"Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspiracy"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on A Very Open Conspiracy

Postby simonshack on October 3rd, 2015, 4:25 pm

omaxsteve wrote:Here is an interesting, albeit long. article written by a Muslim ....

By: Dr Farrukh Saleem

Why are Jews so powerful?

(............bla...................
..............bla...............
..............bla...............
..............bla...............)


So, why are Muslims so powerless?
Answer: Lack of education.

All we do is shout to Allah the whole day !!! and blame everyone else for our multiple failures!!!!!


Omaxsteve,

Just in what way, if you please, is that article 'interesting' - or relevant to the present discussion? :wacko:

Oh wait - I take it that the 'lesson' you're proposing here is that education is the key to becoming powerful? And that if 'uneducated people' are powerless - it is just due to their 'inferior education'? And that if (so many) Jews are rich & powerful - it is simply to be ascribed to their 'superior education' ? Good grief.

Excuse me, but just because that pathetic piece is authored by a Muslim writer doesn't make it sound any less crass than your average, shallow and condescending imperialist 'think tank' twaddle - as might just as well have been put together by your typical, gloating Jewish supremacist. So let's see who this Farrukh Saleem guy is - and what he's up to.


Image
"Dr. Farrukh Saleem is the Pakistani Executive Director of the Center for Research and Security Studies, a think tank established in 2007, and an Islamabad-based freelance columnist - [ cum-economic theorist, financial analyst writer, and television personality]."
http://www.aish.com/authors/111846219.html

"The Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) is a Pakistani independent non-profit think tank founded by civil society activists to conduct research and advocacy on democratic governance, regional peace and security, human rights, and counter-radicalization. The head of the think tank is Imtiaz Gul, a strategic analyst, writer, and journalist. Besides writing for national and international magazines, he is the author of books such as The Unholy Nexus: Afghan-Pakistan Relations under the Taliban Militia, The Al-Qaeda Connection, The Most Dangerous Place, and Pakistan: Before and After Osama bin Laden."

"Saleem extensively writes on Jewish people, Israel and its geopolitical policies. In his recent article, Saleem advocated for directing a friendly-foreign policy for Israel. In his notable article, "Why are Jews so powerful and Muslims so powerless?", Saleem argues that, for every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims. Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerful than all the Muslims put together. Concluding the article, Saleem pointed out that, the Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrukh_Saleem


Aha! So it is KNOWLEDGE - and not EDUCATION - that's the real problem here. Well, come to think of it, our Farrukh "think tanker" guy may actually have a great point after all: just imagine what would happen if the entire Muslim world were properly informed with the knowledge we have gathered over the years on this very forum. See, something tells me that the folks controlling the world's media outlets are working very, very hard to keep this knowledge from reaching the Muslim world.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby hoi.polloi on October 3rd, 2015, 5:40 pm

simonshack wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:Also, we should really ask ourselves which stories about people being fined or sent to jail for talking about "Holocaust" issues in an intelligent way have actually occurred. Is it possible those stories are more of the same scare tactics we see bandied about in the "war on terrorism" vein?


Sorry Hoi, but you're completely missing the point here


Sorry Simon. I didn't know you felt so strongly about it until now. Literally every other time we've talked about, we talked about it calmly and peaceably. We even speculated together that some of the more famous stories may have been faked. I guess you forgot that.

I trust you and your friends definitely feel threatened by such horrible laws, and I would not want to be in your place, that's for sure!

To my best knowledge, some uncowardly folks around Europe have indeed been jailed for the 'thought crime' of simply questioning the official holocaust narrative - and credible (in my book) stories of such 'freedom-of-speech' martyrs abound.


No offense meant at all, and I trust your judgment, but if you don't mind, let's post some credible stories about it, then? Isn't that consistent with the site? Being an ignorant American who visited Europe several times, I never once heard or saw a story in the news about someone going to jail for "antisemitism" or holocaust denial.

By suggesting - without a shred of evidence to back it up - that these stories may all be fake (and just part of the same scare tactics we're all familiar with), you are doing exactly what you just accused Jumpy of doing:

hoipolloi wrote:"To make an accusation while claiming you aren't making one just doesn't work for me."


I don't think it's the same thing. I really am standing by my stance that all the stories could be fake but I am just asking the question. I don't know. If you say they aren't all fake that's fine, that's your prerogative and it shows the double standard on our forum that many have accused us of. But if you read me as hiding my opinion, you're wrong. Sorry.

