- 2 giorni fa
L'articolo di Federico Berti discute e confuta vigorosamente le teorie di Mauro Biglino, che sostiene che l'attuale tragedia a Gaza sia un genocidio preannunciato nella Bibbia, interpretando il testo sacro come una cronaca di conquista militare da parte di esseri fisici, gli Elohim. Berti critica aspramente questa lettura, definendola un "delirio complottista" e pseudo-scientifico che sfrutta la crisi mediorientale, sottolineando che Biglino riduce la letteratura biblica a una lettura esclusivamente materiale e militare. L'autore evidenzia come le tesi di Biglino, che arrivano a identificare gli ebrei come alieni conquistatori, siano state unanimemente criticate da accademici, teologi e linguisti per mancanza di prove e contraddizioni logiche. Il testo avverte della pericolosità di questa propaganda in quanto alimenta un sottile antisemitismo e distoglie l'attenzione dalle cause politiche del conflitto, come il nazionalismo radicale israeliano.
Categoria
📚
ApprendimentoTrascrizione
00:00Welcome to this exchange of ideas. Today we're delving into a truly thorny issue.
00:06which intertwines interpretations of ancient texts and unfortunately very current conflicts. Let's talk
00:13Mauro Biglino's theories on the Torah, read in the context of the crisis in Gaza.
00:19Our analysis will be based in particular on the criticism raised by Federico Berti in his article
00:24whose title is already eloquent. The Torah prescribes genocide, a conspiracy theorist's delirium. Commands
00:31of alien extermination with alleged consequences even today are really, as Berti claims, a delusion
00:41dangerous and baseless. Or perhaps beyond his explanations which are more than
00:46debatable, this case ends up highlighting a larger problem, a real problem, that is
00:52how certain violent passages of sacred texts can actually be recalled or
00:57perhaps exploited today.
00:59Exactly. I, for my part, will argue by following more closely the critical line set out.
01:05by Federico Berti, trying to underline the inconsistencies and also the risks that according to
01:11he emerges from that specific analysis of Biglino's theses.
01:14I, on the other hand, while naturally taking note of the methodological weaknesses that Berti highlights
01:20regarding Biglino, well, I will focus on the possibility that this affair, net
01:26pseudoscientific explanations, perhaps you're touching a raw nerve. A raw nerve.
01:31on the persistence and potential use of certain very ancient textual contents in the
01:37rhetoric of some, well, contemporary conflicts.
01:40Well, then, let's start by outlining the critical position, the one that finds, as
01:45we were saying, broad support in Federico Berti's article. Berti, it must be said, does not use
01:51in half terms, he defines Biglino's approach as pseudoscience and even delirium.
01:56hermetic. The basis of this criticism, as Berti reports in his piece, rests on pillars
02:02quite solid. First of all, the linguistic interpretations. Biglino offers translations, I think.
02:09to Elohim understood as alien physical entities, or perhaps to the forbidden fruit as a metaphor
02:15sexual. Translations that have been widely rejected by the academic community. Berti reports
02:23as linguists and exegetes underline, well, the lack of philological rigor and also the
02:29historical and cultural decontextualization of these readings. In short, these are forced interpretations.
02:35which are not supported by serious studies. Yes, the article is very clear on this. Documenta
02:41a clear refusal by specialists on these specific translations. Precisely.
02:47Then there is the problem of internal contradictions. Berti's analysis highlights a
02:53Interesting paradox. Biglino himself admits that the Bible is a manipulated text. Yet,
02:59at the same time, he uses it as a primary source, almost as if it were reliable. To demonstrate his
03:06theories about extraterrestrial intervention is a logical flaw, I would say, not negligible. Another point
03:12central to the criticism, always reported by Berti, is extreme reductionism. That is, presenting the Bible
03:19to a very complex text, with thousands of years of interpretative, religious, ethical, cultural history,
03:26as a simple military chronicle, led by an alien governor, called Yahweh. Well,
03:34means completely flattening its scope and ignoring its role, which is fundamental for several
03:39Civilizations and religions. Broader context of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. Cite
03:45even the UFO environment in which Biglino often moves. Berti recalls how scholars and publications
03:51criticisms, explicitly mention Pasquale Galasso, Daniele Salamone, the editorial staff of
03:56Breviarium and another newspaper, have refuted his theses by highlighting their lack
04:02of the scientific method. But perhaps the most worrying aspect, strongly underlined in the article
04:09The Torah prescribes genocide, conspiracy delusion, is the potential negative impact in the context
04:16current. Berti warns that linking the political actions of the State so directly
04:21of Israel to alleged alien extermination orders in the Torah risks fueling that
04:26which he calls a creeping anti-Semitism. A danger that Berti links, if I understand correctly,
04:32to the resulting simplification. Yes, exactly, because this narrative exposed the focus
04:39from the real political issues that Berti instead identifies in radical nationalism, in supermatism
04:45of a part of the current Israeli leadership, moves them towards an ethno-religious explanation
04:51based on frankly fanciful interpretations. And this completely ignores the complexity
04:56internal Judaism, its secular currents, the progressive ones, the historical debate on
05:02violence. Berti even gives the example of King David as a figure of possible rupture with
05:07certain logics. In short, for Berti to dismiss everything as alien orders is a delirium that confuses
05:13the waters damage political understanding and even risk polluting pacifist positions
05:19legitimate.
