Antisemitism and Anarchy: New publication now out

  • Posted on: 28 June 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>From <a href="">Dysophia</a>

<p>The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a key topic for many anarchists. Support for the Palestinians in the face of an occupying army is strong and we have seen many campaigns to lift the causes of their suffering. The charge of antisemitism is regularly made, but the accusation is a potent and politicised one that regularly ignites debates on mailing lists and online forums.</p>
<p>Dysophia has brought together a collection of articles to try and unpick some of these debates, to make sense of arguments around the meaning of Zionism, what constitutes antisemitism or how to make sense of divisive figures such as Gilad Atzmon.</p>
<p>It draws on the anarchist tradition to bring an anti-racist perspective to these difficult questions. While not providing definite answers, these articles have been selected to give anarchists a better overview of all perspectives so that as a movement we can produce more nuanced views that avoid the twin pitfalls of racism and liberalism.</p></td><td><img title="As we nod our way into oblivion..." src=""></td></tr...

<p>In the words of one of the contributors, Uri Gordon, anarchist academic and activist with Anarchists Against the Wall:</p>
<p>&#8220;As Anarchists supporting the Palestinian popular struggle for freedom and justice, our most powerful asset is informed, compassionate and nuanced language. The alternative &#8211; rehearsed phrases, dehumanization, and black-and-white imagery &#8211; not only contradicts our uncompromising belief in human equality, but also plays directly into the hands of the Israeli government. It is therefore crucial to clarify and dispell the often insidious manifestations of antisemitism in today&#8217;s heated debates, and the present collection does so incisively.&#8221;</p>
<p>Including work from April Rosenblum, Austrian &amp; Goldman, Lucy Michaels, Uri Gordon, Donal O&#8217;Driscoll and Mina Graur, Antisemitism and Anarchism is the latest in a series of pamphlets from Dysophia exploring issues around green anarchism in action. It seeks to present theoretical positions in a way that is accessible to all.</p>
<p>The publication comes as 92 page A4 pamphlet. It is available online in pdf format <a href="">here</a>. Hard copies can be ordered from<br />
Active Distribution &#8211; <a href=""></a... />
AK Press &#8211; <a href=""></a><br />
News From Nowhere &#8211; <a href=""></...
<p><strong>Table of Contents</strong></p>
<p>1. Introduction</p>
<p><strong>Antisemitsm</strong><br />
2. The past did not go anywhere, <em>April Rosenblum</em><br />
3. Fear and Loathing, <em>Lucy Michaels</em><br />
4. How to strengthen the Palestinian Solidarity Movement by making friends with Jews, <em>Austrian &amp; Goldman</em></p>
<p><strong>Anarchism in Israel</strong><br />
5. Anarchy in the Holy Land, <em>Uri Gordon</em><br />
6. Israeli anarchism: Statist dilemmas and the dynamics of joint struggle, <em>Uri Gordon</em></p>
<p><strong>Taking it forward</strong><br />
7. Antisemitism and the Challenge of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, <em>Donal O&#8217;Driscoll</em></p>
<p><strong>Anarchist Statements</strong><br />
8. For peace and freedom in Palestine, <em>Czech Anarchist Federation</em><br />
9. No state solution in Gaza, <em>AFED</em></p>
<p><strong>Historical Perspectives</strong><br />
10. Anarcho Nationalism, <em>Mina Graur</em><br />
11. On Zionism, <em>Emma Goldman</em></p>


hey WORKER fyi the has been overrun by spam bots.

"The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a key topic for many anarchists."

It seems you have anarchism confused with authoritarian communism.

That statement is so fucking weird. I mean, I care about the issue because I have a personal connection to it and I'm generally against brutal, authoritarian militarist regimes - but "a key topic"?

Um, Anarchists Against the Wall, anyone? International Solidarity Movement? This is a major issue for many anarchists. Don't let's cede the entire subject to the fucking antideutsch.

ISM is not an anarchist organization

no, but plenty of anarchists have participated in it. Even cut their teeth in it, in some cases.

Why is being concerned about the Israeli-Palestine topic authoritarian communism?


I get the whole self determination, resist authority, etc. but how can anarchists support a Palestinian STATE... wtf.

huh? who does?

I don't support a Palestinian state. I know one Palestinian anarchist girl who doesn't support that concept, either.

We both just want the Israeli government (and the right-wing nationalists, settlers, religious wingnuts, etc) to stop being tyrannical pieces of shit. It'd also be super cool if Hamas would cut that out, too.

You're a liar and a troll. You have no idea what those people go through. I know Palestinians, radicals, and queer folk at that, who have to deal with their own peoples bullshit. And you're a liar and a hypocrite. Free Palestine.

wtf are you talking about?

Yeah I second that last commenter - what the fuck are you talking about?

Oh my! You know ONE?! Way to tokenize, dummy.

How is this "tokenizing"?

Thus far I've met one Palestinian anarchist in my lifetime, and we've discussed the concept of Palestinian "statehood" and she's explained that she isn't necessarily for the creation of a new nation-state as much as she's in favor of generally ending all authoritarian rule and state murder in Palestine, perpetrated mainly by Israeli state forces and settlers but also by the leadership of Hamas (and possibly other authoritarian political movements within Palestine, but she mentioned Hamas in particular).

I don't consider it "tokenizing" to bring this up. I'm saying it erases actual peoples' thoughts and experiences to say that "anarchists support a Palestinian state" or even to imply that "Palestinians support a Palestinian state".

Yeah, the person accusing you of tokenizing is a troll. It's cool that you're forthcoming about it being one person--most people would be like "everyone I know from Palestine thinks X."

Fuck that troll motherfucker. There's gonna be a lot of that in this thread, as morons, Zionists, anti-Semites, state agents, and bot versions of all the preceding conspire to make it very difficult for us to talk sensibly about this important stuff.

Most of the people I speak to on the subject, Palestinians included favor the 1 state option. 1 secular non-ethnicity specific state, which is actually much more terrifying to the zionists than just creating a small, weak Palestinian state surrounded by a militarily powerful and wealthy Jewish one. That's not an 'anarchist' solution per say, but it is certainly a better option than just creating another chunk of land on an ethnic basis which will have to fight indefinitely against it's larger more powerful neighbour.

*Per se* and *its*

woo hoo! the grammer hammer is back!

Historically anarchists have often supported causes that had no goal other than bettering peoples lives. I know this is hard to understand in an age where anarchists seem mainly intent on causing a big hassle all the time. But plenty of anarchist projects have supported things like contraception, feeding people, or simply fighting fascism even though there was 0 hope if it being replaced by anything other than another pathetic liberal regime. While this issue does seem like a magnet for academic marxists, annoying activist kids and antideutsch wingnuts, that doesn't mean that intelligible discourse and action isn't possible around it. it's a mistake to dismiss issues because of the other lamos who participate. anytime children are getting burned up by white phosphorous gas attacks, people are getting forced from their homes and economically murdered, this is an anarchist issue. While I'm a bit skeptical about my power to actually change the circumstances of these people(especially living half a world away) I will always be on the side of people getting crushed by power, even though I know that as soon as THEIR representatives are in power I'll be against the new power structure.

^^^ This person knows what they're talking about.

Yeah dude, anarchists are all like *Sisyphus what?!*

The Jew from Chicago didn't post this.

I'll say one thing though, there's only one end to this conflict, and that's a two state solution. Jews support it, Palestinians support it, and every week in Palestine, Israeli activists, or cranky American Jewish activists, go to stand in solidarity and fly a small black flag against a big beautiful Palestinian flag to show that Israel's occupation of Palestine does not reflect our values as Anarchists, but more importantly as Jews, and as human beings.

Support the two state solution, because that is the only way out. It's still winning support. B.D.S., with all their faults, and in the states of all places, won a fight to get Caterpillar tractors taken off the ethical business whatever bullshit list.
You should all know the name Caterpillar because I believe their slogan is "running over political activists since 2003."

There's a comment below, "I don't support a Palestinian state," blah blah blah. Yeah, well, the other option is to let these people suffer, day in, day out. Hamas, and Fatah's hegemony over the Palestinian people is exacerbated by Israels occupation. Hopefully, the Palestinian people will "uprise," (intifada) and cast the shackles of both off of them. This will not be the revolution, this is what you do because you're a good person. This is what's right. The alternative, is despotic, despicable, cowardly, and empty. I don't think that people who are angry at Israel are anti-semites, but I think Jewish American Anarchists who are crypto-zionists (and obviously can't be genuinely Anarcho-puritans) or just won't take a side period, are cowards. I'm sorry. It's tragic, and I lived with it for years. And I won't anymore. I'm not going to take my heritage for granted, and neither should you.

Free Palestine, end the Occupation Now.

IGTT 8/10

Huh... and what about the "no State solution"? What happened with anarchy? Why even pretend...?

