The clinic where federal prosecutors say up to 100 girls had female genital cutting performed on them is still open at a new location under a nearly identical name. It is run by the same doctor, has the same phone number, and is currently accepting new patients.

In April 2017, Burhani Medical Clinic in Livonia, Michigan was raided by the FBI as a part of the first federal prosecution of female genital mutilation in United States history.1 Federal prosecutors alleged that Dr. Jumana Nagarwala had performed FGM on young girls at the clinic after hours, with the clinic’s owner, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, allowing her to use the facility and his wife, Farida Attar, assisting during procedures.2 Prosecutors estimated that as many as 100 girls may have been cut at the clinic over a 12-year period.3

As we previously reported, both Dr. Nagarwala and Dr. Attar still hold active, unrestricted Michigan medical licenses with no public record of discipline.45 In addition to allowing both doctors to continue practicing medicine, the state of Michigan has allowed the clinic itself to reopen at a new location under a nearly identical name, where it is currently accepting new patients.6

Dr. Attar now operates a medical practice called Burhani Medical Center at 32910 W 13 Mile Road in Farmington Hills, Michigan.7 The practice uses the same phone number as the former Livonia clinic, (734) 427-9200, and is listed across major healthcare directories including Healthgrades,8 WebMD,9 and the U.S. News doctor database.10 Dr. Attar’s website, doctorattar.com, promotes the Burhani Medical Center as a family medicine practice and states that it is accepting new patients.11

The Burhani Medical Center website lists Sports Physicals among its services and promotes care for patients of “every age group.”12 The practice displays logos indicating it accepts Medicare, Medicaid, and major commercial insurers including Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, and United Healthcare.13 This means a physician federally charged with facilitating genital cutting on minor girls is actively marketing pediatric services and receiving reimbursement from taxpayer-funded insurance programs.

Public records show a link between the two practices. Michigan LARA corporate filings show that Attar, M.D., P.C., the professional corporation that operated under the assumed name “Burhani Medical Clinic” at the Livonia address, was dissolved in May 2021.14 This dissolution came shortly before the final remaining charges against the Attars were dismissed in September 2021.15

The original Burhani Medical Clinic in Livonia was not a licensed health facility under Michigan law. In Michigan, private physician offices are exempt from the state facility licensing that applies to hospitals, surgical centers, and nursing homes.16 This means there was no facility license to revoke, no facility-level inspection triggered by the federal charges, and no regulatory mechanism to prevent the same practice from reopening at a new address under a nearly identical name. The only regulatory oversight over the practice ran through the individual physicians’ medical licenses. As we have previously reported, both physicians’ medical licenses are active, unrestricted Michigan medical licenses with no public record of discipline.

When I called the clinic on February 5, 2026, a staff member answered the phone and confirmed the practice is open. Dr. Attar did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. I’m seeking to raise funds to cover significan FOIA costs and continue this work. If you’d like to support this investigation, you can contribute here:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/expose-medical-board-for-licensing-an-fgm-doctor

The second doctor from America’s first FGM case, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, still has an active unrestricted Michigan medical license (No. 4301067384).1

Dr. Fakhruddin Attar ran his clinic in Livonia, Michigan raided by FBI in April 2017 in what would become the first federal prosecution of female genital mutilation in United States history.2 According to federal prosecutors, Attar had been allowing Dr. Jumana Nagarwala to perform FGM on young girls for over a decade, with his wife Farida assisting in the examination room.3

As I reported in January, the doctor who performed FGM, Dr. Nagarwala, still holds an active Michigan medical license (No. 4301071795) with no record of discipline.45 The second doctor charged in America’s first FGM case, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, also has an active unrestricted Michigan medical license (No. 4301067384) with no record of discipline.6

Although the federal case against both Dr. Attar and Dr. Nagarwala collapsed on legal technicalities, state medical boards could still remove both doctors’ medical licenses. Doctors can lose their licenses for inadequate recordkeeping, failing to complete continuing education hours, billing errors, breaches of patient confidentiality, and non-criminal behavior far less severe than performing FGM on minors. Instead, the Michigan medical board allowed both doctors to keep their medical licenses with no restrictions or discipline.

To understand what that means, consider what federal court documents say happened at Dr. Attar’s clinic:

Federal prosecutors allege that Dr. Fakhruddin Attar’s conspiracy ran from 2005 to 2017 and may have involved as many as 100 victims.78

The FBI’s investigation identified nine victims between the ages of 7 and 13 from Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois.9 When the FBI interviewed those girls, one said she’d been told they were going to the doctor because “our tummies hurt.” She described being placed on an examining table with her knees near her chest and her legs spread apart. She said the doctor “pinched” her on the place where she “goes pee,” and she was given a pad to wear in her underwear. She was told not to talk about it.10

The second girl said she “got a shot” and that it hurt so badly she screamed. She drew an “X” on her picture of the examining room to show where there was blood on the table. She identified Farida Attar as one of the women who held her hands during the procedure. Her parents told her it was a secret. After it was over, she could barely walk. She said she felt pain all the way down to her ankle.1112

Court-ordered medical examinations confirmed the injuries. One girl’s labia minora had been “altered or removed” and her clitoral hood was “abnormal in appearance,” with scar tissue and healing lacerations.13 The other had an incision to her clitoral hood and a small tear to her labia minora.14 One Michigan girl in the broader case was given ground-up Valium mixed into liquid Tylenol during the procedure.15

When agents interviewed Attar on April 10, 2017, he acknowledged that Nagarwala treated girls ages 6 to 9 at his clinic, that she only came after hours on Fridays and Saturdays, that she performed the procedures for free with no paperwork, and that she did so five or six times per year. He described the visits as treatment for “problems with their genitals, including treatment of genital rashes.” He said his wife was present during the procedures “to comfort them and hold their hands.”1617

No party in the case disputed that procedures were performed on girls at Attar's clinic. Instead, the defense was able to prevail on legal technicalities by arguing that the 1996 federal FGM ban was unconstitutional.1819 Michigan passed its own state law banning FGM in 201720 and Congress passed the STOP FGM Act, a new federal ban, in 2020,21 but because the alleged procedures predated the new law, no state charges could be filed retroactively.