05:20So, the methodological criticisms and the analysis of the pseudoscientific context that Federico
05:26Berti presents in his article regarding the specific theses of Mauro Biglino are, I must
05:32to say, very detailed. It is undeniable, based on what Berti reports, that the community
05:37academic rejects its most, let's say, famous interpretations, such as that of the Elohim
05:42malieni or his particular translations, judging them to be devoid of philological foundation
05:48and historical. The alien explanation, as Berti demonstrates by citing several critical voices, well, not
05:54passes a rigorous exam.
05:56Yes, on this point Berti's article is unequivocal; it reports a well-defined critical consensus.
06:03Exactly. However, here, I would like to try to shift the focus of the analysis slightly.
06:08starting from an observation that, if you look closely, emerges from Berti's article itself. He
06:14writes that Biglino, to build his theories, relies on a literal and anachronistic reading
06:19of passages that are actually present in the Old Testament, particularly in books
06:25such as Deuteronomy and Joshua. Berti himself acknowledges that these texts contain indications
06:30violent and genocidal. It even reports how Biglino states that certain precepts of the Ancient
06:36Testament sponsor total destruction. Now, my question is this. If the explanation
06:42that Biglino provides, that is, the alien origin of these commands, is rightly defined as delusional
06:48from Berti, the fact remains that the texts in question exist and present contents
06:53of extreme hardness.
06:54But the crucial point raised by Berti is precisely the decontextualized and anachronistic use
07:02What Biglino does with it. Interpretation is the key, not the text itself.
07:08Of course, of course. Biglino's criticism of anachronism and literalization is
07:13central to Berti's argument and I agree with it. My reflection, however, is
07:17another. Even completely dismissing Biglino's interpretative framework as unacceptable.
07:24The fact that he emphasizes these specific passages and suggests, like Berti
07:29same, reports their potential perception of influence in the political and military context
07:35current Israeli, well, doesn't this raise a question that goes beyond Biglino himself?
07:40I wonder, when Berti dismisses the whole operation as conspiracy theorist delirium, aren't we perhaps at risk?
07:45to neglect a broader phenomenon that Biglino, albeit with incorrect tools and conclusions, ends up
07:50in some way to touch upon? I am referring to the concrete possibility that these ancient texts,
07:55with their charge of violence, are actually exploited or recalled today.
08:01Not necessarily by followers of Biglino, but by extremist, nationalist or fundamentalist currents
08:07to provide some, let's say, ideological legitimacy to contemporary actions. The question
08:15for me it's not the aliens, but whether the objective presence of those texts can represent
08:20a dangerous rhetorical reservoir. A risk that focusing solely on demolition
08:26of the alien theory could perhaps be overshadowed.
08:30I understand the attempt to separate the explanation from the question raised, but I think it is essential
08:37do not separate the two things so clearly, just following the reasoning proposed by
08:42Berti. Criticism of interpretation is fundamental. The article The Torah prescribes the
08:48Genocide, Conspiracy Delirium systematically dismantles Biglino's reading as pseudoscientific,
08:56based on factual errors, on anachronisms, on a profound ignorance of the historical context
09:01critical. Now, if the interpretation that connects those texts to the current situation is demonstrated
09:08as fallacious and as delusional, how can we attribute to it any real influence or consider it
09:14even a perceived basis for today's political actions? Making this connection
09:19even if only hypothetically, does it not mean giving some validity, even involuntary,
09:26to a thesis that Berti demonstrates to be inconsistent? Are we in danger of falling into the same trap as
09:31Berti's denounced simplification. The underlying causes of the conflict, as the analysis suggests,
09:38Berti's, must be sought elsewhere, in political dynamics, in exasperated nationalism, in suprematism
09:46of certain groups, all contemporary political and ideological factors, certainly not in the correct application
09:53of alleged biblical dictates interpreted in a manner of speaking. It is a valid point, of course, to insist on the necessity
10:01I agree with not legitimizing misinterpretations. However, I am not suggesting that
10:07Biglino's interpretation has real influence. I'm saying that Berti's article,
10:12precisely in refuting Biglino, he confirms the existence of biblical texts with contents
10:17extremely violent. Deuteronomy, Josué. So, let's completely put Biglino and his aside
10:23alien theory, deemed untenable. Okay, the objective fact remains: those texts exist.
