The Circumcision of Africa
Just when it seemed that intactivists were making progress through the raising of awareness of the traumas and human rights issues generated by circumcision in conjunction with the promotion of the phenomenal pleasures and benefits associated with the foreskin, that a new, more potently vicious and virulent pro-circumcision agenda emerges. This time it’s a campaign spearheaded by the world’s richest man, Bill Gates (exposing himself to be a circumcisionist), who’s using his financial influence to fund a program to ‘Circumcise Africa’ under the guise of a HIV prevention initiative. The involvement and heavyweight support of the United Nations and the world Bank for this programme basically means that the wheels are in motion to circumcise all African males and that the African foreskin seems doomed to extinction. The implications of this being that the mindset of the African population, both men and women, will be altered into negatively associating the foreskin with HIV and more importantly, that the rights of African men to possess and enjoy the ecstatic, blissful pleasures which arise from their foreskins will be eradicated for generations to come. And of course once this pattern of universal invalidation and cutting off of the foreskin is established, it will take a monumental effort to undo the damage and to reverse it.
The following is a direct quote from the introduction of the ‘New data on Male Circumcision and HIV prevention: Policy and Programme Implications’ published in 2007 by the United Nations’ World Health Organisation: “A number of observational studies indicate that circumcised men have lower levels of HIV infection than uncircumcised men. On 13 December 2006, the United States of America National Institutes of Health announced that two trials assessing the impact of male circumcision on HIV risk would be stopped on the recommendation of the Data Safety and Monitoring Board. The trials being carried out in Kisumu, Kenya, and Rakai District, Uganda revealed at least a 53% and 51% reduction in risk of acquiring HIV infection, respectively. These results support findings published in 2005 from the South Africa Orange Farm Intervention Trial, sponsored by the French National Agency for Research on AIDS, which demonstrated at least a 60% reduction in HIV infection among men who were circumcised.”
The three trials referred to above were the flimsiest of ‘research evidence’ to ‘justify’ the instigation of, and to endorse, plan and implement the epidemic of male genital mutilation under the guise of HIV prevention. And thus, pro-circumcisionists, with their own perverted, twisted and sadistic blood lust agendas, who have been looking for ways to promote a “mass circumcision campaign” rubbed their hands in glee, besides themselves salivating and drooling over the pain, suffering and misery that around an eventual 38 million African males will have to endure when they part with their foreskins forever. The millions of ‘targeted’ males in sub-Saharan Africa now find themselves in the deplorable situation of being bombarded with pro-circumcision coercion and misinformation media propaganda campaigns, pressured by community leaders and health promoters to ‘Get Circumcised’. The use of rhetoric by much of the promotional literature to justify its validity is astounding and treats the foreskin as if it is trivial, because the foreskin IS trivial as far as circumcisionsts are concerned, which is why this strategy has been given priority status. Thus, in the not too distant future, if all goes ‘according to plan’ the entire continent of Africa’s males will be circumcised, and the pro-circumcisionsts will no doubt congratulate themselves and celebrate their shallow, hollow and pervertedly ‘sick’ victory.
Sub-Saharan Africa thus becomes the ‘trial’ ‘arena’ for the pro-circumcisionists to implement their bizarrely warped, corrupt and sadistic plan to circumcise the entire planet. Their funds would seem unlimited from the billions of dollars that the circumcision industry already generates from North America. There are 8 non-African organizations supporting the mass African circumcision campaign…5 from the US (Department of Defense, USAID, Gates Foundation, CDC, and Office of the US Global AIDS Coordinator) and 3 international organizations (World Bank, WHO, and UNAIDS). The fact that the United States is so committed and instrumental in this agenda with 5 organizations, reeks of an American pro-circumcisionsts’ involvement. The plan proposes that donors and governments spend $1.5 billion to circumcise a total of 20.3 million men in 16 countries by 2015, to achieve 80% circumcision among men aged 15-49 years. The 16 target countries are Botswana, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, South Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Extensive planning across all of these nations to set in place the infrastructure required for such a major undertaking is beyond belief, because the massive financial cost that this is incurring, could be spent more wisely in the promotion of condoms and Anti-Retroviral Therapy for HIV prevention for those living in sub-Saharan Africa.
