"People are Nothing But Sheep! They are Nothing But Lemmings!"
So the brainwashed, who are the unpaid, inadvertent agents of brainwashing, in turn say - a countless number of times every day just about everywhere.
I say:
We see in small children two tendencies:
1) to be original, individual and individualistic
2) to be like those they admire
They can, depending upon how they are educated, go either way. We are educated, forcibly, such that the sheep-like tendency is fostered. We are broken in the public schools by means that would be considered mental, emotional and physical torture if they were appraised honestly.
Like Pat Benetar sang: "Hell is for Children".
After being stunted, stultified, crippled and truncated we are told that we can't be set free because people are lemmings and sheep-like. Those who claim that "people are nothing but sheep and lemmings" are merely, and mindlessly, repeating what they have been told about themselves and what they have heard everyone else being told about themselves and telling one another all their lives. They are reinforcing the brainwashing.
Fight like hell to break out of the vicious cycle of repeating to yourself that you and everyone around you are incapable of independent thought and action!
The reader might be interested in looking into the educational system of one Francisco Ferrer. His theories of education served as the basis of what was called "Modern Schools" in a number of countries, including the US. There are accounts of ex-students of his school in New Jersey on the net. They remember being free, creative and, above all, happy children.
As one might expect, he was put to death for being a radical in his native Spain. Setting people free is a dangerous avocation.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Sunday, August 20, 2006
אל לישראל לשוב למצב לפני המלחמה
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/IsraelMustNotReturnToTheStatusQuoHEB.htm
דורין אלן בל-דותן, צפת
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/IsraelMustNotReturnToTheStatusQuoHEB.htm
דורין אלן בל-דותן, צפת
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Israel Must Not Return to the Status Quo Ante Bellum
Now, with the cessation of fire in Lebanon when we are no longer under constant threat of death, we look around us and allow ourselves to estimate the full extent of the devastation. We bury our dead. We mourn. We clear away the rubble of what once were homes and other structures. We assess the ecological loss of forestry that was set back fifty years. We ask: "Why? We ask: "Did this have to be?" We ask: "Why weren't the lives of our soldiers protected to the absolute maximum?" We ask: "Did our government betray and attempt to befuddle us?" We ask: "How could Hezbollah have been left to arm itself and train without disturbance for six long years?" We ask: "Why didn't our leaders obviate this war?" We know that something, many things really, were blundered horrifically. Young men paid with their lives and the integrity of their bodies and psyches. Families are devastated.
But the execrable prosecution of this war was not just a matter of blundering. It is not just a matter of faulty intelligence. Our government always disappoints us. They always fail us. They always abuse use. We always pay for their luxurious lifestyles with the quality of our lives, if not our lives themselves. During wartime the faults of governments are highlighted because they are exaggerated. The truth is, governments are always bodies characterized by the crudest methods of intimidation and grossest excesses of mendacity. They are always peopled by those who, were they wiser and better, would refuse to be government officials for the shame of the debauchery, improbity and moral squalor being part in a government necessarily entails. We simply see this in greater relief clearly after a war, but we see nothing that is not always apparent, just somewhat less so. It is only after a war that we all become agreed that the failings of government must be addressed.
The government of Israel will now be faced with questions, but they will still not be faced with the questions that most urgently need to be asked in the forms in which those questions really must be formulated. They will be faced with questions that they are eminently capable of fielding and they will answer on their terms. They will answer the questions posed to them such that they retain their political positions; such that the economic status quo in Israel, which keeps a full one third of Israel's children below the poverty line, remains intact; such that Israeli workers continue to be worked to exhaustion and live in constant trepidation of losing their jobs, not being able to pay their mortgages or the many payments they are responsible for; such that Israel's children remain the victims of violence in public schools, to which they are sent in order to be systematically broken into docile, subservient citizens who run to their death when the government calls them to wars that need not have been fought, wars they do not know how to prosecute, wars that are fought so that the filthy businesses of the super-wealthy who produce armaments continue at a brisker pace.
In the wake of this war we are at a crossroads. We can change society substantially. Israel must not return to the status quo. The Israeli people, if we are not to continue to be used, abused and sent to our deaths, if we are not to fool ourselves that any victory in war is anything but a Pyrrhic victory, must mature and take steps closer to the way in which mature, fully Human beings organize society - that is, the way of Anarchy.
The term anarchy has been much maligned. Anarchy does not mean a lack of order. Governments would have the public think that Anarchy is a state of violent chaos. It is anything but.
Governments and big businesses would paint pictures of Anarchists as those dedicated to the destruction of society. We are anything but. It is our purpose to build society – real society that is inhabitable for fully realized, fully human beings.
Anarchy means simply the absence of government. It is a condition in which there is no state – the people rule themselves and society is a dynamic kaleidoscope of purely voluntary social and economic interactions based on the common advantage of all who choose to take part in those interactions. So too in an Anarchistic society, one may choose freely not to take part in any human interactions that are not personally palatable, productive or otherwise satisfying or desirable.
Anarchy is a condition in which there is no private property. Everyone owns all, but of course, it is recognized that each individual needs certain private effects that may differ from the needs of others and those are provided for in such a way that the genuine needs of the person are fulfilled, while capital cannot be made of the effects nor can power accrue from them. Unlike Marxist Communism, as it is has been expressed so dreadfully, there is no central state that controls the modes of production. That which differentiates Anarchy from Marxism must be made clear. We are non-authoritarian and therefore do not accept the existence of any kind of state. The expression "dictatorship of the proletariat" is half honest. It is indeed a dictatorship, but in no wise represents the interests of or is concerned with the welfare of the proletariat. Moreover, we understand that people are more than just workers. Work is absolutely essential, of course, but we must associate in the fullness of our humanness in order to access, express and share the deepest levels of our being.
In an Anarchic society there is no state that retains an army and a police force that are illegally utilized to put people out of their homes and force them to live in tents. There is no value of commodities or labor. Anarchists understand that it is impossible to determine how much any item is "worth" based on the hours or difficulty of work that went into it per se. Therefore, our motto is: From each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her need.
Anarchy is a condition in which children are not sent to prison-like schools, which are nothing but indoctrination facilities and holding pens in which they are subjected to monotony, humiliation, competition, violence and more – all intended to break the child's spirit and make him or her malleable.
In a state of Anarchy children learn for the sake of the joy of learning, as was the case in the system of education developed by Francisco Ferrer. The best in children is creatively drawn from them. They are not force-fed unsupported and unsupportable assumptions like ducks and geese being force-fed with pneumatic pumps for pate gras.
Anarchy is not only simply in keeping with Judaism, it is a particularly Jewish mode of living and interaction.
Before Israel took upon itself the government of a king we lived in a state of Anarchy. There was no centralized government during the periods of early prophets and the judges. Prophets lived communally with their students who attributed honor and authority to their revered and beloved Teachers solely on the basis of their loving-kindness and wisdom. Wise and trusted elders, who were known personally by the people who sought out their counsel, settled disputes. The Dead Sea Sect lived likewise communally.
The accepting upon ourselves of kings in order to be "a people like every other people" was a decision that proved to be a disaster – even the best of Israel's kings stumbled under the weight of a responsibility that no human being can bear. From this we learn that more than their appointed leaders, those who appoint leaders over themselves are reprehensible.
When we accepted kings upon ourselves we abrogated the right to self-determination. We became subjects, that is, we became slaves.
To this day the Jewish people remain slaves. We are slaves to government. We are slaves to public opinion, which is shaped by professional propagandizers, who are in the employ governments and, more particularly, international corporations, which retain governments as their private body guards. We are slaves to our jobs, which rob us of the lion's share of our production and force us to work brutally long hours under extreme physical and psychic pressure in workplaces that are always understaffed in order to "cut the cost of labor". (It was calculated by Anarchist economist over one hundred years ago that to attain a middle class standard of living for all, all that was required was four or five hours of labor a day. All labor above and beyond that was, and is, pocketed by employers.)
It is a precept that slaves are forbidden to perform some of the precepts of Jewish law. We cannot so much as understand the foregoing precept profoundly or correctly. We imagine that it applies to others. We imagine that we have understood the circumstances being described. We do not realize that it is we to whom it applies. We do not realize that it relates to our circumstances. I have explained how we, in fact, are slaves in so very many ways. We are, then, in fact, exempt from the practice of many precepts. When we insist upon practicing those precepts we do so without deep understanding and in the way of slaves, that is, hurriedly, under pressure and without real joy. We are, in fact, forbidden to practice many of the precepts that we, in our present state of slavery, try to do and in so doing we make a mockery and a travesty of Judaism, which is none other than Freedom. When we learn Torah we cannot possibly understand what we have read and carry out the commandments properly. Chained, shackled, mutilated, crippled and truncated as we are; we cannot move our bodies to do the precepts properly. Poisoned as we are by state propaganda as well as toxic air, water and food; we cannot possibly see or cognate clearly.
Do you know anyone personally who has attained true and complete emancipation of the Soul, body, mind and emotions as a result of carrying out the precepts as they are performed today? No! And neither will you find such a one. Of course we are told tales about perfectly righteous people who possess this freedom. Do you know them? Do they deign to come to your home and live amongst you? No! Why? Because they are yet more phantasmagoria concocted to enslave you still further.
True Judaism is nothing but Freedom and slaves know nothing of freedom and are not capable of living as free human beings.
It follows, if we are to practice Torah as we should, that our first order of business is to ransom one another, to emancipate ourselves and one another mutually. The only real precept that we can carry out in our present reduced state of bondage is to set ourselves free, to throw off the yoke of government, to unloose the chains and shackles that keep us captive to promises of that will never come to realization, to illusions and addictions, to become free moral and moral-spiritual agents.
To build an Anarchistic society is holy work. In fact, it is the only holy work that we are fitted to perform at this juncture. It is the sine qua non of being able to be fully realized Jews. We cannot pray more perfectly than to toil for the purpose of building such a society. No self-sacrifice is greater than this.
Only when we live in a non-authoritarian society characterized by propertylessness, when there will be no more rich and poor, when there will be no more institutionalized injustice that we must submit ourselves and our children to for fear of being prosecuted by state law, when we will have more free time to learn, interact with one another freely and reflect deeply - then and only then will we be able to know what it is to be Jews and know what Judaism is. Until such time the vast majority of our religious expression is frustrated impotency at best, a cruel and pathetic parody in the middling case, at worst manipulation and suppression of the very best in us by agents of the government who reduce masses of people to spiritual servility by heaping upon them meaningless acts to perform and distorted "interpretations" which are devised to prevent us from taking truly moral direct action to rebuild society.
How many are straddled with poverty because of this pseudo-religion? How many children subsist on white bread devoid of nutrition and unhealthy, artery-clogging margarine while their parents give the expected "presents" to their Rabbis and take part in pilgrimages and other "obligatory" religious practices, which seem to multiply exponentially? Those who turn to religion lonely, confounded and disillusioned by the cruelty of society find not a programme for reconstruction of the society that has failed them, but rather, have laws and customs heaped upon them until they are crippled and break.
On the following link you will find essays on Anarchy. Most are in English. Only the essay entitled אנרכיה מובהקת is in Hebrew, having been translated by my husband, Daniel Dotan, at my request. The original English version of אנרכיה מובהקת, under the rubric "Authentic Anarchy", is to be found on the site as well.
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/Mystical_Anarchy.html
Unfortunately, very little about true Anarchy is familiar to Israelis and, thus, there are practically no treatments of the subject in Hebrew. For the time being; we will have to suffice with the writings in other languages, principally English, and only those who can read other languages will be able to access this school of thought and programme of action we call Anarcho-Syndicalism. It is the hope of the writer that others will be inspired to take it upon themselves to translate Anarchistic essays, lectures and books into Hebrew.
Many of the greatest Anarchists were Jewish. It is not difficult to understand why. Anarchy is an integral part of true Judaism. No true Judaism is possible without it. Those Jews who have loved and love freedom best are those Jews who not only were attracted to Anarchy, it was they who best expressed the heart, soul and intent of true Judaism – emancipation of the human being for the sake of allowing each to actualize his or her absolute optimum and interact fully with others.
