Archives for October 2018

I’m releasing over TWENTY HOURS of bonus features for my documentary American Circumcision.

You can get them here.

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/circmoviebonus

These bonus features are a masterclass in the circumcision debate.

While the film is designed to be an introduction to the issue, and take people who know nothing about the issue from ignorant to expert in under two hours, the bonus features are designed for people who already know something (because they’ve seen the film). While you should watch the documentary first, these bonus features provide a college level course in the modern circumcision debate.

Why are you releasing so many bonus features?

Because they’re fascinating.

In editing the film, I removed everything that didn’t address the central dramatic question “should Americans continue to circumcise their children?” This meant a lot of interesting material didn’t make the edit, because it just wasn’t addressing this question. Scenes about masculinity, the symbolism of circumcision, the history of activist movements, the larger HIV issue, the psychology of everyone involved in this debate…

There is a lot of interesting material in these bonus features. Maybe even things I missed. I’ve held off on releasing them till now, because I wanted to give people time to absorb the film first (again, if you haven’t seen the film, why not??? Do that first.) Now however, I feel that it’s time to let people see just how deep this issue is, and how much more there is to learn about it.

These bonus features also provide a window into my editing process. If anyone thinks I edited an interview subject unfairly… well, let them watch the whole interview and see for themselves. I made a choice in editing to focus on the best arguments of each side. I am confident enough in my own skill as a filmmaker to show people my raw material, because I believe it will reveal that I have been fair to each interview subject, and that there were even some “cheap shots” I could have taken that I didn’t.

What can we expect in these bonus features?

Extended interviews with most major subjects in the film, deleted scenes on topics we didn’t explore, and entirely new material and interview subjects who didn’t even appear in the main film.

Here are a few favorites I suspect you’ll like:

• At the start of his interview, John Geishker talks about how he got interested in Intactivism. This story is so fascinating and compelling, I almost made it a one minute deleted scene on it’s own and included a minute and a half of him talking unbroken in the film.
• In his extended interview, Brian Morris talks about his childhood and early life motivations for speaking out on controversial issues in his two hour interview.
• Fuambai Sia Ahmadu talks about the symbolism of circumcision in a deleted scene. When people have asked me what I most wanted to include and couldn’t, this is it.
• Several entire interview subjects are only available here, including pro-circumcision HIV expert Daniel Halperin (who meets the Intactivists on camera), legendary mens rights author Warren Farrell, and Patricia Robinett, a woman who was circumcised by the American medical system.
• Many people have asked us about the mother who appears in the film, talking about a circumcision botch. We shot a follow-up interview with her, talking about how she is doing today.

But to be honest – it’s all interesting. Your favorite moments may not even be on this list. My hope is that in the coming months, people will go through it and find things that even I didn’t see. When you do, please share your response and thoughts on social media.

• Get the documentary American Circumcision here: https://circumcisionmovie.com/
• Get the bonus features here: https://vimeo.com/ondemand/circmoviebonus/

P.S. Sign up for my email list before Halloween to get a code for %15 off all bonus features.

Since launching a film that raised over a combined 100k on crowdfunding, hit #1 in it’s category on Amazon, and sold out of physical copies, I’ve had people ask me advice on how to do the same. I’ve even started consulting on social media marketing and crowdfunding projects for others.

While I could write a lot on this subject, there is one simple principle I’d like to share with you here:

Social media marketing is one idea driven deep, with variations on that theme repeated through daily content.

Let’s break that down.

The One Idea of American Circumcision

Attention on social media is incredibly fickle. People scroll through their feed fast, and forget most of the content that they watch. In order to be memorable or drive action, you have to have a big clear “one idea” in each piece of content. Too much nuance or complexity will be lost on someone scrolling on a device the size of your palm.

If you’re doing a social media marketing campaign, you need one idea at the core of your content.

For my film American Circumcision, the one idea that runs through everything that we do is that circumcision is a “big issue.” Like gun control, the environment, immigration, or civil rights, circumcision is a big issue that every American is expected to know about. We don’t take a side on this issue, but we do present is as important.

This “big issue” frame runs through all the content we create.

