La VÉRITABLE origine de la circoncision (et ce n'est pas la religion)

Hello everyone. In the previous episode, we discussed the religious origins of circumcision. More precisely, the texts of Judaism and Islam which ordain circumcision to the faithful.

But as you may have understood, Abrahamic religions are not the origin of circumcision. They existed long before and as always, religions never invent anything. They only take or codify existing practices.

Esclavage existait bien avant les religions abrahamiques et pourtant aucun texte, je dis bien aucun, ni dans la Torah, ni dans la Bible, ni dans le Coran, ne vient dire « Je vous interdis l'esclavage ». C'est pourtant simple, facile, ça tient en une ligne. « Je vous interdis l'esclavage ».

And yet, this God, Creator of the universe, did not consider it useful to do so. It took them to wait for men to decide by themselves to ban it. And this is where we understand that this famous Abrahamic God is only an invention that has allowed to control the peoples and to strengthen the power in place. Because you will notice that this God never opposes power.

C'est un dieu qui a permis aux puissants de l'époque d'avoir des esclaves, d'épouser des petites filles de 3 ans, de 6 ans, sans jamais s'y opposer. Ce dieu aurait donc créé l'univers, les étoiles, la voie lactée, la lumière, la gravité, les trous noirs. Mais il n'est pas foutu de comprendre qu'on ne peut pas épouser des petites filles ni attacher un esclave dans son jardin.

And the same goes for circumcision. It was already in place long before the appearance of Judaism or Islam. And in this episode, we will try to understand why. What did this practice really serve? And you will see, the origin of circumcision may surprise you.

Before getting into the heart of the matter, I wanted to answer some rather surprising comments that I received following my last video. Some wrote to me: "Observer, I was circumcised at 5 years old and yet I see no loss or any change in my sexual pleasure." So you will recognize that there is a problem of pure logic here.

When you were circumcised as a child or baby for some, what is your point of comparison to talk about sexual pleasure? You don't know what sexuality is with a prepuce. You can't compare anything. You may have lived with your prepuce between 0 and 5 years before you were cut, but apart from pissing, you have no memory, no experience.

And this kind of commentary allows you to understand how religions blow your brain and prevent you from thinking. Because the most fascinating thing is that these men who make this kind of commentary, with of course the idea behind defending circumcision, when you say "it hasn't changed anything", you relativize this gesture, you somehow relativize this mutilation.

These men in their daily lives are not idiots. Apart from religion, they are perfectly functional individuals. In their lives, I imagine that they are, for some, computer scientists, for others, engineers, doctors, nurses, plumber, electricians, BTP workers, no matter the profession. They make, on a daily basis, proof of logic and coherence.

You can hardly function in the world if you have no logic, and even less if you do code or computer science. A logical mind, a rational mind, is the basis to do maths, code, computer science or any other hard science. But this same computer scientist, if you talk to him about his religion, he becomes completely stupid. He gives you such nonsense

And you will understand that in reality, we are in a pure case of cognitive dissonance.

Ces hommes ont été mutilés enfants sans leur consentement et ils sont tellement embrigadés dans leur secte respective, judaïsme, islam, qu'ils n'ont plus le recul nécessaire pour critiquer la mutilation qu'on leur a fait enfants sans leur consentement. Dans un autre monde, dans un monde normal, des parents qui mutilent leurs enfants en leur coupant le prépuce sans raison médicale,

should end in "-tol". And I weigh my words. And besides, for those who find that I am exaggerating, this is the case for the excision, the feminine circumcision, which consists of cutting the clitoris, partially or totally. Well, in France, the excision is a crime punished by the penal code. The penalties go up to 15 years of imprisonment.

And it goes up to 20 years in prison if it's a close parent, father, mother, legal tutor. 20 years of jail if you exorcise your daughter, whether in France or abroad. Even if you take her to the bled to do it, you come back in France 20 years of jail.

Well, I would also ask for 20 years in prison for anyone who circumcises a child without a proven medical diagnosis. Of course, I am not talking about obvious cases of phimosis or medical cases that must naturally be treated.

But these situations actually only represent 3 to 5% of the cases. For those who put the medical argument on the table, yes, it exists, but it's an infim minority of cases. 95%, even more, of the cases of circumcision are for religious or cultural reasons. The medical represents only an infim minority.