It has been said that Anarchists are non-believers, that they are atheists. This writer, it should be stated categorically, is not an atheist, but a convinced Jew.
It is true that most Anarchists do not believe in an authoritarian God who compels people to actions that are not in keeping with their will. It is true that Anarchists do not accept the authority of self-proclaimed religious leaders. It is true that Anarchists do not accept religious institutions bleeding the masses of their money and impoverishing them. It is true that Anarchists do not accept compulsory education of precepts without rational analysis. It is true that Anarchists reject any and all superstitions and the inculcating people with fear. It is true that Anarchists abhor telling the poor, hungry, cold, sick, lonely and miserable that a better life awaits them in the World to Come when a better world could be made for them here.
Are they, then, anti-religionists? No! It is by virtue of the foregoing rejections that they are the very truest of those who express Judaism. Emma Goldman (1869-1940), one of the most prominent Anarchist activists and lecturers of her time and who continues to be an inspiration to all of us, once addressed a large conference of clergymen. She explained her antireligious position. Upon finishing, a Rabbi who had heard her lecture said: "In spite of all Miss Goldman has said against religion, she is the most religious person I know." Anarchists walk the walk that the pseudo-religions only talk the talk about. Anarchists live to emancipate those who are enslaved – and they take great personal risks in so doing for governments and corporations do not easily surrender their power. Anarchists are the prophets and students of prophets of modern times and they pay all the prices for freedom that prophets and students of prophets of yore paid.
Is the realization of a society based on justice, equality and oneness not the discovery and expression of the God of Israel in creation? Is it not God which propels us toward this ultimate freedom which needs be and will?
I invite those of you who truly love freedom and are intrepid enough, who love humankind enough, to bear the responsibility of building a better world, here in this world, to enter the world of the Anarchists and to join hands with us. Is this not the Israel that we envisioned during our two thousand years long Diaspora?
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
August 2006
Now, with the cessation of fire in Lebanon when we are no longer under constant threat of death, we look around us and allow ourselves to estimate the full extent of the devastation. We bury our dead. We mourn. We clear away the rubble of what once were homes and other structures. We assess the ecological loss of forestry that was set back fifty years. We ask: "Why? We ask: "Did this have to be?" We ask: "Why weren't the lives of our soldiers protected to the absolute maximum?" We ask: "Did our government betray and attempt to befuddle us?" We ask: "How could Hezbollah have been left to arm itself and train without disturbance for six long years?" We ask: "Why didn't our leaders obviate this war?" We know that something, many things really, were blundered horrifically. Young men paid with their lives and the integrity of their bodies and psyches. Families are devastated.
But the execrable prosecution of this war was not just a matter of blundering. It is not just a matter of faulty intelligence. Our government always disappoints us. They always fail us. They always abuse use. We always pay for their luxurious lifestyles with the quality of our lives, if not our lives themselves. During wartime the faults of governments are highlighted because they are exaggerated. The truth is, governments are always bodies characterized by the crudest methods of intimidation and grossest excesses of mendacity. They are always peopled by those who, were they wiser and better, would refuse to be government officials for the shame of the debauchery, improbity and moral squalor being part in a government necessarily entails. We simply see this in greater relief clearly after a war, but we see nothing that is not always apparent, just somewhat less so. It is only after a war that we all become agreed that the failings of government must be addressed.
The government of Israel will now be faced with questions, but they will still not be faced with the questions that most urgently need to be asked in the forms in which those questions really must be formulated. They will be faced with questions that they are eminently capable of fielding and they will answer on their terms. They will answer the questions posed to them such that they retain their political positions; such that the economic status quo in Israel, which keeps a full one third of Israel's children below the poverty line, remains intact; such that Israeli workers continue to be worked to exhaustion and live in constant trepidation of losing their jobs, not being able to pay their mortgages or the many payments they are responsible for; such that Israel's children remain the victims of violence in public schools, to which they are sent in order to be systematically broken into docile, subservient citizens who run to their death when the government calls them to wars that need not have been fought, wars they do not know how to prosecute, wars that are fought so that the filthy businesses of the super-wealthy who produce armaments continue at a brisker pace.
In the wake of this war we are at a crossroads. We can change society substantially. Israel must not return to the status quo. The Israeli people, if we are not to continue to be used, abused and sent to our deaths, if we are not to fool ourselves that any victory in war is anything but a Pyrrhic victory, must mature and take steps closer to the way in which mature, fully Human beings organize society - that is, the way of Anarchy.
The term anarchy has been much maligned. Anarchy does not mean a lack of order. Governments would have the public think that Anarchy is a state of violent chaos. It is anything but.
Governments and big businesses would paint pictures of Anarchists as those dedicated to the destruction of society. We are anything but. It is our purpose to build society – real society that is inhabitable for fully realized, fully human beings.
Anarchy means simply the absence of government. It is a condition in which there is no state – the people rule themselves and society is a dynamic kaleidoscope of purely voluntary social and economic interactions based on the common advantage of all who choose to take part in those interactions. So too in an Anarchistic society, one may choose freely not to take part in any human interactions that are not personally palatable, productive or otherwise satisfying or desirable.
Anarchy is a condition in which there is no private property. Everyone owns all, but of course, it is recognized that each individual needs certain private effects that may differ from the needs of others and those are provided for in such a way that the genuine needs of the person are fulfilled, while capital cannot be made of the effects nor can power accrue from them. Unlike Marxist Communism, as it is has been expressed so dreadfully, there is no central state that controls the modes of production. That which differentiates Anarchy from Marxism must be made clear. We are non-authoritarian and therefore do not accept the existence of any kind of state. The expression "dictatorship of the proletariat" is half honest. It is indeed a dictatorship, but in no wise represents the interests of or is concerned with the welfare of the proletariat. Moreover, we understand that people are more than just workers. Work is absolutely essential, of course, but we must associate in the fullness of our humanness in order to access, express and share the deepest levels of our being.
In an Anarchic society there is no state that retains an army and a police force that are illegally utilized to put people out of their homes and force them to live in tents. There is no value of commodities or labor. Anarchists understand that it is impossible to determine how much any item is "worth" based on the hours or difficulty of work that went into it per se. Therefore, our motto is: From each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her need.
Anarchy is a condition in which children are not sent to prison-like schools, which are nothing but indoctrination facilities and holding pens in which they are subjected to monotony, humiliation, competition, violence and more – all intended to break the child's spirit and make him or her malleable.
In a state of Anarchy children learn for the sake of the joy of learning, as was the case in the system of education developed by Francisco Ferrer. The best in children is creatively drawn from them. They are not force-fed unsupported and unsupportable assumptions like ducks and geese being force-fed with pneumatic pumps for pate gras.
Anarchy is not only simply in keeping with Judaism, it is a particularly Jewish mode of living and interaction.
Before Israel took upon itself the government of a king we lived in a state of Anarchy. There was no centralized government during the periods of early prophets and the judges. Prophets lived communally with their students who attributed honor and authority to their revered and beloved Teachers solely on the basis of their loving-kindness and wisdom. Wise and trusted elders, who were known personally by the people who sought out their counsel, settled disputes. The Dead Sea Sect lived likewise communally.
The accepting upon ourselves of kings in order to be "a people like every other people" was a decision that proved to be a disaster – even the best of Israel's kings stumbled under the weight of a responsibility that no human being can bear. From this we learn that more than their appointed leaders, those who appoint leaders over themselves are reprehensible.
When we accepted kings upon ourselves we abrogated the right to self-determination. We became subjects, that is, we became slaves.
To this day the Jewish people remain slaves. We are slaves to government. We are slaves to public opinion, which is shaped by professional propagandizers, who are in the employ governments and, more particularly, international corporations, which retain governments as their private body guards. We are slaves to our jobs, which rob us of the lion's share of our production and force us to work brutally long hours under extreme physical and psychic pressure in workplaces that are always understaffed in order to "cut the cost of labor". (It was calculated by Anarchist economist over one hundred years ago that to attain a middle class standard of living for all, all that was required was four or five hours of labor a day. All labor above and beyond that was, and is, pocketed by employers.)
It is a precept that slaves are forbidden to perform some of the precepts of Jewish law. We cannot so much as understand the foregoing precept profoundly or correctly. We imagine that it applies to others. We imagine that we have understood the circumstances being described. We do not realize that it is we to whom it applies. We do not realize that it relates to our circumstances. I have explained how we, in fact, are slaves in so very many ways. We are, then, in fact, exempt from the practice of many precepts. When we insist upon practicing those precepts we do so without deep understanding and in the way of slaves, that is, hurriedly, under pressure and without real joy. We are, in fact, forbidden to practice many of the precepts that we, in our present state of slavery, try to do and in so doing we make a mockery and a travesty of Judaism, which is none other than Freedom. When we learn Torah we cannot possibly understand what we have read and carry out the commandments properly. Chained, shackled, mutilated, crippled and truncated as we are; we cannot move our bodies to do the precepts properly. Poisoned as we are by state propaganda as well as toxic air, water and food; we cannot possibly see or cognate clearly.
Do you know anyone personally who has attained true and complete emancipation of the Soul, body, mind and emotions as a result of carrying out the precepts as they are performed today? No! And neither will you find such a one. Of course we are told tales about perfectly righteous people who possess this freedom. Do you know them? Do they deign to come to your home and live amongst you? No! Why? Because they are yet more phantasmagoria concocted to enslave you still further.
True Judaism is nothing but Freedom and slaves know nothing of freedom and are not capable of living as free human beings.
It follows, if we are to practice Torah as we should, that our first order of business is to ransom one another, to emancipate ourselves and one another mutually. The only real precept that we can carry out in our present reduced state of bondage is to set ourselves free, to throw off the yoke of government, to unloose the chains and shackles that keep us captive to promises of that will never come to realization, to illusions and addictions, to become free moral and moral-spiritual agents.
To build an Anarchistic society is holy work. In fact, it is the only holy work that we are fitted to perform at this juncture. It is the sine qua non of being able to be fully realized Jews. We cannot pray more perfectly than to toil for the purpose of building such a society. No self-sacrifice is greater than this.
Only when we live in a non-authoritarian society characterized by propertylessness, when there will be no more rich and poor, when there will be no more institutionalized injustice that we must submit ourselves and our children to for fear of being prosecuted by state law, when we will have more free time to learn, interact with one another freely and reflect deeply - then and only then will we be able to know what it is to be Jews and know what Judaism is. Until such time the vast majority of our religious expression is frustrated impotency at best, a cruel and pathetic parody in the middling case, at worst manipulation and suppression of the very best in us by agents of the government who reduce masses of people to spiritual servility by heaping upon them meaningless acts to perform and distorted "interpretations" which are devised to prevent us from taking truly moral direct action to rebuild society.
How many are straddled with poverty because of this pseudo-religion? How many children subsist on white bread devoid of nutrition and unhealthy, artery-clogging margarine while their parents give the expected "presents" to their Rabbis and take part in pilgrimages and other "obligatory" religious practices, which seem to multiply exponentially? Those who turn to religion lonely, confounded and disillusioned by the cruelty of society find not a programme for reconstruction of the society that has failed them, but rather, have laws and customs heaped upon them until they are crippled and break.
On the following link you will find essays on Anarchy. Most are in English. Only the essay entitled אנרכיה מובהקת is in Hebrew, having been translated by my husband, Daniel Dotan, at my request. The original English version of אנרכיה מובהקת, under the rubric "Authentic Anarchy", is to be found on the site as well.
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/Mystical_Anarchy.html
Unfortunately, very little about true Anarchy is familiar to Israelis and, thus, there are practically no treatments of the subject in Hebrew. For the time being; we will have to suffice with the writings in other languages, principally English, and only those who can read other languages will be able to access this school of thought and programme of action we call Anarcho-Syndicalism. It is the hope of the writer that others will be inspired to take it upon themselves to translate Anarchistic essays, lectures and books into Hebrew.