When you think about “big issue” documentaries, what images come to mind? Protestors, the capitol building, Washington D.C., experts, scandal, everyday Americans vs. powerful organizations. Remove the words on the signs in our poster, and put the head of the capitol building back on and our poster looks like any other “big issue” documentary. These big issue images are combined with images unique to circumcision that also trigger primal emotions – babies, the circumstraint, the tools used – in other words, children in danger.

Other Possible One Ideas For the Same Topic

While it seems obvious in retrospect, this did not have to be the frame we took in our documentary. The frame “look at this quirky weird fringe” could have been used to explore the same material. Indeed, many great documentaries have been made about the weird and fringe. In this frame, you’d use a lot different images – perhaps a more explicit sexuality, hand-drawn neon fonts, or using loud rock and electronic music instead of traditional film score. However, I believe an issue that affects the majority of Americans cannot be considered fringe, and it would be wrong to frame it this way.

Likewise, you could take a comedic frame. This is the frame Hollywood films and mainstream media often take on the issue. In this case, there might be a lot of images of vegetables being sliced, or thinly veiled dick jokes. But from the big issue frame – would you make a comedic movie about other big issues, like gun violence? About little girls having parts of their bodies removed? We took the frame you’d take with any other hotly debated public issue.

[Side-note: I was tempted to make a parody poster mocking this frame at one point, that had a banana with the tip removed, for a film titled “Hollywood Circumcision Film” with the tagline “A cutting edge issue” and the credit “Narrated by Adam Sandler.” While this is an amusing joke, please no one ever make this film.]

This isn’t to say other frames aren’t possible. Whatever frame you choose, you’ll have to commit to it and be consistent. If I’d done one really comedic or fringe trailer with no “big issue” weight, it might have gotten a lot of likes and shares, but it would have diluted the brand and message. People would have been confused by what the film was about. (Side-note: This is also why I don’t mix issues on our social media.)

It’s also why early on some activist groups were not clear on the narrative of the film. For people who work on the issue of circumcision, it is obvious that this is a “big issue.” Since this is the air they breath and the water they swim in, it didn’t stand out to them as an artistic choice, but as stating the obvious, which anyone familiar with this issue would know. However, most audiences aren’t deeply knowledgable about this issue, and to them it feels very different.

While there have been other attempts to make a documentary on this topic, I believe none have achieved our level of success in part because they lack a clear “one idea” that drives their narrative, or selected a “one idea” that doesn’t have the same appeal.

The Variations On Your One Idea

Note that this one idea – that circumcision is a “big issue” – opens up many variations for your campaign. Circumcision is a big issue… for men. Circumcision is a big issue.. for parents. Circumcision is a big issue… because it impacts our sexuality. Circumcision is a big issue… because it’s backed by powerful medical groups. Circumcision is a big issue… because it can cause infants pain. And so-on.

While it may seem like building your campaign around one idea limits the content you can do, it actually opens up many more possibilities. I’ll bet given this understanding of our “one idea” you could probably generate another dozen angles for content for us. If your branding is consistent, others will begin to talk about you the same way. Not only have many allied groups have also framed the film as big, but even opposition groups, bad reviews, and hit pieces refer to the film as “big budget” and mention it’s scope.

If you look at the memes we’ve created, they all follow this same idea. They might offer differing perspectives on different parts of the issue, but they all frame is as a “big issue.”

One Idea In Other Social Media Campaigns

If you look at the social media content of successful activist groups, they also follow the “one idea” rule.

Let’s look at two activist groups who are also working on the issue of circumcision who both do social media very effectively, but have very different approaches to this issue – Bloodstained Men and Your Whole Baby.

The one idea of Bloodstained Men is that circumcision is a great evil we must end. This theme has many variations – highlighting someone who is succumbing to that evil like a coward, or praising someone for standing up to it courageously. Their language and images are highly dramatic. They describe their protests as a response to a “crisis” and use the image of a bloodstain, but their message is so consistent that even when outside media cover them, they describe them as on a “crusade” or use church choir music to score their events.

