Mass Mutilation of Boys Celebrated, Trumpeted

hello

short and simple: (maybe not that short)

considering circumcsion is still legal in the states suggests a mans genitals are not held in the same regard as a females.

you here outdated theories of "hygene" or an increased likely hood of spreading an std.

hygene??......now men are't capable of cleaning themselves.

is it unreasonable to let a man decide whether he wants his foreskin ripped off. keep in mind, baby boys feel termendous pain during circumcsion. its also a reality (rarely mentioned) that circumcsition can damage the penis, where a procedure is necessary to correct the deformity.

a postive precident was established in canada recently. a man was granted government funding to replace his foreskin after a circumcsition had damaged his penis. this case is important, it shows that circumsition has a physical and emotional impact on a man.

in europe, men are rarely circumcised and have a lower rate of std's and hiv. so much for the hygene factor.

where is oprah ( not that i care)..when young girls in africa were having their clitoris's removed, she started a campaign eliminating the process. do you think she gives a shit about boys.

a survey was conducted asking women why they have their sons circumcised...one of the most common responses were " i just don't like the way they look when there forskin isn't removed. good grief!!!

anthony

p.s.

Thanks for posting this; I was thinking of doing it, but you beat me to it.

Ah, yes, the tender rite of passage ceremony, practiced universally in the Muslim world. Most Muslims consider it to be part of Islam, thus mandatory, though it is nowhere mentioned in the Qur'an. So, why? Cui bono?

I was amused to note that when I went to the story at the NYTimes site, at the head of the page was a banner ad about our old friend Maureen Dowd. I suppose she must find this story very heartwarming.

Make sure to check out the slide show. I particularly like the photo of "Young women watch[ing] as the local barber goes from house to house." The roots of the modern phenomenon known as "feminism" go very deep into the human past, "beyond living memory" indeed. It is the slavery of males to the female agenda.

It is also heartbreaking to see the little boys awaiting their fate. Compare their sweet, innocent faces to the hard, sad men in the other photos, raised and molded to kill and be killed in the endless wars of the South Slav mountains. BTW, this particularly community appears to be part of the Gorani ethnic group, Slavic Muslims of Kosovo and eastern Serbia who are distinct from the Bosniaks, also Slavic Muslims mostly found in Bosnia. These mountain tribal areas are very complex.

As for the apparent enthusiasm of the New York Times' writers, keep in mind that the "paper of record" is owned and operated by Jews, whose idea this first was (in the context of Western civilization anyway), and who were prominent in the 19th-century campaign to graft it onto Anglo-American culture.

While observing events of the last couple of weeks, a curious coincidence occurred to me: that the progressive adoption of the originally Jewish practice of infant male circumcision in Anglo-American culture exactly chronologically paralleled the creeping domination of American political, economic and cultural life by Jewish interests. In effect, 100,000,000+ American men have been made into involuntary Jews at birth. I wonder if that might have something to do with the recent 410-8 House vote of unrestrained applause for the Israeli Blitzkrieg in Lebanon. Nah, couldn't be. Why, even to entertain any such thought would be anti-Semitic. Crimethink. Double-plus-ungood.

For some background on the subject:
The Intactivism Pages
Especially this page:
Circumstitions
What every circumcised man should know:
The Lost List
And what every woman (who thinks it's "just a scrap of skin") should know:
Sex as Nature Intended It (An excellent site, excepting only the ridiculous assertion that "women are the primary victims" of infant male circumcision -- only the female mind could come up with this.)
And some Remarkable Silences ("That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.)

Have a happy rest of your life.

Please keep your anti-jewish, zionist-conspiracy theories to yourself. Your bigotry has no place on a board for ALL men regardless of race, creed, color, or religion to voice their opinions -- not just your Mel Gibsonesque paranoid rantings...

Evil White Male Oppressor
"I am Not a Number I am a Free Man"

You know if the archaic religious practice known as circumcision were to be suddenly stopped or made an option by the religious authorities there would still be the long debunked argument that it prevents disease and maybe as once thought by the medical community; insanity.

