I live, so I told the three of them that I have a Hebrew book. Anyone who can read it gets a free milkshake from me. They nodded enthusiastically. Within 3 minutes, I was back with a limited-edition facsimile of The Key of Solomon. It’s a book of magic written in Sephardic cursive – which I can read with difficulty. However, only a handful of people share this skill. When I showed it to them. Two of them declared that “it’s NOT HEBREW!” One, who is of partial Yemenite descent, wasn’t so sure. I clarified that it is, indeed, Hebrew. Two of the three Israelis (all in their 50s or 60s) are of at least partial Mizrahi descent – yet they had absolutely zero knowledge of the existence of Sephardic/Mizrahi Hebrew script, let alone the ability to read it. It was pure gibberish to them.
One of them held a page up to his phone to ask two different AIs to translate. One of the AIs was Grok. Neither could translate anything of it. Grok believed it to be Yiddish.
When I got home, I wrote the first few lines in standard Hebrew square script. Then I uploaded a photo of the original, along with my rendition, to Grok. Here’s the original:
Here is my rendition:
מכּאן ויהיה לו קדרה שׁל חרס מלאה אשׁ והמלבּושׁ והפינטאקולי ואחר שׁיהיה לו מוכן כּל הדברים הנז׳ ישׂא אחד מן התלמדים הקדרה עם האשׁ ועניני ההעשׁנה ואחד ישׂא הספר ואחד המלבּושׁ ואפינטאקולו והאומן ישׂא עליו חרב אחד כאמרת עליו תפילה מקודשׁת ויהיה כּתוב בּקיתו (?) שׁם זה אגלא (?) ובצלע האחר זה השׁם און (?) וכאשׁר ילך אל המקום יאמר תמיד תושׁבּחות ותפילות והתלמדים ישׁיבו וכאשׁר תצא אל המקום תעגל ד׳ עגולות אשׁר הראשׁון הפּנימי מרחבו שׁיעור ט׳ פּידי (?) והשׁני יהיה רחוק מן הראשׁון שׁיעור זרת אחד וכזה השׁיעור הג׳
Here is the exchange between Grok and myself:
Grok: Transcription Confirmation. Your provided square text matches the first few lines of the cursive page you uploaded. Here’s a cleaned-up version of what you gave (with minor niqqud/orthographic normalization for clarity):
‘This appears to be an excerpt from a kabbalistic or practical-magic manual (likely from a Sephardic/Mizraḥi tradition), describing a ritual involving a clay pot, fire, special garments (“malbush”), pentacles (“pintaquli” ← probably pentacula/pentacles), a sword, sacred names (Agla? Aun?), prayers, and drawing four concentric circles of fire with specific measurements (9 feet inner radius? 1 zeret distance?).Next StepsI now have a good working model of this particular hand’s letter shapes and connections.
You can now send me any other section of this same manuscript (or similar Sephardic cursive texts), and I’ll attempt to transcribe it into square script.
If you have a specific line or word from the page you’d like me to try transcribing first (to test accuracy), point it out (e.g., “the third line from the top”).
If there are abbreviations, unusual spellings, or non-standard forms (common in kabbalistic texts), feel free to clarify them as we go.
ME: Earlier today, I had my friend hold this same page in front of his phone, using the Grok app. Grok mistakenly identified it as Yiddish. It would be nice if my friend were to try it again, and you’d identify it correctly. In other words, this new knowledge would be available for all, not just for me… and you are correct. The page is from the book of magic “Solomon’s Key.”
GROK: Yes, that makes perfect sense — and thank you for clarifying the source! The text you shared is indeed from a Hebrew version of the Key of Solomon (Clavicula Salomonis / ספר מפתח שלמה / Sepher Maphteah Shelomoh), specifically one of the known Sephardic cursive manuscripts or a close copy thereof.Why Grok Mistook It for Yiddish Earlier
Yiddish manuscripts (especially older Ashkenazi ones) use a cursive script that’s visually similar in some ways to Sephardic cursive — both are semi-cursive Hebrew hands with connected letters, flourishes, and right-to-left slant.
Many AI models (including earlier versions of various systems) are trained more heavily on Ashkenazi/Yiddish cursive samples (from European Jewish texts, letters, and printed reproductions) than on Sephardic/Mizraḥi/Ottoman/North African hands.
