A serious and calm reflection on what?

A serious and calm reflection on what?

I posted a little because I wanted to enjoy the holidays, and then in my spare time I played with Pleroma and the Fediverse vario, ( here ) and therefore I lost sight of the Italian current events for some time. On my "return" today, I find myself with a "blog adept" who asks me to comment on the invitation of the Italian Jewish Community:

A serious and calm reflection on what?

Now, I know about Bait, but it's, as they say on 4Chan, a bait of excellent quality.

In any case, I start from the simplest point: like almost all 8 billion human beings on the planet, I have my license for anti-Semitism. Earning it is so simple that many of you won't even notice it: in fact, you can have it without doing anything to earn it, so it's a pretty painless thing.

Inevitably, this license is also irrelevant today, a bit like that loyalty card that supermarkets in tourist resorts give you, knowing that you will never return. Maybe even keep it in your wallet, until you change it, and it ends up among the irrelevant tiles that fall into the basket during the change.

In any case, I have an anti-Semitism license. I could explain how I got it, and that's what I'm going to do, mainly to explain why there can't be a peaceful reflection on anti-Semitism.

The first thing you need to understand is that Judaism is a religion. And it is a religion of the Semitic stock, moreover monotheistic (with some veins of enotheism badly concealed). Like Christianity and Islam, therefore, it has a tendency to have particularly painstaking believers about the conduct of others, a fundamental patriarchal male chauvinism, and a worldview that calls "good" the one who "thinks like us", and calls "Bad" those who think differently.

Having a calm reflection with a monotheistic Abrahamic religion is, in all honesty, absolutely impossible. Just as you are a heretic if you don't think like Christians, and you are apostate or unfaithful if you don't think like Muslims, you automatically become anti-Semitic if you don't come to the conclusion that in the end the priests of the situation (however they are called) know everything , and if not everything more than anyone else, and in any case they are entitled to judge others.

You can see it if you take the secular issue of the state with the Jews: as long as you talk about the Catholic Church that ingests in countries with a Catholic tradition, everything is fine. You are anti-Christian, but not anti-Semitic. You are also nice to him. Talk about how Saudi Arabia and Iran are uninhabitable theocracies, and they will also prove you right. Express concern about the end of Turkish secularism, and they will be peaceful .

Then try to say that Israel is everything but a completely secular state, that the influence of the rabbinate of Jerusalem is far greater than that which the Church had on Italy in 1918, and that you are worried about the clear desecularization in Israeli politics in recent years, and suddenly, poof: you are anti-Semitic.

If you are going to answer me that in Tel Aviv's beaches there are girls in bikinis, which testifies to secularism, I invite you to look for "Haredi" and admire the beautiful bikinis:

A serious and calm reflection on what?
No, they are not Muslim. They are a variant of Haredi Judaism, known in Italy as "Orthodox".

And you can also hold back the scandal: if you measure secularism with a bikini, that's all that awaits you.

Because, as usual when it comes to Abrahamic monotheistic religions, there are only two categories, evil and good, with God or Satan, and if "anti-Semitic" is bad, then anyone who criticizes religion, the religious hierarchy or his work is on the side of evil, therefore also anti-Semitic .

I'm not even mentioning the Palestinian affair, which I'll talk about later. For now I am facing a simple fact: that Judaism is an Abrahamic religion, therefore inherently male chauvinist, patriarchal and fundamentalist. The opposite of what is needed for a peaceful discussion .

But today, even just remembering this fact, and going to criticize a religion where women cannot mix with men in the majority of synagogues because they put on menstrual blood because of a witty and playful tradition, is more than enough to peck antiSemitic license.

Under these conditions, the calm reflection of which the Jewish community speaks probably consists in admitting calmly that the Jewish religion is perfect even when it is very similar to other less perfect religions .

This point does not seem to touch on the problem of violent anti-Semitism, which I will discuss later, but the thing I intend to underline is that

no PACATA reflection is possible when a faction of fundamentalist religious, with their priests, is present (however not majority).

The second point is related to the Palestinian issue. Now, the problem is not that I think A or B. The problem is that I am not going to allow anyone to tell me what to think about it.

