Pursuant yesterday's post, in which I mentioned some aspects of Anarcho-Zionism, I have noticed two things.
One of them is the intemperate fury of various individuals writing on the Cleveland Indy-media site. Apparently the concept of anarcho-Zionism struck a chord. And made them quake. These are not people capable of dealing with ideas that undermine their political superstions; there are profoundly fearful little folk in Cleveland.
The other thing I've noticed is the blog of Aaron van Praag. Who quoted me, and who subsequently was quoted to me by someone else. Interesting.
I shall return the favour.
An recent post by Aaron van Praag can be found here:
[Compatibility of Judaism and Anarchy]
"Fundamentally, religion is not by definition anti-revolutionary. It has been argued that religions, like the societies in which they flourish, go through both revolutionary and anti-revolutionary phases. Christianity in its early centuries was profoundly revolutionary, but having become the ideology of the establishment, has subsequently been more anti-revolutionary than not. Change, in the eyes of the church, implied threat. "
This actually reflects the transformation of Christianity from a mediterranean cargo-cult to a symbol of Rome, and, after Rome fell, a bastion of stability and order during the barbarian invasions. It should be noted that since then, this has been one of the strongest (self-assumed) roles of the church, even when the attack has come from other Christians. As such, it has echoes in all ideologies formed by the Christian environment, such as the various socialist and extremist movements.
"Judaism lacks both the Christian establishment-supporting tendency, and the Islamic religious authority as a main component in political life attitude. There is no universally acknowledged supremacy within Judaism, nor an ideology commonly accepted by the majority of Jews. In consequence, claims of religious need, or scriptural imperative, are given scant credence by most of the intended audience. This is in effect a democratic tendency within the tradition, and a strength utterly lacking in most other religions. Judaism is, in one way of looking, naturally and instinctively anarchic. "
One of the 'cultural imperatives' within the Jewish tradition is the tendency to argue over points of interpretation. Disputation, from a Judaic perspective, is part of learning the material. This cannot be said about Christianity or Islam.
Perhaps more importantly, the habitus of scholars in the Judaic tradition was also training for life, and was applied to mundane matters, whereas in Christianity (and Islam) scholarship often devolved into criticism of life - specifically, how others chose to live.
This is an aspect that Marxism and its adherents have in common with their Christian kinfolk - Marxism is often closer to fundamentalist Christianity than any other creed.
Like all fanatics, the Marxist is a critic but not a practitioner.
"...anarchism is, logically, almost an instinctively Judaic political movement. It cannot be otherwise. "
Anybody who has contrasted the militaristic and rigid uniformity of most church experiences with the chaotic individualism of davening cannot disagree with this statement.
A shul is by definition an anarcho-Zionist collective.
Please - feel free to disagree.