Circumcision of American Gentiles: Jewish Proselytising?

[Windsor]

To Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah:

Medicine and Law, Volume 13, Number 7-8: Pages 575-622, July 1994.

Infant circumcision in the United States began not for medical or religious reasons, but for social reasons. It began in the 1870s as a Victorian attempt to prevent or cure masturbation, which at the time was believed to cause bedwetting, alcoholism, insanity, curvature of the spine and other physical and mental disorders. The practice spread from England concurrently to other English-speaking countries (Canada, Australia and the United States).

When the masturbation theory was dispelled and declared false in 1948 by the British National Health Service, the rate of circumcision was reduced to less than 0.5% in England. The rate of circumcision in Canada and in Australia also was lowered, but remains still around 20%.

In the United States, with the development of hospitalized births, male infant circumcision remains a common practice. The American medical community has tried to find "medical" justifications for the continuation of circumcision. Even today, the United States remains the only country on earth where the majority of male infants are circumcised for non-religious reasons. This rate is today 60% with differences from one region to another. Approximately 3'300 babies each day are submitted to circumcision in American hospitals. This represents more than 1'25 million children circumcised each year. Several babies die as a consequence of the operation, which is performed without anaesthesia, and which results in numerous medical complications.

Circumcision is considered today as one of the reasons for the violence which rages in American society, where the crime rate is six times larger than that in Europe: That which society does to its children, its children do to society. In effect, circumcision injures the brain of the child. It also impairs the normal functioning of the adult sexuality. On average one forth of the skin of the baby's penis is amputated. This has forced many Americans to seek restoration of their foreskin.

Many authorities estimate that the violence done to the infant during circumcision plays a role in the fatal conflicts in the Middle East between Muslims and Jews, two groups that practice circumcision.

Concerning Jews, the mandate for male circumcision comes from the Bible. It is in fact from this community that the fiercest opposition to the abolition of circumcision is mounted. The so-called "medical" justifications for circumcision were formulated principally by Jewish doctors. It would seem even that the development of male circumcision among Christians in the United States was a premeditated action on the part of the Jewish medical community after the second World War.

By circumcising as many Christians as possible, they sought to make it more difficult to distinguish between Jews and non-Jews in the event of a future persecution of the Jews. It would seem also that there is a hint of Jewish proselytising behind circumcision :

A circumcised Christian is more easily converted to Judaism than an uncircumcised one because he will not fear having to submit to circumcision as an adult. Notice here that the Western world has passed laws prohibiting female circumcision, but dares not to do the same for male circumcision for fear that they will be considered anti-Semitic by the Jews. One must note, however, that even the voice of American Jews is being added to the cry against the practice of circumcision.

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/aldeeb1/

Jewish doctors and America's circumcision popularity:

A speculative medical aside for a moment: With all these Jews going to medical school over the last few decades, what are we to make of the fact that American secular medical culture has for decades emulated Jewish religious tradition in dictatorially circumcising the vast majority of American Gentile males? This century the American circumcision rate has been as high as 85% of the male population.

A Jewish author, Ronald Goldman, notes that "from a global perspective, most of the world rejects circumcision: over 80 percent of the world's males are intact (not circumcised). Most circumcised men are Muslim or Jewish. The United States is the only country in the world that circumcises most of its male infants for nonreligious reasons." [GOLDMAN, R., p. 2]

Surveys have found that a huge number of Americans are ignorant about this extremely personal subject; many aren't even aware, with certainty, what circumcision is. Because it has not often -- until recently -- been a subject of public discussion, because infants had no choice in the matter, and because the medical world has been routinely trusted to know what's best for babies, for decades a veil of ignorance has been draped across the subject.