Many of the greatest Anarchists were Jewish. It is not difficult to understand why. Anarchy is an integral part of true Judaism. No true Judaism is possible without it. Those Jews who have loved and love freedom best are those Jews who not only were attracted to Anarchy, it was they who best expressed the heart, soul and intent of true Judaism – emancipation of the human being for the sake of allowing each to actualize his or her absolute optimum and interact fully with others.
It has been said that Anarchists are non-believers, that they are atheists. This writer, it should be stated categorically, is not an atheist, but a convinced Jew.
It is true that most Anarchists do not believe in an authoritarian God who compels people to actions that are not in keeping with their will. It is true that Anarchists do not accept the authority of self-proclaimed religious leaders. It is true that Anarchists do not accept religious institutions bleeding the masses of their money and impoverishing them. It is true that Anarchists do not accept compulsory education of precepts without rational analysis. It is true that Anarchists reject any and all superstitions and the inculcating people with fear. It is true that Anarchists abhor telling the poor, hungry, cold, sick, lonely and miserable that a better life awaits them in the World to Come when a better world could be made for them here.
Are they, then, anti-religionists? No! It is by virtue of the foregoing rejections that they are the very truest of those who express Judaism. Emma Goldman (1869-1940), one of the most prominent Anarchist activists and lecturers of her time and who continues to be an inspiration to all of us, once addressed a large conference of clergymen. She explained her antireligious position. Upon finishing, a Rabbi who had heard her lecture said: "In spite of all Miss Goldman has said against religion, she is the most religious person I know." Anarchists walk the walk that the pseudo-religions only talk the talk about. Anarchists live to emancipate those who are enslaved – and they take great personal risks in so doing for governments and corporations do not easily surrender their power. Anarchists are the prophets and students of prophets of modern times and they pay all the prices for freedom that prophets and students of prophets of yore paid.
Is the realization of a society based on justice, equality and oneness not the discovery and expression of the God of Israel in creation? Is it not God which propels us toward this ultimate freedom which needs be and will?
I invite those of you who truly love freedom and are intrepid enough, who love humankind enough, to bear the responsibility of building a better world, here in this world, to enter the world of the Anarchists and to join hands with us. Is this not the Israel that we envisioned during our two thousand years long Diaspora?
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
August 2006
Friday, August 11, 2006
Anarcho-Anachro-Nacro-Necro-Narcissism
I've done it! It's my tour de force. It's the crowning achievement of decades of not only theoretical rumination, but endeavoring to live according to the principles I hold most dear. I have not only defined and elucidated the precepts, but attained the level of being the living embodiment of my ideation. I have thus formulated the basis of a new movement, which I am absolutely convinced is the one and only hope for all sentient beings and to which I intend to convert the entire world – by force if need be.
I have yclept it Anarcho-Anachro-Nacro-Necro-Narcissism. As the name clearly suggests; Anarcho-Anachro-Nacro-Necro-Narcissism is believing that one is oh, so special because one lives in a stuporous, stateless state which is out of, probably irrelevant to and almost definitely inconsequential and undesirable in any given time frame.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Free-Floating Radical - I try to remain positive :0)
Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
I've done it! It's my tour de force. It's the crowning achievement of decades of not only theoretical rumination, but endeavoring to live according to the principles I hold most dear. I have not only defined and elucidated the precepts, but attained the level of being the living embodiment of my ideation. I have thus formulated the basis of a new movement, which I am absolutely convinced is the one and only hope for all sentient beings and to which I intend to convert the entire world – by force if need be.
I have yclept it Anarcho-Anachro-Nacro-Necro-Narcissism. As the name clearly suggests; Anarcho-Anachro-Nacro-Necro-Narcissism is believing that one is oh, so special because one lives in a stuporous, stateless state which is out of, probably irrelevant to and almost definitely inconsequential and undesirable in any given time frame.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Free-Floating Radical - I try to remain positive :0)
Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Friday, August 04, 2006
Gandhi, It Transpires, Was No Mahatma (Great Soul)
Many are glamoured and enthralled by the myth of the so-called "Mahatma" Gandhi.
To those still belaboring under that delusion; I refer you to the following quote:
"Take Gandhi, even; within ten months of India's independence, he acquiesced in the law making passive resistance a felony, and he abandoned his nonviolent principles to support the military occupation f Kashmir. Subsequently, we've seen the same thing happen in Goa and Pakistan."
Source: PLAYBOY Interview with Saul Alinsky, 1972; Part 8
http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky9.htm
Parenthetically, the entire interview, entitled "Empowering People, Not Elites" can be found on: http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky2.htm
I heartily recommend to any and all activists and would-be activists to read that interview and get to know Saul Alinsky's work.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Many are glamoured and enthralled by the myth of the so-called "Mahatma" Gandhi.
To those still belaboring under that delusion; I refer you to the following quote:
"Take Gandhi, even; within ten months of India's independence, he acquiesced in the law making passive resistance a felony, and he abandoned his nonviolent principles to support the military occupation f Kashmir. Subsequently, we've seen the same thing happen in Goa and Pakistan."
Source: PLAYBOY Interview with Saul Alinsky, 1972; Part 8
http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky9.htm
Parenthetically, the entire interview, entitled "Empowering People, Not Elites" can be found on: http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky2.htm
I heartily recommend to any and all activists and would-be activists to read that interview and get to know Saul Alinsky's work.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Murray Bookchin, Visionary Social Theorist, Dies at 85
Murray Bookchin, visionary writer and activist, died at his home inBurlington, Vermont on July 30th at the age of 85. A revolutionarythinker and prolific writer who authored several AK Press titles, MurrayBookchin produced work spanning two historic eras: that of traditionalproletarian socialism and anarchism, with its working-classinsurrections and struggles against classical fascism, and the postwarperiod of growing corporate capitalism, environmental decay, statistpolitics, and the technocratic mentality. In his work he tried to makesomething coherent of these changes, looking forward to a liberatedfuture. He will be sorely missed.Please visit http://www.akpress.org/bookchinobit for a full obituary byBrian Tokar at the Institute for Social Ecology in Plainfield, Vermont.
This is the obituary:
Murray Bookchin, the visionary social theorist and activist, died during the early morning of Sunday, July 30th in his home in Burlington, Vermont. During a prolific career of writing, teaching and political activism that spanned half a century, Bookchin forged a new anti-authoritarian outlook rooted in ecology, dialectical philosophy and left libertarianism.During the 1950s and '60s, Bookchin built upon the legacies of utopian social philosophy and critical theory, challenging the primacy of Marxism on the left and linking contemporary ecological and urban crises to problems of capital and social hierarchy in general. Beginning in the mid-sixties, he pioneered a new political and philosophical synthesis-termed social ecology-that sought to reclaim local political power, by means of direct popular democracy, against the consolidation and increasing centralization of the nation state.From the 1960s to the present, the utopian dimension of Bookchin's social ecology inspired several generations of social and ecological activists, from the pioneering urban ecology movements of the sixties, to the 1970s' back-to-the-land, antinuclear, and sustainable technology movements, the beginnings of Green politics and organic agriculture in the early 1980s, and the anti-authoritarian global justice movement that came of age in 1999 in the streets of Seattle. His influence was often cited by prominent political and social activists throughout the US, Europe, South America, Turkey, Japan, and beyond.Even as numerous social movements drew on his ideas, however, Bookchin remained a relentless critic of the currents in those movements that he found deeply disturbing, including the New Left's drift toward Marxism-Leninism in the late 1960s, tendencies toward mysticism and misanthropy in the radical environmental movement, and the growing focus on individualism and personal lifestyles among 1990s anarchists. In the late 1990s, Bookchin broke with anarchism, the political tradition he had been most identified with for over 30 years and articulated a new political vision that he called communalism.Bookchin was raised in a leftist family in the Bronx during the 1920s and '30s. He enjoyed retelling the story of his expulsion from the Young Communist League at age 18 for openly criticizing Stalin, his brief flirtation with Trotskyism as a labor organizer in the foundries of New Jersey, and his introduction to anarchism by veterans of the immigrant labor movement during the 1950s. In 1974, he co-founded the Institute for Social Ecology, along with Dan Chodorkoff, then a graduate student at Vermont's Goddard College. For 30 years, the Institute for Social Ecology has brought thousands of students to Vermont for intensive educational programs focusing on the theory and praxis of social ecology. A self-educated scholar and public intellectual, Bookchin served as a full professor at Ramapo College of New Jersey despite his own lack of conventional academic credentials. He published more than 20 books and many hundreds of articles during his lifetime, many of which were translated into Italian, German, Spanish, Japanese, Turkish and other languages.During the 1960s–80s, Bookchin emphasized his fundamental theoretical break with Marxism, arguing that Marx's central focus on economics and class obscured the more profound role of social hierarchy in the shaping of human history. His anthropological studies affirmed the role of domination by age, gender and other manifestations of social power as the antecedents of modern-day economic exploitation. In The Ecology of Freedom(1982), he examined the parallel legacies of domination and freedom in human societies, from prehistoric times to the present, and he later published a four-volume work, The Third Revolution, exploring anti-authoritarian currents throughout the Western revolutionary tradition.At the same time, he criticized the lack of philosophical rigor that has often plagued the anarchist tradition, and drew theoretical sustenance from dialectical philosophy-particularly the works of Aristotle and Hegel; the Frankfurt School-of which he became increasingly critical in later years-and even the works of Marx and Lenin. During the past year, even while terminally ill in Burlington, Bookchin was working toward a re-evaluation of what he perceived as the historic failure of the 20th century left. He argued that Marxist crisis theory failed to recognize the inherent flexibility and malleability of capitalism, and that Marx never saw capitalism in its true contemporary sense. Until his death, Bookchin asserted that only the ecological problems created by modern capitalism were of sufficient magnitude to portend the system's demise.Murray Bookchin was diagnosed several months ago with a fatal heart condition. He will be remembered by his devoted family members—including his long-time companion Janet Biehl, his former wife Bea Bookchin, his son, daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter—as well as his friends, colleagues and frequent correspondents throughout the world. There will be a public memorial service in Burlington, Vermont on Sunday, August 13th. For more information, email HERE.
Brian Tokar, July 31, 2006
Murray Bookchin, visionary writer and activist, died at his home inBurlington, Vermont on July 30th at the age of 85. A revolutionarythinker and prolific writer who authored several AK Press titles, MurrayBookchin produced work spanning two historic eras: that of traditionalproletarian socialism and anarchism, with its working-classinsurrections and struggles against classical fascism, and the postwarperiod of growing corporate capitalism, environmental decay, statistpolitics, and the technocratic mentality. In his work he tried to makesomething coherent of these changes, looking forward to a liberatedfuture. He will be sorely missed.Please visit http://www.akpress.org/bookchinobit for a full obituary byBrian Tokar at the Institute for Social Ecology in Plainfield, Vermont.
