Archives for July 2019

As some of you have noticed, over the past several months my social media content has moved from merely documenting the circumcision debate to offering my own thoughts, writing, and speaking on the issue. I’ve had some people ask if I plan to move into activism or some new related-project.

My film American Circumcision documented the actions and ideas of others, summarizing thirty years of activism and research in under a two-hour runtime. In doing so, it brought more attention to this issue than any single piece of media ever has before.

We won awards, trended on Netflix, and were a top new release in our category on Amazon. The film has been talked about across social media, and even shared by the star of a blockbuster superhero film and a Presidential candidate. Plus, I’ve done numerous interviews about the film, some on channels with over a million subscribers.

While this been enormously successful, I’ve reached the point where my platform is bigger than many of the individuals whose work I’ve documented. The amount of growth I can achieve by only playing the role of documentarian may have peaked. Now, it’s time to move on to another phase of my work on this issue.

I debated whether or not I should move from documenting to taking action for some time. I even debated whether or not I should continue with this issue at all. After all, when I began the film, I figured I’d tell this story, and then move on to other things.

While working on the film, I felt it was necessary not to put too much of myself out there, because I wanted audiences to focus on the people whose stories I was telling, rather than on me as a storyteller.

Over time, I’ve had to step more into the spotlight. Raising money for the film, required speaking publicly and putting my face out there. On tour, podcasts, and in interviews, I had to speak publicly as a representative of the film and issue.

This is a role I’ve come to enjoy. It’s gathered such attention that many people now see me as an advocate for the issue, rather than as just a filmmaker.

Originally, I planned to make my film and walk away. After all – I did my part. Filmmaking is what I love, and if I’ve given my unique superpower to this issue, what else can I offer?

However, working on the film, I developed other skills – social media, writing, public speaking, promotion, etc. I’ve also developed contacts – people with their own unique skills who’ve come to me because of the film and asked me how they could contribute to this issue.

Yet, the biggest thing that convinced me I need to continue were the men who came to me in pain because of this issue. I have had men email me, saying they were suicidal and wondering what they should do. One of my interview subjects even ended his own life after experiencing a grief around his circumcision.

I have done intense healing work around multiple issues in my life. I could not do the work I do now without a commitment to healing work and integration. Many of the people who have messaged me tell me they have no resources, and don’t even know where to start with their pain. Seeing the difference between where I am now, and where they are makes me think there is still more I can do around this issue.

In 2011, I sat on the steps of the San Francisco capitol building and wondered if I should continue making the film. A court had just thrown out the SF MGM bill, ballot initiative to ban infant circumcision in San Francisco, after a well-funded smear campaign lead by the ADL and their media allies had tried to brand anyone speaking out against circumcision as an anti-semite or Nazi. They had used the full force of the media to silence people who felt they had been sexually assaulted.

At the time, there were no powerful social media channels to fight back on. Twitter was a recent invention, and Instagram didn’t exist yet. The tools I would later use to finance, distribute, and market the film had not been created yet. I knew if I made this film, there was a chance I would be called some of the worst names society has, with no platform to clear my name.

In the film industry, such labels carry an even greater stigma. Even the moderately politically incorrect sometimes struggle to find work. The reputation the media might brand me with could cost me the ability to do what I love and have wanted to do since I was fourteen – make films. Did I really want to continue with this project?

However another part of me knew that if I quit I would be abandoning the part of me that felt harmed by this issue. I would be abandoning my own inner child. I would be telling the part of me that cared that his needs didn’t matter, and that I would let him down when pressure appeared.

I decided that it was more important to be true to myself and my own inner child than cave to cultural pressure. More important than the media. More important than the film industry. Even more important than being called a “nazi.” I knew who I was and was willing to fight for that regardless of whatever false labels anyone else hurled at me.

