For the love of the father and of the mother for the child when it has just been born is not like their love for it when it is one year old, and their love for it when it is one year old is not like their love when it is six years old. Consequently if it were left uncircumcised for two or three years, this would necessitate the abandonment of circumcision because of the father's love and affection for it. - Moses ben Maimon Guide for the Perplexed Part III Chapter 39
It seems that secular humanism in Germany has finally completed its decades-old plan to ruin the moral heritage of our grand United Empires of Earth. How? By ending the genital mutilation of children.

For some, circumcision is a religious concern. For others it's simple hygiene. It's well known that the covenant of Judaism is predicated upon the act of circumcision, and a host of other cultures around the world work it into their rites of passage in the most horrendous of ways. For others it was necessary to make it a more universally accepted practice. Therefore, circumcision was medicalised. Some may find it difficult to imagine that Aborigines and African tribes found their genitalia so dirty that they started hacking away at them. Therefore a lot of work has been put into providing "evidence" for circumcision's effectiveness, ranging from protecting against penile cancer, HIV, and just general dirtiness.

So, you see, though it's long been understood by the sane men and women of planet Earth that the only way to guarantee a clean, mature, or holy child is to rip the skin off of their most tender of places when they are too young to be able to put up a good fight, this plausible lie might be at its stretching point. Yet it's easy to see why it has been accepted for so long: who has the bravery to enter the labyrinthine complex surrounding this brutal act and face the monster, within and without, that demands the mutilation of children?
Circumcision started in America during the masturbation hysteria of the Victorian Era, when a few American doctors circumcised boys to punish them for masturbating. Victorian doctors knew very well that circumcision denudes, desensitizes, and disables the penis. Nevertheless, they were soon claiming that circumcision cured epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, elephantiasis, tuberculosis, eczema, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, fecal incontinence, rectal prolapse, wet dreams, hernia, headaches, nervousness, hysteria, poor eyesight, idiocy, mental retardation, and insanity.

In fact, no procedure in the history of medicine has been claimed to cure and prevent more diseases than circumcision. As late as the 1970s, leading American medical textbooks still advocated routine circumcision as a way to prevent masturbation. The antisexual motivations behind an operation that entails cutting off part of the penis are obvious.
The idea that ritual circumcision was motivated by concern for health was the invention of nineteenth century doctors. They knew nothing of anthropology, but they were keen to find a respectable ancestry for the new surgical therapy they wanted to introduce. Antiquity, they thought, conferred legitimacy. ...The ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1876) discussed the practice as a religious rite among Jews, Moslems, ancient Egyptians and several tribal peoples, rejecting sanitary or hygienic explanations in favour of a religious one:

Like other bodily mutilations ... [it is] of the nature of a representative sacrifice. ... The principle of substitution was familiar to all ancient nations, and not least to the Israelites. ... On this principle circumcision was an economical recognition of the divine ownership of human life, a part of the body being sacrificed to preserve the remainder.
This "economical recognition" is rather interesting, isn't it? It reminds me of how much money pharmaceutical companies and the medical industry makes off of foreskin: surgeries, clamps, and even selling the foreskin itself for use in cosmetics.

But, on with the story:
By the eleventh edition (1910) the entry has been turned on its head: ...suddenly circumcision was primarily a medical procedure and only after that a religious rite. The entry explains that "in recent years the medical profession has been responsible for its considerable extension among other than Jewish children ... for reasons of health". By 1929 the entry is much reduced in size and consists merely of a brief description of the operation, which is "done as a preventive measure in the infant" and "performed chiefly for purposes of cleanliness"; readers are then referred to the entries for "Mutilation" and "Deformation" for a discussion of circumcision in its religious context.
Due largely to the obvious degradation of language, if heaven and hell doesn't do it for you, you by now "know" what you're supposed to know; that circumcision is just plain healthy, was all along, and reduces the risk of getting HIV. That is, as long as the researchers don't complete the random trials that prove it, and are themselves circumcision advocates.

But of course, that's adult circumcision, so I can hear you say: 'but babies and children aren't supposed to be having sex in the first place!' Tell that to the people in charge of all of the major institutions of the world then. They seem to have no qualms concerning sexual acts with children, and I'm not just talking about the Catholic Church, although a very large spotlight should be shone on the inner workings of that particular institution. They're all, at the very top, involved in the disgusting business of child abuse. Just check out the Dutroux Affair, or the Franklin Scandal, and you'll realise why the 'leaders' of this world haven't found the act of male, or female circumcision, where the common people allow it, very objectionable.

So once again they make money off of misery, and the only 'trickle down' we get is the reinforcement of pathological ideas. The ideas approved of by the elite are those that are accepted, if only through gritted teeth, by the majority, until the next generation is born and accepts them as their own. In fact, Western civilization has a history of hating the very idea of circumcision (for obvious reasons).