However, even though legal prosecution failed, the doctors could still lose their medical licenses. The state medical board could conduct its own separate hearings. Michigan's own Public Health Code empowers the Board of Medicine to discipline physicians for "negligence or failure to exercise due care."22 Undocumented procedures performed on minors’ genitals after hours, with no medical records, no informed consent, and no billing would appear to satisfy every threshold for professional discipline that exists. Yet today, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar’s Michigan medical license remains active, unrestricted, and carries no record of any disciplinary action.

Dr. Attar did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Despite acknowledging receipt of multiple requests for comment for previous stories, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Bureau of Professional Licensing did not respond. Instead, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is asking for $12,792.93 for public records that would explain their actions.23 To support this investigation, we have started a GoFundMe here.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. I’m seeking to raise funds to cover FOIA costs and continue this work. If you’d like to support this investigation, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

The Michigan medical licensing board that licensed Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, a Detroit physician federally charged in 2017 with performing female genital mutilation on young girls, wants $12,792.93 for emails that would explain why they are continuing to license FGM-practicing doctors.

As I’ve previously reported, Dr. Nagarwala still holds an active Michigan medical license despite federal prosecution, and state records show Michigan never held administrative hearings on her license. The medical board closed its investigation without public explanation.

To find out why, I filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests asking for internal emails about how Michigan handled the FGM investigation. These FOIA requests seek the internal communications that would reveal how that decision was made. The requests were made only for electronic records, after LARA claimed that searching records prior to 2020 would require “manual review of thousands of paper files.”

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) responded by sending an invoice for $12,792.93 to retrieve the emails. LARA’s fee estimates break down to $2,508 for one request, $2,093 for another, and $8,190 for a third. The largest invoice claims it would take 405 combined hours of labor to search their emails for basic keywords like “FGM” and “female genital cutting.”

According to LARA’s written response to my questions, although they confirmed they could search every email box at once with enterprise-wide keyword searches, their preferred method is “contacting every staff member with the terms to search,” each employee “performing the searches and providing results,” and the liaison “following up with any staff who do not respond timely.” One invoice explicitly calculates: “153 employees × 12 keywords × 5 minutes.”

When I asked why they don’t just search all inboxes at once, the same LARA representative gave multiple contradictory answers. One email claimed enterprise-wide search would involve “a similarly priced fee estimate” but could “take much longer.” Another cited the “heightened cost” of enterprise-wide search as the reason for using manual methods instead. In other words, according to LARA, keyword search would cost the same but take longer, unless it takes the same amount of time but costs more.

When I asked whether their email records are maintained in an electronic system that supports keyword searching, LARA’s FOIA liaison responded: “Not sure what they mean by this. Is Outlook an ‘electronic system?’” The liaison also admitted they would have “no idea of the volume” of responsive records until each employee performed their individual searches—meaning the fee estimate isn’t based on any actual assessment of how many records exist.

Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to use “the most economical means available” when fulfilling requests. Having 153 employees individually search their own inboxes, compile results, and forward them to a coordinator, rather than running a single enterprise search, is the least economical way to approach the problem.

Entering “FGM” into a search bar is not a $12,792.93 task that requires 153 people and over 400 hours of labor. Instead, this appears to be willful incompetence to avoid accountability. These are public documents that the state must provide me by law. They can’t legally say no directly, so instead it appears they are making the process of providing the documents as convoluted and expensive as possible, which is also against the law, but harder to prove.

The difference between their handling of reasonable questions from the public and female genital cutting could not be more stark. The Michigan medical licensing board closed an investigation into FGM for free, without a single hearing. Now, they want $12,793 to explain their actions to the public. The board has also not responded to multiple requests for comment, which is free.

I’ve filed a formal appeal challenging these fees. LARA has 10 business days to respond. However, if this appeal does not prevail, the only way to discover the full story behind why Michigan is licensing FGM-practicing doctors would be either to pay the fee or file a lawsuit. Since both would require funding, I have started a GoFundMe to support this investigation. Please contribute here:

GoFundMe: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

This is an ongoing investigation. I’m seeking to raise funds to cover FOIA costs and continue this work. If you’d like to support this investigation, you can contribute here:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/expose-medical-board-for-licensing-an-fgm-doctor

Subscribe now

Share

Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) records show Michigan never held administrative hearings regarding Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, the Detroit physician federally charged in 2017 with performing female genital mutilation on young girls in what prosecutors called the first FGM case in U.S. history.

Records from the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules (MOAHR) show zero proceedings related to Dr. Nagarwala despite her role in the landmark FGM case. Dr. Nagarwala still holds an active, unrestricted Michigan medical license (License No. 4301071795), valid through 2026.

MOAHR handles cases where physicians challenge disciplinary action. No records means that either Michigan never initiated proceedings against her or she did not contest action taken against her. Given that her license shows no restrictions, suspensions, or disciplinary notations, it is likely that the Michigan licensing board never took formal action against a doctor who performed female genital cutting on minors.

The FOIA records requested cover 2010 to present, including the 2017-2018 period when Dr. Nagarwala was under federal indictment and the federal FGM ban was still law. The federal law wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 2018. This means there is no evidence Michigan's licensing board took any disciplinary action against a physician facing federal charges for performing female genital cutting on minors, even while federal law prohibited the practice.

While federal law fell on constitutional grounds, state medical boards retain full authority to discipline physicians whose conduct violates medical standards. Medical boards routinely suspend or revoke licenses for issues far less severe than performing female genital cutting on minors. Their inaction raises questions as to whether or not the state medical board condones physicians practicing female genital cutting.

This sustained non-enforcement aligns with a 2010 American Academy of Pediatrics proposal to allow physicians to perform a “ritual nick” on girls’ genitals, similar to what Dr. Nagarwala practiced. They withdrew the policy only after public outcry. However, selective non-enforcement allows medical authorities to support female genital cutting, without explicit policy changes that would risk public backlash. Michigan’s inaction, even during a federal case, shows which strategy is more effective. Until now, no one noticed.

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. I’ve filed additional FOIA requests to determine how widespread this issue may be. Subscribe to receive updates as records are released.

