why are the male royals circumcised?

[believenothing]

The British royal family probably still believes they are Israelites. I've never read any convincing 'debunking' evidence that Queen Victoria didn't believe in British Israelism. I don't think British Israelites invented it as a myth to support their movement. Kings used to believe they were divinely descended. Even in recent history in pre-WWII Japan. How do we know they don't still believe that?

There is Sephardic Jewish blood pumping through the veins of the Windsors too.

Circumcision has never been common in Europe. It was completely an alien practice attributed to Jews and "Turks" and there is hardly any evidence that Jews in Europe practiced circumcision until after the 13th century. It was and still is considered genital mutilation. During the 18th century there was even fear that emancipated Jews might spread the custom into a universal one. In North America, that's exactly what has happened.

The 'medical' explanation developed after the practice started being use. Originally circumcision was used to curb masturbation, at least in the US. It didn't come into common use until after the 1950s (In North America and Oceania). US soldiers were circumcised for 'hygiene reasons' and that rationale spread to infants. One of the accusations that followed Jews around in Europe was the blood libel accusation which is believed to be in part because of their circumcision custom. What happened around the mid-20th century? Lots of Jewish immigration into North America and elsewhere. No blood libel accusation.

It was Jewish doctors and their buddies who were pushing this thing out there using junk science in the process. There is no rationale for cutting off a part of the penis. Why not cut off other parts of your body for hygiene reasons? The people trying to defend this are Muslims, Jews, South Koreans, Australians, Americans, Canadians, and Africans. Several Africans and Muslims do it to females too. The defenders are biased. American males defending it do so because to have an intact penis is not as common. Mutilated junk is 'normal' to them and intact isn't even though historically and globally it is. I don't defend it and mine is mutilated, sliced before I could even make a choice.

Traditional ritual procedures, at last in the case of Jews, involve a Rabbi sucking the blood from the foreskin. Infants have contracted diseases and died from it.

[believenothing]

Originally Posted by inversedivinity

You can't compare the two not just for physical reasons obviously but also they both evolve from entirely different philosophical reasons......The woman circumcision is quite frankly fucking sick...They seek to deaden a woman's joy during sex...Complete control.

While on a man you might even gain a inch of length, it is supposedly cleaner and in no way impairs his sexual ability.

They're both sick. It does impair sexual ability, don't read the junk research, google accounts of people who have had it performed as adults:

http://davidlouis77.wordpress.com/20...ce-2-years-on/

It’s a terrible thing to do to yourself! In my case, the dermis has thickened to such a degree that I feel very little in the end of my penis. Sexually, I compare it to worse than any sex I can remember with a condom on when uncircumcised. That is, I would prefer to have had sex with an natural penis with a condom on then with the circumcised penis I have now.

How would we know if we had no choice in the matter? If we've been missing it since infancy, we don't know what we're missing.

[loveisthelaw]

Originally Posted by night_gaunt

I'm gonna go with christianity.
I see more ads for christian churches and listen to more people trying to convert than all the jewish people i've met combined.

it would not be about conversions though since that is not what Judaism is about, there is no real thing as a ministry for bringing people to the "religion of god" as in the Jewish law, the Jews are the people of god and they are Jew by blood. it would be only about the blood, which is not within the gentiles. it's certainly not about conversion numbers.

isn't that accurate?

[markas32]

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Really? You must have some strange facts at your disposal

Westminster Cathedral as opposed to Westminster Abbey is Catholic. The Abbey and St Pauls are both C of E.

My point is she is defender of the judaism faith nad as such queen of england church of england, is that not then judaism, thanks for your input its incredibly enlightening.

Are the saints themsleves not of catholic origins, isnt the reason its c of e because of henry tudors wanting to be divorced, do they not therefore practise hypocrasy, Your turn>>>>>

[night_gaunt]

Originally Posted by loveisthelaw

it would not be about conversions though since that is not what Judaism is about, there is no real thing as a ministry for bringing people to the "religion of god" as in the Jewish law, the Jews are the people of god and they are Jew by blood. it would be only about the blood, which is not within the gentiles. it's certainly not about conversion numbers.

isn't that accurate?

