Christopher Donovan: Penis Mutilation, aka Male Circumcision: Did Jews Persuade The Rest of Us To Get Circumcised?

Like millions of non-Jewish white men in America, I am circumcised.  Until my wife became pregnant with a boy, it was never anything I reflected upon too much.  It’s all I’ve ever known, and mostly all I’ve ever seen in the American locker room.  When I inquired of my parents about my own circumcision, I was told that it was just “what everyone did” at the hospital.  I was whisked away for the procedure with nary a discussion.  They also didn’t give it much thought, apparently.

But reflect on that for a second:  a bizarre ritual in which sharp instruments slice up the most intensely personal part of the male body, right after birth, and for which is there is almost no legitimate medical explanation.  That’s just what “everyone does”?  How does that insanity come to be?

When female circumcision (or “mutilation” — note the difference in terminology) is discussed, it’s treated as a brutally sexist and barbaric practice — an incomprehensible horror designed to oppress women.  But male genital mutilation — which is really what it is — is barely mentioned.

For our son, the decision was easy:  no circumcision.  Informing my decision was 1) the increasing medical evidence that circumcision’s supposed benefits are outweighed by its drawbacks, and 2) my suspicion that “universal circumcision” is a Jewish attempt to normalize their practice and render them indistinguishable from the rest of us.

My boy was born whole, and he’ll stay whole.  Other fathers’ justifications of “he should look like me” struck me as absurd.  Our people have to start clawing their way back to some identity, and we might as well start now.  Should any question arise, I’m happy to explain that his penis was not clipped because that’s a ritual primarily of the Jews, and he’s not Jewish.  That might be a nice starting point for any number of discussions and thinking on his part.

There are other reasons to keep our boys whole, I come to find out.  One correspondent tells me than in researching this topic, he discovered that an erect circumcised penis is necessarily somewhat shorter — unlike the “full capacity” uncircumcised penis, it’s got less skin to expand and fill with blood.  Many sources report that there are crucial nerve endings in the cut-off portion of the penis, so that sexual pleasure is reduced.

That squares with the minimal research I’ve done — mostly confined to the Internet — which has rabbis acknowledging that pouring a little cold water on the male libido is indeed one good result of circumcision.  Maimonides is said to have mentioned this.

Historically, according to Jews, circumcision was strictly a rite — and a very important one, at that — that did not rest on any medical justification.

Interestingly, it appears that circumcision may have originated as some sort of substitute for actual human sacrifice.  The ancient Egyptians may have started it, and other non-Jewish peoples appear to have practiced it, but in the ancient world, it became a distinguishing rite of the Jews.

In Europe and Britain of recent history, it appears that circumcision was practiced almost exclusively by Jews.  I recall that in the Holocaust movie “Europa Europa“, the Jewish protagonist, a young boy, escapes into the fold of the Nazis because of his “Aryan” good looks, and tries to complete the picture by stretching his own foreskin stub down enough to make him look uncircumcised.

So it’s obvious that in Europe in World War II, a Jew was indelibly and unmistakably distinguished from non-Jews by the practice of circumcision.

A question that burns for me is:  were Jews responsible for persuading so many American gentiles to peform this bizarre ritual, primarily as a way to “normalize” the practice and remove the stigma?  Perhaps they thought that if everyone were circumcised, the young protagonist of “Europa Europa” would never have faced the difficulties he did.

The topic cries out for research.  I would love to know how circumcision spread from an ethnically particular practice — one that, in the words of Sir Richard Burton, was “held in horror” by Christendom — to something that “everyone does”.

There is plenty to Google up about circumcision, with several sites taking a strong anti-circumcision stand, and a few Jewish sites defending it.  But none of these sites address the issue of whether Jews sought to persuade white American non-Jews to be circumcised.

There does seem to be some evidence that fascination with germs and cleanliness motivated gentiles, independently of Jewish influence, to practice circumcision.  But if it’s even partly true that Jews encouraged “universal circumcision” so as to disguise their practice as ethnically unique, white non-Jews should be embarrassed.  It would mean that they allowed a stereotypically tricky group of Jews to convince them to perform this ritual on their boys without ever questioning or thinking about it.  So flaccid (if you will) was the white sense of racial strength and solidarity — and their sense of skepticism at Jewish claims — that they quite literally got their dicks nicked.

You might almost call it a “mass ethnic rape” of white non-Jewish males by Jews.  That many millions of white males subjected to that physical trauma at birth — and denied that extra measure of sexual satisfaction — just so that Jewish males could “hide out in the open”?  Staggering to consider.

If Jews can talk “the goyim” into doing that, what can’t they talk them into?  Persuading them to fight their wars in the Middle East seems like child’s play by comparison.  Persuading them to stop reproducing, to divorce at the drop of a hat, to give up their power slots, their property, their very lives?  No problem.

I don’t know for sure that Jews persuaded whites to become circumcised in order to disguise themselves in the open.  But the bare evidence available does seem to fit the theory, and as with so many thing Jewish, the incredible dearth of research and information on the topic makes me yet more suspicious — especially given that it seems to be the very sort of thing that curious academics tuck into.

Are we afraid to tackle the issue because of offending Jewish sensibilities?  Do men avoid the topic because they don’t like to admit that they’ve had a part of their penises cut off, and never had any say in the matter?  I think all of this may be going on, but the larger lesson could be that whites, in their ethnic competition with Jews, find themselves badly outmatched when it comes to the power of persuasion.