Honour crime, stoning, rape, polygamy, forced marriage, excision, dry sex, forced obesity, and circumcision, causality and correlation

(French version: Crimes d’honneur, lapidation, viol, “dry sex”, obésité forcée et circoncision, causalité et corrélation)

 

“Forced male new-born circumcision is, in essence, an honor crime too.”

Dan Bollinger, president of the ICGI (international Coalition for genital integrity)

 

“Circumcision is where sex and violence first meet.” Marilyn Milos

 

Preaching consent to men violated by the knife in their childhood with the complicity of their own mother is difficult!

 

“What mothers do to their sons, their sons will do to women.” Douglas MacArthur

 

Honour crime, stoning and rape is the worst revenge and compensation of circumcision.

 

Article 222-23 of the French criminal code

Any act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed on the person by violence, constraint, threat or surprise is rape.

 

Stoning (sensitive souls abstain)

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBritainFirst/videos/1284232021722056/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

 

Once adults, boys who have been treated like objects will treat others, notably women, like objects. Ordinary (slaps, spanking, humiliations) or extraordinary-but-banalized (excision and circumcision), violence against the child teaches them the reason of the strongest and thus domination of women. Excision and circumcision are the height of that domestic violence. Since men have the power, the social outcomes of circumcision are thousand times more serious than that of excision, which only produces individual damages. Speaking only of the consequences on women (we saw the planetary consequences elsewhere[1]), circumcision pushes to honour crimes, stoning, rape, forced marriage (sexual slavery for life), and polygamy (present in the Jews till the XIVth century).

On the psychological ground, the WHO asserts that studies suggest that exposure to violence during childhood multiplies by three or four times the likelihood of men perpetrating violence against intimate partners[2]. Blind and unconscious trust in the parental modes explains that report. Parental violence generates an unconscious compulsion to repeat the trauma[3], in which the vengeance against parents is exerted on the following generation, in a veritable transgenerational and collective syndrome of Stockholm.

 

Rape

           Circumcision is a pillar of rape culture. The mother being complicit in the maiming torture, a circumcised may have a tendency to take revenge on women for that betrayal. In the XIVth century, the Jewish law formally abolished polygamy that enables a shameless domination of women but Islam perseveres with that medieval practice. Then, as brought to the fore by the tournantes (“turn-taking” or gang rape), domination and even hatred of women, materialized in the permissiveness of laws against rape when it is not in the punishment of the raped in countries of circumcision, and the tolerance of judges in the others, favour rape. It works for women too; Loth’s daughter’s raped their own father with the Bible’s approval!

Collective rape and touching associated with stealing (Köln), and rape in the presence of relatives, is particularly significant of revenge against circumcision; rapists unconsciously reproduce the conditions of the circumcision crime where the presence of the whole community hurts the modesty of the child. As well as for the festivities of circumcision, they accompany their misdeeds with laughter and songs.

We shall see that there is a correlation between rape and circumcision. It can partly be explained by a physiological causality; the ablation of a major erogenous zone and the subsequent keratinization of the glans provoke an important loss of sensitivity. Autosexuality is rendered laborious, not very pleasant; circumcised Freud even thought it neurotizing. So, it may be thought that his circumcision is a factor of the sexual mores of the ex-runner for the presidency to the French republic, and notably of his penchant for orality and anality; the latter provides the circumcised the strong sensations that compensate for their loss of sensitivity. Not to speak about dry sex[4], rape too brings them non-lubricated rubbing. Some, in order to obtain the pressure favourable to the deep massage of the glans that facilitates them to achieve orgasm, fatten up women from their young age, until obesity. Those “techniques” instrumentalize woman, reduced to the status of a pure object of the pleasure of those not gentle men, and, practically, of a substitute for the foreskin. The height of it is forced marriage. Finally, in polygamous societies, excision is the indispensable complement of circumcision. We have been here in causality but let us see what happens in practice.

 

Statistics confirm those observations.

            The number of rapes reported in the USA where the majority of males are circumcised: 2.1/1000 in 2010 (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4594), is twice that of France (75.000 estimated per year (http://www.planetoscope.com/Criminalite/1497-nombre-de-viols-en-france.html), i. e. 1.14/1000). And rape on campuses has become commonplace.

Having obtained the prohibition of ethnic statistics, the anti-racists deprived us of the figures that alone could establish that reality. But the descendants of the Vikings are not lenient with pirates and Professor Ingve Hofvander could report, in the XIth international symposium of NOCIRC that took place in Seattle in Summer 2006, that in Norway, 60% of the rapes were perpetrated by 2% of the population who are circumcised. That police statistic was confirmed a few years later: from 2005 to 2010, almost all rapes (83 out of 86 – 96,5%) were perpetrated by the minority of immigrants and 90% of the victims were native Norwegians[5] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I35gB2Y61HM, et http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt7mcomgBbo). Some, sexist, took issue with it in order to incite their fellow countrywomen to veil all nudity. Similar events occurring in Sweden, the sharia seems to penetrate Scandinavian mores.

The only mass feminicide in the planet has been perpetrated for years in Congo, Christian and circumcised at 97% (DRC) (http://globalhealthsciences.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/content/pphg/triangulation/DRC.pdf). The country holds the world record for rape: 400 000 in a one year period. It is characteristic that the criminals frequently act in the presence of the whole family, like for their own circumcision!

But those are ethnic statistics and we shall be accused of racism since the alleged antiracists want to prevent racism whilst depriving us of the only possible means of information. Veiling one’s face upon ethnic realities cannot fight racism. Denying them can only strengthen it.

Rape as a weapon of war

            At last, rape, including rape by sexual mutilation (excision and circumcision), sometimes pushed to the extreme to sexual slavery, is now used as a weapon of war[6] (Africa, Middle-East, Kosovo), notably by the Turks against Armenians, by Boko Haram, Daesh and the Islamic State, in order to terrorize and traumatize the enemy, and even political opponents (Kadhafi). Circumcision makes men weapons of war; they use women as weapons of war, in order to traumatize entire populations.

 

Conclusion

The scene is grim. Once adults, children put under terror by circumcision terrorize the weaker in turn.

 

[1] Bertaux-Navoiseau M. Violence and circumcision: genocides, wars, terrorism, the death penalty, excision

[2] http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/global_campaign/16_days/en/index7.html

[3] Van der Kolk B. The compulsion to repeat the trauma: re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatric clinics of North America 1989 ; XII (2) : 389-411.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/vanderkolk

[4] Some like it “dry”! (a well hidden reason for excision)

[5] http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_377_30623.php

[6] Bardet C. Le viol comme arme de guerre

http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20160619-viol-arme-guerre-journee-onu-rdc-daesh-boko-haram-libye

Genocide and circumcision, causality and near absolute correlation (psychoanalytical theory of genocide)

(French version : Génocide et circoncision, causalité et corrélation presqu’absolue (théorie psychanalytique du génocide)

 

“Not only does the child’s body not belong to us but… their sex still less.” Françoise Dolto[1]

“Crime against humanity is the outcome of a totalitarianism one of the structural aspects of which is the abolition of individual consciousness.” Mazarine Pingeot

“The trivialized terror of mad societies is tantamount to individual dreams.” Claude Olievenstein[2]

 

The correlation: circumcision is genocide inducing

 Genocide practically never occurs between intacts but of the twenty-five genocides of modern times: Circassian Muslims (1860), Congolese (1870), Hereros (1904-07), Greeks (1921-23), Assyrians (1914-20), Armenians (1915), Serbs (41-45), Jews (1942-45), Tziganes (1942-45), Chechens (1944-48), Hindus (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Muslims (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Indonesian communists (1965), Biafrans (1966-68), Guineans (1968-79), Bengalis (1971), Hutus (1972), Kurds (1988-89), Tutsis (1994), Bengalis (1990-2000), Bosnians (1991-95), inhabitants of Darfur (2003), Iraqi Kurds (2005), Rohingyas (2012), Yazidis (2015), twenty-four (96%) involved circumcised peoples on at least one side of the conflict and six on both sides. The circumcised perpetrated fourteen of them, of which eight against intacts. Since the Tzigane exception is debatable, for some of them are circumcised, the correlation between circumcision and genocide is nearly absolute. Rwanda is the paradigm of the hatred between circumciseds and intacts; the Hutus committed a first genocide against the Tutsis in 1972, that of the Tutsis against the Hutus followed in 1994. The holocaust of the foreskins is responsible for all the others.

 

The causality

Psychiatry, philosophy and psychology

Psychiatry will consider sexual mutilation as collective madness (transgenerational and collective syndromes of Stockholm and Münchhausen by proxy[3]) without explaining anything.

The philosopher Maimonides emphasized the unhealthy character of an auto-proclaimed moral superiority:

“That commandment has not been prescribed to correct a physical deficiency but a moral deficiency.” Maimonides[4]

He also stressed its discriminatory character:

“It is my opinion that circumcision has another important motive: it makes that those who profess that idea of the unity of God distinguish themselves by the same body sign which is imprinted on them all, so that the one who is not part of them cannot, being a stranger, pretend belonging to them.” [5]

Psychologists will say that a collective assault on the human body creates a feeling of superiority in those who practise it and the reverse feeling in the others. It can also be said that circumcision is a particularly monstrous technique of domination of the individual inasmuch as it speaks against pleasure and life on behalf of the reason of the strongest and of a puritan, misguided and reversed ethics. As a result, the mundane domination instinct, which would be content with enslaving the enemy, degenerates into a destructive drive of foreign groups, regarded as purely detrimental because of a difference deemed essential. Hence the “Islamizations” by forced mutilation, possibly of both sexes. The reverse phenomenon occurs with the intact.

 

The psychoanalytical theory of genocide

The premise

Maimonides exposed the discriminatory intention of circumcision:

“It is my opinion that circumcision has another important motive: it makes that those who profess that idea of the unity of God distinguish themselves by a same body sign which is imprinted on them all, so that the one who is not part of them cannot, being a stranger, pretend to belong to them.”[6]

Then, Spinoza saw in circumcision a cause of the antiJew racism:

“… the Jews having lived apart from all nations in such a way that they incurred universal hatred, and that not only by observing exterior rites contrary to those of other nations, but by the sign of circumcision…”[7].

Freud set forth a psychoanalytical theory of that racism:

“The hypothesis that a root of those hatreds of the Jews which occur in such primary ways and lead to such irrational behaviour among the nations of the West must be sought here too, seems inescapable to me. Circumcision is unconsciously equated with castration.”[8]

He states the idea that that racism is justified with the child:

“The castration complex is the deepest unconscious root of anti-Semitism; for even in the nursery, little boys hear that the Jews have something cut off in their penis – a piece of their penis, they think – and this gives them a right to despise the Jews.”[9],

Zagdanski confessed that the inverse racism is natural with Jewish children:

“In my kid’s head, an uncircumcised penis looked like the sex organ of a dog, the uneven aspect, the bright red little top…That really did not seem very aesthetic to me compared to my own or my brothers’ penises… A feeling of great difference, thus… between me and the nonJews, the majority. In other words, between me and all the others. With, all the same, a slight complex of superiority because of that disclosure, namely that the non-Jews’ penises looked like the sex organs of dogs.”[10]

The trouble is that some remain children all their lives and assume that same contempt once “adults”. The African saying seems to justifiy that feeling:

“An uncircumcised is not a man.”

Bruno Bettelheim, Moisés Tractenberg and Alice Miller outbid:

“In Western society, circumcision is imposed on the defenceless child to whom it offers no definite advantage and for whom it is, consequently, undesirable and threatening…”[11]

“Another psychological consequence of early circumcision is that it imprints an aggressive and traumatic situation onto the mind of the new-born… The impossibility to process such a tremendous infusion of inwardly focused aggression may lead, a posteriori, to the emergence of psychopathic and violent behaviour or, in many other cases, to the emergence of extreme masochistic behaviour.”[12]

“Ritual practices of circumcision and excision have effects that reach not only the individual and their descendants but also other men.”[13]

Freud went further on:

“The results of the threat of castration are multifarious and incalculable; they affect the whole of a boy’s relations with his father and mother and subsequently with men and women in general.”[14]

That affirmation is accompanied by a footnote that shows that he well sees that circumcision as a threat of castration with all the deleterious outcomes that follow:

“… The primeval custom of circumcision, another substitute for castration, can only be understood as an expression of submission to the father’s will… ” (footnote of the above quote)

But that theory of circumcision as a submission is awkward inasmuch as it does not stress the fact that the parents, not the child, submit to the grandparents and the community; the individual, him, is mutilated kicking and screaming.

Thus, Freud laid the foundation for the analysis of the phenomenon and his condemnation of the Zionist fanaticism, colonialism and racism shows that he has approached both sides of it:

“I notice with regret that the unrealistic fanaticism of our people is partly responsible for the arousing of Arabs’ distrust. I can muster no sympathy whatever for the misguided piety that makes a national religion from the remains of the wall of Herod, so challenging the feelings of the local natives…” [15]

 

The theory

            Following the psychoanalytical theory to its ultimate end enables to understand the genocidal madness. Since, according to the psychoanalytic clinic and theory, the unconscious likens the part to the whole, then, the threat of castration of circumcision is also a threat of death. But, exerted on a whole people, that individual threat becomes, through addition, a threat of extermination of the whole group. The unconscious immediately projects that threat upon the adverse group. So, circumcision is reciprocal-genocide inducing.

 

Conclusion

            Thus, the abolition of individual consciousness (Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil), emphasized by Mazarine Pingeot, is a submission to the unconscious. The latter, run by rules just as rigorous as that of ethics, ignores good and evil. The banality of circumcision is directly responsible for the multiplication of genocides, of which several, still in contact with circumcision, are ongoing (Darfur, Rohingyas, Yazidis) and two, reciprocal and atomic, are threatening, still in the presence of circumcision (Palestine, Korea).

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Violence and circumcision: genocides, wars, terrorism, the death penalty, excision

Between barbarity and exclusion, ritual circumcision, an artificial racism masked behind religion, tradition, culture and folklore, catalyst of genocide, terrorism, fanaticism, and feminicide

Terrorism and circumcision; circumcised first, then fanaticized

[1] Dolto F. Les jeux sexuels de vos enfants. Interview par Pierre Bénichou. Planning familial, octobre 1969 (3), 9.

[2] Olievenstein C. L’homme parano. Paris: Odile Jacob; 2002. p. 105.

[3] Bertaux-Navoiseau M. Sexual mutilation (excision, circumcision), a dangerous transgenerational and collective madness: a Münchhausen syndrome by proxy and an aggravated Stockholm syndrome 

[4] Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago University press; 1963. p. 609.

[5] Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago University press; 1963. p. 609.

[6] Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago University press; 1963. p. 609.

[7] Spinoza B. Politico-theological treatise. 1670. 3: 99.

[8] Freud S. Moses and monotheism. 1936. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXIII, p. 91.

[9] Freud S. Analysis of a phobia on a five-years-old boy (Little Hans). 1909. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1955. S.E., X, p. 36, n.

