What’s the difference between being, “once bitten twice shy,” and choosing to live the life of a hermit?
There
is a long answer to this question. It is that we all live a life fraught with
different degrees of danger. Usually, we encounter unpleasant moments, which we
take in stride and move on. But this does not mean that a bad experience is
completely forgotten. Consciously or unconsciously, we try to avoid getting into
a situation that would have us experience the same bad moment once again. This
is what’s meant by once bitten twice shy.
If
on the other hand, we have a serious bad experience or a series of them that
leave us shellshocked, it can happen that we develop a fear of people so
intense, we cloister ourselves into a hiding place where we live the life of a
hermit. People who suffer this kind of syndrome are rarely detected because
being cut-off from society, is what they choose to do. But something entirely
different can also happen.
Whereas
the mass isolation of people by coercion never lasts a long time, their isolation
by persuasion becomes a common occurrence when the right circumstances present
themselves. For example, the internment of Japanese in America and Jews in
Europe was resisted by those who were rounded and forced to live in
concentration camps.
By
contrast, there are occasions when people of the same religion or ethnic
background choose to live in the same district where life looks familiar to
them. Examples are the Paris Banlieue where immigrants from North Africa
concentrate. There is also the Little Greece or the little Italy we find in
most North American large cities. And there are occasions when people of the
same social status live in places where they feel safe, be that a gated
community for the rich such as we see everywhere in the world, or a slum for
the poor such as the Favela of Brazil.
And
then, there is something that developed long ago and took on a distinct
character all its own. This would be the ghetto that was developed during the
second century by the rabbis that also developed the New Judaism, which they
named Rabbinical Judaism. Seeing that the Christians were having great success
converting Pagan Rome into Christian Rome, and losing their own Jewish kinfolks
to Christianity, the rabbis invented the ghetto to keep the remaining Jews
literally under their watch. When possible, they attract others into their
cloistered community so as to replenish it.
The
old European style ghetto has almost disappeared now, even if Jews still prefer
to live close to each other in neighborhoods that are distinctly their own. But
the principles of the old ghetto are still the rules that guide the rabbis and
other Jewish leaders. They may not have a wall made of stone and concrete to
keep the flock from straying too far out, but they have a virtual wall made of
the same old paranoia that warns the flock cannot survive alone, therefore must
stay close to the Jewish leaders. It is the constant hounding into the heads of
the rank-and-file that they are in danger, and that only the leaders can
protect them, that has maintained the apparent cohesion of the Jewish
communities.
However,
even this arrangement is now cracking as a result of what the younger
generation of Jews is seeing Israel do in occupied Palestine. Their elders had
made the mistake of telling them Israel was here to guarantee their survival, but
the youngsters have concluded there is no way they will want to be protected by
this kind of beastly savagery. Not only that, but most of them have developed
the belief that rather than protect them, it is this kind of behavior on the
part of Israel and the self-appointed leaders of Jews that will send them to
the gas chamber and the incinerator.
And
this is the bitter irony that has moved the eighteen centuries long history of
paranoia, which the Jewish leaders have instilled in their followers to keep
them loyal. What happened, however, is that the history ended up convincing the
followers, it is the leaders who should be feared because they are the ones who
will lead the Jews to their annihilation.
The
Jewish leaders understand this reality now and so, they try to salvage what
they can. But you see them melt down into absurdity as they try to put together
an argument that even a child will reject. You’ll see an example of this in the
article which came under the title: “Censure Rashida Tlaib over new antisemitic
remarks,” written by Jackson Richman, and published on August 5, 2021 in the
Washington Examiner.
To
make his point that Rep. Rashida Tlaib spoke antisemitic tropes, Jackson
Richman quoted long passages of a speech that the lawmaker gave recently. No
one in his right mind will consider that speech antisemitic. Worse for the
credibility of Richman, is the explanation he gave as to why he considers this to
be antisemitic. He did so in three points:
First,
he mentioned that the lawmaker spoke of the occupation of Palestine, but
asserted that the occupation was no occupation. Rather it is ‘Israeli
administered areas,’ he said.
Second,
he accused Tlaib of saying that Detroit was occupied by the military when in
reality, she said nothing of the sort.
Third,
Jackson Richman wrote this absurdity: When Tlaib blames ‘structures’ for
oppressing people, that's an antisemitic dog whistle.
And
based on all that, Jackson Richman has asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to
censure Rashida Tlaib, and support a primary challenge against her.
Now, my friend, you know what a paranoia-driven mental meltdown looks like.