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.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s