What do you think?
Rate this book
323 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 12, 2019
...Of course, our Communist parents had not had us circumcised. At thirty, when I was in analysis, it had suddenly seemed of the greatest importance to remedy that. I was as atheistic then as I am now, however, so to be lying half-naked on the operating table while the surgeon removed my foreskin and the rabbi stood at my side with a Torah in his hands, making me repeat the Psalms, felt like complete lunacy. As did the bar mitzvah that followed some weeks later, during which I stood at the altar reciting the parsha with a nonstop and rather painful erection hidden in my pants because of the blood rushing into my penis, a consequence of the operation. (The erection, which it was out of the question to relieve, lasted a full month, the time it took the stitches to heal.)
Why we do what we do, sometimes, remains as mysterious as the meaning of the Kaddish itself. In front of Jean-Louis’s grave on that sunny spring morning in April 2015, all I could say was that if I had to do it again, I would. But why—I couldn’t tell. Given the turn of events in the country, it seemed that my whole attitude toward my Jewishness and toward France—what Jean-Louis’s son, my cousin Michel, had called our “heritage� a few minutes ago—could be seen as much as an affirmative act against the rising tide of national madness on the subject of the Jews as my own personal contribution to it.
It is one of the most striking paradoxes of our age that the reactionary personalities most dedicated to the resurrection of “authentic values”—whether national, like Maurras’s pupils such as Steve Bannon, or religious, like the Wahhabi leaders—are all narcissistic transgressors. Take Putin and Alexander Dugin, take Marion Maréchal–Le Pen and de Benoist, and, of course, Donald Trump... If the choice in the twentieth century was between being normal and being exceptional, it seems that in our century the choice will increasingly be between ordinariness and psychopathy in the sense Mailer gave to this word. Jihadists, in this context, appear merely like an extreme case. But it doesn’t make their religion less true. It could well be the other way around: to survive in the scientific-technological world, any system that pretends to authenticity may need to give way to psychopathy and violence, if only because it is the best way to communicate. Just think of what Islam would be in the world today without Wahhabis and political Islam, without the murder of women, homosexuals, and Jews. Would anyone speak about it, or, rather, would it be in the same state as the Catholic Church in France, its churches empty and the most dynamic of the Christians reduced to a fringe of believers fighting for the Mass in Latin?