You definitely sound like another ISM leftist. The answer to a repressive State is hardly another repressive State, and there IS such a thing as internalized repression, especially when Muslim fundamentalists are involved! And although it may look all like that, I really doubt that the two-State solution is the ONLY one. And what the fuck... what others have you fucking tried, you social determinist?

So no, as much as with some distance I like "fair" authentic socialist regimes like Tito's Yugoslavia, Khaddafi's Lybia, Allende's Chile, Nasser's Egypt and what Israel used to be before the '70s, it utterly contradicts my anarchist belief that there is no better government than NO GOVERNMENT! Because when there is monopoly of violence through the State, there is always room for more despotism.

Proof: all those "okay" government have been either usurped, corrupted or taken down by fascist coups.


the concept of 'the sovereign state' and the concept of the category 'jew' or 'palestinian' are, like words in general, based on nothing other than 'common belief'. these 'things' are not 'real things', they are categories that are developed in the mind. language facilitates discourse in which we commonly 'confuse idealization for reality' and put notional absolute material 'existences' [notional thing-in-themselves 'beings'] into 'doer-deed formulations' where we focus on notional 'cause-and-effect' outcomes; i.e. 'the palestinians did such-and-such', ... and 'the jews did such and such'. this is all Fiktion that gets people roused up and ready to inflict vengeance on the purportedly 'responsible author' or local causal agent. the world we live in is a relational space, it is not really an absolute fixed empty and infinite [Euclidian] space populated by local 'things-in-themselves' such as 'Palestinians' and 'Jews'. that world [i.e. that 'pseudo-reality'] exists only in our mentally modeling minds.

“Our judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author”;–but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say “lightning flashes,” I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, “is” and does not “become.”–To regard an event as an “effecting,” and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.” – Nietzsche, ‘Will to Power’, 531

who is the author of the attacks against 'the jewish state' [a state that exists or does not exist on the basis of 'common belief' and nothing else [of course people develop 'armies' to 'make believers' out of others, but that does not contradict the fact that 'the sovereign state' exists or does not exist on the basis of nothing other than 'common belief']. in plain and simple terms, the 'state' is not something 'physically real' [do the birds, insects, winds and rivers 'believe in it'?], it is a common belief that induces certain patterns of organized behaviour based on 'central control'.

the notion of a palestinian - israel conflict is bogus. conflicts were relational prior to our mentally modeling the world dynamic in terms of absolutely existing sovereign states. today, conflicts arise in many places where colonizers have imposed the 'secularized theological concept' [as law historians call it] of 'the sovereign state'. the free associating anarchist tribes have always fought the imposing of 'sovereign state status' that puts an iron blanket of central control over a naturally free region. to give a group of tribes an 'identity'; i.e. to 'define them' on the basis of their common resistance to attempts to impose sovereign statehood on previously free [non-centrally-controlled] lands and to contend 'that sovereign state should be mine' is to lie down and prostrate oneself to the advance of colonization. of course, if the anarchist tribes are overwhelmed due to the superior power of the colonizers with their power-amplifying technologies and alliances, then they are forced, for the time being, to live within the sovereigntist central-control-based governance, economic and justice systems of the colonizing culture.

the quest for a 'palestinian state' is co-optation by the colonizer culture since it accepts the sovereigntist system of governance, economy and justice. just because it seems like a near impossibility to argue in favour of erasing sovereigntism from the face of the earth doesn't mean that such is not the most natural and sensible thing to do. imperialism/colonialism with its controlling device of 'the sovereign state' were not always with us. why should they 'remain'? just because they have managed to become globally imposed? before 1916 when france and britain carved up the middle east into sovereign states, we couldn't use language like 'iraq did this' and 'syria is doing that' because these categories of 'thing-in-themselves' sovereign states, visualized as local self-jumpstarting causal agents, did not exist prior to france and britain inventing them for us, and prior to the global media's obliging 'pick-up' on these word-name-labels and treating them as if they really were 'things-in-themselves' with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviour [the familiar God-like model of the organism and man himself, adopted by mainstream science thanks to the imposing of absolute space [Euclidian] which facilitates the notion of absolute, locally existing material 'things-in-themselves']

as mach says, the space we live in, the physically real space, that is [rather than pseudo-real world of categorized local systems and their notional cause and effect actions], is a relational space.

as soon as we got the cue from britain and france in the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, the media has new words to play with to construct a pseudo-reality which tells us that 'iraq did this' and 'syria is doing that' as if these actions are divorced from the global algal-matte like web of dynamic relations. the same is true for 'israel does this' and 'palestinians' do that. the day after someone proclaims the state of palestine to 'exist', the newpapers will shift from 'palestinians did this' to 'palestine did this'. this sets the stage for sovereigntists 'just war theory' where one sovereign state, with a good enough excuse to be endorsed by the alliance of the most powerful sovereign states, gets to obliterate some other state.

how convenient! [no wonder terrorism has evolved and is aided and abetted by governments such as Pakistan! it is radically reducing the casualties that are otherwise incurred in full blown 'just wars' between 'sovereign states'.]

the globally dominating culture that has been called 'western civilization' loves 'mind-games', particularly scientific/logical mind-games. in fact, they are so popular that the media and many of the people in the now totally colonized world prefer them and the worlds they create, to the relational space of physical reality' [what you get if you suspend the language games].

Yeah, I've been chipping away at colonizer logic in my head for years now and I STILL catch myself identifying. It's really terrifying when you start to appreciate the scope of it, how much it colours every aspect of your perspective.

colonizer logic = cause-effect logic, the logic we use in the ‘rational’ or ‘scientific thinking’ mode of understanding. if cause-effect logic really did apply in ‘nature’ aka ‘physical reality’, then our portrayal of the sovereign state as a centrally governed rational machine ‘would work’. the central authority of the state imposes its purpose and plans on the people of the state, but of course these plans never work because the state is just one relational node in web of spatial-relations that wraps over and around the globe. when the state leader says ‘jump’, the ‘yes-men’ jump and many of the followers ‘comply’, if not jump, but nothing in nature, other than yes-men, followers who ‘believe’ in the existence and central power of the state, becomes part of the ‘state-cause’ without being forced to do so.

all of the political rhetoric of the colonizer state seeks to convince the ‘believers’ in the state that together, they can bring about the future state they desire. ‘YES WE CAN!’ this is total Fiktion, of course, but it is appealing Fiktion like ‘The Declaration of Independence’ which brings on similar Fiktional ‘yes we can’ thoughts. the state is modeled after God [an absolute ‘Being’ who is imagined as an independent jumpstart point for cause-and-effect actions]. this is the same self-similar model that ‘theological man’ imagines himself to be. God is the Western ‘answer’ to the question as to how all these ‘absolute local beings’ like our human selves came into ‘being’ in the first place. science models the biological organism, using the same God-like absolutely independent ‘unit’ that is a jumpstart point for cause-and-effect actions, hence Nietzsche’s charge that science is ‘anthropomorphism’.

so, it’s no surprise that we have trouble extricating our understanding from this secularized theological way of thinking, we are locked into it in so many different places and ways. and every time conflict or problems arise, politicians encourage us, using the same secularized theological thought constructs, to hunker down and do more of the same in order to overcome our problems. this has us digging harder and faster, deepening the hole we are in, in our attempt to get out of it. it’s like bailing out, at great expense to the victims of financial recession, the financial institutions that are spawning victimization.

if we could suspend language-based rational rhetoric for a while, we could perhaps revive our intuitive understanding that acknowledges the relational nature of the space we share inclusion in. it is not that rational discourse is not useful, it is only that it is over-simplified mental modeling/idealization that should not be confused for physical reality that is being confused for physical reality. ‘learning circles’ are used by indigenous peoples to gain a sense of how the relational space we share inclusion in is transforming [it is a dynamic ‘bigger than’ the notional cause-effect dynamics of notional ‘independent’ sovereign states and other 'inhabitant-dynamics'].

individual rational viewpoints are ‘perspectives’ and ‘perspectives’ are particular ‘points of view’ that do not ‘approximate physical reality’. the colonizers had the perspective that they were constructing a wonderful new world in the americas while, at the same time, the indigenous peoples had the perspective that the colonizers were destroying a wonderful established world on turtle island. when such differences in rational perspective come into play, there is only one way to resolve ‘which perspective is 'closest to the truth'’, the way of Lafontaine; “la raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure’['the reasoning of the most powerful is always the best'] ‘rational perspectives’ are what Western civilization and its politicians ‘feed on’. the cost of continuing to confuse idealization [rational perspective] for ‘reality’ continues to mount. sovereigntism and monotheism [same basic model] are central to the continuing dysfunction.

Funny how the "anarchist" Chomsky never brings up the NO STATE solution! When will it be time to
open discussion up to that obvious anarchist perspective?

Chomsky is not one anarchist by one single iota. He's a socialist and a closet Nazi sympathizer.

If trains of Jews would pass by MIT to some death camp, he'd still be giving lectures and wanking in his office.

Problem with anarchism in North America: deep socialist contamination, by the disciples of Chomsky.

