Warning: Do NOT circumsize your children
Yesterday I was reading a book by Wilhelm Reich titled “Reich speaks of Freud” (1967) and found an interesting bit where Reich talks about circumcision. Here’s a quote from the book:
When a child is born, it comes out of a warm uterus, 37 degrees centigrade, into about 18 or 20 degrees centigrade. That’s bad enough. The shock of birth . . . bad enough. But it could survive that if the following didn’t happen. As it comes out, it is picked up by the legs and slapped on the buttocks. The first greeting is a slap. The next greeting: take it away from the mother. Right? Take it away from the mother. I want you to listen here. It will sound incredible in a hundred years. Take it away from the mother. The mother must not touch or see the baby. The baby has no body contact after having had nine months of body contact at a very high temperature—what we call the “orgonotic body energy contact,” the field action between them, the warmth and the heat.4 Then, the Jews introduced something about six or seven thousand years ago. And that is circumcision. I don’t know why they introduced it. It’s still a riddle. Take that poor penis. Take a knife—right? And start cutting. And everybody says, “It doesn’t hurt.” Everybody says, “No, it doesn’t hurt.” Get it? That’s an excuse, of course, a subterfuge. They say that the sheaths of the nerve are not yet developed. Therefore, the sensation in the nerves is not yet developed. Therefore, the child doesn’t feel a thing. Now, that’s murder! Circumcision is one of the worst treatments of children. And what happens to them? You just look at them. They can’t talk to you. They just cry. What they do is shrink. They contract, get away into the inside, away from that ugly world. I express it very crudely, but you understand what I mean, Doctor.5 Now, that’s the greeting: Taking it away from the mother. Mother mustn’t see it. Twenty-four or forty-eight hours, eat nothing. Right? Penis cut. And then comes the worst: This poor child, poor infant, tries always to stretch out and to find some warmth, something to hold on to. It goes to the mother, puts its lips to the mother’s nipple. And what happens? The nipple is cold, or doesn’t erect, or the milk doesn’t come, or the milk is bad. And that is quite general. That is not one case in a thousand. That is general. That’s average. So what does that infant do? How does it respond to that? How does it have to respond to that bio-energetically? It can’t come to you and tell you, “Oh, listen, I’m suffering so much, so much.” It just cries. And, finally, it gives up. It gives up and says, “No!” It doesn’t say “no” in words, you understand, but that is the emotional situation. And we orgonomists know it. We get it out of our patients. We get it out of their emotional structure, out of their behavior, not out of their words. Words can’t express it. Here, in the very beginning, the spite develops. Here, the “no” develops, the big “NO” of humanity. And then you ask why the world is in a mess.
…
As long as children will be harmed and hurt with all kinds of ugly things—with chemicals by the chemistry Modju, with injections of all kinds of things, and with the knife right after birth—nothing will change. I have had much medical experience in that. I have pulled many a child out of that mire. As long as that is going on, nothing will happen in the right direction. Nothing! No constitution, no parliament, nothing will help. Nothing, I say. Nothing will change for the better. You can’t impose freedom on the ruined bio-energetic systems of children. Is this thing clear now? Is this whole thing clear—the impact of the world, as it is, on the infant, yet unborn and newly born?
…
[…] if Freud hadn’t existed, if he hadn’t found the unconscious, the theory of the instincts, the pregenital development of the child, I couldn’t have gone on into the bio-energetic realm, to these things which I have just brought up.
I recently blogged about the reasons behind the different forms of castration (which includes circumcision) where I included a bit in the footnotes about research by Paul D. Tinari Ph.D. that showed that circumcision, due to the extreme pain and trauma experienced by the infant, causes permanent brain damage, particularly in the areas of the brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions.
Does this look normal to you? (Photo by Mohammed Salem)
Also notice how Reich mentions the “injections of all kinds of things” into infants; vaccination is not only ineffective but also dangerous.