"In one study," notes Goldman, "34 percent of men incorrectly identified their own circumcision status. In another study, half of the mothers questioned did not know if the father of their child was circumcised ... My own research of 60 adult graduate students revealed that 38 percent of the women and 45 percent of the men were not sure of the difference between a circumcised male and an intact penis." [GOLDMAN, R., p. 29]

In recent years, there are increasing objections -- even from some Jews, like Goldman -- to the routine circumcision of American male infants. More and more medical practitioners are rejecting claims that a circumcised penis is more hygienic than an uncut organ, as well as that it helps to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Most perplexing in all this is how and why circumcision has developed as a norm for behavior in America on such a wide scale, a dictate of the medical profession and not the populace at-large.

Rosemary Romberg, married to a Jew, is among those who have written an entire volume criticizing the omnipresence of circumcision in American medical society. As she notes, "I have learned that none of the medical arguments for circumcision are justified." [ROMBERG, p. xxi] Yet, she observes, "If we take a stand against Jewish ritual circumcision we run the risk of being labeled anti-Semitic." [ROMBERG, p. 59]

In her investigations into the subject, Romberg once even interviewed a rabbi, asking, "There are many Jewish doctors in the United States. Do you think that their influence could have anything to do with the popularity of circumcision in the United States today?" [ROMBERG, p. 71] The rabbi of course said no, and Romberg herself later rejected the possibilities of a conscious Jewish influence on the issue as being unfounded. She ultimately decided it may be, at least in part, the result of an abstract openness to the idea of circumcision because of the Judeo-Christian link. [ROMBERG, p. 105] Others suggest its prominence rooted in a Christian-based anti-sexual morality, an American obsession with hygiene, and other postulates.

But is Romberg's question to the rabbi -- inferring that Jews would have a vested interest in mass circumcision -- one that is so easily dismissed?

With the huge numbers of Jews in the medical world, their high proclivity to publish their medical opinions, and their disproportionate influence in the field, is it an unreasonable question to wonder about?

Romberg notes a very important point in her initial speculations about Jewish medical influence in having American males, in large numbers, circumcised. To traditional Jewish thinking, a Jewish male must be circumcised. There is no choice in the matter.

Given this fact, as Romberg says, "In other times and places [circumcision] has brought ridicule and persecution upon the Jews. In the United States today, the Jew does not stand out as different for having a circumcised penis. Have Jews been the cause, directly or indirectly, of the widespread popularity of routine infant circumcision in the U.S.? There are many Jewish doctors in the U.S." [ROMBERG, p. 104]

Always highly attuned to threats of anti-Semitism, religiously convinced that Gentiles must sooner or later rise up for no reason against them, and for centuries seeking to mold the safest niches possible within non-Jewish communities, the secular American custom of circumcision offers the Jewish (male) community the extraordinary opportunity to physically blend into American society, without having to abandon its traditional genital marker which, in European society, was the absolute test for determining who was, and who was not, Jewish. There was no hiding from the malicious anti-Semite.

"The exposed penis," writes Jewish feminist Andrea Dworkin, taking it to the furthest abstraction, "reifies the vulnerability of the Jewish male." [DWORKIN, A., 2000, p. 115]

For whatever reason, the fact remains that the careful -- and guarded -- Jewish process of assimilation in America is such that in this regard, on the procreative organ, it is the Gentile males who have effectively assimilated, only this century, to Jewish religious tradition.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/20pocul2.htm

[velvet]

Always highly attuned to threats of anti-Semitism, religiously convinced that Gentiles must sooner or later rise up for no reason against them, and for centuries seeking to mold the safest niches possible within non-Jewish communities

This text part should be bolded, really. Their way of life is an infection to every host population (so much to the "for no reason", it's an illness that sooner or later must be healed), and it's not that these niches "they mold" would exist, they generate them with subtle force and from there spread like cancer which consumes ever more space.

In America this perversion goes so far that they mutilate the rest of the people, by infecting the medical fields with their disgusting ways, religious superstitions and unhealthy opinions resulting from there.