So if we really think those in charge of the mass circumcision movements - the media and all of the major institutions that have shaped this pathological, desensitized, barren landscape - are interested in our well-being, then we haven't been paying attention at all have we? Further into the labyrinth we wind.
"The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. ... For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened." - Moses ben Maimon Guide for the Perplexed Part III Chapter 39
So no matter just how "mutilation" and "deformation" are defended, be it through hygiene or religion, what is the real point behind circumcision? Let's be blunt! It's pain! What a novel idea; you hurt someone to inflict pain! The original schizoidal idea was to eliminate sexual immorality, but of course the damage done is much more extensive.
Closely following (and contradicting) the 'no pain' story, one frequently encounters the following statement: 'Alright, maybe it hurts, but it only lasts a moment and they forget about it the minute its over. They're too young to have any memory of it'. In fact, the raw surface of the glans may bleed and be painful for several days after the circumcision, so the pain is far from momentary. Further, there is ample evidence that newborns do have some memory of the event, which takes the form, not of conscious remembering, but of a permanent restructuring of the nervous system. The result is an intensification of the behavioural response to subsequent painful stimuli, as though the nervous system has been 'sensitized'. Thus, for example, Taddio et al. found that pain responses in children being vaccinated were significantly greater in those who had been circumcised (several months previously) than in those who had not. Other studies show that pain experienced in early infancy can disrupt breast-feeding, mother-infant bonding and sleeping patterns.
Not only do newborn babies feel pain, they feel it more intensely, for longer and over a wider area of the body than do older children or adults subjected to the same stimulus. Fitzgerald and her team at University College London, have shown clearly that the nervous system of a newborn baby differs from that of an older child or adult, both anatomically and physiologically, so that what would constitute a light or harmless stimulus to the older child or adult actually produces pain in the newborn. Furthermore, newborns lack the inhibitory or 'damping down' mechanisms of the more mature nervous system, so they cannot protect themselves from the experience of pain in the way they could at a later stage.
And if you're not sick yet, I'm going to ask you to remember that this is real; this is not a dream. The pain of children is of course the entire point, but we've been so conditioned to believe in our officials and traditions (and by we I mean all of us, mentally emotionally and physically via diet) that we can't see what's staring us right in the face! Because we can't really have everyone thinking that we've been led to purposefully mutilate children in order to hurt them, we must be told that we're saving them from a life of sin, or disease, etc. And it's repeated enough that people believe it. We have to accept that lie, otherwise...what kind of a creature would trick a tribe, then a society, then a continent into doing this? We'd have to face what's at the center of this labyrinth without substituting happy thoughts for cold, dark reality; we act out the world view of psychopaths by brutalizing our children as soon as they enter this world. The pain that their body experiences at such a formative stage is likely encoded in them for the rest of their lives, controlling them through fear and suffering. We cripple children when all they reach out for is affection. They ask for love and we give them the blade.

So any denial over this subject is likely due to our need to be right and feel safe, because then our virus-like civilization is right, and we can continue to deny the death-dealing reality that has grown up as a consequence of our abundant ignorance, all around us. But we're not right. We are so wrong that we can hear the death knell if we listen, and before long we will see its effects.

So when I hear that the Conference of European Rabbis calls the end of circumcision in Germany "the worst attack on Jewish life since the Holocaust," I no longer wonder what the hell kind of a world they're living in that they can possibly say something so heinous, painting themselves as the victims in an act that strips the flesh off of week old babies, selectively interpreting their own religion in favor of genital mutilation. I know that they're the walking dead, crying for blood. I don't need a random control study for that.
In Judaism there is a law of 'Shmirat Ha Guf', the guarding or protecting of the body. Body-piercing, tattooing and amputation are all forbidden for this reason. Further, there is the Talmudic concept of 'Tsa'ar ba'alei chayyim', compassion for all living creatures. If compassion in all its fullness were applied to 8-day-old babies, circumcision would become impossible.
So to come back out of that labyrinth, I don't need anyone to tell me that it's been "proven" or "disproven" in a randomly controlled trial that children should not have their bits amputated in the name of any ancient tribal religion that we don't belong to and has no one's best interest at heart. I can think for myself, thank you.

I know that infants feel pain. And as they grow, I know that the pain persists when they're restrained in desks for hour after hour awaiting the ding of a bell, only switching from one indoctrination chamber to another, feverishly avoiding the bullying on the bus and the distant, stressful home life that awaits them.

I know that children feel pain when they're sent off to die for the objectives of the richest of society. I know how desperate they are for money, for social standing, for meaning in their lives. So desperate, in fact, that if they survive, or avoid war, they'll end up dragging the ball and chain of debt for the rest of their adult lives.

I know that children feel pain when they are molested for "scientific progress" by the same types of psychopaths that have sought complete power for so many generations. And I know that so few seem to care, that it is likely that this opinion may become extinct the day those who hold it pass on.

And I know that anything that threatens the integrity of our bodies threatens the integrity of our planet and vice versa. These are lessons learned too late. But they're still lessons learned, for me. How about you?

I don't buy into the religious BS or the hygiene BS. They're both based on corruption, the kind of corruption that comes from pathological people in power using any means possible to exert control over others.

So, unlike the countless others who are channeling their money into the German court battle to insure the time-proven tradition of the psychopathic elite to enjoy their new generation of mutilated children, I'll be using that truly divine part of me to think for myself and choose the best for myself and my family. This psychopathic system be damned, and the ideologies that it's built on. I'd rather face the terror of reality than mutilate either my son or my daughter. Trust me, it will never happen.