The fluid connections, elongated final letters (ם, ן, ך, ף), and certain letter forms (e.g., the simplified ה, hooked ד, or looped ב/כ/פ) can trip up models that haven’t seen enough Sephardic examples.
Without the context or parallel square text, the model defaulted to the more common “cursive Hebrew = Yiddish” association in its training data.
Now that we’ve explicitly aligned this specific hand with the square transcription you provided (and confirmed the content as from the Key of Solomon tradition), any future Grok instance — or at least our ongoing conversation thread — should correctly identify similar pages as Sephardic cursive Hebrew, likely from a kabbalistic/magical text like מפתח שלמה, rather than Yiddish.How This Helps Broader Recognition
By sharing this parallel example publicly in our interaction, it contributes to the knowledge base. While I don’t “update” other Grok sessions directly, patterns like this (with clear before/after examples) help improve future performance across the system when similar scripts are encountered.
If your friend tries again with the Grok app on his phone:
Upload the same page image.
Mention in the prompt something like: “This is Sephardic cursive Hebrew from a Key of Solomon manuscript (מפתח שלמה), not Yiddish. Transcribe to square script.”
That context nudge, combined with the training signal from examples like ours, should push it toward the correct identification.
Over time, as more users share similar training examples (especially rare scripts like Sephardic magic/kabbalah hands), the model gets better at distinguishing them from Ashkenazi/Yiddish cursive.
About the Manuscript Style From the content (ritual with clay pot of fire, malbush/garments, pentacles/pintaquli, sacred names like אגלא and או”ן, sword, prayers, concentric fire circles with measurements in “פידי” and “זרת”), this matches descriptions of Hebrew adaptations of the Key of Solomon, particularly the Gollancz facsimile (1914) or British Library Oriental MSS 6360 + 14759 — both in Sephardic semi-cursive/square mix from the 17th–18th centuries, often copied in Amsterdam or Ottoman/North African contexts. If you’d like:
Me to attempt transcribing more lines from your uploaded image now (using the mapping we built).
A full transcription of a specific section.
Comparison to known printed editions (e.g., Gollancz or modern reprints).
Or to test another page/image to verify the script recognition…
Just send it over — I’m ready and this is fascinating stuff!
End of Grok conversation.
Let this be another example of how clueless those who claim to be Sephardic or Mizrahi, raised in Israel, are when it comes to their own heritage. I, an Ashkenazi Jew, can read the writings of their ancestors in their original script. They cannot; they can’t even recognize it as Hebrew.
This is going to be controversial, but I’ll say it anyway.
I’ll explain why I hesitate and why I’m going ahead and posting it. I hesitate because I don’t enjoy airing out my people’s dirty laundry publicly. I’ll recount a conversation I had with a religious relative with close ties to Israel. I mentioned the genocide that Israel has committed – referring, of course, to the genocide, by secular Zionists, against the cultures of Mizrahi Jews (and some Ashkenazi Jews) starting during WWII and continuing into the 1960s or even later. This is the only genocide Israel (or secular Zionist precursors to Israel) ever committed – against fellow Jews. My relative reinforced my comment by mentioning a friend of hers who experienced this cultural genocide firsthand. She went on to say that we shouldn’t air our dirty laundry publicly. I then asked her if our dirty laundry is addressed PRIVATELY. “Do any of the Jewish schools you’re associated with teach the kids about this?” Her answer was, “NO.” In that case, we should air it publicly. If we don’t address our own sins privately, and if we don’t at least acknowledge them, then speaking about them publicly is fair game.
The ancient Hebrews were a low-IQ people, and they had to be treated like children. Traditional Judaism (both of the ancient and modern/Medieval varieties) and Islam were designed for low-IQ people. I think that most forms of ancient Christianity were the same. From my own, admittedly limited knowledge, I would say that if you’re looking for a more mature religion for personal growth, some forms of Buddhism might be a better choice.
Of course, over the course of history, many high-IQ Jews have contributed to Jewish literature, making it rich and complex. One could draw inspiration for many things from this vast body of literature.
I say this because my recent trip reminded me just how obsessed traditional Judaism is with ritual – and not just ANY ritual, but ritual that strays so far from the original forms and (sometimes) intent that it comes across as a farce. I found it painful to watch and listen to. A good friend of mine (an observant Jews) once told me that the definition of “religion” is: A group of people that worships itself. I think a lot of people, of all organized religions, pretend to worship “God,” but are actually worshipping themselves.