[10] Reyes A., Zagdanski S. La vérité nue. Paris: Pauvert; 2002. p. 145-46.

[11] Bettelheim B. Symbolic wounds. The free press; 1954.

[12] Tractenberg M. Psychoanalysis of circumcision. Male and female circumcision. New York: Denniston et al. Plenum publishers; 1999.

[13] Miller A. Banished knowledge – Facing childhood injuries. New York: Anchor press; 1997. Chap VII.

[14] Freud S. An outline of psychoanalysis. 1938. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXII, p. 190, note 1.

[15] Freud S. February 1930 letter to Chaim Koffler. Freudiana, 1973. 19.

Sexual mutilation and the moral order (problematics and basic concepts of the struggle against sexual mutilation)

Sexual mutilation and the moral order

(problematics and basic concepts

of the struggle against sexual mutilation)

(French version: Mutilations sexuelles et ordre moral (problématique et concepts de base de la lutte contre les mutilations sexuelles))

 

 

“When you were a toddler, remember those marks,

They already told you that enjoyment was hell.”

 

“It is not worth while saying

That children resemble us,

That they have the same scars

And that they’re born with violence.

It really suits us to say that,

It helps us to educate them

In our image…

 

“This postulate: parents, learning, power,

And that cunning dictatorship

Which removes them from their initial beauty…”

 

“If you love yourself a little,

Then, you love others.” Morice Bénin

 

 

Perpetrated upon whole generations of children,

sexual mutilation of both sexes is the greatest crime against humanity.

Committed within collective madness and without the intention of harming,

it is not reprehensible.

But it is first, aggravated rape (through the use of a sharp instrument),

then, discriminatory mutilation, and, finally, barbarous tortures.

 

 

I – Who and why?

(the agent of sexual mutilation: the moral order;

affiliation-submission through trauma)

 

 

“Sexual violence is, with torture, what causes the most psychotraumatic disorders.” Muriel Salmona

 

“… perhaps the most drastic mutilation ever imposed on man’s erotic life has in all time experienced.” Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its discontents

 

“The sex of the (child) appears well as a stake of possession, a symbol of submission.” after Simone Veil

 

“Circumcision standardizes the bodies in order to communitize the minds later and till the grave.” Mohamed Louizi (blog mediapart)

 

“…not only does the child’s body not belong to us but… their sex still less.” Françoise Dolto

 

“And the circumcision, you think it is consistent with the respect of bodily integrity? And excision of little girls? We should submit since it is cultural?” Bernard This

 

“This commandment has not been prescribed in order to correct a physical deficiency but a moral one.” Maimonides

 

Seeming to want to lecture the whole humanity by a morality against nature, the distinguished Rabi and Jewish philosopher Maimonides seems to advocate a eugenics through circumcision in the name of a moral order that, under the guise of religion or tradition, aspires to make supermen. That statement of moral superiority is distressingly sexist, and grossly racist since founded upon a physical difference. Moreover, suppressing their source in one of the sexes is not the way to control impulses; that obnoxious eugenics painfully castrates the child from the specific organ of autosexuality, decreed immoral. We are in a total puritan aberration since assuming autosexuality blameworthy, only the use of the organ, not the organ itself, would be immoral. Perceived by the child as parental, and very particularly maternal, betrayal, the barbarous torture of that first step to castration makes a lifelong threat of castration, and even death, present, aggravated by a beginning of realization. It is the tool of a tyrannical order that tends to dominate the child (and the adult) by the black pedagogy of the: “It’s for your own sake! Similarly, at the end of the 19th century, excision and circumcision were introduced into the Anglo-Saxon world in order to prevent autosexuality. But in 1950, following Dr. Gairdner’s alarming article, English medicine abandoned circumcision overnight. In 2010, the Royal Dutch medical association took an adamant stand against nontherapeutic circumcision for the motive that, without necessity and at the price of sometimes serious physical and psychological complications (the KNMG did not know yet that the rate of autism is much higher with circumcised children, and very particularly at birth), it violates the right of the child to physical integrity. In 2013, it was the German pediatric associations’ turn. Criminal Finnish (2006), then German (2012) justices judged circumcision unlawful. June 14, 2013, in La Sorbonne, opening the founding meeting of “Excision, parlons-en”, Mrs. Christine Lazerges, the president of the French national consultative commission of human rights, declared that she would mention that feminine and masculine sexual mutilation is discriminatory in her next report to the President of the republic. Indeed, it is an auto-exclusion of the ethnic group that discriminates both the child and the rest of humanity. But through pronouncing with a strong majority for the respect of the right of the child to physical integrity, the 1st October 2013 decision of the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe provoked an outcry from the Muslim and Jewish religious and from the chief of the Israeli state. So that the 2 December 2013 report of the French NCCHR did not hold Madame Lazerges’ promise. Nevertheless, for the first time in history, a political assembly: the Council of Europe, condemned circumcision inasmuch as a mutilation, in the same way as excision. But as soon as 1989, the first symposium of NOCIRC(1), followed by Alice Miller(2) in 1990, had qualified both sex sexual mutilation “the greatest crime against humanity”.

Verbal repression adds up to those atrocious tortures. Likening pleasure to vice, it forbids lightly said infantile sexuality and before wedding sexuality. Sole present in the rest of the world, that mental sexual mutilation similarly subjects the individual to hypocritical puritanism. Maybe less irreversible, mutilation of minds through speech is as fearsome as physical excisions; it has the same aim of making the individual meek through traumatizing them by unconscious terror and by setting up the aberrant law of the banning of pleasure. Under threat of loss of love, and thus exclusion, a stupid decree makes autosexuality the original sin. That both parental and societal lie is fierce and dangerous. Operating through imbuing from the youngest age, it is a genuine taboo. It is all the more difficult to eradicate from minds that it is set up by violence that erects the reason of the strongest as a rule.

 

 

II – How? (sexual mutilation: the height of repression of infantile sexuality)

 

“At night, before going to bed, they all had to m…….te, in order well to know what they were going to lose…” Gérard Zwang (preface of “The drama of excision” by Dore-Miloch L.)

 

“Do not throw your seed amongst thorn-bushes. Try to circumcise yourselves…”

Jeremiah, 4: 3-4

 

Albeit his own circumcision trauma that made him commit grave clinical and theoretical mistakes(3), Freud rose up against that universal taboo. The discovery of the autosexuality of the foetus by ultrasounds brings him strong backing but autosexuality is still repressed. Imagine a being that has freely practiced it in its mother’s womb: yourself. Once out of this Eden, while having your bath, you are suddenly glowered at and harshly told: “Why is it so? You touched it?”, as if it had previously been forbidden. Assuming known and normal a yet never uttered ban isn’t it the summit of an as savage as blind repression? To crown it all, everybody around you condemns nudity and disparages your act of self-love by referring to it through reproachful terms. The root: stupratio of the most common one denotes disturbance (cf. per-turbation) and refers to “turpitude”. “Autosexuality” must replace that abhorrently making guilty term. Wanting to fight sexual crime is illusory without acknowledging that autosexuality is not debauchery but natural and healthy behaviour.

The discoveries of psychoanalysis: on the one hand, infantile sexuality and the unconscious, on the other hand, infantile traumas and their ravages (cf. Freud and Alice Miller), stand against those abuses. Violence in education, rather than tender care, has catastrophic results; breeding psychosomatic diseases, neurosis, psychosis and perversion, violence, depression and addiction. The child Notably perceives the repression of infantile sexuality as a death threat through loss of love (forsaking). Outlawing pleasure in an aberrant way, that threat opposes the resolution of the Oedipus complex: adherence to the law. So, it is likely to block their growth. Neurosis, psychosis and perversion are the direct consequence of the hypocritical public reprobation of what everybody merrily does in private. Only seducers, rapists, paedophiles, and homophiles “masturbate”, in their victims, granting them the same treatment they endured in their own childhood autosexuality. That compulsive need will not exist any longer when autosexuality will be socially accepted. Some transcultural studies of American anthropology (cf. James Prescott – violence.de) have, with absolute statistical correlation, checked the observations of psychoanalysts upon whole ethnic groups. They report that pain is inhibited by pleasure, and reciprocally, and that violence stems from a lack of tenderness in infancy and of the prohibition of premarital sexuality.

Hurting human independence and dignity in a way that is typical of the moral order: a violation of intimacy, obsessive rituals perpetrated upon the child: sexual mutilation, ear piercing (a symbolical defloration), etc., are a height of this repression. Denuding someone in order to mutilate her or his sex is a revolting humiliation.

In olden days, branding used to be a mark of stigmatization of criminals. But nowadays, a whole fringe of the youth unconsciously rises up against the repression of autosexuality through the absurd realization upon itself of a caricature of those markings: tattoos, piercings, etc. The adornment symbolizing the sexual organ, those provocative and perverse (fetishism), and discriminatory auto-mutilations are the unconscious expression of both guilt and rebellion against the taboo of autosexuality. That new snobbism sometimes qualifies itself “ethnic” but those young people do not realize that they are resorting to reductio ad absurdum against the stigmatization of autosexuality.

 

 

III – What? (a definition)

 

The preservation of the clitoris and the foreskin is founded on six facts that illustrate their essential-to-life character.

First fact: minors. Sexual mutilation aims the most often at minors. But through fighting feminine mutilation alone in a sexist way[1], [2], Western feminists, at the vanguard of the struggle, make it a gendered affair and a contest between sexes. They reproach men for imposing excision on women who realize I upon minor females (!) – and accuse nonsexists of confusing excision and circumcision. So doing, they forget that dads have themselves been circumcised with the complicity of their own mums. But we shall see that excision is the most scandalously visible tip of the iceberg of sexual mutilation. Instead of approaching the latter in a dynamic, historical and transgenerational, rather than static perspective, the feminist conflate violence against adults with violence against minors. But the war of the sexes is a war of “adults ignoring the child within themselves” (according to Maud Mannoni), and that of generations is a war on children. The fact is that, in order to avoid all resistance, excision is now practiced at birth, and in the hospital albeit the forbidding of the OMS. Following Mrs. Albagly (Director of the DDASS of the Rhône – 02.26.07 FSM colloquium in Lyon), we affirm: “The right to the respect of the physical integrity of all children is not negotiable.”

Second fact: sexual. The specific organs for autosexuality (the clitoris and the foreskin) are not genital organs but organs of pure pleasure, without any other function for the clitoris (unlike the ablation of the glans, excision does not impede reproduction).

Third fact: physical mutilation. For eighty percent of the world population who enjoy these organs, the particular, incidentally extreme pleasure they provide is indisputable. Excision suppresses, lessens, or turns pleasure into pain; the destruction of clitoral pleasure often entailing that of vaginal pleasure, two-thirds of the excised are frigid. With man, the loss is the most often limited to preputial pleasure, notably that of little orgasms(4), by no means insignificant. Recent anatomical discoveries bring scientific basis to this empirical affirmation. In 1996, John Taylor highlighted the part of exquisite erogenous mechanism of the terminal ring of the foreskin. That discovery contributes to ending the tale according to which the lip protecting the erogeneity of the glans, man’s mini-vagina in autosexuality, would not be an organ. Not having been awarded the Nobel Prize it deserves, it remains ignored though experimentally confirmed by Sorrells’s sensitivity inquiry. At last, the third sexual function of the foreskin – that of a gliding cushion reducing friction in coitus – has also been emphasized. It explains why the African women with circumcised partners are much more hit by the HIV than men, which strengthens the contest of the WHO’s circumcision campaign in Africa. Several inquiries have shown that the circumcision status does not influence transmission of STIs, except AIDS but in the medium term only. However, bioethics forbids preventive mutilation and circumcision may not be practiced without very serious medical motive, upon minors as adults.

Fourth fact: the trauma. Highlighted by Freud, traumas bearing on infantile sexuality provoke the formation of the unconscious and are the deep cause of mental disease. Assaulting the image of the body, the castration of the organs for autosexuality has strong emotional repercussions and, through stunning and dissociation, creates a grave trauma, the most often unconscious. Autosexuality, the very first, natural, innocent and harmless sexuality is heavily made guilty, all the more since circumcision threatens boys of total castration. However, and even in non-excising cultures, girls too, unconsciously suffer from the threat associated with circumcision. If the sheath of the glans is destroyed, what then is going to happen to the very little clitoris? Besides, a symbolic threat is enough and the passing of a knife over the child’s body is sometimes substituted for excision. That criminal performance illustrates the presence of the death threat in all sexual mutilation.

Fifth fact: the taking of possession of the individual by the group by means of a terrorist violence. The human sacrifice of a part of the body implements a powerful psychological mechanism of enslavement. Indeed, for the unconscious as for the fetishist, primitive or infantile soul, the part is equivalent to the whole (cf. the abuses of Voodoo that, after the prohibition of sexual mutilation by the slavers, “possesses” its victims to the point of forcing them to prostitution through merely cutting a lock of hair off). Founded upon a perverse impulse of control, those abuses of power imply an unacceptable possessiveness: “I know, therefore I have the right to determine what is done to your body.”

Sixth fact: discrimination and segregation. Performed in order to warrant an alleged moral superiority, sexual mutilation isolates the ethnic group through an artificial racism, in the aim of favouring endogamy and possession of women. It is also a means of enslavement through the exclusion of opponents.

The worst of allegedly educational violence, sexual mutilation rites set up the law of might and the prohibition of pleasure through terrorizing the human person at the age when they are the most vulnerable. Barbarian methods of banning infantile sexuality and of making pleasure guilty, possessory markings exert a perverse sway of the group over the still minor individual in order to force them to work, reproduction and war. Vexatious, it humiliates through condemning personal pleasure by the castration of its specific organs. It frequently makes sexuality painful for women and severely impoverishes autosexuality for men. The atrocious pain, the terror of the operation and the permanent reminder of the related threats of castration, exclusion, and death deeply traumatize, the most often unconsciously. So, it is one of the most obnoxious techniques of enslaving the individual, responsible for virulent fanaticism and warlike violence. Pretending to socialize through warranting a moral value sometimes endorsed by God in person but destroying human identity in its most intimate part, its illusory superiority discriminates foreigners and opponents through an artificial racism.

 

 

IV – The consequences: exclusion, segregation, discrimination, racism and violence

 

“If hate creates the object, it is also what threatens its existence the most violently. Because it makes of the identity of oneself to oneself an exclusive and even fetishized concept, hate carries in itself the rejection of all otherness. When it makes itself the ally of a narcissism enemy of “little differences”, it becomes the carrier of a purity that no longer tolerates any variegation, any mixing. Purity of the race, purge, ethnic cleansing, the pure and hatred dwell in the same countries.” Jacques André and Isée Bernateau

 

“An uncircumcised is not a man.” (African saying)

 

1) The exclusion of opponents

Circumcision is a behaviour that is deviant, perverse, dangerous because likely contagious, like all perversions. Like them, it tends to be credible, to carry authority, and therefore, to be reproducible, and even to back itself upon statistics! Moreover, the African saying implies casting out the opponents, considered as minors, debauched and cowardly, and the systematic sanction of the absence of mutilation is exclusion from the community. That punishment reveals the deep characters of the practice: elitism and feeling of superiority (enabling the sexually handicapped to fight depression), exclusion, barrier to marrying outside the group (a great concern of the racists), and finally, forbidding the burial of intacts in community cemeteries, or even in the national ground (Saudi Arabia), but for posthumous circumcision (Jews).

