Still have people talking about them
On TV, the brilliant media philosopher, the one who speaks like a Kalashnikov, says that we have to react to anti-Semitism, not by moralism, but by looking for the cause. In order to contribute to his quest, let him allow me to propose two more.
The first, the most impressive in my opinion, is that there is none. Tradition has it, effectively, that in any large family one of the children is sacrificed. In the family that multiplied with monotheism, it is written that there will be one, and why not the eldest, the favourite, hey, exactly the one who wanted to be a substitute for a symbolic sacrifice to the one who was human, who will be returned to sender. He was one too many, he spoilt the view, preventing us from being amongst ourselves.
All the more so since, and here is the second reason, he is loaded up like a mule with everything that the divine decrees invite us to reject, just like what constitutes the unconscious. In the Freudian School there was one unfortunate who had discovered that the unconscious spoke Yiddish! He had not worked out that “Jew” was a qualifier that designates all there is to be rejected in each one of us, and, as we never manage to do that, anti-Semitism then subsists whilst there is no longer any Jew—the common name of the members of a people. Finkielkraut is thus the witness—member of the witness people—that there were Jews, a nostalgia, and that they are capable of becoming acceptable.
A shame or a homage [D’hommage]?
20 février 2019
Traduction en anglais par Michael Plastow