M H Navoiseau-Bertaux

In the City, Jewish businessmen no longer wear bowler hats (they still used them in the 60s). Top hats also have run out of fashion. But in "Socrate in Saint Tropez"[1], Alain Soral, an admirer of Maurras and a right-hand man of Le Pen, so entitles the following quote:

"ZAGDANSKI, STEPHANE or primary antigoyism"

"In my little boy's head, an uncircumcised penis looked like a sex of dog, the irregular aspect, the bright red little top…This really did not seem very aesthetic to me compared to my own penis or that of my brothers. I remember a shower taken with a friend in snow-classes, we were, let’s say, nine or ten years old and he showed me what his penis looked like, explaining me how he had to wash it, every day, because otherwise, there was a risk of infection or getting dirty. He had shown me the whole operation, I was rather stunned, I had never seen this in my life. Above all, I had never seen a glans all red like this, and, right away, very subjectively, it evoked me a dog in erection – as I could have seen one in the country, or even in town. A feeling of great difference, thus, on the one hand between me and women, anatomically, and between me and non-Jews, the majority. In other words, between me and all others. With all the same a slight complex of superiority because of that disclosure, namely that the penises of non-Jews looked like sexes of dogs." [2]

Instead of reporting that out of the mouth of babes and sucklings truth comes forth, he comments:

"This arrogant and stupid text – that is not without recalling certain animal metaphors about cut-tailed rats particularly praised by Nazi propaganda – demonstrates to what point, if the Jewish genius belongs to its conditions of existence, comfort, narcissistic complacency, impunity and intellectual laziness that result from it gravely altered it…"

"To what point, since some time, scorn and stupidity have changed sides, can be deplored…"

These testimonies are symptomatic of the fact that if children are the first victims of the segregationist and discriminative character of sexual mutilation, the adult Soral is also stricken. Of course, the child impressions of Zagdanski forget that the prepuce of the dog is hairy and that, even in erection, it is man's best friend. Of course, they make think of the trite insult: "Uncircumcised dog. Of course, he is affected by the traditional ignorance of the advantages of possessing a foreskin. But is it his fault? Therefore, recalling the antiJew metaphor is suspect. At variance, whereas the Bible has institutionalized a narcissism which sanctifies mutilation through making it not only the realization of a divine order but also a sign of alliance with God and a condition of ethnic election by him, the disclosure of childhood fantasies and creeds of the young mutilated admirably testifies of the psychological havoc of circumcision and of the auto-improvement that results from the loss of the foreskin. Assuming the humanity of the circumcised alone and the animality of the intact, these fantasies are appalling and the adult who exposes them cannot but be applauded. Zagdanski frankly reveals souvenirs coloured with the truculent realism of childhood and brands these fantasies as pathological, quasi-racist. Then, Soral feels insulted and sees red – now, if ever, is the time to say it – in an astonishing judeophobic delirium denying the sincerity of Zagdanski's self-mockery and completely passing by his message. Soral’s narcissism does not seem to have known the conditions of discomfort and desperate struggle for existence that have been those of the Jews. He feels remarks of very childish logic and, after all, racy inasmuch as the only stupidity they expose is that of circumcision, as scornful. In a projective way, he elevates commonplace childhood memories into an "antigoy" provocation. This delirium gives perfect evidence of the anguish of castration generated even with the most brilliant ones by sexual mutilation.

For the second time in thirteen years (cf. our article "Shame on the racists of the AME), the present president of the AME disparages, through inverting its meaning, a Jewish attack against circumcision. But the AME unreservedly applauded when an association of Israeli Jews claimed for the ban of circumcision as contrary to Judaism. Like the Nazis, the AME only accepts the Jews against circumcision on the condition that they should live in Israel where they risk extermination. So, the AME's misinterpretation prepared the ground for Soral's judeophobic escalation. However, the quotation of the A.M.E. included the following at the beginning:

"There also is the question of circumcision, of what is a circumcised penis, an uncircumcised penis overall, because my father, my brothers and I, we were all circumcised. I had never seen an uncircumcised penis. I also remember, between brackets, another example of that curiosity, of that sexual eagerness: in our house in the country, there was a hole in the wooden door of the bathroom where we would go and watch my mother taking her shower. My mother was modest, she never showed herself naked in front of us. I see the black pubes of my mother again, which I likely caught a sight of that time only. A double mystery was thus hanging over me. On the one hand women, how is made the body of a woman, what do they have between their legs...? On the other hand, the mystery of that weird sex that is that of uncircumcised little boys that I could have caught a glimpse of, on rare opportunities, in holiday camps or at school, in the toilets..."

It is interesting because it illustrates a thought of the philosopher Jacques Rozenberg:

"... the otherness of the Jew confronts itself with the fellow creature, and only has for equivalent that of woman."[3],

that must be brought together with a thought of the same article:

"The Jewish people bothers and scares because it represents the Other. This equivalence precisely points at the thematic link that gathers myth and psychopathology, themselves epiphenomena of a double crisis of sexual and cultural identity. This 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."

Here are thus the A.M.E. and Soral slammed. If thinking oneself the Other is both criminal (circumcision) and dangerous, pretending to be the Other towards the other who pretends to be the Other is far as dangerous. Freud alone enables to analyze the thing:

"The hypothesis that a root of those hatreds of the Jews (Judenhasses) 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."[4]

For if the father of psychoanalysis wrote:

"... 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."[5],

the leaders of the A.M.E. and Soral are no longer little boys and one cannot see how the A.M.E. could reach its object of help and service to victims:

"Fighting sexual mutilation through organizing actions of support to ill-favoured and in danger children through managing centres of welcoming:.."

with not only the absence of compassion characterized by deriding a victim, but above all the blindness of understanding it the other way round when it exposes circumcision as creating, within the human species, a "great difference" giving the child a "complex of superiority". This is a bold description of the most blatant of the psychological damages provoked by circumcision in the head of a child: belief in a partition of the human species. Overall, when the victim exposes the second major danger of circumcision: creating in the unconscious of some, by comparison, the belief that women have been castrated, one is forced to think that the ignorance of basic psychological mechanisms risks paralyzing the AM.E. in the noble mission it gave itself.

It is impossible not to conclude without noticing that, through setting about Zagdanski only, amongst both authors of "La vérité nue" (The unadorned truth), Soral and the AME removed Alina Reyes from the responsibility of exposing the racism of circumcision. But, of course, for some, women, like the Jews, are castrated and these gentlemen also seem to have a grudge against cut-tailed mice. This displaces the question upon that, eternal, of the difference between "mice" and "rats".