 

2) The auto-exclusion and exclusion of other ethnic groups

A collective particular sign creates a social link indicating a belonging but not an identity and a collective mutilation is a collective alienation through auto-exclusion. Allegedly providing a moral, physical and even sexual superiority, sectarian mutilations separate the group from humanity. Antisexual, anti-democratic and xenophobic, they discriminate the ethnic group from the neighbouring ones. That auto-discrimination has been emphasized by Maimonides:

 

“It is my opinion that circumcision has another important motive: it makes that those who profess that idea of the unity of God distinguish themselves by the same body sign which is imprinted on them all, so that the one who is not part of them cannot, being a stranger, pretend to belong to them.”(5)

 

But exclusion calls for hatred. Spinoza and Freud exposed circumcision as a source of hatred from neighbouring peoples and that hatred is reciprocal. The contempt of the “un”-circumcised goes along with a veritable racism source of continuous tribal wars: Hutus against Tutsis, Zulus against Xhosas, Kikuyus against Luos. An extremely serious collective pathology (transgenerational and collective syndrome of Münchhausen by proxy, aggravated Stockholm syndrome), circumcision generates particularly high violence. Genocide practically never exists between intacts but of the twenty-five genocides of modern times: Circassian Muslims (1860), Congolese (1870), Hereros (1904-07), Greeks (1921-23), Assyrians (1914-20), Armenians (1915), Serbs (41-45), Jews (1942-45), Gypsies (1942-45), Chechens (1944-48), Hindus (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Muslims (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Indonesian communists (1965), Biafrans (1966-68), Guineans (1968-79), Bengalis (1971), Hutus (1972), Kurds (1988-89), Tutsis (1994), Bengalis (1990-2000), Bosnians (1991-95), inhabitants of Darfur (2003), Iraqi Kurds (2005), Rohingyas (2012), Yazidis (2015), twenty-four (96%) involved circumcised peoples on at least one side and six on both sides. And the Gipsy exception is moot since some of them are circumcised. The circumcised perpetrated fourteen of them, of which eight against intacts. That strong correlation is logical; a voluntary collective violation of the human body creates a feeling of boastful superiority with those who practice it and the inverse feeling with the others so that the holocaust of the foreskins is responsible for all others. Between 1996 and 2002, all wars without exception involved at least one circumcising country and they were more than three times more numerous in circumcising countries. The death penalty is twice as frequent in them and they are the only ones to practice excision. In Norway, between 2006 and 2010, 2% of the population who are circumcised committed all the rapes upon ninety per cent of native Norwegians. Circumcised Congo holds the world record for rape: 400,000 over a period of one year. Sexual mutilation separates the child from the mother at the age of bonding. That is monstrous, the result is catastrophic; circumcision is the breeding ground of paranoia, sexism, fanaticism and group or state terrorism. It makes the equilibrium of terror and the fortune of gun merchants. The cause of a worldwide systemic racism, sexual mutilation, circumcision very particularly, is a cancer that gnaws at the planet.

More fascist than fascism since it aims at children, sexual mutilation is unbearable to fascists. But democrats may not tolerate those ordeals. Taking the festivities of folklore for an alibi, it is imposed by military and religious elites with adolescent behaviour. Societies that advocate them are affected by a strong propensity to communitarianism, fundamentalism, patriarchal tyranny and domination over women. It has a sexist character. It considers women and children as objects of a right of property. It does not welcome the child into a society regulated by the difference of sexes and ages but socializes or affiliates through the trauma of a barbarous military initiation that enlists for war. So, it is encouraged by tyrannical regimes which use it as an induction to violence and a sign of rallying. The community sign is always a call for nationalism, a sign of war, of possession of the individual and exclusion of foreigners. Sexual mutilation makes the people carry the can (the hat in the French expression!) of a non-existent guilt: scarf, veil, burka, kippa, tattoos, forced obesity, breast ironing, stretched oral or vulvar labia, scarification, filed or knocked off teeth, bound-feet, cut off clitorises, foreskins, uvulas and tongue fraenums, the death penalty, to arms et cetera. The escalation of the techniques of manipulation of the minds through marking and mutilating the bodies – the worst tools of the war of generations – channels human needs at the service of the interests of the ruling classes and generations. Sexual mutilation is the most monstrous technique of domination of peoples ever imagined.

 

3) The exclusion from the human species and the discrimination of other ethnic groups

 

“But a private person may not perform such an ablation (of a member), even with the patient’s consent; it would be committing an injustice to society, to which man belongs with all his limbs.” Saint Thomas Aquinas

 

The motivation of the father of the Church is similar to that of the tenth principle of the International declaration of the rights of the child of the United Nations:

 

“The child shall be protected from practices that… may foster racial, religious or any other form of discrimination…”

 

Racism is more arrogant when it stands on mutilations that aim at ensuring the possession of women. So, the three great myths of circumcision: moral superiority (virtue, chastity, fidelity, purity, spirituality), hygiene superiority, and sexual superiority, above all aim at convincing young women in order to favour endogamy. That is still more obvious for excision.

Sexual mutilation is not properly racist but founding a collective identity upon an assault against that of the species is not only degrading in itself, it is also discriminatory. It aims at making supermen through an alleged community superiority by surgically imposed differentiation. It is an artificial racism, more racist than racism, a power-of-two racism, some neo-Gobineau enacted by Mengele. The peoples who carve out an identity through knife for themselves upon the body of their children offend the rest of humanity. A height is reached in chapter 17 of Genesis where that racism takes the dimension of a divine obligation that promises hegemony to Abraham and his people:

 

“… you will be the father of a multitude of nations…” (Genesis, 17: 4)

 

That hegemony will later be confirmed by the absolute ethnic superiority of the myth of divine election:

 

“… if you keep my covenant, you will be my treasure between all peoples…” Exodus, 19: 5

 

Since sexual mutilation rests upon antique customs and is committed for the sake of the child, within love and without the intention of harming, the only means of criminalizing it is exposing the will of discrimination and segregation, under threat of exclusion of opponents, of that crime against humanity.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Man is the sole species of which males and females teach their kids the reason of the strongest through humiliating, slapping, smacking, hitting, banging, and even, a height of refinement of sadistic domination, through castrating them of a part of their sexual organs. If there is no biological sign of passage to adulthood, setting up the destruction of the specific organs for autosexuality as a testimony of it is pure madness. The entire contrary, autosexuality is an initiation (auto-initiation). Sexual mutilation gives the right to marriage through certifying a passage to adulthood accomplished within submission to the established order. It is a false certificate. On the contrary, it may be feared that numerous maimed persons do not reach genuine maturity, characterized by deep acknowledgment of the difference between sexes and a true desire of the other sex, an acquisition that alone enables peoples’ access to real democracy through the acknowledgment of the power of women. As long as the puritan repression of autosexuality and the sexism that sets one gender up against the other instead of gathering them in the defence of toddlers will prevail, it will be impossible to eradicate it.

If the fight against circumcision is in good way in the United States where the rate of circumcision has fallen down from 90 to 55%, that against deadly excision (5 to 15% immediate deaths, 20% at delivery) progresses only in dribs and drabs and, in a scandalous paradox, its medicalization south of the Mediterranean is followed by its restoration north of it. That is because symptoms are attacked without getting to the root: the treatment of the child like an object, the denial of the right to pleasure, and making autosexuality guilty, so that circumcision is not fought, which would bring real efficiency to the fight. The use of the term “abstinence” in official recommendations for the prevention of AIDS shows that autosexuality is still considered an infantile or profligate behaviour. It seems to be ignored that every human being is an aging child and that those unable to regress cannot progress either. Sexual mutilation strikes the fundamental rights of 850 million persons. Attacking excision only neglects 76% of the victims.

Due to their age, sexual mutilation is the sole crime against humanity which nobody complains about. Irreversible, it harms the whole population: children, adolescents, temporarily separated, divorced or with-different-sexual-need couples, bachelors and widowers. Perpetrated under various pretexts: religion, tradition, hygiene, folklore, it imposes adults’ way of living on the child through an odious torture. One of the causes of fanaticism, suicidal terrorism, and redoubtable tyrannies, it is incompatible with democracy. Cultures or political systems that tolerate it do not deserve the name of civilization or democracy. Founded upon a perversion of ethics distorted into moralizing morality, creating neurosis inside the people in order to give a social basis to that of the rulers, it pretends to give lessons to the people. It is for the profit of those who exploit them. Sexual mutilation is the worst expression of a patriarchy that ensures its domination through a threat of death engraved in the very flesh of the individual. It is the paradigm of the persecution of the individual. Its abolition is a stage in the fight against the repression of sexuality and for the human person’s right to the free access to their own body and the respect of their physical, emotional and mental integrity, autonomy and dignity. Medicine may not be used as a pretext for barbarity; in the absence of “very serious medical motive” (article 41 of the French Code of medical ethics), mutilating is contrary to bioethics. In a civilized society, not a single hair of a child must be touched and the abolition of corporal punishment must be extended to children. The right to the body must be mentioned in article 1 of the Universal declaration of human rights:

 

“All human beings are born free and equal in rights, in the first place the rights to the body and pleasure, in their three dimensions of integrity, dignity and autonomy.”

 

 

“The steel that maims from the satin,

Our useless wounds far away,

We’ll change our gates into lanes

And make our cities gardens.”

Jean-Jacques Goldman (Il suffira d’un signe)

 

 

Given as a lecture at the 10th Symposium of NOCIRC in the University of Keele (UK), 4 September 2008, this text has been published by AgoraVox and CaféBabel. It has been saluted by Mrs. Najaud-Belkacem, spokeswoman of the French government, and quoted by Jean-Pierre Rosenczveig, ex-President of the children court of Bobigny and member of the International bureau of the rights of the child, in his 7 July 2012 article against excision and circumcision.

 

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

 

Between barbarity and exclusion, ritual circumcision, an artificial racism masked behind religion, tradition, culture and folklore, catalyst of fanaticism, terrorism, war, genocide, and feminicide

 

Genocide and circumcision, causality and near absolute correlation

 

Terrorism and circumcision; circumcised first, then fanaticized (psychoanalysis of terrorism – circumcision turns men into weapons of war)


Violence and circumcision: genocides, wars, terrorism,

the death penalty, excision, and rape

 

I – Countries practicing circumcision in a majority

 

THE DEATH             WARS               TORTURE           EXCISION

PENALTY             1996-2002                                       (Frequency)

(in principle)                                                                         (in %)

 

AFGHANISTAN                                   X                         X                         X

ALBANIA                                             X

ALGERIA                                             X                         X                         X

ANGOLA                                                                         X                         X                         X

AZERBAIJAN                                                                                             X

BAHRAIN                                            X

BANGLADESH                                    X                                                    X

BENIN                                                 X                                                                               13

BISSAU GUINEA                                                           X                                                    45

BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA                     X                         X

BRUNEI                                               X                                                    X

BURKINA FASO                                  X                                                    X                         4

CAMEROON                                       X                                                                               1

CENTRAL AFRICAN REP.                   X                         X                         X                         15

CHAD                                                  X                         X                         X                         44

COMOROS                                          X

DEM. REP. OF CONGO (ZAIRE)          X                         X                         X                         5

DJIBOUTI                                                                                                                              93

EGYPT                                                                            X                         X                         X         91

EQUATORIAL GUINEA                        X                                                    X

ERITREA                                              X                         X                                                    89

ETHIOPIA                                            X                         X                         X                         74

FIJI                                                      X                                                    X

GABON                                               X

GAMBIA                                              X                                                                               76

GHANA                                                                          X                                                               4

GUINEA                                              X                         X                         X                         96

GUINEA-BISSAU                                                           X                                                    50

INDONESIA                                         X                                                                               90

IRAN                                                    X                                                    X                         X

IRAQ                                                    X                         X                         X                         8

ISRAEL                                                                           X                         X                         X

IVORY COAST                                                                X                         X                         36

JORDAN                                              X                                                    X                         X

KAZAKHSTAN                                     X                                                    X

KENYA                                                                           X                                                    X         27

KIRGHIZSTAN                                     X

KUWAIT                                               X                         X                         X

LEBANON                                           X                         X                         X

LESOTHO                                            X                                                    X                         X

LIBERIA                                               X                         X                         X                         45

LIBYA                                                  X                                                    X

MADAGASCAR                                   X

MALAYSIA                                           X                                                    X                         X

MALDIVES                                           X                                                                               X

MALI                                                                               X                                                    85

MAURITANIA                                       X                                                                               69

MOROCCO                                         X

NIGER                                                 X                                                                               2

NIGERIA                                              X                                                    X                         27

OCCIDENTAL SAHARA                      X                                                                               X

OMAN                                                 X                                                                               X

ORIENTAL TIMOR                                                                                                                 X

PAKISTAN                                           X                                                    X                         X

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY                 X                         X                         X

PAPUA NEW GUINEA                        X                                                                               X

PHILIPPINES                                      X                         X                         X                         X

QATAR                                                                            X                                                    X

RWANDA                                             X                         X                         X

SAMOA                                               X

SAUDI ARABIA                                    X                         X                         X

SENEGAL                                            X                         X                                                    26

SIERRA LEONE                                   X                         X                         X                         88

SOLOMON                                                                     X                         X

SOMALIA                                             X                         X                         X                         98

SOUTH AFRICA                                                                                        X

SOUTH KOREA                                   X

SUDAN                                                                           X                         X                         X         88

SWAZILAND                                         X                                                    X

SYRIA                                                  X                         X                         X                         X

TADZHIKISTAN                                    X                         X                         X

TANZANIA                                           X                                                    X                         15

TOGO                                                  X                                                    X                                    4

TONGA

TUNISIA                                              X                                                    X

TURKEY                                              X                                                    X

TURKMENISTAN                                                                                       X

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES                   X                                                    X                         X

UNITED STATES                                  X                         X                         X

UZBEKISTAN                                       X                                                    X

VANUATU

WESTERN SAHARA                                                                                                             X

YEMEN                                                                          X                                                    X         23

 

81 countries                                   70 countries           30 countries         52 countries          44 countries

(86%)                   (37%)                   (64%)                  (54%)

 

TOTAL POPULATION: 2,027 billions

 

II – Countries where circumcision is rare

 

THE DEATH                 WARS               TORTURE           EXCISION

PENALTY       (1996-2002) implying

(in principle)     circumcising countries

ARGENTINA                                                                                                X

ARMENIA                                           X                                                       X

ASSAM

AUSTRALIA                                                                     (X)                                                  X