Antisemitism aside, I've found it odd that people accuse those who criticize the STATE of Israel of bigotry against the PEOPLE of Israel (and those living other places). I think any muthafucking state that goes in and tries to be all tyrannical and imperialist and shit should go fuck itself. That being said, I think the Palestine-Israel conflict is profound evidence that we really need to abolish the fucked up nation-state concept, borders, national identity, and ownership of land. Could something such as what's going on in Palestine really go on without these things? I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem likely.

Being neither Jewish nor Palestinian I have no real personal connection to the whole issue... I do know some Jewish people though, some who support Israel fully and others who find what they are doing as objectionable as I do. If the latter isn't proof that pro-Palestine does not = antisemitism I'm not sure what is.

On a latter note... real antisemitism seriously needs to fucking DIE.

Right on! The only problem with the State of Israel is that it's just the same fucking shit than any other capitalist State!

So why bitch this one specifically, instead of fucking UK, France, USA, Canada, Mexico, Bahrain, Georgia, Russia... they're all murderous, imperialist muthafucking Prison States! Special mention to USA and UK... no fascist regime tops them.

The Israelo-Palestinian conflict lasts because it's PROFITABLE for the corpo-military establishment. Not because of the "bad baaad Jews", or the Evil muzzies who wanna "wipe Israel off the map". There's a tradition of war profiteers in Israel, USA and UK who know very well how to play this game of smoke and mirrors, and they all have to do with the secret service of each country.

It's them we should be up against as anarchists, first of all.

Interesting things to say about Israel, Palestine, the occupation, and anti-Semitism that are usually missing in the conversation:

- Israel is at the cutting edge for both techniques and technologies for social control. From the architecture to the drones, it's all pretty crazy.

- The Jew is, for better or (more likely) worse, a very politicized identity-category, and this is both something that sucks for people who find themselves tied up with that category in some way or another, but also something that they can use to their benefit (even as others are also using it to their benefit). In essence, the political-ethical stance that an individual or a tendency takes towards Jews and their place in the world is a strategic one, probably more than any other stance towards any other ethnic identity-category. Recognizing this, what stance should anarchists, Jews and non-Jews alike, take towards Jews?

(Probably a pro-Jewish one, i.e. a stance that recognizes that, in the history of anarchism in the West for example, Jews have taken a very prominent and foundational role in the past and remain an important and crucial part of our collective power today. A stance that rejects any notion of Jewish conspiracy or essential Jewish racial character, that sees any tolerance for such views as worthy of total annihilation. And yet one that is uncompromisingly opposed to any Jewish nationalism, including Zionism, and one that also opposes the chauvinism - and perhaps also the irrationalism - of authoritarian religion.)

- One way that the currently untenable situation in the Holy Land could change, a possibility seldom discussed, is a civil war within the Jewish population, likely on the lines of the secular versus the theocratic for the most part, but with other more complicated factional distinctions as well, including the role of the mostly marginalized secular mostly-Jewish left and the ludicrously small anarchist part of that left. This would be a war between authoritarian parties, and though it would be horrific and destructive to everyone involved, it would also create opportunities, holes in the system of control, and more. So how should anarchists approach the only possibility of changing the system enough that things would be meaningfully different, a possibility that means awful destruction and death but also actually opens up the possibility of a no-state solution?

FINAL THOUGHTS: the one-state post-apartheid solution is more likely than the two-state solution, and that's saying something - and who the fuck would want the one-state solution anyway? Today's South Africa ain't anything for anarchists to spend energy fighting for. No, the only real tenable options are civil war amongst the Jewish population or external war against Arabs, and frankly, the latter will be nastier.

Bad vibes all around.

More like awful pretension all around. The secular population of Israel is hardly left, in fact the State itself is secular now as it was at its foundation (Ben Gurion was a Buddhist!). The religious population has quite a few anti-zionists within their ranks, the Satmars perhaps the most notable, but they are hardly the type to take up "civil war." The more likely civil war would be between Mizrahi and Ashkenazi around the issue of white supremacy, but that conflict hasn't really been boiling since the 70s.

Final Thoughts: you make no sense stfu

this is an interesting zine and thread that leads in a lot of directions. i am an american of jewish extraction who was very attached to the anarchist identity for a long time and am now more of a jaded nihilist fuck.

one thing that immediately comes to mind: we are all familiar with the zionist right's way of conflating any kind of anti-zionism with anti-semitism. ok. *and yet.* we cannot take this truth as an excuse to ignore the fact that there really are people who make that same conflation, that there are people who mix anti-semitism with their anti-capitalism. i can't tell you how many times i've heard some @ or lefty say something like "the jews aren't really oppressed anymore, anyway...there are so many of them in important positions in american society..." yeah, like running all the banks and the media and causing all the wars... (you know, THE jews, like THE gays.) man, i wish we had some kind of FINAL SOLUTION to this problem! you know?

i'm sure in a similar way most of the people reading this will want to act like it is a non-issue, like it's zionist to even raise the issue of anti-semitism. well, maybe that's your relative privilege. i have heard enough fucked up comments, overt or subtle, "joking" or "srs", about "the jews" from friends, occupyists, and random strangers to know better. even if i hadn't, i couldn't ignore the horrible history of my family which has suffered way more than it has benefited from our ethnicity.

i think we all (should) understand that the general solution is social conflict between classes, and although we (all) have a cultural heritage we are entitled to identify with, political adherence to any other form of identity is only an obstacle to the realization of that conflict. i wonder if anyone else read the recent articles about the "social protests" in israel recently where "hooligans" attacked banks and police? because i did and sent the links around with pride. one does not to be need to configured as a "jew" or "one of those people" to become a hooligan, to become-whatever in attacking capital.

last bit; i have known a bunch of israelis/american jews who have visited israel and have i think a little insight into the general scenario with the low level civil war that is the occupation. i agree that the one state vs. two state argument can fuck right off (although traditionally the left perspective and a common palestinian perspective has been that one non-racialized state would be much fairer than 2 states), and i have always advanced the argument that the existence as it is of the israeli state has caused us FAR more problems, as a bunch of people who happen to be ethnically related, than it has solved. but given the situation that exists one ought to recall that there is a high level of existential fear among israeli jews. i have heard consistently that the mainstream position there is liberal in the sense that everyone knows the occupation is fucked, but the fear of being destroyed by arabs is so intense that it makes people support the state just for the feeling of safety it gives them. fucked i know, but worth thinking about as long as we're talking about it.

ok. now im going to try to keep reading the zine.

I hate jews. Why? It's simple. At the heart of jewish mysticism is the belief that they are the "chosen people." At the heart of aryan mysticism is the belief that they are the "chosen people." I hate all "chosen people." It's quite simple to keep that shit straight.

i hate you. why? because you are racist. die.

I am for what's best for the Palestinian people, not for what I tell them is best, and that's why I am for a no state solution.

Lol! You just told them what is best: a no state solution. There's no Palestinians on this board saying that they are at all interested in such a thing. Contradictory much?

I find it really funny how @s think that the thing Palestinians actually need to solve their problems is our ideological opinions. Must integrate everything under the sun into our seamless anarchist paradigm, otherwise how else will we make sense of the world? We would have to see things in nuance and context... Fuck that shit!

jew is not a race. It's a religion. Can you convert to African or Asian or European or Hispanic, etc.? No. You can convert and become a jew, though. It's a fucking religion, idiot. I hate all religions - just hate jews and christians a little more than the rest because their behavior historically. I have a 2x4 wrapped in barbed wire ready for their chosen asses. I'm a religionist, moron. Get it right.

Little more complex than that dude, although I generally agree with you since we're both goyim

I know this is troll shit but you're a dumb fuck - conversion to Judaism is almost equivalent to interracial marriage or some other form of assimilation into an ethnic group (though, there's different views on conversion depending on the religious sect). Aside from that, there is the whole gene thing... which I'll admit doesn't interest me a lot, but here is one reference: You also have your "chosen people" shit wrong ...the point is that Jews are basically chosen to be... Jews. To be the ones that carry on the religion and its traditions:

"Misinterpretation of Chosenness

The concept of chosenness has often been misinterpreted by non-Jews as a statement of superiority or even racism. But the belief that Jews are the Chosen People actually has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. In fact, chosenness has so little to do with race that Jews believe the Messiah will be descended from Ruth, a Moabite woman who converted to Judaism and whose story is recorded in the biblical “Book of Ruth.”

Jews do not believe that being a member of the Chosen People gives them any special talents or makes them better than anyone else. On the topic of chosenness, the Book of Amos even goes so far as to say: "You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth. That is why I call you to account for all your iniquities" (Amos 3:2). In this way Jews are called to be a “light to the nations” (Isaiah 42:6) by doing good in the world through gemilut hasidim (acts of loving kindness) and tikkun olam (repairing the world). Nevertheless, many modern Jews feel uncomfortable with the term “Chosen People.” Perhaps for similar reasons, Maimonides (a medieval Jewish philosopher) did not list it in his foundational 13 Principles of the Jewish Faith."