And obviously, in this case, there is no debate. We would talk about a surgical act based on a medical diagnosis, as for appendicitis. You are removed from the appendix, but you do not remove the appendix in a preventive way. You imagine, you would be told, you have X chances of developing an appendicitis, it's statistical, it can happen to you. So, even if you are

healthy today, we will remove the appendix, we will put you under anesthesia, we will operate on you to remove the appendix, in case, in case you would be part of this minority of the population that will develop an appendicitis. It's completely stupid. We do not remove a healthy organ for preventive measures.

And to come back to what we were saying about the question of the loss or not of sexual pleasure or sensation after circumcision, the only ones, and I say the only ones, who have the right to comment are those who have been circumcised as adults, whatever the reason, medical, religious, personal preference, whatever. They have known sexuality before and after circumcision.

And they can tell you, "Yes, it's the same thing" or "Not at all, it's gotten worse" or "No, it's a little better". They have this point of comparison of the before and after. And that's good because we have a testimony dating from 2010 in the American magazine Mother Jones in a dossier on circumcision. A celebrity who was circumcised at 31 years old is a witness.

With a full skin, you can feel much more fun.

In literal translation, with a prepuce, on s'éclate beaucoup plus, ou on ressent beaucoup plus de plaisir. Et dans ce même article, Rocco dit que ceux qui ont été circoncis bébés ne pourront jamais comprendre puisqu'ils n'ont aucun point de comparaison. Donc à tous ceux qui me laissent des commentaires « j'ai été circoncis à 3 ans, à 5 ans et je ne vois aucune différence », eh bien Rocco Siffredi vous répond.

You are not able to comment, you have been mutilated as a child. He was mutilated at 31 years old. He was circumcised by choice at 31 years old. He self-mutilated.

And the reason is quite simple, it's business. In the article, he says it's for hygiene reasons, but I don't believe it for a second. Because, what does it mean? Before 31 years old, you were dirty, you lived with a prepuce until 31 years old, so you were dirty, and at 31 years old, to become clean, you were circumcised.

In reality, Rocco understood that to do business in the United States, in the domain of the X, you had to be circumcised. It's the industry that wants that because 80% of Americans are circumcised. So the real reason for Rocco's circumcision, he may have confessed elsewhere, but in any case, in this interview, he doesn't say it clearly.

c'est pour aller faire du business aux Etats-Unis, un pays où l'écrasante majorité des hommes est circoncie. Et en parlant des Etats-Unis, ça nous fait une très bonne transition parce qu'il y a une autre question qui revient beaucoup. Pourquoi cette pratique est-elle à ce point implantée aux Etats-Unis ? Parce qu'on parle de 80% des hommes qui sont circoncis aux USA.

Yet it is a majority Christian country. There is a priori, I say a priori, no religious justification behind this act. And to understand this phenomenon, we must go back to the 19th century and to the obsession of the moment. To fight onanism, or simply the branlette.

At the time, we think that masturbation is the origin of epilepsy, acne, blindness, madness, and we end up finding the magic remedy, cutting the prepuce. The idea is simple, by cutting the prepuce, we greatly reduce pleasure, and the masturbation becomes less pleasant, therefore less interesting.

And the man at the origin of this movement of pre-puce cutters in the USA is John Harvey Kellogg's. Kellogg's, like in Kellogg's Corn Flakes, because it's him who invents the famous cereals. Kellogg's is a doctor of the Adventist church who runs a sanatorium in Battle Creek in Michigan. And he has a theory.

which is the following, on the subject of food. Wine, coffee, spices, foods rich in protein, red meat, excites the senses and awakens the libido. While the food is faded and tasteless, it sleeps. It kills sexual desire. Which is partially true. A good steak, a glass of wine, you band like a horse. So alcohol is subtle,

There is a dose that allows you to reach the optimal erection because it dilates the blood vessels. But if you take too much, the effect becomes the opposite and you end up with the whiskey dick. It's an English expression. It's the whiskey penis. It's a bit like Sega who bores his face. And when he comes in with the girl, he has so much to drink that he can't even wake up, if I may say so. So.

I would say that in alcohol consumption, there is a sweet spot, an interesting point to reach. It must be, I don't know, maybe two glasses of wine, or it dilates the blood vessels and it encourages, it helps the erection, but beyond that, the effect is the opposite.