Now, I am in a different position. My film is done. The attacks I feared never came. By being true to myself, it worked out in the end. The only label the film ever really gave me was “award-winning.” I can even say I’m an “award-winning social justice activist” thanks to one film festival now. Not the reputation I was expecting, but I’ll take it.

This is another point where I could walk away. I have a good career. My film is successful, giving me a platform for further artistic ventures – which I intend to make. The crowdfunding success has also opened up the possibility for me to teach other artists and help them market their own work.

When I made this film, I wasn’t trying to be a leader of any kind. I just wanted to be true to myself. However, in doing so I’ve developed a following. Many of the people who care about this issue see me as a leader and want me to continue working on the issue.

At the same time, after working on this issue for over eight years, I have developed a perspective of my own – one that I have not heard anywhere else on either side of the issue. I got into film because I have a deep need to be seen and heard. I would be letting down this part of me that wants to be seen and have MY story and perspective heard, if I was to walk away after only documenting the story of others.

So I am entering a new phase on this issue – one in which I will be a public advocate for men and children. I will be publishing my own thoughts and feelings, and creating platforms and media through which people can be heard, find support, and get healing they need.

The film remains a fair hearing of many perspectives. I have made extended interviews available to all who want to see the raw footage of major interview subjects. While I may continue to document the issue, and even create projects which give a platform to perspectives that differ from my own, I plan to publish my own perspective and unique ideas.

Part of my method is deep listening. It is possible for me to share my own perspective without demonizing or demeaning anyone else for their own. I want you to know that if you don’t share my perspective on my issue that we can still communicate, converse, and dialogue.

My film process involved sitting across people many people I did not agree with and asking them questions. I want to understand, even if I don’t agree. My natural response to differences is curiosity. That has not changed. Now I feel it is even more important than ever to dialogue with those you disagree with. So know if you’re reading and you don’t like me or my work – the door is still open to communicate.

I share this with you, because there is going to be a change in my work. With the film, I strived for neutrality. With what follows, I’m going for a strong perspective. It may sound very different than what has come before.

I made the film because I was being true to myself. I still am. Thank you for all the support and I can’t wait to show you what comes next.

---

How You Can Help

If you’re interested in participating in the next phase of my work on this issue, let me know.

I’m looking for people with skills. Some skills that would be useful include:

• Writing
• Journalism
• Research
• Web Design/Wordpress
• Graphic Design
• Editing (Writing)
• Editing (Video)
• Community Organizing
• Event Organizing
• Merch/Ecommerce
• Advertising

If you have another personal superpower not on this list, let me know.

I’m also willing to develop talent for certain projects. If you care about this issue and are willing to work or learn new skills, let me know.

You can contact me here or on social media.

---

Subscribe here to see what comes next.

I’ve decided to take a bit more time to work on the anthology book I’m currently putting together on circumcision.

That’s good news if you haven’t submitted yet – there is more time! Submission details are here.

However, I wanted to explain the decision a bit here, since I’ve got enough material now that I could publish.

The Intention of The Book

The original idea of the book was to pair two things – public figures and those who’d been working on this issue a long time. My thinking was:

• There are many public figures who want to speak out on this issue, but have not been given a meaningful opportunity to do so. Right now, if they wanted to speak on this issue, they’d have to give a random tweet, interview, or blog post. This gives them the prestige of being published in a book, and puts their words next to top experts.
• There are many experts who have been doing great work on this issue, but haven’t received the attention they deserve. By putting their expertise next to people with a larger audience, this exposes those experts to that audience and increases the number of people aware of their work. People might get the book because they see a  public figures name on it, but the essay that blows them away might be from an unknown.
• Everyone involved gets their words amplified and exposed to a new audience. YouTubers do collab videos. Musicians guest on each others tracks. Why not do a “collab book” where multiple authors contribute and share audiences?

Reaching More Contributors

While I’ve had interest from a some public figures, it takes time and energy to reach them. I’ve found cold emails go almost nowhere, but when I’ve explained the concept on the phone they immediately get it, and are interested. If I want larger names, I need to find a way to have a conversation with them.