10:29The question then becomes: Is it really so implausible that other actors, political actors
10:35very real and certainly not linked to UFO theories, let's think perhaps of extremist religious fringes
10:40or nationalists, which exist and which Berti himself implicitly mentions when he speaks of the right
10:46radicalism and suprematism, can make instrumental and selective use of those very passages?
10:52Not to follow alien orders, of course, but to build a rhetoric of justification,
10:57to create a narrative of historical continuity or divine right that somehow legitimizes
11:04their actions in the eyes of their supporters. Berti himself, in the article, speaks of a misunderstanding
11:11and exploitation of the texts by certain Israeli political circles. Therefore,
11:17if Biglino's explanation is delusional, the phenomenon of the instrumentalization of those
11:21specific texts by others is perhaps so non-existent. Focusing only on the
11:28Biglino's pseudoscience, there is no risk of underestimating this danger, which seems to me
11:33more concrete and politically relevant.
11:35And here I think it is useful to return to Berti's argument on historical complexity and pluralism.
11:41of Jewish thought, elements that Biglino's vision completely erases. The article
11:47recalls, very appropriately, the internal evolution of Judaism, the development of currents
11:52secular, socialist and even pacifist, the long history of rabbinic criticism, of interpretation
11:59allegorical or ethical, which often tones down or reinterprets the most problematic passages, historical figures
12:05which, according to some traditional readings cited by Berti, represent an attempt to overcome
12:11the logic of violent conquest. Let's think of King David. Berti frames the current problem
12:17as a specific political drift, that of the supremacist radical right in power
12:22in Israel, which carries out a deliberate instrumentalization and misunderstanding of the texts,
12:28selecting and decontextualizing what suits one's agenda. It's not about
12:33therefore of a faithful application of the Bible, nor of following alien orders. The danger
12:39of Biglino's reductionism, as Berti highlights very well, lies precisely in flattening this
12:45complex reality, ignoring the critical voices within Judaism and Israeli society
12:50itself and thus risking slipping into anti-Semitism. That is, one ends up attributing to an entire
12:57people or a millenary tradition the responsibility for the actions of an extremist political faction
13:02current. I am absolutely in agreement with the need to recognize the historical complexity
13:07and the internal pluralism of Judaism, as Berti does to dismantle that monolithic vision
13:11and misleading Biglino. This is a crucial point, there's no doubt about it. However, I note
13:16that Berti himself writes about a dangerous minority currently in power in Israel,
13:21characterized by radical nationalism and massacres. Now, if we accept this political analysis provided
13:26from Berti and we completely discard Biglino's alien explanation, it doesn't become even more plausible
13:32the hypothesis that this very minority in power can selectively draw on precisely
13:36to those controversial passages of the Old Testament? The same ones cited by Biglino, but interpreted
13:42obviously in a nationalist and not ufological key, to construct a useful ideological narrative
13:47for their own ends. It would not be a question of applying the Bible, but of cynically using fragments of it.
13:55decontextualized to create that perception of historical continuity, of divine mandate or
14:02of legitimacy, which Biglino, while raving about the cause, denounces as a mechanism in action.
14:08The connection drawn by Biglino, ancient text, modern action, is based on a causality
14:14absurd, that of the aliens, we agree, but the phenomenon of the political use of those texts
14:20by extremist groups, a phenomenon that Berti himself defines as misunderstanding
14:25and instrumentalization, is it really so marginal or irrelevant that it can be set aside
14:31focusing only on refuting pseudoscience?