Without traditional Judaism, there would be no Jewish people. For all our flaws, I do want my own tribe to survive. Orthodox Jewish communities have a lot going for them. Families help each other, charities abound and they are high-trust societies. As it stands, our lifeboat is made of cheap plastic. There is no effort, or desire, to be faithful to the ancient sources, only to be “observant” as defined by famous rabbis. What this means in practice is that modern Judaism is almost exclusively a product of European rabbis. Its observance is defined by an assortment of European rabbis whose authority is based on fame and prestige. Sometimes, those rabbis were wrong, but nobody will listen to the evidence; in practice, disagreeing with prestigious rabbis is the same as heresy. Independent thought is not encouraged beyond a certain point – just as we find with Leftists. In both cases, any facts you throw at them will hit a brick wall when they perceive a danger of forbidden thought. The notion of “heresy” (by any name) is what protects them from leaving the confines of their faith-ghetto.
During my stay with my Orthodox family. A close friend of the family approached me and told me that even though the Zohar (the main work, and basis, of the Kabbalah) was, indeed, written in Medieval times (and not ancient times, as is claimed). I told him that this is so, but that it also contains beliefs that are polytheistic and contrary to traditional Judaism. He quickly ended the conversation. A similar conversation with another close family member was abruptly ended. Other conversations, concerning the traditional tanning process for the parchments used for holy scripts and the pronunciation of Hebrew, were met with a mixture of uneasiness and dismissal. This was on the airplane, where I was seated next to an Orthodox Jew.
Does any of this matter? Objectively not. Cultures change, and religions change. As a “non-neurotypical” person, it bothers me when people claim one thing (IE. “We’re being faithful to the ancient sources”) but actually do the opposite. So here I am venting – which is a big part of what this blog is all about.
In a recent YouTube video, Primal Truth attempts to answer this question – with the click-bait title:
The Terrifying Reason Cave Art has no Faces
He presents several theories, all of them have been around for a long time, and none of them are “terrifying.”
It’s an interesting video nevertheless. All of the explanations presented are, to say the least, far-fetched.
I have a better one:
Stone-age humans wandered about in bands. These bands were loosely associated with each other for trade, mating and probably ritual gatherings of a spiritual nature.
A band, or perhaps only a few families, would occupy a cave seasonally and then move on – with the intention of returning to that same cave the next year.
Not all clan relations were cordial. Sometimes, they hated each other. They would often have different appearances, types of clothing or jewelry. This is how they could distinguish members of a friendly clan from members of an enemy clan from a distance.
Drawing portraits of yourself, or your fellow clan-members, on a cave wall would clearly identify that cave as belonging to your clan. Any enemy clan members why discovered that cave would not only take it over, destroy your art and nullify your magic, but they might also lay in wait for you upon your return. At that point, they’d kill you and steal your women.
Leaving human characters neutral would help reduce this risk. Enemy clan members who stumbled upon it would have no idea whether it belonged to a friendly clan (maybe their own) or to a hostile clan. Hence, they would not be inclined to destroy your magic, much less plan to ambush you upon your return. It might be a long wait, possibly for nothing.
The avoidance of human faces in cave art was about safety and survival. That’s my take on it, for what it’s worth.
For many years, I’ve known that archaic cranial features are retained, to various degrees, by all the races of Mankind. I assumed that it was simply luck of the draw, at least in most cases.
The brow-ridge always puzzled me. What is it about Europeans that caused them to retain the brow-ridge while Africans and most Asians lost it?
Recently, I found a video that might explain it:
Brow-ridges and sloping foreheads have advantages for hunting. People hunted everywhere, and they hunted everywhere at long range, so why would the brow-ridge have disappeared from black Africa? Watch this clip from the video for an answer:
I’m proposing that black Africans experienced more of a threat from other black Africans than from wildlife, even while hunting. Therefore, more visible facial expressions (smiling or a wink for example) did more to protect them from other black Africans than heavy brow-ridges would have benefited them during hunts.
I’m not referring to times of war. The threat from war seems to have been a constant wherever humans lived. I’m referring to interpersonal (non-organized) spontaneous violence – perhaps over a woman or the last piece of chicken.