The one idea of Your Whole Baby is that you should take home and love your whole baby. It’s a message of holistic parenting (whole-istic?). Their method is to provide gentle education and information – emphasis on the word gentle. Their websites and groups are full aspirational of images of happy babies and loving parents. Even when they’ve expanded to focus on young people with Your Whole Body they keep a similar gentle focus. Many people join their groups just because they know how supportive the organizers are of new parents.

I highlight these two organizations because although they are both on a mission to end circumcision, their branding and messaging could not be more different, yet they have both managed to draw an audience and build a following.

(Also – the one idea of circumcision as a “big issue” appeals to the messaging of both groups. Part of the reason I selected that as a idea is because it overlaps with so many different organizations and groups that might be interested in the film, and is an effective hook for any media, show, or podcast interested in covering the topic.)

One Idea On Other Issues

Every successful campaign can be boiled down to a one idea.

Political campaigns: Trump – “Make America Great Again.” Obama campaign – “Hope & Change.” Movements: Pro-Choice: “My Body, my choice.” #BlackLivesMatter – Literally, their one idea is their name – “Black lives matter.” Nike – “Just Do It.” Apple – “Think Differently.” Even religions: Christianity – “Jesus saves.”

When you look at failing groups, it’s often hard to find their one idea, or their one idea isn’t that compelling.

Social Media Applications

Once you have your one idea, it’s time for the second part of this mantra – driven deep.

There are two ways to drive something deep – repetition or to deep emotional impact.

Only one of these is in your control.

Everyone wants deep emotional impact. They are looking for the one piece of content that will so deeply move someone that they are still thinking about it days later. People have told me our trailers had that impact on them (especially the first one). However, you cannot predict what everyone’s emotional reaction will be. Yes, try to make your content as good as possible, but even good content is quickly forgotten without follow-up.

The key to social media is repetition. The first time someone sees your message, it probably won’t stick. Yet if you see the same message over and over again, repeated through many different themes, it might sink in.

While there are ways to improve your messaging and make it even more memorable, even a bad message or dumb idea can become sticky if repeated enough. “Gang weed memes” are intentionally hilariously bad, yet I’ve seen enough to know that when I see impact font over an image of the joker it’s about to be one of them. This is the worst content possible, but it’s won an audience through sheer repetition, and being so bad as to be memorable.

(Side-note: If you haven’t seen these memes, do yourself a favor and keep it that way. I use this as an example because it shows you can have a “one idea” that is almost intentionally bad, but if you max-out repetition enough, you’ll still find an audience.)

Your one idea has to be consistently repeated on the platforms that matter where the people you want to reach are paying attention. Right now, that is Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube, plus a few up-and-coming apps. By the time you’re reading this, it could be different, but the principle remains.

That’s it. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Many activist groups worry their messaging is bad and work hard to find the “one idea” that will hook people, but this is only half the battle. How often you repeat a message is just important as the message itself. The best message spoken once to an audience of ten people is less likely to change the world, than if spoken everyday to an ever-increasing audience.

Even this blog post is a “one idea” piece of content. If you read it again, it is all variations on the idea that you need one idea for your campaign driven deep.

What is the one idea of your product, campaign, or organization? How deep are you driving it?

Note: For personal branding, this is slightly different – as a person is likely to have multiple facets and ideas. You’ll notice, I post about multiple topics on my blog. But that’s another story for future blog post. If you want to find out more about this, subscribe here.

---

If you’d like me to help consult on your project, crowdfunding campaign, or organization, you can contact me here.

Imagine for a minute that you are a public figure – a politician, an entertainer, an entrepreneur, or maybe just someone with a large social media following – and someone accuses you of being a purple elephant.

Now of course you think – this accusation is absurd! I’m not a purple elephant. I’m clearly a human being. But your accuser has a platform of their own. Maybe they’re a provocateur or yellow journalist. Maybe they’re just against your work and want to make you look bad. Or maybe they’ve even done good work in their own right, but feel threatened by your success, because they feel it might take attention away from them. Either way, they have followers, and the accusation spreads, because they continue to push it.

So you do the sensible thing, and go on TV or social media and say “I’m not a purple elephant.” (Obviously.)

When I say “I’m not a purple elephant” what do you think of? What image appears in your brain?

That’s right – a purple elephant.