Remembering that in the early 20th century German/European society was infected on the same level like America is today with the Jewish plaque, the question begs asking whether "standard-circumcision" of non-Jews here also was common?

Anyway, the initial question of Jewish Proselytising is wrongly formulated or can be answered with a clear no, as converts to Judaism are rare and also not wanted by Jews. After all, there is Christianity for the Gentiles, while Judaism is for god's chosen people only. It is, like so many other things they are or do, probably not even a conscious, planned act but a result from their religion and persecution complex, that seems to be a natural part of their religion as well. Though many also might have utilised some/many of these behaviors and actions, as they understood how to use them to manipulate the society they infected to generate the niches they inhabit therein. But getting converts to Judaism certainly was never part of that plan.

[Ocko]

A friend of mine is german and married to a russian, both are non-jews.
Their son was born in the US and the parents agreed to circumcision of him. (My friend is circumcised too but it was done in Germany as he was 13).


In a discussion they defended the practice as healthier than the non-circumcision.

I told them I rather trust the angel to produce a perfect being than a jew to correct the creation of human beings.

His wife thought that circumcised men are hotter in bed because they are aroused all the time due to contact to the material of their clothing and that would be a benefit to women. I told her that I am willing to cut her labia around her clitoris, that would make her hotter too. Men could skip the foreplay, that would be good for men. She didn't know what to answer.

[Freyr Filosofer]

I told them I rather trust the angel to produce a perfect being than a jew to correct the creation of human beings.

Bingo. There is a thread about circumcision where I posted my thoughts.

Thankfully the majority of people in this forum are against this sick, twisted, disgusting, degrading, insane, retarded and unnatural practice...

...

Girls generally seem to think it looks better, just from what I gather, and I guess they have the final say in those matters.

Brainwashed Amerikanized/Jewish-minded girls, maybe. Deep inside, women don't want a mutilated penis. How could a woman think something unnatural and deformed "looks better"? Insanity.

...

Clean-Cut: Study Finds Circumcision Helps Prevent HIV and Other... etc
http://www.google.com/search?hl=no&c...on+hiv&spell=1

Seem's it can reduce it by a small bit, but defineatly not cure it. Northern Europeans have genetic protectection for HIV, but I dont remember the details.

Not having illicit sex prevents HIV. Cutting off your balls prevents testicle cancer too!

...

Uncircumcised men last longer.

...

Because they have reduced feeling.

Exactly right, nature knows how to build a man, not the Jews. I wonder if the Jews came up with the idea to make men more unable in bed.

[Windsor]

And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...7&version=NASB

[Windsor]

"John Hyrcanus conquered the whole of Edom and undertook the forced conversion of its inhabitants to Judaism (Joseph., Ant. XIII, 9, 1). Thenceforth the Edomites became a section of the Jewish people." (Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, (1971), p. 378; The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (1977), p. 589).

"Thus, at this juncture of time the Edomites 'were incorporated with the Jewish nation, and their country was called by the Greeks and Romans 'Idumea' (Mark 3:8; Ptolemy, 'Geography,' v. 16)." (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. V. (1904), p. 41).

"...the large majority of surviving Jews in the world of Eastern European, and thus perhaps mainly of Khazar origin. If so, this would mean that their ancestors came not from the Jordan but from the Volga, not from Canaan, but from the Caucasus...and that genetically they are more closely related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." (Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, Random House, 1967, p. 17).

Forced Circumcision and the Shifting Role of Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology.

Harvard Theological Review | January 01, 1999 |

The Idumeans were subjugated by the Jews and forced to undergo circumcision.

