On political pugnacity as a literary and critical tactic: can anyone with an identity be criticized?

My pugnacity is solely literary. What is wrong with the Americans? I know: this is effectively a fascist country. People are all out for their own interest, their religion is their identity, and they believe in violence in the service of their 'liberty' to do whatever they please.

The many Jews who act like that do so because American culture generally is like that, and the class they are part of, which dominates with little real opposition at all - little sense even of what that could mean, is like that.

The mafia mentality is essential to capitalism and not accidental to it. A nation whose ruling apparatus (what Marxists call 'the state', which is much more than the government, as it includes more or less the business world and every other institution, including families) is like the mafias in the ways it operates is a fascist one. The United States is effectively fascist.

You can criticize anyone, no matter what their identity, or what community they belong to, simply for what they do. People in public should be treated as are citizens of the state, not members of some protected and special minority with its beautiful traditions that make up its history, and give its members their identity. You may therefore criticize anyone even if they are Jewish and you're not, black and you're not, or anything else that you're not. So what. They'll attack you personally any way they can, and in America they will very likely try to stand on their communitarian identity. People will kill you for that. This is shit!

Can you criticize a Jew as Jew, a black person as a black person, etc., or is that not always ‘hatred’ and horribly wrong? This is where it gets sticky, because what if someone says, “I believe this, because I am that?” In America, people have long expected that they have their own ethnic and religious belonging, and that is their ‘true’ identity, and it authorizes all and any of their beliefs! But when something that you think is wrong is asserted in the name of the identity of persons (who, a priori, cannot be in the wrong as those persons with that identity; that is simply a category mistake). If you are thinking clearly, you cannot dislike a Jew for being a Jew, and that is what was wrong with anti-semitism; but if someone says “I’m a Jew, and the Jews believe that….”, the only thing you can reasonably reply is dependent on whether what they are claiming is of only purely private significance (like ritual practices), then you cannot have an opinion because it is out of your domain. But if their ethnic identity authorizes a war, you can question that. You can reasonably question any publicly relevant interpretation of what it ‘means’ (implies, entails, or justifies) to ‘be’ anything. When religious people make political claims in the public sphere, their religious authorization for those who observe it is of no relevance, and cannot be. This is just a matter of thinking clearly. But this gets into hot water quickly. For example, people with particular communitarian backgrounds do tend to publicly favor all kinds of things that others might find problematic. What happens if a black person in a position of power, a security guard for example, has a reason particular to his ethnic community to believe this or that and make it binding on me? Well, what if we argue about it, he from his point of view, and I from mine? What if we do? How will it be decided? A priori, if your particular identity determines what you can rightly hold to be true, then we will have disagreements of serious practical consequence for one or both of us, that cannot be resolved. There could then only be civil conflict. Those conflicts do exist, they must be worked out, this will involve the articulation of emotionally fraught positions that people can easily come to blows about. And what do we do about that? The conservative answer has been to insist on individual liberty and allow it to be backed up by letting everyone carry guns. In this way, they can effectively build a libertarian state where everyone is for himself and his family, and has the right to fight for it. To misquote Mussolini (who said this of ‘love’ and ‘force’): with lawsuits if possible, with violence if necessary. The neoliberal, libertarian right has made America a land of violent liberty. This means that the most logical outcome is for the society to be modeled on the mafias.