While I have no reason to pretend there is an innocence to the history of Jewish people (there sure as fuck is not), at least stick with the known history. I'm a secular Jew, I hate religions, and I have rarely been inside a synagogue since my Barmitzvah. But, when a well versed racist/neo-nazi/anti-semite identifies me by my mere facial features - it's a bit fucking difficult to pretend that it's simply a religion. In other words, I don't always "pass for white" but it's a lot easier where I grew up since people literally believed Jews had horns and ate babies ...or that all Jews wore head coverings, talus, had their hair grown in locks, the beards, etc. Maybe it started off as a memetic tribe, but the times of mass Jewish conversion have been few and far between.

edit: could have likely found better sources but this isn't obscure information.

Yeah, christians don't think they're superior to everyone else either - do they? Nor do americans. A bunch of apologists can write up anything they want. The evidence is in the actions, not the words. We can identify Appalachians by mere facial features too. It doesn't make Appalachian a race. I have no expertise in genetics, but I would venture to guess that it has something to do with inbreeding being common amongst a relatively small group of people.

No, you're still an idiot.

The Chosen People:

You are singling out one particular phrase which does not imply superiority and falsifying the meaning of it. If you want to find doctrine about superiority, read the shit that has to do with the relationship between Jews and and other groups and the interventions of God on behalf of Jews. It's tempting to think, "ok, so if God is protecting the Jews, it must be because they're the chosen people." But, God just as well punishes the Jews for the same reason. It's all based on to what extent Jews keep their promise with God. The chosen people thing functions as a guilt trip to make people born into Jewish families feel obliged to protect and carry on the religion. It's more "look you stupid secular fuck, God chose our people to obey these laws and you will be punished if you do not" than it is "hey, you're one of the chosen people! Celebrate your superiority over the rest of humanity!".

Identity, Race, and Ethnicity:

There's enough grey area in the meaning of race and identity for us to never agree without defining what determines a race. Jewish is definitely an Identity and definitely an Ethnicity based on most definitions. As far as race is concerned, if you're going to accept that such a thing exists at all to any meaningful extent, I would think that genetic evidence is a pretty good fucking start. And if you want to go the inbreeding route - we can generalize your point to absurdity and say that we're all inbreeding. The real question is, what the fuck difference does it make whether Jew is a race that is closely tied to a religion... or if it is a religion to the extent that Scientology is: association and identity purely based on a hegemony of belief. The difference is that you can easily deny believing in something, you can not easily deny your genetic components or other physical indicators. So, I can personally attempt to erase that identity from my self-image; but, it takes a hell of a lot more to deconstruct the notion of race and the power associated with it to prevent persecution from assholes. In other words, the neo-Nazi doesn't give a flying fuck if I believe in the religion... I'm still an enemy because I fit into their racial paradigm of the world as a defect - not just guilt by association with financial capitalists and dissident socialists, but because I am essentially, genetically inferior.

Ok, so why defend the connection between Jewish racial and religious identity?

Because choice seems more plausible if you aren't determined by genetics to be of a certain group of people. It's the same argument as whether or not one's sexuality is a choice. If you are merely defending a choice, then you are subject to the ethics of "good and bad choices". If you are defending your bodily existence, you are faced with an existential dilemma that you can't choose your way out and thus must be accepted for 'what you are'. As I mentioned earlier, I'll concede that even a group associated through biological determinism can decide to not self-identify as a member of that group and perhaps that can be one path towards liberation. That though is a project which extends far beyond the boundaries of any single race or identity.

"No, you're still an idiot." best way to get someone to read your well stated response ever... discourse and 'anarchists having manners." fail.

oh dear me!

no, i get it, you don't care. no one on this website cares. everyone is so cool, because they don't care- but why being a troll is so lauded when its no different than the lowest common denominator behavior which the internet engenders on any other site is beyond me. i may be a bit old fashioned but its not why i was drawn into anarchism- to be condescended to and belittled during intellectual debate. you can be critical without being disrespectful. this idea that being a jerk just comes with the discursive territory is a tired and depressing argument.

You are making your focal point of discussing 'netiquette' me, instead of the person who decided to remark that they had a 2x4 with barbed wire around it (or something) for Jews. That is what I care about. Maybe it's because you think I made some good point but my defensive insults are self-defeating. I don't know. I'm polite in discourse with plenty of anarchists on this site. At the same time, if someone actually does piss me off, I'm not going to have an etiquette show down.

insulting that other commenter personally- what does that add to the discussion? the worth of the ideas and arguments you are making if well stated, and yours are frequently, speak for themselves. its not an etiquette show down- its an intellectual one. i like this site when people engage honestly with the ideas and this site is at its worst when people go for pointless insults. you hit the nail on the head- defensive insults are self-defeating.

Really - I'd like to be able to take you seriously, but you're picking a terrible context to assert the value of polite discourse ...or intellectual rigor, or sophistry, or whatever title you want to put on the type of conversation you'd like to see permeate the realms of anarchistnews. Write an article about it, talk about it in one of the monthly update posts... at least assert your point in the middle of an actual debate instead of one where I'm letting myself be trolled in order to clarify misconceptions I've dealt with my entire life. And, really - after being on numerous "intellectual" (read: academic) e-lists, a lot of debate does break down to an etiquette show down. This isn't the LCD of internet discourse. This also isn't the ideal. This is me making a point to someone who likely probably doesn't believe the shit they're saying in really, close to the most honest way I can. Or, perhaps authentic. Fucker pissed me off. My mistake is really to even have provided such a lengthy response instead of leaving it at an insult. But, this isn't a hosted debate between anti-Semites and Jews. It's a complicated forum where the difference between a troll and an honest idiot can be difficult to determine. And... there's likely numerous other ways in which I can argue that personal attacks do not deflect from the rest of the argument: watch Zizek talk for a bit ...or if you're less inclined to that form of entertainment - watch any popular television world-opinion show.

Yeah, society isn't marsh mellows and cinnamon chew. If this person really had a 2x4 for me, there wouldn't be a debate - their awkward weapon wouldn't mean shit in AZ.

The bottom line on the race versus religion question is I could decide tomorrow to become jewish, and I could do it. I cannot make myself into an African or an Oriental or whatever. One cannot change their race, but they can choose to be religious and choose their religion. The semantics really don't matter, though. I was just challenging the racist label somebody tossed my way.

Whether one of the idiots thinks it's because they're a chosen people or it's for another reason, the bottom line is countless atrocities have been committed and justified with religious doctrine. Far and away, the worst culprits have been jews and christians. Therefore, I hate the adherents to those religions (all religions are silly) in particular. You think it's not because they feel they are a chosen people. The popular rhetoric and behavior spewing from those masses contradicts that assertion. I also hate americans for the exact same reason. The brits are no better. If you identify as a jew or a brit or an american or a christian or an israeli, you are the worst possible scum. I don't give a crap what facial features you have (I don't know what facial features distinguish jews other than the myth of big noses - I call it a myth only because my experience tells me some jews have big noses and some do not). If a person stands up and proclaims to be an american or be a jew or any of those others, knowing what they are identifying with, they are a dirt bag unworthy of living. They can claim justification in some imaginary super being. I claim justification in my love of humanity. All people are worthy of my love until they act out against others with a complete lack of humanity. Proclaiming one's jewishness, britishness or whatever is an act against others with a complete lack of humanity. When you do that, you are my enemy. My enemies deserve no quarter.

"The bottom line on the race versus religion question is I could decide tomorrow to become jewish, and I could do it."

According to whom? This is not a question with one answer to it. The subjects of conversion and identity are hotly debated within Judaism and have been hotly debated since the beginning.

"dirt bag unworthy of living"

Okay, after you've killed off all the Jews, Americans, and Brits, who's next?

wait: you are comparing being Jewish with being a British National.
Also, you are identifying me? ok please go ahead, identify me, I'm all ears, what is my ethnicity please,?enlighten me! so let's see, you're saying I'm not Jewish, or European, so sorry what is my cultural group?
why are you on this web page exactly? to proliferate ignorant identity politics?
converting to Jewish faith doesn't = converting to Jewish ethnicity!
there has been wide intermixing throughout history of Jews and Europeans to create many different
physical characteristics, it still doesn't change how people identify themselves!
my gf is Metis = mixed french(white) and mixed indigenous Ojibwe, please identify her too, she obviously doesn't know herself!

you're a price life's asshole, you have no place here, you are not an anarchist!

Your need to attach labels to yourself is not my problem. Your desire to redefine labels is also not my problem. I don't attach labels to myself (other than when responding to others who insist on tossing them my way and offering more accurate labels - e.g. religionist instead of racist). Most of the world sees a jew as an adherent to the jewish faith. If you want to redefine the word so that you can feel good about attaching the label to yourself, go for it. Just know that when I hear jew, I hear that my enemy is near. I was born in the u.s. and dragged to a catholic church every Sunday. That makes me neither american, catholic nor christian. It is my choice to decide whether I am any of these things. I suppose I could try to call myself a secular christian or a dissenting american or whatever, but that seems just plain silly. I reject those things because of what they represent.