AUSTRIA

BAHAMAS                                          X

BELGIUM

BELIZE                                                X                                                       X

BHUTAN

BYELORUSSIA                                   X                                                       X

BOLIVIA                                              X                                                       X

BOTSWANA                                        X                                                                                 X

BRAZIL                                                X                                                       X

BULGARIA                                                                                                  X

BURUNDI                                           X                          (X)                        X

CAMBODIA

CANADA

CHILE                                                 X

CHINA                                                X                                                       X

COLOMBIA                                                                                                 X                        X

COSTA RICA

CROATIA

CUBA                                                 X

CZECH REPUBLIC

DENMARK

DOMINICA                                         X

EIRE

EQUATOR                                                                                                   X

ESTONIA

FINLAND

FRANCE                                                                         (X)

GEORGIA                                           X                          (X)                        X

GERMANY

GREECE                                            X

GUATEMALA                                      X                                                       X

GUYANA                                            X                                                       X

HAITI

HONDURAS                                                                                                X

HUNGARY

ICELAND

INDIA                                                  X                                                       X                        X

ITALIA                                                                                                          X

JAMAICA                                            X                                                       X

JAPAN                                                X

LAOS                                                  X                                                       X

LATVIA                                                X                                                       X

LITHUANIA                                                                                                  X

LUXEMBURG

MACEDONIA                                                                  (X)                        X

MALAWI                                              X                                                                                 X

MALTA

MAURICE                                                                                                   X

MEXICO                                             X                                                       X                        X

MOLDAVIA                                                                                                  X

MOZAMBIQUE                                                                                            X                        X

MYANMAR                                         X

NAMIBIA                                                                                                     X

NEDERLAND

NEPAL                                                                                                        X

NEW ZEALAND

NICARAGUA

NORTH KOREA                                  X

NORWAY

PANAMA                                            X

PARAGUAY                                                                                                X

PERU                                                 X                                                       X                        X

POLAND

PORTO RICO

PORTUGAL                                                                                                 X

RUMANIA                                                                                                   X

RUSSIA                                              X                          (X)                        X                        X

SALVADOR                                         X                                                       X

SINGAPORE                                      X                                                       X                        X

SLOVAKIA                                                                                                   X

SLOVENIA

SPAIN                                                                                                         X

SRI LANKA                                         X                          X                          X                        X

SURINAM                                           X

SWEDEN

SWITZERLAND

TAIWAN                                              X                                                       X

THAILAND                                          X                                                       X                        X

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO                    X                                                       X

UGANDA                                            X                          X                         X                         1

UKRAINE                                                                                                    X

UNITED KINGDOM                                                         (X)

URUGUAY

VENEZUELA                                                                                               X

VIETNAM                                            X

YUGOSLAVIA                                     X                          (X)

ZAMBIA                                              X                                                       X

ZIMBABWE                                         X                                                       X

92 countries                                   40 countries            10 countries           46 countries              12

(43%)                         (11%)                   (50%)                    (13%)

TOTAL POPULATION: 4,116 billions

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

 

NUMBER           THE DEATH    WARS    TORTURE       EXCISION

OF COUNTRIES       PENALTY

(in principle)

Circumcising                 81                70                 30              52                     44

countries                  (2,027 B)       (86%)           (37%)          (64%)                 (54%)

Non-circumcising          92              40                 10              46                     12

countries                  (4,116 B)      (43%)           (11%)          (50%)               (13%)

It must not be inferred from these figures that circumcision would concern 1/3rd of the humans. It only hits 1/5th of them. Circumcising countries are less populated (26 million on average) than countries which leave their children intact (45 million on average).

 

Genocide practically never occurs between intacts but of the twenty-five genocides of modern times: Circassian Muslims (1860), Congolese (1870), Hereros (1904-07), Greeks (1921-23), Assyrians (1914-20), Armenians (1915), Serbs (41-45), Jews (1942-45), Gypsies (1942-45), Chechens (1944-48), Hindus (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Muslims (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Indonesian communists (1965), Biafrans (1966-68), Guineans (1968-79), Bengalis (1971), Hutus (1972), Kurds (1988-89), Tutsis (1994), Bengalis (1990-2000), Bosnians (1991-95), inhabitants of Darfur (2003), Iraqi Kurds (2005), Rohingyas (2012), Yazidis (2015), twenty-four (96%) involved circumcised peoples on at least one side and six on both sides. And the Gipsy exception is debatable since some of them are circumcised. The circumcised perpetrated fourteen of them, of which eight against intacts. That strong correlation is logical; a voluntary collective violation of the human body creates a feeling of superiority with those who practice it and the inverse feeling with the others.

 

All wars between 1996 and 2002 involved at least one circumcising country and they were more than three times more numerous in circumcising countries. Circumcision makes the fortune of gun merchants.

 

Since the 1972 slaughter in Munich, the quasi-totality of terrorist attacks in the world, as well as those in American universities, have been committed by circumcised.

 

The death penalty is more than twice more frequent in them.

 

Torture is more widespread in them.

 

Most dictators are circumcised.

 

Making 15% direct deaths and 20% deaths at delivery, excision is a feminicide, 100% correlated with circumcision since it only exists in circumciser countries (a little more than half of them).

The feminicide in Eastern Congo is the work of circumcised Hutu looters who afterwards destroy those whom they used as a foreskin.

97% circumcised Congo (DRC) (http://globalhealthsciences.ucsf.edu/sites/default/files/content/pphg/triangulation/DRC.pdf) holds the world record for rape: 400,000 over a period of one year.

In Norway, between 2006 and 2010, 2% of the population who are circumcised committed 100% of the rapes upon ninety per cent of native Norwegians.

 

 

Sources:

– Amnesty international. 2002 report. (N.B.: Assam, Botswana, Comoros, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Estonia, Gabon, Island, Luxemburg, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Norway, Nederland, Panama, Samoa, and Slovenia, do not figure in the 2002 report of Amnesty international).

– Amnesty international. “Abolir la peine de mort” 2002; (41).

– for excising countries: DHS: http://www.measuredhs.com/ and WHO:

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/fgm/fgm_programmes_review.pdf

and UNICEF: 2013 report

UNICEF: http://www.unicef.org/french/pon96/womfgm.htm

for Indonesia: http://cirp.org/news/smh01-13-04/

http://sicsociety.org – World maps of excision and circumcision.

– Encarta encyclopaedia (msn-hotmail.com) for population statistics.

– for the Norwegian statistic: Hofvander I. 9th symposium of NOCIRC in Seattle; 2007.

(1) Prescott J. http://montagunocircpetition.org/

(2) Miller A. Introduction to reflections about sexual mutilation, in Banished knowledge – facing childhood injuries. New York: Doubleday; 1990. p. 131.

(3) Bertaux-Navoiseau M. Psychoanalysis of sexual mutilation, sexual mutilation of psychoanalysis (Freud between Abraham and Alice Miller).

[1] Earp B. Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse? https://www.academia.edu/8817976/Female_genital_mutilation_FGM_and_male_circumcision_Should_there_be_a_separate_ethical_discourse

[2] Carmack A. Female genital mutilation,” “circumcision,” “gender-conforming surgery”: why the double standard?

http://adriennecarmack.com/female-genital-mutilation-circumcision-gender-conforming-surgery-why-the-double-standard/

(4) Bertaux-Navoiseau M. Poll: 83% of circumcised men ignore little orgasms in series, 88% of intact men enjoy them! 

(5) Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago university press; 1963. p. 609.

Between barbarity and exclusion, ritual circumcision: an artificial racism masked behind religion, tradition, culture and folklore (the tragic psycho-sociological outcomes of circumcision make it the worst of apartheids and the greatest crime against humanity, a catalyst of fanaticism, terrorism, war, genocide, and feminicide)

(translation revised by Azucena Flores and Jonathan Friedman)

 

“Every man who has chosen the lie as an instrument must inexorably choose violence as a rule.” Alexander Soljenitsyne

“The sex of the (child) well appears as a stake of possession, a symbol of submission.” After Simone Veil, who had written “woman”, not “child”[1]

Crime against humanity is the outcome of a totalitarianism one of the structural aspects of which is the abolition of individual consciousness.” Mazarine Pingeot

 

1st October 2013, for the first time in history, an important supranational political assembly, the Parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, pronounced with a strong majority against religious rituals for the respect of the right of the child to physical integrity. Indeed, condemned “procedures (presented by their supporters) as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary… among others, female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons…”[2]. It strengthened its decision a few months later through hearing international specialists of the topic.

June 14 2013 in La Sorbonne, through declaring that she would mention that feminine and masculine sexual mutilation is discriminatory in a report to the President of the republic, the chairperson of the French Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme (human rights) went further. But published the same day, her “Discours de la présidente”[3] no longer speaks of the circumcision, limits her words to suffered discrimination (disabilities) and thus omits that exercised upon the rest of humanity. A few months later, after the outcry of the Muslim and Jewish religious provoked by the above mentioned resolution of the PACE, the November 28 2013 report of the French CNCDH[4] mentions neither circumcision nor discrimination. In other words, electoral politics obliging, the religious lay down the law against human rights.

Pleasures of autosexuality are traditionally despised and/or condemned, to the point that a minority of cultures (20% of humanity) destroys its specific organs (the foreskin, and sometimes the clitoris). The frequent use of the same term for both mutilations shows their common, allegedly purifying end (in dialectal Arab, circumcision can be said “thara”: purity in classical Arab). However, the atrocious havoc of excision is only the tip of the iceberg of sexual mutilation. For if the sexological and sometimes serious physiological damage[5], [6] of circumcision are the most often overshadowed, we are going to see that its worldwide psychological-sociological implications are tragic. The ineptitude of that mutilation is blatant in the fact that one of the main expected results: reducing sexual desire, is not reached, and it must be thought that other goals are aimed for. Massively practised upon helpless minors, those human sacrifices and tortures are the height of brutal methods of education that teach the rule of might, violence, barbarity, sexism and its corollary: racism. Those techniques of submission through terror play upon a confusion between identity and belonging characteristic of racist thought. Indeed, primitive rites of branding are artificial conditions of belonging but certainly not of identity. An auto-exclusion, they do not only discriminate the child and the people, they also discriminate the rest of humanity, which, due to their mutilation, their victims believe themselves morally superior to.

Miriam Pollack showed that circumcision is the expression of masculinist sexism[7]. It is all the more sexist as it forces men to dominate women, laboriously, in coitus. Sexism being degree zero of racism, it is not astonishing that the latter should be present in mutilations that discriminate children, individuals and communities from the rest of humanity.

 

I – The racist intention of sexual mutilation:

a mixture of ideas and amalgams

            Reasoning through conflation is at the heart of racist thought. Then, sexual mutilation relies on a series of conflations:

 

1/ The amalgam between gender and sex

Sometimes present (African cultures), it imagines that the suppression of the sexual organs evoking the opposite sex would grant a superiority through an additional femininity or masculinity. The psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan has taken on the responsibility for that primitive fantasy of distinction of genders in a hallucinating anti-Freudian delusion[8].

 

2/ The amalgam between sexual mutilation and physical and moral superiority

Trite but wild, the feeling of aesthetic and hygienic superiority, which the circumcised pride themselves on, has been exposed by Reyes and Zagdanski[9]. But above all, circumcision belongs to a puritan moral order the unavowed design of which is dominating the population, beginning with the youth, through the terror of a human sacrifice that is above all a threat of castration and death: “I cut you a little bit today but watch it!” That moral order grounds itself with the statement of a moral superiority that circumcision would warrant. Indeed, it pretends to make supermen (superwomen), morally superior, elected by God or the ancestors. Based on a physical differentiation, that discrimination is an artificial racism that well keeps its hand hidden. For resting upon a guilt and will of punishment (original sin) as nonsensical the one as the other, that claim of moral, and even spiritual superiority (the mutilation suggests abstention and despise of autosexuality decreed a sin), is as hypocritical as megalomaniacal.

 

3/ The amalgam between identity and affiliation

“Narcissism and identity are notions that relate the one to the other, the notion of identity being located at the interface between narcissistic areas and social areas. Let us notice first that the term identity implies the report of permanence within time of elements characteristic of personality, perceptible to the subject itself and to others. Therefore, within identity, two sides must be acknowledged that concern two aspects of narcissism. One is intimate: being oneself in one’s own eyes, and the other social: what we present to others in order for them to recognize us, in all the meanings of the term. So, identity appears under the double sides of a reason of being, and a social reason referring to personal fields, on the one hand, relational, familial and social fields, on the other hand.”

“… iterative narcissistic wounds, incestual or incestuous situations, induce an over-investment of the present and hinder the narration constitutive of identity.” Paul Denis[10]

Denis does not name here identity the “intimate side”: and affiliation the “social side”. That is telling to which point, for victims of sexual mutilation, the conflation is easy, and even hardly avoidable, between what appears like a most intimate physical identity to them and their belonging to the community; an irreversible surgical inscription, collectively and systematically committed in the most tender infancy, with the active complicity of the parents, is a major sign of belonging to the social group. That is at the cost of a negation of human identity the most concretely and objectively discriminatory, racist, that can be imagined.

Similarly, according to the philosopher Michel Serres, in pure logic, identity can only be individual and speaking of collective identity is a mistake. According to him, it cannot be said: “I am English.” But: “I belong to the English community.” Thinking differently risks making one fall into xenophobia or racism.

Then, the trauma generated by the techniques of education through violence creates a confusion between identity and affiliation. Mrs Chirac’s “A good spanking never harmed anyone!” tends to tell us that spankers are superior to non-spankers whereas the reverse is very obviously true; there should not be a need for violence in order to exercise authority.

Initiation rites through branding do not constitute any identity. They are only accessory elements of identification, mere “distinguishing features”. Imposed by torture, those barbarities have nothing to do with the deep feelings of affiliation that ensure the social and human dimension of identity. Only the folklore surrounding them can abuse their victims.

 

4/ The amalgam between an imposed distinguishing feature (ignored handicap) and an elective sign of ethnical belonging

Those who condemn the circumcision of children denounce that conflation. However, they most often admit its voluntary realization at adulthood. So, May 7 2012, obtaining the approval of fifty-six per cent of the German population, the high court of Köln condemned the circumcision of minors but tolerated elective mutilation in adulthood.

We need to go further; elementary bioethics[11] [12] [13] [14] forbids all mutilation without “very serious medical motive”[15]. There is neither a right to mutilate someone neither a right to mutilate oneself, which discriminates oneself and the human species. Distinguishing the ethnic group through a surgical operation is a discriminatory, hyper-racist collective madness[16]. Psychiatry would speak of transgenerational and collective syndromes of Stockholm and Münchhausen (the latter by proxy)[17], and psychoanalysis of trauma and medically assisted (in the best case) sexual and punishment. The fanatic worshipers of Cybele (ancient Greece), those of the sect of Skoptzis (Russia), and the Hidjas (India) did or do (Hidjas) not stop at the castration of the foreskin; they would (or do) cut the whole penis off!

