On The Forms And The True Purpose Of Castration: Part 2
Footnotes from the previous part.
Footnotes
Maekawa, Kazuya (1980). Animal and human castration in Sumer, Part II: Human castration in the Ur III period. Zinbun [Journal of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University], pp. 1–56.
In the book "Sex at Dawn" (2012) by Christopher Ryan Ph.D. and Cacilda Jethá M.D. we find some examples of partial castration, such as circumcision and clitorectomies, and the reasons why they were recommended. In the case of men we find the following:
If you’re unfamiliar with the writings of Kellogg and others like him, their gloating disdain for basic human eroticism is chilling and unmistakable. In his best-selling Plain Facts for Old and Young (written on his sexless honeymoon in 1888), Kellogg offered parents guidance for dealing with their sons’ natural erotic self-exploration in a section entitled “Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects.” “A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys,” he wrote, “is circumcision.” He stipulated that, “The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment…. [emphasis added]”
If circumcising a struggling, terrified boy without anesthesia wasn’t quite what a parent had in mind, Kellogg recommended “the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur….” Parents were assured that sewing their son’s penis into its foreskin “acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice [of masturbation].” Circumcision remains prevalent in the United States, though varying greatly by region, ranging from about 40 percent of newborns circumcised in western states to about twice that in the Northeast. This widespread procedure, rarely a medical necessity, has its roots in the anti-masturbation campaigns of Kellogg and his like-minded contemporaries. As Money explains, “Neonatal circumcision crept into American delivery rooms in the 1870s and 1880s, not for religious reasons and not for reasons of health or hygiene, as is commonly supposed, but because of the claim that, later in life, it would prevent irritation that would cause the boy to become a masturbator.”
His smug satisfaction in tormenting children is striking and disturbing, but Kellogg’s “no child left alone” policy is anything but unusual or limited to ancient history. The anti-masturbation measures quoted above were published in 1888, but more than eighty years were to pass before the American Medical Association declared, in 1972, “Masturbation is a normal part of adolescent sexual development and requires no medical management.” But still, the war continues. As recently as 1994, pediatrician Joycelyn Elders was forced from her post as Surgeon General of the United States for simply asserting that masturbation “is part of human sexuality.” The suffering caused by centuries of war on masturbation is beyond calculation. But this we know: all the suffering, every bit of it, was for nothing. Absolutely nothing.
And in the case of women we read:
Lest you think Kellogg was interested only in the sadistic torture of boys, in the same book he soberly advises the application of carbolic acid to the clitorises of little girls to teach them not to touch themselves. Kellogg and his like-minded contemporaries demonstrate that sexual repression is a “malady that considers itself the remedy,” to paraphrase Karl Kraus’s dismissal of psychoanalysis.
A century later, in 1858, a British gynecologist named Isaac Baker Brown (president of the Medical Society of London at the time) proposed that most women’s diseases were attributable to overexcitement of the nervous system, with the pubic nerve, which runs to the clitoris, being particularly culpable. [...] Unfortunately, Baker Brown’s writing had already had a significant impact on medical practice across the Atlantic. Clitorectomies continued to be performed in the United States well into the twentieth century as a cure for hysteria, nymphomania, and female masturbation. As late as 1936, Holt’s Diseases of Infancy and Childhood, a respected medical-school text, recommended surgical removal or cauterization of the clitoris as a cure for masturbation in girls. [...] This apparent need to punish female sexual desire as something evil, dangerous, and pathological is not limited to medieval times or remote Mayan villages. Recent estimates by the World Health Organization suggest that approximately 137 million girls undergo some form of genital mutilation every year.
And as Dr. Wilhelm Reich writes in his book "Children of the Future" (1950):
We have since struggled to abolish a third type of massacre of infants and children, namely, the tying of their hands to prevent them from touching their genitals and sucking their thumbs. This maltreatment lasted for centuries and created many generations of neurotic people. Its sole purpose was to satisfy the adults’ need not to be reminded of the sucking and masturbation desires they had experienced in their own childhood. It took a Freud and two generations of analytically trained pedagogues to launch the fight against this torture. We are still a long way from being able to claim that the infant or small child is permitted to give free rein to its pleasure function.
- Research shows that circumcision causes permanent brain damage, particularly in the areas of the brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Here's from "Circumcision Permanently Alters the Brain" by Paul D. Tinari, Ph.D.:
As a graduate student working in the Dept. of Epidemiology, I was approached by a group of nurses who were attempting to organize a protest against male infant circumcision in Kingston General Hospital. They said that their observations indicated that babies undergoing the procedure were subjected to significant and inhumane levels of pain that subsequently adversely affected their behaviors. They said that they needed some scientific support for their position. It was my idea to use fMRI and/or PET scanning to directly observe the effects of circumcision on the infant brain.