Regardless - and as I said - whether these sad stories are true or not is NOT the point here.


Well then why get so upset with me about it? :lol:

"Anche l'Italia avrà la sua legge contro il negazionismo. Ieri, in tempi record, la commissione Giustizia del Senato ha approvato quasi all'unanimità un emendamento che modifica l'articolo 414 del codice penale, quello riguardante l'istigazione a delinquere e l'apologia di delitto, aggiungendo appunto il reato di negazionismo, punito da uno a cinque anni di carcere."
http://www.polisblog.it/post/163659/ddl-negazionismo-accordo-al-senato-negare-lolocausto-sara-reato


Well, that's certainly disturbing. Someone said at the bottom of that article that the "crime of opinion" is nearer to reality with the passing of such laws. It reminds me of "crimethink" from 1984.

... to insinuate in any way or form any 'cowardice' on the part of Jumpy who, like myself and MOST European citizens, put our very personal freedoms at stake - only for expressing our thoughts on these matters on a publicly accessible website.
hoipolloi wrote:By feigning cowardice, we endorse cowardice and that doesn't make the heart brave to talk about censored issues.

I must say that I'm quite appalled / disconcerted by your 'treatment' of this good, thoughtful and particularly intelligent Italian friend of mine whom you have even met in person - ffs - here at my house.


Sorry to you and your friend Simon. Gianpiero is a cool dude for sure. But do you know the meaning of the word "feign"? :P

Jumpy64 said this:
So call it provocation, "artistry" (as you say), personal protection or even cowardice if you like (but everybody here understood what I'm talking about, so I'm not really protecting myself much; on the contrary, probably I've exposed myself even more, at least to criticism)


What does this mean? How do you read this? I'll tell you how I read it. I read it to say, "You may call me all sorts of names that you did not in fact call me but everyone knows what I mean."

He basically invited and instructed us to call him a coward, while also basically admitting nobody called him that. But I don't think he is one, which is why I would say I rather think he's a really cool guy who is writing on a difficult sensitive topic; so I wrote: "By feigning cowardice, we endorse cowardice." What does that mean? It means I am saying jumpy64 has a brave heart and he doesn't need to make other people afraid. He was pretending (feigning) to be afraid of this issue solely as a point of the argument he just used that he won't suffer name calling. I didn't call him the name you think.

If you disagree, and you think he is afraid, you owe your friend an apology yourself!

Anyway, I understand why it makes you upset. It's a really horrible series of laws. I just feel as though your "offense" came out of nowhere and was read in haste. Don't be so "jumpy" man! B)

You changed the topic back from "Jewish Conspiracy" which this topic is about even though our forum is chock full of things that paranoid customers will call "antisemitic" remarks. So, really no offense meant to your sensibilities, but what's the point of doing the same thing as jumpy64?

If people search "Jewish conspiracy" they will get to this thread anyway. I don't understand what you think you are hiding by not calling it what it is. And mark me, I am not calling you a coward. I just don't understand your logic.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby simonshack on October 3rd, 2015, 6:11 pm

All well, Hoi - I now realize that I misread a few lines of yours and have duly retracted my request for apologies (see my EDIT of my post on previous page).

I thank you for clearing it up. Only one thing: I don't think it is right for us administrators to change the titles of any threads submitted here (unless they are grossly misleading / wrong / misspelled) - especially since Jumpy expressly asked you not to do so. That's all.

hoi.polloi wrote: Don't be so "jumpy" man! B)

That was actually quite funny ! :lol:
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby hoi.polloi on October 3rd, 2015, 6:32 pm

Okay, I get it. Well, I like the "quotes" — it personalizes the writing, since it really is jumpy64's thread.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on October 5th, 2015, 1:57 pm

Some twists have stirred up this thread over the weekend. I just want to say that I’m glad to see that this forum is administered by two brilliant and independent thinkers who deeply respect each other even in disagreements, and I’m thankful to both for the good things they said about me.

I’ll try and live up to their esteem, although I certainly can’t compare to them, and to many others here, as a researcher, both because I admit to being not very experienced yet, and because I tend to form my opinions starting more from intuition than from meticulous research.

