Ideology, pedagogy and the justification alibi
When Mr. Guterres issued his famous and inappropriate phrase “it did not happen in a vacuum” followed by the same well-known justification references he knew exactly what he was doing, and the possible consequences of his act.
So, why , then, did he go public and in a lightning-fast declaration want, uselessly, to undo the discomfort, known to be irreversible, that he had just caused?
Here we would necessarily need to enter into the psyche of ideological mantras and their inconsequences. What was once called the “left” made great efforts to get rid of the unpronounceable name “communism” and then tried, for decades , chronologically since Khrushchev’s denunciations — under the horror of the millions of fellow Russian citizens exterminated by the dictator — to re-signify his stance to move away from the macabre legacy of Stalinism.
The idea was to produce a glasnost-style opening that would change the direction of ideology and the renunciation of all totalitarian temptations. Part of the political spectrum aligned with the left then began to exert considerable energy and thought they had done so by conquering power following the rules of the democratic game, without, however, self-critically and in-depth reviewing their most visceral dogmas and impregnations, such as, for example, his structural vision of the “Jewish problem”.
The idea of party centralism, of the absolute State, of radical replacement of the capitalist economic regime, as well as anti-Semitic sentiment, only more recently rationalized as anti-Zionism, still shined in the minds and souls of those resentful.
It became evident that an ideology has been professed in a monopsistic way within the world’s classrooms. And it is not only hegemonic, but supported by old and anachronistic dogmas and refrains.
The unusual support for the Hamas terrorist army in the violent student marches at Universities in the USA, and the persecution and graffiti in Jewish institutions, leads us to believe that the pedagogical system needs not only to be rethought, but completely deconstructed. Anyone who has heard the slogans knows very well, behind closed doors, that it is not about solidarity with the Palestinian people. There were the most vehement and loud choruses against Jews since the beginning of the Nazi era. This is in more than one capital, and right in the center of European soil.
I wouldn’t be able to say if there is any pedagogical model ready to come into force immediately, as it is not a replacement, but a change in the structure of the existential attitude, of how it is taught. Generations of indoctrinating teachers need to give way to educators who prioritize teaching above their ideological convictions. That stimulate and emphasize creativity over uncritical repetition . Doubt, about peremptory certainties. Without maieutics, stimulation of the ability to ask questions, and the acceptance of the diversity of interlocutors, the result will be the same: we will have more conversion than education, more intellectualism than reflection, more robotization of the masses and less intellectual autonomy. Is this how they intend to extinguish the polarization that is taking over the world? If so, we need a plan B. Only dialogic training and constant induction into critical thinking can change the context.
The subject is much broader, but what is now in the foreground are the disturbing marches in favor of terrorist methods and Judeophobic chants .
Recently, North American General David Petraeus interrupted and corrected the journalist who was interviewing him, explaining that Hamas was not a simple terrorist organization, but a true terrorist army. In other words, the West still has difficulty understanding that Hamas, in addition to the 229 kidnapped, has 2.1 million hostages in its possession.
This is the realization that, for indoctrinated people, the real values of democracy are, at best, just its cosmetic details. The bias against Israel and its population, that is to say the Jewish people, in addition to statistics, is a historical fact. Without admitting this constant, an intellectually honest debate becomes impossible. This would be the premise. And start analyzing the motivations of this anti-Semitic addiction, as this is what it is about, they are multifactorial.
I have serious doubts about attributing racist atavism to a revival of Nazism, even if organized under another discursive hue and in a less structured way. As much as they resemble each other, due to the same racist content and perversity, the jihadist scope and the apocalyptic clamor whose ultimate purpose would be an Ayatollah theocracy, makes the comparison full of holes.
From all of this, one conclusion deserves to be highlighted: anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist hatred is a poison for which there is no and never has been a collective interest in researching the antidote. And this would be the responsibility of all civilized nations in the world, as victims of systematic massacres are not always able to effectively advocate for themselves.
Furthermore, the 1400 dead cannot exercise this right: they were silenced by the cowardice of the enemies of humanity and their usual accomplices. If at some point, through dishonesty or an error in assessing the situation, being on the side of the people of Israel is transformed by the majority – as happened before Churchill rose up against the world’s inertia – on the wrong side of history, I feel that This time I will accept ostracism, and who knows, resign myself to yet
Paulo Rosenbaum 