I still hate jews, and I still have something for their so-called chosen asses. They have the power to change that, though. When they all stand up and apologize for the evils they have done and pledge to never do harm to others again, we will be all good. I know that makes me an asshole (a label I really can live with if I gotta have one), but I sleep well at night without the need to make up labels or redefine existing ones just to make myself feel good.

And as for the who's next question, I think my reason for hating jews, christians, american, brits and israelis provides a pretty good indication of what the answer is. It is possible for human beings to live cooperatively and by the "live and let live" principle. The resources exist so that we can all have our basic needs met. There is no need to enslave anybody. There is no need to deny anybody the necessities of life. There is no need injure others, imprison them or murder them. As long as that shit continues, there will always be somebody who is next on the list.

lol - alright, get back to work with your 2x4s and barbed wire ...totally the image of human beings living cooperatively that I have in mind.

Even if you honestly don't identify as an American doesn't mean you don't reap the privileges of living in America AND being treated as a citizen. Even if all queer people, POC, and Jews stopped "identifying" with these things still does not mean they wouldn't face oppression for their PERCEIVED qualities.

"yeah! you still have some consumer goods and stuff! That puts the lie to YOUR point!"

At least he won't be oppressing himself.

WHOA! Pause for effect.

WHOA! I totally paused... and... AAAANNNDD... do you really think first world privilege can be boiled down to the simple fact of "consumer goods"? Hell, even if it can why defend that?

Sure, they won't be oppressing themselves, but that still has nothing to with being oppressed and even treated with less or different respect from others.

WHOAQQQ methinks I encountered a real troll. Not a real racist perhaps. Nay, a real troll apologizing for racism in a (cyber) space where it should be understood that racism has no place here. Go back to 4 Chan y'all. At least on that site you can UNLEASH YOUR WILDEST DESIRES without being called a racist for calling people 'niggers' and threatening ethnic groups with baseball bats. Go away.

good commentary on 'one level' [the level of 'idealization'] but there is still a deeper and more 'physically real' level.

you say that; “The difference is that you can easily deny believing in something, you can not easily deny your genetic components or other physical indicators.”

the implication seems to come back to the notion of ‘categories’ or ‘sets’ and ‘membership qualification’, and the philosophical debates that have been tied to 'categories'; e.g. Poincaré asserted that ‘Cantorism is a disease that mathematics will have to recover from’. his comment on mathematics of sets and membership qualifications runs over into socio-political world view and it is about the split between ‘realists’ and ‘pragmatist idealists’.

in areas of conflict, ‘authorities’ will not just ‘check your papers’ to establish ‘your citizenship’. if you were japanese living on the west coast of north america during WWII, your papers may have clearly stated your american or canadian citizenship but you were placed in an internment camp on the basis of your evident japanese ethnicity. this would seem to fit your statement, but the internment was based on the assumption of where ‘political loyalties’ lay, rather than race per se [good/bad, superior/inferior]. you may be able to renounce your beliefs [e.g. in the japanese emperor] but others who see your ethnicity will, perhaps more out of fear and suspicion, not accept what you now say you believe in.

this all comes back to the dualist philosophy where we split apart ‘self’ and ‘other’, ... ‘us’ and ‘them’. non-dualism (mach, nietzsche, poincaré) assumes that space is relational, that you can’t understand the category ‘jew’ out of the context of its relation with the category ‘non-jew’; i.e. if israelis are afraid to give up the occupied lands for fear of being wiped out by the arabs, then whatever an ‘israeli’ is and does, is co-shaped by what non-israelis are and do, and it becomes impossible to speak of an ‘israeli’ [and/or a jew] out of the context of the ‘others’ ['relationism', 'non-dualism']. what is the world-space like for a jew to live in? what is it like for an aboriginal to live in? as mach’s principle says; “the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat.” this ‘anti-darwinist’ philosophy, according to mach, nietzsche, lamarck, schroedinger and others, applies generally, not only to ethnic lineage [which is no longer seen as ‘lineage’ but as ‘eco-relation’] but also to cultural evolution.

is it IMPOSSIBLE to REALISTICALLY define the categories ‘israelis’ and ‘jews’ out of the context of their relations with non-jews. this is where people split into two philosophical camps, ‘realists’ [the Western cultural norm] and ‘pragmatist idealists’ [mach, poincaré, nietzsche etc.]. the latter consider the category ‘jew’ or ‘japanese’ as ‘idealization’ that cannot be confused for reality while the former regard the category ‘jew’ as ‘reality’.

for the pragmatist idealist, ‘mitakuye oyasin’ prevails; i.e. ‘we are all related’ [space is 'relational', material forms are 'ripples in the energy-charged spatial-plenum' etc.]

arguments based on ‘what israelis do’ and ‘what palestinians do’ are based on realism [confusing ideas (idealized categories) with physical reality]. the year after britain and france partitioned the middle east into sovereign states by the Sykes-Picot agreement, everyone could talk about ‘what iraq did’ and ‘what syria did’ etc. etc. as if that ‘made sense’ [as if iraq and syria were local ‘independent’ things-in-themselves with their own locally originating, internal process driven and directed behaviour]. immediately before the partitioning into sovereign states, conflict in the region was within the tribal ecosystem, the web of relations. [this didn't 'really change' when we got name-label-words categorizing 'independent states' to imply authorship of conflict. it was just embellished by setting up local absolute rulers and their armies]

defining ethnic categories as separate things-in-themselves is useful Fiktion. it should not be confused for ‘physical reality’. ‘who a jew is’ cannot be split out of ‘the eco-brotherhood of man/habitat’ and treated as a ‘thing-in-itself’, except as a convenient ‘idealism’ that should not be confused for ‘reality’.

in a restorative justice [restorative practice] approach, the entire global community would take ownership of the conflicts within the common relational space with the goal of restoring balance and harmony. of course, the dividing of the world up into notionally 'independent', 'thing-in-themselves' categories; ... nationalist states, religions and ethnicities and treating these as if they were ‘things-in-themselves’ [philosophical ‘realism’] capable of locally jumpstarting their own doer-deed actions, stands squarely in the way of the restorative practice approach. ['realism' needs to give way to 'pragmatist idealism'].

restorative practice is not ‘utopian’. it is what emerges when the collective insanity of ‘realism’ [duallism] is suspended.

yeah Emile - philosophically I respect this perspective. For a question that has lead to pogroms for quite some time now ...I just don't see its usefulness. At least in the way that you've put it at this point. The "evolutionary tree of life" is apparently important enough to enough people beyond homo sapiens to attack me (And this is quite off topic since this isn't exactly Israel-Palestine related conflict but US and European conflict). As I said, I can deconstruct the self-image, but I will still be treated according to the perspectives of others. When that perspective and its proponents threaten me existentially, I am not going to let "the truth" get in the way of survival.

i have been 'out' for a week so this is a bit late, but if you should pick this up, ... the point is, as nietzsche said, the simple doer-deed view, while it is 'total Fiktion', is useful and perhaps necessary. the problem is when we confuse it for 'reality' [i.e. this is consistent with your comment that if a category [on a first order identification basis] is trying to exterminate you, you have to deal with that 'category'.

the person who confuses the category 'jew' with a 'thing-in-itself', out of the context of himself and others like him who are 'conditioning the common living space' to make it toxic to jews. in reacting to this nastiness, the 'jews' become 'jews' as they are known to those who made the common living space toxic/disopportunizing to 'jews'.

this applies not only to 'jews' but to 'aboriginals' and to 'female gender' etc. so after the majority/dominating category [white male christians or etc.] have conditioned the common living space so as to help shape the 'profiles' of 'jews' and 'aboriginals' and 'females' in a 'negative way', with the result that the jews and/or aboriginals and females are angry and biting back, and looking favorably on living amongst 'their own kind' on 'reserves' where they are in the majority category, ... the majority category [white christians] portray the jews and/or aboriginals and females, as 'things-in-themselves' [a category unto themselves, locally, internally authored as in 'darwinism', in denial of mach's principle and the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relation, wherein outside-inward shaping and inside-outward asserting influence co-shape the individual/category].

now, there are two types of majority category members [i.e. there are two types in general]:

(a) the realists who believe that 'jews' and 'aboriginals' and 'females' are 'categories-in-themselves' and their characteristics are fully and solely internally authored [like americans that believe that iraqis and saddam hussein's of the world are inherently anti-american as if it had nothing to do with how the USA/G8/colonizer powers are conditioning the global living space so that it differentially opportunizes the colonizer powers and disopportunizes the iraqis and other colonized peoples].

