Political vs Psychological Irresponsibility

No Jewish historical inferiority complex

Some consider that the strong need of Jewish people to consolidate stems entirely from historic events such as slavery or subordination. The concept of the historical inferiority of Jews, however, is ill-founded as it does not explain the stability of Jewish stereotypes that appear to be almost independent from the historical context. The Jewish specificity has persisted throughout ages irrespective of the wellbeing of the group. This suggests that Jewishness is a personal characteristic rather than a product of socio-historical conditions.

The Jewish and Islamic stereotypic traits are introversive and more or less gravitate toward emotional insecurity and sexual frustration. They appear to stem from a psychological complex. The autonomy and the type of  Jewish stereotypic traits means they are rooted in the subconsciousness and are long-standing. They seem to be as old as the Jewish ethnos and hence as Judaism and mass neonatal circumcision are.

The subconscious character of Jewishness means that Jews cannot be blamed for it, at least according to modern standards. However, this must not entail that a practice that induces psychological complexes and introduces group irresponsibility must be tolerated. This is so because like the psychological syndromes the historical inferiority complex is compensated by ethnic superiority.

The deep effects of pedocircumcision have continually created emotional sub-races and have segregated circumcising from natural ethnoses throughout the ages. This along with ignorance of its cause has stirred up interethnic hatred from millennia. Undoubtedly, abolishment of pedocircumcision must mitigate them in a few generations only.

Involuntary Jewish contribution to the Holocaust

By choosing the Jewish people the Old Testament God wisely instigated anti-Semitism and anti-Islam. Monotheism inescapably instigates strong religious ethnocentrism. It is typical of organized religions to segregate ethnic groups and to rouse ethnoreligious hatred. Segregation of ethnic groups and rousing ethnoreligious hatred is typical of organized religions. But when devoutness is achieved by physical intervention and the results are obsessive, life-long and grave.

Nazis believed they were purifying human race by physically removing impure ethnoses. Jews believe they purify human nature by physically removing the impure foreskin. Both groups are preoccupied with physically upgrading human race in keeping with their ideals. Modern democracies, however, consider physical interference in humans unhuman. Physical modification is violence in itself and is immoral to any human being at any time. Not to speak of modifications that decrease vital sensitivity and alter emotionality and reasoning.

To the extent that have Jews self-inflicted a neuropsychological difference by erogenous desensitization, they have actively contributed to anti-Semitism. The circumcising Jews are involuntary co-authors of the Holocaust.

Provocative contradictions

Jews escape moral blame for their part in conditioning anti-Semitism by three mutually exclusive ways. On the one hand they insist that neonatal circumcision is a physically harmless, purely spiritual practice. This leaves gentiles with the impression that circumcision is an entirely symbolic and hence meaningless ritual and makes them wonder why it must be performed at all. On the other hand Irrespective of the lack of universally acknowledged medical evidence modern circumcisers assert that circumcision is beneficial to health. This pragmatic allegation, however, conflicts with the idealistic symbolic goal. Presenting the same procedure as simultaneously ideal and material is hypocritical. The contradicting justifications of circumcision insult the common sense and naturally cast suspicion on Jewish good faith.

On the third hand Jews dogmatically insinuate that neonatal circumcision is superhuman, a requirement of their God. This irrational and ethnocentric statement appears haughty and arrogant to gentiles. Yet, the supernatural origin of the religious view makes it undiscussible. The covenant is a manifestation of Jewish uncooperativeness. It provokes gentiles’ hostility and anti-Semitism which Freud attributed to their fear of circumcision due to the castration complex they harbour.

Dogmatism, mutual inconsistency and irrationality of the Jewish arguments for pedocircumcision act as a total refusal on the part of Jews to discuss the issue. They are interpreted as ethnic hostility and genetic divergence of the Jewish race. They create an aura of ill-intentioned contrariness of Jews and fuelled anti-Semitism. Unprejudicedly, however, the inconsistency of arguments reveals some kind of psychological problem, such as insecurity, compulsive thoughts or split personality. As the reader knows we refer to this problem as to the Circumcision complex. As long as the true deeper effects of pedocircumcision are unknown they are to generate ethnoreligious conflicts.

Germans were the physical assassins of the different in the Holocaust. Jews, however, are the physical inflictors of the difference. Both sides are responsible in their own way for the genocide. Of course murder is the severest crime possible. But persistent millennia-long liquidation of rest-providing sensitivity and silent provocation are also wrongdoings.

Although this is still unrecognized by historians and legislators the mental effects of circumcision are central to anti-Semitism. The concept of the Circumcision complex reveals that Jews and gentiles are co-authors of the anti-Semitic craze. Surely the reader prefers to keep his distance from anti-Semitism. But ignoring a fire actually kindles it. Watchers of a conflagration are no different than those who started it. Original Sin is Ignorance.

