Circumcision: An Assault On The Newborn

An article, “Do the Heath Benefits of Neonatal Circumcision Outweigh the Risks?” in the Wall Street Journal, June 17, 2013, discusses the pros and cons of neonatal circumcision. The issue of circumcision illustrates a crucial difference between functional and mechanistic approaches in handling the living. Functional thinking views an action not in terms of the intent of the individual ( intentions are subjective and frequently open to question) but rather on the objective effect that it has on the living. That is, a particular action is viewed according to its life-enhancing or life-destructive aspect. This leads directly to an understanding of the  emotional plague, which may be defined as man’s destructive behavior in the social realm.

The mechanistic scientist is unable to think clearly about human destructiveness. He cannot recognize others’  arguments as rationalizations when they support socially destructive acts because he himself is caught up in intellectual rationalizing. The essential point, such as the cruelty and barbarousness of circumcision is thereby lost.


  1. People can come up a ridiculous number of ways to avoid the obvious.
    Circumcision is at the top of my list of human absurdities.
    In the 1970’s I was introduced to to the books of Reich, Baker, Janov and Leboyer.
    Reading what these great writers had to say about early infancy and the importance of this period to the healthy development of the child based on their professional work and observation of the negative effects of circumcision and early infant trauma, it took very little “brains” for me to understand the barbaric nature of cutting off the tip of a boys penis at a time the he is in the most sensitive and vulnerable “feeling” period of his life.
    It took me the good part of 4 more decades to realize that if our society could really let in, accept and come to terms with the truth about early infancy much of the way people lived their lives would have to change.
    Unfortunately, as it turned out, this was too much to hope for.

  2. A few years ago, when Germany was considering a ban on circumcision on the grounds that it is a human rights violation, a well-known American Reichian of Jewish background said to me ” This is an attack on the Jewish people and shows fascism is still alive and in control in Germany”. I was astounded that someone familiar with Reich’s writings and convinced of their validity could see it that way.

    Another well-known Reichian of my aquaintance had his two sons circumcised and when I pointed out the orgonomic implications of this, explained it by saying his mother “would not understand” if he did not have it done.

    So reading Reich’s works is not sufficient to prevent this assault on infants. Ruined people will still follow such destructive customs regardless of any mere intellectual knowledge of how destructive they are.

  3. Sorry but I disagree emphatically with the motive here re Germany’s wavering on whether to ban circumcision or not. It was not motivated by anything other than anti-Semitism, as is the case recently when a circumcision ban was considered seriously in San Francisco, California. In fact, I am not sure what the decision was in the latter case, I think it still an ongoing legal process…

    It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise in the case of Germany!! where rampant anti-Semitism remains firmly entrenched, as with Europe as a whole. San Francisco likewise is riddled through with a large presence of liberal anti-Semitism. Perhaps it’s difficult to see the obvious here, given the opposition of Reichians to circumcision, following Reich’s lead. Doing the ‘right thing’ for the wrong reasons – in this case the wrong reason being anti-Semitism – is not the ‘right thing’. I also have my disagreements with Reichians on male circumcision anyhow and the supposed psychological damage it causes, and no I am not motivated by a religious sensibility (at least I don’t think I am). Even if I am wrong here, and Reich and his followers right, it’s a mistake to not look at all this talk of banning male circumcision a lot closer and with a wary mind. It’s not as if German authorities or those elsewhere in the West considering banning male circumcision are influenced by Reich’s thoughts on the matter! They in all probability haven’t heard of him, and if they have, they would simply dismiss him as a crackpot, as the establishment academic and scientific community does.

    • It doesn’t matter how you look at it. Circumcision and anti-semitism are both manifestations of the emotional plague.

    • Lawrence
      I not sure to whom you are referring when you mention Reichians. I don’t know many and the ones I do know understand little or nothing of about Reich’s work and the work that has been been with his discoveries by serious professionals like Dr. Konia.
      Reich wanted noting to do with people who wanted to worship him or his work (i.e. and call themselves Reichians).

      As for “believing that Reich is a crackpot, as the establishment academic and scientific community does”, I would direct you to two world class professionals at the top of their field for their take on newborn, infancy and early childhood development. Their professional positions are very much aligned with Reich’s on the subject and they are not Reichians or not necessarily familair with his work and discoveries. If you would like to become more educated on the topic you can read Fredrick Leboyer’s book “Birth without Violence” or any of the several books by T Berry Brazelton on the subject.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s