(b) the 'pragmatist idealists' who see the categories as 'useful' to inquiry but do not confuse them for 'reality'; i.e. who recognize that the conditioning of the common living space in 1840's france induced the emergence of 'robin hood' behaviours such as jean valjean's. the pragmatist idealists accept that categories such as 'thieves', such as jean valjean was a member of, are not 'categories-in-themselves' whose members' behaviours are fully and solely internally authored within them [the individual seen as a member of the category].

so, the jew or the aboriginal may well have to 'deal with' the majority category that is making the common living space suffocating for them, but there is once again the possibility of doing this as a 'realist' and/or as a 'pragmatist idealist'. the realist jew or aboriginal will believe that the white christian is a 'category in itself' that is innately fucked up and just 'doesn't mix' with the category of 'jew' or 'aboriginal', ... while the 'pragmatist idealist' will accept the usefulness of the categories in addressing what is going on, without confusing these categories for 'reality'.

if you explore the problem in this 'machean' mode of inquiry, then it turns out that the basic problem is 'realism' rather than 'racism' [the basic problem is in confusing idealized 'categories' for 'reality'].

that is, the pragmatist idealist will accept that the current profile of the category 'jew' and/or 'aboriginal' has been co-developed or co-shaped, via the common living space medium dynamics, with influence from the dynamics of the majority category [white christian or etc.]; i.e. each individual category derives its membership profile NOT purely and solely from out of itself, but is co-shaped via the conjugate habitat-inhabitant relational dynamic. the inhabitants of nature's relational living space are inherently relational in their make-up rather than 'inhabitants-in-themselves'.

you write;

"philosophically I respect this perspective. For a question that has lead to pogroms for quite some time now ...I just don't see its usefulness."

the usefulness of the machean perspective, to me, is that it suggests that the basic problem is 'realism' rather than 'racism'.

our globally dominating, scientifically thinking Western culture is 'realist' and it sees aboriginals as lazy good for nothing drunks, as if they, the white christian majority [the manner in which the majority category has been conditioning the common living space] have had no hand at all in helping to shape the development of the aboriginal social dynamic. american and canadian members of the dominating category [white christian colonizers from europe] and perhaps [jews from europe] as well, tend NOT to acknowledge how their behaviours [such as installing an absolute centre of control over how people can behave in the no-longer-free sovereign colony owned living space] condition the dynamics of the common living space in such a manner as to influence the development of the aboriginal social dynamic.

none of the categories are 'categories-in-themselves'. every category is an inhabitant in a common living space and as mach's principle observes, "the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants." the majority category of 'white christian realist' knows how to condition the common living space to make the aboriginal feel like, and begin to act like, a trapped rat. and of course, the 'white christian realist' imputes the behavioural profile of the aboriginal as deriving fully and solely from out of the interior of the individual 'member of the aboriginal category'.

my experience is that aboriginals [friends and acquaintances] are predominantly 'pragmatist idealists' rather than 'realists'. it is harder for me to identify whether 'pragmatist idealism' or 'realism' prevails amongst jews [friends and acquaintances] since jews in america, as a category, are mainly 'doing well' like their 'white chistian realist' brothers, and mix in with the dominating classes of the colonizer culture. the realist exposes his distinction from the pragmatist idealist by expressing judgement as to the innate worthlessness of lazy, drunk good-for-nothing aboriginals, as if how the common living space was being conditioned had nothing to do with which categories 'flourish' and which 'shrivel'. you would likely know better than i whether jews are predominantly 'realist' or 'pragmatist idealist', since 'realism' tends to come from monotheism.

as already mentioned, my view is that the issue is not 'racism' but 'realism'. pragmatist idealism acknowledges that people really do confuse categories for reality and that therefore, as you say, a category that is 'under attack' must deal with the issue of 'categorization'. however, the pragmatist realist looks on 'realists' in his 'category' as nutcases. to let go of his own 'pragmatist idealism' and become a realist as well would be to embrace the insanity of 'realism'. i can kill a member of a category that hates me and is trying to harm my family without having to associate his action with 'who he is' as given by his category. the aboriginal who is fighting against suffocation by the colonizers, that puts an arrow through the temple of both colonizing jew and colonizing christian, need not curse both the 'fucking jews' and the 'fucking christians', ... he need only curse the 'fucking realists' who believe their 'success' is fully and solely deriving from themselves and that the 'failure' of the aboriginals is fully and solely deriving from the 'aboriginals' as if mach's principle and the influences that come through the common living space dynamics had nothing to do with it.


Brevity my dear Emile is screaming out 'Oh pleeeaaasse, I can express this view in one sentence' and collapses in a heep, muttering 'Aboriginality is a state of consciousness which views existence as a journey through an emotionally charged landscape which possesses correlating mythical values linked to personal identity'
There, just off the top of my head a concise accessible explanation for the reader!

He should take notes from either Fendersen or Dupont who have the same views of conjugate based change but with poetry and brevity included.

Possibly, however experience as a factor in emotive depth is a must. One drop of blood speaks louder than a thousand words, a tear drop is the poignant reality of organic entropy correlated to a conjugate relationship. But these are nihilistic musings, Emile has not reached that realm,,,yet.

My first priority is in sharing the ‘relational world view’. Nietzsche wrote reams on it. Mach was briefer, but less well understood. My attempts to employ the relational mode of understanding on an issue-specific basis are somewhere in the middle. The notion that ‘relational understanding’ or any understanding that has value can be concisely expressed are often stuck in the cultural norm for developing understanding which makes use of Aristotelian or Socratic inquiry which uses ‘logical branching’ to progressively home-in on ‘the understanding’, as in the game of twenty questions. This approach has a dependency on pre-established concepts; e.g. ‘is it organic or inorganic?’ Relational inquiry has no dependency on pre-established concepts, though it may make use of them as ‘Wittgenstein ladders’ that are discarded as nonsense once the web of relations has ‘imaged’ the understanding that lies beyond dependent logical building blocks. Relational understanding derives from bringing a diverse multitude of observations and experiences into coherent connective confluence. The understanding ‘leaps forth’ as ‘coherency’ in the web of relational associations that are implicit in the collection of observations and experiences. This understanding is like the understanding shared in clusters of ‘glyphs’ in Egyptian hieroglyphics [hieroglyphics had the capacity BOTH for constructing logical understanding using phonetic symbols AND for extracting understanding from coherency implicit in the web of relations in a diverse collection of glyphs/ideograms].

Most of us living in the globally dominant Western society, have been raised with only one 'official' mode of understanding, that of logical construction based on pre-established concepts such as ‘organic’ and ‘inorganic’. This is a simple form of understanding which is in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do’. This understanding lies at the heart of the problem of ‘racism’ [the deeper problem is 'realism'].

Those who are annoyed by lengthy comments are the same people who have no time for the ‘learning circle’ of the aboriginal tradition wherein it is accepted that ‘understanding’ of the real world of our experience cannot come from reductionist logic, but that each person has a unique and valuable perspective or uni-perspective which contributes to the assemblage of a diverse multiplicity of uni-perspectives. When this assemblage is brought into confluent connection in the mind, in the manner of a cluster of glyphs/ideograms, the coherency that resides in the web of relations amongst them is the ‘aha’ understanding that leaps forth. It is an omni-perspectival understanding that transcends the common form of understanding based on logical constructs, which is expressible in the form of a uni-perspective. It takes patience to consider a diverse multiplicity of observations and experiences as is path to relational understanding, and there are no short-cuts. The eager Aristotelian/Socratic method thinker will not sit still and listen to everyone in the ‘learning circle’ but will want to go straight to a uni-perspectival hypothesis; “I say that the colonizers destroyed the wonderful world we had established on Turtle Island.” Another will jump in and offer the alternative, opposing ‘con’ hypothesis; “And I say that the colonizers constructed a wonderful new world in America.” This approach to understanding; i.e. by logically debating uni-perspectival hypotheses, is a simple form of understanding. Relational understanding is omni-perspectival understanding that informs everyone in the learning circle in terms of the transforming spatial relations that everyone shares inclusion in. In relational understanding, ‘construction’ and ‘destruction’ are conjugate aspects of a single dynamic, ‘continuing transformation of spatial-relations’.

Relational understanding is an understanding of the transforming relational space we share inclusion in. Our common Western mode of understanding is ‘absolutist’ and is in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what things do’; i.e. it is in the form of uni-perspective, ... a look at the world dynamic from a particular vantage point. This is what is going on in this forum at the surface level of debate. Anyone participating in this forum can be looking for ‘the perfect perspective’ but what does that have to do with ‘reality’? The reality is that the dynamic space we share inclusion includes all of the various characters with their very different views that they so aggressively and confidently vocalize in their posts in this forum. Do we really read through all these posts searching for a concise uni-perspective that captures ‘reality’ in all its naked truthfulness, ... or is reality what we get to understand by accepting the diverse multiplicity of observations and experiences shared in this forum, as would be the case in a ‘learning circle’. If that were the case, we would be more interested in ‘hearing out’ an individual; i.e. in hearing out a multiplicity of individual sharings of experience, so that we might bring all of this into connective confluence.