Jews violate the integrity of their own body for the sake of their beliefs and wait for the spiritual effect of this to unfold. Gentiles dislike the resultant difference of the clandestine practice. Being oblivious of the cause for the Jewish specificity they assail Jews in general.

It is neither the mark of bodily nor of ethnic or religious identity that has nourished anti-Semitism for so long but the mental consequences accompanying the marking practice. It is not the disgust of naturals at the bareheaded penis that have roused their hostility but the mental dispositions and clannishness of Jews. At the core of anti-Semitism lies not the bodily but the psychological difference that circumcision causes.

Foreskin Semantics

Literal versus symbolic

There are two life-forces in the world I know: Jewish and Gentile, ours and yours… I do not believe that this primal difference between Gentile and Jew is reconcilable. You and we may come to an understanding, never to a reconciliation.
Maurice Samuel, “You Gentiles”

Naturals and circumcised inhabit somewhat different mental realms. They use the same words but the emotional filling they grasp from them is different. Naturals tend to be more concerned with the literal and factual meanings of the words while circumcised are more sensitive to their metaphorical and symbolic meaning. Naturals are oriented toward practical and immediately applicable meanings of the words; paedocircumcised are more susceptible to spiritual meanings.

-------------------------
To continue reading you must log in or register.
-------------------------

Aggressiveness of Circumcising Religions

This world is like a lobby before the Olam Ha-Ba (the world to come). Prepare yourself in the lobby so that you may enter the banquet hall.
said by a rabbi in the Mishnah

To dissatisfied and religious people this world is only a prelude to the bliss. Beyond a given point any frustration becomes unbearable and turns into aggression. Adherents of non-circumcising religions are less likely to kill in the name of their faiths. Contemporary Christians wonder how it is possible for one to sacrifice his life for an abstract cause or for a religious belief. Non-circumcising religions are less aggressive in defending their principles.

It is a fact that pedocircumcising religions are disposed to greater religious fanaticism than non-circumcising ones. The majority of religious fanatics and terrorists emerge from them. As a rule suicide bombers and religious extremists are Muslims and Jews – i.e., belong to pedocircumcising religions and therefore have been circumcised as minors. As a whole, they appear to be more dissatisfied, desperate and ideologically intolerant than the followers of non-circumcising religions. Naturals seem to engage much less frequently in maniacal terrorist acts. In general Buddhists, Hindus or Christians seem to be more satisfied, less desperate and have greater peace of mind.

Pedocircumcision causes chronic pleasure deficit and fosters the development of abstract reasoning which inclines both Jews and Muslims to piousness and religiousness. It renders complete gratification immaterial and makes the circumcised feel the existence of parallel realities of abstract bliss.

The earlier in life the circumcision is performed the profounder the mental transformation it causes is. The infant circumcision practiced by Jews develops abstract reasoning and dissociates it from sexuality to a greater extent than the mid-childhood circumcision practiced by Muslims. The effects ofthe mid-childhood circumcision are closer to sexual frustration and are more concrete and passionate. The parallel blissful reality of Islam contains concrete pleasures and Muslims defend it more passionately and unyieldingly.

Those who were circumcised as minors have learnt to compensate their displeasure and to redirect their sexual impulse. Pedocircumcision has frustrated them and has made them feel dissatisfied and insecure. Pedocircumcised feel that restricting the psychological compensation for their erogenous deficiency blocks their potential to experience pleasure and darkens their future. For that reason they take any disrespect to their faith more personally than naturals. As long as faith is redirected erotic sensitivity it is associated with pleasure. As long as pedocircumcision serves its original purpose it leads to aggression.

Since the faith of those who are pedocircumcised partly substitutes for pleasure they perceive the doubt in their beliefs as a personal attack. Disbelief challenges their emotional insecurity and undermines their happiness.

Perhaps Jews feel anxious and insecure in a more general way when their faith is threatened whereas Muslims feel that they are deprived of sexual pleasure. Even the indifference to Islamic values and beliefs Muslims may find unbearable. Even a shadow of doubt in his pleasure in sexually frustrated man enrages him.

Some think that a politician must be wealthy in order to be unbribable and independent. A medic must be healthy and a shrink must be sane to be able to treat patients. A priest must be sceptic in order to indoctrinate true faith.

Any religion is unfair to gentiles and creates lasting interethnic tensions. A circumcising religion is brutal to its own members too but allegedly for their benefit. It instills aggression in believers directly.

Perceptions, ideas or convictions formed by neuropsychological manipulation are more or less inadequate in normal conditions. A religion that modifies perception is unfair and hypocritical. A faith that uses coercion is not genuine. Pedocircumcising religions are inevitably two-faced and aggressive. And it is here for everybody to see that they reap the hostility they have sown.