That said – I may have the opportunity to do that soon. This year, I’m speaking at the International Men’s Conference, and the Association for Pre and Perinatal Psychology (plus, some other potential events). At both, there are people I’d consider including who I can speak with face to face.

However, those conferences are in the fall, after I was originally going to publish. Rather than publish in September, I’d rather wait a bit longer and create an even better book, with even more voices.

That said – I’m glad I put a deadline on the first round, because 90% of the people who said they’d submit sent their writing in week before deadline. (It’s ok, every artist I know works this way.)

Change In Focus

Originally, I wanted submissions from both sides. Despite reaching out to a number of different people the grand total of submissions I got from a pro-circumcision perspective was… one.

Despite working on this issue, I’m not aware of many major public figures representing the pro-circumcision perspective. The pro-circumcision movement has chosen a strategy of silence, so even when I’ve told some I’d publish whatever they wrote, they refused.

Whereas there used to be pro-circumcision figures who would go on TV and debate the issue, now I can’t name one. Those that exist frame themselves as advocates of “parental choice,” rather than circumcision.

Since it would seem odd to have one “token” essay from the other perspective, I may have to re-think this aspect of the book. It may be that we do not include the pro-circumcision perspective, since it no longer exists in it’s earlier form, and has so few strong representatives.

Submissions

If you’re interested in participating in the book project, here are the guidelines:

• How To Contribute: Send one essay 1,000 – 5,000 words in length exploring an aspect of circumcision, a 2-3 sentence bio, and a signed copy of this form [download here] giving me permission to use your contribution in the book to circumcisionbook@protonmail.com with “Submission” as the first word of your headline.

Thanks for reading.

To get an email when my next project comes out, subscribe to my email list here.

Right now, Democratic Presidential candidate Marianne Williamson is being written off as a joke. However, having predicted the win of Trump in 2015, I see many of the same persuasion abilities in her that I saw in him, albeit from a radically different perspective.

Marianne Williamson’s description during the DNC debate was merely “author.” The medium income for a novelist is around $10,000 a year – below minimum wage. For an author to amass enough support and money to make it to the Presidential stage, they need massive persuasion power.

While many watching the debate saw Williamson’s appearance seemed “random,” she was not there by accident. Marianne Williamson is a skilled persuader who has the possibility to be a real contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Let’s look at the evidence.

How Marianne Williamson Is Like Trump

Marianne Williamson mirrors the Trump phenomenon in many ways.

• Authenticity. Trump won on authenticity. His truthful offensiveness was seen as preferable to fake “niceness” by many Republican voters. Likewise, Marianne Williamson is authentic. No one doubts she isn’t speaking her truth when she talks about defeating Donald Trump by “harnessing the power of love.” If offending truth beats fake niceness, then strange truth might defeat fake professionalism.
• Mobilizing new movements. Both Trump and Marianne Williamson are speaking for a group dismissed by mainstream powerholders that is secretly huge. Trump got many white working class people to vote for the first time, who had been dismissed by the mainstream establishment as worthless and “racist.” Likewise, Marianne Williamson speaks for a New Age movement dismissed by the mainstream left as “kooky” and “anti-science.”
• Speaking memetically. Trumps way of speaking naturally lead to memes. “Build the wall.” “Lock her up.” Williamson in just four minutes of speaking time, generated multiple memes like “harness the power of love” or the New Zealand meme. You can mock these memes, but can you even remember what the other candidates answered to the last question? People are still talking about her New Zealand comment.
• Huge following. Trump was already a household name, reality TV star, and had a huge social media following when he ran. Marianne Williamson is one of the biggest names in the New Age movement, and only five other Democratic presidential candidates have a bigger Twitter following than her.
• Dismissed by mainstream. When Trump first ran, he was dismissed as a clown. The Huffington Post said they were going to print news of his campaign in the entertainment section, because he wasn’t a real contender. Marianne Williamson is seen the same way, and was not even included in the group photo of DNC female Presidential candidates.
• Free press. Trump generated millions of dollars of free publicity by saying things that were too shocking not to cover. Although Marianne Williamson has not gotten nearly the press he has, when she is mocked, her message spreads. Likewise, there are already people making memes online based on her words.