Anyway, John Harvey Kellogg's observation is quite accurate. Well eaten, and in particular some foods like coffee, caffeine, wine, red meat, spices, stimulate libido. And to kill this libido, to reduce it, you have to eat shit. You have to eat badly. And so he invents the cornflakes that you know today.

This kind of indigestible shit made from corn. It's a food that was originally created to kill libido. Today, it makes me smile when I see that there are millions of people around the world who proudly consume this shit, in addition today, with sugar. At the time, it was consumed without sugar to be even more fad.

So you're going to tell me, why is John Harvey Kellogg obsessed with the question of libido? What is his delirium? What's wrong with having libido, wanting to kiss? Well, you have to know that he is a religious fanatic of the Adventist church of the seventh day, a Protestant church or a derivative of a Protestant church.

who fought libido on two tables. On the one hand, by serving phadal foods so that people don't bend, and on the other, he recommended circumcision to prevent men from masturbating.

Et en 1888, il écrit que la circoncision est un remède presque toujours efficace contre la masturbation des jeunes garçons, et il précise « l'opération doit se faire sans anesthésie ». Pourquoi sans anesthésie ? Parce que la douleur, je cite, « aura un effet salutaire sur l'esprit de l'enfant, surtout si l'enfant y voit une punition ».

And for girls, hang on, he recommended phenic acid on the clitoris. So it was also for a form of excision. And you're going to tell me, but why this obsession around masturbation? What's the problem? Where is the evil? A little nap before going to bed, it's not the end of the world. What's their problem with these Protestants? What's this Adventist church of the seventh day?

So, to understand the phenomenon, we must understand the ideology. For them, for the fanatics of this church, sperm is fuel. And Kellogg's is a vitalist. He believes that every human being has a limited amount of vital energy in which he can breathe his whole life. And for him, sperm is this energy. Each ejaculation is a loss of energy that does not renew itself.

Alors, dans un premier temps, vous avez compris que c'est complètement débile. Le sperme, ce n'est pas du pétrole. Ce n'est pas une source finie qui va tarir, ça se renouvelle.

And in a second time, many of you have now understood the origin of the famous NOFAP, the Seminal Retention Movement, which was very fashionable a few years ago. Well, it's nothing new. It comes to us from the American Protestant vitalists of the 19th century, who were convinced that losing a little sperm is losing vitality, losing strength, is emptying oneself.

So, on the short term, on a day, two days, it may be true, that's why, by the way, before the big competitions, before a boxing match, before a football match, we prevent players from seeing their teammates, for example, because not emptying yourself allows you to stay aggressive. But on the very short term, once you're emptied, after 24, 48 hours, you recharge yourself,

the reserve and so much testosterone goes back to the bone. But in any case, all these stupid ideas, this obsession around the nofap, the seminal retention, comes to us from the same guy and his group. All this is a Protestant sect.

who theorized or who was an advocate of vitalism and who starts from this idea that if you get drunk and you get empty, you lose strength. And so you have to keep this sperm reserve all your life to stay strong, concentrated, to be the best, etc.

And it's quite ironic, it's crazy, when I discovered this story, I said to myself, but it's not possible. The guy who invented the Kellogg's Corn Flakes, what millions of individuals around the world eat, was a guy obsessed with the idea of not getting drunk. And so he created the Kellogg's Corn Flakes as a disgusting food that would kill your libido.

Contrairement à des oeufs, du saumon, de bonne graisse le matin, qui relèvent ton niveau de testostérone. Donc voilà, s'il y a des consommateurs de céréales, de Kellogg's Corn Flakes et de toutes ces conneries le matin, vous savez maintenant pourquoi vous ne bandez pas. Vous mangez de la merde et cette merde a justement été faite, créée pour ça.

And you now understand why 80% of men in the United States are circumcised, despite the fact that they are mostly Christian. Yes, they are mostly Christian, but they are largely influenced by completely hysterical Protestant sects,

and sick of sexuality, these are people who do not have a normal relationship with sexuality. It is also quite surprising when we compare Protestantism and Catholicism. Protestants are completely free on business and affairs and completely closed, archaic on sexual issues. Catholics are the opposite. They are rather sexually free. Here are the Catholic countries you see in Latin America, well, they are not farouche, let's say.

Par contre, sur les questions de l'argent, les catholiques sont complètement fermés. C'est tabou, faut pas en parler, etc.

