Did you know that Howard Stern is the first -- and still the only -- mega-celebrity to publicly and repeatedly take an appropriately outraged, uncompromising, zero-tolerance stand against the sexual mutilation of children and babies? And he is Jewish!

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/stern.htm
It's really the biggest crime being committed by parents against their children. And I know if I had a son, I would not even stop to think about it.
Compare his attitude to the attidute of those who call themselves "white nationalists" who insist that genital mutilation is not criminal, nor should it even be discussed.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=188585&postcount=2

I removed that thread and I intend to remove all future circumcision threads.

There is no concrete proof one way or the other on the benefits or drawbacks.
There is a ton of concrete proof and men have been restoring thier foreskin for as long as they (mostly Jews) have been mutilating male genitalia in this manner.
http://net.indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/
Believe it or not, there are many male high school graduates in America who don't even know what a foreskin is, or that anyone actually has skin covering the head of their penis.

I'm glad that wasn't done to me. My dad wanted it done, but my mom talked him out of it.

I feel a bit sorry for those who have had it done.

Your mother made a wise decision. My guess is that your father wanted it done to you so that you would look like him.

It is absurd that so many parents don't even question it and take their doctor's word as gospel.

This picture was drawn by an 11-year old. Who would actually not believe that such an experience as depicted wouldn't be extremely painful and traumatizing?
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/quinn.jpg

A couple years ago, the stories about African female genital mutilation made the news. I must admit I was upset that people could do that to their children. Even if they consider it customary. Then it dawned on me that I was feeling sorry for someone else, when I held my own damaged organ daily. No one can feel good about circumcision once you make the connection to genital mutilation.
All so that when lined up against the wall, THEY cannot be distinguished from US easily!

Your mother made a wise decision. My guess is that your father wanted it done to you so that you would look like him.


For some reason, among Americans, it's just "tradition". I think my dad wanted it done because "it was done to him" and etc etc etc through ancestors.

Of course, since my mom is from another country, this almost lemming like tradition isn't practiced, so she refused.

Well, it was never a tradition in the USA for non jews until after WW2.
It was part of the jew victim mentality, that wanted jews to be able to blend in more easily.
Pre-1950, it was easy enough to pick out a jew in say, a men's locker room or restroom, by his mutilated genitals.

The jew doctors decided that all babies in the US would be cut, thus minimalizing the chance that a jew could be picked out later.

I gave birth back in the early 70s to my sons, and *insisted* that they not be cut.
I had quite an argument from the hospital and their pediatrician, but I stuck by my guns.
Thank the gods that the movement to NOT mutilate baby boys has caught on so well in the last decade or so!

Circumcision is genital mutilation, no matter how you look at it.

It was part of the jew victim mentality, that wanted jews to be able to blend in more easily.
Pre-1950, it was easy enough to pick out a jew in say, a men's locker room or restroom, by his mutilated genitals.

The jew doctors decided that all babies in the US would be cut, thus minimalizing the chance that a jew could be picked out later.


Are you serious? Got a source for this?

If that's true, dye me hair and grab me a David Duke bumper sticker. :P

My source?
Simple observation.
Ask non jews born before WW2 if they or men they knew were cut.
Very few non jews were cut back then.
None of my family's men were ever cut back then, nor anyone they knew, except jews.
The only reasons to do it pre War were always religious.
The trend started immediately following WW2 during the Baby Boom.
The number of jews in the medical profession allowed them to shove the pseudo science ideas that it was somehow "dirty" to keep that part, on the mothers of the huge numbers of babies born then.
Moms back then strayed from breastfeeding, and had their babies mutilated, all on the orders of the mainly jewish medical profession.
It is not hard to put the pieces together and see why.
Coincidence? I think not.

Well, it was never a tradition in the USA for non jews until after WW2.
It was part of the jew victim mentality, that wanted jews to be able to blend in more easily.
Pre-1950, it was easy enough to pick out a jew in say, a men's locker room or restroom, by his mutilated genitals.

I think it goes back farther than that. I was born May 1945, in a small town in Texas, and was circumcised. I think most men in the US my age were as well.

I’ve read points of view on both sides. I doubt that it is of too much importance to health and function, but good sense would indicate that the procedure is not needed and should not be done.

When was the practice begun, large scale, on non-jews? I don’t know, but my father was born in 1920 and he was circumcised. We are Lowland Scots and Northern English back many generations.

Enkidu

I didn't Europeans were circumsized...I thought it was only Americans.