While this list may be convincing, I can already hear some of you objecting – “but Marianne Williamson is just too weird!” Which brings me to my last comparison:

• Entertainment. When Trump began, many followed him just to see what crazy thing he’d say next. Likewise, many are watching Marianne Williamson for the same reason. Over time, both will seem less crazy to those who later support them.

Now let’s look at what many think is her biggest weakness, but is secretly her greatest strenght – Marianne Williamson’s New Age spiritual beliefs.

New Age Is Bigger Than You Think

Old media news sources have dismissed Marianne Williamson’s beliefs as weird. Pundits who don’t like her refer to her as the “crystal lady” who “probably sells essential oils on Facebook.” Of course, the same pundits dismissed Trump as “cheeto Hitler” and “orange nazi.”

In reality, Marianne Williamson is not representing a fringe movement. The New Age movement is one of the largest spiritual movements in America, and no one has ever mobilized it for political purposes.

To put this in comparison – pretend no one had ever politically appealed to evangelical Christians before, and for the first time ever a real Bible-believing Christian was running for President. Would you think that candidate was a contender?

“But New Age is not that big!” No. It’s huge. Let’s look at the data.

• 62% of Americans hold New Age beliefs.
• 61% of Christians hold New Age beliefs.
• 29% of Christians believe in reincarnation. (Yes, Christians.)
• 54% of Americans believe in aliens. That number increases in men (64%).
• 42% of Americans believe in ghosts, but…
• 61% believe other people have “experienced ghosts.”
• 20% more Democrats than Republicans believe people have encountered ghosts.
• 28% of Americans say they have been in the presence of a ghost.
• The biggest group that believes in ghosts? Female Democrats.

By comparison – 74% of American’s believe in God.

How many politicians inauthentically say “God bless America,” when they have no personal faith, to appeal to the 74% that believes in God? Why not talk about New Age beliefs to appeal to the 62% of the public that believes in New Age spirituality?

Every town has a New Age bookstore. This stuff sells. The only comparable spiritual force in terms of money and reach is Christianity, and according to data, belief in God is decreasing, while belief in aliens, ghosts, and reincarnation is up.

At one point, evangelical Christians were a political force. The New Age movement is the growing religious force in America, and Marianne Williamson is the first candidate to ever appeal to it politically.

Marianne Williamson Could Get Weirder

I know some of you are still objecting – “but New Age spirituality is weird!” Compared to what? Evangelical Christianity? Islam? Mormonism?

We’ve had a Mormon Presidential candidate nominated to the Republican party – Mitt Romney. Tulsi Gabbard was raised in a cult. Trump himself grew up in the church of Norman Vincent Peale, author of Power of Positive Thinking. Yes, that’s right – Trump himself was raised on a brand of New Age spirituality.

Look, religion is weird. Trump is weird. America is weird. Statistically speaking, if you don’t believe in ghosts, aliens, or God, you’re in the minority, so you’re the weird one. You can scream “anti-science” all you want, but Ancient Aliens is on it’s 14th season, and Firefly got canceled after one. Shut up, nerd.

In fact, if I was advising Marianne Williamson, I’d tell her to get even stranger, and add UFO disclosure to her issues page. I’m 100% serious.

UFO disclosure – the idea the United States government should reveal any secret knowledge it has of extraterrestrial aliens or contact it has had with them – would generate massive free press. There would be memes. She would become the UFO candidate. People would photoshop images of her with little green men.

