Circumcision: An Intact Generation Will NOT Save America

There is PLENTY of support out there for our cause. We just need to tap into it.

🏛 Well, intactivism is an edifice, and we are all laying bricks, and we all gotta build good foundations. 🏰

You needed a Molotov Cocktail with that lighter.

LIGHT THE FLAME 🔥

I think the problem is that in any culture most of the lay people do not consider male circumcision to be harmful. Whereas the female circumcision is immediately recognized as heinous crime by almost everyone. I’m not sure why that is. I was born and raised in USSR (late 70s - early 90s was my stay there). Circumcision there was unheard of. Not even among Jews or Muslims (religion was outlawed and it was never practiced there for any other reason). Yet, it wasn’t something that was considered harmful or heinous. It was just a common knowledge that circumcision was something that was practiced by Jews in the past but not anymore. Personally, I knew about circumcision from Jewish jokes (as far as I recall). In my young brain I explained this practice to myself by “cleanliness, desert sand”, etc. Something that was needed before, but not anymore. I would also like to point out that you’d be hard-pressed to find a place more anti Semitic than Eastern Europe, yet circumcision was still not recognized there as harm (so you can’t really blame the lack of awareness of harm on Jewish influence. At least not there). It probably wouldn’t occur to an average Russian to circumcise solely because circumcision there is seen as a “mark of a Jew”. I guess, my point is, the awareness of circumcision harm is sorely lacking across the globe, it seems. And the reason for it is probably different in circumcising cultures and not. Circumcising cultures are interested in seeing this practice continue, so they suppress any negative facts about it. Non-circumcising cultures might not even be aware of any harm not hearing any complaints from circumcising nations. Or they might simply not think about it, since it doesn’t really affect them.

You are very smart. You have excellent points here.

We need to make it clear that intactivists don't want to ban circumcision. We want to raise the age of circumcision to 18.

It may help a little but it's definitely not enough, what's needed is empathy and awareness of how toxic it is. A country/political groups would rather ban MGM to attack a religion or a culture that mistreats women, that's why Sargon all of a sudden started to "care" about MGM, because never mind that boys of such cultures/ideologies are having their genitals mutilated and dying from it and never mind that a Pakistani man had his eyes gouged out by his father and brother for asking to marry a woman his father didn't approve of and never mind that a boy had his genitals cut off because his GF's father didn't approve of him, and never mind that video of the woman in the blue bra because remember women always have it worse.

The problem with Britain is that there are many circumcised Brits still around. In the generations 60+ there are many circed men and many women married to circed men. As for the rest of the men that age, they grew up at a time when circ was "normalised". This is a phenomenon you may not be aware of – if boys grow up in a time and place where a significant percentage of their friends (even 20-30%) are circumcised, then circumcision gets perceived as normal, even if minority. (This is the case in Australia, where I live.) Then you have the British generation of 40-60 yo men, many of whom had circumcised fathers and a small percentage of whom were circumcised themselves. Some of these men are part of the tail end of british circumcision in the 1950s and 60s, and some were circumcised because circumcision was still used to treat all manner of penile problems because many doctors were circumcised and not educated about the foreskin. And now, even though circumcision is almost unheard of among young Anglo Brits, there is a PC culture of religious tolerance wherein many Brits are loathe to criticise anything Islamic or Jewish. Combine this with the pervasive myth that "FGM" is a million times worse than male circumcision, and the continuing barrage of pro-circ studies, and you have a population that, although largely intact, is not necessarily largely anti-circumcision. Nevertheless, I think a good percentage–maybe up to 50%–would be in favour of a ban or of much tighter regulations, but such people are generally not in power or in parliament. Even if there were a few politicians who held such views, they would have little reason to express them publicly as they would be attacked as antisemitic and Islamophobic (among other things), and it would be, at this stage, political suicide. The medical establishment is likely also loathe to take a firm stand because of political reasons.

Join Identity Evropa !

Greg, first let's start to weaken the health benefits arguement with technology and a simple game of "which of these do not belong"? Google has been implementing an algorithm I like to call "did you mean". This same algorithm is used in experiments such as Autodraw, one of their A.I. experiments. It also serves to generate a search behavior fingerprint of each browsing profile and it does this by relating the semantics and terms on what they call a high dimensional space. You can Google this for a visual. What they aim to do with thier mission (why maps even exist) is to relate data with location. That's the pretext. A)So basically every time some document comes out to claim health benefits of amputation, they are using it incorrectly as a gross misnomer right up there with "hygeine". Neither hygeine or health benefits are considered treatment as ALL such published health/hygeine texts have a disclaimer "not be used as medical advise", in the same way Forbes has a disclaimer "not to be used as investment advice" to avoid liability. So how can health benefits of Circumcision have not such a disclaimer thus opening up themselves to liability? That's a legal opportunity. B) I want everybody to enter into their Google search box incomplete queries to force the algorithm to complete the sentence of the opening phrase "what are the health benefits of......", then tag the automatically completed term with a semantic category. You will find that all of the parent categories are [types of food, vitamins, exercise], and doesn't even include OTC drugs. None of them are actual medical treatments and they all lead to pages with the disclaimer that it's not be a replacement of medical advise. (So which of these do not belong: olives, push ups, folic acid, b12, removing muscular tissue surrounding knee). To add none of the auto completed phrase suggest a condition, treatment, surgery, amputation. Health benefits is such a gross use of a misnomer it can easy hold any organization liable for NOT putting a disclaimer to Circumcision/health benefit publications. They do the exact opposite however, having hospitals, doctors, parents and clinics CITE these publications without doing an individual assessment of the person targeted for Circumcision. This such a gross legal violation it's worth doing a video on to follow up with your infinite feedback loop video for closure. If you need a donation for this, let me know

Facts facts facts. Nail on the head.

Soooooooooo true!!!!!!

9:51 FACTS

8:40 boy let’s talk???!!! 💞

is that lighter for bud?

Great fucking video!!!

5:40 SCHOOL PROTEST IDEA YES TELL ME MORE !!!!!

3:50 because jooze

Iceland didn't and won't ban infant circumcision. The bill was shot down at least a month ago: www.icelandreview.com/news/2018/04/26/circumcision-bill-be-dismissed If you understand international politics and the general political weakness of the Nordic and other European countries, in addition to the power of religiopolitical lobby groups, then you understand that circumcision is not being banned anywhere any time soon.