Make Me Itch to Be Nationalist, President

We could, with more than sufficient justification, spend the remainder of our miserable lives profoundly lamenting war.  This wouldn't even seem inappropriate. Any human being who is troubled by murder has a high probability of being a decent person, even if they are grumpy. I propose yet another option: leaving the role of resignation to those who have retired from the work of creating the world.

It is naive to think that creation is a finished task. There is almost everything still to be done, especially regarding the consolidation of peace among peoples.  This text may contain more or less than the necessary elements for clear support. Therefore, I anticipate and assure you that I am open to discussing it. I will avoid references and share only what lives within me.

The lynching of the innocent Jesus is, without a doubt, a testament to love. It is from this founding act of peace that the wheel of violence has spun in emptiness for two millennia. If, within us humans, there was a need to lacerate a body for the execution of a rite of passage, that desire was fulfilled. If Western civilization is founded on this act, and it is, then we can progress to the consciousness arising from this act: "What have we done?"

I have little or no desire, in fact none, to subject my reason to the religious interpretations of religious texts. In my conception of God, it is not even in his nature to promote small things or to privilege small groups. With this, I hope to have made explicit my conclusion that, regardless of religious perspective, if the human sacrifice of Christ is present, then we cannot—under any amendment—condone murder. This is, here, a sociological and historical issue more than a mystical one.

The Abrahamic schism between Jews and Muslims is also a sociological and historical issue, though not solely that. Father Abraham, what have you done? To delegate this civilizational question entirely to the realm of religion is tantamount to abdicating civilizational progress as a whole. One hundred percent of viewpoints on war founded on individual transcendence are invalid for a peace solution.

For us Christians, smoking that pipe has left our mouths askew. So many sermons and songs mentioning Israel, destined to occupy a certain origin of our faith, that now, when a country with the same name is at the center of a geopolitical dispute, we are tempted to solve the interpretation based on promises from our religion.

If the Bible holds any validity for Catholics and Protestants, in particular—and it does—I recommend a careful reading of the Book of Hebrews—my favorite, both for its excellent literary quality and its contribution to faith.  Essentially, the text addresses the human system of violence containment that has failed miserably and presents a perspective of spiritual elevation through which every religious system unravels from a final sacrifice. This is when the ethnic, regional god of the Old Testament Israelites puts his universal plan into action. With the ethnic god, the ineffective methods of resolving human suffering also die, replaced by love.

This issue must be considered when constructing a Brazilian interpretation of the war in the Middle East. The influence of our religious beliefs on the political public sphere became even more noticeable in the last two presidential elections. If we want to make even minimal progress on the peace agenda, we must be able to redirect our individual emotions to more appropriate compartments. In this step, that which is undeniably transcendental must be subjected to a test of relevance: Does my perspective lead to murder? If so, that perspective should be accepted, respected internally, but disregarded for rational and public justification. One does not dialogue with murder. "Shall you kill?" "You shall not kill." End of discussion.

The guilt arising from murder, a problem we try to solve through submission to the divine plan of grace and other civilizational resources, may be nonexistent depending on the context in which death occurs. In wars, the murderer is integrated into an artificial mass formation, i.e., the army. In this adhesion to the army, the individual renounces his individual moral standard, which is replaced by the morality of the group. In this case, he can kill at will, without questioning why on earth he is doing it. Masses are dangerous formations, and their advantages, such as folklore, are nothing compared to their damage.

We have been steeped in violence for at least thirty-nine years, since I came into the world. To avoid losing sensitivity, I began to account for death using the International System of Units. In my calculations, we have had to bury approximately ninety-eight metric tons of human flesh provided by Hamas to the world. Competitively, Israel was even more generous in its banquet, serving us 450 metric tons of corpses—many still unburied. Complete solutions for the future of humanity, which resided in these people, have been reduced to rampant depression, when the brain turns off the light.

The stones of Passeio Público know that the nationalist and religious origins of the war quickly transformed into big business. Now, market rules prevail.  This was never about a weakened United Nations. It is the negotiating ability of nations that is weakened, making diplomacy our barometer. The pathetic US veto of Brazil's resolution proposing humanitarian aid, followed by the pathetic offering of a new resolution by the same United States, led to the veto by Russia and China. The Israeli ambassador called for the resignation of the UN Secretary-General. We have the United States and Israel conversing only between themselves, while the rest of the world watches in stunned silence.

The basic constitution of a public sphere is formed by private individuals discussing based on reason. Rebellion is not reason. Submission is not reason. Intuition is not reason. Impulse is not reason. It is too early to estimate a date, but not to affirm that, in the face of such a humiliating defeat, global diplomacy will have to evolve its communicative and deliberative practices. We will have to elevate individuals above us who embody our trust in problem-solving—intelligent, ethical, and above all, creative leaders in their proposals.

Does Israel have the right to defend itself? No, it has the duty. Is Hamas a harmless confection? It doesn't seem different from a Rio militia, except for the planning, better weapons, and an ancestral grievance. Are they equivalent institutions?  Regarding formal constitution, no. But in the decrepit character of murder, their results are not different, except for the sheer volume of bloodshed.

History records that Jews have been the object of irresponsible hatred perpetuated by numerous institutions. This hatred has manifested itself in different ways. Although it reached its apex in the Holocaust, it developed in more sophisticated—dare we say civilized—ways without losing its characteristic hatred. The creation of a state for this people, far from being mere acquiescence by the international community, does not hide the true purpose of countries keeping Jews away from their territories.