In fact, this thread arose from an intuitive feeling, but I’m trying to back it up with some findings that I consider revealing or at least interesting. And of course, being this forum a collaborative effort, I’m also counting on the help of everybody here who’s interested in exploring the subject.

As a start, I’ve already mentioned a couple of times (here and on the Miles Mathis thread) the violent, traumatic and dangerous nature of a ritual CIRCUMCISION, in which an eight days old male baby has his foreskin cut without a medical anesthetic by a circumciser (Mohel) with bare, ungloved (and who knows if really clean or disinfected) hands, who then proceeds to suck some blood from the desperately screaming baby’s intimate parts.

On Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah - they call it Metzitzah (orMetzizah B’peh).

So far I’ve found only an explicit (and pretty graphic) video of a ritual circumcision in the Judaic tradition. Unfortunately it doesn’t stand by itself, but it’s contained - from minute 18,50 to minute 25 - in this controversial and very long (almost 4 hours) video, which you can’t even access in some parts of the world (including Italy):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHfUUage4eQ

I’m not endorsing the whole video here, although I think it contains several interesting parts. I’m just suggesting that you watch the circumcision scene, which is also accompanied, for the most part, by the pretty angry comments of a famous chess player, the late Bobby Fisher, a former world champion who, maybe partly Jewish (there, I said it, at last! :o ) himself, ended up being considered anti-semitic and had to seek asylum in Iceland.

Since I’ve just used another charged word, allow me a brief digression here. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary online, the word “Semitism” means “policy or predisposition favorable to Jews”. In this sense, the word anti-semitism should indicate just the position of somebody who doesn’t think that people from a certain ethnic group should be favored at the expense of others. It doesn’t mean that they should be disfavored either; it denotes only a neutral attitude that considers them neither more nor less important than other races or religions. So it should be a perfectly legitimate and even favorable attribute, instead of being used as one of the worst stigmas in contemporary society. And it’s also interesting to note that in Italian we don’t even have the positive word “semitismo” in the most famous dictionaries. We’re allowed to know only its negative counterpart “antisemitismo”. So we can't even know what the word exactly means!

Back to the main subject of this post, of course there are examples of ritual circumcision also in other cultures and religions (like the Islamic faith, for example) in Africa, in Asia, in the Middle East and even in aboriginal Australia. But in all these cases it tends to be practiced more during puberty, if not in adulthood.

And in any case, genital mutilation at an early age is considered a violation of the human rights of children in the West. UNICEF, for example, strongly condemns it when it’s done to girls with practices like infibulations, but adopts a totally different standard when dealing with the circumcision of males, saying that
“While strongly opposing female circumcision, called genital mutilation in this case, UNICEF advocates medical male circumcision as beneficial for the prevention of HIV. Circumcising infant boys is a relatively straightforward procedure and if properly carried out, complications are very rare. However, infant circumcision on reducing the HIV risk will only pay off when the boy has grown up and starts to become sexually active. However, given the enormous challenges of HIV prevention and the uncertainty that better prevention measures, such as a vaccine, will be available some time in foreseeable future, public health experts consider that the introduction of widespread medical male circumcision for infants would be a good investment in African countries with high HIV-prevalence”.

So it doesn’t represent a “good investment” in modern, industrial societies! Not for UNICEF, and so even much less for those who, like us, suspect AIDS being at least partly a hoax. And anyway, only “medical male circumcision” is mentioned here.

Nevertheless, Jacqueline Smith, writing for the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, reported that male circumcision is an obvious violation of the human rights of the child, equivalent to female circumcision (Male Circumcision and the Rights of the Child. In: Mielle Bulterman, Aart Hendriks and Jacqueline Smith (Eds.), To Baehr in Our Minds: Essays in Human Rights from the Heart of the Netherlands (SIM Special No. 21). Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands, 1998: pp. 465–498. http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/smith/ ).

Therefore it can be said that although ritual, religious circumcision is not approved in our western society, it is not openly criticized when it comes to its Jewish version. And I wonder why, since it seems to me definitely a barbaric practice (or better a form of infant torture) that is either "just" traumatizing for the child if everything goes well, or even very dangerous in case something goes wrong. Although I couldn’t find exact and dependable statistics on this, many cases are reported of genital herpes, sepsis and other forms of infection, and there are even cases in which the child remains badly mutilated (in fact, there’s even the appalling case of David Reimer who, having had his penis accidentally destroyed in a “botched circumcision” as an infant, underwent a sex-reassignment operation and eventually committed suicide in adulthood).