So I would say that Protestants should teach Catholics sexuality to unwind a little, to relax. And Catholics should teach Protestants business, money, to also relax on these issues. And in general, I would say, if you stopped each other from breaking our balls, we would live much better.

That being said, to return to our central subject, which is the history of circumcision before religions, where does this practice come from? We find the first graphic representations of this practice among the Egyptians on a famous fresco that bears the name of the engraving of the tomb of Ankh-Mahor in Saqqara in Egypt.

I will show it to you on the screen and this engraving dates from between 2300 and 2200 BC. So we are talking about more than 4000 years ago, long before Abraham, long before Moses, long before the slightest verse. And what is fascinating is the detail of the scene and we actually have two frescoes, two drawings or two engravings.

On the right, a man is sitting in front of a young man standing up and he applies something to make the operation less painful. The inscription next to it says, I want to make it more comfortable. And on the left, the operant is sitting in front of a young man held by a hand that blocks his arms. And the operant says to his hand, hold him well so that he does not fall.

And the help answers, I will do as you order. And hang on, the operation is practiced with a silex on a man standing. The circumcised, you are lucky that today, modernity has saved you a bit with anesthesia, the bistouri, etc. But at the time, if we had not had all the scientific progress, you would have been circumcised with a silex.

with a big guy pulling your arm to try to cut it and another behind you grabbing your arm so you don't move. So thank science, thank all these uncreated scientists who allowed you to circumcise yourself in good conditions.

However, Egyptian frescoes do not tell us what the circumcision was used for. We know that it was practiced for various reasons, social rank, belonging to the group, purity, ritual, but nothing really explains its origin.

We have some kind of narrative around circumcision. It's to be pure, it's to get closer to a ritual or religious purity. But all that is a disguise. There is nothing that tells us the origin of this practice, especially since it existed even before the Egyptians, in peoples who claimed no religious justification for circumcision.

To find the answer to this question, we must look for it on the phylogenetic side, a method used in biology to study evolutionary history and the links of kinship between different organisms. The study of reference was published in 2022 in the scientific journal Nature Human Behavior, a study on the origin of genital mutilations. I will display the complete reference on the screen.

The principle of this study, projecting the great ethnographic bases on a genealogical tree of human populations, is built from genes and languages. A method that allows us to go back to the appearance of the first written traces, well before the engravings and archaeological traces.

I won't go into detail because phylogenetics is really an extremely complex, extremely specialized field. If you really want to educate yourself on the question and know what it is, you type "phylogenetics" on your search engine or on your favorite artificial intelligence, it will tell you what it consists of. But in any case, it allows us to understand human behavior before

the written traces before the engravings, before archaeology. And the first conclusions of the study are as follows: the male circumcision emerges in polygamous societies where the wives of the same man lived separately, each in her house or in her tent. And the portrait of these societies is always the same.

And according to this study, the circumcision comes later, and almost only where the circumcision was already in place.

It is also noted that in these societies, circumcision becomes a kind of bonus and it raises the price of marriage. Why? Because the future husband believes that the woman circumcised will be more faithful because she has little or no pleasure, so less motivation to cheat. Small parenthesis before continuing: many imagine that Islam has spread circumcision.

The data say quite the opposite. In most cases, these are societies that already mutilated, that already practiced circumcision and excision, that adopted Islam, and not the opposite.

For example, in East Africa, in Indonesia, these mutilations were already practiced before Islam arrived. And finally, Islamic circumcision only replaced local rites that already existed. So this study already gives us some clues. The real origin of circumcision is neither religious nor hygienic, it is sexual. And you will tell me how or why.

Well, imagine a polygamous tribe. A man who has three, four, five women, sometimes more. He is never at the same time with all the women. He is every night with a different woman. Often, he has a favorite. He will be with her most of the time and he will spend a few nights with the other women.

What is the concern of this man? You will understand, it is that something is happening while he is not there. He cannot watch over all these women, there are too many.

And so they can deceive him, welcome other men in their tents, their houses, whatever the way of living they had. And the haughtiness of this man is that these women or these other women deceive him when he is not there, even worse, that she falls pregnant with another man.

So these societies practiced circumcision of young men to lower their ability to feel pleasure and therefore their motivation and their desire to go and convoit other women, especially married women. That's the first strategy. In the end, all of this is reproductive strategies. Practically everything in man brings back to sex and reproduction.