In the past few years, there has been an overwhelming need by the circumcisionists to devise more efficient ways to destroy and annihilate the humble foreskin, because the proposed ‘target’ to circumcise Africa wasn’t being achieved fast enough. And so with vast amounts of funds at their disposal, the circumcisionists have facilitated the invention of several new disposable circumcising devices to implement the ‘mass circumcise’ sub-Saharan Africa goal. Two devices have gained the WHO’s endorsement, and these are the Israeli ‘Prepex’ and the Chinese ‘Shang Ring’, both of which are glorified tourniquets. When applied both will cut off the foreskin’s blood supply until the tissue dies, causing it to shrivel up, when it’s then cut off and removed a week later, to reveal a circumcised penis. The makers of Prepex boast the claims that “there’s no blood, no stitches, no injection, very little or no pain”, whilst those of the Shang Ring claim that “the device can all round meet the medical requirements of safety, minimal invasion, easy performance and cosmetic results in modern circumcision”. Both manufacturers seem to trivialise the role of the foreskin, making it sound redundant and an obsolete piece of skin (as if it didn’t matter), which can be simply and easily got rid of with their devices. They don’t ever mention the advantages and benefits of the foreskin, but go on about how circumcision apparently reduces the chances of acquiring HIV. But that’s to be expected because Bill Gates, the U.N and the World Bank obviously have their sinister agenda to promote and implement. However it’s the average and poor men and women in the streets, towns and villages of sub-Saharan Africa who, being reliant on their community leaders to advise them on health promotional strategies who are the innocent victims of this scam. They are being bombarded with pro-circumcision propaganda to ‘Get Circumcised’ for free and of course many are succumbing to this relentless campaign, because they trust that they’re being given correct advice. However, as a disclaimer it is claimed by Prepex that “male circumcision provides only partial protection and therefore should be only one element of a comprehensive HIV prevention package which includes the provision of HIV testing and counseling services, treatment for sexually transmitted infections, the promotion of safer sex practices, the provision of male and female condoms and the promotion of their correct and consistent use”…blah, blah, blah…how marvellous!!!
And then of course there’s the financial cost of what this extravagantly audacious ‘madness’ is going to be costing and who is going to be reaping the monetary benefits from such a preposterous undertaking. The Prepex devices cost $20 per disposable unit whilst the Shang Ring costs $18.21 per disposable unit. That’s 20 million or so men which makes it a minimum of $364 million for purchasing the Shang Ring and $400 million for the Prepex. That’s an awful lot of money for some cheap looking plastic rings. One has to wonder about the process of tendering for these products and the ‘ethical’ discussions which took place to get these products through their standards and safety testing periods. On top of the cost of what the manufacturers of these plastic rings are demanding, there’s the cost of the human element required in the employment of doctors, nurses, theatre assistants etc to implement the procedures. Wouldn’t these health professionals best be used to treat serious health problems, instead of wasting their time and energy circumcising men unnecessarily?
The following is a direct quote from a research article entitled ‘Cost analysis of integrating the Prepex medical device into a voluntary medical male circumcision program in Zimbabwe’: “The routine surgery site had a four-bed capacity and employed one medical doctor, six nurses, three theatre assistants, and one receptionist. The doctors had overall responsibility for the surgical procedure, provided local anesthesia, removed the foreskin, stopped bleeding either using sutures or electrocauterization, and attended to post-operative complications and treatment of adverse events involving wound revisions or severe infections with abscesses.” Didn’t they just say that “there’s no blood, no stitches, no injection, very little or no pain”…and yet here’s an admission that a doctor had to administer anesthesia, stop bleeding and attend to post-operative complications and treatment of severe infections with abscesses…hhmm…these sound like quite serious complications and not what was being said in the manufacturer’s sales pitch.