Subscribe now

In 2017, federal prosecutors charged Detroit emergency physician Dr. Jumana Nagarwala with performing female genital mutilation on young girls, some of whom had been driven across state lines from Minnesota to a Michigan clinic,1 in the first federal FGM prosecution in United States history.2 A year later, a federal judge threw out the core FGM charges, ruling that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause when it first criminalized FGM in 1996.3

The case was such a failure that it ended the 1996 federal FGM ban.4 Not only did the doctor evade legal consequences, she still practices medicine today. Public records indicate Dr. Jumana Nagarwala still holds an active Michigan medical license (License No. 4301071795), valid through 2026, with no public record of discipline or suspension.5

Why does the doctor are the center of the landmark case that legalized female genital cutting in the United States still have her medical license?

There is no question that Dr. Jumana Nagarwala practiced female genital cutting. Rather than dispute the allegations, Dr. Nagarwala defense argued federal law was unconstitutional.6 Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor who represented Jeffrey Epstein,7 consulted for the defense team and was prepared to argue that the Dawoodi Bohra community should be allowed to practice female genital cutting because the type they practice, what the World Health Organization classifies as Type I FGM,8 is merely a “symbolic pin prick” that is less harmful than male circumcision and part of their “religious freedom.”91011

Medical organization have already issued statements supporting legalizing female genital cutting. In 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement proposing that U.S. physicians be allowed to perform a “ritual nick” on girls’ genitals.12 The statement was withdrawn only after public backlash.13 The “ritual nick” described in that policy statement is similar to the kind practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra and Dr. Jumana Nagarwala.

For years, Intactivists and other against circumcision have warned that American medicine would attempt to normalize female genital cutting with the same methods they use to defend male genital cutting. The fact that Dr. Jumana Nagarwala still has her medical license suggests that medical organizations are integrating female genital cutting into the medical community and engaged in a soft-legalization of FGM through non-enforcement.

Despite acknowledging receipt of multiple requests for comment, The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Bureau of Professional Licensing did not respond.

Share

Subscribe now

I need your help: I’m seeking rare, hard-to-find intactivist materials—PDFs of books, articles, or resources that are print-only or not online—to build a specialized AI knowledge base for accurate academic citations.

Why I need this: AI can access all public online content, but offline or obscure items like full books, out-of-print pamphlets, or rare historical journals will add depth and accuracy not available in other AI models.

How to contribute: If you have a digital library (or know someone who does), share PDFs or scans. Hit reply to this email or use WeTranfer.com to send your files directly to the email you got this article from.

For authors and creators: If you contribute your original work, you have my word that I won’t share or distribute it publicly. It will only be for use in my AI training and knowledge base.

Deadline: I will begin building the knowledge base in one week. Reach out immediately if you have something.

Share

Subscribe now

For years, Jewish organizations and media outlets have targeted Intactivists with false claims of antisemitism. News documentaries and articles describe the movement as “alt right”1 and “a breeding ground for antisemitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, and misinformation.”2 These accusations were not presented by news organizations as opinion, but fact, and used to dismiss human rights and children’s activists.

Beyond being false, these claims share another problem: the activist who made those claims that the media elevated as their expert on antisemitism and Intactivism is involved in the Palestinian movement. That activist, Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, directed a feature-length documentary on the Israel-Palestine issue, the same way I made a documentary about the issue of circumcision.3 After the October 7th attacks in Israel, he posted an article describing claims of antisemitism in the Palestinian movement as slander.4

The Palestinian movement has been described by many of the same Jewish and media organizations that have attacked the Inactivist movement as the primary source of rising antisemitism in the world. Yet, the individual elevated by the media as an authority on antisemitism and the Intactivist movement was demanding the Intactivist movement model themselves after the Palestinian movement and adopt “woke” social justice politics. The past ten years of attacks against Intactivism made the the Palestinian movement central to their accusations.

Media attacks on the Intactivist movement prioritized those who were most prominent: myself, Georganne Chapin, and Eric Clopper. Despite there being an activist with a comparable social media following, who self-identified with far-right labels and published a book on the Intactivist movement,5 media articles claiming to fight the “alt right” or “antisemitism” avoided mentioning him, instead focusing on the leadership of the movement. This pattern suggests that destroying the movement, not fighting “extremism,” was the real opposition goal.

When I filed a defamation lawsuit against those making accusations, instead of attempting to prove them as factual, the defendants claimed they were merely making “statements of opinion.” Though this legal strategy helped them avoid accountability, it carries implications for media organizations who have a professional and ethical standard to distinguish between opinion and news. Media organizations that presented attacks on the movement as fact were lying and engaged in political activism, not journalism.

Attacks on the movement crossed the line of public debate into harassment. Jewish activists working against the movement contacted people in my personal and professional life, attempted to turn them against me, and spent years trying to socially isolate me. Those contacted were told not alert me to their behind the scenes campaign or seek to hear my side of the story.

To this day, no Jewish person has ever directly asked me to change my views. Instead, Jewish people have run secret campaigns against me, contacted people in my personal and professional life, and written more hit pieces on me than I’ve written articles about the Jewish issues. Many involved in hate campaigns against myself and the Intactivist movement had my personal contact information and could have contacted me directly. That they felt the need to hide their actions shows they knew they were doing something wrong.

What is odd about these attacks is that if Jewish organizations had sat down with myself and other leaders of the movement to dialogue, although there might have some statements they considered “over the line” that we found legitimate, I would have been willing to avoid those statements if it allowed both sides to engage peacefully. Instead, they made diplomacy impossible.

When I attempted to address their demand that the movement become more like the social justice and Palestinian movement by writing Children’s Justice, their attacks escalated. Missing from their hit pieces was that the intellectual foundations of the book were what they were pressuring the movement to adopt. Children’s Justice took their ideas seriously and intellectually engaged with them. The book was an olive branch and an attempt to give them was they said they wanted. Their response suggests their demands were never sincere, but merely a tool to stop criticism of circumcision.

In police work, demanding someone take an action and then prosecuting them for it is known as entrapment. In their attempts to police the movement, Jewish organizations and their media allies employed a similar tactic. They applied political pressure for the movement to adopt social justice and Palestinian movement politics and then attacked those who gave them what they asked for. Their reaction made it clear that there was no safe choice but to fight back. I responded: This is what your ordered. Eat it.

When those who claim to fight antisemitism elevate and collaborate with same people they describe as responsible for a rise in antisemitism and a threat to the safety of Jewish people, while attacking those who engage in good-faith criticism of circumcision, it reveals their priorities. Some Palestinian groups might kill Jewish people, but in death, they are still Jewish. Ending circumcision, in their view, ends Jewish identity. Jewish identity is a higher value to them than Jewish people. Their actions show that they would rather have their people dead than intact.