Unquenchable Thirst Markets the Desert

The intolerance of circumcising religions of open sexuality betrays common sexual frustration. Circumcising cultures tend to show greater sensitivity to sexual matters. In some of them the lightly dressed western women are perceived as naked. The sight of the unveiled women easily provokes sexual desire in men. The greater sexual excitability may be interpreted as showing that the circumcised experience greater pleasure during sexual act and hence achieve greater gratification. On the other hand, the hypersexuality of an entire ethnos may have a compensatory character. First of all it may stem from physical limitation of the erogenous sensitivity, from a mass desensitization of genitalia that deprives gratification of completeness. And religious pedocircumcision is the chief suspect for the need to recommence..

Some may assert that the lustful behaviour of men from closed circumcising cultures is of purely cultural nature. Men are easily provoked, they say, because they are not accustomed to resist temptation or to repress their sexual desire. This implies that their lustfulness is externally challenged hence is relative, apparent, temporary and inessential: it is not an innate psychological characteristic but a social habit. It manifests itself only in contact with the less-restricted sexual display of the democratic societies and may be easily overcome and cultivated. But the latent hypersexuality of a culture is symptom of a widespread sexual frustration and shows it is sexually repressive at a fundamental level.

When we peel the cultural layer a purely somatic reason for the increased libido becomes evident. It is not difficult to guess that the reason for increased sexuality may simply be a result of the physical difference of genitalia. It is true that lustfulness is inflicted by culture but on a biological basis. The high sexual excitability is indicative of incomplete sublimation of sexual impulses we expect the mid-childhood circumcision to provide for. Circumcision of children removes already developing erogenous sensitivity and causes concrete sexual hunger that cannot be entirely redirected in later life. The ensuing dissatisfaction tends to remain in the sphere of sexuality. It is rather the effect of child circumcision that resembles a typical sexual frustration than that of infant circumcision.

The hypersexuality of men from closed circumcising cultures is the outcome of the inadequateness and incompleteness of their gratification but may be interpreted as attesting their greater pleasure. Unprejudicedly, the increased sexuality of the circumcised simply shows that they overvalue sexuality. Their compelling need stems from their physical chronic inability for full gratification and not from the greater pleasure they obtain from sex. The hypersexuality of those men is a fact that sex tourism utilizes. But that it goes hand in hand with insatiable dissatisfaction is its built-in disadvantage in which users have no interest. Advertisement of the libido-boost of circumcision proves to be truthful to outsiders but is false for insiders.

Sexual frustration is accompanied with increased sexual excitability. It does not grant greater gratification. On the contrary, it reveals incomplete fulfilment and an unappeasable must to accomplish it. Late circumcision may increase libido because it causes sexual frustration due to the physical limitation it imposes on gratification.

Both the lack of food and the lack of taste for it can produce hunger. The first is physical hunger and the latter is psychosomatic. Circumcised groups have plenty of sexual food, at least in theory, but their taste receptors are cut scarce. Closed circumcising cultures keep their subjects in a state of emotional hunger through the surgical removal of taste receptors and at the same time they mitigate their hunger by veiling the food. Then culture tries to redirect the energy of the chronic hunger towards religion and other socially acceptable activities, but this becomes increasingly difficult with increasing age when the desensitization happens is performed. Meanwhile cultural isolation is one of the means to conceal the cause of the hunger.

Apparently there are many advantages of being circumcised. Let them be the consolation of those who have gone beyond the point of no return.

Psychoanalytic Theory Eases Spreading of Pedocircumcision

Psychoanalysis conceals the psychological impact of circumcision

Just like preputial sensitivity is unknown to Freud so the circumcision neuroses are imperceptible to Freudian psychology. No matter how truthful its central concept may be psychoanalysis lacks the capacity to understand the long-term psychological consequences of circumcision. Being a psychological projection of pedocircumcision psychoanalysis does not identify circumcision’s mental effects. It does not recognize the circumcision-caused sexual frustrations and neuroses. It fails to expose the relation of sexual anxieties to circumcision. In effect, psychoanalysis conceals the psychological consequences of pedocircumcision and therefore aids its spreading.

According to Freudian psychology sex discrimination indicates stronger castration anxiety and hence unsuccessful repression of sexual desires. It regards sex discrimination as a normal result of ineffective assuming proper sexual roles. Freudian doctrine excludes form consideration the possibility for sex discrimination to have a physical cause. It entirely omits the relation of pedocircumcision to gender discrimination. Freudianism can only explain the greater sexism peculiar to circumcising groups in terms of cultural factors. Its view on social and criminogenic role of sexuality is one-sided. It has intrinsic limitations to heal humanity of sexual frustrations and to help it cope with sex discrimination.

