Circumcision and Genital Mutilation
Circumcision and Genital mutilation, is not exclusively perpetuated along the generations by religion, or as an irrational tradition alone as is popularly thought, Billy explains here. But rather also by a pathological craving for revenge lead by mothers and grandmothers who avenge that which was also done to them.
As you could gather from my answers, we Earthlings do not know the origin and the sense of the male and female circumcision, which is indeed actually a genital mutilation. Perhaps you know something about how and why this butchery has come about?
I actually know that and can also give you the corresponding answer. So listen then. As I know it, the circumcision of the man as well as of the woman on the Earth was first practised on the Earth already more than 13,500 years ago, and indeed solely out of a belief-conditioned delusion which consisted of this: that by circumcising the genitals, an aesthetic change would be brought about to the male and female sex organs, which would be found especially pleasing to the gods and thereby would bring the human beings closer to them and would make them similar to them. The true origin of the whole thing was based at that time in very primitive artistic representations of divinities in the form of sculptures and drawings, in which the male and female genitals of the gods were depicted such that they were totally smooth and had no outward or upward folds of skin. In the primitive art, the penises of the gods were therefore always depicted without raised areas or indentations, or smoothly rounded, and without a foreskin, while, in the meagre art, the vulvas of the goddesses were likewise totally without raised areas or indentations. This led to the human beings of that time, in their still pre-logical assessing and thinking, falling into the delusion that they had to make themselves the same as their gods, in order to thereby honour and placate them, by imitating the primitively-artistically depicted sex organs of the divinities through a genital mutilation of their own sex organs, with very primitive tools. With the male penis foreskin, only about a third was thereby cut away, while, with the female genital mutilation at that time, only the outer labia were totally removed. Therefore the whole thing only served to make the penis of the man and the vulva of the woman like the primitive drawings and sculptures of genitals, through the circumcision of the male and female genitals. This was done so that the male sex organs looked as smooth or smoothly round as specified in the drawings and sculptures. That applied equally for the female vulva so that this was as smooth as possible according to the specifications and was the same as the primitive artistic depictions of the female divinities. The entire matter of these acts of genital mutilation has been maintained since then right into the current time, whereby the origin and the original reason for the circumcision has long been forgotten. And, as a result of the forgotten facts, the Earth human beings have concocted confusing reasons regarding the genital mutilation, which do not at all correspond to that which originally led to the circumcision and mutilation of the male and female genitals. The entire matter of the genital mutilation has unfortunately stayed alive over millennia up into the present time, and during the course of that time it has spread throughout many groups of human beings, in clans and peoples of the Earth, whereby the actual original sense has been totally forgotten, as I explained. About 4,800 years ago then, as essentially greater early religions arose among the peoples, priests appeared who made the whole matter of the circumcision a purely religious matter and who expanded the removal of the penis foreskin – which had been only partial removal up until then – by ordering that, from then on, the foreskin had to be completely cut away with the shaft skin. This had to be done, while, in regard to the female circumcision, a complete removal of the sexual features was likewise ordered, which meant that, along with the clitoris, also the inner labia were to be totally cut away, but also the external labia. However, since then, these directives of the early priests were followed in totally different ways; consequently, ultimately, world-wide different forms of circumcision – that is to say, forms of genital mutilation – spread, each different according to the regions, countries, clans and different communities of belief and religion.
So, the actual origin was therefore very long ago. Then the new world religions and the sects which have arisen from them are indeed not responsible for the circumcision butchery. But additionally I want to also say that, with the girls and women, the circumcision is indeed much worse than with the boys and men because, with the female genital mutilation, indeed the clitoris as well as often the inner labia are cut away along with the outer labia, as you say. Much worse yet and quite catastrophic with that is that the mutilation is traditionally carried out – by the women who do the cutting – with knives, razor blades or other sharp and often rusty and dirty objects, whereby the effected girls and women must endure the mutilating, bloody and terribly painful butchery, as a rule, without anaesthetic and under absolutely unhygienic conditions. Very often also the vagina is then sewed together so much that it is only a tiny opening. A certain number of all those affected are then incapable of sexual intercourse. If sexual intercourse is however possible, then this can only happen as a result of the vagina – which was sewn closed – being opened again, which is inevitably required with a pregnancy and with a necessary delivery. And that which remains to say is, many mothers and grandmothers often force their daughters and granddaughters into circumcision only because, on one hand, it is simply an irrational tradition, and on the other hand, however, also because they want to avenge that which was also done to them through the circumcision. So, their motto is often this: that the young girls and women ought to suffer the same hellish pains that happened to them – therefore, pure pathological craving for revenge.
That which you say, is totally correct.
Also, in regard to the female circumcision, I have found something in my diverse sources, and also that many idiotic reasons are named for female genital mutilation and the justification of the operation, yet one reason is more stupid, imbecilic and idiotic than the other. The fact is, however, that the results of the genital mutilation for the affected girls and women are indescribable and are such that they could not be worse, whereby the serious health results, however, are very often attributed to other causes. It is thereby extremely surprising that such a cruel practice could remain over millennia and that the supporters of the female circumcision are permitted to openly still mightily justify it without being brought to account. The might of these irrational ones is proven already solely through the practice of the mutilation, consequently it is difficult to go up against the millennia-old bloody idiocy. And when the irrational supporters of the female genital mutilation are asked the reasons for it, then all kinds of nonsense is cited. Thus it also arises that, in the cultures concerned, numerous stupid and idiotic answers to these questions can be found, and which, as a rule, arise in combination with each other, and indeed they arise in pseudo-scientific, pseudo-hygienic, pseudo-medicinal and religious or traditional form. In Islam, at least in those countries where the female circumcision is unquestioningly carried out, the wide-spread dominant view is that the female genital mutilation is a directive of Islam. But there are also statements which very convincingly contradict this unfounded assertion. Just in the Koran, the Islamic religious book, nothing can be found that would demand a circumcision, because the true prophet, Mohammed, never ordered nonsense of such a kind. Therefore, objectively, no circumcision of the woman or of the man – that is to say, of the girls or boys – can be derived from the Koran, but naturally, that is of no interest and thereby without significance for those who support this bloody activity. The fact is that certain Islamic “holy ones” who are fanatical about circumcision, in diverse regions and countries, promote the opinion that Allah allegedly had demanded this “purification” and the prophet had also made that known, which however truthfully corresponds to an absolute nonsense. Mohammed really never expressed a view in favour of the male or female genital mutilation, rather against it, because he knew about its incorrectness and that it was carried out by the Jews and also further beyond his realm of influence, as well as even with his own people, who had adopted the circumcision tradition from Judaism.