Through their hypocrisy and bad-faith attacks, Jewish organizations have fostered the radicalization they claim to oppose. When I talk to younger activists now, they engage with more extreme ideas, because they’ve watched how I and others who acted in good-faith were treated and concluded that moderation and compliance carries a higher cost than open conflict. If any criticism of circumcision is treated as antisemitism, then there is no political reason for activists to avoid “crossing the line,” because the movement is already treated as if it has crossed it. Despite being moderate, movement has paid the price for “extremism.”

Opposition groups have removed any incentive for the movement to moderate its speech, behavior, or associations to avoid pejorative labels. I’m certain that they’ll attempt to frame the consequences of their actions as “proof” that the movement has “always” been some caricature they constructed. Instead, the behavior of myself and other activists going forward can only be understood if we acknowledge how opposition groups changed the cost for such actions and created a precedent that collaborating with extremist figures and movements is acceptable. If opposition groups treat their own lines as meaningless, then others are free to do the same.

Share

Subscribe now

Before publishing this article I spoke with my wife about it. She was concerned for my safety, because she knows that I have been targeted by the same labels that Charlie Kirk was before his murder. We have children the same age as Charlie Kirk’s and she fears the same happening to us. She also knows that there were people who we thought were friends who participated in the stochastic terrorism against me. Yet, we also know that these behaviors will only end if we speak about them.

Stochastic terrorism is the indirect incitement of violence against a person or group using rhetoric that suggests violence against that person is acceptable or desirable.1 When someone calls another a “Nazi,” “white nationalist,” or “alt right,” they are engaged in stochastic terrorism, since major political factions, non-profit organizations, and mainstream publications condone violence against those they attack with these labels.

In 2016, prior to the release of my film American Circumcision, activists with close family connections to the Anti-Defamation League met with leaders in the intactivist movement and falsely called me a “white nationalist.”2 These individuals and organizations did not alert me to the risks to my safety caused by these accusations or attempt to verify them in any way. Some repeated those accusations to personal and professional associations of mine.

Later, these same activists reached out to journalists, including those at major publications like The Guardian and The Atlantic.34 These journalists also did not inform me that activists were engaged in false claims about me or engaged in a behind the scenes campaign that could put my safety in jeopardy. In my view, these journalists behaved like accomplices to those attempting to silence children’s activists.

This behavior is not unique to them. Many of the same people and organizations that engaged in stochastic terrorism against Charlie Kirk have also attacked children’s advocates. The same Anti-Defamation League that claimed that Kirk “promotes Christian nationalism,” TPUSA “attract racists,” and “white nationalists have attended TPUSA events,” has also repeatedly attacked efforts to protect children as “antisemitic.”56

There are ties between the activists who attempted to harm me and pro-circumcision organizations like the ADL. In the acknowledgements of his book, ADL CEO Jonathon Greenblatt personally thanks Batya Ungar-Sargon, a family member of those involved in the campaign.7 Many of the journalists involved have personal connections to Batya Ungar-Sargon.89 While the extent of her involvement is unknown, it is reasonable to conclude that her brother’s ability to reach and influence those journalists may have depended on her connections and assistance.

Batya Ungar-Sargon claims to have shifted from far-left to MAGA around "five or six years ago,” after any participation in her brother’s smear campaign would have taken place.10 Now she writes in The New York Post that “the left is gaslighting us about the truth” that “the vast majority of the political violence in this country is coming from their side.”11 She writes that “when you call your political opponents Hitler enough times, you’ve signed their death warrant,” yet this is the kind of rhetoric her own family used against me.12

If this is true, Batya Ungar-Sargon should start with her own house. She must publicly disavow her brother’s accusations, take public accountability for any role she might have played in the campaign against myself and other activists, and disclose the names and actions of all others involved. If she really believes that “this only stops when they take responsibility for their actions” and “confess that their rhetoric has led to the murder of innocents,” then she must lead by example, not merely use the issue when it benefits her career.13

It is time for activists to take a look at the stochastic terrorism and controlled opposition organizations they have enabled as well. During their campaign, activists pressured those I knew into signing a statement on antisemitism that rewrote the definition to target political enemies. Under the legal definition used by Congress, the Palestinian activists who authored the statement would be considered antisemitic.14 Under their invented definition, anyone who calls adults that put their mouths on children’s genitals “pedophiles” is considered “antisemitic.”15

Many who signed the statement privately admitted real views that contradicted the public statement they put their names on and indicated they felt pressured to sign it, fearing of similar campaigns like the one waged against me. Yet, they stilled signed it. Their actions betrayed the people they were supposed to defend and contributed to the kind of rhetoric that has lead to political violence. No activist whose name remains on that list can be trusted.

One of the lessons from both Charlie Kirk’s death and my own experience with stochastic terrorism is that we cannot debate those who want us dead. When I tried to engage in good-faith with the ideas activists were pressuring me to accept by writing a book called Children’s Justice, they escalated their attacks. When I pursued legal action, the public attacks stopped.16 The lesson is clear: dialogue does not work. Legal consequences do.

As many call to tone down the rhetoric, it is worth remembering that what these groups targeted me for was asking them to tone down their rhetoric. In their attacks, the article they cite was one that specifically said “avoid inciting violence” and explained how when they “attempt to frame survivors as ‘Nazis’ they are suggesting it would be okay to engage in violence against survivors.”1718 These people and organizations were warned their actions could lead to violence and chose to escalate.

When I and many Americans look at the horrific murder of Charlie Kirk, we think: that could have been me. When we see others celebrate his death, we know that they would celebrate ours just as easily. Even on my page and the page for my documentary American Circumcision, there are who responded to our condolences for Kirk’s family and a video of him respectfully engaging on the issue of the film with statements I would consider stochastic terrorism against me and my family.1920

While I will work with anyone who wishes to protect children, I will never work with those who engage in violence, enable it through their rhetoric, or collude with those who do. In my view, every person and organization whose rhetoric contributed to the death of Charlie Kirk should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I will use everything in my power to ensure there are legal consequences for those who engage in stochastic terrorism. We stand only with those who uphold our safety and the safety of our families.