The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes. A neurologist who saw the results postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim’s brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child’s brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery.
From Psychology Today, "Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe" (September 11th 2011):
The body is a historical repository and remembers everything (Rothschild 2000; van der Kolk, 2014). The pain of circumcision causes a rewiring of the baby's brain so that he is more sensitive to pain later (Taddio 1997, Anand 2000). Circumcision also can cause post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD, Ramos & Boyle, 2001), depression, anger, low self-esteem and problems with intimacy (Boyle 2002, Hammond 1999, Goldman 1999; see Boyle et al., 2002 for a review of trauma effects).
If circumcision can cause the above mentioned mental damage to an individual, then what kind of mental damage can we expect to find in victims of more extreme forms of physical castration? Isn't it also reasonable to assume that the "less extreme" forms of castration also result in similar types of mental damage, albeit perhaps to a lesser degree?
- It's very interesting to note that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the early 1960s “funded” experiments on circumcised children in the USA to research what kind of effect it had on hem. Here's from The Washington Post, "CIA Circumcision Study Secretly Circumscribed" (October 20, 1977):
[...] the CIA in the early 1960s "funded" experiments on circumcised children "to determine if the operation left any emotional after-effects . . . The aim was to determine if circumcision at a significant stage of a child's development produced anxieties such as fear of castration . . ."
So I called the CIA, acting very reportorial and somber, and I told my business to a woman who answered the phone and she volunteered that the agency had gotten lots of letters from people who also wanted to know what the CIA had learned about circumcision. [...] Then I got a public information officer on the phone. [...] He explained that the existence of the program had been deduced from financial records but the study and its conclusion, if any, were no longer available. It had been destroyed in 1973.
Since we now know that circumcision causes severe brain- and mental damage to children and is used to enable trauma-based mind control, it's not surprising that the CIA would want to know about the effects of circumcision on children. The CIA was heavily into mind control research and one of their well known mind control programs was called MK ULTRA (1953~1973). Read the book “Trance: Formation of America” for a detailed explanation of how that worked and what its purpose was.
- Jewish professor Roger Dommergue Polacco de Menasce from France has an interesting theory about the relationship between circumcision (on the 8th day according to religious practice) and free will. You can listen to it in the below video interview starting at around 10 minutes in.
https://archive.org/details/SpiritualTithing
Below is a transcript of the relevant part:
On what do we blame, or can we blame, objectively, the Jewish mindset? Well, you know in the commentary of the Torah, it is written that circumcision is something that goes beyond human understanding -- that you shouldn’t try to understand. I read it myself in the commentary of the Torah, so I say this knowingly. Well, that’s not the case anymore. Now we know. And we know, well I know and some people know, Albert Camus knew and Dr. Gautier who figured it out of course knew better than me, some philosophers like Gustave Thibon etc. know. But the masses ignore it, and the Jews are totally unaware because it’s an ordeal they live through. You know, to torment and to kill others, it’s also hell for them, it’s a disease. You know Nietzsche said "it was the sick who invented malice." Consequently these are people you need to cure, and to cure the Jews it’s very simple: radical suppression of the 8th day circumcision.
And we’re going to enter the heart of the issue. Well there is, for the Jews, an operation you get done on the 8th day after birth, it’s called circumcision. Now on the 8th day after birth, begins -- as Dr. Jean Gautier has shown -- the first puberty. This puberty lasts 21 days. It’s going to last 21 days starting on the 8th day. And it’s on the 8th day that circumcision is practiced. As a result, the first puberty, which is a major event, is going to be disturbed. This operation affects the Jewish psyche and endocrine system. What happens is when you perform this operation, you set free some hormones contained in the internal genital organ, which is THE human gland. The gland that basically runs everything deliberately. Deliberately not automatically, so it’s the organ of free will. It will consequently become underdeveloped starting that day. It will be underdeveloped and at the same time it will liberate other organs, which will run without the breaks on. Because the role of the internal genital gland is precisely to orchestrate a balance in the whole hormonal system. It won’t be able to do it. Thus the pituitary and the thyroid, even the adrenal glands to a lesser extent, will become unhinged. They will therefore be out of control -- 7, 8, or 10 times more active than in most humans. And what’s going to happen? The internal genital gland, which is underdeveloped in the mentally ill, will be underdeveloped in the Jews. Which means they’ll only have enough interstitial capacity to direct their speculations which will be dictated by their pituitary and their thyroid. Hence a sort of real illness: they can’t stop. What’s switched off is the potential to control their speculation. And you come to these monstrosities that are financial capitalism, Marxism and Freudianism. So then the hormones will fixate either upon the reproductive genital gland, which will make the Jews sex fiends, womanizers.