And the other idea, but that was a received idea that is not totally true, we thought, or these tribes thought, that the circumcision was less fertile, or at least that it needed more effort to inseminate a woman, for her to fall pregnant.

And so the idea, or the false idea, was that the main husband, like him, has access to women. He is with her several times, several nights in the month. By force of repetition, he will end up getting them pregnant. While the one who comes to make a blow one evening, who enters furtively into the tent, who comes to hit his blow quickly and who saves himself, him, as he is circumcised, already he will have more trouble to ejaculate, he has less pleasure

he feels less ejaculation but more time to arrive, that's not completely wrong, and eventually he would be less fertile, so the woman would not risk falling pregnant easily. That's the false idea. There is no cause and effect or relationship between circumcision and fertility, there is none. Fertility happens more at the testicle level than at the verge level.

If the goal was to prevent reproduction, we would have to do an ablation of the testicles. But the goal was not to prevent reproduction, because otherwise the tribe would end up dying at the end of a generation. The idea was to reduce the chances of adultery.

Les hommes qui avaient déjà des femmes, qui avaient déjà des harems, voulaient empêcher les autres, les jeunes hommes, de s'approprier le harem ou d'y aller trop fréquemment.

And the one who describes this phenomenon best is anthropologist Chris Wilson in 2008 in the magazine Evolution and Human Behavior. He says that we cut off the young rivals, those who do not yet have a wife, because the cut acts as a handicap. The cut, the circumcision, you will understand me.

She reduces the chances of fertilizing a woman during a simple relationship. And the husband is circumcised, he too, of course. All men in the tribe are circumcised. But since he has constant access to wives, it pays off. While the lover, he...

only has a brief and furtive occasion, and the handicap of circumcision penalizes him much more than the husband who is always there and who can take advantage of his women at his discretion. That's how to sum up the thing. It's the chiefs of the tribe, the powerful, the men who have access to women, who have access to the harem, who want to prevent young people full of testosterone from accessing their women.

They are generally old or old, or they have enough women not to worry about them. They are also circumcised, but they kiss all the time and this little decrease in pleasure does not bother them. And above all, it reassures them to know that young people who are much more vigorous, who have more strength, more desire, more testosterone,

don't come to look for their wives in the evening because they are overexcited and they can't control themselves. That's why circumcision was born. And the reason is neither religion, nor God, nor Yahweh, nor Allah, nor Abraham, nor all these tales of the thousand and one nights that we tell here and there. The reason is jealousy. Men in power wanted to channel

sexual desires, sexual impulses of young men. And also, a double effect that is not told in the study, but that I deduce,

These young men, frustrated, who have no access to women, who are circumcised, so who don't even want to fuck or who fucks little, or who don't have as much pleasure as a non-circumcised during masturbation because they don't have enough skin, they can't play enough with their penis. I think pleasure is divided in two between a circumcised and a non-circumcised. A non-circumcised has a lot more sexual pleasure.

So you will have understood that this frustrated young man who was mutilated by cutting off his foreskin, to whom women are prevented from accessing through other mechanisms, the dot, the blow, the difficulty, what does it become? It becomes a frustrated man. And what do you do with a frustrated man? You militarize him, you send him to war and that will make him the best soldier possible.

I find that this is an analysis that is not done enough, or I do not hear it enough often. We could explain the Islamic conquest just by the frustration. Desert guys, circumcised, in very difficult societies, where access to women is very hard, because the dotes are high, because there are old people who take over, the harems who take over the women. You have dozens of thousands of frustrated soldiers

that you send to war. Obviously, the Islamic conquest is spectacular. You take all the incels of the Arabian Peninsula, circumcised incels, so the guy can't even get along properly. When you're circumcised, you can't masturbate normally.

You need to add something to the lubricant so that it slides because your skin is tense, you don't have a prepuce to allow the game. And in addition, you were amputated by 50 square centimeters, sometimes more, of prepuce skin, which is one of the most sensitive skin of the body. And that, they removed it from you. So, already an in-cell.

it's complicated to manage, then a circumcised incel, imagine the damage. And this is the origin of circumcision. Jealousy, the management of women and the management of harems. And as it was not enough, because even a circumcised man keeps a little sensation, so it was not enough to totally solve the problem of adultery,

we started to proceed to the excisions, which is the second layer that comes after the circumcision. And there, women who are excised, well, you have men on the one hand who don't have much pleasure, women on the other who don't have much either, sex becomes almost exclusively reproductive.