So I wonder why there’s so much reluctance in speaking about against this particular practice, and also a tendency to mix it with its medical, cleaner version, whose beneficial qualities I even suspect being exaggerated to further confuse the issue.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Flabbergasted on October 5th, 2015, 4:09 pm

jumpy64 wrote:"Circumcising infant boys is a relatively straightforward procedure and if properly carried out, complications are very rare [UNICEF]."

No surprise the UNICEF/WHO is whitewashing circumcision.

To properly address this topic requires an understanding of what rituals and sacraments are, in Judaism and elsewhere, why they exist and what they effect (or do not effect).

The only point I want to make here is that, despite lack of personal experience in this regard, it may be safely affirmed that circumcision causes a significant loss of sensitivity in the glans (which has to be made up for some other way).

The foreskin also acts as a mechanical lubricant during sex. The penis is not designed to slide in and out of a woman, but in and out of its own skin during sex. Without a foreskin, a man has to build friction to feel pleasure.
- David Richards (on Makow).
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 687
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby hoi.polloi on October 5th, 2015, 4:31 pm

Yes, Flabbergasted. Thank you for bringing it back on topic. The psychological effects of circumcision and how it ties to media fakery must be discussed if we are going to not just make a hate thread. I have heard arguments that it increases pleasure but I would have no idea until I do more research on it.

Female genital mutilation, from the perspective of numerous non-males in my culture (who don't necessarily do as intensive research as we do), is a more horrendous practice because it is done specifically to rob those people of sexual pleasure and control them. I highly suggest not comparing the two practices very casually, or if doing so, finding females and/or non-males who have experienced it, to ask of their experiences. Then, find mutilated males and ask them their experience. I think you may find some key differences. Just a suggestion, and not to get even more off topic than this thread already is.

Thank you for the compliments jumpy64. I appreciate you doing more solid research, but I am still confused about why we have a thread with a particular attack against the bad practices of Judaism, but not those of other equally stupid religions. Shall we start threads which expose the disgusting practices of every religion the world over? There are tons of human rights violations the world over, but when you focus on one belief system, you start to sound like the perps that constantly talk about the various human rights violations of Muslim people. "Cast not the first stone" and all that, no?

Is this a thread about a conspiracy, or is it a thread about a religion? Please focus on how these problems relate to media fakery.

Also, are you sure your "intuition" isn't just some kind of prejudice that you are using CluesForum as a platform for? You sound to me a bit like one of two things:

1. Someone very suppressed on a topic due to scary (and perfectly horrible) laws that ban rightful criticism of Jews, therefore feeling the need to make your voice heard somewhere.

or, what I really do not want to believe you are, but which you sound like

2. Many perfectly nice people who have a deep mistrust or hate of some cultures, which they call an "intuition" rather than a simple prejudice

I gather it may be suggested once more that it's wrong of me to say this because I don't live in Europe. Well, I'm sorry but I do come from a different culture. Perhaps, arguably, a more tolerant one, for better or worse.

I really like your discussion of antisemitism. I can now, thanks to you, proudly call myself a non-semite since I certainly don't condone favoring one person type over another as a rule. I am not sure I would go so far as you in saying the word "anti-semite" is a valid word for those that wish to treat everyone equally or at least equitably. To me it seems as though "anti-semite" is specifically a hate word used by Jews against everyone else. And unfortunately, many cultures have picked up on this and now use it on each other and themselves. I would say it is a hate word and I will not label myself a hate word easily.

Anyway, good research for some sort of anti-Jew blog, but please remember to tie it in to the subject of the forum rather than simply targeting a religion you dislike. Otherwise, we start to look a bit "David Icke"-ian or "God Like Productions"-esque.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby brianv on October 5th, 2015, 4:49 pm

"Circumcision" is, of course, unheard of in the jeziz zombie religion. Get your own house in order jumpy!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on October 5th, 2015, 5:07 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:No surprise the UNICEF/WHO is whitewashing circumcision.

To properly address this topic requires an understanding of what rituals and sacraments are, in Judaism and elsewhere, why they exist and what they effect (or do not effect).

The only point I want to make here is that, despite lack of personal experience in this regard, it may be safely affirmed that circumcision causes a significant loss of sensitivity in the glans (which has to be made up for some other way).

