Wednesday, June 22, 2005

On Becoming a Muslim Anarchist

At my mosque - I say ‘my’ mosque, but to be honest I haven’t seen the inside of the place for a year or so - there are a gaggle of Tablighi puritans who like to keep me company whenever I feel inclined to show my face there. I’ve sat in on several of their meetings, where there was much talk of hell from the reformed gangster turned guru who presides over this particular cult cell. Last time I was amongst them, I admit I was a hungry man desperate for spiritual food, and so gladly scoffed up their rude spiritual hash, despite its lack of essential nutrients and its at times bitter taste. Not surprisingly, it wasn’t long before I was looking for something more nourishing and wholesome.

Then one Friday, I arrived early for Jummah and encountered a small, elderly Indian man on the mosque steps whom I had never met or indeed noticed before. He gently mocked the Tablighi bro' who was washing the steps, laughing as he explained how "these fundamentalists" were so ignorant. I could see the young Tablighi brother boiling with anger at this old man's comments, but both principle and no doubt social sanction prevented him from expressing his belligerence openly. Deciding he had cleansed the mosque entrance to Allah’s satisfaction, he thus quickly departed and left me to the elder brother’s more illuminating company.

My elderly friend turned out to me something of a scholar, or at least so he told me. He had studied under some of the great scholars back in India, he said, but today there were few to compete with these formidable spirits. There was something about his lightness of being, and the glint in his eye, that made me think he was a devotee of Tassawuf. Then he did something which scared me half to death. He wrapped his arm tightly around the back of my neck, pulled my ear right up to his mouth, and whispered insistently:

“Listen to me! Whatever path you take, you must believe it with all your heart. It is no good to simply follow others, do you hear? Do what you think is true!"

I have tried to follow the old man’s words, but my worry has always been that I would fall into the vortex of self-worship, or devotion to huwā (whim), and thus commit the grave sin of shirk. Yet the more I tried to find something to follow that seemed true and right, the more transient and uncertain I found the belief system. Should I be Sunni or Shi’a? Should I be progressive or traditional? Should I be Salafi or Hanafi? I didn't understand where I was going wrong. Then a phrase I read, or perhaps a passing thought, reminded me that, when I became a Muslim, I had cut myself off from my previous beliefs. I now realise that was a mistake, and almost certainly the cause of my aimless wondering.

Prior to my conversion, I had always considered myself an Anarchist - although one that believed in a spiritual reality. My anarchism was founded on a mistrust of all forms of coerced authority, however tacit, and like Emma Goldman, I believed that through education people can learn to live in peace and co-operate freely and equitably. I have seen power and authority abused in so many contexts over the years– in schools, special education, psychiatry, by Landlords, and of course by governments. And religious leaders. I am now convinced more than ever that power, above all else, is the evil that corrupts otherwise good and well meaning people through forcing them to compromise with what they know is wrong.

Thanks be to God, I now realise Anarchism is the hermeneutic through which I must approach and realise the truth. In Islam, the only submission that I can live by is that which is embraced with the spirit of freedom and with my heart full of joy. And so in the Name of Allah, I testify that there is no god but God and Muhammad (aws) is God's prophet and messenger; and in seeking to establish a peaceful and loving relationship with The One through revelation, reason and God's signs, I hereby refuse to compromise with any form of institutional power, be it judicial, religious, social, corporate or political, insha Allah.

17 comment(s):

  • This is an impressive doctrine. I have to consider it.

    By Blogger Al, at 6/22/2005 10:04:00 PM  

  • Salaams,

    I'm very much interested in where the intersection is between Islam and leftist politics generally. (It comes up alot in my blog) Personally I wouldn't use the term "anarchist" for myself but I would say that I'm suspicious of the different ways that folks abuse their power.

    And I think one could very easily make the case that in Islam, "submission to God" frees one from submission to other forms of hierarchy.

    (But on the other hand, one can also find texts which can suggest endorsement for certain kinds of authority (in the family, government, shuyukh, etc... even in tablighi activities, small groups have an ameer)

    I guess you can reconcile the two perspectives by thinking of one as relative and the other as absolute. As you emphasize the absolute authority of God and get more and more concerned with it by itself, you will put less weight on earthly authority. (And vice versa)

    Actually in terms of Islamic history it is almost ironic because I've heard that in some respects the Khawarij were more democratic or closer to being anarchists, but in other respects I think of them as being harsh and overbearing.

    Just a thought

    By Blogger Abdul-Halim V., at 6/29/2005 01:28:00 PM  

  • Nothing is Forbidden, Everything is Permitted'
    Hasan Bin Sabbah

    See my article:
    Gnostic Heresy in Islam

    The whisper in the ear is the direct initiation into gnosis (secret knowledge)in the Druze tradition and that of other Sufi sects.