And the temptation of man to go and seduce a woman who is not his own, and the temptation of a woman to cheat her husband becomes much less interesting. Once you're mutilated, there's not much left. And everything that this scientific study says is confirmed by an insider.

one of the greatest authorities of Judaism, Maimonides, a Jewish philosopher of the Middle Ages, and in the 12th century, in his great book, The Guide of the Lost, the passage is found in the third part, in chapter 49, he makes the following observations. First of all, he buries the medical argument. The prepuce, he writes, is useful.

Nature does not produce anything defective. The commandment does not correct a defect of the body, but a moral imperfection. In other words, since the 12th century, a master of Judaism wrote black on white that circumcision has nothing to do with medical or hygienic. It's a moral, religious decision. Then he clearly denounces the purpose of circumcision. He says it is used to diminish desire.

affaiblir l'organe sexuel, réduire la convoitise, sans la détruire, parce qu'il précise que la loi ordonne aussi de procréer. Donc la circoncision permet de réduire la convoitise et le désir sexuel, sans pour autant détruire la capacité à se reproduire.

And then Maïmonide quotes the strongest reason behind circumcision, and we will say the only true reason. And he quotes a rabbinic comment, older, in Genesis, Rabba, chapter 80, where a woman who has known a non-circumcised man struggles to separate. And the sages of the time, or the rabbis of the time, had understood that the prepuce increases pleasure,

and attachment, including that of the woman. Man feels more pleasure, he desires this woman more, he is more attached to her, and she, in return, is more attached to him.

And I think that these societies in the past have noticed that circumcision made the adulterers fall. Circumcision on one side, excision on the other. We have individuals who feel little or no pleasure. Obviously, they are less inclined to take risks and go and cheat their husbands for women or go and convoit the wife of another for men.

They are a bit handicapped from pleasure, so they don't necessarily want to go there. It gives societies that are less down and maybe that compensate more for work, but also for war and conquest. And Maimonides goes further. He even explains the reason for this perversion of circumcision on the eighth day among the Jews.

He answers this question: why the eighth day? Why not later? And here's what he says: "We cut the child or the baby because an adult would refuse. We cut it early because it suffers less and that its imagination is still weak. And another thing: we cut it very early, a few days after birth, to prevent the father from clinging to the child.

Because the more the child grows, the more you have empathy, the more you have pain to do it, and the more you will be pushed to disobey. Basically, you don't have time to think, the eighth day we circumcise it.

If we leave things too late, the father or mother can cling, can have empathy for the little boy. If we leave it even further, the little boy is stronger. At 15, at 16, the adolescent has the strength to refuse that we circumcise him.

It becomes a much harder act to put in place, while the innocent child is amputated without his consent because he cannot give it, and he is amputated at a time in his life when he is the most vulnerable. And he is amputated by the people in whom he had the most confidence, that is to say his parents or with the agreement of his parents.

So you're going to tell me, how does it happen with Muslims? Because they circumcise later, 3 years, 5 years, 7 years, sometimes 9 years. There is no empathy for the child among parents? Well, I would answer that the religious indoctrination is so great

The pressure is so great because your son who is not circumcised cannot function in a Muslim society. If he does sports, if he does football in the locker rooms, when everyone changes and we see the tails in the air, the one who is not circumcised will attract the farts of all the others. We will tell him, how come you are not circumcised? You are a scoundrel, you are a bad-tempered. Why are you not circumcised? You are dirty.

That is to say that Muslim parents do it because they are afraid that their child will be harassed later at school, in high school, by his other little friends who will all be circumcised.

So I would say that in Islam, the empathy that parents could have is completely stifled by the weight of religion and society, because in Muslim societies, the pressure is far beyond the religious framework. If you eat, for example, Ramadan in the street in a Muslim country, you can get beaten up. In some countries where the law does not allow it, you can go to prison.

Un flic peut venir t'arrêter dans la rue parce que t'as bu de l'eau ou mangé un sandwich pendant le ramadan. Voilà ce qu'est la société musulmane.

