Now we can understand why Germany is under the gun! I ain’t gonna work on Saul’s farm Saul’s farm no more!
CIRCUMCISION: Male Genital Mutilation Finally Ruled Against In A Western Nation
TMR Editor’s Note:
One of the most barbaric and invasive practices performed by modern medicine is the systematic circumcision of newborn males. There is perhaps no greater assault on a human being than the cruel and unnecessary surgical removal of an infant’s foreskin. Such an egregious assault against a human being represents the low point of a medical-religious conspiracy that has been carried out since the days of Ancient Egypt.
For those who are uninitiated in this very serious matter, the following two articles provide an excellent staring point. Each post describes with utter clarity what actually occurs during and after the circumcision process. Reader beware—it’s not a pretty picture!
When the two preceding exposés are correctly understood, it ought to be crystal clear that the now routine practice of circumcision is patently criminal, as in felonious assault by way of genital mutilation. Such a crime against the most defenseless and powerless among us ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and yet it is condoned by the ignorant medical profession and misguided religious communities. Both of them are co-dependents and mutual enablers in this multi-millenial crime spree that never seems to end.
Whereas the physicians and hospitals make LOTs of money, the religious institutions use circumcision to commence their pattern of control over the lives of the new young members of their congregations. That the infant victim had absolutely no say whatsoever over their involuntary genital mutilation seems to have no bearing on the matter. Until now, that is.
There is now a sea change occurring under the radar and across the planet with regard to this quite inhumane and extremely painful surgical process. Those who now advocate for radical change fully understand those forces which have usurped the personal sovereignty of countless males born into several Western nations. That illicit usurpation of an infant’s sovereignty will no longer be tolerated, as the nation of Germany has now indicated with the judge’s ruling outlined below.
The Millennium Report
May 2, 2016
German court rules circumcision is ‘bodily harm’
A court in Germany has ruled that circumcising young boys for religious reasons amounts to bodily harm.
In a decision that has caused outrage among Jewish and Muslim groups, the court said that a child’s right to physical integrity trumps religious and parental rights.
The case involved a doctor who carried out a circumcision on a four year-old that led to medical complications.
Thousands of Muslim and Jewish boys are circumcised in Germany every year.
Although male circumcision – unlike female circumcision – is not illegal in Germany, the court’s judgement said the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”.
Circumcision, it decided, contravenes “interests of the child to decide later in life on his religious beliefs”.
‘Protect religious freedom’
The doctor involved in the case was acquitted and the ruling is not binding, but correspondents say it sets a precedent that would be taken into account by other German courts.
The president of Germany’s Central Council of Jews, Dieter Graumann, called it “an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination”.
He urged the country’s parliament to clarify the legal situation “to protect religious freedom against attacks”.
Male circumcision is part of the ancient religious rituals of both the Jewish and Muslim faiths, as well as the traditions of some tribal groups.
In some countries, such as the United States, it is also not uncommon for parents to request that young boys are circumcised for health reasons.
The BBC’s Stephen Evans in Germany says it is unclear what the next legal step will be, but this issue is a moral and political minefield.
Circumcision Is A Crime
Jews like to present themselves as being compassionate. In fact, they delude themselves into thinking that they are the only compassionate people on the face of the Earth! And they owe this high standard of conduct to the supremely ethical commandments of their god.
In reality they suffer – to a man – from an incurable case of cognitive dissonance. The Old Testament part (Tanach in Hebrew) of the “Holy Bible”, so-called, is replete with murder and mayhem and unspeakable wanton cruelty. It is a record of corruption, brutality and wickedness.
“It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my part, I sincerely detest it as I detest everything that is cruel.”
Thomas Paine on the Good Book
Abraham, the alleged founder of the tribe, showed himself ready to murder his son at the behest of his god! How is that for compassion? His descendants followed in his footsteps. One of the many repulsive practices of the ancient Near Eastern cults, the sacrificing of children to the god Moloch, was an integral part of the Israelite religion.
