top of page
Recent Posts
Featured Posts

How should intactivists respond if one of their own bombs a hospital?

July 8, 2018 A young man named Gregory Malchuk has assumed an informal role as strategy advisor to the intactivist movement. He records his musings on videos that he posts on YouTube for his followers. He's offered several proposals, such as suggesting that intactivists hold protests at churches, high schools, and little league baseball games.

Malchuk recently uploaded a video in which he admitted that anti-circumcision antics will likely elicit violence, even terrorist attacks. [1] You can view the 10-minute video here.

Malchuk titled his video “Timothy McCircumcision: CircumTerrorism's Inevitability.” [2] The reference is to Timothy McVeigh, an anti-government terrorist who planned and executed the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. On April 19, 1995, McVeigh detonated a truck loaded with 4,800 pounds (2,200 kilograms) of explosives at the site, killing 168 people, including 19 children.

Assuming that the intactivist movement will soon become mainstream, Malchuk envisions a batallion of angry, young men who - having blindly swallowed the intactivist propaganda - are convinced that they have been violated. Some will lash out in rage, leading to an intactivist mirroring McVeigh's act - by bombing a hospital.

(While Circumcision Choice is concerned that anti-circumcision rhetoric will lead to physical violence, we would expect smaller scale attacks. Intactivist leaders have fantasied about the torture of individual circumcision practitioners, and a few protests have led to bursts of rage. We find it particularly concerning that intactivists encourage followers to confront the medical or religious practitioner who circumcised them 20 to 30 years ago.)

Malchuk advised that they must be prepared with a message in response to a large-scale intacto-terrorist attack. This is a partial transcription of his recommendations, beginning at 4:30 on the video:

We sorta have to be prepared for the day that this happens. I think [the response of intactivists] should be, "Well, I told you so... You don’t get to rape and genitally mutilate an entire country and not expect blowback."

And you can kinda feign concern, too. You can kinda gaslight, and even concern troll to a degree. [insincere tone] "Oh gee. I don’t want anybody to get hurt. I don’t want any more doctors or nurses or mohels or imams to get hurt. We need to ban circumcision and get justice for the victims of genital mutilation so that we can avoid any further violence."

Kinda gaslight the gaslighters a little bit. Do a little bit of feigned concern. Again, I totally disavow violence... But God only knows what’s going to happen as this issue is hyped to many young men.

Notice what Malchuk didn't say. He didn't suggest that it might be wise for intactivists to look inward and assess how much of their own hysterical and inflammatory rhetoric contributes to the frenzied atmosphere that could result in terrorism and other intacto-violence. He didn't ponder what steps the movement should take to reduce the likelihood that a follower would go unhinged.

Presumably an intacto-terrorist would target a hospital that provides infant circumcision services. Yet Malchuk expressed no concern that such an attack would result in massive casualties, including the deaths of babies and children that intactivists say they want to protect. No his only concern was how the anti-circumcision movement should react to the incident.

Near the end of the video he mentioned a 2017 tragedy that took place in Portland, Oregon. An islamophobic white supremacist stabbed three men on a commuter train, killing two. Malchuk relayed that assailant Jeremy Christian had written violent and threatening posts about circumcision on his Facebook page. But Malchuk left out the fact that Christian had admitted that he is not circumcised.

Malchuk’s twisted priorities mirror those of New Zealand's Hugh Young, creator of the Circumstitions website. Horrified at the loss of innocent life, a compassionate person would express concern for the Portland killer's victims and their loved ones. But hardcore intactivists have other priorities.

Hugh Young’s only concern was how the Portland killer's actions would affect the intactivist movement. Young was upset that Christian’s past anti-circumcision rhetoric might discredit the movement. Rather than discuss how they could help the families of the victims, Young’s friends debated whether a particular response would help or hinder the movement.

Malchuk and Young expressed no concern about actual or potential victims - for one simple reason. For all their rhetoric about saving babies, the intactivist cult doesn’t actually care about infant welfare. They don’t care about children's welfare. They don’t care about the victims that intactivism creates. With a few exceptions, all they care about is a flap of loose skin.

And Gregory Malchuk doesn’t seem to be just some fringe character. He's attracted more than 600 subscribers to his YouTube channel and more than 1,400 followers to his Twitter account. His fans include James Loewen, a member of the Blood Stained Men leadership team. This is the newest face of the intactivist movement’s intellectual wing.

[1] Circumcision Choice has documented more than a dozen intactivst statements that show that intactivism causes mental suffering in its followers. We've also recorded a few of the thousands of statements that expose their venomous hatred of parents, doctors, nurses, and mohels.

[2] Malchuk coined the term circum-terrorism, apparently for acts committed against circumcision. However terrorism labels are applied based on a perpetrator's identity or agenda, not the target. For example, Islamic terrorism refers to violent acts committed to advance a perpetrator's vision of Islam. Animal rights terrorism would refer to acts committed by animal rights fanatics against individuals and facilities deemed to oppose the animal rights movement. So circum-terrorism would refer to a hypothetical act that a pro circumcision fanatic commits against perceived circumcision opponents. An act of terror committed by an anti-circumcision fanatic against circumcision practitioners and proponents to advance an intactivist agenda is rightly labeled intacto-terrorism.

Follow Us
Search By Tags
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page