This is the obituary:
Murray Bookchin, the visionary social theorist and activist, died during the early morning of Sunday, July 30th in his home in Burlington, Vermont. During a prolific career of writing, teaching and political activism that spanned half a century, Bookchin forged a new anti-authoritarian outlook rooted in ecology, dialectical philosophy and left libertarianism.During the 1950s and '60s, Bookchin built upon the legacies of utopian social philosophy and critical theory, challenging the primacy of Marxism on the left and linking contemporary ecological and urban crises to problems of capital and social hierarchy in general. Beginning in the mid-sixties, he pioneered a new political and philosophical synthesis-termed social ecology-that sought to reclaim local political power, by means of direct popular democracy, against the consolidation and increasing centralization of the nation state.From the 1960s to the present, the utopian dimension of Bookchin's social ecology inspired several generations of social and ecological activists, from the pioneering urban ecology movements of the sixties, to the 1970s' back-to-the-land, antinuclear, and sustainable technology movements, the beginnings of Green politics and organic agriculture in the early 1980s, and the anti-authoritarian global justice movement that came of age in 1999 in the streets of Seattle. His influence was often cited by prominent political and social activists throughout the US, Europe, South America, Turkey, Japan, and beyond.Even as numerous social movements drew on his ideas, however, Bookchin remained a relentless critic of the currents in those movements that he found deeply disturbing, including the New Left's drift toward Marxism-Leninism in the late 1960s, tendencies toward mysticism and misanthropy in the radical environmental movement, and the growing focus on individualism and personal lifestyles among 1990s anarchists. In the late 1990s, Bookchin broke with anarchism, the political tradition he had been most identified with for over 30 years and articulated a new political vision that he called communalism.Bookchin was raised in a leftist family in the Bronx during the 1920s and '30s. He enjoyed retelling the story of his expulsion from the Young Communist League at age 18 for openly criticizing Stalin, his brief flirtation with Trotskyism as a labor organizer in the foundries of New Jersey, and his introduction to anarchism by veterans of the immigrant labor movement during the 1950s. In 1974, he co-founded the Institute for Social Ecology, along with Dan Chodorkoff, then a graduate student at Vermont's Goddard College. For 30 years, the Institute for Social Ecology has brought thousands of students to Vermont for intensive educational programs focusing on the theory and praxis of social ecology. A self-educated scholar and public intellectual, Bookchin served as a full professor at Ramapo College of New Jersey despite his own lack of conventional academic credentials. He published more than 20 books and many hundreds of articles during his lifetime, many of which were translated into Italian, German, Spanish, Japanese, Turkish and other languages.During the 1960s–80s, Bookchin emphasized his fundamental theoretical break with Marxism, arguing that Marx's central focus on economics and class obscured the more profound role of social hierarchy in the shaping of human history. His anthropological studies affirmed the role of domination by age, gender and other manifestations of social power as the antecedents of modern-day economic exploitation. In The Ecology of Freedom(1982), he examined the parallel legacies of domination and freedom in human societies, from prehistoric times to the present, and he later published a four-volume work, The Third Revolution, exploring anti-authoritarian currents throughout the Western revolutionary tradition.At the same time, he criticized the lack of philosophical rigor that has often plagued the anarchist tradition, and drew theoretical sustenance from dialectical philosophy-particularly the works of Aristotle and Hegel; the Frankfurt School-of which he became increasingly critical in later years-and even the works of Marx and Lenin. During the past year, even while terminally ill in Burlington, Bookchin was working toward a re-evaluation of what he perceived as the historic failure of the 20th century left. He argued that Marxist crisis theory failed to recognize the inherent flexibility and malleability of capitalism, and that Marx never saw capitalism in its true contemporary sense. Until his death, Bookchin asserted that only the ecological problems created by modern capitalism were of sufficient magnitude to portend the system's demise.Murray Bookchin was diagnosed several months ago with a fatal heart condition. He will be remembered by his devoted family members—including his long-time companion Janet Biehl, his former wife Bea Bookchin, his son, daughter, son-in-law, and granddaughter—as well as his friends, colleagues and frequent correspondents throughout the world. There will be a public memorial service in Burlington, Vermont on Sunday, August 13th. For more information, email HERE.
Brian Tokar, July 31, 2006
Saul Alinsky vis-a-vis Noam Chomsky - The Difference Between a Dedicated Radical and a Hypocritical Opportunist
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/AlinskyVisAVisChomsky.htm
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/AlinskyVisAVisChomsky.htm
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
30-Minute Video About Fluoridated Water
Please watch this video.
It is terribly important to know.
I have written about the dangers of the fluoridation of water in the past, knowing that it was the Nazis who first experimented with it.
There is a great deal of information about the fluoridation of water that I did not know in this video.
It is most instructive.
Among the points discussed is the connection between hyperactivity in children and fluoridated water.
Although the information relates to the fluoridation of water in the US, Israel too fluoridates our water supplies.
http://tinyurl.com/oky7p
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Please watch this video.
It is terribly important to know.
I have written about the dangers of the fluoridation of water in the past, knowing that it was the Nazis who first experimented with it.
There is a great deal of information about the fluoridation of water that I did not know in this video.
It is most instructive.
Among the points discussed is the connection between hyperactivity in children and fluoridated water.
Although the information relates to the fluoridation of water in the US, Israel too fluoridates our water supplies.
http://tinyurl.com/oky7p
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
A "contributor" to a Current Events board wrote to a newbie:
Quote: "Please feel free to join in here. It really is fun, if you don't take yourself too seriously."
The statement was topped off by a cutesy wink.
Those who come to message boards for cheap thrills can be trusted to slip up and betray her real intentions, though they protest deep conviction and concern about pressing issues. That facade they put becomes too, too heavy a mantle to bear at some point. They fumble and drop it. The veneer then breaks and we get a glimpse into the mind and emotions of the morally squalid and emotionally truncated.
I am not singling out the person who wrote the above for being raked over the coals. Au contraire. My purpose here is to bring the reader's attention to a phenomenon.
It has been said to me a number of times by "contributors" to CE and political issues boards that I "take myself too seriously". I fluffed the accusation off, knowing that I laugh quite heartily at myself. I took it as a ploy to get me to laugh at myself thinking they were laughing with me, when in fact they would be laughing at me. So, I ignored their "friendly" suggestion.
But then the above quote was written and I realized that the case is that they come to CE and political issues boards only for "fun" and "laughs".
It is the issues that they take lightheartedly and light-headedly, not themselves. Not one of them ever laughs at himself or herself. No, only others are fair game and the butt of jokes to them.
People with a genuinely good and mature sense of humor laugh first and foremost at themselves; they never do
I realized in a flash that these are the very same people who are those who take a position in favor of Arab terrorism. I always knew that they were assuming an obnoxious position in order to get people who are genuinely concerned and passionate about matters that concern all Human beings incensed so that they could have a good laugh at someone who lost their temper. But now I realize that the only people who can take the positions that they take are people who are among those to whom Jimi Hendrix was referring when he sang: "there are many here among us who think that life is but a joke".
The matters discussed on CE and political issues boards are not jokes. They are matters of life and death and Human welfare. Anyone who comes to such boards for fun is perverted.
Certainly, we may enjoy the mental and emotional stimulation of sharing opinions, having our opinions challenged and amending them. But this is not "fun". It's not a cheap thrill.
Certainly, there is no reason for brooding solemnity all the time on a CE board or political forum. There is most definitely room, even a need, for tasteful humor that lightens the atmosphere and helps us to cope with the very difficult. But a general atmosphere of respectful decorum is in order – both for the contributors and for the issues being dealt with.
It took me a long time to realize that so many who people CE boards and political issues fora are there for nothing other than kicks (I mean this in every sense of the word). It is so far from my mind to conceive of things that way that I could simply not understand for the longest time.
But there you have it, in so many words. While a war is raging that could engulf other nations, the contributor who wrote the quote above is having fun and not taking it seriously and that person is hardly alone. Of course, s/he can't say that. So, s/he says that s/he is not taking herself seriously. Oh, no? When did s/he ever have a good-natured belly laugh at his/her own expense or allow anyone else to?
No, it is life itself that is a joke to those who take the side of terrorists. To them it is only a fun "bang bang shoot 'em up" show.
I am indebted to the person who wrote the quote above. I needed to have it presented to me in very blunt terms. I would not have understood it for myself had it not been pushed so indecorously in my face- thank God.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed),
Monday, July 31, 2006
Logic and Rationality Are of No Avail in Disseminating Information
There are many people on the internet, and I respect them, who have, and are, working tirelessly employing logic and rationality to help people understand both sides of the conflict in the
I, for one, have long ago stopped trying to do this and I will explain why I consider the attempt futile.
I've been on the internet for some four years. During that time I've been observing how people behave, interact, group and what political positions they take on a good number of fora. I have noted the correlations between social behavior and political positions taken.
I have come to the following conclusion: The vast majority of people do not assume a given political position after having considered a number of alternative positions and a large body of data.
They form political opinions on the very same basis that they form friendships: they side with those with whom they identify. Like seeks out like. Proverbial water seeks its proverbial level.
Those who see themselves as deserving of special privilege tend to identify with some type of elite. These are few in number and I shall explain why presently.
Both those who are bullies as well as those who feel the need for strong backing identify with political power structures and tend to accept the positions of those power structures as unquestioningly correct and inviolable. They defend the power structures tooth and nail.
The vast majority of people may be grouped under those to whom
I do not find people whose brotherly feelings are grounded in the common baseness they find in one another repugnant. I see them, rather, as victims of Capitalist indoctrination which inculcates the profoundest feelings of wounded pride and violation of one's person. They are, however, truly base and understanding the provenance of their baseness in no wise negates their being so. They are many. They are the vast majority.
They tend to huddle together for mutual protection and defense in their social groups. Their relationships are based on an agreement of everyone ignoring the others' real and imagined defects. It is also agreed that each will come to the others' defense if an "intruder", someone either up or down in some way enters their territory.
When the most wounded among them assume a political position they invariably resonate with those they consider the underdog. Wracked as they are with feelings of victimization, frustration and helplessness to find a way out of their lives of what Henry David Thoreau called "quiet desperation", they take up the cause of those who do not make them feel inferior. Feeling degraded as they do; they feel comfortable taking up the cause of those they see as still more degraded than themselves.
It is not surprising, then, that the vast majority of Europeans and many Americans identify with and support the Arabs in the ME conflict. The Arabs do not make them acutely aware of their feelings of inferiority. They can take a superior, paternalistic stance vis-à-vis the Arabs. Of course, they put on a front of being concerned with the victim, but in reality they identify with the victim because they feel victimized beneath their protestations of good will and bravado.
The political stances that the vast majority of people assume, then, are neither logical nor rational. They are based on identification that comes from the gut.
There is no countering that with logic and reason.
The Jews and the Israelis make them feel their defects most acutely. They simply cannot relate to the People who hold the highest per capita number of Nobel Prizes in the world. They do not feel comfortable in the presence of the People who count Einstein as but one of their sons. They cannot relate to the People who transformed a miserable tract of desert and swamp into not only a desert, but departments of bioinformatics and other cutting-edge technologies.
Israelis are, for the most part, a rare breed. Those who emigrated here from developed countries as well as native Israelis who have skills and education that would allow them to be professionals elsewhere, yet choose to stay, are that very rare and miniscule sector of Humanity that do not assume a political stance based merely on personal feelings of weakness. Rather, they are those who have chosen to devote their lives to something bigger than themselves. They are proactive, not simply reactive. They do not huddle together with others for protection. They cooperate with others for the sake of realizing a vision and actualizing a plan for Humanity.
Few are those who are content, confident and comfortable enough with themselves to be able to praise and encourage us in this. Few are those who with outstretched hand offer to take part in this magnificent and noble enterprise.
But they do exist. And they are wonderful. They are those who elevate Humanity from the degraded social level of chimpanzees to fully Human.
People such as these are not in need of our reason and our logic. We do not have to teach them. They need only our encouragement and they deserve our thanks.
You know who you are.
Thank you.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan,
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Friday, July 28, 2006
The Cowardice and Hypocrisy of the British
Of all peoples who criticize Israel, the most reprehensible of them are the Germanic peoples who settled Europe unspeakably violently, massacring all of the indigenous peoples of Europe that would not be subjugated.
These are the same people whose descendants launched the Crusades.
These are the same people whose descendants founded America. The belligerence and brutality of their history and present speaks for itself.
These are the same people whose criminal descendants founded Australia and massacred the Aboriginals there. The same may be said about New Zealand.
These are the same people who descendants founded English Canada and massacred Natives there. Is Canada not a commonwealth of Britain to this day? Do they not pay homage to the "House of Windsor" (formerly Wettin, Germanic "nobility")?
In fact, was South Africa under apartheid not a British commonwealth?
These are the same people who founded Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, which, while peaceful within their own borders, were Natzi-sympathetic to a horrific extent and which evince a good deal of xenophobia to this day.