The photos to the left show that there are indeed complications which do arise from the use of disposable Prepex devices. At the 20th International AIDS conference in 2014, a presentation was given on the ‘Unusual complications following adult male circumcision using the Prepex device’. The following is a direct quote of the ‘lessons learned’ from a study of PrePex for Male Medical Circumcision among 427 men age 18-49 in western Kenya :
“1) We observed 5 device displacements. Depending on when during the 7-day wear period these occur, they can be dire and require urgent intervention for surgical completion of Male Medical Circumcision (MMC).
2) We observed 3 cases of early sloughing of foreskin tissue. These may not imperil the man, but the appearance is disturbing.
3) We observed 2 cases of a long foreskin obstructing urine flow as it became necrotic.
4) We observed 9 cases of insufficient foreskin removal, caused either by invagination of foreskin tissue under the device, or by asymmetrical marking of the circumcision line prior to device placement. Insufficient foreskin removal is noted at Day 7 device removal, and may require surgical completion, depending on the amount of residual foreskin and client preference.”
Nobody seems to talk about the human factor ‘cost’ of these cases ‘gone wrong’ because that might just throw a ‘spanner in the works’ of their mass circumcision programme…and so what about the anguish, worry, physical and emotional pain caused to those individuals who find themselves with complications. What ‘compensation’ do these men receive, if any, for having their penises damaged and possibly become dysfunctional from these botched circumcisions? What will Bill Gates do about these men’s penises which were perfectly functional before having been damaged by these supposedly ‘researched’ and ‘safe’ devices? Maybe he should compensate them from his own personal fortune just as he’s lavishing it out on getting permanent infrastructures set in place for the future to implement universal male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa. What happens to those people whose lives get wrecked and ruined in this almighty, so called ‘altruistic’ undertaking? What will the WHO do about it?
Since 2007 the goal to circumcise more than 20 million men, 80 percent of 15-to-49-year-olds, in 16 African countries, by 2015 has been in place, but as already mentioned this goal has fallen behind schedule. There is also an agenda to mass circumcise infants and male children across those same countries as the 15-to-49-year-olds. The following is a direct quote from the introduction of the U.N’s publication WHO Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on Innovations in Male Circumcision: “By the end of 2013 a cumulative total of 5.8 million circumcisions, out of a target of 20 million, had been performed. Of those, 2.7 million were performed during 2013. As of end 2014 a provisional estimate of an additional 2.2 million male circumcisions had been performed, with a cumulative total of 8 million. Most countries have focused on circumcising males 15–49 years old as part of the catch-up programme. Several countries, however, have considered how to move to sustaining a high prevalence of male circumcision by offering circumcision to annual cohorts of adolescents and infants. This transition has implications for the TAG’s work, which in the future will turn towards the safety and acceptability of male circumcision innovations in adolescents.” Whatever way it’s looked at, the future of sub-Saharan African foreskins looks pretty grim…adults seem to be ‘reluctant’ (one wonders why?) to get their foreskins chopped off, so the plan seems to focus as usual on those who cannot give consent nor fully understand the implications of not having a foreskin…the babies, children and adolescents. If this weren’t being undertaken by the U.N, it would otherwise be called a ‘stitch up’…but because it IS the U.N carrying out this atrocity, it’s seen as improving the ‘quality of life’ of black Africans on the pretext of HIV prevention. This comes across as body fascism and a blatantly racist and sexist objective to be promoting because its message seems quite clear…’Black men and women shouldn’t enjoy the pleasures derived from their foreskins, because they don’t need them‘. How ‘humanitarian’ and ethical is it for the World Health Organization to use black Africans males as a human experiment for the circumcisionsts’ agenda?
