- Registrado
- 1 de Jul, 2025
So circumcisions aren't exclusive to Judaism but they are the biggest proponents of it and practicers of it. They do it for non-medical reasons and do it to infants who can't possibly consent or object to having a portion of their body cut off. Some cultures practice a form of circumcision that specifically waits until adulthood to perform it, usually as a test of their strength (ability to tolerate pain.)
But heres the damning thing.
They probably do circumcisions as an alternative to sacrificing their kids as was once practiced by many cultures in levant and Carthage thousands of years ago. They used to do it when times were bad as a sort of offer to the gods for better circumstances. Theres accounts of these events; they'd play drums and flutes loudly to drown out the screams of kids having their throats slit before being tossed onto the fire. The story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son only to be stopped at the last moment and have a goat appear to be offered instead is likely the result of one sect of Hebrews steering away from child sacrifice towards the idea of placing ones sins onto an animal and killing it instead.
Fuck up shit. And most scholars agree that by having laws stating child sacrificing is wrong it probably means they were doing it prior to it being outlawed. Theres accounts that mothers would sell their kids to strangers for sacrifice and if she cried then the stranger didn't have to pay her and still got to kill the kid. Yikes!
And theres evidence to suggest some sects of Hebrews still did it anyways. When Philo of Alexandria was sent to Rome to explain why the Hebrews there rioted against the Greeks during the reign of Caligula we hear accounts from the Greek diplomats that they considered the Hebrews evil for making their kids "pass through the fire" which Philo denies as an abandoned practice. Of course, there were lots of sects of Hebrews back then so its entirely possible some were still killing kids.
But they "fixed" their flaws, huh?
So the argument is that circumcision was a better alternative to killing the kids. Ok, I mean in some ways sure its better than murder. But its also a super flimsy argument and people have been pointing out how stupid it is for millennia.
1) They claim that in order to seal the covenant with God there must be pain and blood. So no numbing out the part being operated on like we'd do for every other surgical procedure performed on an infant. They want the infant to experience pain.
2) If the pain and blood are important to this covenant then why not do it when the infant is an adult and can make the choice of their own free will, thus proving their faith in God and the covenant? Well, the most common answer is because no one would actually do it (or few would since those other cultures I mentioned earlier do in fact have men go through with it--and its done by poking a stick through the foreskin and twisting it off!!!)
3) Ok, so to jews its important to cause pain and suffering to an infant who has no fucking idea whats going on. Yes. And it you've lost your foreskin some other way, like by tying a string around it to cut-off circulation until it fell off naturally, then you've got to undergo an additional procedure where they recut the wound to draw the necessary blood and pain. WTF? So in this case if you're an adult its now totally OK to have free will and a choice in the matter???
4) In the old days, and still practiced by some sects, the guy cutting the babies foreskin off then sucks the bloody penis to... uhhh.... I guess clean the wound? Like, even thousands of years ago they realized a damp rag worked better than that but I guess the die-hard Jews needed to suck on a bloody baby dick. And here's the fucked up thing; those sects that still do it found out the hard way that they could spread herpes to babies and in a few cases the babies died from the infection. So some genius suggested "hey why not use a glass tube to do the sucking so your lips don't touch the open wound and spread herpes to an innocent baby?" Nope, many sects refuse this suggestion and keep doing it the retarded way.*
*I know how bat-shit insane this all sounds, like its something an antisemite would make up. Look it up, the State of New York had to get involved and while rare its still done to this day.
Sorry but theres absolutely no reason to do this retarded circumcision thing. It actually destroys the gland as well, maybe this is why so many jews are degenerate perverts? Imagine if you held your tongue out all the time so it dried out. The skin would harden, the taste buds would die, it'd be ruined because it wasn't designed to be exposed like that all the time. Same for the penis gland. It becomes this disgusting leather knob of shame that is probably what causes freaks like Buffalo Bill to become serial killers.
Now, knowing all that I think its safe to say we all agree its time to exterminate the jews. Right?
But heres the damning thing.
They probably do circumcisions as an alternative to sacrificing their kids as was once practiced by many cultures in levant and Carthage thousands of years ago. They used to do it when times were bad as a sort of offer to the gods for better circumstances. Theres accounts of these events; they'd play drums and flutes loudly to drown out the screams of kids having their throats slit before being tossed onto the fire. The story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son only to be stopped at the last moment and have a goat appear to be offered instead is likely the result of one sect of Hebrews steering away from child sacrifice towards the idea of placing ones sins onto an animal and killing it instead.
Fuck up shit. And most scholars agree that by having laws stating child sacrificing is wrong it probably means they were doing it prior to it being outlawed. Theres accounts that mothers would sell their kids to strangers for sacrifice and if she cried then the stranger didn't have to pay her and still got to kill the kid. Yikes!
And theres evidence to suggest some sects of Hebrews still did it anyways. When Philo of Alexandria was sent to Rome to explain why the Hebrews there rioted against the Greeks during the reign of Caligula we hear accounts from the Greek diplomats that they considered the Hebrews evil for making their kids "pass through the fire" which Philo denies as an abandoned practice. Of course, there were lots of sects of Hebrews back then so its entirely possible some were still killing kids.
But they "fixed" their flaws, huh?
So the argument is that circumcision was a better alternative to killing the kids. Ok, I mean in some ways sure its better than murder. But its also a super flimsy argument and people have been pointing out how stupid it is for millennia.
1) They claim that in order to seal the covenant with God there must be pain and blood. So no numbing out the part being operated on like we'd do for every other surgical procedure performed on an infant. They want the infant to experience pain.
2) If the pain and blood are important to this covenant then why not do it when the infant is an adult and can make the choice of their own free will, thus proving their faith in God and the covenant? Well, the most common answer is because no one would actually do it (or few would since those other cultures I mentioned earlier do in fact have men go through with it--and its done by poking a stick through the foreskin and twisting it off!!!)
3) Ok, so to jews its important to cause pain and suffering to an infant who has no fucking idea whats going on. Yes. And it you've lost your foreskin some other way, like by tying a string around it to cut-off circulation until it fell off naturally, then you've got to undergo an additional procedure where they recut the wound to draw the necessary blood and pain. WTF? So in this case if you're an adult its now totally OK to have free will and a choice in the matter???
4) In the old days, and still practiced by some sects, the guy cutting the babies foreskin off then sucks the bloody penis to... uhhh.... I guess clean the wound? Like, even thousands of years ago they realized a damp rag worked better than that but I guess the die-hard Jews needed to suck on a bloody baby dick. And here's the fucked up thing; those sects that still do it found out the hard way that they could spread herpes to babies and in a few cases the babies died from the infection. So some genius suggested "hey why not use a glass tube to do the sucking so your lips don't touch the open wound and spread herpes to an innocent baby?" Nope, many sects refuse this suggestion and keep doing it the retarded way.*
*I know how bat-shit insane this all sounds, like its something an antisemite would make up. Look it up, the State of New York had to get involved and while rare its still done to this day.
Sorry but theres absolutely no reason to do this retarded circumcision thing. It actually destroys the gland as well, maybe this is why so many jews are degenerate perverts? Imagine if you held your tongue out all the time so it dried out. The skin would harden, the taste buds would die, it'd be ruined because it wasn't designed to be exposed like that all the time. Same for the penis gland. It becomes this disgusting leather knob of shame that is probably what causes freaks like Buffalo Bill to become serial killers.
Now, knowing all that I think its safe to say we all agree its time to exterminate the jews. Right?