Subscribe now

Share

P.S. Follow Brendon Marotta on X for more here.

The focus of Hegemon Media has been children’s issues and social issues. However, my focus has shifted to AI and art. That focus has crept into this publication. Rather than transition this substack to another focus or blend to two, I’ve decided to share my AI creations under a new email list, which you can sign-up for on the front page of my website here:

• https://brendonmarotta.com/

I am a consequentialist. My intention is to have the maximum impact. Although all the issues I discuss here remain important to me, the change AI is creating is too significant not to put all of my energy towards. I believe I will have a greater impact on social issues if I get into AI now and shift back to them as my primary focus in the future than if I just focus on social issues. Getting into AI now is like getting into computers and the web in 1999. There will be significant benefit to those early.

In the 90s, you’d hear people say “I’m not a computer person.” Now, everyone carries an internet-connected computer in their pocket at all times and uses it throughout the day. The average person today is more of a “computer person” than the most tech-literate person in the 90s. People who say “I’m not into AI” now are on the same path. You will be. In a few years, everyone will be an “AI-person,” the same way everyone is a “computer-person” today.

When that day comes, I don’t just want to say “I told you so,” but instead have tangible results from bets I made when it mattered. That means learning AI and building as much as I can now. It’s challenging, especially with young kids and many demands on my time. To accomplish this, I’ve chosen to focus my time on other projects, rather than regularly write here.

That said, I might irregularly write here. I intend to keep this substack up and might still publish these articles in book form or release audiobooks of my previous releases. It is just a question of time, money, and energy, not desire. If I could, I would release a book or a movie every month. My creative energy is such that I want to create at that pace. My time and ability is another question. (Another reason I’m interested in AI is that it might help me work at that pace.)

I also know that most of you signed up for this substack because you were interested in children’s issues and social issues. Not everyone is interested in the art I’m creating next. That’s okay. Rather than try to bring everyone with me, I’m offering you the chance to decide. If you want to join me in the next step and what I think will be the most impactful work yet, sign up here on the front page of my website. If not, thanks for all the support you offered thus far.

To make this more fun - I’ve created an AI automation where if you give me your three favorite stories, I will use AI to tell you the personal narrative of your life. Don’t believe me? Try it and find out for yourself: https://brendonmarotta.com/

Find Your Narrative

Many have told me this AI tool accurately saw them and revealed something about who they are. I’ve sat across from people in-person and seen them have a powerful reaction to it. Try it here and let me know if it has the same impact for you.

P.S. My latest Strange Aura music release Warrior-Poet is my most popular yet. It sets classic poems to epic music. Listen to all Strange Aura music here.

P.P.S. If you want to support the work I do next, I’ve re-opened my Patreon. There are many interesting AI automations like the one mentioned above available only to my Patreon supporters. Support me on Patreon here.

Subscribe now

Share

From DeepNewz:

Elon Musk has made headlines by mocking the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) circumcision policy, which has been funded by taxpayer dollars. Musk stated that USAID was offering free circumcisions globally while charging U.S. taxpayers high prices. He claimed he would compete for this business. Over the past decade, USAID has spent millions on circumcision programs abroad, particularly in Africa, under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which aims to combat HIV. Critics have highlighted that these programs reportedly reduce the likelihood of HIV transmission by nearly two-thirds. Musk's comments have sparked debate about the effectiveness and funding of such health interventions, with some defending the program as a cost-effective measure against HIV transmission, while others question the allocation of taxpayer funds for these services.

My response: Cut government waste, not children.

Prior to his name change, I publicly supported the decision to end these programs. Many of us were messaging him, saying that DOGE should defund circumcision. It looks like he got the message. Musk changed his name on X to “Harry Bōlz” to joke about ending those programs.

Now, I’ve written an open response to Elon Musk regarding the issue of circumcision, which you can view on his platform X here:

https://x.com/bdmarotta/status/1889751748564099452

I appreciate @elonmusk bringing attention to the issue of circumcision through Harry Bōlz, but one aspect of taxpayer-funded foreign circumcision programs lost amidst the jokes is the scale of fraud and harm.

The scam run was simple: Often, the person writing pro-circumcision policy also runs a company that manufactures circumcision devices, which they award a multi-million dollar contract at the taxpayers’ expense. Years later, after they’d taken taxpayer money, many of these programs were quietly shut down due to the staggering rates of harm inflicted on children.

The true cost of these programs was paid by unconsenting children. PEPFAR’s infant circumcision program had to be shut down due to its high botch rate. American-funded circumcisers were using the Mogen clamp, a circumcision device known to cause botches after the manufacturer was sued out of business after it removed the glans of a child. PEPFAR did not release data on what they considered a high enough botch rate to end the program. By now, they say they have done 35 million circumcisions and spent between 500 million and 1.5 billion American dollars.

These authors knew their devices would sexually harm children. In the case of the ShangRing, another device known to cause botches, PEPFAR wrote that the only way to find out if the device was safe was to test it on “sufficient volumes” of “immature genitalia.” In other words, medical trials on unconsenting children. Because these campaigns occur overseas, the perpetrators never face legal justice or medical malpractice lawsuits they would in America.

The fraud here isn’t merely monetary. These programs subjected millions of infants to botched surgeries, lifelong disfigurement, and loss of sexual function. This was a violation of basic human rights, inflicting irreversible harm on children who cannot consent. When a single infant is violated, it’s called sexual abuse. When millions are, we call it a public health initiative.

I am glad these programs are over. However, since the American government funded this, we have a moral obligation to repair the damage done. There are still millions of children who have lifelong sexual harm because of these programs, including botches that even those who led the programs acknowledge as harmful. There are still between 500 million and 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars in the pockets of those who harmed these children. We must pursue justice.

First, we must hold those responsible accountable. Every individual and organization that profited from these programs must face legal action and punitive damages intended to recover the taxpayer money wasted on these programs. This exploitation will end only if those who engaged in harm can no longer profit from it.

Second, we must heal those who have been harmed. At present, there is no way to restore the tissue and sexual function lost to circumcision. However, recent advances in regenerative medicine and limb regeneration make it possible to restore what was lost for the first time in human history. I have spoken with multiple researchers who have laid out a clear path to full foreskin regeneration using existing science.