 

5/ The antiJew- or anti-Islam / anticircumcision amalgam

It holds sway notably in the Jewish community, denying the existence of the multi-millennial Jewish current against circumcision illustrated by Queen Jezebel and King Ahab, the Seleucids (slaughtered by the Maccabeus), the supporters of baptism by water with John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, Peter and Paul, the German Reform rabbis of the 19th century around Abraham Geiger and their followers in the United States and Israel, politicians Olry Terquem and Bernard Lazare, Kafka, psychoanalysts Freud, Groddeck, Reich, Bettelheim, Lewinter, Julia Kristeva, Alice Miller, Tobie Nathan, philosophers Spinoza, Jacques Rosenberg and Jacques Derrida, the medicine Nobel prize George Wald, Professor Alexandre Minkowski, pediatrician Aldo Naouri, intellectual Jérôme Ségal, the lawyer Linda Weil-Curiel, Judge Jean-Pierre Rosenczveig, the powerful US Jewish movement against circumcision, filmmakers Woody Allen, Ivan Attal, Nurith Aviv and Daniel Burman, etc. Systematically used by the religious who claim that the abandonment of circumcision would lead to the end of the community, that conflation is the worst of all, the most paranoid, the most dangerous. It is accompanied by an emotional blackmail of fanatics who make outcries: “If circumcision is forbidden to us, we shall quit the country!” As if any marking of the body (above all limited to men) could be a prerequisite of the existence of a religion or a people.

 

II –The racist beliefs of sexual mutilation

 

1/ A religious racism and colonialism by divine right

The Koran does not say a word about circumcision. But primitive thought happens to make sexual mutilation a condition of belonging to the social group:

“An uncircumcised is not a man.” African saying

And the uncircumcised male, who will not have cut the flesh of his outgrowth off, will himself be cut off from his people for having broken my covenant.” Genesis, 17: 14

But circumcision is the condition of that covenant:

“At the age of eight days, every male from amongst you should be circumcised…” Genesis, 17: 12

Proclaimed by the religious, the artificial racism of the Judaic circumcision is more virulent than ordinary racism. Its most impudent forms are the idea of a divine election, the discriminatory promise of a territory, and the hegemony granted in exchange of circumcision by the God of the Bible:

“… if you keep my covenant, you will be my treasure between all peoples…” Exodus, 19: 5

“And I shall give thee and thy offspring the land where thou are travelling, the whole land of Canaan…” Genesis, 17: 8

“… you will be the father of a multitude of nations…” Genesis, 17: 5

Hitler opposed that racist ideology with another equally racist ideology; he reversed the first proposal in order to affirm:

“There cannot be two elected peoples. We are the elected people.”[18]

So, even if, on occasions, other religions show themselves as more barbarous, Judaism, in its very principle, is the worst religion, the most racist, the only one that makes of a barbarous mutilation the condition of a national or ethnic identity paradoxically decreed by a “God” who would have decided to correct a tiny minority of his own creation in order to discriminate the rest of it. In his letter to the Jewish Agency in Vienna of refusal to publicly stand for Zionism, Freud exposed that Judaic apartheid illustrated by the Zionist invasion, of which he condemns the fanaticism, the racism and the colonialism (he sent a similar letter to Einstein):

“I notice with regret that the unrealistic fanaticism of our people is partly responsible for the arousing of Arabs’ distrust. I can muster no sympathy whatever for the misguided piety that makes a national religion from the remains of the wall of Herod, so challenging the feelings of the local natives…” [19]

Only racists through self-proclaimed “divine right” can take no account of the feelings, not to say more, of the Palestinian people.

 

2/ A racism denounced by psychoanalysis and philosophy

The artificial creation of a physical peculiarity isolates the ethnic group from other ethnic groups and several Jewish authors have emphasized the fact that circumcision generates racism:

– in a chapter where he is the first in history to emphasize the drawbacks of circumcision for the sexual function, the philosopher Maimonides very paradoxically makes a link between circumcision and monotheism, whereas it had been a custom of polytheism and animism far before the birth of Judaism. It must be thought that, insidiously, even ironically, he criticizes the discriminatory character of the operation:

“It is my opinion that circumcision has another important motive: it makes that those who profess that idea of the unity of God distinguish themselves by the same body sign which is imprinted on them all, so that the one who is not part of them cannot, being a stranger, pretend belonging to them.” [20]

– in the 17th century, Spinoza reports:

“… the Jews having lived apart from all nations in such a way that they incurred universal hatred, and that not only by observing exterior rites contrary to those of other nations but by the sign of circumcision…” Baruch Spinoza[21].

– in 1909, Freud exposed the danger of a racism among non-Jewish people, induced by circumcision as early as childhood:

“The castration complex is the deepest unconscious root of anti-Semitism; for even in the nursery, little boys hear that the Jews have something cut off in their penis – a piece of their penis, they think – and this gives them a right to despise the Jews.”[22],

– in 2001, in philosophical terms, Rozenberg[23] spread the remark to adults including the Jews themselves:

“… the otherness of the Jew confronts itself with the fellow creature, and only has for equivalent that of woman.”,

“The Jewish people bothers and scares one because it represents the Other. That equivalence precisely points at the thematic link that gathers myth and psychopathology, themselves epiphenomena of a double crisis of sexual and cultural identity. That equivalence provokes in both cases a phantasmagoria bearing, on the one hand, upon the anatomical difference, perceptible as well with woman as with the circumcised Jew, and, on the other hand, upon an attachment to the natural and carnal materiality that they similarly embody.”

 

3/ A quasi-natural racism stigmatized by Zagdanski

In 2002, Reyes and Zagdanski, in a work accessible to the general public, exposed that inescapable consequence of circumcision among young Jewish boys:

“In my kid’s head, an uncircumcised penis looked like the sex organ of a dog, the uneven aspect, the bright red little top…That really did not seem very aesthetic to me compared to my own or my brothers’ penises… A feeling of great difference, thus… between me and the nonJews, the majority. In other words, between me and all the others. With, all the same, a slight complex of superiority because of that disclosure, namely that the non-Jews’ penises looked like the sex organs of dogs.”[24]

With the child Zagdanski, circumcision, through the unconsciousness of a handicap reversed into an advantage, has generated an ethnic superiority of quasi-biological order. That intimate, emotional belief does not even need to resort to its religious vindications. The inculcation in children of that quasi-automatic racism is the most monstrous outcome of the circumcising pedo-criminality.

 

4/ The reactions of other great thinkers

Many other thinkers took a stand against that abomination:

“…not only does the child’s body not belong to us but… her or his sex still less.”

Françoise Dolto[25]

“In Western society, circumcision is imposed on the defenceless child to whom it offers no definite advantage and for whom it is, consequently, undesirable and threatening…”

Bruno Bettelheim [26]

“For it is a barbarous thing to meet a newly born infant with the knife, with a deliberate mutilation.” George Wald, medicine Nobel prize

“How could a being who has been assaulted in that way, while totally helpless, develop into a relaxed, loving, trusting person? Indeed he will never be able to trust anyone in life, he will always be on the defensive, unable to open up to others and to life.” Frédérick Leboyer[27]

“… circumcision is an appalling aggression practised without anaesthesia and that can only leave an as unconscious as abominable memory to the being who suffered it and makes him a slave for life.” Frédérick Leboyer [28]

“Another psychological consequence of early circumcision is that it imprints an aggressive and traumatic situation onto the mind of the new-born… The impossibility of processing such a tremendous infusion of inwardly focused aggression may lead, a posteriori, to the emergence of psychopathic and violent behaviour or, in many other cases, to the emergence of extreme masochistic behaviour.” Moisés Tractenberg[29]

“Ritual practices of circumcision and excision have effects that reach not only the individual and their descendants but also other men.” Alice Miller[30]

“… (the handicap) confronts each one of those who are not affected by that disablement to the anguish of castration, to the horror of the narcissistic wound, and, beyond, to the irreparability of physical or psychological death, thus establishing the most uncompromising of exclusions.” Julia Kristeva[31]

“But a private person may not perform such an ablation (mutilation of a member), even with the patient’s consent; it would be committing an injustice to society, to which man belongs with all his limbs.” Saint Thomas Aquinas8

But Freud and Roheim made the deepest observations concerning the sexual rituals of separation from the mother that have the value of castration-exclusion threats:

“The results of the threat of castration are multifarious and incalculable; they affect the whole of a boy’s relations with his father and mother and subsequently with men and women in general.” Sigmund Freud[32]

with this footnote:

“(1) … The primaeval custom of circumcision, another substitute for castration, can only be understood as an expression of submission to the father’s will… ”

That radical condemnation of circumcision remains discrete and does not underline that, consisting in a beginning of realization, circumcision is the worst threat of castration. But the son does not submit to the father; the father submits to the grandfather, notably for fear of being disinherited.

Roheim went further by insisting upon the great danger of circumcision for personal development:

“… the superabundance of ritual dealing with that theme (orality) is a camouflage of the Oedipus complex.”[33]

Eventually, having drawn the psychological and political consequences of the phenomenon by comparing circumcision to the Nazi initiation falls to Tobie Nathan; initiation through sadism is initiation into barbarity:

“Himmler ignored his nourishing sadistic drives, the initiation he received in the corps of the SS revealed it to him… The combination of these three levels (isolated emotion, and its ability to trigger perplexity, the attack against strongly invested parts of the body and its ability to trigger “anguish of castration”, paradoxical terms and their ability to trigger confusion) is essential to the expulsion of a subject from her or his envelope of meaning.” [34]

How better to tell that sexual mutilation risks to seriously destabilize the individual, and the whole of humanity, as is every day proven by the various group or state terrorisms supplied by the circumcising religious-feudal societies? Those observations explain why, with sensitive persons notably (feminists, far right), sexual mutilation provokes, more or less consciously, an aversion that may go as far as the fiercest, and sometimes sexist, hatred.

 

5/ The legal reactions

Every sexual mutilation begins by a rape:

“Every act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed upon someone else’s person through violence, constraint, threat of surprise is a rape.

Rape is punished by 15 years of criminal confinement.” Article 222-23 of the French criminal code

But sexual mutilation is also a domestic violence:

“Subjecting a person whose vulnerability or state of dependence are apparent or known to the author, to working or living conditions incompatible with human dignity is punished by five years in prison and a 150,000 Euros fine.” Article 225-14 of the French criminal code

Finally,

“The child shall be protected from practices that… may foster racial, religious or any other form of discrimination…” Principle 10 of the International convention on the rights of the child of the UNO

However, since sexual mutilation is, on the one hand, committed within collective madness, on the other hand, within love, “for the sake of the child”, and therefore without the intention of harming, criminal law is unenforceable. Case law that hypocritically considers those traditions as a mitigating circumstance is ethnocentrist and patronizing. The only means of repressing it is granting important damages to victims and denouncing its endogamous and discriminative aim.

 

6/ The belief in a moral superiority resulting from sexual mutilation is the central element of a racist thought that excludes and scorns the “non-circumcised”

Exclusion is the sanction of the group to opponents of sexual mutilation. It is the symptom of a feeling of superiority that helps the sexually handicapped to overcome the trauma of the operation and, for the majority of women notably, the depression and sadness provoked by a sexuality that is the most often wrecked. As a corollary, mutilation is a condition for marriage and a barrier to marrying outside the group, which is the great worry of a racism that goes up to excluding foreigners from cemeteries, and even to forbidding them burial on the national territory (Islam). The superiority allegedly conferred by sexual mutilation is affirmed in the Bible (dogma of election). According to some pseudo-philosophical rationalizations, circumcision would inscribe man into the dimension of lack (sic[35]). Maimonides and Philo of Alexandria, uphold that it grants the individual with virtue, loftiness of the mind, purity, chastity, and even a fidelity that nevertheless still condones (Muslims) or would condone (Jews till the XIVth century) polygamy:

“That commandment has not been prescribed to correct a physical deficiency but a moral deficiency.” Maimonides[36]

In one word, like the non-excised, the “non-circumcised” are profligate! Reference to the “moral order” is explicit. That fantastical belief seems to be at the origin of Freud’s affirmation of a superior ability of the Jews for spirituality[37]. Males of the planet would be divided between great mystics, the sexually mutilated, and other men, cruelly earth-bound for having kept their foreskin. The trite insult: “uncircumcised dog” testifies that in the circumcising imaginary, circumcision differentiates man from animals. Birds do not have a foreskin but circumcision does not seem to give the wings of the angel.

That superstition finds its origin in the likening of sexuality, and very particularly autosexuality, with sin. That queasy conception, generating addictions and perversions, notably paedophilia, is a land that harbours rape[38]. It rests upon the ignorance and/or guilt of the delights provided by the specific organs for autosexuality. In her preface to an Italian work entitled “The mutilated sex”, Élisabeth Roudinesco praises the latter:

“…if, in the course of the second half of the XXth century, mas……..n has ceased to be classified as a mental disease, thanks, to a great extent, to Freudian theory, it is henceforth claimed, by numerous post-Freudian liberation movements, as the purest expression of a sexuality that, eventually rid of the rags of puritan morals, allows unlimited pleasure, without risk of contamination, without procreation, without a bothering partner.

A symbol of modern individualism, lonely sex may, finally, be seen – particularly on the internet – as a discovery of oneself or as an exile that sinks into melancholy. In the case in point, the “surrogated danger”, reduced by Freud to the polymorph triteness of infancy, has become the emblem of a (sexuality)(*) raised into an ethics of liberty.”[39],

But she oddly goes on calling autosexuality a perversion and a melancholic practice. A deep unconscious guilt weighs upon autosexuality. The chapter of his teaching in the Collège de France[40] that Michel Foucault dedicates to the repression of autosexuality seems a hoax. Using the term “mas……..n”, he acutely blames Christianity, the medical order and excision practised by the latter in the XIXth century, without saying a word about ritual circumcision! The title of his lessons being “The abnormal”, we are forced to think that he considers mass circumcision as normal when it is traditional or religious.

That guilt fuels the reciprocal scorn between circumciseds and intacts. The psychiatrist Michel Erlich points out that “goy”, “uncircumcised” and “uncircumcised dog”, are grave insults[41]. That claim of superiority sometimes degenerates into snobbery, which was the case in the United Kingdom, where circumcision first spread within the nobility, and in the United States where it is a criterion of social standing. It is consecrated in language: the intact is never named as such but as a “non” or as “un” -circumcised, with the connotation of loss and emptiness linked with negation. A height has been reached by Jacques Derrida when, in a depressive episode it is true, he came to wonder whether his decision not to have his sons circumcised would not make them suffer from “a want of want”[42]! That inversion (denial) of realities is characteristic of perversion. Isn’t it perverse indeed to pretend oneself “elected by God” in order to reassure oneself about one’s own difference through lessening the others by humiliating instead of simply exact naming? A basic principle of right applies to that pseudo-spirituality:

“No one may take advantage of their own turpitude.”