I wasn't comparing christian conversions with jewish conversions, i meant that there is much more christian activity than jewish. I can't possibly understand how jews can be more abundant than the countless denominations of christianity.
Next wednesday my crazy baptist relatives are going to a chick-fil-a restaurant to celebrate the manager being a homophobe.

[markas32]

Originally Posted by rapunzel

Really? You must have some strange facts at your disposal

Westminster Cathedral as opposed to Westminster Abbey is Catholic. The Abbey and St Pauls are both C of E.

Christopher Wren The designer patronage to the kings James II Roman Catholicism. So the intent even if adopted later was to serve a roman catholic copy of st peters in Rome, it is therefore Catholic in origin

James II of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James II of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
James II of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles II converted to Roman Catholiscism on his death bed.

Charles II of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles II of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Charles II of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[zhiba]

Moderator Note

I have removed some off topic and diversary posts, as well as insults. This thread is not about Kate Middleton, and nor is it an arena for people to insult others who they do not agree with - take ego's to the chat room, and other discussions to other threads.

Please post in a topical manner.

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by markas32

My point is she is defender of the judaism faith nad as such queen of england church of england, is that not then judaism, thanks for your input its incredibly enlightening.

You have not produced any evidence that she is the defender of the the Jewish faith and I do not understand why you think she is. Why do you think that the C of E is Judaism?

Are the saints themsleves not of catholic origins, isnt the reason its c of e because of henry tudors wanting to be divorced, do they not therefore practise hypocrasy, Your turn>>>>>

Of course the saints have catholic origins since Protestants do not have a canonisation system so cannot produce new saints. The saints revered by the Protestant churches are usually the Apostles and some of the earlier, influential church fathers, such as Augustine.

Henry VIII split from Rome because he could not get his own way about the divorce; not that divorce was forbidden by the Church, since a number of European monarchs were divorced in the Middle Ages, but Queen Katharine’s nephew, the Emperor, held the Pope hostage and would not allow him to grant the divorce. It was nothing to do with ‘upholding the sanctity of marriage’, as modern Catholicism claims but was down to the politics of the time.

When Henry founded the Church of England it was still Catholic as Henry was a Catholic but the new C of E acknowledged Henry as the Head and not the Pope. It was later monarchs who broke away completely and made it Protestant.

I don’t see what hypocrisy has to do with anything. The queen is Head of the Cof E which is a Protestant church.

[rapunzel]

Originally Posted by markas32

Christopher Wren The designer patronage to the kings James II Roman Catholicism. So the intent even if adopted later was to serve a roman catholic copy of st peters in Rome, it is therefore Catholic in origin
James II of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles II converted to Roman Catholiscism on his death bed.Charles II of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Certainly St Peters was the model for part of St Paul's but so what? Just because a person admires the architecture of a building doesn't mean that person shares the views of the person who built it or of those who now use it. Personally I have always felt that generally Catholic churches have more atmosphere than most Protestant churches. That doesn't make me a Catholic.

I am not even a Christian but I love medieval churches and abbeys and I love religious music, None of that has anything to do with religion.

[positive_forward]

Catholics got banned from taking the throne over 300 years ago - the ban still stands. Means there can never be a Catholic monarchy unless the law is repealed.

[rhydra]

I have read that the Royal family are Satanists, lizards, that they are Satanists, that they are Catholics, even that they are Muslims (especially Charles, "Defender Of The Faiths") it is no surprise that they are also Jewish. Jews are the big bad bogeyman.

[positive_forward]

Originally Posted by rhydra

I have read that the Royal family are Satanists, lizards, that they are Satanists, that they are Catholics, even that they are Muslims (especially Charles, "Defender Of The Faiths") it is no surprise that they are also Jewish. Jews are the big bad bogeyman.