From the perspective of contemporary philosophy, the struggle for recognition lamentably culminates in the Jew. Exterminations targeting Black people, unrestrained foreigners, and all manner of unsubmissive individuals symbolically converge on the Jew. This interpretation is shared by authors who arrived at it independently. However, the Jew of the Bible, the Holocaust, and comedy is not the contemporary Israeli authority. This authority lacks unanimity even among Israelis themselves, let alone within the international community. Furthermore, an Israeli born in modern Israel is not necessarily Jewish.

If we have the liberty to question the historical content of the Pentateuch and other Jewish compendia—and we do—we can quickly arrive at the observation that their approaches disproportionately favor a messianic people who self-identify as chosen by God to rule over their brethren.  Broadly and specifically, a fundamentalist Jew, similar to a fundamentalist Muslim, believes they are licensed to do as they please, because God not only authorizes but commands it. The entire salvific work that culminates, for Christians, in the death of Christ holds no validity for these fundamentalists; thus, for them, the wheel of violence revolves around their own special navel.  While we shouldn't constrain another's religious belief—and we shouldn't—if that belief transgresses the civilizational code, we could at least count on the other's adherence to a discussion of the civilizational code.

The current Israeli government has the outward appearance of a state: it has a prime minister, elections, but its actions demonstrate that it is not a sufficiently developed democracy in its interactions with the world. This manifests as a refusal of dialogue.  It is necessary to observe the emotional aspects of the relationship between Israel and the world. Even if the motivations intrinsically linked to the ethnic god and the practice of territorial conquest ordained by that god have been superseded, the emotional vestiges of these experiences remain. It is understandable, though lamentable, that present-day Israel is connected to the belligerence of its historical past.

As for Palestine, it is the new Jew—considering the philosophy of recognition mentioned earlier. Taken to its extreme, the idea that the abused has an immense potential to become the abuser could apply to a group, or even to mass behavior. Ten years from now, when I recall this war, unless something even worse surprises me, the image in my mind will be that of a Palestinian mother screaming that her children were hungry when they were murdered. The Palestinian people are subalternized in many ways and by many interests.  Information about this people, presented in this article, is available as an annex on the YouTube channel Outras Terras Filmes (http://outrasterras.com.br).

“I believe there is one story in the world, and only one. Humans are imprisoned – in their lives, thoughts, hungers and ambitions, in their greed and cruelty, and in their kindness and generosity too – in a web of good and evil. There is no other story. A man, after clearing away the dust and fragments of his life, will have left only the stark and clear questions: was it good or was it bad? Did I do well or poorly?”

“Why do we engage in psychological games?” asks the analysis. To which it replies, “to maintain frames of reference”. Let's elaborate, in other words. The unease one might feel during a political discussion indicates that there has been, to say the least, a triangulation of the roles we frequently resort to in order to maintain our worldview: that of hero, of victim (art will even incline towards "submission to the absurd"), or the one who sees themselves as favored, the one who "tells the truth to their face, no matter who it hurts, I speak my mind!". You played, you lost. There are no winners in this game. However, we bring the news that it is possible to express oneself, whatever the subject, without losing one's peace. Especially with peace at the price it is.

Evidently, philosophy, political communication, and psychology become urgently necessary for mediating the conflict that arises on digital social networks, in hallway conversations, or, oh what a bother, during family meals. When we write about such urgency, we refer to two things: the reinforcement of the practice of suspension, to try, at least, to understand the other according to their map (it's one of the things a therapist does during a session); and also a good dose of intellectual remedies against what cannot be overcome by reason.

It so happens that, although such reason refers – what a coincidence – to an idea of rationality, that is, of the possibility of reasonable justification, and that such reasonableness usually has science as its grammar, that is, a system that can be audited, it is not, and one might lament this, sufficient to encompass a significant portion of the electorate – which may include us.

We find it curious when they tell us "the electorate thinks such and such", as if academic or opinion polls were enough to explain things that today are a big banner of the "WhatsApp Uncle", but tomorrow, for this same dear Uncle, are worth less than dishwater. What we are suggesting is that there are things beyond algorithms, things that are older than language, older than speaking Portuguese.

Understanding others, in the sense of combining, adjusting the parts, is a key to fruitful political discussion. Given the precarious conditions of the digital platforms where these conversations take place, non-radicalization would be a great step forward.

When we opened this article with the theme "psychological games", it is because the resulting unease is what could be avoided. And it could be avoided in the following way: we don't enter into relationships with the intention of protecting ourselves, and we generally employ an enormous amount of energy for this purpose, but to transition to a state of grace, of intimacy, which is the opposite of playing psychological games, where one can be who they are without fear. It is to know without imposing.

The strangeness we feel has to do with a "bird's-eye view" gasping for air at the altitude. Do you like black, blue, colorful? You can express yourself, no problem. Regardless of who is your or our favorite, or which film director's work is relevant, no matter what it is, the dignity of the individual is a fundamental principle.

One should not, for very simple reasons of reciprocity, violate the space of the Brazilian taxpayer – who has been making untimely jokes for years, who occasionally overindulges in alcohol, who finds in the sound of the barbecue embers and the cell phone's ring the great soundtrack of the weekend – with accusations of lesser or greater intelligence, or even the absurdity of turning our ancestors into gods of extermination.

Furthermore, there is work. That is, there are things to be thought about, solved, implemented. There is a lot of work to be done, and if the individual cannot be who they are, we are lost. Then it's time to close up shop.