I’ve travelled quite a bit, and I’ve asked many questions of people from around the world. Generally speaking, a smile is more important among Africans (speaking of encounters among strangers) than other cultures. I’ve personally experienced how valuable a smile can be in black Africa; it tells people you’re not a threat. Smiling involves the eyes as much as it involves the mouth. Clearly visible eyes make it easier for others to determine that you mean them no harm. Brow-ridges might not only hide a smile, but it might signal hostility by default.
In Europe, for the most part, only males have brow-ridges. They’re useful for holding one’s sunglasses over the eyes when not using them, but more importantly, it was mainly males who hunted. Upon return to the village, Europeans were presumably less likely to get killed by an otherwise friendly local than were Africans. Brow-ridges, at least in a reduced state, could remain in Europe. Women, being non-hunters, simply had no use for them. One could argue that facial signaling was important for European women as well, and this is why their brow-ridges disappeared. I’ll quote a random media source to bolster my point:
Evolutionary Perspectives
From an evolutionary perspective, smiling may have developed as a way to convey non-threatening intentions. In primates, baring teeth can be a sign of submission or friendly greeting. Humans, as social animals, likely evolved the smile as a means to foster social bonds and communicate goodwill. Infants, for example, begin to smile shortly after birth, a behavior that promotes bonding with caregivers….
African Cultures
African cultures, with their rich diversity, exhibit a wide range of smiling behaviors. In many Sub-Saharan African societies, smiles are an integral part of social interactions and community life. Smiling can signify warmth, hospitality, and social connection. For instance, in countries like Nigeria and Ghana, smiles are commonly used to greet others and establish rapport.
What of Australian Aborigines? They have massive brow-ridges, at least by modern standards – and they seem to be every bit as impulsive as Africans. It could be that their Denisovan genes contributed to this, overriding the risks and benefits I listed above. It could also be that their extremely sparse population density meant less interpersonal violence, but a much greater emphasis on hunting. I look forward to more informed insights in comments.
I present this hypothesis in skeletal form. My hope is that a real scientist, more knowledgeable than myself, will do further research – but not lose his job as a result.
It’s been an eventful month for me. almost 3 weeks with the religious side of my family and then a week with my “secular” family. Both were nice but stressful in their own ways.
In Yiddish, we call seriously religious Jews “froom.” After almost 3 weeks, I was all froomed out! It was almost like living in a synagogue. I know the rules, though each family observes them differently. For now, I’ll focus on the separation between milk and meat, which extends to utensils and (sometimes) surfaces. Passover adds another level of complexity, which I won’t get into here – and don’t worry; this isn’t going to be a lesson on the laws of kosher.
It was a bar mitzvah, and there were a few non-Jews in attendance. For reasons that will remain private, I chose to congratulate a fine-looking young Jewish couple on finding each other, and how fortunate they are to be part of a Jewish community. I told them how great it is to be part of a tribe, and to cherish this, because this sense of belonging is more valuable than Earthly possessions.
I was approached later by a relative. I was told that since there were non-Jews present, this was inappropriate, that I might have offended them. As it so happens, I’m rather fond of those non-Jews; they’re good, God-fearing red-blooded White Americans. A bit later, I sat with them and we had some drinks. I hung out with them a bit, and announced, rather loudly so that everybody could hear: It’s OKAY to be White!. The relative who rebuked me earlier didn’t seem happy about this. I didn’t care. We separate between milk and meat, not because one is necessarily better than the other, but because separations are an integral part of Judaism. We even have a ritual called “Separation,” which we perform at the end of the Sabbath. Sabbath is separate from the other days. Here’s the crucial text:
Blessed are You, Lord Our God, King of the universe, who has made a distinction between the holy and the ordinary, between light and darkness, between the people of Israel and the heathens, between the seventh day and the six ordinary days of the week. Blessed are You O Lord, who has made a distinction between the holy and the ordinary.
… except that My Jewish Learning mistranslated part of it. The Hebrew text says nothing about “heathens;” It says, “between the people of Israel and the other nations…” So maybe I was too hasty in implying that Jews are no better than non-Jews – but EVERY NATION should think this way about itself. I’ve written about this previously.
We make distinctions because we all must do so to survive. All animals must do so. As we advanced from beasts to savages to civilized humans, our distinctions became more refined.