The temple in Jerusalem was nothing but a slaughterhouse on a giganic scale and Jewish rituals involving blood, animal and human, are still being practised today, from the cruel ritual slaughter of animals for food to the barbaric Yom Kippur practice of kapparot and on to the brit milah (covenant of circumcision).
Most Jews are ready to inflict excruciating physical pain and psychic trauma on their new-born baby boys. Religious Jews do it to induct their children into the covenant they presume to have with their blood-crazed deity, Yahveh. Secular Jews do it mostly because it is the time-hallowed tradition of initiating their progeny into the tribe. It’s the thing to do if you are a Jew!
A god who demands such a thing is not worthy of being respected, let alone worshipped. Parents that follow such a god are immoral!
Here is a description of circumcision as it applies to children.
The operation [circumcision] consists of three parts: “milah,” “peri’ah,” and “mezizah.”
Milah: The child having been placed upon a pillow resting upon the lap of the godfather or “sandek” (he who is honored by being assigned to hold the child), the mohel exposes the parts by removal of garments, etc., and instructs the sandek how to hold the child’s legs. The mohel then grasps the prepuce between the thumb and index-finger of his left hand, exerting sufficient traction to draw it from the glans, and places the shield (see Fig. 1, next column) in position just before the glans. He now takes his knife and with one sweep excises the foreskin. This completes the first act. The knife (see Fig. 3) most commonly used is double-edged, although one like those ordinarily used by surgeons is also often employed.
Peri’ah: After the excision has been completed, the mohel seizes the inner lining of the prepuce, which still covers the glans, with the thumb-nail and index-finger of each hand, and tears it so that he can roll it fully back over the glans and expose the latter completely. The mohel usually has his thumb-nail suitably trimmed for the purpose. In exceptional cases the inner lining of the prepuce is more or less extensively adherent to the glans, which interferes somewhat with the ready removal; but persistent effort will overcome the difficulty.
Mezizah: By this is meant the sucking of the blood from the wound. The mohel takes some wine in his mouth and applies his lips to the part involved in the operation, and exerts suction, after which he expels the mixture of wine and blood into a receptacle (see Fig. 4, below) provided for the purpose. This procedure is repeated several times, and completes the operation, except as to the control of the bleeding and the dressing of the wound.
Who came up with such a ghoulish notion? While circumcision is indeed commanded in the Torah nowhere therein does it say exactly how this is to be carried out. Circumcision as described above is surely the product of the perverted minds of the Talmudists.
Pedophilia dressed up as a religious duty?
Apart from being nauseating and loathsome – what normal person would even want to do such a thing? – the entire procedure is, of course, totally unhygienic. The mohel – the one who carries out the ritual – or the baby or both could be carriers of some infectious disease. And despite Jewish denial that the practice is unhygienic there is clear-cut evidence that all kinds of diseases are being spread this way!
Emmett Holt, M.D., writing in 1913, states:
“A search through the medical literature brings to light a considerable number of examples of tuberculosis spread by means of ritual circumcision. In all I have collected with the assistance of Doctors Alan Brown and Stafford McLean, references or reports more or less detailed of forty other cases …
“While the number of reported instances of tuberculosis acquired through circumcision is considerable there must be a much larger number that have never found their way into literature. It is certain also that syphilis has been spread in this manner. These facts lead me to emphasize the statement made by the late Professor Maas, the German surgeon, that ‘it is the duty of physician to raise his protest against the performance of ritualistic circumcision in every case.’”
“Tuberculosis Acquired through Ritual Circumcision”
Journal of the American Medical Association
Volume LXI, Pages 99-102, July 12, 1913
Has anything changed since then? Not bloody likely! Why then do we not hear anything about infections? Consider the stranglehold Jews have on the media: how likely is it that infections caused by the traditional circumcision ritual would ever be openly acknowledged?
Often adult males undergo circumcision. This may be a Jew whose parents failed – for whatever reason – to have him circumcised or it may be a non-Jew who wants to convert. Even a proselyte who has already been circumcised for medical reasons will still have to have some blood drawn!
