RIGHT AND LEFT OBEY THE SAME ANTHROPOLOGICAL HIERARCHIES

This post/translation is not just about politics, but also about geopolitics and Israel.

What follows is my English translation of a short article originally in Italian, first published on Comidad.org on 3rd October 2024 and then on ComeDonChisciotte.org on 6th October 2024. (All emphasis mine).

Elly Schlein (leader of the Italian left-wing Democratic Party) and Giorgia Meloni (Prime Minister and leader of the right-wing Brothers of Italy party).

In recent decades, there has been a growing intolerance, even in the most unsuspected circles, towards the so-called “left”, which is considered a harbinger of totalitarian impulses. Although the reasons for such intolerance are perfectly understandable and shareable, the approach to the problem appears completely misguided. However genuine and sincere, even paroxysmal, the rancour between the “right” and the “left” may be, this does not detract from the fact that the two opposing sides together make a system, or a game of the parts, since they start from the same premises, i.e. the same anthropological hierarchies. The mythology of the right is based on the cult of strength, perhaps euphemistically renamed “merit”, which should be left free to express itself even to the detriment of the weak, but ultimately to their advantage, since they would be directed and disciplined by it. The “left” would instead claim to place moral limits on “force”, to be imposed through law or education, or both. The diatribe between liberalism and socialism hinges on this scheme, which, however, does not undermine the myth of “force”.

The success of Milton Friedman's “neo-liberal” pseudo-economic fables was due to their complete adherence to this mythological scheme. Oddly enough (but not so oddly), the most avid “drinkers” of neo-liberal doctrines are on the “left”, where Friedman's every syllable is taken seriously, so that they can be scandalised. On the “left”, Friedman's thesis that the company is only responsible to its shareholders and therefore not to society is the target of particular moral indignation. The problem with this assertion does not lie in its irresponsible selfishness and immorality, but simply in the fact that it has no bearing on the actual practice of listed companies.

No stock bubble creates value in itself, you have to fill it with something; for a start, you lower taxes for businesses, and the gap in the budget is filled by raising consumption taxes. Reagan too, like Thatcher, came to power promising lower taxes; in reality he only lowered them for the rich, while he too, like Thatcher, gave the poor an increase in petrol taxes. Friedman's mythology states that inflation is due to too much money piling up on too few goods, and forgets the inflationary effect of taxes on consumption; so when inflation rises, governments have an excuse to cut wages. What does one do on the “left”? Does one unmask the false anti-tax rhetoric of the right? Not at all; on the contrary, they praise taxes. Partisan gamesmanship.

Ronald Reagan had it in for those poor people he called the welfare freeloaders, but he never said anything against pro-corporate welfare, i.e. welfarism for the rich. In the United States just under a thousand companies had received over a hundred billion in subsidies in 2014. One billion had gone to a company owned by Warren Buffet, who became an idol of the left because he demanded a tax increase. In the meantime he should have started paying back that billion. [Italian Prime Minister] Meloni bucks the trend: she says she is taking away the citizenship [basic] income because she doesn't want to throw money out the window, but decides to give it to companies “because that way they hire”. Oh, well…

Psychological subservience to “force” is found even among many of those who consider themselves opponents of the establishment and imperialism. One condemns the Israeli bombing of Beirut (with American bombs, by the way) that killed a thousand people, including Hezbollah's political leader, but then one admires Israel's alleged “intelligence” capabilities and power. Nasrallah was not a military leader but the leader of a political party represented in parliament, whose only priority was not only to fight the Israeli occupation of Lebanon (part of Lebanese territory is still occupied by Israel), but also to prevent a civil war in his own country. In order to keep in contact with the other Lebanese parties, Nasrallah was therefore forced to remain in the capital already under bombardment and to expose himself to the risk that his movements would be traced; and in fact he had already designated his successor in case of “martyrdom”. Where would Israel's “intelligence” capacity be? There is only the historical certainty of its own impunity. In 1948, the Zionist terrorists of the Stern gang murdered the UN envoy, the Swede Folke Bernadotte; and not only did the Zionists get away with it, but one of the murderers, Shamir, became prime minister of Israel a few decades later.

The same celebratory delirium invaded the most unsuspected anti-Zionists in the case of the explosive pagers, which were simple objects rigged with explosives and remote-controlled, as Cosa Nostra [Sicilian mafia] does with car bombs. The operation therefore consisted not in deploying technological capabilities, but in resorting to the usual expedient of the secret services, i.e. creating ghost companies to broker the sale of the pagers. No secret service can act abroad by displaying its insignia and so these import-export dummy companies are created. Every secret service that has the financial means to act abroad creates such firms; but, at the same time, it carries out a reconnaissance of those that are created, so as to understand what the other services are doing. If indeed the Mossad operation had been going on for more than a year, it is hard to believe that the other services did not know about it and did not ensure their connivance. The United Kingdom, the United States, but also other European countries and, for a time, even the Soviet Union, conceived Israel as a free zone of impunity in which to concentrate their dirty business. If Jews were not available, they would have invented some other ethnicity. Impunity is not an accessory but the very meaning of the birth of Israel. The organic relationship between British imperialism and Zionism had begun long before the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Chaim Weizmann was a chemist and founder of the Zionist Commission, later to become the Jewish Agency. Weizmann was the first president of the State of Israel and throughout his life had a close political relationship with Winston Churchill.

Zionism was nurtured and protected by British imperialism, but between 1938 and 1945, the fear that Palestine could be occupied by Italy and Germany led the UK to suspend the process of building an autonomous Zionist entity. This angered the Zionist right and in particular Shamir who in 1944 had two of his assassins kill the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Moyne, who was a political supporter and personal friend of Churchill. Responsibility for the murder was confirmed and claimed by Shamir himself in an interview with “Times of Israel”, with hazy motives that denote not only the personality of a psychopathic criminal (which would be obvious), but above all a streak of that inexhaustible waffling that is the basis of Zionist communication (see Netanyahu's appeal to the Iranian people). Despite the affront of the killing of one of its own ministers, the UK has turned a blind eye to this and other excellent murders. Those who think that Israel's licence to kill is limited to Arabs are mistaken, because the interests at stake are too high not to overlook certain transgressions.

Dr Jekyll has created his own Mr Hyde, an alter ego delegated to commit crimes with impunity; a “double” not entirely manageable but still valuable. Israel is a place where there is no real law, no constitution or hierarchy of legal sources; but there is an anthropological hierarchy. So all the companies in the world can open their own branch in Israel, which, in spite of constant wars, is a “quiet” place for businessmen, where you can launder money without being intercepted and having to pay the bribe to a myriad of policemen, judges and constitutionalists. According to US embassy figures, Israel is home to as many as two thousand five hundred American companies, and there is also a bustle of US politicians and local administrators for all kinds of money laundering. A paradise for kleptocrats.

---