These are the same people whose descendants perpetrated the Holocaust.
Their humanitarianism track record is the world's worst.
To their credit, people in Germany today are making a "fearless moral inventory" and taking another direction.
Holland, to its credit, has become a very accepting society. Of course, in addition to being accepting of foreigners; it is accepting of dope addiction and prostitution. They seem incapable of knowing what to and not to accept.
Yet some of them, including the modern day British, rather than doing that inventory, are blaming others for barbarism. What could be more ridiculous?
Would the State of Israel need to exist at all if not for European barbarism?
Is there a nation, other than the daughter of Britain, the US, which undertook so extensive and violent a programme of imperialism than Britain?
As in every state in which there are conquered peoples, the vanquished who are too weak and spineless to revolt find some illusory sense of dignity identifying with their conquerors who see them as little more than cannon fire. Scotland is premier among those fools. They are so stupid, insipid, unwilling to take responsibility for their destinies (and let's face it, drunk) that they are actually proud of their legions that England sends to the front line ahead of them. They take great pride in being used as cannon fire for the British. But the same might be said of the other "British Isles" as well, of course. They swagger and they rant and they rail against Israel. This provides them with the delusion of being strong. In fact, they are peons who have no identity of their own, other than the one that England allows them. George Galloway is, undoubtedly, the top dog of this vociferous, vile and vilifying litter.
The article on the link below demonstrates that the Anglo-Saxons (who really have no right to call themselves British at all. They vanquished the Britons) have a very long and ugly history of apartheid.
Before they presume to point a finger at us, Britain has a lot of history and still more present to set aright.
Though recently the Church has admitted some of its cultural atrocities and the Germans have undertaken true soul-searching and monetary recompense of those they plundered; most Germanics go unrepentant for that which they have perpetrated – taking the morally squalid stand of pointing their fingers dripping with blood at their former and current victims in accusation.
h________________________________________________________
The following is an excerpt from my essay "An Anarchist Explains Why Israel Is Not An Imperialist State". The entire essay can be found on the following URL::
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/IsraelIsNotAnImperialistState.htm
The following excerpt demonstrates that the British played a determining role, and very deliberately so, in creating the conflict that exists in Israel.
The readers' attention is requested to be turned to the period of "Illegal" Immigration from 1933 to 1948. This is the period called Aliyah Beit. During that time, when Jews were in the greatest peril since the time of the Inquisition, the British authorities in Israel limited Jewish immigration to Palestine (See: The White Paper 1939 – 1947 http://tinyurl.com/hm7e4). This, and more damning still, it was British policy that, in large measure, created the Palistinian problem. Not only did the British set Jewish immigration quotas starting in 1920, they attempted to create an artificial Arab majority in Israel by requesting France to stop curbing illegal Arab immigration to Israel and by bringing Arabs in illegally themselves during the years 1920 – 1948 (See: http://tinyurl.com/dkpsu). It was not for naught that Ben Gurion, who would become the first Prime Minister of Israel, said: "The Zionists should fight the war as if there were no White Paper and fight the White Paper as if there were no war."
Incidentally, the Mossad, much-maligned by Israel's detractors, was organized during the period of Aliyah Beit as an organization to smuggle Jews into the Land of Israel from Europe [See: 1938 January 12, POSEIDON (Eretz Israel) http://tinyurl.com/zp5pb].
ttp://www.world-science.net/othernews/060719_apartheid.htm"
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
Of all peoples who criticize Israel, the most reprehensible of them are the Germanic peoples who settled Europe unspeakably violently, massacring all of the indigenous peoples of Europe that would not be subjugated.
These are the same people whose descendants launched the Crusades.
These are the same people whose descendants founded America. The belligerence and brutality of their history and present speaks for itself.
These are the same people whose criminal descendants founded Australia and massacred the Aboriginals there. The same may be said about New Zealand.
These are the same people who descendants founded English Canada and massacred Natives there. Is Canada not a commonwealth of Britain to this day? Do they not pay homage to the "House of Windsor" (formerly Wettin, Germanic "nobility")?
In fact, was South Africa under apartheid not a British commonwealth?
These are the same people who founded Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries, which, while peaceful within their own borders, were Natzi-sympathetic to a horrific extent and which evince a good deal of xenophobia to this day.
These are the same people whose descendants perpetrated the Holocaust.
Their humanitarianism track record is the world's worst.
To their credit, people in Germany today are making a "fearless moral inventory" and taking another direction.
Holland, to its credit, has become a very accepting society. Of course, in addition to being accepting of foreigners; it is accepting of dope addiction and prostitution. They seem incapable of knowing what to and not to accept.
Yet some of them, including the modern day British, rather than doing that inventory, are blaming others for barbarism. What could be more ridiculous?
Would the State of Israel need to exist at all if not for European barbarism?
Is there a nation, other than the daughter of Britain, the US, which undertook so extensive and violent a programme of imperialism than Britain?
As in every state in which there are conquered peoples, the vanquished who are too weak and spineless to revolt find some illusory sense of dignity identifying with their conquerors who see them as little more than cannon fire. Scotland is premier among those fools. They are so stupid, insipid, unwilling to take responsibility for their destinies (and let's face it, drunk) that they are actually proud of their legions that England sends to the front line ahead of them. They take great pride in being used as cannon fire for the British. But the same might be said of the other "British Isles" as well, of course. They swagger and they rant and they rail against Israel. This provides them with the delusion of being strong. In fact, they are peons who have no identity of their own, other than the one that England allows them. George Galloway is, undoubtedly, the top dog of this vociferous, vile and vilifying litter.
The article on the link below demonstrates that the Anglo-Saxons (who really have no right to call themselves British at all. They vanquished the Britons) have a very long and ugly history of apartheid.
Before they presume to point a finger at us, Britain has a lot of history and still more present to set aright.
Though recently the Church has admitted some of its cultural atrocities and the Germans have undertaken true soul-searching and monetary recompense of those they plundered; most Germanics go unrepentant for that which they have perpetrated – taking the morally squalid stand of pointing their fingers dripping with blood at their former and current victims in accusation.
h________________________________________________________
The following is an excerpt from my essay "An Anarchist Explains Why Israel Is Not An Imperialist State". The entire essay can be found on the following URL::
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/IsraelIsNotAnImperialistState.htm
The following excerpt demonstrates that the British played a determining role, and very deliberately so, in creating the conflict that exists in Israel.
The readers' attention is requested to be turned to the period of "Illegal" Immigration from 1933 to 1948. This is the period called Aliyah Beit. During that time, when Jews were in the greatest peril since the time of the Inquisition, the British authorities in Israel limited Jewish immigration to Palestine (See: The White Paper 1939 – 1947 http://tinyurl.com/hm7e4). This, and more damning still, it was British policy that, in large measure, created the Palistinian problem. Not only did the British set Jewish immigration quotas starting in 1920, they attempted to create an artificial Arab majority in Israel by requesting France to stop curbing illegal Arab immigration to Israel and by bringing Arabs in illegally themselves during the years 1920 – 1948 (See: http://tinyurl.com/dkpsu). It was not for naught that Ben Gurion, who would become the first Prime Minister of Israel, said: "The Zionists should fight the war as if there were no White Paper and fight the White Paper as if there were no war."
Incidentally, the Mossad, much-maligned by Israel's detractors, was organized during the period of Aliyah Beit as an organization to smuggle Jews into the Land of Israel from Europe [See: 1938 January 12, POSEIDON (Eretz Israel) http://tinyurl.com/zp5pb].
ttp://www.world-science.net/othernews/060719_apartheid.htm"
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Democracy is a Euphemism
for Enforcement of Uniformity by the Mob
Democracy is naught but a euphemism for enforcement of uniformity by the mob. It is the most ubiquitous and efficient form of control that has yet been devised. It is also the most cost-effective form of policing ever devised, as once the societal "implants" are firmly embedded in the psyche, usually by the end of grade school, the masses carry out the will of those who programmed them for free and beat anyone who dares to veer from the accepted norms to a bloody pulp spiritually, emotionally and mentally, if not physically.
Democracy is a police state in which the policemen have been stationed in the minds of the populace. Any deviation from accepted behavior is met with swift punishment from the police who are present everywhere, always, on every street corner, in every home, in our every thought.DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Thursday, July 20, 2006
MY TAKE ON RELIGION
In our present state, slaves as we are to myriad misconceptions, suppositions, prejudices, formulaic modes of thinking, rote and routine behaviors, etc., when we encounter holy Texts we react in one of two ways:
We:
1) Reject out-of-hand that which we have read, believing that we have comprehended that which we have read.
2) Accept what we read, believing that we have comprehended that which we have read, and go about the business of living according to our misconceptions.
Both of these, seemingly diametrically opposed, reactions have one thing in common: In both cases we do not realize that filled as we are with memes, misconceptions, propaganda and all sorts of physical poisons that reduce our ability to perceive and cognate we haven't begun to plumb the depths of what those Texts are really saying.
It is for this reason that I call for the development of a way of life that will release us from our bondage upon bondage.
Unlike most Anarchists; I am not an atheist.
On the contrary; I believe that only in an Anarchist condition will we be able to commune not only with one another, but with the Holy that resides within us but which we have been rendered incapable of accessing, except for fleeting moments and even that only to minimal intensity.
Only when we have become capable of communing with one another will we be able to really and truly commune with our Souls and develop healthy religions.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
In our present state, slaves as we are to myriad misconceptions, suppositions, prejudices, formulaic modes of thinking, rote and routine behaviors, etc., when we encounter holy Texts we react in one of two ways:
We:
1) Reject out-of-hand that which we have read, believing that we have comprehended that which we have read.
2) Accept what we read, believing that we have comprehended that which we have read, and go about the business of living according to our misconceptions.
Both of these, seemingly diametrically opposed, reactions have one thing in common: In both cases we do not realize that filled as we are with memes, misconceptions, propaganda and all sorts of physical poisons that reduce our ability to perceive and cognate we haven't begun to plumb the depths of what those Texts are really saying.
It is for this reason that I call for the development of a way of life that will release us from our bondage upon bondage.
Unlike most Anarchists; I am not an atheist.
On the contrary; I believe that only in an Anarchist condition will we be able to commune not only with one another, but with the Holy that resides within us but which we have been rendered incapable of accessing, except for fleeting moments and even that only to minimal intensity.
Only when we have become capable of communing with one another will we be able to really and truly commune with our Souls and develop healthy religions.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
My Recommendation to the Middle East: ANARCHY
Please see my comment entitled "Further to Government" at the bottom of the following URL:
mhttp://tinyurl.com/n7vrd
In response to what I wrote someone wrote:
Quote: "Anarchy is what's going on right now in Gaza…"
My response: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to elucidate my position.
No, what is happening now is anything but Anarchy. They have a government. We have a government. Every country in the world has a government - especially those who are fomenting the conflict in this area and making a fortune on it.
Quote: "…where armed groups of thugs force their wishes on an innocent civilian population, attack the neighboring country out of forgotten "ideals", and wage open war with each other-- the Palestinians."
My response: I'd say that describes the US and the EU nations to a T.
Quote: "armed groups of thugs force their wishes on an innocent civilian population" –
My response: I'd say that sounds like our government vis-à-vis not only the Palestinians, but Israelis too. Have you forgotten the "disengagement"?"
How about soldiers on reserve duty who have been used to knock on doors in the middle of the night to extract payment for bounced checks from people who can't make their incomes stretch to cover their expenses in peaceful times? My B-I-L was made to do it and it sickened him. That is NOT why he was supposed to be in reserve service.
Or don't you know about that?
Quote: ”Anarchy is Hizballah embroiling Lebanon in a war with its neighbor to the south for no good reason. "
My response: "Hizbullah has a leadership who keep them on a very tight rein at that."
Quote: "Is this the kind of Middle East you want?"
My response: No, that is why governments need to be dissolved.