    And you may wish to read the Kasidah by Captain Sir Richard Burton.

    Be thine own Deus: Make self free,

    Liberal as the circling air:

    Thy Thought to thee an Empire be;

    Break every prisoning lock and bar:

    Stanzas from the Kasidah

    by Sir Richard Burton

    This was written by Sir Richard Burton under the pseudonym of Hâjî Abdû El-Yezdî after his return from Mecca in 1854. Observant readers will note that the Kasîdah contains many references to 19th Century scientific and philosophical concepts, most notably the evolution of species. Nonetheless, it is a Sufi text to the core, and one of the few instances of Burton writing in the first person about his belief system, albeit under the cloak of pseudonymity. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a Kasidah is a classical Arabic or Persian panegyric, which must begin with a reference to a forsaken campground, followed by a lament, and a prayer to ones comrades to halt while the memory of the departed dwellers is invoked. The same rhyme has to run through the entire composition, not matter how long the poem is.


    THE Translator has ventured to entitle a "Lay of the Higher Law" the following composition, which aims at being in advance of its time; and he has not feared the danger of collision with such unpleasant forms as the "Higher Culture." The principles which justify the name are as follows:--

    The Author asserts that Happiness and Misery are equally divided and distributed in the world.

    He makes Self-cultivation, with due regard to others, the sole and sufficient object of human life.

    He suggests that the affections, the sympathies, and the "divine gift of Pity" are man's highest enjoyments.

    He advocates suspension of judgment, with a proper suspicion of "Facts, the idlest of superstitions."

    Finally, although destructive to appearance, he is essentially reconstructive.

    For other details concerning the Poem and the Poet, the curious reader is referred to the end of the volume.

    F. B.

    VIENNA., Nov. 1880.

    And of course then there is the great Sufi text that influenced Burton and the Islamophiles in England in the 1880's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

    By Blogger EUGENE PLAWIUK, at 7/24/2005 01:00:00 AM  

  • i've been a muslim all my life, and believe that i'm fairly religious. in the sense that i believe wholeheartedly in Allah, and while i have questioned the Qu'ran i've never questioned my faith. lately i've found myself becoming very anarchistic, and decided to back up my beliefs with theory. pretty much everything i've read has said that it's impossible to be both an anarchist and religious.

    i'm still trying to reconcile the two, because i KNOW that i believe in Allah, yet i also think see an anarchistic society as something to strive for. i came to pretty much the same conclusion - i refuse to accept the 'authority' of any other human.

    that said, i can't escape the fact that there are numerous passages in the qu'ran which are homophobic and endorse a partiarchal society. if the qu'ran is the word of Allah, how can i accept both it and anarchism?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/08/2005 12:24:00 AM  

  • A Muslim Anarchist is a contradiction in terms. You can be a Muslim and submit to the authority of Allah, or you can be an anarchist and submit to no authority whatsoever.

    After all, anarchism, at least of the Russian type, involves a rejection of BOTH political and spiritual authority.

    Allah is Islam is both a spiritual and political authority. (Islam is both deen and dawlah.) So a Muslim anarchist is very much a contradiction in terms. It is like speaking of a free slave or an illiterate reader.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9/15/2005 09:22:00 AM  

  • So you want to be a Muslim anarchist ?

    okay.. you should accept these theorems:

    0. In the life of mankind, Islam completely buried since 1923. THE PURPOSE of Muslim today is establishment of God's Sovereign
    . The Kingdom of God is WITHIN

    1. Islam is The Way, not a religion.. since religion is poisonous and like addictive drug
    (QS 3:83) no wonder if ALL THINGs in this universe are called Muslim

    2. Iman is not just a "blind-belief", it's base should be on the development of your intellect to understand WHY you should accept the teachings of God. (QS 10:100).

    3. Iman should be applied by following the Struggle of Messengers, No Faith Without Deeds.

    4. NO WORSHIP in Islam, by accepting worship, you limit your Intellect by acquiring fear. Islam is about how to OBEY The Law applied in Quran and Nature. The rites in Islam is facilities to TEACH you the concept of how to apply The Law, and the development of your spiritual state.

    By Blogger Abu Riza, at 10/04/2005 10:13:00 PM  

  • Salam, what a discussion on wheter someone can be a Muslim and an Anarchist, I would like to say: why not? You might think that Islam has a strickt set of rules, I say guidelines to be a good human and a good Muslim I am more than willing to follow. I was not called to faith, I was born into it but taken out as I was born into a non-Muslim family, as such I can say I came back to Islam out of my own free will. Establishing the fact that Islam has a set of rules, and to me not even many however that is subjective. Anarchism at the other hand, oishee says he wonders as he everything he reads shows that it's impossible to be both an anarchist and religious. Who says that? And why does the person who say that have the authority to decide as such?