The foreskin also acts as a mechanical lubricant during sex. The penis is not designed to slide in and out of a woman, but in and out of its own skin during sex. Without a foreskin, a man has to build friction to feel pleasure.
- David Richards (on Makow).


Good points, thank you. In fact, I read the article you hint to, and I found it very interesting in its entirety, including the links at the end.

So I hope you don't mind if I link it here:

http://www.henrymakow.com/the_circumcision_debate.html

I also remember reading something about traumas (and especially early ones) making people more susceptible to mental conditioning/programming, but I haven't researched this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby hoi.polloi on October 5th, 2015, 6:57 pm

I also remember reading something about traumas (and especially early ones) making people more susceptible to mental conditioning/programming, but I haven't researched this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.


I definitely recommend making the subject relevant to your thread by actually researching this.

Again, please, if you are going to make a thread about a Jewish conspiracy, focus on how that actually manifests and is obvious, rather than working backwards from your "intuition" that Judaism (like many world views claiming to be spiritual) is generally fucked up, which we can plainly see.

I am starting to get the feeling that your approach to this topic is not very honest about a much more simple thing you are trying to say: "I think Jewishness sucks" or "I think some practices of Abrahamic religions suck". Well, no shit! That is not so much a "conspiracy" as it is a personal preference. Are we going to tell people how to believe?

This possible confusion in yourself also explains why you want to keep the topic name vague — you have not yet realized the extent of your own personal revulsion from people just because of the culture they were born into or chose to have (or were forced to have!).

And I am sorry but if this does not progress from a familiar hate blog, I will advocate for this thread to be closed like our other failed religious discussion that went nowhere, despite our vast patience with it: the "Truth About Christianity" distraction.

I think you are slowly piecing together something worthwhile. But please do some more designing and thinking before posting another generic critique of religion. What lies, in particular, do you imagine you are exposing? What are you "clearing up" for us here? Let's make it better.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby simonshack on October 5th, 2015, 8:26 pm

*

Hoi, I'm sure you're familiar with this expression:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a quotation from the 1599/ 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to indicate that a person's overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_ ... ,_methinks

A bon entendeur
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby brianv on October 5th, 2015, 8:34 pm

I'd bet "Frank" is a Round-head not a Cavalier. Shudders at the thought!! :lol:

Le Bons A Bender
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby simonshack on October 5th, 2015, 8:36 pm

Hoi, I'm sure you're familiar with this expression:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a quotation from the 1599/ 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to indicate that a person's overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_ ... ,_methinks

A bon entendeur


***************

hoipolloi wrote:"Are we going to tell people how to believe?"


No, Hoi - everyone is the master of their own beliefs - and concerns. Here on this forum, we mostly air our concerns about the problems of this mad world we live in. As it is, what we mostly deal with here are concerns - not beliefs.

hoipolloi wrote:"And I am sorry but if this does not progress from a familiar hate blog, I will advocate for this thread to be closed like our other failed religious discussion that went nowhere."


So far, I have seen no hate whatsoever here - what on Earth are you on about? And didn't you say it would be a cowardly move to close this thread? I, for one ( and FWIW) will not allow it. This thread has every right to exist - and is certainly a part of my urgent concerns regarding this fucked up planet.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Seneca on October 5th, 2015, 8:43 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
I also remember reading something about traumas (and especially early ones) making people more susceptible to mental conditioning/programming, but I haven't researched this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.


I definitely recommend making the subject relevant to your thread by actually researching this.

Maybe this can help: Traumatic experiences in childhood and psychopathy: a study on a sample of violent offenders from Italy

Results

There was a high prevalence of childhood experiences of neglect and abuse among the offenders. Higher levels of childhood relational trauma were found among participants who obtained high scores on the PCL-R. There was also a significant negative association between age of first relational trauma and psychopathy scores.

I don't want to jump to conclusions. I am not saying that circumcised people are more inclined to be psychopatic than others. We have to ask: can circumcision be experienced as a relational trauma by the child? I would argue that in some cases this is possible. The child obviously can feel betrayed by the parents because they don't protect him .
Why is this somewhat relevant to this topic? Not because I don't like Jewish people, I judge them by their actions just like omaxsteve. Not because there aren't worse religious practices. But because we are trying to identify a powerful group of possibly psychopathic people that is able to exist over multiple generations. A relatively small group, that is living among other, more normal people. There are other candidates. The prevalent religion in my country, catholicism has a very bad record when it comes to protecting children.