By regarding sexual anxieties as resulting from innate psychological dispositions psychoanalytic theory makes sex discrimination appear an inevitable consequence of normal sexual development and indirectly supports male chauvinism. It also views on sexuality as a naturally aggressive and destructive force that needs to be repressed. Like Abrahamic religions Freudian psychology does not offer a clue for the cultivation of sexuality. 

Psychoanalysis neglects the most sensitive and feminine part of the penis – the prepuce – in sexuality simply because its author lacked it. On the other hand it exaggerates the role of male genitalia in psychosexual development which makes it a male sexist theory. This exaggeration may be understood as a direct neuropsychological and corresponding theoretical compensation for the reduced erogenous sensitivity due to lack foreskin. Therefore, Freud’s sex-driven psychology is an example how in the long-term pedocircumcision distorts understanding the social role of sexuality.

Freud defined religion as a “universal obsessional neurosis” based on father-fearing and Oedipus conflict. Perhaps as an atheist he has either ignored or has been unaware of the Judaic objective for neonatal circumcision to refine mentality and facilitate religiousness. Yet, the blind spot of his psychology was the psychological outcome of pedocircumcision. Freud did not recognize physical cause for the collective father-fearing and theoretically disconnected circumcision from religiousness. However, given that pedocircumcision works in the same way as religion intended and fosters abstract reasoning it follows that religion is a collective obsessional neurosis that circumcision aggravates or even induces. In confirmation there is a clear parallel between the spread of circumcision and religiousness. The religiousness of all ethnoses and nations is directly proportional to the rate of pedocircumcision they practice. Psychoanalysis, however, explains both religious pedocircumcision and religiousness as resulting from castration complex. In this way it conceals the relation of circumcision to religiousness. Yet the psychoanalytic theory renames circumcision neuroses and renders the Circumcision complex undetectable. It even makes pedocircumcision appear rational and inconsequential. In this way psychoanalytic theory contributes for spreading pedocircumcision in atheistic circles.

Psychoanalytic theory increases incidence of Circumcision syndrome

The only Jewish stereotypes that Freud recognized are religiousness and intellectuality. Only the former, however, he found to have neurotic character. Freud didn’t detect the other important Jewish stereotypic traits that are widely considered archetypal for the Jewish ethnos from at least two millennia.

Due to its lack of understanding of foreskin sensitivity Freudianism does not recognize the mental and hence psychosocial effects of pedocircumcision. For this reason Freudian psychology has inadequate judgement on social role of sexuality. Thus it fails to relate Jewish stereotypic traits to sexuality and to unravel their relation to sexual suppression and traditional neonatal circumcision. Otherwise Jewish stereotypic traits are logically comprehensible as long-term psychological consequences of pedocircumcision.

Jewish stereotypic traits are intellectualism, religiousness, and abstractedness of god (that may be caused by sublimation of sensual impulse and by the resulting overdevelopment of abstract reasoning), acquisitiveness, hoarding and haggling (that are usual compensations for the feeling of deficiency), clannishness and ethnocentrism (that may be caused by common neurophysiological and related psychological dispositions combined with insecurity caused by pleasure deficiency), piousness, god-fearing and docility (that are apprehensive attitudes and normally result from uncertainty in conditions of stimulated abstract reasoning), pathetic disposition (that is naturally evoked by chronic disaffection and insecurity).

The effects of pedocircumcision are not directly perceived because there are no receptors for the lack of receptors. Circumcision removes erogenous sensitivity. In the long-term the desensitization it causes may be experienced as subtle sexual or general dissatisfaction and reserve. The sufferers are naturally disposed to attribute their disappointment to certain external factors of sexual suppression. And psychoanalysis readily invents such factors.

Neonatal circumcision may cause sexual frustrations that are considered typical for castration anxiety. The circumcision neuroses therefore may provoke the development and popularization of a sex-driven psychology. Freudian psychology, for instance, seems to be the result of a circumcision-induced neurosis.

Psychoanalytic theory conceals the psychological impact of pedocircumcision and helps its spreading and therefore multiplication of its psychological effects. Paradoxically, the apparently atheistic discipline disposes reasoning to abstract religiousness. Even more paradoxically, given that castration complex is outcome of the Circumcision complex and that psychoanalysis masks this relation it follows that psychoanalysis helps the spread of its central theme.

By masking the neurotic character of abstract reasoning psychoanalysis also indirectly backs other schools of abstract thought such as historical materialism and unrepresentative quantum physics including relativity theories. The abstract theories the invention of which pedocircumcision has obviously stimulated such as Marxism, Freudianism and Einsteinism – pay back by complete ignoring its effect on thinking. These theories extend, modernize and diversify the abstract monotheism that originally imposed pedocircumcision. They support indirectly by facilitating the abstract reasoning that is conductive to religiousness.