My impression is that many people in this forum are stuck in the mode of understanding that seeks clear and precise, succinct and brief logical uni-perspectives, ... the logical world-views that people have that tell us diddly squat about the real world we live in, filled with a diverse multiplicity of people with diverse life experiences and diverse uni-perspectives.

If one participates in a ‘learning circle’, one gives up the option of issuing tl;drs and/or ‘tuning out’ when someone starts what sounds like an uninteresting ramble that tells of an uninteresting or fucked up life experience. True, one doesn’t have to participate in the relational mode of understanding of a ‘learning circle’, one can go next door to the ‘debating hall’ where the most skilled politicians and debaters ply their Aristotelian/Socratic trade in selling particular uni-perspectives as if one of these, the most concise and brief and convincing uni-perspective, were capable of capturing an understanding of the real dynamic world we all share inclusion in. And once one of these uni-perspective gains favour and ‘the herd’ forms around it and the skilled political articulators, or powerful opinion-influencers, who rallied the charge to have it ‘accepted’, then we have the potential for persisting, herd-organization as the winning perspective is lodged in the central rational processing unit of every individual that accepts it, as is the way of political systems and herd behaviours.

It seems a ‘given’ that some people in a forum such as this are going to prefer the learning circle approach while others are going to prefer the debating hall approach. Both are possible at once, thanks to the store-and-forward mode of electronic communications. Those who prefer the debating mode can simply pass by posts that are not up to their ‘debating hall standards’. There is no point in them hanging around and issuing tl;drs so as to try to purify/rid the debating hall of people who do not share their observations and experiences in the best debating hall manner. What do these purificationist issuers of tl;drs expect to get out of their purificationist campaign? ... to remove the wheat from the chaff and end up with a small circle of the most accomplished logical rhetoricians, the debating hall 'dream team' that has the best chance to home in on ‘the absolute truth’ about the world we live in, in the form of a clever and concise uni-perspective that ignores the diverse multiplicity of real-world experiences of the relational collective?

No! I don't expect every comment to be a succint one such as this.

"Relational understanding is omni-perspectival understanding"

...all your understanding are belong to us...

there is nothing outside the text & all your texts are belong to us!

you're a fucking moron who knows nothing about judaism or being jewish. it isn't just a religion, there is a very strong ethnic/'racial' component. being atheist did not save any jews from being killed in the shoah, especially those that were anarchist and/or communist. after all we're all connected by blood into the families that 'run the world economy'.... fuck you.

IGTT 0.5/10

Go back to your "white pride" websites, where you all can glorify Brevik, & J.T. Ready, Timothy McVeigh, and all those other white people who killed white people for white people.

At the 'heart' of jewish mysticism is messiah, who fulfills the end of sepration between all peoples, beasts and nature. This was the historical scandal in theology of Paul, who was situated between Judaism and Christianity, and the scandal of apostles (versus 'prophets'). Get your theology right and understand the historical analogies to revolution.

What really annoys me about some of the comments here is that they conflate Semitic origins solely with the Jewish faith, when infact Semitic stands alone from Semitism, and is a family of peoples sharing common language derivatives and historic associations. Christianity is as much regarded by its followers as the chosen faith and they are the worst instigators of racist ethics. The word Semitism has been narrowed down to specifically identify those believers of the Judean faith, but these racist morons have suddenly had it include non-orthodox Jewish people, which is a contradiction, because they therefore are not Jewish which solely identifies a consciousness and not race. Therefore the whole absurd bias that racists ignorantly perpetuate by being themselves ignorant of their own conscious will as if they are born that way, and that their emotions derive from some wierd genetic advantage they have in opinion and righteous policy, how the fuck does one deal with morons like this, violence as self-defence I think.


all race is socially constructed. jew is a race, get the fuck over it.

swirling in a black hole.

why is it that this discussion always goes nowhere? from the hierarchy inherent to all religious faiths to historically hierarchized racial identities, aren't we all trying to escape? Is keeping one's cultural identity just reterritorializing, in which the whole thing starts all over again?

Please believe me, there is a radical politics of the Other beyond the need for a cultural identity, beyond a transcendent divinity. Its very pragmatic and probably doesn't have a lot of desire to argue. maybe discussion itself among too many others is an attempt at majoritarian politics. culture is only any good if it helps, not hinders the project at hand.

two cents

'Holy Land'


John Holloway ...sorry...Uri Gordon getting religion now?

No Gods - no masters - no bs 'anarchists' like Uri Gordon.

You are facepalm-inducing dumb.

There's an area of the world that gets called the Holy Land. You don't have to think it's actually holy to still refer to it as such.

Example: "My Catholic-as-balls mom wants to go to the Holy Land and take me with her, but I'm a pimply atheist teenager who thinks looking at 12th-century churches would be boring as FUCK!"

After reading this moronicism it seems is a social construct.

The term 'anti-semitism' (Antisemitismus) was coined in 19th century Germany to be a more sophisticated way of saying 'Jew Hated' (judenhass). From the beginning, it has always referred to anti-jewish racism.

And those who hate Jews have never make the distinction between religious or secular, rich or poor, left or right.

Sorry, that should say 'Jew Hatred', not 'Jew Hated'.

ps. Everyone should read April's article. It's very good.

Dude You Are So Busted!

You copied your bullshit "analysis" straight from WIKIPEDIA, which says this is the opening section of the entry on Anti-Semitism: "While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred") and that has been its normal use since then."

sorry, wikipedia is correct on this account; it's not "bullshit." ask any scholar of jewish history.

Um, maybe wikipedia took it from any decent published history of the term/concept.

thank you.

i got rthis frendf hisd nfuckin mas ajew she makesw the best fuckin cake is eva fuckin eatin i cxan fucxkin lifve con iit an tis othe rbuddy hes a palacetinian an hgis fuckin falafalars are so fuckin good iz tinkin of bein vegan i can fuckin livf on thisd fuckin grub howe cum theys always fightin theyz sahould all be fuckin feastin together under the fuckin palm tree aosis.,.,8ball

Pfuckin s i just fuckin rede thatt he anshint egpytions m ade teh fdirst fduckin cake asnd falafalars howz that jus fuckin nexty door to ther fuckin isralites an palacetinianms.,.,8ball

you're like some kind of rasta sage. all hail my friend.

welkl thanx u very fucvkin much friendf,,,AND i haver this theary that th tru anarchnists asre the last of the 12 lost jewish tribesd cos all the greatest fuckin anarchists in timer wer the jews no fuckin kiddin like the rastian is neras fuckin babylonia an they fuckin strolled down to ethicopian land on teh way showin fuckin egpytions how to make th best fuckin cakes in the fuckin k nown universal fo fuckin real.,.,8ball

I'm not making an attack on you 8ball, so don't over react if I say that I think you are actually an individualist-nihilist, and we don't give a fuck what other peoples faith or consciousness is, it's their free choice, because if we try to change them we become moralists and liberals. Just let it all go, content that we didn't participate, either with jack-boots or ethics, because these binaries perpetuate the war. We don't really give a fuck, we will find cake and falafals in the wreckage.

WTF you fuckin callin me a fuckin individsual nihilisdtic im a fuckin rela asnarchist cosd i brdeask dfuckin capo windowsdasn yuo fduckin indfivbivuilst nijhilisdt jus get fuckin syoned an love fuckin capos.,.,8ball

"The Jewish Question" no die, apparently

Hm, it seems at least some of the authors of this pamphlet believe we should limit ourselves to criticizing Israeli government "policy" in the Occupied Territories, or even blame that policy on the US. They seem to think it's off-limits or "anti-semitic" to problematize or criticize Jewish religion, culture, or identity, or to question the idea that "the Jewish people," who are "all oppressed," have a special connection to the "Holy Land." All these things should just be uncritically assumed, even celebrated.

All politics aside, any thinking person should be permitted to point out that Jewishness, like all national identity, is largely mythical and fictional, covers up real class divisions, and that the Bible contains little to nothing in the way of objective history. The idea that contemporary Jews have some pure, unbroken lineage going back to ancient times is laughable.

Politically, it's also dangerous, exclusivist and tendentially racist to entertain these fantasies. Zionism wasn't just about "making Jews safe," as some of these authors think. It relied on Jewish ideas of separateness and, yes, superiority. Judaism, besides being patriarchal and authoritarian, says quite clearly that Jews are special in the eyes of God.