I didn't Europeans were circumsized...I thought it was only Americans.

It's taken more of a hold among Anglos around the world: Brits, Americans, Australians. Among mainland Europeans it's practically nonexistant.

Here is a chart showing US circumcision rates. The rate is actually down to 30% in the western states now.
http://www.johmann.net/essays/circ-chart.gif

To be clearer, I was born in Texas, my father in Arkansas, my mother in Kansas. Before that, my father’s family is from Ayr in the Lowlands of Scotland, my mother’s family from Yorkshire in the North of England.

Jews are not new to the US or Scotland or England. The doctor at my birth was a jew. My mother’s mother was a seamstrice (sp) and always worked for jews. My father’s mother told me stories of jewish grocers and merchants.

Was it Cromwell that did this to us?

----
Palantine Creator,

Well done, fast bit of research, good chart.
----

Enkidu

My dad's 2nd generation German (born in the US), but he was circumsized. I'm pretty sure his grandfather wasn't circumsized, however. I have no idea why it started.

On my mom's side, circumcision is regarded as a barbaric western custom (but the Jews started this, if I am not mistaken) in her country.

Here is a chart showing US circumcision rates.

Thanks, new information to me at least.

I'm very surprised it peaked as late as it did. I was born in 1950 in Ohio, my doctor was a displaced Chinese (!) from Taiwan and my circumcision was totally routine. Nobody asked any questions. Either about the circumcision or what the hell a chink DP was doing in rural Ohio when Truman was president.

The whole trouble then was nobody asked too many questions at all.

I thought the rate started going down just after I was born but it actually seems to have kept climbing for many years. Live and learn.

And they saw masturbation as the cause of mental illness. Probably because all the crazies killed time whacking off. Confused cause and effect. And if all it takes to keep your kid from going insane was to cut some skin off their little peckers, well, off with their hoods!

The jew doctors decided that all babies in the US would be cut, thus minimalizing the chance that a jew could be picked out later.


I always make sure to have proof for everything I say about Jews (and boy, is there a mountain of proof!), so I have never said anything about Jewish control of banks for example, since I don't have statistics about it, and never said anything about them being the cause of circumcision in the U.S. and Canada, even though I have always suspected they'd be behind it ever since I first heard of it. After all, it seems pretty logical. In Vichy France, doctors would check young boys to see if they were circumcized or not, the better to rid the country of Jews. Of course Jews who want to blend in today would rather demand that everybody else change than that they have to do it. I mean, Jews, changing their ways? They wouldn't have survived through the millennia as a minority among host populations if they were prone to change.

Terrible, circumcision is. I hear it makes the penis less sensitive. But hey, if you've had it done to you, no need to hang your head about it. There are more important things to take care of. Just make sure your sons won't have any part of their bodies cut away, and you're fine.


And while we're at it, pretty pictures are best kept on paper, instead of burned into White skin. And little pieces of metal is definitely not something that should be stuck in human flesh. It feels good to be free of such things! Clean, you know.

I think widespread circimcision of non-Jews started in Victorian England because they thought it would prevent masturbation.

That's the right answer right there. That, combined with the AngloPuritan Jew alliance that goes back to Cromwell.

As for that "English common law is based on Roman law," not so. English common law is in fact the best of the Germanic legal tradition, but by contrast, today's German system is Roman law. The only jurisdictions that practice "common law" today are US, England, and former British possessions though not all. The "Civil Law" is practiced nearly everywhere else including non-White nations like China. Napolean re-established the Justinian code as the standard for law nearly everywhere outside of England. Napoleon was a mixed bag, in some ways subversive in some ways not.

Anyhow Jarl, the NS was referring to Napoleonic Code based "Civil Law" against which the Anglo-American common law is the more "Germanic" tradition, sans doute. LOL

Finally, one of the ironies of Hitler was that he centralized the German state in a very Roman-Napoleonic fashion and abrogated the independence of the Lander, which in America and Germany is a system of balance between local and central government known as federalism. So Hitler sold Germanism, but delivered Caesarism, in terms of politics. I dont blame him for this, it was quite necessary to stamp out reaction along with Marxism, but them's the facts dude.