Circumcision advocates have been trying to use the influence of women to try and see if they could coerce men to go get circumcised. For a while now, programs like PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief – United States) have been trying to sell circumcision as “beneficial to women,” rather far-fetched, as, even if the so-called “research” is correct, circumcision would only reduce HIV transmission from women to men. Actually, research shows that women are 50% more likely to acquire HIV from a circumcised partner, but this fact is ignored. In sub-Saharan Africa, women constitute 60% of people living with HIV, according to none other than the WHO itself. Circumcision promoters, however, still insist that male circumcision eventually benefits women “because less men being infected with HIV means less women will be infected.” To be quite sure that women will be interested in making sure their partner is circumcised, other dubious claims are sprinkled into the mix, such as a claimed reduction in HPV, which exclusively affects women, and other STDs. (Actually, studies are conflicting regarding the HPV claim. The claim falls apart in light of recent data, but circumcision proponents continue to adorn HIV propaganda with it none the less). But now, it seems, circumcision promoters are through with trying to use pseudo-scientific alibis to get women to influence the men, and are now turning to flat-out emasculation and harassment. (http://joseph4gi.blogspot.co.uk)
As of December 2014, over 9 million medical circumcisions had been performed in the priority sub-Saharan African countries. Recently, there has been a particularly rapid scaling up in Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision with 3 million circumcisions performed in 2014 alone. Despite this progress, it is unlikely that the ambitious target of 20.8 million circumcisions by 2016 will be reached. The new UNAIDS Fast-Track strategy demands that an additional 27 million men are circumcised by 2020 on 2014 levels.
The mass male medical circumcision plan for sub-Saharan Africa sends an unbelievably, contradictory and ironic mixed message because it is in direct opposition to the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) programme which the WHO currently promotes. On the one hand the U.N is promoting FGM as wrong, unacceptable and needs to be stopped whilst on the other it’s actively promoting Male Genital Mutilation (MGM). So the message is don’t interfere with female genitalia but go ahead and interfere with male genitalia. What utter nonsense…it would appear blatantly clear that the U.N seems to have been infiltrated by pro-circumcisionists who are now promoting the annihilation of the foreskin under the pretext of HIV prevention. Of course FGM is utterly wrong and unacceptable, but so is MGM. There seems to be a major flagrant disregard for male pain and suffering through genital torture by cutting off foreskins because it’s been seen for quite a long time that male genital mutilaltion is acceptable. This is just a reflection of the general ignorance and lack of understanding regarding the foreskin, which is considered as irrelevant and ‘unnecessary’ by many African cultures. This double standard of condemning FGM and yet condoning MGM blatantly shows the WHO to be morally ‘corrupt’ in this situation and is in direct contravention of Article 19 (Protection from all forms of violence) of the U.N’s ‘Convention on the Rights of the Child’.
With the pre-dominance of Islamic nations in Africa, whose males have to endure circumcision without choice, and those nations who circumcise their males for ‘cultural’ and ‘Rite of Passage’ reasons, between 65 to 75% of Africa is already circumcised. And now those African men who possess foreskins are being snared into this almighty ‘con’ and ‘scam’ to have them cut off, under the guise of HIV prevention. This flawed and deceptive strategy has become yet another ploy to prevent men and women from enjoying the foreskin. The use of condoms and Anti Retroviral Therapy ought to be the way to deal with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa…not circumcision. The current epidemic of African boys and men getting their foreskins hacked off can only succeed though if sub-Saharan people accept it. To say an emphatic no to this con and resist the circumcisionist agenda is the answer, thus exercising the will and the right to say “I’m keeping my foreskin”. So sub-Saharan African men keep your foreskins and don’t get circumcised, because once it’s cut off, you cannot get it back and your penis will never, ever experience the blissful sensations that the foreskin provides and it will never be the same again…and you will undoubtedly regret your decision. Resist Circumcision.
Everyone should be extremely wary and alarmed of this African ‘Mass Circumcision’ experiment…Is this a trial for an eventual mass global circumcision plan by circumcisionists? Is this a case of today Africa, tomorrow the rest of the world?
‘MAY YOUR FORE-SKIN BE WITH YOU’