Unfortunately you don't seem to know a damn shit about ethnically Jewish people.
I am Jewish of ethnicity and that has nothing to do with modern Zionist fanatical behavior.
I am a person of middle eastern descent, I don't talk out my ass like some white privileged asshole which you may or may not be. As an anarchist I support all people who struggle for freedom, liberation, and the fight against assimilation. I support the Palestinian people, I support APOC, Turtle Islanders, and folks in the hood. it's shame no one would be in solidarity with me because of my ethnicity.
I was born Jewish, I am an Anarchist, I will put my boot heel in your face if you don't believe me!

yes, dig it. anarcho-jew boots in the anarcho-antisem faces! i will definitely lend my boots to this purpose

Way to make your point by pointing out that your "descent" necessarily means you are less inclined to "talk out of your ass". Totally Anarchist of you

"The idea that contemporary Jews have some pure, unbroken lineage going back to ancient times is laughable." uh... why? let's replace "Jews" with "Native Americans" and have you similarly satirize their statements of ancestral belonging. do you feel racist yet?

the fact that so many people on this thread have failed to distinguish the Jewish religion form Jewishness, in much the way that any number of historical anti-Semitic currents have, i think speaks for itself. would you tell people they can't consider themselves Mexican, or any other ethnicity/nationality for instance? maybe being a rootless cosmopolitan descendant of the colonization of America makes you feel, dare i say it, special and separate and superior? you can glory in your lack of heritage and ancestral culture and denigrate others who have any concept of theirs. well, bully for you.

WELL SAID, These assholes are not Anarchists!

Not the author of the original post, btw. Where is the satire, sorry I'm missing it... It would be laughable to claim "pure unbroken lineage" for any self-identified nation, including Native Americans. Der-hey.

Chosen identities are infinite (for example, one can claim to be a vegetarian, frisbee-catcher, liberal democrat, Zoroastrian, Mexican, Aspie, bondage fetishist, etc) It is ridiculous when people identify with an ethnic category over all others and are unable to accept the underlying flimsiness of the concept-- everything else I listed is at least based on actual behavior patterns. Your Mexican example is a great point for the opposite argument. The concept of a "Mexican" as some sort of clear category is ridiculous. Genetic science is clear on this point of the non-existence of race as accepted by folk culture--deny that fact if you dare. Use the google/NSA search engine if you need a basic schooling on this point. Just because the Ford Foundation funds institutes of ethnic identity politics DOES NOT MEAN IT IS A RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC NOTION. The point is, the self-identification of ethnicity as claimed by your immediate family members is but one arbitrary distinction among many, and usually the crucial one (now that religion is weakening as a concept) that is used to redirect people's energy and time by the powerful. And yes, Native Americans had their identities as such manipulated with incredible skill by the US and Spain to eradicate themselves on the cheap through tribal warfare. This is an area of disturbing expertise among Western European elites.

Check out Amartya Sen's "Identity and Violence". He is from the subcontinent and a from a family of scholars, so you'll have to roll back the "rootless cosmopolitan" bit as you wouldn't have the guts to say that to the victim of British imperialism who also fits your vitriolic bill.

Kind of embarrassing to see someone still looking at the world through the lens of late 19th century nationalist propaganda. Have you been frozen in carbonite since the 1890s?

Yes I actually do think it's dangerous for people to reify their national/ethnic identities and be unwilling to criticize or creatively think about and transform traditional identity categories, which are all absolutely imaginary and arbitrary. The reality is that there are no pure, unbroken "ancestries." And, even if there were, so what? Why do people think they should take credit for what their imagined "ancestors" did? Far better for us to take over what is beautiful and dignified from tradition, and destroy the rest. Most of it's crap and superstition anyway, and nothing to brag about. Anarchists, of all people, should be willing to forget authoritarian traditions, racist mythologies and arbitrary traditions, the idea of the "nation" (which is a completely fictive and bourgeois notion), etc.

we deal with what people in the past created... fuck imposed identities - all of them. But, it's hard to tell why someone chooses one signifier over another. Play your own game and forget about perfect correlations between identities and will.

It sucks that are so many assholes here and very few Anarchists!
I know Jewish Anarchists, I am one, I know many other Anarchists including Palestinians.
None of them behave like the childish shit on this board, we don't always agree but
not like this.
There is no " STATE " in an Anarchistic world, fucking period!
Self organized communities, Hello, knock, knock, any Anarchists home?
Divisiveness is a fucking tool of the capitalist state, get it right!
I could go on but then I'd sound like Anarchy 101, and you idiots would just shit on it anyway!
Fucking sad!

Don't worry about it too much. There are enough trolls and jaded nihilists here that it sometimes seems like all the anarchists who browse this site are total assholes who can't go five minutes without trying to kill each other, but it's not really as bad as you think.

yez i jus fuchjin luv jewidsh cakesd an palacetinian falafalas togethre on d same plate simbolic like.,.,8ball

There is no " STATE " in an Anarchistic world, fucking period!

ditto RELIGION!!!

ditto ALL fucking labels and the boxes they are placed on!

not that there is any such thing as an "anarchistic world". unless you mean "my anarchistic world".

So no Muslims, Jews, or Hindus in your anarchist world?

What? No "Anti-Semitism and the Beirut Pogrom" by Perlman? That would surely be more useful than Emma Goldman.

Maybe because Fredy's essay doesn't really touch on anti-Jewish racism? Goldman's essay is especially interesting because it was written prior to the formation of the State of Israel, bringing up some good points about what many current anarchists contend was a more explicitly non-statist version of Zionism.

Perlman's essay is a gross misunderstanding of anti-semitism.

I thought this was about dystopia (the band).

You don't have to dig very deep in anarchist and leftist circles to find all kinds of anti-semitic garbage buried beneath the surface. The comments here reflect that.

or you could just read Adbusters or Dissident Voice. heck even Z magazine publishes barely veiled antisemites like Alison Weir

Pentagon troll

"leftist", cute

I kinda cringe these days on that whole "Israel is imperialism" rhetoric...

Just look at the historical facts: who's the biggest fucking invader in the last 2000 years? CHRISTIANS.

Especially Christians from Europe... the entire American continent was colonized by Papal decree, except for the British empire that was officially Anglican, while having some intimate relationships with Rome. So that makes it entirely Christian-dominated colonialism.

I don't fucking know exactly how the tar sands have anything to do with Jesus, but He seems to be a pretty powerful figure in colonial invasions of all kinds.

And what was Jewish colonialism... a tiny chop of land in the Middle-East? Come on!

incredible how fucking stupid all of the people saying "being jewish is a religion and nothing else" are

If anyone has Google translate this is interesting. It's a page taken out of Time Out magazine essentially saying that Anarchists are the most important left wing political grouping in Israel in recent years.

If there's this, like, one Palestinian girl you, living in the Bay, who identifies herself as an Anarchist but doesn't support Palestinian liberation, that's fine. But she's probably an Anarchist like this liberal I know, who's like, a really good friend of mine, but he's like, a Marxist, because he talks about socialism, or something. First world bullshit perception and a cultural fad void of any meaning. Interestingly American Anarchists in Israel typically display this trait. I've found them on here I"m pretty sure, backwardly and pointlessly citing the Grand Mufti's visit to Germany in 30-whatever. None of them go to the West Bank, some of them disturbingly enough have served in the military, and honestly, I wouldn't be suprised if we're looking at future undercover police officers. I don't trust them or have anything to do with them, and they say the same vapid inane shit that your friend and my batshit mother do. I love my mother, but citing her in a debate about the liberation of the Palestinian people, not so much, Free Palestine. End of Argument. And there's only one way to do it, actually two if you listen to people who are locked in ideological orthodoxy. The first, and the only way, is a Free and Sovereign Palestine under it's own governance. This has been what the fight has been about, for a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really long time now. The second and not registering on the reality spectrum, not because it wouldn't be more interesting, but because neither the Palestinian people who probably had nothing to do with it's inception or the Israeli government and most of the population would accept it, and thats annex what's left, let the Palestinian people live like second class citizens (which israel treats like garbage, all the fun of occupation but without the dead women and children), and hope in a hundred years or so, Palestinians are uplifted in social status to equal citizens. Like Native Americans, oh wait. It's usually held by white people, Israli's too, socialists and Anarchists who also usually are the ones who never actually go into Palestine. It'll never happen, it's a vapid concept that people who see no end in sight usually just spout to make themselves sound like they have a new and cool solution to this crises. They're idiots. Sorry. No substance there. Nothing to work with. White people with opinions.

And with the first world concept, that's the activists community as well. Teachers, and journalists, and I think there's a fucking real estate agent who helps organize the demo's from the Israeli end. They're Anarchists, they're anti-zionists, and they're VERRRYYY dedicated. But they, and we also come home smelling like tear gas and hop in the shower and settle down to tea and a movie, while the I.D.F. may or may not be organizing night raids where they indiscriminantly snatch Palestinian children in the middle of the night. TO NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN, or like a year or two later. It's horrible. Honestly, by the third demo I went to I was already having nightmares. It's scary shit. And if we weren't there, the I.D.F. would probably commit a bloodbath. There's no "not such right wing ass holes," there's "we'll wipe them off the face of the planet if we feel like it."

Next time your Palestinian friend says "I just wish the I.D.F. wouldn't be such meany heads," you should tell her, you're a coward, and you'll never escape who you are, no matter how many patches you wear, grow the fuck up.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Enter the code without spaces.