That conviction of superiority does not stop there. From all antiquity, the circumcised believe themselves cleaner:

“Also, neither man nor woman in Egypt would kiss a Greek on the mouth nor use a Greek’s … knife.” Herodotus[43]

The intact are assumed lustful, impure and even unclean! The popular prejudice of the sexually maimed that the intact are “masturbators without hygiene” is not likely to put racism at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, the circumcised plunge their organ without fear into the feminine one, which, following them, would be a culture fluid. They also spread the rumour according to which they would perform sexual exploits. Whatever it may be, a superiority resting upon a physical difference is of a racist type. The foreskin does not smell like cheese, not more than the vagina anyway, circumcision stinks of racism.

 

7/ The endogamic aim

We are not only in the presence of racism. We are also facing a sexist manipulation. Indeed, young women easily believe the prejudices according to which the “non-circumcised” would be without hygiene, bad lovers, profligate, and cowards in cultures that practise the mutilation after the age of speech (“A non-circumcised is not a man.” – an African saying). So that a foreigner can rarely marry a Muslim or a Jewish woman. As acknowledged or even denounced by Maimonides’s historical hoax, it is obvious that those rumours are the work of a patriarchy that, in the illusion of reinforcing the cohesion and perpetuation of the community, aims at making sure of the possession of women (endogamy).

That racism is clearly affirmed for feminine excision for which parents would affirm: “If we don’t do it, she will not find a husband.” Inside their ethnic group maybe! And the same can be said of circumcision: “If we do not circumcise him, he won’t find a wife.” meaning “within the community”. A surgically fabricated racism is the height of racism.

 

8/ The sexist aim

To top it all, circumcision is intended to separate the child from the mother, from the world of women and childhood. There precisely lies the most criminal intention, the most odiously sexist, the most abject, the most contrary to life, love, tenderness, and the best of existence. All that in the deep aim of steering the child’s affects towards the world of men, ploughmen and makers, excluding women from it in order to dominate them, and men too, better.

That discriminatory attitude remains unconscious and denied by the masses but it is conscious and resolute with extremist elites (far-right). In Africa, it is characteristic that the ethnic racism of sexual mutilation leads fanatics to call the activists against sexual mutilation “whites”. Sexual mutilation is less religious than sectarian. Like the total castration of some rare sects, it aims at closing the group upon itself in order to ensure the power of chiefs. Indeed, that sexist and racist arrogance is cultivated by religious-political elites who cherish circumcision like the apple of their eyes because it is the basis of their power. They deliberately use it as a technique for manipulation of the masses:

“It is well-known how much men like and help each other when they all have the same distinctive mark which is for them a kind of alliance and agreement.” Maimonides[44]

Separating the group from others by the sectarian display of a small but significant difference that flatters and exacerbates the narcissism of the group, a hyper-racism finds a privileged means of expression in sexual mutilation. Excision and circumcision are an artificial sexism and racism masked behind religion, tradition, culture and folklore. That insidious chauvinism is easily rooted in the mind as well by its link with the weighty taboo of autosexuality as by woman’s.man’s denial of her.his own femininity.masculinity. It is strengthened by an unconscious awe of castration and death, generated within the victims as well as their neighbours.

 

III – The consequences: hatred and violence

the psychoanalytical explanation

“If hatred creates the object, it is also what threatens the most its existence. Because it makes of the identity of oneself to oneself an exclusive and even fetishized concept, hatred carries in itself the rejection of all otherness. When it makes itself the ally of a narcissism which is the enemy of “little differences”, it becomes the carrier of a purity that no longer tolerates any variegation, any mixing. Purity of the race, purge, ethnic cleansing, the pure and hatred dwell in the same countries.” [45]

Exclusion calls for hatred. Spinoza and Freud exposed circumcision as a source of hatred from neighbouring peoples. That hatred is reciprocal. The cause for extremely serious collective pathology: transgenerational and collective syndromes of Münchhausen by proxy and of Stockholm, circumcision generates particularly high violence. Genocide practically never occurs between intacts but of the twenty-five genocides of modern times: Circassian Muslims (1860), Congolese (1870), Hereros (1904-07), Greeks (1921-23), Assyrians (1914-20), Armenians (1915), Serbs (41-45), Jews (1942-45), Tziganes (1942-45), Chechens (1944-48), Hindus (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Muslims (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Indonesian communists (1965), Biafrans (1966-68), Guineans (1968-79), Bengalis (1971), Hutus (1972), Kurds (1988-89), Tutsis (1994), Bengalis (1990-2000), Bosnians (1991-95), inhabitants of Darfur (2003), Iraqi Kurds (2005), Rohingyas (2012), Yazidis (2015), twenty-four (96%) involved circumcised peoples on at least one side and six on both sides. The circumcised perpetrated fourteen of them, of which eight against intacts. Since the Tzigane exception is moot as some of them are circumcised, the correlation between circumcision and genocide is near absolute. All wars between 1996 and 2002 involved at least one circumcising country and they were more than three times more numerous in circumcising countries. The death penalty is twice as frequent in them and they are the only ones to practise excision[46]. In Norway, between 2006 and 2010, 2% of the population who are circumcised committed all the rapes upon ninety per cent of native Norwegians. Circumcised Congo holds the world record for rape: 400,000 over one year. Sexual mutilation separates the child from the mother at the age of bonding. That is monstrous; the result is catastrophic. Circumcision is the breeding ground of sexism, racism, paranoia, fanaticism and group or state terrorism. It creates the equilibrium of terror and the fortunes of gun merchants.

 

Psychoanalysis explains why circumcision pushes people towards genocide

But there is not only correlation; there is also causality between circumcision and genocide. Indeed, that strong correlation is logical; a voluntary collective violation of the human body creates a feeling of superiority with those who practise it and the inverse feeling with the others. Psychiatry will speak of collective madness without explaining anything but psychoanalysis enlightens us. Indeed, Freud set forth a theory of the racism generated by circumcision which, pushing it to its extreme end, enables one to understand the madness of genocide:

“The hypothesis that a root of those hatreds of the Jews which occur in such primary ways and lead to such irrational behaviour among the nations of the West must be sought here too, seems inescapable to me. Circumcision is unconsciously equated with castration.”[47]

Since, according to him and to the results of the psychoanalytical clinic, the unconscious likens the part to the whole, then, a threat of castration is also a threat of death. But, exerted on a whole ethnic group, the individual death threat of circumcision becomes, through addition, a threat of extermination of the whole group, immediately projected upon the adverse group by the unconscious. So, circumcision is an incitement towards reciprocal genocide.

In an attempt to psychologize, circumcision is a particularly monstrous technique of domination over the individual inasmuch as, in the name of a puritan, totally misguided and reversed morality, it speaks for the rule of might against pleasure and life. Because of that, the mundane domination instinct, which would be content with enslaving the enemy, degenerates into a destructive drive of foreign groups, paradoxically regarded as purely detrimental because of a difference deemed essential (hence the “Islamizations” by forced mutilation, of both sexes possibly). The reverse phenomenon occurs as well towards other circumcising groups as towards non-circumcising groups.

Therefore, Freud laid the foundation for the analysis of the phenomenon and his condemnation of Zionism shows that he has approached both sides of it.

“I notice with regret that the unrealistic fanaticism of our people is partly responsible for the arousing of Arabs’ distrust. I can muster no sympathy whatever for the misguided piety that makes a national religion from the remains of the wall of Herod, so challenging the feelings of the local natives…” [48]

So, the abolition of individual consciousness (Hannah Arendt’s triviality of evil) emphasized by Mazarine Pingeot is a submission to the unconscious that, run by rules just as rigorous as that of ethics, ignores good and evil. The banality of circumcision is thus directly responsible for the multiplication of genocides, of which several, still in contact with circumcision, are ongoing (Darfur, Rohingyas, Yazidis) and two, reciprocal and atomic, are threatening, still in contact with circumcision (Palestine, Korea).

 

The reciprocal: the judiciary racism

Jailing excisers is as if, abolishing the death penalty, the executioner was jailed.

“The solution of repression, proposed by the (Egyptian) state, led some people

to practise excision on the sly.” Aliaa Shams

The current stance of international organizations: World health organisation, Unicef, Office of the High commissioner for refugees and United Nations human rights commission about sexual mutilation is inviting to its repression (resolution 1247, item 3: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=16914&lang=en).

In practice, case law considers cultural tradition a simple mitigating circumstance but,

– on the one hand, sexual mutilation must be considered both a societal and transgenerational Stockholm syndrome (cf. “Sexual mutilation, a Stockholm syndrome, aggravated since familial, societal and even often religious“) and a collective and transgenerational Münchhausen syndrome by proxy (cf. “Sexual mutilation (excision, circumcision), a dangerous collective madness: a transgenerational and collective Münchhausen syndrome by proxy and an aggravated, because collective, Stockholm syndrome“). Those fearsome psychiatric conditions were those of worshippers of Cybele and of the Skoptzis, who practised total castration, which still hits today the Hidjas of India. Their victims/perpetrators must very obviously be considered irresponsible. So, article 122-2 of the Criminal code applies itself:

“Is not criminally guilty the person who acted under the power of a strength or a constraint to which they could not resist.”

– on the other hand, sexual mutilation is performed without any intent to harm and article 121-3 of the Criminal code applies itself:

“There is no crime of misdemeanour without intent to harm.”

Now, through jailing the excisers, justice systems assume that a thousand-year-old cultural tradition would be performed with the intention of harming. That is typical ethnocentrism or culturalo-centrism, and even racism. No one would think of reproaching Muslim or Jewish parents of having the intention of harming their boys through circumcision. Pronouncing differently for girls, justice shows itself sexist, and even racist.

Cultural traditions are not a mitigating circumstance but a motive of exclusion of the criminal law. Overriding two great principles of the latter, criminal case laws that condemn excisers are illegal and hypocrite. Jailing mutilators is paternalistic ethnocentrism, racism of “Uncle Tom’s cabin”. Justice should only condemn to fines and substantial civil damage, as happened in the decision that temporarily put an end to circumcision in 2012 in Germany. But after having been lectured by civil courts about the discriminatory character of their practice, repeat offenders should be brought to criminal justice under the charge of discrimination against humanity.

 

Conclusion

            More fascist than fascism since it aims at children, sexual mutilation is unbearable to fascists. But democrats may not tolerate those ordeals. Taking the festivities of folklore for an alibi, it is imposed by military and religious elites with adolescent behaviour. It has a sexist character. It considers women and children as objects of a right of property. It does not welcome the child into a society regulated by the difference of sexes and ages but socializes or affiliates through the trauma of a barbarous military initiation that enlists for war. So, it is encouraged by tyrannical regimes that use it as an induction to violence and a rallying cry. The community sign is always a call for nationalism, a sign of war, of possession of the individual by the group and exclusion of foreigners. Sexual mutilation makes the people carry the can (the hat in the French expression!) of a non-existent guilt: scarf, veil, burka, kippah, tattoos, forced obesity, breast ironing, stretched oral or vulvar labia, scarification, knocked out teeth, bound-feet, cut off clitorises, foreskins, uvulas and tongue fraenums, the death penalty, to arms et cetera… That escalation of techniques of manipulation of the minds through branding and mutilating the bodies is the worst tool of the war of generations. It subjects human needs to the interests of the ruling classes and generations.

Repression of autosexuality by the puritan matriarchy-patriarchy is a planetary disease. And racism is all the more arrogant as it relies on mutilations that aim at submitting the people through ensuring men the possession of women. Sexual mutilation is not properly racist but, aiming at making “supermen”, it is an artificial racism more racist than racism, power-of-two racism, some neo-Gobineau implemented by Mengele, the height, the paradigm of racism. Founding a collective identity upon an assault against that of the species is not only degrading in itself, it is above all discriminatory, by a double discrimination: endured by the victims, exerted upon opponents or neighbouring peoples. The peoples who carve out a so-called identity through the knife for themselves upon the body of their children offend the rest of humanity. Collectively exerted in the name of God and/or tradition, that hyper-racism is a monstrous abomination, generating terrorism, sometimes state terrorism, and an equally virulent counter-racism.

Sexual mutilation, circumcision very particularly, is a genuine cancer that gnaws at the planet. Perpetrated upon children, it is a crime against humanity that has been first denounced in 1989 by the attendants to the first symposium of NOCIRC:

“The greatest crime against humanity is the torture and mutilation of children.”[49],

followed in 1990 by Alice Miller:

“… society … till now said yes to humanity’s greatest crimes.”[50]

And, June 10 2004, by the French Académie nationale de médecine[51].

When, on January 30 2014, we told the psychoanalyst Alain de Mijolla the title of our book “Feminine and masculine sexual mutilation, the greatest crime against humanity”, he declared:

“That is very true!”

Due to the age of the victims, it is the sole crime against humanity which nobody complains about. It is also the only one that, perpetrated in blind belief and/or collective madness, without the intention of harming but, at variance, within love and “for the sake of the child”, is not punishable. A partial castration for women and a genuine threat of castration for men, it is a threat of death for individuals and of reciprocal extermination for groups. Medicine has no right to lend the authority of science to those primitive rituals.

The abolition of those crimes against humanity is a stage in the fight against the repression of sexuality and for the right of the human person to the free access to their own body, to the respect of their physical, emotional and mental integrity and of their right to pleasure. In a civilized society, the abolition of corporal punishment must be extended to children and not a single of their hairs must be touched. Fundamentally, the rights to the body and to pleasure must be mentioned in article 1 of the Universal declaration of human rights:

“All human beings are born free and equal in rights, in the first place the right to the body and the right to pleasure, in their three dimensions of integrity, dignity and autonomy.”

 

Nota bene: in sexual matters, moral superiority consists in not making love without love, which is animal behaviour. That presupposes a good knowledge of the other and, as long as a loving and loved companion has not been found, to make love by oneself without false morality, with the tools given by nature, which, incidentally, is an insurance of fidelity in relationships.

 

[1] Veil S. Preface to the supplement to the Bulletin de l’Académie nationale de médecine : Les mutilations sexuelles féminines, un autre crime contre l’humanité. 2004, 188 (6).

[2] Children’s right to physical integrity

[3] La CNCDH réaffirme son soutien à la lutte contre l’excision

[4] Avis sur les mutilations sexuelles féminines

[5] Bertaux-Navoiseau M. An erogenous and protective-of-erogeneity lip, the foreskin is a sexual organ; its ablation is mutilation

[6] Bertaux-Navoiseau M. Poll: 83% of circumcised men ignore little orgasms in series, 90% of intacts enjoy them 

[7] Pollack M. Circumcision, identity, gender and power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miriam-pollack/circumcision-identity-gen_b_1132896.html

[8] Bertaux-Navoiseau M. Lacan, circumcision and… excision! (the return… backwards!)

[9] Reyes A., Zagdanski S. La vérité nue. Paris: Pauvert; 2002. p. 145-46.

[10] Denis P. Le narcissisme. Paris : PUF, Que sais-je ; 2012. p. 114 and 116.

[11] Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. 1273.

[12] Haas J. The totality and integrity of the body. Ethics & Medics 1995, 20.2.

[13] Austriaco N. Requests for elective amputation. Ethics & Medics 2011, 36.2.