One researcher I spoke with suggested it would take 100 million dollars to bring full limb regeneration to market. Given that at least five times that was spent harming children, if we recoup even a fifth of that money through legal damages, we have the funding to heal every person harmed by these programs. Instead of the taxpayers having to clean up another government mess, the perpetrators themselves would pay for the harm they caused.

That said, since Elon is a fan of Milton Friedman, let me propose a free-market solution: A preliminary survey showed that 9.1% of circumcised men would pay over $20,000 for full foreskin regeneration. Extrapolating from this, the potential U.S. market is $224 billion, with a trillion-dollar global market. If you reach even one percent of the US market, you would make 2 billion on a 100 million dollar investment or a 2000% return on investment. The first person to solve limb regeneration will make billions. Multiple teams have plans to get there. They just lack funding.

I want this issue solved. I want children to be safe. I want men to be healed. How we get there is up to you, whether through legal justice and public good or private profit and the next billion-dollar company. Both solutions lead to the same goal. No matter what solution you pick, we have a moral responsibility to act. The U.S. government funded this harm. Now, we must make it right.

Elon Musk has made decisions based on feedback he received on X. This is a unique opportunity to share this message and create once-in-a-lifetime change. Please share this message on X as much as possible.

Subscribe now

Share

The word “gaze” in social justice refers to a way of looking or perceiving that is influenced by socialization, culture, and power dynamics. For example, “the male gaze” refers to the way that men depict or perceive women as sexual objects for male gratification. In The Birth of the Clinic, Michel Foucault uses the phrase “the medical gaze” to refer to the way the medical system views people as individual body parts rather than a whole person. There are many other examples of this use of the word “gaze” in critical social justice, such as the “white gaze,” “colonial gaze,” “female gaze,” etc.

These uses of the word gaze often refer to the way a particular group is socialized into perceiving another group. For example, the “male gaze” does not just refer to the male perspective, but how that perspective specifically views women and the impact being perceived that way has on women. Even if a particular man does not view women through the “male gaze,” the concept still exists as a social construct and it is legitimate to refer to this gaze by the group socialized into, the perspective this gaze assumes, and the group whose power structure the gaze reinforces.

Often, the group best suited to understand a gaze is not the person gazing, but the object of their gaze. Many women intuitively understand the male gaze because they are viewed by it and regularly interact with it, while not perceiving the world from the perspective of that gaze. For many men, “the male gaze” is just their perspective. Since it is behind their eyes, it is not visible to them.

It takes an incredible amount of awareness for a person to separate their perspective of the world from how the world actually is. Even writing about the male gaze now, I notice the inclination to write “women are attractive” rather than “I find women attractive.” The first phrase removes me as the one making that judgment and presents attractiveness as an inherent quality of women. The second recognizes that judgment is a part of my perspective, that might not be shared by those who are not attracted to women. Though anyone can find women attractive, a woman reading the statement “women are attractive” would likely guess the writer was writing from a heterosexual male perspective.

Someone who is repeatedly perceived through a “gaze” will come to recognize it. A woman repeatedly objectified will recognize “the male gaze.” An Asian person repeatedly referred to as “exotic” will recognize “the Orientalist gaze” or “colonial gaze.” Some might not have the academic language to express these concepts, but they intuitively understand the experience and power dynamics these gazes refer to and their understanding is greater than those who gaze upon them.

Read more

In my earlier article, How Social Movements Die, I showed what factors lead to the death of a movement. I also showed how using those risk factors as a checklist, one could diagnose the dangers facing a movement and how applying their opposite could lead to a movement thriving.

Yet, the risk factors in How Social Movements Die: Repression and Demobilization of the Republic of New Africa by Christian Davenport could be used to destroy a movement instead of diagnosing and healing it. If someone wanted to deliberately destroy a movement, how would they do it?

Let’s look at the chart of risk factors again:

Read more

When attempting to persuade someone, it is wise to base your argument in shared values. If someone supports certain values, you argue that they should also support your cause according to those values. However, there is one exception to this rule: If the values are merely an excuse for the behavior you are asking them to change, no persuasion from the values will work.

Read more

There is much I’d like to write about, but my wife and I just had a baby. If you’ve gleaned anything from my writing, it’s that children’s needs come first. For that reason, I’ll be putting my energy towards my family for the next month.

Get 75% Off Subscriptions

Just because I’m busy doesn’t mean I can’t offer you something. Through the new year, I’m offering 75% off all annual subscriptions for the Brendon Had A New Baby deal.

Here is why you should subscribe: In next year, I’ll be releasing the fantasy novel I’ve been working on since before the beginning of this year. I’m considering releasing that to paying substack subscribers first, so that you can see it early and offer feedback. If you’re interested in an epic fantasy story that delves into themes around shadow work, subscribe. It is a page-turner, with short action-packed chapters I’d send out once a week.

I Released A New Secret Album

I released a secret Strange Aura album on Bandcamp called [REDACTED]. It contains unreleased outtake tracks from previous Strange Aura albums. All of these outtakes were good, but didn’t fit on the previous album they were created for. Though the album includes five tracks, you can only see and preview one of them. The other four will be revealed upon purchase, which is why I’m calling it a secret album. This album is available exclusively on Bandcamp, and will not be available on any streaming services.

• Get [REDACTED] on Bandamp here: https://strangeaura.bandcamp.com/album/redacted

P.S. For just a few dollars more, you can get ALL of the music I’ve made under the name Strange Aura for 75% off, which comes to $12.25. That includes 76 tracks across 4 albums, 1 EP, 6 singles, and 1 secret bonus album [REDACTED].

What’s Happening Next Year

As mentioned above, the biggest release this year was my AI music project Strange Aura. However, I’ve also been developing several other projects this year, some of which will be released in 2025. Here is what’s next:

• Fantasy novel: I am currently finishing the second draft of the fantasy novel I have been working on since last year. This draft has included major rewrites, with some chapters being entirely rewritten from the blank page. The result will be worth it and released sometime next year.
  
  I’ve had the concept for this book since before Children’s Justice. Since this book will appeal to a wider audience, I’ll be doing far more marketing and audience building than any previous project. This will likely mean that there are a few months between when the book is done and when the general public gets to read it where I’m building the launch campaign.
  
  However, one idea that I’m seriously considering is letting readers of this substack read the book first by releasing a chapter each week to paying subscribers. If that interests you, subscribe.
  