14:35But it is precisely here that Federico Berti's conclusion in his article, in my opinion, becomes
14:40particularly relevant. He argues that Biglino's propaganda is harmful precisely
14:46because it distracts attention from the real drivers of current violence. Berti identifies them
14:52clearly as contemporary political and ideological phenomena. The global growth of fascisms,
14:58supremacism, ethnic nationalism, reducing everything to a question of biblical interpretation,
15:04moreover based on alien tales, means, according to Berti, playing the game of those who want to hide
15:10these real political dynamics. It means fueling confusion, providing alibis and in fact
15:16hinder the necessary political analysis and also the pacifist and anti-fascist struggle that
15:22must always, always reject anti-Semitism. The greatest danger in Berti's view is
15:28give oxygen, even unintentionally, to conspiracy theories that cloud judgment
15:35critical and prevent us from seeing the true roots of the problem. Demolishing the pseudoscience of
15:41Biglino is needed to maintain the clarity needed to face political challenges
15:46real. I fully agree on the specific danger of conspiracy theories like Biglino's.
15:52and on the absolute necessity of fighting every form of anti-Semitism, aspects that Berti denounces
15:58with force and I would say with very good reason. In his article The Torah prescribes genocide,
16:04Conspiracy theorist delirium. His criticism of Biglino is not only well-founded but absolutely necessary.
16:09But I wonder about a perhaps complementary risk. By focusing so deeply
16:14on the demolition, albeit very just, of the figure of Biglino and his specific construction
16:20pseudoscientific, isn't there perhaps a risk of unintentionally overshadowing
16:25or to minimize the more general phenomenon, a phenomenon that Biglino's theses in their absurdity
16:30They still end up touching each other. I'm talking about the distorted use and exploitation of the texts.
16:35sacred, and not only the biblical ones obviously, as a tool for legitimizing violence
16:40politics. This comes from extremist groups in different parts of the world or in
16:44different historical and current contexts. The specific criticism of Biglino is fundamental, of course,
16:51but it exhausts the broader issue of the abuse of religious texts in conflicts. Liquidate
16:57the whole thing as delirium, referring specifically to Biglino, could, without wanting to,
17:03lead to underestimating other manifestations, perhaps more subtle but politically more incisive,
17:10of the same mechanism of instrumentalization of ancient texts.
17:13So, to summarize my position, which, as I said, is strongly supported
17:18on the critical analysis presented by Federico Berti in his article
17:22«The Torah prescribes genocide conspiracy delirium», Mauro Biglino's theories are,
17:29In my opinion, they should be considered scientifically inconsistent. They are based on fallacious methods,
17:36on arbitrary interpretations and are politically dangerous. Berti's analysis,
17:42reporting the academic consensus and the specific criticisms, it convincingly demonstrates this
17:47unsustainability and does well to bring the debate back to the political level, putting
17:53on guard against the risks of pseudoscientific reductionism or potential anti-Semitism
17:58creeping and distraction from the real causes of violence, which are rooted in ideologies
18:04such as supremacism and radical nationalism. Recognizing the historical and cultural complexity
18:11and politics, as highlighted by Berti, is essential to avoid misleading simplifications.
18:17And finally, from my point of view, while recognizing the total unsustainability
18:22of the theoretical and methodological framework of Mauro Biglino, as detailedly argued
18:28in Federico Berti's critical article, I believe that the story raises some questions
18:34which transcend the figure of Biglino himself. The fact that he, as Berti reports, attracts
18:40attention to specific biblical passages of violent content and hypothesize an echo or a
18:46abuse in the current political context, well, it touches on a real issue. The demolition of the
18:52Biglinian pseudoscience operated by Berti is valid and necessary, but the discussion that
18:57it follows, once we clean it of alien and conspiracy theories, it concerns
19:02the worrying phenomenon of the instrumentalization of ancient texts for violent political purposes.
19:07This phenomenon, which Biglino touches on in a distorted way and which Berti himself mentions when speaking
19:13of misunderstanding and exploitation, perhaps deserves critical attention that is not
19:19is limited to the mere refutation of the most eccentric theses. Here, we are certainly
19:24agree on the complexity of the matter and the need for a critical approach and
19:29Above all, informed. Federico Berti's article, "The Torah prescribes genocide," is delirium.
19:35conspiracy theorist, undoubtedly provides valuable tools to dismantle a specific narrative
19:42pseudoscientific and to bring the discussion back onto more rational and politically aware tracks.
19:49And it remains crucial, I believe, as this exchange of ours has tried to highlight, to continue
19:54to critically question how texts of the past are read, interpreted, used
19:59and sometimes abused to shape or justify actions in the present. One must consider the
20:05multiplicity of perspectives and the dangers inherent in any simplification. There is no
20:09a clear conclusion or a definitive end point. It remains important to continue analyzing
20:14critically the material and its complex and often difficult implications.
Consigliato
5:12
|
Prossimi video
29:34
Commenta prima di tutti