The Idumeans were circumcised by the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus I (135-104 BCE):

Hyrcanus also captured the Idumean cities of Adora and Marisa and after
subduing all the Idumeans, permitted them to remain in their country so
long as they had themselves circumcised and were willing to observe the
laws of the Jews. And so, out of attachment to the land of their fathers,
they submitted to circumcision and to make their manner of life conform in
all other respects to that of the Jews. And from that time onward they have
continued to be Jews. - Josephus

Quoting Strabo in the name of Timagenes, Josephus reports that Hyrcanus's successor, Judas Aristobulus I (104-103 BCE), did the same to the Itureans, an Arab tribe settled in Lebanon, the Golan, and the Galilee, and Aristobulus's successor, Alexander Janneus, seems to have continued the practice, though here the evidence is less explicit.

So far as one can tell from the available sources, this was a first. According to 1 Sam 18:25, King Saul demanded that David bring him the foreskins of one hundred Philistines as a marriage present, but he certainly did not make this proposal with a view toward converting the Philistines (circumcision in this context seems analagous to scalping the enemy).

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/artic...-shifting.html

[Windsor]

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=134588

Complicating Jewish genealogy debates even further, there are even some Jewish authors -- Alfred Lilienthal, A. N. Poliak (a former professor of medieval Jewish history at Tel Aviv University), and Arthur Koestler among them -- who have published arguments that most Ashkenazis are probably not even truly racially Jewish, or at least have little Jewish genes in them, and that they are largely descended from Turkish and Slavic converts to Judaism: mostly the so-called Khazars of the eighth century.

"A substantial part," suggests Koestler, "and perhaps the majority of eastern [European] Jews -- and hence of world Jewry -- might be of Khazar, and not, Semitic origin." [KOESTLER, p.17]

Another Jewish scholar, Paul Wexler, has written two volumes even arguing that -- based on largely linguistic analysis -- most Ashkenazis and Sephardim are not of authentic Jewish "stock."

In Wexler's view, even the Sephardim are "primarily descendants from Arabs, Berbers, and Europeans." [WEXLER, p. 1-12] In such research, Wexler follows the terrain of other Jewish scholars obsessively searching for authentic-- usually racial Jewish pedigrees by following linguistic clues.

"It is very probable," notes French Jewish scholar Maxine Rodinson, "-- and physical anthropology tends to show that this is true -- that the so-called Arab inhabitants of Palestine (a majority of whom, moreover, are people who have 'become Arabs'), have much more of the ancient 'Hebrews' blood than most of the Jews of the Diaspora." [RODINSON, p. 79]

A little known African tribe, the Lemba, can even make stronger genetic claims to being Jewish than can many European Jews. In scientific testing of DNA samples, the Lemba have been discovered to have markers on their Y chromosome that are comparable to Jews of the kohanim (the traditional Jewish priest caste, a degree of Jewishness attainable, by Orthodox rules, only by birth. Common kohanim surnames in the Western world include Cohen, Kahn, Kaplan, Rapaport, Katz, Azoulay, and Harunoff). The Lemba, who are today mostly Christian, nonetheless believe themselves to be racially Jewish. Lemba tradition asserts that their forefathers emigrated to Yemen 2,500 years ago, later forging to Zimbabwe and South Africa. [HIRSCHBERG, P., 1999, p. 30-32]

In the medical realm, other genetic evidence about Jews in general, particularly the Ashkenazim, is contradictory. While some argue that fingerprints, enzyme markers, and other genetically-based evidence points to a common gene pool, there is also evidence that questions Jewish Ashkenazi racial lineage to Abraham. "A genetically controlled enzyme deficiency, G6PD," notes Joshua Halberstam, "is rare among both Ashkenazis and Eastern European non-Jews but common among both Mediterranean Jews and Mediterranean non-Jews. Nor do Jews appear related by blood. Blood types are variably distributed around the world, and here again Jews most closely represent their host population." [HALBERSTAM, p. 76]

If such evidence -- linguistic and genetic -- is what it obviously seems, for many people in the world who call themselves "Jews" their important hereditary connection to Abraham as members of the Chosen Race is illusory, just another in the many paradoxes of Jewish identity. Nonetheless, personal and communal conviction are powerful things.

http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/17racis.htm