I've been avoiding this thread because the subject pisses me off so much. I was born in TX in the same era and didn't discover til awareness years later that the kindly old family doctor was a damned jew. I got even angrier to read that article the other day that explained the the 'total cut' they do today has only been around for a few hundred years. Originally they just snipped off the tip, leaving a significent amount of protective mucous-membrane intact. Young jews were attempting to hide the mutilation by tugging that shred down. So some stinking mohel 'invented" the full removal of all the prepuce, complete mutilation and exposure of the glans to the desensitizing effect of exposure.
I asked my niece (a nurse) why the hell she did it to her little boy. Sanitary reasons! Hell, anybody can wash their dick. She didn't even know the damned thing was meant to be a mucous organ.
Primitive pervert mohels suck the blood from the freshly cut yidlet's willie. Damned Jews, ____ them all!
(Trying to be civil here, did a lil edit.)

I think it goes back farther than that. I was born May 1945, in a small town in Texas, and was circumcised. I think most men in the US my age were as well.

I’ve read points of view on both sides. I doubt that it is of too much importance to health and function, but good sense would indicate that the procedure is not needed and should not be done.

When was the practice begun, large scale, on non-jews? I don’t know, but my father was born in 1920 and he was circumcised. We are Lowland Scots and Northern English back many generations.

Enkidu

yep some cuts are "tighter" than others. I had a friend whose brother was born on a base in Deutschland and the doc didnt want to cut him, good man! But they insisted and he only snipped a little. Sadly, when they got the tot home, they cut off more skin.

women who cringe over this, ought to be told it's no more difficult caring for an intact penis on a baby than caring for a vagina.

I talked to an Arab once who had been cut as an adult, and he stated there was a very significant difference in sensation. it seems like a bad thing to me on the whole.

still, not much point in agonizing over it once it's done.

It angers me further that, whenever they want to stir up some hate against Arabs, these dick-snipping freaks start wringing their hands all over the major media about Muslims practicing female circumcision. Oy vey! It's bah-buh-rous!
It's only common among the savage negro muslims of Africa. Then some lesbians start squawking that everyone drop what yer doing and help import several metric buttloads of these sorry negroes because they are threatened with getting their vagina snipped. I say they need just that treatment here in the US, it might put the brakes on the boom in useless crack-niglets.
Ask the Jew about the practicality of their own barbarous custom and they get vague and change the subject.

[Edited by George: Hey Momus, watch your language in this section]

Heh, nice one MOMUS. :P

Anyways, the Muslims are just as dumb as the jews, because they love circumcision for males, as well. Man, the more I read, the more I'm thankful this never happened to me.

If you are interested in doing something about your mutilation, there is a plethora of information out there, especially on the web.

The best book I have read regarding this subject is 'The Joy of Uncircumcising' by Jim Bigelow. It's deemed one of the foremost books on this whole subject and more importantly, can help you do something about the unwarranted mutilation of your body.
There is indeed hope.

There also exists www.tugahoy.com (yes, a silly name, but it works wonders!)

See the organizations NOCIRC and NORM about various ways to help you become more natural once again.

With consistent action, you can expect to see noticeable results within 3-6 months. Substantial coverage with 1 year to 18 months, depending upon how tight you were cut.
Full coverage is difficult to achieve, but is possible.

I'm sure Palatine Creator would have alot to say about this, where is he when you need him. He knows alot about foreskin restoration and the like.

Georgie, was that you who censored me? Hell, I thought I was being as civil as I could be.
No, I'll remain pissed but I'll not go to another Kike doctor to attempt to undo the damage done.
My lil prepuce is on its way to heaven to await me there.

I'm sure Palatine Creator would have alot to say about this, where is he when you need him. He knows alot about foreskin restoration and the like.

Did anyone else just go to a scary visual place?

Georgie, was that you who censored me? Hell, I thought I was being as civil as I could be.


No cursing and that includes words such as the racial epiphets. I only edited a few words that was it. Hardly what I call "censoring". I'm sorry but thats the rules of this section. If we are gonna get people to follow them then we have to be strict about it.

I don't like it how some women are disgusted by an uncut penis. I don't look at a vagina and go "ewwww." even if it does look unappealing sometimes. Not that any women has ever said ewww to me, but when you read their thoughts online, it's scary.

I don't like it how some women are disgusted by an uncut penis

Really? I didn't think they felt this way (at least not from the ones I've talked to).

when you read their thoughts online, it's scary

Would it be wrong to assume maybe they're teenage girls with absolutely no clue to what they are talking about?

If you are interested in doing something about your mutilation, there is a plethora of information out there, especially on the web.

The best book I have read regarding this subject is 'The Joy of Uncircumcising' by Jim Bigelow. It's deemed one of the foremost books on this whole subject and more importantly, can help you do something about the unwarranted mutilation of your body.
There is indeed hope.