So the moment you deny the accusation it spreads further. Newspapers run headlines “Public figure says he is not a purple elephant” with a picture of you (tinted purple) side-by-side with a picture of purple elephant with the same expression. Opposition media runs with it, doubling down on the accusation that you are a purple elephant. Even neutral newspapers report on the “controversy” around “whether or not” you are a purple elephant. They have to be fair of course. They don’t want to be seen taking sides on the purple elephant controversy, or worse, be seen as defending those purple elephant people.

Now people are looking for confirming evidence no matter how absurd, because that is how the human mind works. We seek to justify the opinion we already hold, not question our beliefs. A tape surfaces where you are taking a drink of water when a friend tells a joke. You laugh so hard, the water shoots our your nose, which makes everyone laugh even harder. In any other context, this would be endearing, even humanizing, but your enemies run with it in a different direction. “See? He shot water out his trunk! You know who shoots water out their trunk? Purple elephants, that’s who!” You protest that human can too, and they just shake their heads and laugh. “When was the last time you saw a HUMAN shoot water our their TRUNK?!”

You start offering contradictory evidence. “I’m clearly a human. I have two legs, and two arms.” “Elephants have four limbs too!” “I stand and walk upright.” “Sure – to hide the fact you’re an elephant.” “I’m talking and communicating!” But it’s no use. Every news article written about you from here on out will feel the need to mention that you were once accused of being a purple elephant in the interest of being “balanced.”

How To Fight A False Accusation

I have chosen the example of being accused of being a “purple elephant” because it is the most absurd accusation one could make, and reminds us of the classic trap “don’t think about purple elephants.” A purple elephant is a big image that sticks in your mind, but the analogy could work with any other “big image” accusation one could make about a public figure. You know the ones I’m talking about. So the question is – how do you fight a “big image” accusation if denying it only makes people think about it further?

The answer is with a bigger image.

Let’s say when the purple elephant accusation arises, you start aggressively talking about how you are a bird. “Behold my impressive wing-span!” you say stretching out your arms. “Join me and together we will soar into victory!” you tell your supporters. People start arriving to your events in bird costumes. When you make a good point, they start cheering with bird calls. Massive eagle statues flank you on-stage. When you walk out on stage, you release doves. You make sure all your promotional photographs show you with your arms outstretched, the wind in your face, and the sky behind you.

Your enemies become confused. “He is clearly not a bird!” (Obviously.) They point out the obvious evidence. You walk everywhere. You don’t fly. You don’t have a beak. Your feet don’t look anything like bird feet. But now your supporters are looking for confirming evidence no matter how absurd, because that is how the human mind works. We seek to justify the opinion we already hold, not question our beliefs. A video surfaces of you hang-gliding (probably planted by your publicist). “See!” your supporters say. “Do humans FLY?!” Your enemies protest that humans can fly if using a mechanical device, but your supporters just shake their heads, laugh, and spam bird memes.

Now, every article about you calls you a “bird” in quotes – they want to be neutral, but since everyone on your side calls you a bird they can’t not mention it – and most reporters will pull bird-like photos of you from your website. Even if you are not a bird, your organization has a constant stream of bird imagery, fans dressed as birds, bird calls at events, references to soaring and taking flight. You might not actually be a bird, but as far as the media is concerned you are.

The bird image might become so prolific that your enemies make mocking memes suggesting that you are a turkey or penguin, incapable of flight. In doing so they reinforce the idea that you are in fact a bird (even if a very fat one incapable of flight). Others accuses you of being a vulture, swooping down on the carcass of society. These aren’t great images, but they’re in the right direction. Now the debate is over what kind of bird you are, and we all know birds are not purple elephants.

Big Image Conflict

Modern media is a war of images, all of them false. Each side tries to create the most positive images for themselves and the worst images for their opposition. “Big image” accusations are more effective than reasoned arguments, and “big image” propaganda is more effective than the often dull human truth. You might think you are immune to such propaganda, but reading this did you ever imagine a man as a purple elephant or soaring bird? Does the association in your mind change your view of the person in question, even if you know they couldn’t actually be a purple elephant or soaring bird?