However, imagine if she presented it calmly: “The government should not keep secrets from its citizens. We have a right to know. I don’t know if our government has ever made contact, or even if aliens exist, but I believe the American people are strong enough to handle the truth, whatever it is. As President, I promise to disclosure any state secrets I learn about extraterrestrial life that do not threaten national security.”

At first it sounds like a troll, but then you dig deeper and it seems reasonable. Now all the attention and press is on her.

What A Less Memetic Performance Looks Like

To see just how unique Marianne Williamson is as a candidate, let’s compare her debate performance to another outsider meme candidate – Andrew Yang.

Disclosure – I like Yang. I agree with him on a lot of issues. Plus, I’m loyal to anyone who promotes my movie, especially when a Presidential candidate mentions my film by name in Washington Post Magazine, which Yang did. Thank you #YangGang.

That said, his debate performance was not strong.

The first question Yang got was a gotcha question about how he will pay for his signature issue – Universal Basic Income, or giving every American $1000 a month.

Andrew Yang responded to this like a genuine question – with math and data. It was a long, complicated answer, that most people couldn’t follow. It made it seem like we couldn’t afford his plan.

Compare what he said to this reframe:

Q: How raise three trillion dollars to give Americans a thousand a month?

Yang: With the looming threat of automation, how can we afford not to give Americans a universal basic income?

“But that didn’t answer the question!” Ah, now you’re starting to understand politics.

Here is another potential answer: Amazon currently pays zero in taxes. Andrew Yang has said he will pay for UBI by taxing Silicon Valley companies benefiting from automation. “We will get the money from Amazon and Netflix” could easily become a Trump level meme:

“We will build the wall give every American $1000 a month and Mexico Amazon will pay for it!”

Are you starting to see the power speaking of memetically?

Yang rose because “$1000 a month” was powerful meme. It generated absurd images like Yang making it rain cash to rap songs. Yang seemed like he could generate these memes himself – for example reframing gun control as giving every gun owner a “James Bond gun.” However, on-stage he became nervous, and got too technical.

Marianne Williamson intuitively understands that as the outsider candidate it is her job to just spam memes every time she get’s a chance to talk on the debate stage. Like Trump, it’s not clear if she is doing it consciously or just genuinely naturally memetic. (I’d guess both have an unconscious competence, where they naturally gravitate towards the image that excites them most.) Either way the result is the same – they get attention – and attention is the currency of the realm.

Why Marianne Williamson Might Lose

Unlike Trump, Marianne Williamson has some unique challenges Trump did not face.

• The system is better rigged against her. In 2016, DNC used party rules, superdelegates, and media allies to suppress the Bernie Sanders campaign. During the first Democratic debate, Andrew Yang said his mic was turned off. If Marianne Williamson becomes a real political force, the Democratic establishment will not play fair with her, and may bend or break the rules to stop her from winning.
• Her opposition is stronger. Party favorite Kamala Harris is light years ahead of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz. Harris herself had some genuinely memetic moments during the debate, and went in for the kill on Joe Biden, knocking him out the way Trump would dispose of the other Republican candidates.
• There are other outsider candidates. Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang, and even Bernie Sanders have the same outsider status, and their own signature memetic issues. Those who don’t like the current DNC leadership might split their votes between these candidates, whereas Trump was the only true outsider in the 2016 primary.
• Social media is more controlled. Since 2016, many social media companies have tightened their moderation and begun censoring certain users and viewpoints to stop future Trump-like political victories. While Marianne Williamson has a strong social media presence, there is a real danger of tech giants suppressing her campaign or even banning influential accounts that support her.
• Less money. Trump is a billionaire. Although Marianne Williamson has money, she isn’t as rich.

While these are huge challenges – one that a candidate without memetic power could not overcome – they are not insurmountable.

Conclusion – Williamson Could Win

I don’t know if Marianne Williamson will win. It’s too early to say. However, I think she has the potential to win. She has to play her hand well to do it, but the all cards are there. Marianne Williamson is a real contender with the potential to win.

Read my post from 2015 predicting Trump here.