Copied from https://www.bitchute.com/channel/meatalstenosis/
The image features Jeff Berwick looking dapper because he said of MGM, "The angriest I had ever been about a single issue."
I use the term MGM because current circumcision is radical circumcision, meaning a radicalized version of what was originally termed circumcision. It's a severe mutilation procedure.
Jeff's channel: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/dollar_vigilante/
Lawrence Newman says, "Forced genital mutilation of males is no different than forced genital mutilation of females. It has been proven via histological analysis that essentially all the erogenous nerves of the penis are located in the ridged band and frenular delta of the foreskin, both of which are cut off. I was circumcised for pseudomedical reasons by the NHS in the UK when I was 14 and it destroyed my sexual pleasure completely. The glans penis is almost non-erogenous in character. It's like the eyeball--covered in crude free nerves that detect pain and pressure. That's all the circumcised man's left with. Unfortunately many people have bought the baseless folk theory that the glans penis and glans clitoris are the primary sexual organs. This is untrue and no histological evidence exists to back this up.
Forced circumcision is the most disgusting, despicable act you could do to someone. It's objectively worse than rape--it is non-consensual but it is also irreversible and damages you for life. I have PTSD/depression over it and have sworn off women because sex is pointless. Imagine how many boys and men commit suicide, get depression/PTSD or end up murdering people due to this horrific crime."
He also says, "Male circumcision has always been about sexual suppression of males. And circumcised men have lost the most sensitive parts of their penis. Where is your evidence they enjoy sex? Because these men have sex, can get erection ergo they must enjoy it? No, these men have never known what foreskin feels like. I can tell you, having experienced both, that circumcision kills pleasure dead. A woman's glans clitoris is a small part of her sexual apparatus and she can enjoy sex without it via penetrative sex. A man without a foreskin can't enjoy sex because he has no ridge band and frenular delta. The glans penis is virtually sexually insensitive. IGNORANCE."
See also:
Healing the Hidden Wound: Sex, Spirit, and Circumcision: https://www.bitchute.com/video/WS5EUGRMCdsg/
The Revolution Will Be Circumcised - Kris Cantu: https://www.bitchute.com/video/yG2tWCyuRZfM/
"This enrages me so much."
"These demons that run our world are doing this to boys every day."
"The rage is deep."
"The indifference to a woman's sexual pleasure that is implicit in Maimonides becomes explicit in R. Isaac. The sexual inadequacy of the circumcised man, implicit in the Midrash on Genesis and in Maimonides, becomes explicit in R. Isaac. Maimonides' implicit contrast of the circumcised man with the foreskinned, the former sexually restrained and therefore devoted to God, the latter sexually unrestrained and therefore estranged from God, becomes explicit in R. Isaac. The crucial difference between them is that Maimonides lived in a Muslim environment in which virtually all men were circumcised, while R. Isaac lived in a Christian environment in which virtually all non-Jewish men were foreskinned. In R. Isaac's eyes, Christian men were sexual supermen, who could pleasure their women to a degree far beyond the capacities of Jewish men, and who could do so far more often. If virility were to be defined in terms of sexual prowess, Jewish men would fail miserably, because their circumcision has rendered them incapable of pleasuring their women. But for R. Isaac, of course, virility is a function not of sexual prowess but of intellectual and spiritual capacity, and by this criterion circumcised Jewish men are manly indeed, while foreskinned Christian men are impotent."
Shaye J. D. Cohen, page 156 of Why Aren't Jewish Women Circumcised?: Gender and Covenant in Judaism. 2005.