But one of the more interesting bits from the above quote, that was also very surprising to me, is that Reich apparently didn’t know why the “Jews” introduced circumcision, calling it “a riddle.” I would never have imagined someone like Reich being puzzled by that, especially because he already had the answer and was even an expert in that area. Circumcision had the purpose of suppressing the child’s sexuality starting almost immediately after they were born. It was to prevent the baby from experiencing pleasure by touching and/or playing with his penis. This is something babies often do. The idea is that by making him experience extreme trauma and pain in connection with his penis he would stay away from it. The goal of this is to keep the baby sexually suppressed as soon as he is born.
Think about it; you can’t talk to a baby and make him believe that he shouldn’t touch his penis; you can’t brainwash a baby in that way because he won’t understand. The only way is to make him feel. I mentioned this in my post on castration, and gave examples in the footnotes of how “doctors” recommended similar treatment to children to keep them from masturbating. And in that post I also discuss the ultimate goal of sexual suppression via circumcision, which is to break the child’s will. As Reich says the child “finally gives up” as it realizes it can’t do anything about the constant abuse from its environment and eventually submits to it. It even subdues its own desire for (sexual) pleasure because of the connected traumatic experiences. In this way a submissive character structure gets fundamentally hardwired into the brain when it’s in its most plastic state. This transforms children into reliable slaves for the ruling class (these days the State) as they grow up, eventually becoming capable of easily allowing a lot of abuse and exploitation, to the point of considering it a “normal” way of life — and this was something Reich was acutely aware of:
Sexual suppression supports the power of the Church, which has sunk very deep roots into the exploited masses by means of sexual anxiety and guilt. It engenders timidity towards authority and binds children to their parents. This results in adult subservience to state authority and to capitalistic exploitation. It paralyzes the intellectual critical powers of the oppressed masses because it consumes the greater part of biological energy. Finally, it paralyzes the resolute development of creative forces and renders impossible the achievement of all aspirations for human freedom. In this way the prevailing economic system (in which single individuals can easily rule entire masses) becomes rooted in the psychic structures of the oppressed themselves. Wilhelm Reich
And to be clear, circumcision is not something the “Jews” came up with; it was a command from the “gods” from the ancient past who were behind the introduction of sexual suppression and repression. It was sold to the “Jews” as a special “covenant” and there seems to be no indication that they realized what kind of effect this would have on them, namely, causing a lot of damage to their children who would grow up to become more ideal slaves for their “god.” Because of the special “covenant” they thought they were “god’s” chosen people, when in fact, the “covenant” literally transformed them into “god’s” chosen and ideal slaves. 1 More on this in my post “On the forms and the true purpose of Castration.”
Finally, Reich’s quote reminded me of a post I wrote all the way back in 2008 — 11 years ago — when I didn’t know as much about these subjects as I do today. Here’s some of what I wrote in “A World of Pain”:
Isn’t it interesting that the first thing that babies do when they get born is that they start crying? If life was so beautiful, wouldn’t you expect babies to start laughing and smiling as soon as they enter the world? Shouldn’t they be happy about it? Why cry instead? Where does that come from? Most babies won’t smile until after they are at least a few weeks old. Why is that? They can’t smile for a few weeks, but are perfectly capable of crying from the moment they are born, and even do so quite frequently!
The reason why this is so, I believe, is because life is full of pain and sadness. The moment a baby gets born, he starts to cry most likely because he feels the hostility around him immediately and can perhaps even feel the sadness and pain that is to come. Maybe he even regrets being born and shows that by starting to cry as soon as he’s born.
The fact that babies are perfectly capable of crying from the moment they are born, and that most of them won’t show their first smile for a few weeks, also shows the nature of life. You get born being perfectly capable to feel pain and sorrow and to react to it, but it isn’t until weeks later when you start to learn how to smile. It’s almost as if the baby needs a few months to get used to the situation, and tries to make the best out of it in the end. It’s like after a few weeks of crying about the tragedy of being born in this world of pain, he starts to get an attitude of “hey, since I can’t do anything about this, I might as well get used to it and try to make the best out of it.”
And I can completely understand.
Reading that back, in light of everything I discussed above, it brought a smile to my face and tears to my eyes.
Comments
There are 3 responses. Follow any responses to this post through its comments RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.