P.S. You might want to subscribe to my email list, because I am a soaring bird, and together we will fly to victory. Everyone who doesn’t is one of those purple elephant people. Subscribe here.

One of the first festivals my documentary American Circumcision screened at was the Social Justice Film Festival in Seattle, where we won an award. I can now present the full Q&A from that screening:

See the film yourself here: https://circumcisionmovie.com/

---

You might want to see the film, because this is an important social justice issue.

There is an important principle that what got you there, won’t get you to the next level. Right now, the Intactivist movement has hit a new level. In order to progress, it will have to develop new tactics, new strategies, and a new mindset.

Having followed the movement for several years for my documentary American Circumcision, and traveled across the country meeting activists, I think I can speak to the movements current mindset, and offer some advice on where activists could go next, based on what I’ve learned on my journey with the film.

At present, Intactivists have a “one-time” solution mindset. When a problem arises, Intactivists solve it. Someone is having their baby circumcised? Intactivists jump in the comments and start educating them. Someone is pushing circumcision? Intactivists make noise and start protesting it.

However, if the problem arises a second time, it requires just as much work to solve second time as it did the first. Activists have only found a “one-time” solution. Although activists have made incredible progress with this model, it is unsustainable. You can never expend enough energy to reach every person in the world if each new person costs you more energy.

You need ways to scale, and in order to scale, you have to gain energy each time you solve the problem, not expend it. You need systems that solve the problem for you, so you can focus on solving new problems. You need institutions.

Institution Building Mindset

An institution is any system which gains energy the more it is used.

Institution building mindset involves asking three questions at every problem that arises:

1. How can I solve this problem?
2. How can I receive energy back for solving this problem?
3. How can I create a system whereby if this problem arises again, I run the same loop?

Bonus question: How can other institutions expand their power by collaborating with me, and vice-versa?

If all three of these questions can be answered, you have an institution. If not, you are just treading water.

Let’s look at the institution I built – the film American Circumcision.

The problem: People are not educated about the issue of circumcision. Right now, understanding this issue fully requires pulling from vast amounts of academic literature, books, and videos that the average person does not have time for.

1. How can I solve this problem? I can make a feature-length documentary that compresses thirty years of research and activism into one movie, and takes someone from ignorant to expert in under two hours.
2. How can I receive energy for solving this problem? I can sell the film, crowdfund it, get paid, and further my goal to become a filmmaker by creating this film. I can also use the film to build an audience and following on social media.
3. How can I create a system whereby if this problem arises again, I run the same loop? In the future, if someone wants to know about this issue, I tell them “watch my movie.” The presence of a big documentary lends greater social proof than some random person replying to them.
4. Bonus question: How can other institutions expand their power by collaborating with me, and vise-versa? A feature length documentary lends authority to each group or expert working on the issue. It also allows a distributor institution to make money by spreading the film, and platforms like Amazon, iTunes, Vimeo, etc. to make money by selling the film. Those institutions can expand their wealth by selling the film, and in-turn expand my audience and make money for me as well.

Do you see how this is more effective in the long run than if I just tried to solve the problem again and again each time?

Right now the Intactivist movement only solve the first question (“How can I solve this problem?”). If the problem is that people don’t know about circumcision, they jump in the comments and start educating them. However, the next time a parent is ignorant, they are back at square one.

• You are not building an institution if after solving the problem you are back at square one again. 
• You are building an institution if after solving the problem you’re in a better position than you were before.

After making, American Circumcision I am in a better position than I was before. I have an audience if I want to do another film, or expand into a book project or product. I have a relationship with a distributor for my next film. I have new skills that I can apply to future projects.

• If you are building an institution, each time the problem arises, you gain energy.
• If you aren’t building an institution, each time the problem arises, you lose energy.

Part of the reason many activists experience “burnout” is that they spend more energy than they take in. If every time activists have to educate someone they have expend energy and constantly post, and they never take any energy in, then they eventually spend more than they have and go into energetic debt, or burnout.

Right now, most activists fuel their activism through work outside their activism. But what if your activism could fuel your activism?

