What's Your Opinion on Rape?

How does the media manage to perpetually replicate the conflict and create the conflict with the Arabs? Only because the conflict activates those involved as a narrative

The Rape of Europe  (Source)

I dreamed that I was asked what my opinion is on rape. And I ask: Is this a trick question? And now the voice is clearer, feminine: What's so difficult for you about stating your opinion on rape? And I say: I object to the question. And the feminine lips are now very close: You're not even willing to condemn rape! You can't even tell me that you're against rape? And I say: Why are you putting rape in my mouth? I object to this very framing of things. And the interviewer asks: Now I've caught you. Rape, an unambiguous thing, violence, and you object to calling it rape! Not only do you object to the word occupation, and aren't willing to talk about the occupation, you also object to the word rape. And I say:

I can't answer that, because we don't have the same assumptions. If you listen now for 5 minutes, without interrupting, I'll explain to you why I'm not willing to answer. Rape is just an expression of the fact that relations between men and women are becoming increasingly characterized by violence, and this is part of the trend of modern media to pit groups against each other: children against parents, right against left, secular against religious, poor against rich, Arabs against Jews. This is the deep structure of the media - conflict. And this is ultimately due to a narrative, literary mistake. After all, if you ask one of these people how to build a story, they will immediately tell you about the conflict, that it's at the center. But interest can be created in a completely different way, not through the uncertainty and tension of struggle, but through secrecy. Not the tension between two sides but between inside and outside. And the moment there's a culture that has forgotten the secret, it turns into a fistfight competition.

The role of the righteous is to inject secrecy into reality, and the role of the wicked is to flatten reality through violence, to turn the story into something simplistic, to tell a story that has only an external side, Facebook. And therefore, we must fight this through an internal book, through writing a new Zohar, but reversed, a book of darkness, and this is the great mission of culture. To descend from the world of hands of right and left, the world of blows and sides, to the world of foundation, of coupling, which is a world of inside and outside.

Rape is exactly the opposite of this - after all, what's the deep problem with rape? That it turns the inside out, and flattens (including the discussion itself), that it takes an inner desire and imposes it from the outside, and so it is with violence. Like your intellectual violence, which doesn't allow for depth (which is the sexual aspiration - the aspiration for secrecy), and therefore must be fought through the doctrine of secrecy. Just as Rome degenerated into gladiatorial combat, and then Christianity offered an alternative, and replaced external commandments with internal ones, and turned the external bloodletting of the flesh into internal bloodletting. So Judaism in our day needs to bring forth from within itself a new Christianity, a technological Christianity.

In the current technological state, where all technology is tools, meaning a matter of hands, his hand is in everything and everyone's hand is in him, those who flourish in all areas are the instigators, because that's the nature of the medium, so what a Jew needs to do is not to fight the instigators in the current medium, but to change the medium, "And they shall be for plunder, those who plunder you" [Isaiah 42:24]. Technological Christianity needs to replace the world of hands, which is both the world of practical commandments and the world of judgment and slaps, with the world of the cheek and love. And such Christianity can be grown from within Kabbalah just as the previous Christianity could be grown from within the Old Testament. To copy the entire world inward. To understand that the problem is not external terror but internal terror, within man. Not the rape that's against the will, from outside, but rape that's within the will, from inside, for example, your brainwashing.

The very concept of good and evil, the simplistic narrative notorious for infamy, is itself wickedness, right hand and left hand. While righteousness is the creation of inner life, namely secrecy, through the sexual act. In other words, conflict needs to be eliminated from an aesthetic, artistic perspective, just as Aristotle did to deus ex machina, and turned Greek literature secular, and as Moses did to the magicians and ridiculed them with the ten plagues, thereby turning a central literary genre of the ancient world, the literature of sorcery, into powerless and boring. That's how we need to aesthetically disqualify conflict as a narrative device, and denounce it as cheap and pathetic, as uninteresting.

After all, how does the media manage to endlessly replicate the conflict, and create the conflict with the Arabs? Only because the conflict activates those involved as a narrative, literarily, only this way does it manage to become the story of the peoples. If it had tried, for example, to sell a narrative of sorcery, it wouldn't have worked, because it's a dead genre, considered fantasy, while conflict is considered realism. For a thousand years, the Church drove the world through genres like preaching and threats, heaven and hell, and until they were artistically ridiculed, it completely worked, in a way that we can't even comprehend who would buy it. And that's only because our aesthetic taste has changed. That's how one day they won't understand who even bought into this conflict, and what is this nonsense that people were consuming this boring media that repeated itself endlessly in the same hollow narrative. Just as to us the mountains of pilpul [Talmudic dialectics] from the Middle Ages seem ridiculous, and once people killed each other over them, and that's because the genre of pilpul is dead and only walking dead professors are capable of reading it, and even they need to turn it into a contemporary narrative, of forces and conflicts, in order to read it. That's how the Bible turned the pagan literature around it into boring, repetitive, and won.

The moment something feels repetitive to you, it means you've exited the genre, that it no longer activates you. And therefore, our great hope is people who aren't interested in the conflict, and when these are all people, then the conflict will die. The hope for peace is that the conflict already feels boring to us, and the world is also getting bored with it, and the big problem is that the leftists, the rightists, and the terrorists are still working together to make it interesting. Every person who yawns at the occupation is a step towards peace and every person who is excited by the occupation is a step towards conflict. We need to sleep, to dream. Peace comes when war dies of boredom. It's no longer interesting for the Germans to make a third world war. They did it once, twice, they got the point. There's no German who's really curious about how another war would look. A couple stops fighting not when they find a solution, but when the fight already bores them.

Therefore, all past conflicts are explained on economic grounds, and all present conflicts are explained on essential grounds. People don't realize that the Egyptians didn't fight the Hittites for economic reasons, but essential ones. But since they are unable to understand the delusional essential reasons in their eyes, everything is reduced to power and economy and spheres of influence and taxes. Yeah, sure. They fought because of taxes. People stop fighting when they don't understand what they were fighting about in the first place. Like Germany and France. For a conflict to die, the story of the conflict needs to die. Not to reach a solution, but for the question to no longer be interesting. Even secular people who write books, when they open their mouths, immediately start talking about the Arabs, or about rape, or some conflict of this genre. Literature doesn't interest you, only Arabs and rape, and that's really the whole matter.