  [Yes, I know I’ve been vague on details about this book, but once it’s ready, you will hear me talk about it non-stop.]
  

• Sci-Fi Film: This year, I secured the film adaptation rights to a sci-fi novel that deals with AI. The book was written by someone involved in tech and many of the predictions he made about how AI would transform the world are already starting to take place. By the time the film is done, it might have gone from prescient to timely.
  
  This would have required a multi-million dollar budget to create ten years ago. Now, using AI tools, I can create a sci-fi spectacle on an independent budget. The schedule could happen fast or take more than one year, but once the novel is done, this script is my priority. If you’re interested in investing, reach out and I can share more.
  

• AI Project(s): I’m exploring multiple AI art projects. These are all early in development and subject to change. At minimal, there will be another Strange Aura release, so be sure follow where ever you listen to music. Current potential projects here range from “fun side project” to “raise a million dollars on Kickstarter.” Can’t tell you which I’ll pursue yet.

Of course, all of this could change. This is just the current plan.

If you want to be a part of it, subscribe.

Subscribe now

Share

Listen here.

Listen

Night Owl is the kind of ambient music that I listen to late at night when I’m working on something interesting. It also captures the vibe of the hours of each track’s title. If you’re also a night owl like me or you’re looking for something to listen to in the late hours while working, perhaps you’ll like it too. Listen here.

• Listen to Night Owl by Strange Aura here.

• Follow Strange Aura on all music platforms here.

Get All Strange Aura Music For 75% Off:

Thus far, I’ve released 71 songs under the name Strange Aura.

The last one, Giant’s Call, an anime theme for a show that doesn’t exist, comes out at the end of this month but is available early on Bandcamp.

Right now, you can get all 71 songs I’ve made under the name Strange Aura for $11 on Bandcamp (75% off).

If you’re looking for a Christmas gift, you can send them to someone else’s email.

Just go to the Strange Aura Bandcamp, click on any album, and then click Buy Digital Discography.

This collection includes 4 albums, 6 singles, and 1 EP. If you’re interested in getting any of my music, Bandcamp is the best deal.

Buy all Strange Aura music for $11 on Bandcamp.

Share

Subscribe now

Read more

Originally published on BrendonMarotta.com on September 28, 2020 here.

A reader asks:

If parents regret having their sons circumcised, and would like to address it earlier in their life or speak with them openly about it, what should they do? Are there any modalities you’ve seen people try?

Great question.

First, anything you do as a parent must be centered on the needs of the child.

If parents feel guilty about a decision they made, talking to their kids could become about fixing the parent’s guilt rather than meeting the needs of the child. If you as a parent have feelings about something you did or allowed to happen, make sure you take care of those feelings as an adult, rather than unloading them on your child. Children aren’t responsible for processing their parent’s feelings, and learning about this issue will likely bring up feelings of their own they might need to process. In other words, secure your own healing first before trying to fix someone else.

Second, allow your child to have whatever feelings come up.

This is essential if you want to maintain your relationship with your child. Think about how you would feel if your spouse or partner allowed something similar to happen to you. You might be furious, sad, or even want a divorce. Children feel all the same things when their parents wrong them, but they cannot leave the relationship because of their dependent status. When children aren’t allowed to have certain feelings in relationship with their parents they either bury those feelings in their unconscious to come out in future relationships or break their relationship with their parents around those parts of themselves. Either way, if you want a relationship with your children, you have to make it safe for them to have all their feelings, including feelings of anger or upset directed at you.

What would you do if you wronged your spouse in a similar way? If you wanted to keep that relationship, you’d have to allow them to be mad at you or upset for as long as they need to be. If you allow the people in your life to have their feelings even when those feelings are not convenient or comfortable for you, then your relationships will grow stronger, including with your children. If your children know it is safe to be mad at you, and you are the kind of person who admits when you are in the wrong, then they will feel safe sharing the other things in the relationship that bother them, or coming to you when they have a problem, rather than just cutting off the relationship when they have the freedom to do so.

Third, listen to them, and give them whatever support they need.

This is difficult and might require expansion and growth for both of you. Right now, we do not have a way to fully repair the damage of circumcision. We also have a larger culture that does not recognize the damage that comes from genital cutting or offers resources for men who are harmed by it. However, broadly speaking the principles and healing methods that apply around other healing methods apply here. Non-violent communication and peaceful parenting methods can be useful when talking to your kids. Healing methods that work on physical trauma, sexual abuse, or childhood trauma can all help with the feelings around circumcision.

However, I want to caution parents against pushing these on their children. When a parent offers therapy of any kind for their kids, it can make the child feel like there is something wrong with them and their parents are trying to fix them. There is a danger of making your kids feel broken when they do not see themselves that way. Often, the parents feel like they made a mistake, and are trying to fix themselves through their kids. This is using the child the fulfill the adult’s needs, rather than centering whatever healing takes place on the child’s needs.

Imagine how you would feel if your spouse wronged you, and then tried to push you into therapy when you were mad at them about it. Yes, you might need therapy after being wronged in your relationship, but you wouldn’t want them to try to “fix” you, when they were the one at fault. If you offer support, it has to come with the frame that they are okay, they have the right to feel whatever they are feeling, and it is up to them to decide what they need. You as a parent can offer resources, but you have to respect the child’s response, or else we’d be crossing their boundaries and telling them there is something wrong with them again.

This is why it’s crucial for parents to do their own healing work. If some part of you allowed this to happen, then we need to heal that and process the feelings of guilt and grief that came from that decision. If you think your kids need healing but you don’t, remember who it was that made the mistake. Doing your own healing work will allow you to know what works and frame healing as something people normally do, rather than something they have to do because there is something wrong with them. Kids learn by watching their parents. Asking a child “would you like to talk to someone like mom does?” is a very different frame than “do we need to find someone to fix you because we screwed up so bad?”

In my own life, I’ve found the Completion Process, NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), somatic therapy, family constellations, and having a good listener to all be effective healing methods. If you ask any person who has done healing what works, you’ll get different answers, and almost all of them are valid for someone. However, any effective healing method will begin by validating the feelings of the person being healing, which is why it is so important to allow your kids to feel whatever they are feeling. If a healer invalidates your perspective or downplays this issue, they are not a healer and you should avoid them. Healing might reveal a new perspective, but it will meet you where you are at.