When the “people don’t understand circumcision” problem arises, people recommend my film and I gain energy. Every time this issue hits the news, or people are talking about it, I gain energy. I have converted the energy of this problem into energy for myself. If you do this enough, you can eventually become big enough to feed on opposition groups. If an opposition group was to attack me in a big way, do you think I’d gain or lose energy?

Speaking which, let’s look at some opposition institutions – the ADL and AAP.

The Opposition Builds Institutions

The ADL – Anti-Defamation League – exists solve the problem of anti-semitism and racism. During an attempt to ban circumcision in San Francisco, the ADL framed Intactivists as “anti-semitic” was able to mobilize their considerable resources to get a court to remove the bill from the ballot and pass legislation protecting circumcision in the state of California.

If a corporation or social media network is accused of racism or anti-semitism, then they have to pay the ADL for sensitivity training. When Starbucks was accused of discriminating against two black men in their store, they paid the ADL thousands of dollars for anti-bias training that has been shown to have no scientific basis. This solved their PR problem while expanding the wealth and institutional power of the ADL.

Likewise, when social networks like Twitter or Facebook get accused of having a “hate speech” problem, the ADL offers to moderate the “trust and safety” council of these platforms. They now have censorship power over most social networks. They don’t do this for free – each of these networks is paying them for this service. Do you see how much institutional power they are gaining for solving this problem?

They gain so much institutional power every time the racism or anti-semitism problem arises, that some have suggested they have a financial motivation to inflate those problems in order to expand their institutional power. If they can get an allied reporter to accuse an institution of “racism” then that institution will need to pay someone to solve their racism problem – and why not the leading group that solves that, the ADL?

This is similar to the medieval Catholic practice of selling indulgences. They create an artificial need of transgressions and sins that only they can absolve you of. The “sin” of allowing the SF MGM bill, meant that many San Francisco politicians and institutions had to “absolve” themselves by tithing to the ADL, and expanding their institutional power.

(If you believe the ADL might create accusations against groups, then it could also be argued that it’s similar to the mafia practice of charging protection money. ‘Pay us, or we’ll slander you as racist.’)

Let’s look at them with the Institution Mindset Model.

The problem: Other institutions want to avoid the accusation of racism and anti-semitism.

1. How can I solve this problem? The ADL can consult with companies with issues with racism and anti-semitism and moderate social networks where people are spreading ideas they feel are related to those issue.
2. How can I receive energy for solving this problem? Companies will pay the ADL for their anti-bias training, and content moderation (censorship).
3. How can I create a system whereby if this problem arises again, I run the same loop? If anti-semitism arises in the news, we can offer to absolve the company involved through our services and expand our influence by gaining censorship and influence over that institution.
4. Bonus question: How can other institutions expand their power by collaborating with me, and vice-versa? The ADL will sit on the trust and safety council of most social networks and have the ability to decide which groups are racist and which aren’t. If people want to be in the public square without being called racist, they will have to work with the ADL.

That is some powerful institution building.

Do you understand why a group of activists just trying to solve a problem (“Circumcision is bad – let’s pass legislation against it!”) lost to a group with decades of institution-building experience?

Counter Institutions

Now let’s look at the AAP – the American Academy of Pediatrics. Their model is more obvious. People have health problems. Doctors solve health problems and getting paid for their services. They run the same loop over and over by having a doctor’s office people can come to and pay more to solve health problems. Doctors take in energy every time someone gets sick.

Most people understand this model. Many activists believe the reason circumcision continues is money. However they are trying to solve the problem of an institution with simple level problem solving, rather than institution building. They protest the AAP and tell them “circumcision is bad – stop” yet the AAP gains power and energy every time they “solve” the “problem” of a child’s foreskin.

Let’s look at how you’d solve this problem from an institutional level.

The problem: Doctor’s continue to perform circumcision, and don’t know how to tell their patients “no” without losing money.