In these cases, at least, it can be argued that the ritual is carried out with the informed consent of an adult. The circumcision of a child, however, incapable of knowledge and unable to give or withhold consent is nothing less than assault unless there is a validmedical reason. Let’s not put too fine a point on it – it is a CRIME under Common Law, the only true law there is!!!
Anyone who employs the traditional Jewish method of circumcision, as per description above, is guilty of a felony: assault occasioning grievous bodily harm.
Apart from the fact that we are dealing with assault – a criminal offence – it is also NOTacceptable for anybody, be he a layman or doctor/surgeon, to put his mouth on an open and bleeding wound and suck blood – unless it is a case of a life-and-death emergency perhaps nor is it acceptable to use a fingernail in order to make an incision – even if the fingernail is sterilized!
Don’t allow yourself to be fooled by the mendacious drivel of Jewish and Gentile apologists for this ritual mutilation of helpless infants! They would have you believe that circumcision has great health benefits and the actual cutting of the foreskin is really inconsequential.
This won’t hurt one bit and you are never going to miss it! Yes! – and the moon is a green cheese!
Here are some of their lunatic arguments in support of this “painless” practice:
No flesh or muscle is cut at all, only skin.
The infant’s nerves are not fully developed on the eighth day.
The knife is so sharp, the cut is not felt.
And here is a real gem:
The infant cries only because his diaper is open and he is uncovered.
Rabbi Schneerson, he of Chabad Lubavitch Mafia fame, while admitting that the baby feels pain, makes the utterly ludicrous claim that the baby “is crying because of his lack of understanding “… he does not know that the intent is only to release ‘the blood of the covenant’.” Can you spell m-o-r-o-n?
There also seem to be some solid grounds for believing that circumcision permanently alters the brain of the baby – and not in a positive way! I wonder whether some of the psychopathic traits of Jews can be traced back to this trauma.
Is this early childhood brutalization the foundation of the hateful Jewish psyche, the root cause of their lack of empathy, their heartlessness, their emotional shallowness and cruelty towards others?
It is quite clear from the article reposted below that circumcision IS excruciatingly painful. Let’s now look at it through the eyes of mothers!
Posted on www.circumcision.org
Mothers Who Observed Circumcision
“I didn’t know how horrific it was going to be.”
“The screams of my baby remain embedded in my bones and haunt my mind.”
The typical hospital circumcision is done out of view of the mother in a separate room. However, a few are observed by parents, and many Jewish ritual circumcisions are done in the homes of the parents and observed by family and friends. Although some parents may report that this is a positive experience, this is not always the case. According to research, women are more likely than men to report distress from hearing an infant crying. Regarding circumcision, the father is more likely to deny his son’s pain because it could remind him of his own circumcision feelings. Therefore, witnessing the circumcision and the infant’s response can have a particularly shocking effect on the mother. Only recently have some parents been willing to describe their agonizingly painful experiences at their son’s circumcision. Though further research is needed to tell us how common these responses are, the fact that they exist at all is reason for concern and reflection.
Some mothers have written about their experiences with circumcision during the previous year. “It was as close to hell as I ever want to get!” one wrote. Another related this memory:
My tiny son and I sobbed our hearts out. . . . After everything I’d worked for, carrying and nurturing Joseph in the womb, having him at home against no small odds, keeping him by my side constantly since birth, nursing him whenever he needed closeness and nourishment—the circumcision was a horrible violation of all I felt we shared. I cried for days afterward.
Melissa Morrison was having a difficult time seven months after she had watched the (nonritual) circumcision of her son:
I’m finding myself obsessing more and more about it. It’s absolutely horrible. I didn’t know how horrific it was going to be. It was the most gruesome thing I have ever seen in my life. I told the doctor as soon as he was done, if I had a gun I would have killed him. I swear I would be in jail today if I did have a gun.
Two other mothers have reported to the Circumcision Resource Center that watching their son’s circumcision was “the worst day of my life.”
Another mother noted that she still felt pain recalling the experience about a year later. She wrote to her son:
I have never heard such screams. . . . Will I ever know what scars this brings to your soul? . . . What is that new look I see in your eyes? I can see pain, a certain sadness, and a loss of trust.