Edit: more on circumcision and trauma :
Journal of Health Psychology: http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

Circumcision trauma

A traumatic experience is defined in DSM-IV as the direct consequence of experiencing or witnessing of serious injury or threat to physical integrity that produces intense fear, helplessness or (in the case of children) agitation (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The significant pain and distress described earlier is consistent with this definition. Moreover, the disturbance (e.g., physiological arousal, avoidant behaviour) qualifies for a diagnosis of acute stress disorder if it lasts at least two days or even a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) if it lasts more than a month. Circumcision without anaesthesia constitutes a severely traumatic event in a child's life (Lander, Brady-Freyer, Metcalfe, Nazerali, & Muttit, 1997; Ramos & Boyle, 2001; Taddio, Katz, Ilersich, & Koren, 1997). It is possible that the trauma of genital surgery might have long-lasting psychological effects (Bigelow, 1995; Levy, 1945; Jacobson & Bygdeman, 1998; Anand & Scalzo, 2000).

Van Howe (1996, p. 431) reported that, "Newborn males respond to circumcision with a marked reduction in oxygenation during the procedure, a cortisol surge, decreased wakefulness, increased vagal tone, and less interactions with their environment following the procedure..." Rhinehart (1999) in a report of clinical cases noted that the only response available to the infant is shock, wherein the central nervous system is overwhelmed by pain, followed by numbing, paralysis, and dissociation. Possibly, dissociation of the traumatic experience and emotional pain may be employed by the infant as a psychological defence (Chu & Dill, 1990; Noyes, 1977; Rhinehart, 1999). While some babies have been described as being "quiet" after circumcision, Rhinehart concluded that the observed stillness most likely represents a state of dissociation or shock in response to the overwhelming pain.

Consistent with the early reports of Anna Freud (1952), McFadyen (1998) observed psychological trauma in her son following circumcision. This is sometimes extreme enough to impede the maternal-infant bonding (Marshall et al., 1982; Van Howe, 1996). As reasoned by Herman (1992) and Rhinehart (1999) the common factor underlying circumcision trauma is an experience of violence and powerlessness--inflicted by other human beings. Such an event was described in a study of 12 Turkish boys circumcised in late childhood. Cansever (1965, p. 328) reported that "Circumcision is perceived by the child as an aggressive attack upon his body, which damaged, mutilated, and, in some cases, totally destroyed him." Ritual circumcision appeared to be associated with increased aggressiveness, weakening of the ego, withdrawal, reduced functioning and adaptation, and nightmares consistent with PTSD.

Ramos and Boyle (2001) investigated the psychological effects associated with medical and ritual "operation tuli" circumcision procedures in the Philippines. Some 1577 boys aged 11 to 16 years (1072 boys circumcised under medical procedures; 505 subjected to ritual circumcision) were surveyed to see if genital cutting led to the development of PTSD. Interestingly, Mezey and Robbins (2001) estimated the incidence of PTSD as 1.0% to 7.8% in the general British population where circumcision is not very prevalent. On the other hand, using the PTSD-I questionnaire (Watson et al., 1991) in a predominantly circumcised population, Ramos and Boyle observed an incidence of PTSD of almost 70% among boys subjected to ritual circumcision, and 51% among boys subjected to medical circumcision (with local anaesthetic). Long-term follow-up would be needed to gauge the extent to which PTSD persists over the lifespan of these circumcised boys.

The outcome of painful childhood trauma includes long-lasting neurophysiological and neurochemical brain changes (Anand & Carr, 1989; Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Ciaranello, 1983; Taddio et al., 1997; van der Kolk & Saporta, 1991). Richards, Bernal, and Brackbill (1976) found that circumcision may impact adversely on the developing brain, and that reported "gender differences" may actually arise from behavioural changes induced by infant or childhood circumcision.

Rhinehart (1999) in a report of adult clinical cases concluded that a man circumcised as a child is more likely to react with terror, rage and/or dissociation when confronted with situations interpreted as threatening. As in any situation of post-traumatic stress, an event resembling any aspect of the original traumatic experience is more likely to provoke negative emotions such as panic, rage, violence, or dissociation.