Quote: "I know this isn't the kind of anarchy that the anarchist philosophers envisioned-- but it's the anarchy we have at this point in human development (or lack thereof). Humanity will have to go a long way down the road of evolution before it's ready for non-government. Please accept the idea that anarchy as a working system is an idea whose time has not yet come, and don't spout nonsense."
My response: Now you are beginning to accede the truth.
We are laying the groundwork of a MENTAL and EMOTIONAL revolution that will allow a stateless condition based on free trade exist.
It will take hundreds of years perhaps. But we must lay the groundwork.
My task is to give people an inkling of what life could be like, to get them to transcend what they have been made to believe exists a priori.
Be positive. People lived for millennia under the absolute tyrannies of monarchs and organized religions.
From the time of the French and American Revolutions until the flowering of Anarchist thought was a matter of a mere few years:
William Godwin (1756-1836) was the founder of philosophical anarchism. In his An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793) he argued that government is a corrupting force in society, perpetuating dependence and ignorance, but that it will be rendered increasingly unnecessary and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge.
and then
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (January 15, 1809 – January 19, 1865) wrote "What is Property?" published in 1840.
We won't need to wait millennia to get to the next evolutionary stage. But the work of laying the groundwork has to be done.
People have to be made to know that they are dieing ad suffering for naught. Worse, they are dieing and suffering in order to make others rich. When I think that the people who are responsible for the sailors who died on the battleship were sailing on their yachts gleeful that business was proceeding so nicely I get livid.
This is the time to begin to sow the seeds of Anarchy in Israel. The country must not return to the status quo after this war. We must have made some internal advance or all that we are doing externally is nothing but a bloodletting fest.
You describe my thinking as "nonsense". You have been brainwashed to think that being adult, mature and "real" is being harnessed as a worker. Kill that cop in your head.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Please see my comment entitled "Further to Government" at the bottom of the following URL:
mhttp://tinyurl.com/n7vrd
In response to what I wrote someone wrote:
Quote: "Anarchy is what's going on right now in Gaza…"
My response: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to elucidate my position.
No, what is happening now is anything but Anarchy. They have a government. We have a government. Every country in the world has a government - especially those who are fomenting the conflict in this area and making a fortune on it.
Quote: "…where armed groups of thugs force their wishes on an innocent civilian population, attack the neighboring country out of forgotten "ideals", and wage open war with each other-- the Palestinians."
My response: I'd say that describes the US and the EU nations to a T.
Quote: "armed groups of thugs force their wishes on an innocent civilian population" –
My response: I'd say that sounds like our government vis-à-vis not only the Palestinians, but Israelis too. Have you forgotten the "disengagement"?"
How about soldiers on reserve duty who have been used to knock on doors in the middle of the night to extract payment for bounced checks from people who can't make their incomes stretch to cover their expenses in peaceful times? My B-I-L was made to do it and it sickened him. That is NOT why he was supposed to be in reserve service.
Or don't you know about that?
Quote: ”Anarchy is Hizballah embroiling Lebanon in a war with its neighbor to the south for no good reason. "
My response: "Hizbullah has a leadership who keep them on a very tight rein at that."
Quote: "Is this the kind of Middle East you want?"
My response: No, that is why governments need to be dissolved.
Quote: "I know this isn't the kind of anarchy that the anarchist philosophers envisioned-- but it's the anarchy we have at this point in human development (or lack thereof). Humanity will have to go a long way down the road of evolution before it's ready for non-government. Please accept the idea that anarchy as a working system is an idea whose time has not yet come, and don't spout nonsense."
My response: Now you are beginning to accede the truth.
We are laying the groundwork of a MENTAL and EMOTIONAL revolution that will allow a stateless condition based on free trade exist.
It will take hundreds of years perhaps. But we must lay the groundwork.
My task is to give people an inkling of what life could be like, to get them to transcend what they have been made to believe exists a priori.
Be positive. People lived for millennia under the absolute tyrannies of monarchs and organized religions.
From the time of the French and American Revolutions until the flowering of Anarchist thought was a matter of a mere few years:
William Godwin (1756-1836) was the founder of philosophical anarchism. In his An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793) he argued that government is a corrupting force in society, perpetuating dependence and ignorance, but that it will be rendered increasingly unnecessary and powerless by the gradual spread of knowledge.
and then
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (January 15, 1809 – January 19, 1865) wrote "What is Property?" published in 1840.
We won't need to wait millennia to get to the next evolutionary stage. But the work of laying the groundwork has to be done.
People have to be made to know that they are dieing ad suffering for naught. Worse, they are dieing and suffering in order to make others rich. When I think that the people who are responsible for the sailors who died on the battleship were sailing on their yachts gleeful that business was proceeding so nicely I get livid.
This is the time to begin to sow the seeds of Anarchy in Israel. The country must not return to the status quo after this war. We must have made some internal advance or all that we are doing externally is nothing but a bloodletting fest.
You describe my thinking as "nonsense". You have been brainwashed to think that being adult, mature and "real" is being harnessed as a worker. Kill that cop in your head.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat (Safed), Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Monday, July 17, 2006
Industrialists, With the Help of the Government, Are Forcing Workers to Return to Work in Israel !
A law in Israel protects workers who are located in areas that are on the firing line from being compelled to go to work. Workers who, fearing for their lives during wartime, cannot be fired because they do not appear for work. Neither can their wages be withheld from them.
So, a law to that effect exists on the books. SO WHAT?! Since when did the government and businesspeople in Israel ever let a little thing like a law stand in their way?
I heard on the news at 16:00 that industrialists are applying pressure to the workers in their plants to come to work, saying they have "responsibilities to fulfill orders from their clients".
Here in the north, the area hardest hit by Hizbullah's missiles; government officials have been called in to override the law and force workers to return to work. People are afraid. They have been told to stay in bomb shelters. Few people are in the streets. Few businesses are open.
How dare they compel people to take their lives in their hands in order to make money for others!
ANARCHY! I CALL FOR ANARCHY!
If the law means nothing to the government and to the industrialists, then there should be no laws!
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
A law in Israel protects workers who are located in areas that are on the firing line from being compelled to go to work. Workers who, fearing for their lives during wartime, cannot be fired because they do not appear for work. Neither can their wages be withheld from them.
So, a law to that effect exists on the books. SO WHAT?! Since when did the government and businesspeople in Israel ever let a little thing like a law stand in their way?
I heard on the news at 16:00 that industrialists are applying pressure to the workers in their plants to come to work, saying they have "responsibilities to fulfill orders from their clients".
Here in the north, the area hardest hit by Hizbullah's missiles; government officials have been called in to override the law and force workers to return to work. People are afraid. They have been told to stay in bomb shelters. Few people are in the streets. Few businesses are open.
How dare they compel people to take their lives in their hands in order to make money for others!
ANARCHY! I CALL FOR ANARCHY!
If the law means nothing to the government and to the industrialists, then there should be no laws!
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Who Is Noam Chomsky?
A Review of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM
I eagerly anticipated receiving CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM, Selected and Edited by Barry Pateman and published by AK Press 2005, which I had ordered from AK Press web site www.akpress.com. I was intrigued by the publisher's synopsis of the book. It is intended, so the publishers of the book enticed in their catalog, to be a statement of what Noam Chomsky is for, assuming that it is generally known what he is against.
Professor Chomsky and I share an interest in linguistics and anarchy. His father, William Chomsky, made significant contributions to the study of the Hebrew language. I was quite sure that I would be fascinated by the book. The blurb on the back cover effuses:"…Chomsky on Anarchism will be an exciting, and surprising, experience." Whoever wrote that was half right.
The book is a compilation of some of Chomsky's writings and interviews with him over the period of 1969 – 2004.
I began to read the first chapter "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship." The topic of the essay was certainly interesting enough. I soon found myself rather puzzled as to why I was plodding through some of the most boilerplate prose I have ever read. Had this really issued from the pen of the man who has been acclaimed as the "father of modern linguistics"? The writing style was muddy and wholly unentertaining. It was my interest in the subject of the Spanish Civil War that held me to that chapter. The author's style of writing certainly did not command my attention. I chalked the tedious prose of the first chapter of the book up to Chomsky's relative youth when he wrote the essay. I was wrong. The "style" is consistent throughout the book. The only "highlights" in Chomsky's prose is occasional, wholly superfluous sarcasm.
Chomsky does his homework, it must be said to his credit. The 75-page essay is accompanied by an additional 25 pages of references. As Charles Weigl promises in his Preface to the book; the requisite tenacity I called upon to get through "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" paid off with having learned many things valuable.
The first surprise came in reading Chapter Four: "The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism", the text of an interview that was conducted by Peter Jay in 1976 for BBC's program London Weekend TV. During the course of that interview, Chomsky says: "Let me just say I don't really regard myself as an anarchist thinker. I'm, a derivative fellow traveler, let's say." That is a very strange comment for a number of reasons. First, the phrase "derivative fellow traveler" is quite an inscrutable, obtuse and non-committal phrase coming from a renowned linguist. I communicated with Chomsky a couple of times a few years ago. I was very impressed by the lucidity of his thought and clarity and exactitude of his phraseology. It was hard for me to believe that author of those correspondences is the same man who wrote " derivative fellow traveler, let's say". Second, Noam Chomsky is generally thought of as an Anarchist (after all, the book is entitled CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM and the editors refer to him as an Anarchist). He is generally revered as "one of us" among Anarchists. Is he not one of us? Third, he has written extensively about Anarchy and has made a considerable reputation and academic career being a spokesperson for Anarchy. Last, and most certainly not least, he states in "Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future" (1995): "I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes."
The second surprise that jumped off the pages of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM at me is something that Chomsky says in the course of a talk he delivered in Glasgow, Scotland in January of 1990 at the "Glasgow Conference on Self-Determination and Power: Life Task, Political Task." He said: "Fame, fortune, and respect await those who reveal the crimes of official enemies; those who undertake the vastly more important task of raising a mirror to ourselves can expect quite different treatment, in any society. George Orwell is famous for Animal Farm and 1984 which focus on the official enemy, or could at least be interpreted in this light. Had he kept to the more interesting and significant question of thought control in relatively free and democratic societies, it would not have been appreciated, and instead of wide acclaim, he would have faced silent dismissal or obloquy. Let us nevertheless turn to the more important and unacceptable questions." One would think that a comment like this would come from someone who, as a result of having treated the "important and unacceptable [societal] questions had endured the disgrace of "silent dismissal" or "obloquy". In fact, Noam Chomsky is far more famous, venerated and, as we shall see presently, handsomely remunerated than George Orwell every hoped to be. The back cover of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM effuses: "His brilliant critiques of - among other things – capitalism, imperialism, domestic repression and government propaganda, have become mini-publishing industries unto themselves." The back cover of the book also says: He lives in Lexington, Massachusetts. I was curious to know what has become of Lexington, MA since the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired there. I found the following as part of the entry "Lexington, Massachusetts" in Wikipedia: "The median income for a household in the town was $96,825, and the median income for a family was $111,899. Males had a median income of $81,857 versus $50,090 for females. The per capita income for the town was $46,119. About 1.8% of families and 3.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.2% of those under age 18 and 3.4% of those age 65 or over." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington,_Massachusetts). I should say, those are hardly the median incomes of soothsayers facing societal "silent dismissal or obloquy".
This point leads to the overriding revelation ("surprise", as the person who wrote the blurb on the back cover of the book would have it) of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHY. The book opens with Chomsky treating the phenomenon of what Conor Cruise O'Brien termed the "counterrevolutionary subordination" of the liberal intelligentsia "which", Chomsky tells us, "poses a threat to scholarly integrity in our own counterrevolutionary society…" (Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship, 1969). In Chapter Eight, "Goals and Visions", written in 1996, he would write: "The labor press also condemned what it called the "bought priesthood" of the media, the universities, and the intellectual class, apologists for power who sought to justify the despotism that was strengthening its grip and to instill its demeaning values." By 1996 Chomsky felt sure enough of himself and his position to not only be so rude as to cut off those who interviewed him in mid-question (Chapter Nine, Anarchism, Intellectuals and the State, 1996, and again in , his 2004 interview with Barry Pateman), but to be brazenly honest enough to say: "My short term goals are to defend and even strengthen elements of state authority which, though illegitimate in fundamental ways, are critically necessary right now to impede dedicated efforts to "roll back" the progress that has been achieved in extending democracy and human rights…"(Goals and Visions).