Other mothers clearly remember their son’s circumcision after many years. Miriam Pollack reported fifteen years after the event:
“The screams of my baby remain embedded in my bones and haunt my mind.” She added later, “His cry sounded like he was being butchered. I lost my milk.”
Nancy Wainer Cohen recalled her feelings connected with the circumcision of her son, who is now twenty-two:
I heard him cry during the time they were circumcising him. The thing that is most disturbing to me is that I can still hear his cry. . . . It was an assault on him, and on some level it was an assault on me. . . . I will go to my grave hearing that horrible wail, and feeling somewhat responsible, feeling that it was my lack of awareness, my lack of consciousness. I did the best I could, and it wasn’t good enough.
Elizabeth Pickard-Ginsburg vividly remembered her son’s circumcision and its effect on her:
Jesse was shrieking and I had tears streaming down my face. . . . He was screaming and there was no doubt in his scream that he wanted mother, or a mothering figure to come and protect him from this pain!! . . . Jesse screamed so loud that all of a sudden there was no sound! I’ve never heard anything like it!! He was screaming and it went up and then there was no sound and his mouth was just open and his face was full of pain!! I remember something happened inside me . . . the intensity of it was like blowing a fuse! It was too much. We knew something was over. I don’t feel that it ever really healed. . . . I don’t think I can recover from it. It’s a scar. I’ve put a lot of energy into trying to recover. I did some crying and we did some therapy. There’s still a lot of feeling that’s blocked off. It was too intense. . . . We had this beautiful baby boy and seven beautiful days and this beautiful rhythm starting, and it was like something had been shattered!! . . . When he was first born there was a tie with my young one, my newborn. And when the circumcision happened, in order to allow it I had cut off the bond. I had to cut off my natural instincts, and in doing so I cut off a lot of feelings towards Jesse. I cut it off to repress the pain and to repress the natural instinct to stop the circumcision.
After several years, Pickard-Ginsburg says she can still feel “an element of detachment” toward her son. Her account is particularly revealing. That she “cut off” feelings toward her son by observing his circumcision suggests that her son may have responded similarly toward her by experiencing his circumcision. Furthermore, because she was willing to feel and communicate the intensity of her pain, we have a clue to why more mothers who observe their son’s circumcision do not report such pain. Denial and repression may keep this extreme pain out of their awareness.
Observing their son’s circumcision has left some parents with a deep feeling of regret. The following quotes are typical:
I am so sorry I was so ignorant about circumcision. Had I witnessed a circumcision first, I never would have consented to having my son circumcised. Always in the back of my mind I’ve thought, “I wish he hadn’t been cut.” I have apologized to him numerous times. If I had ever known, I wouldn’t have done this in a million years. I felt as if I might pass out at the sight of my son lying there, unable to move or defend himself. His screams tore at my heart as his foreskin was heartlessly torn from his penis. Too late to turn back, I knew that this was a terrible mistake and that it was something that no one, especially newborn babies, should ever have to endure. A wave of shock coursed through me—my body feeling nauseatingly sick with guilt and shame. All I could think of was holding and consoling my child, but his pain felt inconsolable—his body rigid with fear and anger—his eyes filled with tears of betrayal.
Some mothers who did not witness the circumcision have since regretted allowing it:
The nurse came to take the baby for the circumcision. I have relived that moment over and over. If I could turn back the hands of time, that would be the one moment I would go back to and say, “I don’t think it’s a good idea. I need another day to think about it” and just hold on to him because I wasn’t sure. I think if I had held on to him it might have turned out differently. I just shouldn’t have let him go when I was so ambivalent. After they took him I went into the shower, and I cried. When they brought him back to me, I could see that he had been crying and had a glassy, wild look in his eyes. I think it was terror. I didn’t know what had been done to him, but I could tell whatever it was, it hurt. I’ll never forget that look. They probably shattered every bit of trust he had. I’m very angry about it. I would never have done that to my own son. No mother would take a knife to her child. When I looked at his penis, I was again instantly sorry that I had allowed it to be done.