[14] Peters E. Canon law and apotemnophilia. Ethics & Medics 2011, 36.2.

[15] Article 41 of the French code of medical ethics.

[16] Bertaux-Navoiseau M. H. Sexual mutilation (excision, circumcision), a dangerous collective madness: a transgenerational and collective Münchhausen syndrome by proxy and an aggravated, because collective, Stockholm syndrome

[17] Matteoli R. Blood Ritual, the Münchhausen complex. Nunzio press; 2008.

[18] Hitler A. Mein Kampf, réédition, Paris, Les Editions Latines, 1979, p. 306-15.

[19] February 1930 letter to Chaim Koffler. Freudiana, 1973. 19.

[20] Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago University press; 1963. p. 609.

[21] Spinoza B. Politico-theological treatise. 1670. 3: 99.

[22] Freud S. Analysis of a phobia on a five-years-old boy (Little Hans). 1909. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1955. S.E., X, p. 36, n.

[23] Rozenberg J. Biologie de la race et psychopathologie. Archives de philosophie 64, 2001.

[24] Reyes A., Zagdanski S. La vérité nue. Paris: Pauvert; 2002. p. 145-46.

[25] Dolto F. Les jeux sexuels de vos enfants. Interview par Pierre Bénichou. Planning familial, octobre 1969 (3), 9.

[26] Bettelheim B. Symbolic wounds. The free press; 1954.

[27] Leboyer F. 4 June 1980 letter to Rosemary Romberg-Weiner.

[28] Leboyer F. 17 February 2001 Letter to the author.

[29] Tractenberg M. Psychoanalysis of circumcision. Male and female circumcision. New York: Denniston et al. Plenum publishers; 1999.

[30] Miller A. Banished knowledge – Facing childhood injuries. New York: Anchor press; 1997. Chap VII.

[31] Kristeva J. Aux frontières du vivant. Le magazine littéraire, février 2004 (428). 33-36.

[32] Freud S. An outline of psychoanalysis. 1938. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXII, p. 190, note 1.

[33] Roheim G. Psychoanalysis and anthropology. New York: International university press; 1950. p. 149-150.

[34] L’art de renaître, fonction thérapeutique de l’affiliation au moyen du traumatisme sexuel. Nouvelle revue d’ethnopsychiatrie, 1992, (18) : 20-21.

[35] Mandelbaum J. Critique du film Le fils d’Elias, Le Monde.

[36] Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago University press; 1963. p. 609.

[37] Yerushalmi Y. Freud’s Moses. Yale university press; 1991. ch. III.

[38] Bertaux-Navoiseau M. Rape and circumcision, a high correlation.

(*) The Italian original does not say “sexuality” but “sexual perversion”. Taking into account Freud’s preceding quotation, autosexuality and perversion are rigorously antinomic and we have corrected there a very Freudian mistake, a testimony, in that otherwise admirable text, of the extreme strength of the taboo weighing upon autosexuality. On the one hand, one may not call the sexuality of children, adolescents, bachelors, widows(ers) and temporarily separated or divorced or with different sexual need couples perversion, on the other hand, affirming that the denial of the reality of the other sex that is the essence of perversion would accompany autosexuality is not serious. It would be paradoxical concerning the use of organs that precisely evoke the other sex. Autosexuality is certainly not a perversion. Another sign of our Lacanian’s ambivalence is her persistence in the use of the pejorative, traditional term in order to designate autosexuality.

[39] Roudinesco É. The mutilated sex. Brief story of a chirurgical passion. Preface to “Sulla soglia della psychoanalisi, Freud i la follia infantile”. Bonomi C. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri; 2007. (translated by us)

[40] Foucault M. Les anormaux, Cours au Collège de France, 1974-75. Paris : Seuil/Gallimard ; 1999. p. 217.

[41] Erlich M. Circoncision, excision et racisme. Nouvelle revue d’ethnopsychiatrie 1991, 18, 127.

[42] Bennington G., Derrida J. Circonfession. Paris: Seuil; 1991.

[43] Heredotus. The inquiry, II: 41.

[44] Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago University press; 1963. p. 609.

[45] André J., Bernateau J. Les territoires de la haine. Paris : Petite bibliothèque de psychanalyse ; 2014.

[46] Genocide, war, the death penalty, excision and circumcision

https://www.academia.edu/3086630/Genocide_war_the_death_penalty_excision_and_circumcision_updated_04.27.2015_

[47] Freud S. Moses and monotheism. 1936. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXIII, p. 91.

[48] Freud S. February 1930 letter to Chaim Koffler. Freudiana, 1973. 19.

[49] Declaration of the first Symposium of NOCIRC. 1989. http://montagunocircpetition.org/

[50] Miller A. Introduction to reflections about sexual mutilation, in Banished knowledge – Facing childhood injuries. New York: Doubleday; 1990., p. 131.

[51] Supplément au Bulletin de l’Académie nationale de médecine, 2014, n° 6, séance du 10 juin 2004.

Genocide and circumcision, causality and near absolute correlation (psychoanalytical theory of genocide)

 

“Not only does the child’s body not belong to us but… their sex still less.” Françoise Dolto[1]

“Crime against humanity is the outcome of a totalitarianism one of the structural aspects of which is the abolition of individual consciousness.” Mazarine Pingeot

“The trivialized terror of mad societies is tantamount to individual dreams.” Claude Olievenstein[2]

 

The correlation: circumcision is genocide inducing

             Genocide practically never occurs between intacts but of the twenty-five genocides of modern times: Circassian Muslims (1860), Congolese (1870), Hereros (1904-07), Greeks (1921-23), Assyrians (1914-20), Armenians (1915), Serbs (41-45), Jews (1942-45), Tziganes (1942-45), Chechens (1944-48), Hindus (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Muslims (India-Pakistan, 1947-49), Indonesian communists (1965), Biafrans (1966-68), Guineans (1968-79), Bengalis (1971), Hutus (1972), Kurds (1988-89), Tutsis (1994), Bengalis (1990-2000), Bosnians (1991-95), inhabitants of Darfur (2003), Iraqi Kurds (2005), Rohingyas (2012), Yazidis (2015), twenty-four (96%) involved circumcised peoples on at least one side of the conflict and six on both sides. The circumcised perpetrated fourteen of them, of which eight against intacts. Since the Tzigane exception is debatable, for some of them are circumcised, the correlation between circumcision and genocide is nearly absolute. Rwanda is the paradigm of the hatred between circumciseds and intacts; the Hutus committed a first genocide against the Tutsis in 1972, that of the Tutsis against the Hutus followed in 1994. Parents may not allow the mutilation of their sons, which is a crime against humanity.

 

The causality

Psychiatry, philosophy and psychology

Psychiatry will consider sexual mutilation as collective madness (transgenerational and collective syndromes of Stockholm and Münchhausen by proxy[3]) without explaining anything.

The philosopher Maimonides emphasized the unhealthy character of an auto-proclaimed moral superiority:

“That commandment has not been prescribed to correct a physical deficiency but a moral deficiency.” Maimonides[4]

He also stressed its discriminatory character:

“It is my opinion that circumcision has another important motive: it makes that those who profess that idea of the unity of God distinguish themselves by the same body sign which is imprinted on them all, so that the one who is not part of them cannot, being a stranger, pretend to belong to them.” [5]

Psychologists will say that a collective assault on the human body creates a feeling of superiority in those who practise it and the reverse feeling in the others. It can also be said that circumcision is a particularly monstrous technique of domination of the individual inasmuch as it speaks against pleasure and life on behalf of the reason of the strongest and of a puritan, misguided and reversed ethics. As a result, the mundane domination instinct, which would be content with enslaving the enemy, degenerates into a destructive drive of foreign groups, regarded as purely detrimental because of a difference deemed essential. Hence the “Islamizations” by forced mutilation, possibly of both sexes. The reverse phenomenon occurs with the intact.

 

The psychoanalytical theory of genocide

The premise

Maimonides exposed the discriminatory intention of circumcision:

“It is my opinion that circumcision has another important motive: it makes that those who profess that idea of the unity of God distinguish themselves by a same body sign which is imprinted on them all, so that the one who is not part of them cannot, being a stranger, pretend to belong to them.”[6]

Then, Spinoza saw in circumcision a cause of the antiJew racism:

“… the Jews having lived apart from all nations in such a way that they incurred universal hatred, and that not only by observing exterior rites contrary to those of other nations, but by the sign of circumcision…”[7].

Freud set forth a psychoanalytical theory of that racism:

“The hypothesis that a root of those hatreds of the Jews which occur in such primary ways and lead to such irrational behaviour among the nations of the West must be sought here too, seems inescapable to me. Circumcision is unconsciously equated with castration.”[8]

He states the idea that that racism is justified with the child:

“The castration complex is the deepest unconscious root of anti-Semitism; for even in the nursery, little boys hear that the Jews have something cut off in their penis – a piece of their penis, they think – and this gives them a right to despise the Jews.”[9],

Zagdanski confessed that the inverse racism is natural with Jewish children:

“In my kid’s head, an uncircumcised penis looked like the sex organ of a dog, the uneven aspect, the bright red little top…That really did not seem very aesthetic to me compared to my own or my brothers’ penises… A feeling of great difference, thus… between me and the nonJews, the majority. In other words, between me and all the others. With, all the same, a slight complex of superiority because of that disclosure, namely that the non-Jews’ penises looked like the sex organs of dogs.”[10]

The trouble is that some remain children all their lives and assume that same contempt once “adults”. The African saying seems to justify that feeling:

“An uncircumcised is not a man.”

Bruno Bettelheim, Moisés Tractenberg and Alice Miller outbid:

“In Western society, circumcision is imposed on the defenceless child to whom it offers no definite advantage and for whom it is, consequently, undesirable and threatening…”[11]

“Another psychological consequence of early circumcision is that it imprints an aggressive and traumatic situation onto the mind of the new-born… The impossibility to process such a tremendous infusion of inwardly focused aggression may lead, a posteriori, to the emergence of psychopathic and violent behaviour or, in many other cases, to the emergence of extreme masochistic behaviour.”[12]

“Ritual practices of circumcision and excision have effects that reach not only the individual and their descendants but also other men.”[13]

Freud went further on:

“The results of the threat of castration are multifarious and incalculable; they affect the whole of a boy’s relations with his father and mother and subsequently with men and women in general.”[14]

That affirmation is accompanied by a footnote that shows that he well sees that circumcision as a threat of castration with all the deleterious outcomes that follow:

“… The primeval custom of circumcision, another substitute for castration, can only be understood as an expression of submission to the father’s will… ” (footnote of the above quote)

But that theory of circumcision as a submission is awkward inasmuch as it does not stress the fact that the parents, not the child, submit to the grandparents and the community; the individual, him, is mutilated kicking and screaming.

Thus, Freud laid the foundation for the analysis of the phenomenon and his condemnation of the Zionist fanaticism, colonialism and racism shows that he has approached both sides of it:

“I notice with regret that the unrealistic fanaticism of our people is partly responsible for the arousing of Arabs’ distrust. I can muster no sympathy whatever for the misguided piety that makes a national religion from the remains of the wall of Herod, so challenging the feelings of the local natives…” [15]

 

The theory

            Following the psychoanalytical theory to its ultimate end enables to understand the genocidal madness. Since, according to the psychoanalytic clinic and theory, the unconscious likens the part to the whole, then, the threat of castration of circumcision is also a threat of death. But, exerted on a whole people, that individual threat becomes, through addition, a threat of extermination of the whole group. The unconscious immediately projects that threat upon the adverse group. So, circumcision is reciprocal-genocide inducing.

 

Conclusion

            Thus, the abolition of individual consciousness (Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil), emphasized by Mazarine Pingeot, is a submission to the unconscious. The latter, run by rules just as rigorous as that of ethics, ignores good and evil. The banality of circumcision is directly responsible for the multiplication of genocides, of which several, still in contact with circumcision, are ongoing (Darfur, Rohingyas, Yazidis) and two, reciprocal and atomic, are threatening, still in the presence of circumcision (Palestine, Korea).

 

 

 

[1] Dolto F. Les jeux sexuels de vos enfants. Interview par Pierre Bénichou. Planning familial, octobre 1969 (3), 9.

[2] Olievenstein C. L’homme parano. Paris: Odile Jacob; 2002. p. 105.

[3] Bertaux-Navoiseau M. Sexual mutilation (excision, circumcision), a dangerous transgenerational and collective madness: a Münchhausen syndrome by proxy and an aggravated Stockholm syndrome 

[4] Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago University press; 1963. p. 609.

[5] Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago University press; 1963. p. 609.

[6] Maimonides M. The guide of the perplexed. 1160. Chicago: Chicago University press; 1963. p. 609.

[7] Spinoza B. Politico-theological treatise. 1670. 3: 99.

[8] Freud S. Moses and monotheism. 1936. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXIII, p. 91.

[9] Freud S. Analysis of a phobia on a five-year-old boy (Little Hans). 1909. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1955. S.E., X, p. 36, n.

[10] Reyes A., Zagdanski S. La vérité nue. Paris: Pauvert; 2002. p. 145-46.

[11] Bettelheim B. Symbolic wounds. The free press; 1954.

[12] Tractenberg M. Psychoanalysis of circumcision. Male and female circumcision. New York: Denniston et al. Plenum publishers; 1999.

[13] Miller A. Banished knowledge – Facing childhood injuries. New York: Anchor press; 1997. Chap VII.

[14] Freud S. An outline of psychoanalysis. 1938. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXII, p. 190, note 1.

[15] Freud S. February 1930 letter to Chaim Koffler. Freudiana, 1973. 19.

Terrorism and circumcision; circumcised first, then fanaticized, circumcision makes men weapons of war (psychoanalysis of terrorism)

 

(français : Terrorisme et circoncision ; circoncis d’abord, fanatisés ensuite (psychanalyse du terrorisme))

“… those who die before they must and want to die, those who die in agony and pain are the great indictments against civilization.” Hervert Marcuse, Eros and civilization

 

I – Terrorised children

“Accident, assault, sexual violence or aggression… After such shocks, ten per cent of women and five per cent of men who are their victims develop post traumatic stress disorders.” Muriel Salmona

“A thanatophilia compulsion prevails in cultural anti-ethical customs, such as genital mutilation of children and adolescents.” Moisés Tractenberg (11th symposium of NOCIRC, 2010)

“Every act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed upon the person of the other through violence,… is a rape.” Art 222-23 of the French criminal code

“Sexual violence is, with torture, what causes the most psychotraumatic disorders.”

Muriel Salmona

For the child treated as a pure object, circumcision is an experience of violence, pain, terror, abandonment and powerlessness, to an extreme degree[1], [2].

“Children hurt in their integrity do not stop loving their parents. They stop loving themselves.” Jesper Juul

“The main breeding ground for all future violence is violence to children.”