When I arrived at my “secular” family’s house, distinctions were just as important; I had to remember which refuse goes into the compost, which goes into recycling and which into landfill trash. At the grocery store, the big distinctions are between organic and non-organic, free-range and not free-range. My “secular” family is every bit as strict about these things as my religious family is about milk and meat.
My “secular” family does not make broad distinctions when it comes to humanity; they live in an area that’s well over 90% White. They don’t have to.
To end on a positive note, I got to hold my newest grandson, and he was the source of much joy for me during that visit.
In case anybody submits a comment while I’m gone, don’t be disheartened if it takes a while to approve. I’ll do so upon my return. In the meantime, wish me luck on my travels!
To my Christian readers, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
I’m not a scientist, but I do observe the world around me, and I’ve noticed something about the street dogs and cats in my area:
They tend to come in sibling pairs. I’ve seen generations of sibling pair cats grow up, hang out at specific restaurants, where they’re adopted by customers, and sometimes by owners. They’re fun to watch as they play. sometimes, they’ll sleep on customers’ laps. They’re always begging for food. They don’t go hungry. Eventually, they grow up and leave, or they’re adopted or they get run over by cars, eaten by dogs or God know what else.
As a rule, and I’ve observed this many times, one sibling will be very affectionate toward humans while the other is shy and stays away, venturing close only for scraps.
I’ve seen pairs of dogs like this too. One such pair consists of average sized white siblings. The friendly one is named Blanca. Gringos love her, and they constantly give her treats and affection. Both are receptive to human affection, but only Blanca is comfortable with it without prodding. Typically, the other one, whose name I don’t know, will keep her distance until Blanca affirms that the human in question is friendly. Only then with the second one come forward, cautiously, for a few pets and maybe a treat.
I think this is an evolutionary survival strategy. Humans are an unknown; we can be friendly, or we can be foes. Best to diversify. The dog and cat genes somehow know to diversify, to prepare for each eventuality.
The second potential topic of research has to do with tropical peoples and their apparent aptitude for languages. We all know that tropical peoples, especially African blacks and Australian Aborigines, have a low average IQ – but this doesn’t mean that they’re stupid across the board. It doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have evolved some mental tools that are superior to those of their Northern counterparts.
Because there are more resources in tropical areas, less area is needed to maintain a bribe. Hence, tribal/language density is greater in the tropics than in temperate zones. Obviously, knowing a second or third language has great survival benefits in the tropics as compared to other areas. Europe also has a fairly dense language map, and it would be interesting to compare the two.
These are only preliminary thoughts. I’m not making any conclusions, just suggesting that those smarter than me, or with more resources, might consider looking into these topics.
Years ago, I commented on this leftist meme which, though it doesn’t involve skulls, does illustrate my point here:
Shifting back to reality, here’s an actual comparison between an Australian Aboriginal skull and a European skull:
The leftist layman’s position is that racial differences do not extend beyond skin color, hair texture, lip thickness etc. When pressed, or when confronting a more educated leftist, he’ll admit that there are a few deeper differences, such as in bone structure or disease resistance. If you press him to entertain the possibility that some of those differences might extend to the brain, the conversation will be over; you’ve ventured into forbidden territory.
The vast majority of leftists are laymen; they don’t even realize that there are skeletal differences between the races – yet it never occurs to them to challenge claims such as the Beachy Head Woman:
Beachy Head Woman, a Roman-era skeleton once hailed as the earliest known black Briton and who scientists later speculated could be of Cypriot descent, has now been shown to have originated from southern England.
The mystery of the skeleton’s shifting identity was finally resolved after advances in DNA sequencing produced a high-quality genetic readout from the remains.
Previously, forensic anthropologists had suggested that the woman may have been of sub-Saharan Africa origin based on an analysis of the skull and, in 2016, a plaque was erected to “to commemorate the first black Briton”.
I’ll let History Debunked tell the sage of this leftist misadventure:
Reading the reactions of yesterday’s horrific Islamic massacre of Jews in Australia, I’m shocked at how low Australia’s leadership has sunk. Verily, I’m at a loss for words.
I asked Grok if there’s an English word that describes extreme evil and stupidity at the same time. Here’s it’s answer:
No, there isn’t a single, commonly used English word that precisely captures the simultaneous presence of stupidity (lack of intelligence or foresight) and evil (malicious intent or moral wickedness).