    It appears to be a very common misconception to think that anarchism is a-political and per se without any order or control. It just says that every individual has the right to choose his own course. However, societies can't survive without coordination and as such every anarchist philosopher will "advice" to create some mechanisms to be free but to cooperate. And what does the Noble Qur'an teaches us: If you were to obey a human being like yourselves, then verily you indeed would be losers - Holy Qur'an Surah 23 Al-Mu'minun Ayat 34

    So losers are the ones who indeed listen to someone else, funnily a lot individuals I knew who called themselves anarchists listen to others and obey. I gave lectures in anarchistic philosophy while still in secondary school, after which people came to me and asked me what actions had to be taken to press our point (school politics in the Nethelands can be very hard and a breeding ground for activists or politicians), whatever I told them, they executed blindly. Seeminly forgetting my whole speech, some people prefer to be lead I guess. Anyway, Muslim Anarchist, I think it's a possible and viable option and add a great school of thought to progressive Muslims world wide.

    By Blogger Erik, at 11/12/2005 09:32:00 AM  

  • You need to chck faithfreedom.org more often. The left is full of "dhimmis" i.e; useful idiots who blather on about what a peaceful religion Islam is. It isn't. Sorry dude, I don't fall for the anarchist-Muslim hybrid. It's delusional; . WHat has anarchism ever had to do with a murderous rapist and pedophile. Shame on the likes of Chomsky, Vanessa Redgrave and Edward Said. It's easy for them to trivialize the sufferings of others as long as it doesn't get in the way of their commitment of promoting Islam as a religion of peace.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1/12/2006 11:50:00 AM  

  • As it has been pointed out anarchism is an ideal it would however never work as a political system - it thus serves a something we can strive to but never reach and along the way influences what ever system/government we are subject to.

    Living life as a good Muslim is something that is also strived for - how often though is perfection reached in our living? Again perfection is something we strive for and albeit a few achieve.

    Through the commmon ideals between Muslim and Anarchist I believe in the validity of a Muslim Anarchist - furthermore I believe that the role is an important one of amongst other things re-examining and trying to influence and change what can be considered "political Islam".

    For surely all can't believe the Muslim world is as harmonious as God inteneded?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1/12/2006 04:35:00 PM  

  • As a secular Anarchist-Communist who was raised Catholic, this discussion interests me alot. I've always felt that there was alot of overlap between the utopia of Anarchism and the utopia of different faiths. While I will be the first to say that organized religion on earth is responsible for alot of violence, I don't think that it completely negates the actions of those who use religon for good.

    Unlike communism, anarchism doesn't have a universal symbol that can be understand in any language. No matter what language you speak, you can understand the hammer and the sickle and figure out what it means. But if you speak Japanese or Arabic, the Circle A of anarchy becomes a bit of a problem. I think in alot of ways Anarchism has been eurocentric, but it doesn't have to be. I think overcoming the language barrier would be a good first step towards bringing anarchist texts to the Muslim world, and then to engage in discussion about the ideas in them.

    One of the things Kropotkin was famous for pointing out was how mutual aid and anarchist ways of living and thought emerge in various ways in all human society. So it doesn't matter if the society is Buddhist, Christian, Islamic or Atheist, it seems to me that there would be much those societies can learn from anarchist praxis (thought and practice) and much more that anarchists can learn from those society's. I know that I would love to learn more about Islam's prohibition against Ursury (interest on loans, etc) Would capitalism be able to exist if such a ban were put in place?

    One of the things that pushed me towards being a non-believer was the heavy emphasis in the churches that I went to on the idea that God was a king and that heaven was his kingdom and that he made these laws that he could be the judge jury and executioner on. It never seemed very democratic to me, but I fully respect other people's faith, as I see how people like Dorothy Day, Camillo Torres, Fr. Ray Bougeous and others have used their faith to democratize everyday life.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5/15/2006 12:46:00 AM  

  • Islams & Anarchisms

    Towards the creation of Islamic
    by Mohamed Jean Veneuse - APOC

    In accordance with the Poststructuralist theories espoused a philosopher in some book, interprets that “if power creates its own resistance, then the liberation from specific forms of power must take into account of the kind of resistance that is being engaged in, on pain of repeating that which one is trying to escape”.
    Dimensions-The Epimenides paradox:
    Towards the creation of Islamic
    Poststructuralist Anarchist