There also exists www.tugahoy.com (yes, a silly name, but it works wonders!)

See the organizations NOCIRC and NORM about various ways to help you become more natural once again.

With consistent action, you can expect to see noticeable results within 3-6 months. Substantial coverage with 1 year to 18 months, depending upon how tight you were cut.
Full coverage is difficult to achieve, but is possible.
The tugahoy is a very effective device. I wore tape for a few months during which I was able to grow back a lot of skin, but eventually I became disappointed that the growth had slowed considerably and decided that I would try this device.

I really like the book Sex As Nature Intended It http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/ which is now available in ebook format also. The author conducted a lot of research and interviewed many men who have restored their foreskin and men who were circumcised later in life, after they already had sex intact. She aslo interviewed lots of women who have had sex with both mutilated and intact men and included plenty of direct quotes. The tuguahoy is the only foreskin restoration product recommended, and is included because a lot of men have restored much faster when using it.

The tugahoy site even lists how many they've sold:

http://www.tugahoy.com/new_notices.htm

My notice is still displayed:

On Sunday evening, 2/22/04, a total of five Tug Ahoys were mailed to the following, all of whose orders came via PayPal: SL, MM Jr. (eCheck cleared), DS, ED, and HN. Thanks a lot for the orders.

On Saturday, 2/14/04, Tug Ahoys were mailed to DF and AFB, both of whom sent orders via PayPal. A notification of payment by e-check by MM was also received. His Tug Ahoy will be mailed after the payment has cleared, which usually takes about 7 days. Thanks very much for the orders.

The book is a lot cheaper, and I would definately recommend it. It may help to give you the "emotional fortitude" that is truly necessary to carry out a long-term plan for foreskin restoration.

LOL Hi there A&E,

On a unrelated subject, let me invite anyone interested [center][b]A&E, Sounds like you better hit the History and Law Books.

:)

Your comment is indeed unrelated. Is your purpose merely to try and make me bristle or do you have something relevant to the thread to contribute?

Moreover, your suggestion about Catholic thought is misleading and erroneous. It may characterize the way a bunch of Jews would like Catholics to believe, it may characterize the way a bunch of Marxist heretic "liberation theologists" beating their hippie tambourines would like Catholics to believe, but your interpretation is hardly NIHIL OBSTAT is it?

Finally, Catholic thought needs some tweaking to be sure. The Catholic Church is a big thing and remaining engaged with big things is a culture war methodology that works better than running from them like Randy Weaver in a shack out in the stix. But I could be wrong. We will look to your vaunted position as Pope of the Church of Jarl for the likelihood of impressive results. Or is it a coven? or a "thing?" Wait-- do you need at least one follower to be a coven?

You're welcome to pick and choose a few things here and there that are particularly obnoxious to justify your blanket generalizations. At least here you've identified an issue that is of particular concern, unlike some of your previous comments which have been offbase. That aspect of social thought needs work for sure but you would throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Disengagement from existing social institutions is like randyweaverism. No offense to randy. You sit back and peck your keyboard and say what's ill of the world and never make any connections to people in the world which might give you the chance to actually gain power and make some changes. It's only marginally better than survivalism where somebody fantasizes about running off during some collapse that probably wont happen.

Instead of kicking back and oy veying and throwing stones and saying head for the hills, or NW imperative, or lone wolf, or whatever, dont people try to actually be "fish among the people" and work your revolutionary magic through personal contact in the existing social networks.

That is what a church is. An existing social network. That is what a government is, an existing social network. That is what an established business is, an existing social network. For example, there are plenty of people who see no problem working for a multinational global company run by kikes. It's just a job right? You show up and do your thing and get paid. You do it because you have to. You use the opportunity at hand, and turn the traded resources to your own ends on your own time. That is what people should do by participating in churches or elections or social clubs like the fucking moose lodge or masons or whatever.

I keep on saying this in a hundred different ways in the hopes that there are people here who want to be elite WN infiltrators who are willing to use any means necessary to gain power and then act in the best interests of our people.

The person that most eloquently challenged that strategy was Matt Hale. He once said we cant out jew the jew. He should have said Hey diddle diddle, right up the fuckin middle because he might as well have charged the machine guns. I have been dismayed more and more by Matt's story where he was honest and upfront from day one in law school. Then he didnt get a license, he ended up getting railroaded. I put my hundred bucks in the mail to Hale today Jarl, on top of whatever else I have exchanged with him over the years, what the fu*** have you done? I disagreed with Matt's frank strategy but never questioned his heart. I think we need to seriously consider how successful it is to stand back and throw stones at successful organizations from the outside and ignore all the opportunities they present.