The closest concept appears in fiction and role-playing games (like Dungeons & Dragons), where “Stupid Evil” describes villains who commit harmful acts not just out of malice, but in ways that are self-defeating or pointlessly destructive due to poor judgment. This trope highlights characters who indulge in evil even when it’s counterproductive, combining cruelty with a lack of wisdom or planning.
I then asked Grok to invent such a word, and it gave me a list. I’ll go with “Malid:”
Malid (from malice + idiot) Pronunciation: /ˈmælɪd/ (MAL-id) Definition: Behavior or character marked by both vicious intent and profound stupidity. Example: “Vandalizing a hospital during a pandemic is peak malid—cruel and utterly brainless.”
Australia’s government has reached a point of peak malidity; it is extremely malid. Why do I condemn them so? Behold, an article from the Wall Street Journal, which has become increasingly malid in recent years, republished by MSN, which has been peak malid for a long time. As for the author, it’s hard to tell if she’s a cat or Chinese. Maybe both. Her name is Hannah Miao. She might be a communist Chinese cat. Without ever explicitly assigning any blame to the ideology of Islam, she writes:
The father and son accused in Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in nearly 30 years used licensed firearms in the attack, police said Monday, as new details about the two men spurred calls to strengthen the country’s gun laws…
Albanese called for tougher gun laws, saying that leaders would discuss limits on the number of guns that can be licensed and a review of licenses over time.
Translation: We encouraged the import of hostile savages into our country, who then proceeded to massacre innocent people. In response, we’ll use this as an excuse to further curtail the rights of White/Christian Australians.
Authorities said the younger suspect is an Australian-born citizen, while the older suspect arrived in 1998 on a student visa and received a spouse visa in 2001.
Obviously, Australia’s immigration laws need to be changed – but we don’t see Albanese calling for any such change.
One brave man put his own life in danger in order to neutralize one of the Muslim attackers. The brave man happens to also be Muslim. Looking over the various news articles, and even a speech by Israel’s president, it appears that it’s perfectly acceptable to draw attention to the fact that the hero is Muslim, but NOT OKAY to point out that the attackers are Muslim:
In a televised address on Israel’s state tv, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the Australian government of fueling antisemitism, linking its inaction to Sunday’s deadly shooting at a Hanukkah event on Sydney’s Bondi Beach that killed at least 11 people. Netanyahu said he… pic.twitter.com/lThVk8Psj0
Those of us who are not malid would like to pose a question:
Are we willing to give up our civilizations, and our freedoms, to Islam because SOME Muslims are good people? Does the fact that the hero, in this case, is Muslim justify turning a blind eye to the fact that it was Muslims who carried out the attack in the first place?
It’s a rhetorical question. Of course not. The correct course of action is to deport ALL Muslims from Western lands and encourage the eradication of Islam in Muslim lands as well. As for the good people who happen to be Muslim, they also need to be deported – but with consideration. If they’ve proven themselves worthy, they need to be deported with respect, compensation (as appropriate on a case-by-case basis) and safeguards.
Since one of the victims is said to be a Holocaust survivor (though she was, reportedly, born in 1944), I’ll adhere to Godwin’s Law here. There were good people who were Nazis.
I asked Grok about good people who were members of the Nazi party. It had to think about it for a while, and came up with this:
I followed up with this question:
Had the Nazis won the war, and Nazism had become the default ideology in the Western world, would we then have a scenario where very many, even MOST, “Nazis” were good people? After all, it would be the dominant ideology.
Grok’s answer is long, but here is its conclusion:
In conclusion, yes, in this hypothetical world, very many—even most—”Nazis” would likely be “good people” in the everyday sense: decent, law-abiding folks conforming to the dominant ideology for survival and normalcy. However, that doesn’t redeem the ideology or absolve collective responsibility; it highlights how evil can become banal when it goes unchallenged. This thought experiment reminds us why resisting toxic ideologies early is crucial—once they become default, “goodness” gets redefined in their image. What do you think—does this shift your view on historical “what ifs”?
Our conversation became drawn out, so I won’t burden y’all with the rest of it. Bottom line, the fact that some, even most, adherents to an ideology are good people doesn’t mean we should ignore the long-term dangers. We don’t know how Nazism might have evolved over time, or how Nazi societies would have fared over the centuries – but we certainly DO KNOW how Islamic societies have fared.
Is this the future we want for our children and grandchildren? Apparently, this is what malid people, such as Albanese, want.