So the Jews would have a satanic mission with the obligation to not understand the tragedy of circumcision through denial if need be. To reach the end of their satanic path they are hence compelled to pursue this horrible analytical path until the end, and to impose it on humanity as a whole, and unfortunately they’re buying into it without any resistance. That’s how you can understand the Jewish question on a metaphysical level — basically, they are innocents, miserable, who suffer the consequences of an unfortunate operation, giving them an absolutely fixed mentality which makes them great financiers. I mean the ones who run the world, they are also Jewish. The Jews who run the world, they have the mindset because of the circumcision, and they cannot escape it. So this circumcision is, therefore the key.
- As the fucking brilliant Dr. Wilhelm Reich writes in his book "Children of the Future" (1950):
Young people have more than merely a right to be “enlightened”; they are fully entitled to their emotional health and their sexual joy in life. This right has been taken away from them. Countless young people have lost all awareness of their sexuality, although this has opened the way to serious psychic disturbances during puberty. If the young person is unable for external or internal reasons to take the step to sexual intercourse and to a mature sexual life, his development is blocked and it is easy for him to start to slip backwards, i.e., to have recourse to childish fantasies that lead him away from the naturally given goal that now exists. We observe that various drives then increase in intensity. For example, the inclination toward persons of the same sex increases; the social barriers preventing sexual intercourse and the separation of the sexes are the major reasons for excessive indulgence in mutual masturbation among young people of the same sex. The lascivious desire to look at naked bodies or to expose one’s own sex organs and the temptation to have sexual relations with children also often occur for the first time at this stage. Because of pent-up sexual energy, which finds no satisfactory release, sadistic and masochistic tendencies, which are usually attenuated and kept in the background by the development of normal sexual activity, now become fully effective. It is certainly not our intention to frighten anybody by pointing out such things. We merely wish to state that the foundation for such disturbances can be laid by preventing young people from having normal sexual relations at a time when they urgently need them. We cannot ignore the facts and must fight with all means available against the sexual rules of society that cause such damage in young people. We must use all our force to make them understand that their struggle with masturbation, their feelings of guilt, their sexual deviations, are not their fault nor are they inherited; instead, they are for the most part the consequences of a society’s rules governing sexual behavior which force the development and the natural course of sexuality into one mold into which it is impossible for all young people to fit. What is more, there are many men who have the physical and emotional characteristics appropriate to the sex organs with which they are equipped, yet they desire younger, effeminate men toward whom they behave like a man to a wife; and there are completely feminine women who behave toward harder, more masculine-looking women like a wife to a husband. These kinds of homosexuals did not become inclined that way because of physical developments but as a result of defective emotional development in early childhood, when they suffered severe disappointment at the hands of a member of the opposite sex. For example, a male child can easily become openly homosexual if the love he has for his mother is too often and too bitterly disappointed because she is a strict, harsh person. Similarly, a girl can easily be induced to become homosexual at a very early age if she is severely disappointed by her father. Such children readily withdraw their sexual desires from the opposite sex and turn instead to those of their own sex. As a rule, these early disappointments are repressed. Upon growing up, the person who has suffered such disappointments is no longer aware of them and can only recall them when he or she relives this early period of development while undergoing psychiatric treatment. The most powerful rebuttal that we can make against the claim made by so many homosexuals that they represent a special kind of sexuality and are not an aberration, is to point out that in the course of a special kind of psychiatric treatment any homosexual can stop feeling the way he or she does, whereas a normally developed person never becomes a homosexual through this same treatment. If the homosexual behavior has not gone on too long and has not totally destroyed relations with the opposite sex, if also the person in question is not happy with the homosexual state and wishes to be rid of it, then homosexuality can be cured fundamentally by treatment, which reverses the aberrant sexual development that occurred in childhood. What we have said so far is scientifically based fact, and it can be further reinforced by pointing to the example of primitive peoples who lead a satisfying, undisturbed sexual life, who do not hinder the sexual development of their children, and among whom homosexuality is consequently unknown, except in the spiritualized form of friendship. According to the findings of Malinowski, an English ethnologist, homosexuality starts to appear among primitive peoples at the same rate that missionaries import Christian morality into these people’s natural sexual lives and separate the sexes from each other. This is also confirmed by the fact, which we observe over and over again, that wherever normal sexual relations between men and women or girls and boys are prohibited or hampered (e.g., in boarding schools, in the army or navy, etc.), homosexuality develops in proportion to the degree of sexual suppression. Thus, ignoring the cases which are physically based, we may provisionally conclude that homosexuality is a purely social phenomenon, i.e., a question of sexual education and development. The best means of preventing it is to bring up and educate the two sexes side by side and to permit sexual intercourse to commence at the right time.