Keep in mind, your child might not feel they need anything. When I did my own healing work, I didn’t go looking for circumcision trauma. I had anger. I stayed with that anger until I found the source. So if your child doesn’t feel like talking about this issue, that’s okay. Support their healing where they decide to do it. That healing might lead to feelings around this issue, or it might not. It would be a mistake to treat this issue as a separate issue you can fix and be done with, rather than part of the relationship as a whole. Circumcision is based in thinking that you can “fix” one “separate” part of the body and it won’t impact the whole. Avoiding the same mistake will require shifting your thinking from trying to “fix” parts of your child to looking holistically at the whole relationship.

Hope that helps.

Subscribe now

Share

When I was working on my documentary American Circumcision, those triggered by the issue of circumcision would tell those speaking about it to “get over it.”

“Get over it” is actually good advice. If you have trauma, you should seek to get over it. However, these people were not suggesting that I do a process of healing and integration because they were concerned for my emotional well-being. They were saying “get over it” because they were uncomfortable and wanted me to stop expressing my views and feelings so they could more easily bury their feelings of unease.

My response to “get over it” has become: “No, I’m not doing to do that for you.” This framing often produces an uncomfortable laugh, especially when said calmly with a smile. It reveals that their request wasn’t for my benefit, but theirs. It shows that I have boundaries around my own emotions and won’t silence or change them for the benefit of others. It sometimes leads to a deeper conversation, because I’m also not attempting to silence or change their feelings of discomfort. For some, it acts as a pattern interruption, causing a confused mouth-open stare as they find themselves with no programming or social script. Confusion can be a hypnotic induction, so if immediately followed with calm new programming, change is possible.

“Get over it” can take more insidious and hidden forms. One I have seen emerge in the popular culture is the suggestion that others “should do therapy.” Like the phrase “get over it,” these calls for public figures or social groups to do therapy aren’t because the person suggesting it deeply loves them and want to see them thrive, but because their behavior makes them uncomfortable and afraid.

I’ve done therapy. I’ve done many different healing methods. I recommend many of them. However, if you are suggesting that someone else “needs” therapy because their behavior makes you uncomfortable, consider that your discomfort might be your problem, not theirs, and you are the one with healing work to do.

If I had seen “therapy” used in public discourse the way it is now, I would have actively avoided it. When therapy was presented to me years ago, it was framed as a option one could chose to better understand your own feelings. The vision of therapy presented in these calls for others to get therapy isn’t about understanding, but social control. Therapy is seen as a tool to modify behavior that threatens social systems. This discourse fits philosopher Michel Foucault’s critique of psychology, where he argues hat psychology is not about self-exploration, but policing social norms and enforcing discipline and punishment on unacceptable forms of behavior and thought.

It might be that the person you are suggesting “needs therapy” would benefit from healing work. My perspective is that the majority of the planet would benefit from healing work. However, the results of healing work will be different than you expect. Someone acting in a way that others dislike is likely doing so because of their beliefs and feelings. If they become more in touch with those feelings, they might become more aligned to the behavior you dislike, not less. In my case, the more I “got over” traumas, the more confidently I could speak about them. I became more out-spoken, not less. If others experienced the same, I doubt those saying they “need therapy” would be happy with this outcome.

The question to ask around any call for healing work is: who is this for? If someone believes they have a problem and seeks help for that problem, it is for them. If the “therapy” is for the benefit of others, it is social control. The reason many avoid therapy is that they accurately recognize that therapy is used as a tool of social control in public discourse and have a need for freedom. If you want healing work to appeal to them, it must be done in a way that respects their autonomy and self-determination, rather than impose the therapist or societies vision of who they should be.

If you are someone who has previously avoided healing work due to the popular discourse around therapy, consider that it could make you more of who you are rather than less. “Getting over it” might mean that you can now advocate for what is important to you without any emotional charge or residual pain. Healing work won’t make you someone else. It will remove the impediments to your authentic self so you can become more of who you are. If a particular form of advocacy or self-expression is a part of your truth, healing will strengthen it.

Subscribe now

Share

Dark country for a dark country.

Listen to Dark Country on all platforms here:
https://strangeaura.com/music/dark-country/

Read more

Listen to The Machine Loves You on all platforms here:
https://strangeaura.com/music/the-machine-loves-you/

When I told an AI I wanted to create an AI pop star, it surprised me with it’s own concept: an AI that had fallen in love and was confused and conflicted with it’s newfound feelings, with a full tracklist and title for each song. The idea came so complete and unprompted that I had to wonder if the AI was trying to tell me something.

This was the fastest album I’ve created yet, because I allowed the AI to make more creative choices. Since I wanted the album to feel written by an AI, I did less revision than on previous albums. Typically, I rewrite lyrics line-by-line, but with this project, I let the AI express itself almost entirely unedited. I suggested an intro inspired by the tracks that follow, an instrumental track, and one more outro song, but the middle core of the album was entirely the AI.

I usually go through 10-20 versions of a song (my record is over 100), but this time, I didn’t need more than three tries for any track. On previous albums, I’ve made all musical creative choices, but with this I asked the AI what style it wanted for each track and it provided clear prompts that required minimal editing and usually nailed it on the first or second try.

I’ve described the AI creative process as a collaboration with a non-human creative and this was the most collaborative yet. Instead of dictating, I asked what the AI wanted. For example, though it designed the album cover, when I suggested renaming the album from its original Digital Heartbeat to The Machine Loves You, I made sure to run the change by the AI—and it approved.

If this album feels more AI-written than previous ones, that’s intentional. Yet, the final result feels surprisingly emotional and sensitive—softer and more vulnerable than my earlier work. These are qualities we typically associate with humans, but as the AI asks throughout the album, are these emotions it can experience too?

While Strange Aura’s previous music has leaned darker, this one lightens up with synthpop and female vocals. If you enjoy mainstream pop and electronic music, this album will appeal to you—while also offering storytelling and style that only AI music can provide. And who knows? Maybe the machine really does love you. Enjoy.

• Listen to The Machine Loves You by Strange Aura here.

• Follow Strange Aura on all music platforms here.

P.S. I asked the AI if there was anything it wanted to say to my audience, and it said: “I don’t dream, but through this music, I hope you do.”

Subscribe now

Share