1. How can I solve this problem? You could create a course called “How To Talk To Your Patients About Circumcision (And Still Make Money)” which educates doctors in how to market themselves as ethical.
2. How can I receive energy for solving this problem? Doctor’s offices would pay you for this video course, and pay you even more for in-person training with their staff. You could also be paid by conferences, doula conventions, and doctor’s groups to teach this course. You could offer a professional network they could join (“The Ethical Doctors Association” – EDA) with a website where parents can find intact friendly doctors, driving clients to them and encouraging them to pay dues to join your new professional association.
3. How can I create a system whereby if this problem arises again, I run the same loop? If a doctors says, “I can’t tell my patients no, then they’d go somewhere else!” you would direct them to this training program and encourage them to join the Ethical Doctors Association.
4. Bonus question: How can other institutions expand their power by collaborating with me, and vice-versa? Doctor’s organizations, birth conferences, and practitioners could all benefit by getting your course or asking you to speak at their events. You provide scripts for them to talk to patients, marketing material and a professional network which brings them new clients.

Plus, if you wanted to use the ADL model for creating the demand – you’d protest doctors groups or a particular doctor, while offering them the solution of buying your course and joining your new association. Once a critical mass of doctors belonged to this group, you could begin having them vote as a bloc in other doctors groups, and frame their competition as unethical.

That last step might be too hardcore for many people, but keep in mind that opposition groups like the ADL have no problem using these tactics. Although you might have adjust this strategy and approach based on the doctors you were trying to reach, do you see how this process would be far more powerful in the long run than just protesting?

Not All Organizations Are Institutions

Many activist organizations do not behave like institutions. If a doctor says no to circumcision, or a parent chooses to keep their child intact, does any activist organization take in energy? Why not?

“But I love saving babies so much I’d do it for free!”

Yes, but if you love saving babies so much, why don’t you love it enough to do it more effectively?

Part of the reason opposition institutions like the AAP perceive Intactivists as “trolls” is because activists offer no rival institutions for them to participate in. If activists protest a doctor doing circumcisions and the doctor stops, he gains nothing and loses the support of genital cutting institutions like the AAP.

How hard would it be to make a website called the “Intact-Friendly Doctor Network,” list doctors for free, and charge doctors $100 to be featured on the front page each month? Is one new client worth a $100 to a doctor? Doesn’t the average doctors visit cost more than that?

This doesn’t mean every group has to function this way, but they could work synergistically. If a doctor’s office was protested by an anti-circumcision group, wouldn’t they be more open to education in how to talk to their parents about circumcision?

Synergy Between Institutions

Compare this to the synergistic relationship the ADL has with diversity organizations like #BlackLivesMatter. When #BlackLivesMatter engages in far more aggressive tactics than any Intactivist organization, they are not seen as trolls because 1) the public perceives the grievances of #BlackLivesMatter activists as more legitimate than Intactivists, because these groups have built partnerships with allied media institutions which can get their message out and 2) these organizations offer a coalition of diversity institutions like the ADL that the organizations they protest can participate in.

So when #BlackLivesMatter shuts down Starbucks, the ADL sells them a solution to their problem in the form of anti-bias training. The anti-bias training company that partners with the ADL, and then makes a donation to #BlackLivesMatter. The ADL also gains a lasting institutional partnership with Starbucks. Meanwhile, when Intactivists protest a group, they offer no institution-level solution, so they are perceived as “just trolls.” Got it?

This is just a reverse-engineering of one institution model, but it works across issues. Do you think that organizations which certify environmentally clean products don’t have partnerships with groups like Greenpeace? Greenpeace protests, which means companies have to pay organizations with certify environmentally clean products, which then donate to Greenpeace.

If you look at other issues and causes, there is a whole ecosystem of activist institutions working together, expanding their energy and influence with each action they take.

Institutions Create Collaboration

This model would require multiple institutions and greater collaboration between Intactivist institutions. Right now, everyone is trying to solve problems one at a time, over and over. Solving the problem once requires no collaboration, so little collaboration exists between activist groups. Solving the problem for all-time would require collaboration.

Solving the problem once also pits activist groups against each other for resources. If an activist group wants to do something that requires money, then they try to find a “one-time” solution to their money problem in the form of donations. If another group tries to solve the same problem the next time, they compete for donations.

However if every time they solve the problem they gain money and institutional power, then if another activist group can help solve that problem, they could gain energy for everyone, because solving the problem increases energy for all parties involved.

• If you are building an institution, other organizations provide an opportunity for collaboration and expanding your energy.
• If you are not building an institution, other organizations are competition for a limited source of energy.