In other words there is a deep seated cultural bias about the male genital area. It has to be attacked, violated or controlled in some manner. That is why you see so many "comical" scenes in the media of men getting hit in the groin area. In my opinion anyway.

If circumcision were to suddenly be denounced publicly then there would be over one hundred million men in North America who would have to come to terms with the fact that they were deformed at birth and are not normal as they have come to believe.

They are now the ones poking fun in the boys locker rooms but if the practice fell out of popularity they would have to deal with the fact that it is they who have had part of themselves cut away without their permission and completely needlessly.

Although I remember in grade school being made fun of for not being like the rest of the boys in the locker romm, I am extremely thankfull each and every day that my father insisted that I not be circumcized against my mothers objections.

The truth about desease is that men who are not circumcized are less likely to catch a desease and are also much less likely to develop penile cancer (I believe it is in the order of 6 times less likely to occur in un-circumcized men)

Sorry, Mr. Oppressor, but my first allegiance is to the truth. If you don't like the truth, I suggest that rather than taking pot shots at the reporter, you do something to make the truth different. Which you can't do so long as all your energy is going into denial and name-calling.

(1) I am not "anti-jewish". A cliché it may be, but in fact "some of my best friends" are, and always have been, Jewish. I do feel an allegiance to the country I was born in and am a citizen of, and the values -- now almost completely forgotten -- on which it was founded, in part by my ancestors (my 4x great grandfather served under General Washington in several of the pivotal battles of the War of Independence, lost an eye at Germantown before returning to his New Jersey farm). And so do I also feel some resentment that my country has been subverted and dragged into exactly one of those endless Old World conflicts that the Founders specifically wished to escape, by an identifiable group of people who, while claiming citizenship in this country, clearly hold a higher allegiance to another, whose interests directly conflict with ours.

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none." --Thomas Jefferson, first Inaugural Address, 1801

(2) Yes, I am anti-Zionist, as I am anti- all forms of racism, hatred, collectivism, fascism, and similar ideologies. All of which, it has finally become clear to me after a half-century of induced blindness, aptly describe this ideology and its fruits. When a group of people plan together over time, both openly and (mostly) in secret, deliberately to control and direct world events in ways that cause enormous harm to large numbers of people -- including those people they claim to be helping -- I think the word "conspiracy" is accurate -- though you brought it up, not I.

"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East." --John Sheehan, S.J. Does the term "9/11" ring any bells?

(3) And yes, I do resent having been made into an "involuntary Jew" at birth -- for many reasons besides the fact that the Jewish religion, with its obsession with child sex torture, interests me not at all -- and the clear connection of that event with disproportionate Jewish influence in American culture is not something I feel inclined to ignore. As noted above, my first allegiance is to the truth, and in that context, nobody gets a pass.

(4) Accusations of "bigotry", "misogyny", etc., are the usual response of those who have no facts to bring to a discussion. "Bigotry: noun. bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." Calling me names, rather than addressing the issues I've raised, is not "bigotry"?

(5) When did I say anything about not wanting MANN to be "a board for ALL men regardless of race, creed, color, or religion to voice their opinions"? Or is it ALL men but those whose opinions you don't like? See (4) above. And no, I don't think MANN is the place for general discussion of political matters not connected to the "war between the sexes" and its effects on men. In this case I saw a connection, and commented on it, in the interest of stimulating thought. Some thought would be nice.

Now, you could say something about how the 17th-19th century slave trade was mostly run by white men (in fact, it turns out that a disproportionately large number of same were, you guessed it, Jewish). And, as an Anglo-American white man, how would I respond to that? "Bigotry!" "Racism!" "You're trying to drive me out of the board!" No; I'd say yeah, that's true, though I don't think it likely any of my own ancestors were involved. Certainly it's an uncomfortable truth, but if it's the truth, then it might as well be acknowledged. Let's not do it again, shall we?

The truth doesn't play favorites. If you want to play favorites, then the truth is not your first priority. And, if that's the case, I don't know what you're doing here -- though I'm not trying to drive you away. I'd like to encourage you to think. It's not thinking that's got us into this; only thinking will get us out.

(6) I'm not a particular fan of Mel Gibson -- his only film I've seen was The Patriot, and as I'm not any kind of Christian The Passion of the Christ held no interest for me (though as a student of ancient languages I would have been interested to hear people talking in Aramaic) -- but I do find it interesting how (nearly) everyone is hurrying to crucify him. Even the cop who arrested him "said on Monday that he considered it a routine arrest and did not take any comments made by Gibson seriously." But Mel seems to have committed the ultimate, unforgiveable sin. Had he made similar remarks about any other identifiable group, do you think he would have been marched instantly before the firing squad? Hardly.

Yeah, Mel acted like an idiot. He got drunk, and was abusive to the cops who stopped him with good reason. He expressed a view about the course of world events that more and more people are coming to see has more than a grain of truth about it. So what?

We all know Mel has a tendency to seek refuge in the bottle when under stress. (BTW, looking at numerous pictures of Mel today -- see the one on the page linked above about the cop -- I've been reminded how he seems a prime example of the false, brittle manhood, covering deep fear, that so often develops from the trauma of circumcision. Of course I don't know for sure, but it's a good bet -- given where and when he was born -- that Mel was chopped.) What nobody seems to be asking is why Mel got drunk this last weekend. I don't know the answer to that question, but I will say that after a steady diet of barbecued babies, er, "terrorists", for a week I've been pretty upset myself -- and have been having a hard time applying myself to my normal, productive activities. WHEN IS THIS GOING TO STOP?

More than $15,000,000 every day of American tax money goes to buy those bombs that the Zionists are dropping on Lebanese babies. Fifteen Million Dollars. Can you count that high? We all have that blood on our hands. Why? CUI BONO? is a fair question.

(7) "paranoid rantings": see (4) above. And find me a more benign explanation for what I've seen happening in the world over the last 50 years (and what I've read about before that) and I'll certainly give it a fair hearing. I want to know the truth. Teach, or learn.

Among other things, the truth is that not all Jews are marching in lockstep to the pied piper of Zionism. Some do understand, and have all along, what will, I believe, soon become apparent to anyone not deliberately blind on the subject: that Zionism is the worst thing that has ever happened to the Jewish people, and will end in a cataclysm that will make the last "Holocaust" -- whatever it might actually have been (is it still legal to ask such a question? not in Canada, I hear, and coming soon to a United States near you) -- look like a tea party. This will be a great tragedy, but only the Jewish people can prevent it -- and not by making enemies of the whole world. A few Jews do understand that the idea of being a "chosen people" -- if it has any meaning at all -- does not mean you have permission from G-d to treat all other humans like "animals" (not that I think animals should be so abused, either).

The bottom line, EWMO, is that your remarks are themselves a perfect illustration of just what I was writing about. You've been brainwashed, and your reaction reflects this fact perfectly. I'm inviting you to wake up.

"I am Not a Number I am a Free Man"? If you really mean that, I suggest you wake up and start paying attention. The people/forces behind the Zionist travesty are the same ones, as Graham Strachan put it, "behind the feminist and other popular movements ... some very ugly scheming people who want to destroy the institutions of civilisation so they can rule over the wreckage." And you can bet your life they regard you as nothing more than "a number" -- the only question is whether you'll be (like the Lebanese babies, and the Jews who will die when the seeds now being sown come to ripen) among those to be "sacrificed" in pursuit of their ends, or among those to be ruled over once those ends are accomplished. Got your implant yet?

See Below

You are such a hypocrite.

You blame the Jews for running the paper with the article -- what a gross generalization and blatant prejudice. As if a Jew running a paper could not be objective but would HAVE to be pro-circumcision so he could contribute to the plot of turning everyone Jewish. Hmmm, sounds anti-JEWISH to me, even though some of your best friends are -- give me a break. In both of your paranoid lunatic rants, you generalize all Jews into some kind of category that is out to get you and YOUR (not jewish people's) country. There is nothing in what you write to make me think you are any different from anyone who lumps entire categories of people together for their own twisted ideology. For you, it couldn't possibly be individuals but the dreaded zionist conspiracy -- ZOG right? Please, spew your dillusions elsewhere. Booga Booga! Watch out, the dirty zionist is gonna cut your penis so he can take over America. Nice defense of Mel too: QUOTE: "Yeah, so what, he got drunk aand was upset." Uhm, he spewed ANTI-JEWISH not anti-Zionist slurs. That is ANTI-Semetic -- and you're response? QUOTE: "He expressed a view about the course of world events that more and more people are coming to see has more than a grain of truth about it. So what?!" Uhm okay what did he say? "Jews have started all wars in the world," and he blurted "Fucking Jew." This is the truth that people are coming to see now? Man, you are sick and you need help.

Evil White Male Oppressor
"I am Not a Number I am a Free Man"

Above: See # (4) and next-to-last paragraph. As an argument, ad hominem goes nowhere.

"There is nothing in what you write to make me think...." True; no one can "make" you think, you have to want to do it yourself.

I've considered whether to bother responding to this outburst, since it's not clear if anyone who's prepared to think will read this. Anyway, for the record...

As for The New York Times, it's common knowledge that the owners and most of the staff of the quintessential New York "culture" newspaper are Jewish (and those who are not share essentially the same culture, and if male, I'll bet nearly all are circumcised), and their slant on the "news" always reflects the bias to be expected from this fact. If it didn't, that would be "news".

It's also common knowledge among anyone who cares about the MGM issue that even the most nonreligious, secular Jews, who follow none of the traditional commandments of the religion, are nevertheless fanatic about keeping the tradition of Brit Milah as the single, definitive tribal identifier. And will loudly scream "anti-Semitism" at anyone who dares to question it, even if only in relation to is imposition on non-Jews. They can't afford to let it be discussed by anyone, because that would lay bare its true nature.

Furthermore, it's also clear to anyone who studies the history of MGM in America that Jews were and are prominent in the grafting of this barbaric practice onto American culture, and in the ongoing resistance (e.g. in the press) to any questioning of it.

"Millions of Jews were murdered during the Holocaust because circumcision marked them as Jews! This must never happen again! Everyone [every boy, that is] should be circumcised!" (Pediatrician's wife [scroll 1/3 down page], American Academy of Pediatrics Annual Conference, Hyatt-Regency Hotel, Chicago, April 14, 1996)

It's also true that most of the "leaders" of the feminist "movement" have been and are Jewish. Coincidence? Read Rich Zubaty on the supposed "patriarchal" character of Jewish culture. He was married to a Jewish girl.

As I've written before, I regard circumcision as a fundamentally feminist phenomenon, an atavistic legacy of the dark early history of our species, when (as the feminists insist, and they are correct) Mother was God, and She enforced Her rule -- and Her whims -- without mercy. It is about punishment and control of male sexuality, and power, conditioning boys to be men who serve without question the female agenda -- i.e. materialism (as Zubaty and others point out, "mother" and "matter" are from the same root).

(Even the occasional appearance of MGM in male puberty rites in indigenous cultures I regard as a desperate response to overwhelming female power -- rather like an animal chewing off its own foot to escape from a trap. The most female part of the boy's body is painfully amputated in order to decisively cut him off from the female world of his mother and induct him into the separate male world. While the overall aim is not a bad idea, I think there are better ways.)

The three groups/nations who are presently struggling over control of the world, and threatening to destroy it (and all of us) in the process, are the three who (still) practice circumcision: the Jews, the Arabs/Muslims, and the Americans -- and the second and third caught it, like a disease, from the first. Nobody else is trying to bring on Armageddon. Again, coincidence?

I read Exodus in the early '60s and was thrilled by the story. I had a dear friend in the '60s and '70s who was an orthodox Jew, with whom I briefly shared a New York apartment, and learned from him about the tradition, which had many impressive qualities. I studied Hebrew. In 1964 I married a Jewish girl, in part because of my fascination with the culture. I went with my wife to talk with a rabbi about converting to Judaism; as one of the seeking generation of young Americans in the '60s, I was looking for a spiritual home. My wife was not particularly enthusiastic about the idea; she'd married me to escape from her heritage, which she found oppressive (in the emotional, not the feminist sense -- that came later).

I eventually found a spiritual home in another religion, one which is not based on a tribal identity, does not divide the world into Us and Them, does not regard Us as having a different = superior relationship to "God" or the Truth, and has never been spread by the sword.

And I've read a lot of history in the last 40 years, and eventually came to see that -- I'm sorry to say it, but it's the truth -- most of their sufferings the Jews have brought on themselves, by their attitudes and their actions. Of which the current events are only the latest, though in some ways among the most egregious, examples (similar campaigns of extermination are chronicled in the Bible, where their tribal deity actually commands the Hebrews to wage them).

As for Mel Gibson, once again: What I wrote was that what he said "has more than a grain of truth about it." Perhaps I need to explain, for the benefit of anyone who doesn't understand English, that this is not the same as saying that what Mel said was precisely true in every detail.

However: Anyone who is interested enough in history to look for the truth beyond/behind what we are fed by the corporate-controlled media and state-controlled "educational" institutions will soon learn that in recent centuries at least (and probably since far earlier), certain nominally-at-least Jewish families/clans (e.g. the famous Rothschilds) have had considerable influence, even control, over the course of events, particularly regarding the many devastating wars of recent European history, which they were instrumental in fomenting, and from which they have profited immensely.

If anyone is interested in learning, you can start here, here, and here. If you're not interested, pardon me for interrupting your slumber; I'm sure you'll have no difficulty going back to sleep.

Zionism was, or once seemed to be, a beautiful dream. There was only one problem: There were already people living on the land the Zionists proposed to occupy. The Zionist attitude toward that fact and those people has made clear the true nature of the ideology. I repeat: Zionism is the worst thing that has ever happened to the Jews in their long and often painful history. In fact the people behind it are not really Jews, except in name; they certainly care no more for the Jewish people than for anyone else who might be in the way of their plans, or slated for use therein.

However, the Jewish people -- with only a handful of exceptions -- have chosen to cooperate with those plans, and to use their considerable talents and resources, in all the nations of the world where they live, to further the Zionist agenda -- and thus what is behind it, which will turn out to be no better for the Jews -- probably worse, in fact -- than for the rest of us. The Jews themselves could choose to make a distinction between themselves and the Zionists -- as some, a very few, do -- but until/unless they do so, they cannot complain if in the popular mind (including that of an actor with a drinking problem) "Jew" and "Zionist" are thought to be synonyms. They themselves have insisted on the equivalence, and they will reap what they have sown.

Anyone can change; there are also Jews who have renounced circumcision, e.g. Ronald Goldman. Another is a local rabbi, a friend of mine, who circumcised his older son, then had a change of heart and left his younger son intact. (He is happy to perform a Brit Shalom for anyone who wishes.) It can be done. I haven't discussed the present situation with him, though we have spoken about it in the past and I know he's not happy about it. As he is one of the kindest people I know, I'm sure he doesn't share the enthusiasm for carnage so widely apparent at present among both Jews/Israelis and American "dispensationalist" (i.e. wannabe-Jew) Christians.

Judaism is an ancient religion with many profound qualities, but also a lot of garbage it's picked up over the millennia that do not serve its best qualities. The superiority complex and the human sacrifice rituals (both of their own children and of the "inferior" "others") are atavistic remnants that would best be abandoned.