If we notice that a child is not circumcised, that the little friends at school or in the sports club denounce the child, we can denounce the parents to the authorities because they did not circumcise the child. So the Muslim society is an extremely complicated society that exceeds the religious framework. That's why these countries are open-air prisons. That's why everyone wants to save themselves.

Muslim countries in general are countries where we want to get rid of. There are Muslims who settle in Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, but there are no Norwegians who settle in Iraq or in Syria or in Egypt. These are not countries that make us dream. For the simple reason that a country where you are beaten in the street because you ate a sandwich during Ramadan is a shitty country.

Manger c'est pas un crime, tu manges où tu veux, comme tu veux. Un pays où tu vas en taule, parce que t'as mangé pendant le ramadan, c'est un pays de merde. Ayons le courage de le dire.

Anyway, to come back to our subject, I digressed a bit on the question, the reason why we circumcise Tau is to not give the time to the parents to think. And it's not me who invents the thing, it's Maïmonide, a summite of Judaism, who explains it concretely and who writes it black on white. The Abrahamic sect, the Judaic sect, and by extension the Islamic sect, which takes up the same concepts,

circumcise from childhood, one, so that it happens very quickly and that we don't have time to think, two, so that parents don't have time to develop empathy for this child, and three, so that the child doesn't become strong and that he can't defend himself. Because go circumcise by force a 17 or 16 year old teenager who doesn't want to, good luck.

This is the reason for circumcision. You know it now. Everything we invent about religion, cleanliness, purity, is narrative that hides reality.

The reality of circumcision is that it is a system of management of the spouses that was put in place by the powerful who had taken women, who wanted to keep them, who were afraid and who were jealous of the young who arrived, of the vigorous young full of testosterone who arrived. And so they had to circumcise them to calm their ardor.

And then religion came to impose circumcision with the authority argument of the divine order. The Torah, the Bible, the Koran, these are human productions. It was written by scribes who were mandated by powerful kings, caliphs, and who wrote what arranged them.

And so, to further strengthen the practice of circumcision, which could have disappeared, young people could have rebelled by saying, no, that's enough, or parents could have rebelled by saying, no, that's enough, we stop.

Well, the divine argument came to close the debate. It's Yahweh, it's God, it's Allah who orders you to circumcise yourself. And there, you can't say anything. Otherwise, among the Jews, you are rejected from the tribe. Yahweh tells you, if you don't circumcise yourself, if you don't give me your end, well, you are no longer part of the tribe.

I imagine Yahweh, or this Jewish god, as a collector of mud. He has prepuces like that on shelves, he has billions of prepuces, he collects the mud. It's a god who collects the prepuces. And in Islam, Allah tells you, well, the Jews do it, you do it too. And you're there, but why ?

Why Allah? There are many things that the Jews do, but that we don't do, you see. They do Shabbat, we don't do Shabbat. No, but the question of circumcision is not the same, it doesn't mix everything. The prepuce you cut, like the Jews, shut up. And once the circumcision has been integrated as a religious principle, well, it has a much more permanent authority over time. And that's why it still exists.

And to conclude, I think this practice must disappear. I think that in developed countries like France, we must ban it and impose penal sanctions. I don't see why the excision is punished by up to 20 years of imprisonment for the parent and the circumcision, no. Why don't little boys have the same rights as little girls?

There is injustice at this level, everyone is insurgent against the excision and rightly so, but it would seem that the violence exerted on little boys is better accepted. Well, I think we should start to fight, to bring this subject of circumcision back to the authorities, to finally talk about it as an atrocious mutilation and all parents

Every parent who circumcises their child without medical justification should be 20 years old. For me, it's like cutting a finger for free, it's like cutting an nail, it's cutting a part of the body without justification. You should go in a taul, in a functional country, in a world that would work properly,

The circumcision would have the same status as the excision. It is the mutilation of a genital part. 20 years of mourning for the parent who practices it.

In any case, this is my opinion. I am not an authority, I am not a minister, I am not a deputy. But if I were, I would impose this debate in Parliament and I would vote a law that condemns the act of this mutilation, that condemns circumcision in the same way as excision.

And the French Penal Code says, for the exodus, 15 years in prison and 20 years if it's a parent. What to give to think about many parents who are about to mutilate their little boy. That's what I had to say for today. I hope you learned something and that you found this content interesting. And what else to say? Well, as usual, take care of yourself and see you soon.