So, Jarl, all you have done is talk sh** about Christians. What has Jarl accomplished? What is Jarl's strategy to victory? Talk sh**? [edited by Franco.....this is the Civil Forum; next post like this will be deleted] It aint working.

If Matt had shut up during law school, he might be doing ten times what he is doing today.

What never ceases to amaze me is that we are among the few Whites who understand the nature of Jewish power and yet fail to grasp the strategies necessary to reverse their usurpation. Yet the Whites who can implement those strategies in life, fail to grasp Jew power. Thus we are and remain, impotent. In your manifest critical wisdom Jarl what is the way out. Reveal to us your master plan:

you're right it does. the issue here however, is less what particular silly thing some churchman said or did, but what we can do to move our pieces forward. churches offer us opportunities not available elsewhere. opportunities we continue to ignore at our own expense. I keep on coming back to that and it keeps sailing over your head.

if you want to keep up the tirade be my guess. I see you've elsewhere tried to make a few positive suggestions which is good. such as your hitler worship thread about gods. well see where thirty years of hitlerism has taken Matt Keohl. Nowhere.

Nope, not at this stage churches do not. They have become the mortal enemies of Aryan racists. To control the churches you have to control the state. At this point the "movement" can hardly even control it's self. So you need to be at the top that is were the power to tell the churches what to say comes from. And we are at the bottom.

So much for that idea. The worst sort of the masses pack themself's in pews on sunday morning. Worry about the masses when we have the power to do so.

In the end trying to build any lasting change upon christianity is a wasted effort the mormons are the perfect example of that. You can not have a Aryan society build upon jewish ideals ie christianity that will last.

well at least here we have a serious evaluation of part of the suggestion. my suggestion however is even humbler than rebuilding a new church from above. Partly, that if the circumstances permitted which as you point out at this time they do not.

But otherwise, observe that on an individual basis lack personal contacts and other resources like money which if collectively concentrated and reallocated onto projects like White media, would advance the cause. so to some extent what I'm saying is that participation in churches will enhance personal resources which you can redirect as you see fit. also, again, I dont think personal recruitment in churches should be dismissed either.

The funny thing about your suggestions about advancing our cause through churches, is that thiose same churches would have nothing to do with you or your notions. They are somewhat less tolerant than myself. Let's see you get your idea printed in their sunday bulletin. Here, your ideas are considered. There, your ideas won't see daylight. And that is where we should look for support/recruits?

I just read Bennett's article from VNN. Man, the way she wrote that article, I'm even more thankful I wasn't mutilated.


..

I was formerly exactly such an ignoramus in this regard.

Before I read Liz on VNN, I never imagined the procedure might be more significant than a haircut. I am truly thankful to be better informed in case I ever have sons, for they surely will NOT be cut.

Liz and VNN alike deserve real credit for disseminating this valuable information.

Believe it or not, there are many male high school graduates in America who don't even know what a foreskin is, or that anyone actually has skin covering the head of their penis.

The funny thing about your suggestions about advancing our cause through churches, is that thiose same churches would have nothing to do with you or your notions. They are somewhat less tolerant than myself. Let's see you get your idea printed in their sunday bulletin. Here, your ideas are considered. There, your ideas won't see daylight. And that is where we should look for support/recruits?

Hey did you think I was going to walk into church with an NSM uniform on? LOL Not everything has to be the hard way. You need to give em the medicine drip by drip and with a teaspoonful of sugar. Whilst not sounding the alarm for the jews to come swooping in. WN, always hey diddle diddle right up the middle? Straight into the machine gun nest?

My ideas get considered one on one. One on one, yes we might find recruits in churches if there recruiting were done properly. Also keep in mind one on one recruiting is the expensive way of recruiting in terms of time and so it is for people who have something to offer once they are recruited. You identify such people ahead of time and go for somebody who is an opinion maker and not a lemming. Lemmings dont count for shit anyhow, quit worrying about them. They will do what they are told. You've got to grab the people who do the telling.

....
Compare his attitude to the attidute of those who call themselves "white nationalists" who insist that male genital mutilation is not criminal.....
I found a few of them. How would you like to have them as nurses after getting a hernia operation?
http://tinypic.com/fp5ig

http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/electronic/956a/ :swastikasmiley::puke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAdgt5Glk0 :jew::hangnig:

Name 1 mammalian species that does not have a foreskin. You cannot, for there is not one. Clearly, if it were better to not have a foreskin, nature/evolution would have been rid of them by now.