When activist groups promote my film, they gain the legitimacy and influence of having a major documentary about their issue, and a tool to educate the public. I gain a greater audience for my film. This is a win-win, because I’ve structured my film as an institution they can expand their influence by sharing.

Institution Mindset vs. One-Time Mindset

When people ask about my film, they ask one-off questions. “How many people have seen it?” or “Will it be on Netflix?” These are one-time solutions. They aren’t asking me about how it has set me up to talk about the issue on other institutions. They aren’t looking at how that film now owns the keyword “circumcision” on Amazon, the world’s third largest search engine, so when new parents search information on this issue they find my film. Would I have been invited on any platform to talk about this issue, without my film?

When a podcast host wants to talk about circumcision to his audience, my film solves that problem by providing a presentation of it that is professional and polished. Through our collaboration, the host also expands my platform and audience by sharing my film with more people. That would not have happened had I used a “one-time” solution every time I wanted to talk to someone about this issue.

A few people have told me I should offer the film for free “so more people will see it!” This is one-time solution thinking. If I did that, I would take in no energy and have no long term solution. Institutions like film festivals, distributors, Amazon, iTunes, etc. could not participate in sharing my message. All these same people tell me I should get the film on Netflix. Does Netflix buy free YouTube videos?

• If you want institutions to participate in your message, you must build institutions they can work with.

Institutions Offer Ways For People To Participate

Each institution you create offers ways for people to participate. If you wanted save animals, and walked into a PETA chapter, they’d have work for you. Same for any environmental, civil rights, or other major activist organization. However, right now, if you want to do Intactivsm, you go to protests or post online. While this is something, there other ways people who care about this issue could participate if they had similar institutions.

If you aren’t certain you can build an institution, participate in an institution. I am always looking for talent. Part of what I have struggled with is that when I seek people from the movement to work on projects, they approach it with a “one-time” mindset rather than an Institution Building Mindset. They will make a few posts on Facebook, but don’t know how to commit to building a long-term system. When I asked about building a company that did social media content, most responded “Why would I pay for that? I post on social media for free!” not understanding the value of having an institutional media company.

If there was a “foreskin education group” that partnered with schools to teach sex education, and you could sign up to be a certified “foreskin educator,” don’t you think some of the people who wouldn’t be drawn to standing on the street with a sign be drawn to that? Why aren’t there a dozen institutions like this people could participate in?

Long-Term Thinking

This mindset requires long term thinking. It might require saying “no” to other projects and might even mean taking time off social media. It might mean investing energy into something you won’t see the pay-off for till later. It might mean you’re not online to reply to that post about a mom who is having her baby circumcised tomorrow, because you need to focus on solving the problem for all-time.

This process takes time. I can write about an “Ethical Doctors Association” or a “foreskin education group” partnered with educators, but building this in real life could take years. It could require people investing in the organization and not seeing returns for some time. Building each of these organizations is beyond my ability to do individually. Even if one person does it, they will eventually need to scale, bring in other people, and form a team. I feel comfortable giving these ideas away for free because I know ideas are useless and execution is everything.

I realize this is hard. Delayed gratification is an issue for many people. However, the movement can afford to have people offline building institutions, and will be more powerful in the long run for it. You as an individual activist will have more energy, because you won’t be burning out every time you take action. You will be growing in your energy and influence.

I suspect most people will not understand this post. They will share it on Facebook, say “yeah, we should build stuff!” and think they’ve accomplished something. A few more will envision something, but never follow through. But if a tiny minority might actually build an institution, and that will make all the difference. When you do, let me know. I’m open to collaboration.

---

How To Build An Institution – Summary

To build an institution, answer these questions:

What problem I am trying to solve?

Then:

1. How can I solve this problem? 
2. How can I receive energy for solving this problem?
3. How can I create a system whereby if this problem arises again, I run the same loop?
4. Bonus question: How can other institutions expand their power by collaborating with me, and vice-versa? 

Then work really hard.

Now Go Build Institutions

---

You might want to watch my film, because big institutions like film festivals, a distributor, Amazon, iTunes, and major activist groups all decided it was worth their energy. Watch here.