The problem of anti-Semitism in Europe, in fact, is often linked to the presence of Arabs, in Germany now also many Syrians, who do not seem to have much sympathy for Israel. It is obvious that when Israel is said to be the state of the Jews, that is, the state of those who believe in a specific religion, the nation is identified with the religion, and vice versa.

The problem lies in the fact that the most rational thing is to split the two things, or to decide that German, American, Italian citizens are German, American and Italian rather than Israeli, even when Jewish.

But if you try to say such a thing, you are immediately stopped by the Zionists. The convinced Zionist immediately notices an anti-Semitic statement such as " in Italy my son's professors should be Catholic and non-Jewish ", but there is no problem with saying things like " I liked living in Israel because it is a country where you know that the lifeguard is Jewish, the janitor is Jewish, etc. " And I know because I heard it with my ears.

The fact is very simple: the Jewish question (which was already historically complex of its own) has mixed with the Middle Eastern question (another beautiful hot potato), and those who discuss anti-Semitism today are asked (by a conspicuous faction of Jews) to have a specific opinion on Israel and its domestic and foreign policy.

In practice, if you want to buy the "enough anti-Semitism" package, you must also accept the "ewwiwa Israel and everything it does !!" package. This is absolutely unacceptable for those who want to be FREE to form the opinion they want.

On the other hand, Israeli identitarianism has pushed Israel to be identified (without too much resistance from the Diaspora) with all Jews. With the result that the Syrian refugee who caught a civil war sponsored by Saudi Arabia, Israel and the USA, he may think that if his problems come from Israel, then they come from the Jews. And the Syrian refugee has had problems.

When you have a million Syrian refugees, like in Germany, or a few million pro-Palestinian Megrebins like in France, and you have identified EVERY JEWS with Israel, I fear that a PEACEFUL discussion is impossible.

Moreover, the Jewish side refuses to distinguish too much between the two, and therefore the government (be it the German, or the Italian, or the American one) is asked to silence only one of the two factions (the pro-Palestinian one) but to leave speak always and in any case not so much the Jews, as the Zionists.

I am not interested in knowing or explaining what should be thought of the story between Israel and Palestine. But what is not acceptable is that someone comes to tell you what you should think in order not to get your anti-Semitic license .

My answer will inevitably be that I DECIDE what to think of something, whatever it is, and if this implies receiving a license for anti-Semitism, now we are so many to have one that I can make elegant shrugs: I think I threw it away last change of wallet, together with the points card of that supermarket in Prague.

It is not possible to have a PEACEFUL discussion with those who maintain within themselves a faction of Israeli identity nationalists, also called "Zionists", which behaves like any nationalist: either you are with us in all respects, or you are against us.

Now let's go to what happened in the USA, that is, the stabbing that took place in a synagogue.

It's not entirely surprising. It is for all to see that Trump "freed the dogs", that is, that he came to power with the support of white supremacists and racists of all kinds. Now, it is enough to have read a book of elementary history to know what happens to the Jews when in the West a nationalist, identitarian and imperialist faction takes power.

It could not have been otherwise: it is a historical practice. It will happen, predictably, even in England, as soon as Brexit has sanctioned the definitive dominance of a faction of supremacists, identitarians and nostalgics for a past empire . Where have we seen this film in Europe before? Let me think …

The thing I object, however, is one: both the election of Trump and the victory of Brexit have been warmly supported by the local Jewish communities . Which is surprising: that the people of memory don't understand that they are looking for trouble when they push a right wing full of nationalism, identitarianism and nostalgia towards power is surprising.

Take the British and American newspapers that orbit the Murdoch galaxy. they are those who have deliberately pushed England into the abyss of suprematism, identitarianism and more Chauvinist nationalism. And it's strange, because if you think about it Murdoch is Jewish: it's as if this gentleman had said one day

“But yes, let's push England into the arms of a faction of nationalists, supremacists and identitarists. What could possibly go wrong for us Jews? "

I know very well the objection "but Corbyn". But it makes water everywhere. Because it is one thing to say that a party leader has said things of this and that kind. It is one thing to deal with a mass of fanatics ready to put their hands on and kill MPs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox ( which will be an isolated case, of course, and the guy was crazy, of course, and obviously it has nothing to do with the parties of the English right, but the Jews these two apologies should remind you well. To be the people of memory, sometimes they seem to have it short. )

Even the Communist Refoundation was pro-Palestinian, to say, but I am convinced that it is better for a Jew to meet Vladimir Luxuria on the street who goes out with his friends, rather than Giorgia Meloni who runs with her supporters. And I think being surrounded by Salvini fans is, for a Jew, a more worrying hair than being surrounded by Muccassassina customers.