He would take self-revelation further still in his interview with Ziga Vodovnik in 2004, which constitutes the Chapter Eleven of the book. Therein he would state uninhibitedly: "As usual I don't see a conflict. It makes perfect sense to use the means that the nation states provide in order to resist exploitation, oppression, domination, violence and so on, yet at the same time try to override these means by developing alternatives…I am perfectly happy to write columns that are syndicated by the New York Times, which I do, and to writ in Z Magazine. It is no contradiction. In fact, let's take a look at this place (MIT). It has been a very good place for me to work; I've been able to do things I want to do. I have been here for fifty years, and have never thought about leaving it. But there are things about it that are hopelessly illegitimate. For example, it is a core part of the military-linked industrial economy. So you work within in and try to change it." Chomsky's true colors are emerging for all to see. Opportunists don't see conflicts. They just see opportunities for self-advancement. Neither do they experience moral cognitive dissonance. It is becoming eminently clear that Chomsky is one of the intellectuals in a state of "counterrevolutionary subordination". His job, as a hired mouthpiece for the establishment, is to present "trenchant analysis" (as the back cover of the book describes his work) for the purpose of providing the illusion to real Leftist and Anarchists who venerate Chomsky, that they have an indefatigable, articulate ally and that change for the better in society is in the offing.
As to his statement: "It makes perfect sense to use the means that the nation states provide in order to resist exploitation, oppression, domination, violence and so on, yet at the same time try to override these means by developing alternatives", one must ask: "What alternatives, Professor Chomsky, have you developed in the half-century that you've been working at the military industrial complex's fair-haired boy, MIT? Have "exploitation, oppression, domination, violence and so on" been eradicated, or at least reduced, during the period that Chomsky has enjoyed all of the advantages of being a Professor Emeritus at MIT?
He goes on, and here the surprises reach a crescendo: ""Take for example the rich people here. Take those like me who are in the top few percent of the income ladder. We could cut back our luxurious lifestyles, pay proper taxes, there are all sorts of things (That "all sorts of things" is left very much up in the air. Can the "father of modern linguistics" not articulate what sorts of things he is referring to? Parentheses mine.). I'm not even talking about Bill Gates, but people who are reasonably privileged. Instead of imposing the burden on poor people here and saying "well, you poor people have to give up your jobs because even poorer people need them over there, we could say "okay, we rich people will give up some small part of our ludicrous luxury and use it to raise living standards and working conditions elsewhere, and to let them have enough capital to develop their own economy, their own means." True enough. Rich people, Chomsky now including himself as being part of, could do all that. But then they might no longer be able to afford to live in Lexington, Massachusetts, particularly if they are prepared to give up more than a piddling "some small part" of their "ludicrous luxury". One doesn't set out on a career to mangle the minds of Leftists and Anarchists if one is the type of person who is genuinely satisfied with a smaller slice of the American apple pie.
CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM is a study in hypocrisy. It reveals Chomsky for exactly what he is: every slithering dishonest thing that he accuses the liberal intelligentsia, who at least have the decency to admit that they work for the government, of being. The smokescreen of being the very thing he has spent decades ostensibly decrying evidently worked. By the time that Chomsky began to speak conspicuously about who is really is and what he is really doing he was a member in good standing of the Industrial Workers of the World and highly respected and trusted by Leftists and Anarchists. It is truly ironic that a Professor Emeritus at MIT is a member of IWW. One might ask: Just which industry are you employed by? The military industrial complex, as are your colleagues? Having become accustomed to thinking of him as a friend, Leftists and Anarchists are finding it difficult to accept that they have been duped and betrayed by him. Barry Pateman, who seems to admire Chomsky tremendously writes in his Introduction to the book: "It's a position that will spark debate and, in the eyes of some, question his whole conception of anarchism". Evidently, Pateman is aware there are some Leftists and Anarchists who find reasons to entertain questions about Chomsky's sincerity. We can but hope that Pateman will join our ranks.
In addition to, but certainly not less important than, Chomsky's usefulness to the powers that be as someone who has infiltrated the Left and Anarchist camps in order to confuse and render them impotent; "His brilliant critiques of - among other things – capitalism, imperialism, domestic repression and government propaganda, have become mini-publishing industries unto themselves" (my italics), as I have quoted. Chomsky is generating a lot of money.
He is an disgrace to the memory of his illustrious father Ze'ev (William) Chomsky, the great Hebrew scholar, who was a member of the IWW not out of opportunism and as a "mole", but out of genuine ideology.
According to the Wikipedia entry "Noam Chomsky" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky), Yiddish was the family's first language, but it was "taboo" to be spoken at home. I am sure that Chomsky will understand these Yiddish words, the first and derived from Hebrew, the second still in use in German: Chutzpah and eine Schande.
Brazil
A Review of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM
I eagerly anticipated receiving CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM, Selected and Edited by Barry Pateman and published by AK Press 2005, which I had ordered from AK Press web site www.akpress.com. I was intrigued by the publisher's synopsis of the book. It is intended, so the publishers of the book enticed in their catalog, to be a statement of what Noam Chomsky is for, assuming that it is generally known what he is against.
Professor Chomsky and I share an interest in linguistics and anarchy. His father, William Chomsky, made significant contributions to the study of the Hebrew language. I was quite sure that I would be fascinated by the book. The blurb on the back cover effuses:"…Chomsky on Anarchism will be an exciting, and surprising, experience." Whoever wrote that was half right.
The book is a compilation of some of Chomsky's writings and interviews with him over the period of 1969 – 2004.
I began to read the first chapter "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship." The topic of the essay was certainly interesting enough. I soon found myself rather puzzled as to why I was plodding through some of the most boilerplate prose I have ever read. Had this really issued from the pen of the man who has been acclaimed as the "father of modern linguistics"? The writing style was muddy and wholly unentertaining. It was my interest in the subject of the Spanish Civil War that held me to that chapter. The author's style of writing certainly did not command my attention. I chalked the tedious prose of the first chapter of the book up to Chomsky's relative youth when he wrote the essay. I was wrong. The "style" is consistent throughout the book. The only "highlights" in Chomsky's prose is occasional, wholly superfluous sarcasm.
Chomsky does his homework, it must be said to his credit. The 75-page essay is accompanied by an additional 25 pages of references. As Charles Weigl promises in his Preface to the book; the requisite tenacity I called upon to get through "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship" paid off with having learned many things valuable.
The first surprise came in reading Chapter Four: "The Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism", the text of an interview that was conducted by Peter Jay in 1976 for BBC's program London Weekend TV. During the course of that interview, Chomsky says: "Let me just say I don't really regard myself as an anarchist thinker. I'm, a derivative fellow traveler, let's say." That is a very strange comment for a number of reasons. First, the phrase "derivative fellow traveler" is quite an inscrutable, obtuse and non-committal phrase coming from a renowned linguist. I communicated with Chomsky a couple of times a few years ago. I was very impressed by the lucidity of his thought and clarity and exactitude of his phraseology. It was hard for me to believe that author of those correspondences is the same man who wrote " derivative fellow traveler, let's say". Second, Noam Chomsky is generally thought of as an Anarchist (after all, the book is entitled CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM and the editors refer to him as an Anarchist). He is generally revered as "one of us" among Anarchists. Is he not one of us? Third, he has written extensively about Anarchy and has made a considerable reputation and academic career being a spokesperson for Anarchy. Last, and most certainly not least, he states in "Anarchism, Marxism and Hope for the Future" (1995): "I was attracted to anarchism as a young teenager, as soon as I began to think about the world beyond a pretty narrow range, and haven't seen much reason to revise those early attitudes."
The second surprise that jumped off the pages of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM at me is something that Chomsky says in the course of a talk he delivered in Glasgow, Scotland in January of 1990 at the "Glasgow Conference on Self-Determination and Power: Life Task, Political Task." He said: "Fame, fortune, and respect await those who reveal the crimes of official enemies; those who undertake the vastly more important task of raising a mirror to ourselves can expect quite different treatment, in any society. George Orwell is famous for Animal Farm and 1984 which focus on the official enemy, or could at least be interpreted in this light. Had he kept to the more interesting and significant question of thought control in relatively free and democratic societies, it would not have been appreciated, and instead of wide acclaim, he would have faced silent dismissal or obloquy. Let us nevertheless turn to the more important and unacceptable questions." One would think that a comment like this would come from someone who, as a result of having treated the "important and unacceptable [societal] questions had endured the disgrace of "silent dismissal" or "obloquy". In fact, Noam Chomsky is far more famous, venerated and, as we shall see presently, handsomely remunerated than George Orwell every hoped to be. The back cover of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM effuses: "His brilliant critiques of - among other things – capitalism, imperialism, domestic repression and government propaganda, have become mini-publishing industries unto themselves." The back cover of the book also says: He lives in Lexington, Massachusetts. I was curious to know what has become of Lexington, MA since the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired there. I found the following as part of the entry "Lexington, Massachusetts" in Wikipedia: "The median income for a household in the town was $96,825, and the median income for a family was $111,899. Males had a median income of $81,857 versus $50,090 for females. The per capita income for the town was $46,119. About 1.8% of families and 3.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.2% of those under age 18 and 3.4% of those age 65 or over." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexington,_Massachusetts). I should say, those are hardly the median incomes of soothsayers facing societal "silent dismissal or obloquy".
This point leads to the overriding revelation ("surprise", as the person who wrote the blurb on the back cover of the book would have it) of CHOMSKY ON ANARCHY. The book opens with Chomsky treating the phenomenon of what Conor Cruise O'Brien termed the "counterrevolutionary subordination" of the liberal intelligentsia "which", Chomsky tells us, "poses a threat to scholarly integrity in our own counterrevolutionary society…" (Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship, 1969). In Chapter Eight, "Goals and Visions", written in 1996, he would write: "The labor press also condemned what it called the "bought priesthood" of the media, the universities, and the intellectual class, apologists for power who sought to justify the despotism that was strengthening its grip and to instill its demeaning values." By 1996 Chomsky felt sure enough of himself and his position to not only be so rude as to cut off those who interviewed him in mid-question (Chapter Nine, Anarchism, Intellectuals and the State, 1996, and again in , his 2004 interview with Barry Pateman), but to be brazenly honest enough to say: "My short term goals are to defend and even strengthen elements of state authority which, though illegitimate in fundamental ways, are critically necessary right now to impede dedicated efforts to "roll back" the progress that has been achieved in extending democracy and human rights…"(Goals and Visions).
He would take self-revelation further still in his interview with Ziga Vodovnik in 2004, which constitutes the Chapter Eleven of the book. Therein he would state uninhibitedly: "As usual I don't see a conflict. It makes perfect sense to use the means that the nation states provide in order to resist exploitation, oppression, domination, violence and so on, yet at the same time try to override these means by developing alternatives…I am perfectly happy to write columns that are syndicated by the New York Times, which I do, and to writ in Z Magazine. It is no contradiction. In fact, let's take a look at this place (MIT). It has been a very good place for me to work; I've been able to do things I want to do. I have been here for fifty years, and have never thought about leaving it. But there are things about it that are hopelessly illegitimate. For example, it is a core part of the military-linked industrial economy. So you work within in and try to change it." Chomsky's true colors are emerging for all to see. Opportunists don't see conflicts. They just see opportunities for self-advancement. Neither do they experience moral cognitive dissonance. It is becoming eminently clear that Chomsky is one of the intellectuals in a state of "counterrevolutionary subordination". His job, as a hired mouthpiece for the establishment, is to present "trenchant analysis" (as the back cover of the book describes his work) for the purpose of providing the illusion to real Leftist and Anarchists who venerate Chomsky, that they have an indefatigable, articulate ally and that change for the better in society is in the offing.