The Lizard satanist claims obviously cannot be verified. Catholics? No, but some of their mixed ancestry may have been.

According to Burke's peerage (who trace Royal lineage/ancestry

'United Press International
October 10, 1986
MOSLEMS IN BUCKINGHAM PALACE


Mixed in with Queen Elizabeth's blue blood is the blood of the Moslem prophet Mohammed, according to Burke's Peerage, the geneological guide to royalty. The relation came out when Harold B. Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's, wrote Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ask for better security for the royal family. ''The royal family's direct descent from the prophet Mohammed cannot be relied upon to protect the royal family forever from Moslem terrorists,'' he said. Probably realizing the connection would be a surprise to many, he added, ''It is little known by the British people that the blood of Mohammed flows in the veins of the queen. However, all Moslem religious leaders are proud of this fact.''

Brooks-Baker said the British royal family is descended from Mohammed through the Arab kings of Seville, who once ruled Spain. By marriage, their blood passed to the European kings of Portugal and Castille, and through them to England's 15th century King Edward IV. '
++++++++++++++++++++++++

You realise what this means?

Diana's children the future kings will also be of Muhammad's genes passed on via Charlie (PBUH)

Charles or his offspring are legitimate Caliphs (so could rule Muslims if the caliphate is restored)

See the previous Caliphs of the Caliphate (leaders of Islam were/are also related to Muhammad! or his family bar one) throughout history they had to be to become rightful rulers...if you spent a lot of time sifting through present Islamic leaders - some will also be likely related to Muhammad.

So Charlie will have Muhammad's blood, Diana was seeing two other Muslims so all three chances of her having kids MEANT that any future king maybe of Muhammad's bloodlines if the men she was seeing were bloodline) Unless major Hewitt's sperm swam the gauntlet and beat the Muhammadan genes to the womb.

Charlie's off spring will be rightful Caliphs.
Maybe another reason why the UK is being flooded with Islamic immigrants from all over the planet. Many would accept Charles and his offspring as the new Caliph/Kalif.

Imagine if Charles or the future King converts to Islam then we'll know for sure. I suppose he'd have to convert to become a legitimate Caliph, more chance of a blue moon.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by positive_forward

The Lizard satanist claims obviously cannot be verified. Catholics? No, but some of their mixed ancestry may have been.

According to Burke's peerage (who trace Royal lineage/ancestry

'United Press International
October 10, 1986
MOSLEMS IN BUCKINGHAM PALACE


Mixed in with Queen Elizabeth's blue blood is the blood of the Moslem prophet Mohammed, according to Burke's Peerage, the geneological guide to royalty. The relation came out when Harold B. Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's, wrote Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ask for better security for the royal family. ''The royal family's direct descent from the prophet Mohammed cannot be relied upon to protect the royal family forever from Moslem terrorists,'' he said. Probably realizing the connection would be a surprise to many, he added, ''It is little known by the British people that the blood of Mohammed flows in the veins of the queen. However, all Moslem religious leaders are proud of this fact.''

Brooks-Baker said the British royal family is descended from Mohammed through the Arab kings of Seville, who once ruled Spain. By marriage, their blood passed to the European kings of Portugal and Castille, and through them to England's 15th century King Edward IV. '
++++++++++++++++++++++++

You realise what this means?

Diana's children the future kings will also be of Muhammad's genes passed on via Charlie (PBUH)

Charles or his offspring are legitimate Caliphs (so could rule Muslims if the caliphate is restored)

See the previous Caliphs of the Caliphate (leaders of Islam were/are also related to Muhammad! or his family bar one) throughout history they had to be to become rightful rulers...if you spent a lot of time sifting through present Islamic leaders - some will also be likely related to Muhammad.

So Charlie will have Muhammad's blood, Diana was seeing two other Muslims so all three chances of her having kids MEANT that any future king maybe of Muhammad's bloodlines if the men she was seeing were bloodline) Unless major Hewitt's sperm swam the gauntlet and beat the Muhammadan genes to the womb.