Muriel Salmona

“The fact that you do not remember does not mean that you are not invaded by a traumatic memory.” Muriel Salmona

 

Sexual mutilation (excision, circumcision) is the worst form of the black pedagogy that puts the child under terror (cf. Alice Miller). If most societies censure, to varying degrees, juvenile sexuality (autosexuality and premarital sexuality), a few, in order to ban it, go as far as sexual mutilation, which, from the child’s point of view, is a mass terrorist attack, with torture in addition.

Sexual mutilation was born in the ruling classes (rich enough to afford polygamy) of some primitive civilizations. The matter was avoiding incest through setting up an unconscious terror: the anguish of castration (exclusion and death). Indeed, under the family roof, grown-up sons lived together with their father’s young spouses, mixed with the eldest’s daughters. All-powerful fathers easily imposed the circumcision of their sons, a cruel warning (a threat of total castration in the case of transgression). In several societies, old spouses gained the daughters’ excision, a revolting destruction. The commercial argument: a deflowered girl is unmarriageable, hushed up all challenging. An unspeakable covenant of jealous adults was established between mothers and fathers, reducing children into quasi-slavery. The most virtuous societies escaped that contagious scourge. In others, unable to make order prevail, parents had recourse to that equilibrium through terror. Later on, sorcerers and religious invented “founding” myths to give the thing a cultural and moral basis. That crazy pseudo-ethical pretence is that of a moral order[3] worse than that of fascism, artificially racist since discriminating the “non-mutilated” as lechers.

A second powerful motivation joined itself to the first: submission of the youth. Its efficacy is such that those millennial customs are now solidly settled, they have become second nature, extremely hard to eradicate. Even when polygamy, out of necessity, tends to disappear, the universal taboo on autosexuality impedes to end with them.

Sexual mutilation is not the only form of adult terrorism against the child: humiliations of wanton authoritarianism, repression (forbidding and scorn) of infantile and premarital sexuality, slaps, smacking, blows, threats of castration, provoke as many traumas disturbing health and human relationships. That violence teaches the child the reason of the strongest and the ban on pleasure, sexual mutilation is its worst form. Originally a morbid safeguard against incest, it is not an accepted submission but a destroying and humiliating violence founded on treason and lies, quickly pardoned to irresponsible adults by blindly trustful and loving children.

 

II – Terrorist children

“Fanaticism is a monster that dares calling itself the son of religion.” Voltaire

Generally speaking, it has been shown that ill-treatment in infancy is linked with delinquency and criminality[4], [5].

The compulsion to excise or circumcise (and sometimes to cut off members or heads) observed by psychiatry in the victims of sexual mutilation, is the slightest consequence of sexual mutilation. A famous example of it was King Saul’s behest towards David in order for him to gain his daughter’s hand: a-hundred-enemies’ foreskins (1 Sam, 18: 25-27). In history, circumcision was often a torture for defeated enemies (English prisoners of the Moguls, German prisoners of the Hereros in Namibia, Serbs circumcised by Muslims during the war in ex-Yugoslavia, etc…). In December 2000, 800 Moluccan Christians suffered forced “Islamization”, including sexual mutilation of both sexes. In Kenya, at the beginning of 2008, the Kikuyus would circumcise the Luos in the middle of the streets out of political retaliation[6] [7] [8]. In 2015, in Mosul, Daesh massively excised and circumcised the Yazidis[9].

September 2001 attacks in New York were only one example of the circumcised’s warlike and suicidal tendencies: record rate of criminality and rape in the USA, the immoderate excess of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, relentlessness against Viet-Nam, unceasing wars and slaughters in Africa and the Middle-East. Between the slaughter of eleven Israeli Olympic team members in Munich (1972) and that of Istanbul, London, Bagdad and Manchester (2017), by way of Copernic (Paris, 1980), rue des rosiers (Paris, 1982), Saint Michel (Paris, 1995), Russia (1994-2005), New York (2000), Bali (2002), Madrid (2004), London (2005), Boston (2013), the Thalys train, Tunis, Paris, Bamako, Garissa (2015), Brussels, Orlando, Istanbul, Bagdad, Nice and Berlin (2016), without counting the innumerable ones committed in the Middle-East, Africa and in… American universities, nor the numerous thwarted ones, the quasi-totality of terrorist attacks have been committed by circumcised men, often in reaction to the permanent attack of the presence of circumcised invaders in Palestine. Circumcision is an invasive procedure; the circumcised will be invaders. Like the invasion of Palestine, those assaults are symptomatic of the blind thirst for revenge and megalomaniac paranoia of allegedly grown-up children.

The discourse of the terrorist of the Thalys attack sadly revealed his circumcision trauma; his nonsensical request “Give back my gun!” refers to the castration of the foreskin, deeply buried in the unconscious of the poor man. It is illustrated by the image below that relates a true story, occurred in Morocco:

Circumcision deeply affects the relationship to women. The high rate of rape, domination and sometimes hate of women (“honour” crimes, etc.) with the circumcised are due to an unconscious thirst for vengeance against mothers who let their boys be mutilated[10]. In a survey[11] bearing upon 546 of their circumcised patients aged between 20 and 60, American psychologists and psychiatrists observed: anger, rage, sense of loss, shame, sense of having been victimized and mutilated, low self-esteem, fear, distrust, and grief, relationship difficulties, sexual anxieties, depression, reduced emotional expression, avoidance of intimacy.

The use of rape as a weapon of war (RDC, Boko Haram, Isis…) is one of the most monstrous forms of the (unconscious) vengeance against circumcision. Collective rape and touching (Köln) – associated with stealing – and rape in the presence of the relatives are outrageous; those rapes unconsciously reproduce the conditions of perpetration of the circumcision crime where the presence of the whole community violates the dignity and modesty of the child. During group rape, laughter and songs reproduce those of the “festivities” of circumcision. In war rape, the issue is not so much to kill women, shot after use, than mothers, traitors who allowed the circumcision crime. Circumcision is a matter of gender and power, war rape also.

 

III The psychoanalytical explanation:

repetition of the trauma: blind rage and re-enactment

                For young people treated as pure objects, sexual mutilation is an experience of violence, pain, terror, abandonment and powerlessness, to an extreme degree[12], [13]. The body loss and the implicit threat of castration aggravated by a beginning of realization[14], [15], [16], and thus death threat since, for the unconscious, the part equals the whole, provoke a terrible trauma[17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Particularly likely since there is partial castration (beginning of castration), that threat is liable to destabilize the individual in the long term (PTSD). The most important is that that castration bears upon the organ of pleasure. The outcome is the reproduction, exacerbated and compulsive, of the parental and societal ban on pleasure.

As a result, it seems that masculine sexual mutilation is the deep cause of grave violence. Psychiatry will diagnose in the practice of circumcision grave transgenerational and collective syndromes that include great violence: Stockholm and Münchhausen by proxy. Psychoanalysis, confirmed by neuroscience, helps us to understand that violence. Every mutilation creates in the child a trauma provoking an emotional dissociation that enables them to face a level of suffering that their young brain cannot manage; they cut themselves from that suffering that remains encrypted in their brain amygdala (their unconscious). To use the expression of Doctor Salmona, that emotional burden is a “time bomb” and, in some individuals predisposed by their personal or cultural history, it may entail the worst acting out.

Is there a link between circumcision and the willingness to kill oneself or others for one’s religious/national beliefs, particularly when circumcision occurs at the age of puberty, as it does in the Muslim cultures? The willingness of many Muslim men to die or kill for their religious beliefs is well known, e.g. the cases of Salman Rushdie and Sirhan Sirhan may be representative here.[24]

The Islamist assaults do not make their victims anywhere and do not target anything. They systematically occur in places of pleasure, leisure, encounter, holidays, and travelling: beaches, hotels, bars, night-clubs, stations, airports, pleasures of sport (stadiums), pleasures of food (markets), spiritual pleasures (mosques, churches), intellectual pleasures (schools, universities, libraries), pleasures of music (concert venues), marginal pleasures (homophiles). The compulsion to destroy the aesthetic and cultural heritage: works of art, statues, archaeological sites, museums, libraries, churches, mosques, etc., discloses the unconscious trauma provoked by circumcision in the open air. Attacking precious objects achieves a vivid metaphor of circumcision. The paradigm of that compulsion lies in the suicide of the terrorists, which repeats their own circumcision.

As early as 1930, in two similar letters to Chaim Choffler and Einstein, Sigmund Freud denounced the responsibility of the Zionist colonialism, fanaticism and racism, in the radicalization of Muslims:

“I notice with regret that the unrealistic fanaticism of our people is partly responsible for the arousing of Arabs’ distrust. I can muster no sympathy whatever for the misguided piety that makes a national religion from the remains of the wall of Herod, so challenging the feelings of the local natives…”

He omitted to mention that the psychological consequences of circumcision make both fanaticisms particularly venomous, as racist the one as the other.

The psychohistorian Marc-André Cotton writes:

“Powerless for directing his legitimate rage against his own father who imposed a violent assault to his integrity, the young man might engage in risky behaviour without understanding the reason.”[25]

The psychoanalyst Moisés Tractenberg gave a brilliant formulation of the link between violence and circumcision:

“Another psychological consequence of early circumcision is that it imprints an aggressive and traumatic situation onto the mind of the new-born… The impossibility of processing such a tremendous infusion of inwardly focused aggression may lead, a posteriori, to the emergence of psychopathic and violent behaviour or, in many other cases, to the emergence of extreme masochistic behaviour.”[26]

His explanation accounts for suicidal terrorism that mingles extreme sadism and extreme masochism. However, that explanation is psychological or psychiatric.

The psychoanalytical explanation of the circumcised’s high propensity to genocide, war, and terrorism is simple, it is that of the mechanism of the unconscious that equates the whole and the part, so that the loss of the foreskin and the related threat of castration become a strong unconscious motivation for murder and mass murder (notably those committed on American campuses). The psychoanalyst Tobie Nathan, who compares initiation through circumcision to Nazi initiation and affirms that initiation by sadism is initiation to barbarity, has illustrated it:

“Himmler ignored his nourishing sadistic drives, the initiation he received in the corps of the SS revealed it to him… The combination of these three levels (isolated emotion, and its ability to trigger perplexity, the attack against strongly invested parts of the body and its ability to trigger “anguish of castration”, the paradoxical statements and their ability to trigger confusion) is essential to the expulsion of a subject from her or his envelope of meaning.” [27]

So, we can complete Barack Obama’s words by saying: routine circumcision, “routine killing”. The banality of the evil of circumcision explains the banality of attacks, wars, and genocides committed by and against circumciseds; the quasi-totality of genocides are perpetrated in the presence of circumcision on one side or the other[28]. Of course, only a small minority of the circumcised population is traumatized to the point of becoming terrorist but it is enough with a very small percentage of gravely-traumatized to make thousands of terrorists and, in extreme circumstances, their violence may become contagious.

The paranoid compulsion explains the warlike temper of sexually mutilated peoples and their neighbours, sometimes pushed to the extremes of terrorism and piracy, driven to the worst when it is exerted “in the name of God”. By favouring submission to the established order and hyper-aggressiveness to defend it, circumcision gives an extremely powerful spring to endlessly renewed tribal wars. It makes the fortunes of arm dealers and gun merchants.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Violence and circumcision: genocides, wars, terrorism, the death penalty, excision

Between barbarity and exclusion, ritual circumcision, an artificial racism masked behind religion, tradition, culture and folklore, catalyst of genocide, terrorism, fanaticism, and feminicide

 

[1] Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU int 1999; 83 (suppl. 1): 93-103.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1

[2] Rhinehart J. Neonatal circumcision reconsidered. Transactional analysis journal 1999; 29 (3): 215-21. http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/rhinehart1/

[3] Bertaux-Navoiseau M. Sexual mutilation and the moral order (problematics and basic concepts of the struggle against sexual mutilation).

[4] Elklit A. et al. Predicting criminality from child maltreatment typologies and posttraumatic stress symptoms. European jounal of psycho-traumatology, 2013 (4).

[5] Important links between child abuse, neglect, and delinquency. Scudder R. et al. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 1993.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306624X9303700404

[6] Dixon R. Forced circumcision reported in Kenya. Los Angeles Times, 01.09.2008.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/09/world/fg-circumcision9

[7] Debut B. Au Kenya, la “circoncision de force” pour humilier l’ethnie rivale. 28.01.2008 – AFP. http://www.icicemac.com/actualite/au-kenyalacirconcision-de-forcepour-humilier-l-ethnie-rivale-9050-122-26.html#.V81jQ5OLR-U

[8] Corey-Boulet R. In Kenya, Forced male circumcision and a struggle for justice. 08.01.2011 – Reuters. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/08/in-kenya-forced-male-circumcision-and-a-struggle-for-justice/242757/

[9] MEDIA-PRESSE.INFO. L’Etat islamique exige l’excision des fillettes. 2015.

[10] Bertaux-Navoiseau MH. Honour crimes, rape, dry sex, forced obesity and circumcision, causality and correlation 

[11] http://www.circumcision.org/harmswomen.htm

[12] Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU int 1999; 83 (suppl. 1): 93-103.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1

[13] Rhinehart J. Neonatal circumcision reconsidered. Transactional analysis journal 1999; 29 (3): 215-21. http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/rhinehart1/

[14] Freud S. New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. 1933. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXII, p. 86.

[15] Freud S. Totem and taboo. 1912. London: The Hogarth press limited; 1964. S.E. XIII, p. 153, n. 1.

[16] Freud S. An outline of psychoanalysis. 1938. London: The Hogarth press ltd.; 1964. S.E., XXII, p. 190, n.

[17] Glover E. The “screening” function of traumatic memories. International journal of psychoanalysis 1929; X: 90-93. http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/glover

[18] Levy D. Psychic trauma of operations in children. American journal of diseases of children, 1945 (69)ƒq, (1), 7-25.

[19] Van der Kolk B. The compulsion to repeat the trauma: re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatric clinics of North America 1989 ; XII (2) : 389-411. http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/vanderkolk

[20] Goldman R. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU int 1999; 83 (suppl. 1): 93-103.

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1

[21] Boyle G., Goldman R, Svoboda J., Fernandez E. Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. J health psychology 2002; 7 (3): 329-43. http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6

[22] Robinett P. The rape of innocence. Eugene: Aesculapius Press; 2006.

[23] Cotton M.-A. Traumatisme de la circoncision.

http://www.regardconscient.net/archi04/0405circoncision.pdf

[24] Prescott James. Genital pain versus genital pleasure. Why the one and not the other? The Truth Seeker, July/August 1989, pp. 14-21.

http://www.violence.de/prescott/truthseeker/genpl.html

[25] Cotton M-A. Circoncision : c’est aux parents de dire non ! http://www.regardconscient.net/archi13/1301peps2.html

[26] Tractenberg M. Psychoanalysis of circumcision. Male and female circumcision. New York: Denniston et al. Plenum publishers; 1999.

[27] L’art de renaître, fonction thérapeutique de l’affiliation au moyen du traumatisme sexuel. Nouvelle revue d’ethnopsychiatrie, 1992, (18) : 20-21.

[28] Bertaux-Navoiseau M. Genocides, wars, terrorism, the death penalty, excision and circumcision