As to his statement: "It makes perfect sense to use the means that the nation states provide in order to resist exploitation, oppression, domination, violence and so on, yet at the same time try to override these means by developing alternatives", one must ask: "What alternatives, Professor Chomsky, have you developed in the half-century that you've been working at the military industrial complex's fair-haired boy, MIT? Have "exploitation, oppression, domination, violence and so on" been eradicated, or at least reduced, during the period that Chomsky has enjoyed all of the advantages of being a Professor Emeritus at MIT?
He goes on, and here the surprises reach a crescendo: ""Take for example the rich people here. Take those like me who are in the top few percent of the income ladder. We could cut back our luxurious lifestyles, pay proper taxes, there are all sorts of things (That "all sorts of things" is left very much up in the air. Can the "father of modern linguistics" not articulate what sorts of things he is referring to? Parentheses mine.). I'm not even talking about Bill Gates, but people who are reasonably privileged. Instead of imposing the burden on poor people here and saying "well, you poor people have to give up your jobs because even poorer people need them over there, we could say "okay, we rich people will give up some small part of our ludicrous luxury and use it to raise living standards and working conditions elsewhere, and to let them have enough capital to develop their own economy, their own means." True enough. Rich people, Chomsky now including himself as being part of, could do all that. But then they might no longer be able to afford to live in Lexington, Massachusetts, particularly if they are prepared to give up more than a piddling "some small part" of their "ludicrous luxury". One doesn't set out on a career to mangle the minds of Leftists and Anarchists if one is the type of person who is genuinely satisfied with a smaller slice of the American apple pie.
CHOMSKY ON ANARCHISM is a study in hypocrisy. It reveals Chomsky for exactly what he is: every slithering dishonest thing that he accuses the liberal intelligentsia, who at least have the decency to admit that they work for the government, of being. The smokescreen of being the very thing he has spent decades ostensibly decrying evidently worked. By the time that Chomsky began to speak conspicuously about who is really is and what he is really doing he was a member in good standing of the Industrial Workers of the World and highly respected and trusted by Leftists and Anarchists. It is truly ironic that a Professor Emeritus at MIT is a member of IWW. One might ask: Just which industry are you employed by? The military industrial complex, as are your colleagues? Having become accustomed to thinking of him as a friend, Leftists and Anarchists are finding it difficult to accept that they have been duped and betrayed by him. Barry Pateman, who seems to admire Chomsky tremendously writes in his Introduction to the book: "It's a position that will spark debate and, in the eyes of some, question his whole conception of anarchism". Evidently, Pateman is aware there are some Leftists and Anarchists who find reasons to entertain questions about Chomsky's sincerity. We can but hope that Pateman will join our ranks.
In addition to, but certainly not less important than, Chomsky's usefulness to the powers that be as someone who has infiltrated the Left and Anarchist camps in order to confuse and render them impotent; "His brilliant critiques of - among other things – capitalism, imperialism, domestic repression and government propaganda, have become mini-publishing industries unto themselves" (my italics), as I have quoted. Chomsky is generating a lot of money.
He is an disgrace to the memory of his illustrious father Ze'ev (William) Chomsky, the great Hebrew scholar, who was a member of the IWW not out of opportunism and as a "mole", but out of genuine ideology.
According to the Wikipedia entry "Noam Chomsky" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky), Yiddish was the family's first language, but it was "taboo" to be spoken at home. I am sure that Chomsky will understand these Yiddish words, the first and derived from Hebrew, the second still in use in German: Chutzpah and eine Schande.
The following is my response to the comments made about this book review by someone who goes by the name Jakks on the Google Group "Socialism: An Intelligent Discussion", which can be found on the following URL: http://tinyurl.com/jj775
Thank you for your taking the time and trouble to express your viewpoint. I considered each point you raised.
I am still convinced that Chomsky is disingenuous, opportunistic and working for the government against the interests of Leftists and Anarchists, as the last part of this post will demonstrate.
He certainly collects fees like a real writer and lecturer despite the fact that he doesn't think he's very good at either.
I don't see him as a very good Libertarian Socialist either, living as he does in
I do not accept the fact that one has to make a name for oneself as an academic in order for his or her political opinions to be taken seriously. Does he presume to model himself on Einstein?
Most of the great names in Anarchist thought were not professional academics because they would not have the parameters of their thought described by a university as academics do. That's mere self-justification. Read what Helen Keller has to say about universities on the IWW site.
http://www.iww.org/culture/articles/hkeller1.shtml
To which he responded: "I always do that. I think it's been 40 years since I've gone anywhere just to give linguistics talks. I always combine them. In fact, usually I go for the social/political movements and give linguistics talks on the side. So, if I give a talk in the
The response above is an admission that he is giving his harmful lectures on Anarchy under the auspices of the Linguistics Department of MIT and on their nickel. MIT, which he states clearly in the book, is "a core part of the military-linked industrial economy" is paying him to do the Anarchist movement a disservice.
He also mentions one David Noble who used to work at MIT but who no longer does because "...he was a bit too radical." (Chapter Ten, Interview with Barry Pateman, 2004).
If Chomsky was half the radical he is making himself out to be he would not be working for MIT either.
The guy is as fake as a three-dollar bill.
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan,
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
In Commemoration of HENRIK IBSEN: 100 Years Since His Death
In commemoration of the brilliant playwright Henrik Ibsen who died one hundred years ago, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published the following article.
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/IbsenXP.htm
It is important that we learn who Henrik Ibsen really was and why he wrote what he did.
Ibsen is one of the author's whose works are sanitized when presented to schoolchildren as part of their curriculum. He is not presented as he really was – a revolutionary thinker. His work is not presented for what it was – trenchant critique of society and how it impacts on people.
Emma Goldman referred to Ibsen a number of times in her writings. She wrote: "In the literary world, the Humphrey Wards and Clyde Fitches are the idols of the mass, while but few know or appreciate the beauty and genius of an Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman: an Ibsen, a Hauptmann, a Butler Yeats, or a Stephen Phillips. They are like solitary stars, far beyond the horizon of the multitude." (Minorities Versus Majorities, 1910.)
Goldman refers to Ibsen once again in a piece entitled "Intellectual Proletarians", which she published in the February 1914 edition of her periodical "Mother Earth".
In addition to her reference to Ibsen in the essay, it is most worthwhile to read because in it Emma speaks to and about "all those who work for their living, whether with hand or brain, all those who must sell their skill, knowledge, experience and ability", whom she says, quite correctly "are proletarians".
"White collar workers" do not like to think of themselves as proletarians and wage slaves. Those descriptions, were they to use them at all, would be applied to factory workers and garbage collectors.
Emma reminds "white collar workers" that they too must sell themselves to an employer who deigns to exploit them. Therefore, they too are proletarians and wage slaves in every sense of the words and would do well to put their support behind their "blue collar" brothers and sisters in the struggle for emancipation.
Returning to Ibsen, Emma writes: "...those who are placed in positions which demand the surrender of personality, which insist on strict conformity to definite political policies and opinions, must deteriorate, must become mechanical, must lose all capacity to give anything really vital. The world is full of such unfortunate cripples. Their dream is to "arrive", no matter at what cost. If only we would stop to consider what it means to "arrive", we would pity the unfortunate victim. Instead of that, we look to the artist, the poet, the writer, the dramatist and thinker who have "arrived", as the final authority on all matters, whereas in reality their "arrival" is synonymous with mediocrity, with the denial and betrayal of what might in the beginning have meant something real and ideal.
The "arrived" artists are dead souls upon the intellectual horizon. The uncompromising and daring spirits never "arrive". Their life represents and endless battle with the stupidity and dull of their time. They must remain what Nietzsche calls "untimely", because everything that strives for new form, new expression or new values is always doomed to be untimely.
The real pioneers in ideas, in art and in literature have remained aliens to their time, misunderstood and repudiated. And if, as in the case of Zola, Ibsen and Tolstoy, they compelled their time to accept them, it was due to their extraordinary genius and even more so to the awakening and seeking of a small minority of new truths, to whom these men were the inspiration and intellectual support. Yet even to this day Ibsen is unpopular, while Poe, Whitman and Strindberg have never "arrived".
Matters have not changed since 1910. The public buys the work of hacks, while the geniuses are wholly ignored and languish in obscurity.
I likewise ask you, do you wish to be consumers of Stephen King and "The DaVinci Code" and "Geisha", or will you turn your attention to Henrik Ibsen and the other great writers and endeavor to hear what they said to you? Will you hear their voice of emancipation?
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
In commemoration of the brilliant playwright Henrik Ibsen who died one hundred years ago, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published the following article.
http://www.geocities.com/dordot2001/IbsenXP.htm
It is important that we learn who Henrik Ibsen really was and why he wrote what he did.
Ibsen is one of the author's whose works are sanitized when presented to schoolchildren as part of their curriculum. He is not presented as he really was – a revolutionary thinker. His work is not presented for what it was – trenchant critique of society and how it impacts on people.
Emma Goldman referred to Ibsen a number of times in her writings. She wrote: "In the literary world, the Humphrey Wards and Clyde Fitches are the idols of the mass, while but few know or appreciate the beauty and genius of an Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman: an Ibsen, a Hauptmann, a Butler Yeats, or a Stephen Phillips. They are like solitary stars, far beyond the horizon of the multitude." (Minorities Versus Majorities, 1910.)
Goldman refers to Ibsen once again in a piece entitled "Intellectual Proletarians", which she published in the February 1914 edition of her periodical "Mother Earth".
In addition to her reference to Ibsen in the essay, it is most worthwhile to read because in it Emma speaks to and about "all those who work for their living, whether with hand or brain, all those who must sell their skill, knowledge, experience and ability", whom she says, quite correctly "are proletarians".
"White collar workers" do not like to think of themselves as proletarians and wage slaves. Those descriptions, were they to use them at all, would be applied to factory workers and garbage collectors.
Emma reminds "white collar workers" that they too must sell themselves to an employer who deigns to exploit them. Therefore, they too are proletarians and wage slaves in every sense of the words and would do well to put their support behind their "blue collar" brothers and sisters in the struggle for emancipation.
Returning to Ibsen, Emma writes: "...those who are placed in positions which demand the surrender of personality, which insist on strict conformity to definite political policies and opinions, must deteriorate, must become mechanical, must lose all capacity to give anything really vital. The world is full of such unfortunate cripples. Their dream is to "arrive", no matter at what cost. If only we would stop to consider what it means to "arrive", we would pity the unfortunate victim. Instead of that, we look to the artist, the poet, the writer, the dramatist and thinker who have "arrived", as the final authority on all matters, whereas in reality their "arrival" is synonymous with mediocrity, with the denial and betrayal of what might in the beginning have meant something real and ideal.
The "arrived" artists are dead souls upon the intellectual horizon. The uncompromising and daring spirits never "arrive". Their life represents and endless battle with the stupidity and dull of their time. They must remain what Nietzsche calls "untimely", because everything that strives for new form, new expression or new values is always doomed to be untimely.
The real pioneers in ideas, in art and in literature have remained aliens to their time, misunderstood and repudiated. And if, as in the case of Zola, Ibsen and Tolstoy, they compelled their time to accept them, it was due to their extraordinary genius and even more so to the awakening and seeking of a small minority of new truths, to whom these men were the inspiration and intellectual support. Yet even to this day Ibsen is unpopular, while Poe, Whitman and Strindberg have never "arrived".
Matters have not changed since 1910. The public buys the work of hacks, while the geniuses are wholly ignored and languish in obscurity.
I likewise ask you, do you wish to be consumers of Stephen King and "The DaVinci Code" and "Geisha", or will you turn your attention to Henrik Ibsen and the other great writers and endeavor to hear what they said to you? Will you hear their voice of emancipation?
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)