Charlie's off spring will be rightful Caliphs.
Maybe another reason why the UK is being flooded with Islamic immigrants from all over the planet. Many would accept Charles and his offspring as the new Caliph/Kalif.

Imagine if Charles or the future King converts to Islam then we'll know for sure. I suppose he'd have to convert to become a legitimate Caliph, more chance of a blue moon.

this claim is a lie.
i read it a couple of years ago on another forum.
burke's peerage, available in any library, makes no such claim.
this is pure fabrication and anyone seeking the truth can go to their local library and see.
burke's gives a very detailed lineage for the royals and there is no arab connection.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by rhydra

I have read that the Royal family are Satanists, lizards, that they are Satanists, that they are Catholics, even that they are Muslims (especially Charles, "Defender Of The Faiths") it is no surprise that they are also Jewish. Jews are the big bad bogeyman.

just so we have this clear....
the royal family are jewish/muslim/catholic/CofE reptillian overlords.
have i missed any adjectives?

[sniper13x]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

just so we have this clear....
the royal family are jewish/muslim/catholic/CofE reptillian overlords.
have i missed any adjectives?

You forgot Jesuits duh

[believenothing]

They're merchant class puppets set up by wealthy Marranos (also a merchant class of historically acknowledged crypto Jews). Whether the kings and queens are/were Marranos has never been proven. It has been proven that family members, usually males, married Disraeli and Rothschilds daughters. That's the source of speculation regarding the strange relationship with elite (but not 'peasant') Jews.

This is the exact same thing that wealthy and elite Jews did in Andalusia and within the Ottoman Empire. When the Moors were expelled, Constantinople welcomed them with open arms. Muslims and Jews. This part of history goes against recent Zionist historical revisionism actually because Jews and Muslims got along just fine.

There is an alternative to the "Jews control the world" and "banksters control the world" which is "the British Empire controls the world"

Because the banks were set up by wealthy Jews who wine and dine among British royalty and perform circumcisions for them, and because the Bank of London is said to control all the fractional reserve central banks by proxy, and also because the royal family is proxy to all this, maybe that's true. Maybe the British Empire is still in control of everything from behind the scenes. Or who knows? The world is a crazy place.

[sniper13x]

Originally Posted by believenothing

They're merchant class puppets set up by wealthy Marranos (also a merchant class of historically acknowledged crypto Jews). Whether the kings and queens are/were Marranos has never been proven. It has been proven that family members, usually males, married Disraeli and Rothschilds daughters. That's the source of speculation regarding the strange relationship with elite (but not 'peasant') Jews.

This is the exact same thing that wealthy and elite Jews did in Andalusia and within the Ottoman Empire. When the Moors were expelled, Constantinople welcomed them with open arms. Muslims and Jews. This part of history goes against recent Zionist historical revisionism actually because Jews and Muslims got along just fine.

There is an alternative to the "Jews control the world" and "banksters control the world" which is "the British Empire controls the world"

Because the banks were set up by wealthy Jews who wine and dine among British royalty and perform circumcisions for them, and because the Bank of London is said to control all the fractional reserve central banks by proxy, and also because the royal family is proxy to all this, maybe that's true. Maybe the British Empire is still in control of everything from behind the scenes. Or who knows? The world is a crazy place.

Did you ever get a chance to look at the link on my sig? We are all still living under the control of Brittania.

[zhiba]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

dude...most women prefer a clipped penis.

Have you asked 'most women' if this assumption is actually the case?

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by zhiba

Have you asked 'most women' if this assumption is actually the case?

i have actually had this discussion with many women over the years.
on this side of the water at least, clipped penises are prefered, by both sexes.

[sniper13x]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

i have actually had this discussion with many women over the years.
on this side of the water at least, clipped penises are prefered, by both sexes.

Keep that myth going, I benefit from it. I've gotten 4 women in my life so far through word of mouth. The intrigue of being with an uncut man in the U.S. is great, and the demand far outweighs the supply.