Young women are programed to associate foreskin with being dirty, smelly, etc. When educated, the majority of women would turn against the practice.

The problem of men wanting to punish their sons with inflicting the same torture on them they endured would remain another matter. Fortunately, women have complete control over all medical procedures while in the hospital with a baby, so again it is educating women which is key.

Well, it was never a tradition in the USA for non jews until after WW2.
It was part of the jew victim mentality, that wanted jews to be able to blend in more easily.
Pre-1950, it was easy enough to pick out a jew in say, a men's locker room or restroom, by his mutilated genitals.

The jew doctors decided that all babies in the US would be cut, thus minimalizing the chance that a jew could be picked out later.

I gave birth back in the early 70s to my sons, and *insisted* that they not be cut.
I had quite an argument from the hospital and their pediatrician, but I stuck by my guns.
Thank the gods that the movement to NOT mutilate baby boys has caught on so well in the last decade or so!

Circumcision is genital mutilation, no matter how you look at it.

Circumcision is like religion in that it should be left up to the individual to decide on after he is of age.

Name 1 mammalian species that does not have a foreskin. You cannot, for there is not one. Clearly, if it were better to not have a foreskin, nature/evolution would have been rid of them by now.

Young women are programed to associate foreskin with being dirty, smelly, etc. When educated, the majority of women would turn against the practice.

The problem of men wanting to punish their sons with inflicting the same torture on them they endured would remain another matter. Fortunately, women have complete control over all medical procedures while in the hospital with a baby, so again it is educating women which is key.

Circumcision does do away with the problem of smegma.

Circumcision does do away with the problem of smegma.

So does washing yourself, ever tried that?

So does washing yourself, ever tried that?

Lash sees He has another little admin/sycophant to deal with, but it will be no problem, because sycophants are generally low IQ followers of those they perceive to be more intelligent than they are.
Nevertheless, Lasher will deign to answer the silly question posed by the silly poster/sycophant. Whether or not Lasher is circumcized, and whether or not He has ever washed Himself is not at all germane to what He wrote, so why not try to deal with the topic instead of throwing juvenile, immature, sophomoric, and adolescent comments into the forum, old sport? You do both yourself and the board a disservice by acting so foolishly.

Name 1 mammalian species that does not have a foreskin...Every normal pistol has a holster
So does washing yourself, ever tried that?Do you mean washing himself or his dick? If you meant himself, you just called him a dick

Every normal pistol has a holster
Do you mean washing himself or his dick? If you meant himself, you just called him a dick

It is very possible that was his intention, but it doesn't behoove you to try to start a flame war between him and Lasher, which is obviously your intention.

I wasn't aware that I even had to try:D

Check this link out:
http://www.circumstitions.com/coerce.html

Did you know that in the USA babies are circumcised without even the consent of the parents? There are many instances where the parents specifically told the doctor they did not want their son circumcised, yet the doctor did it anyway. Need any more proof of a jewish conspiracy?

Do not let your baby son out of your sight for even one second after he comes out! The jewish doctor may have his foreskin cut off even if you refused to sign the consent papers and specifically said you did not want your son circumcised.

Check this link out:
http://www.circumstitions.com/coerce.html

Did you know that in the USA babies are circumcised without even the consent of the parents? There are many instances where the parents specifically told the doctor they did not want their son circumcised, yet the doctor did it anyway. Need any more proof of a jewish conspiracy?

Do not let your baby son out of your sight for even one second after he comes out! The jewish doctor may have his foreskin cut off even if you refused to sign the consent papers and specifically said you did not want your son circumcised.

Genital mutilation is a terrible blight on the United States.

Do not use the c-word to normalise genital mutilation.

The criminal aggravated sexual assault of children in the United States is the top priority for that country.

Without smegma, the animal kingdom would cease to exist, says Dr. Ritter.

http://www.foreskin.org/smegma.htm

"Analogous to tears, smegma is the compilation of secretions by ectopic sebaceous glands located in the prepuce, the seminal secretions of the Cowper's gland and the prostate, the mucin content of the secretions of the urethral glands, and the sloughed epithelial cells. It provides the necessary mucosal lubricant and moisturizer and is rich in sexual pheromones. The prepuce normally prevents detection of this phenomenally charged scent until the glans is exposed at the time erection takes place."