It is therefore not surprising that PTSD may result from childhood circumcision
(Goldman, 1997, 1999, Menage, 1999; Ramos & Boyle, 2001), just as it does from childhood sexual abuse and rape (Bownes, O'Gorman, & Sayers, 1991; Deblinger, McLeer, & Henry, 1990; Duddle, 1991). Several researchers have concluded that PTSD may result from circumcision and/or from circumcision-related sequelae in later life. For example, Rhinehart (1999) reported finding PTSD in middle-aged men who had been subjected to infant circumcision. Circumcision involves an imbalance of power between perpetrator and victim, contains both aggressive and libidinal elements, and threatens a child's sexual integrity by amputating part of the genitalia. Some men circumcised in infancy or childhood without their consent have described their present feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault (Bigelow, 1995; Hammond, 1997, 1999).

Even if the psychological sequelae of circumcision do not coalesce into a formal diagnosis of PTSD, it is possible that there may be long-lasting effects on a man's life, particularly in psychologically sensitive individuals with comorbidity factors (cf. Mezey & Robbins, 2001). Presumably responding to their current interpretation and feelings, many circumcised men who have recognised the loss of a highly erogenous, irreplaceable part of their penis have reported long-lasting emotional suffering, grief, anxiety, and depression, and a sense of personal vulnerability (Hammond, 1997, 1999). Avoidance or obsessive preoccupation with such a loss, along with anger, can be difficult to reconcile for some men depending on their particular personality (Bigelow, 1995; Maguire, 1998; van der Kolk, 1989). Emotional numbing, avoidance of the topic of circumcision, and anger are potential long-term psychological consequences of the circumcision trauma (Bigelow, 1995; Bensley & Boyle, 2001; Boyle & Bensley, 2001; Gemmell & Boyle, 2001; Goldman, 1997, 1999). In extreme cases, there might be aggressive, violent, and/or suicidal behaviour (Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Bradley, Oliver, & Chernick, 1998; Jacobson et al., 1987; Jacobson & Bygdeman, 1998).

Edit: underlined more of the quotes
Last edited by Seneca on October 5th, 2015, 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby hoi.polloi on October 5th, 2015, 9:16 pm

Seneca, yes! Well done! Now that is research. Why is this so hard to ask from people using "intuition" instead of collecting and highlighting relevant data?

Simon, I really don't think I am protesting too much and it sounds like an accusation of some kind, which is shocking and sad. I am not sure what I have done besides ask us to make this thread more about its ostensible topic. So far, Seneca and Flabbergasted have connected the dots better than jumpy64 even though it's ostensibly his thread. Though so far, he has made a good point about how it's a waste of public funds to support potentially traumatic (or other sexual) religious practices.

I do see hate a lot on our forum. We protest about media fakery practices, we show intolerance for shills, and so on. I think a lot of it is justified. Hate may be a strong word for discrimination, which I think is a mostly positive word, but I am just wondering if we are inviting all the anger and wrath of religious readers.

Let's look at what traditional fights between most people in this world explode over. What people start feuds over and so on. It's typically "world view" that people see differently on. I agree with fbenario that we should not be afraid to publish the most insane religious texts to expose them for what they are, but I don't want to endanger anyone in Europe who uses our site.

We don't have threads about many religious atrocities. Maybe we should and maybe this is a change for the better. Maybe jump64's assumptions will make more sense if I am just patient. It does make a good deal of sense to see if the Jewish mindframe creates more violence or less violence in our world, on a mass scale, in general. And in that sense, I guess it is all "on topic" with media fakery. However, I am still laughing over the title and how "jumpy" you have become over this topic, Simon. Let's face it. Religion is not really a conspiracy. Conspiracies hide within and use religion.

Genital mutilation is bad. So is, for example, foot binding. And stoning. And the ways we do capital punishment in America.

I hear your complaint, Simon. Please understand that the only thing I want to prevent happening to the forum is people duking it out over all sorts of various moral issues, like veganism, et cetera. And I want to stay consistent in our rather tight "rule" over this forum to prevent us being accused of being "slid" one direction or another. And so it previously seemed safe to simply take on the stance that we disagree with all crazy religions and all crazy practices.

On the other hand, maybe we should spend more threads talking about all the real violent crimes of humanity. In that case, would it be appropriate for us to open more threads about such topics? Would it be okay? Or would those be considered not Jew-focused enough for your liking? :P
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests