MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
Circumcision: The First Torture
by RUMORMILLNEWS.COMFebruary 4, 2005
Reprinted from Conspiracy Planet
In recent months we have all been focused on the horrible tortures that humans have been perpetrating on their
fellow humans.
This got me thinking that the very common "first torture" is the brutal act of circumcision of an eight day old infant. (Non-Jewish males may be circumcised even earlier..)
I speculated on the horrendous psychic (not to mention physical) shock that must be to the helpless infant: it is surely horrific child abuse! The message to the newborn is clear: "You are helpless and WILL obey those bigger and stronger than you."
No wonder so many Jews and Muslims (and now Westerners) grow up feeling "victimized"!
This primitive brutality has spread to the Western world with the excuse of better cleanliness and health. But at what price? Early impotence, sexual aberrations, and deep psychological damage come to mind. Readers are all aware that mind control begins with physical abuse/torture in order to fracture the ego, creating multiple personalities.
Does circumcision set the stage?
And of course there are many African and Asian cultures which promote female circumcision--- at puberty! How traumatic is THAT? The excuses are many and some are totally ludicrous, but female circumcision is clearly an attempt to disempower the female (goddess) energies.
The mid-Eastern obsession with sexual organs seems just as extreme as our Western obsession. What we expose is what they hide, but the obsessions and extremes are there on both sides, exacerbated by the media, Hollywood, etc.
No one seems to know the real reason for Yahweh's dictates that "his" people must be circumcised. The best and usual reason given is for health/cleanliness. But was it more than that? Was it Yahweh's way of keeping his "experimental race" genetically "clean" by being separated from other groups in the same area? Since Jews and Muslims are all descended from Abraham, these warring cousins all carry this same bizarre dictate from Yahweh.
A pediatrician I once knew advised against circumcision, saying of the newborn male, "This way he'll be potent when he's ninety."
The Psychological Harm of Male Circumcision
BY Kurt Johmann (Written: August 2003)
When a young male of any age is sexually mutilated (circumcised) against his will, physical harm is done to his body and psychological harm is done to his mind.
And just as the physical harm will remain with him for the rest of his life, so does the psychological harm.
As other writers have suggested, the destructive assault on a young male's penis by a sexual mutilator is a great trauma for that male victim, and the consequences of this destructive assault are independent of whatever rationalizations or justifications were in the minds of that sexual mutilator and his accomplices as he performed his criminal assault.[1] As psychologist Ronald Goldman says:
If I forcefully cut off one of your healthy fingers, my reason would make no difference to you, even if I sincerely believed that amputating your finger was for your own good. Your experience of the event would be the same—pain, shock, horror. In the case of circumcision, what we are doing to the infant is cutting off a part of his penis. No explanations can change that fact. Our reasons, whether they involve religious belief, cultural conformity, or pleasing a relative, may make us feel better, but they make no difference to the infant.[2]
In my earlier writings on this circumcision subject (see my American Culture and Monotheism, Imperialism, and Genital Mutilation articles), I focus primarily on the sexual damage that male circumcision causes, and the reason why America, the world’s largest empire, is also a very prolific sexual mutilator (at the time I am writing this, roughly three-fourths of the adult American males who were born in America and are alive today, are sexually mutilated).
And as I have already stated in these earlier writings, I myself am an American man who was sexually mutilated as an infant, as were roughly 70% of the other American males who were born at that time (I was born in 1955, and am 47 years old as I write this). As a complement to these earlier articles, in this essay I focus primarily on the psychological damage that male circumcision causes, with additional discussion of the sexual damage.
The Standard American Circumcision: What it Destroys
Various mechanical devices were developed in the 20th century to simplify and standardize the sexual-mutilation procedure done by American doctors.
For example, one widely used device, called the Gomco clamp, was introduced in the 1930s. A good survey of these destructive devices, with many photos and illustrations, is Methods of Circumcision.
Briefly, the standard circumcision done to male infants in America completely removes all of the outer foreskin and much of the inner foreskin, all of the frenulum, and some of the shaft skin. The frenulum is the connective tissue that attaches the inner foreskin to the underside of the penis head.
Two close-up photos of the frenulum are at Frenulum: the top photo shows the frenulum when the foreskin is pulled forward over the head, and the bottom photo shows the frenulum when the foreskin is pulled backward off the head. The frenulum is reputed to be the single most sensitive spot for the natural man.
Since my own frenulum was stolen from me by a sexual mutilator, I can only say that my own most sensitive spot on my penis is on the underside of my penis head at the same location shown in the photos where the frenulum attaches to the head. A good set of color photos comparing natural and mutilated penises when erect is at A Comparison of Intact and Circumcised Erect Penises (some advocates of sexual mutilation like to claim that natural and mutilated penises look the same when erect, but as anyone can see, there are large visible differences).
Assuming the standard American circumcision, for an adult man his inner-foreskin remnant—the small portion of his foreskin that was not removed by his circumcision—is the band of pinkish-colored skin that lies between his penis head and his circumcision scar. The dark-colored circumcision scar which encircles his penis, marks the transition from the light-colored inner-foreskin remnant to the darker-colored shaft skin. In my own case, my inner-foreskin remnant, when I am erect, is an inch wide measured between my penis head and my circumcision scar, and this seems to be in the normal range based on a sampling of images of mutilated American men as shown in various instances of American porno. Of course, for myself and other mutilated men, this inner-foreskin remnant is no longer inner skin; however, it is still more sensitive than the shaft skin which has little sensitivity.
Reprinted from Conspiracy Planet
THE ALTERNATIVE NEWS AND HISTORY NETWORK
Your Antidote to Media Cartel Propaganda
Friday, February 4, 2005
Other Top Stories
The Case Against Circumcision by PAUL M. FLEISS, M.D.
Circumcision: The First Torture by RUMORMILLNEWS.COM