This dysphoria that there would be no difference between voting for a party that has an embarrassing leader but a reassuring basis after all (like Labor), and who prefers to support parties that are nationalist, identitarian and neo-imperial does not go very well, honestly , with the "people of memory" thing. Historically, when nationalists, identitarists and neo-imperials win for Jews, a period of "severe headaches" begins. Where's the memory?

Same thing in the USA. You will remember the enthusiastic endorsements of Benjamin Netanyahu in Trump, and the acclaimed Jewish communities when Trump boasted of having "a Jewish daughter" (a sophisticated version of "I have a Jewish friend"), all complaining about how the American left was anti-Semitic , because anti-Zionist. And all to say that if Trump supports Israel then it is good for American Jews, and who cares if his American supporters have shaved heads and do the fascist salute … what could possibly go wrong?

It is a pity that Trump's henchmen oscillate between "the Jews are the Great Plot", and "the Jews are reptilians", among the Illuminati, Bildberg and Rotschild. And when nationalists, identitarists, and so on, it is never a good thing for Jews. And the newspapers most hostile to Clinton were from News Corporation, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation_(1980–2013)#Political_donations ) And let's not forget the role of Zuckerberg, also a Jew ( https: / /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg#Early_life )

I could speak of the mischievous attitude of the various Cairo, De Benedetti and Elkann, with their newspapers, in favor of the Italian populists. I understand that Renzi disliked you, but you must admit that it is safer for an Italian Jew to pass near the Leopolda than at Casa Pound. Or you take drugs, and a lot. (Kosher stuff, of course. Never be!)

But the question that arises is: but if it is enough to have read a history book to understand that the nationalists, the identitarists and the populists in power "do not bring luck" to the Jewish community , because so many illustrious Jews support and legitimize these parties , at the cost of using the pathetic excuse for which far-left and far-right anti-Semitisms would be equivalent?

The answer is simple: violent events like the American one only happen to POOR Jews.

Elkann, like Cairo, De Benedetti, Zuckerberg or Murdoch do not take these risks: the synagogues they attend are very safe. Ditto for Netanyahu. After all, this too is a historical constant: it is almost never the "Jews" who are massacred in history. They are always POOR Jews. The wealthy and powerful ones have always managed to get away, in the vast majority of cases, from pogroms to shoah.

Consequently, there is no problem for the Elkanns, or for Murdoch, or Netanyahu or Zuckerberg in supporting nationalist parties: you can be sure that no one will ever attack them, and that their synagogues are very safe. Historically, I repeat, POOR Jews have always been massacred, almost never rich and powerful Jews. (as happens to any human group, moreover: the poor almost always die).

But the speech I just made will certainly be accused of anti-Semitism, and so now I know what to throw away at the next change of wallets, together with the loyalty card of a hat shop in Krakow.

On the other hand, how could we have a serious debate with a community that is subject to assaults led by the same nationalists that members of their own community have financed and supported politically?

A PACATO debate is impossible when PACATO means a categorical and noisy refusal to examine the behavior and involvement of ALL the players in the field.

I'm not saying Clinton or Corbyn are perfect. Nor do I think all American and British Jews are with Murdoch and Zuckerberg. Or that everyone enjoyed Netanyahu's endorsement.

What I am doing is asking myself a question: in the past has bringing various nationalists, identitarians and populists to power brought security to Jews in history OR NOT?

It's a YES / NO question, and we all know the answer: NO.

So, my (easy) prediction is that the Italian Jewish community will NOT get any "PACATO" debate, and if they want to know why they only have to look in the mirror.

And with this, I also mortgaged the fourth wallet. Maybe I have to go back to some supermarket in Prague.

Source: https://keinpfusch.net/una-riflessione-seria-e-pacata-su-che/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.