    Preface: Times of Tearful Kings
    Yesterday I woke up sucking a lemon. This is a mad pornographic confession of a proposed real. An infinite conversation coupled with silence, dispersed and reserved, very much alive in an infinite curvature of space, and intertwined, with the paradoxical limit of a realistic exacerbation of a frenzied virtual temporary autonomous zone. Confined in a simulacrum, frenzied, institutionalized and absurd diabolic racist structure, transpiring visa a vie the portal of a delinquent and schizophrenic mind, with a pure intention at heart attaining all the while a calculable “Weberian” notion of a charismatic leader, yet attempting at abstaining from vanity and its lured genealogy through a forced de-ejaculation of desire. Try and exercise will. The rapid production of this seemingly meta-theoretical language is potentially transportable to those at the grass-roots. Otherwise this production which is fed has resulted in nothing but a hygienic wreckage of my intentions and henceforth subsequent actions. This is not the Aalim’s (scholar’s) “know it all”, nor “is it a know it” anything, but rather it is a subtle confrontation, a shipwreck if you will, that through God’s help is left seductively open and filled with void and thus requires in essence Tayseer (Henceforth appeal to a disarmament of the AK and the laborious attempt at visibility to make easy), Ijtihad (the struggle whose doors have, out of hope, remain to be addressed as “the permanently possible”) and a form of initial dialogue(s) between the multiplicities that chose to engage in its dock(s); namely, hope.
    Its attempt at evoking the rizhomatic (think of maps and ask yourself where they begin and if they end) is proposed to vulgarly assign and emphasize a “perhaps” to the possibility and then to observe. One prays that it will allow for the manifestation of an orgasmic pleasure of sorts. A smile as an act of charity maybe all that this engagement amounts to, if not regarded as a childish ignorant heap of trash. Yet the room is left open delivering an unbound ‘libidinal’ crystalline energy which could act in this play as a forum for opposition and an alternative to the bound productive, discovered and undiscovered, governing or autonomous bodies that lie in limbo and their respective forces within these maps and networks. Power gives rise to its own resistance…Then what?
    This is the beginning of the end of the beginning. This is an Islamic Poststructuralist Anarchistic Interpretation. Domains will be provoked and the potential for any “venereal diseases” Wazo Bi-Allah, that may infect this interpretation will be injected, as absolute consciousness is interrupted by sensation, intentionally to allow for subsequent interpretations to remain autonomous and for it never to become reducible to a “given”. Rather in order to “understand” what has become a “habit” or “ritual” which a plenty have been accustomed to, it becomes necessary to evoke the conscious and unconscious. However what the interpretation requires are the “gift(s)”, knowledge and practice, and in daylight the outcome is a reciprocal “counter-gift”; it is freed. Respectively, pardon the vazaha poetry.
    Paths of Nomadic Germinations & Politics of tactical Affinities
    Bismi Allah. Alhum Ishrah Lee sadree Wayisr Lee Amree Washrah Okdatan Men Lisanee Yafqahu Qawlee. Learned to stay awake early but someone killed my show. You made your bed so lay in it. We (Those signified and whom identify as Muslim) ended up like the rose that grew from a razor blocked underground, only to find a posting upon rising to the surface; “No Trespassing”. Graffiti: “Fuck your politicians and Holy Wars” become visible and discovered, infiltrating our psyche as they “texture” the surface. Wrote this one dialing 1-800-Brooklyn after pulling up a green chair and watching Islam(s) being worn out, disheveled like clothes (Ibn Kathir: 87), pondering all the meanwhile when the Heaven will split asunder (Qurran: 84:1). Aggressive passion begins to beckon that one exercise patience and avoid bending the knee to superiors whilst stamping on subordinates; as Chinese Mandarins accomplished with the autonomous Forbidden City. Mandarins danced around gear shifts and slit through clouds with tactical magic potions for love and war as they migrated in rotation from province to province, like infinite nomadic Hijras (from Mecca to Medina and back), without knowledge of the dialects or matters of fate (for the “other” replace fate with chance). No Grat houses in England. No castles in Rhine. No grand villas in Italy. No city temples in Japan. No abodes amongst the freedom fighters or suffrage for Muslims and people of color other than the kill switch of palpable loneliness. Even in pretense, amongst clouds, we pretend to travel in player modes, as panther packs congregating underneath the flags of “black, shades of green and colored” skin, conflictingly embracing only “white masks” territorially, economically, politically and psychologically. We toil during Friday and Taraweeh prayers of the fasting month ecstatically in our proposed success as outlawed post-modern small time traders. In the meanwhile our mentality coincides now with the multiplicities of schizophrenic identities, a simulacrum if you will, where we are copies of an original whose meaning is “lost but somehow not forgotten”, engaging in ritual without a draft in our mental ecosophy. We are caught in “drama syndrome”, re-enacting the perpetual “guilt” of the colonialized. For some caught in an extreme we play a game of constructing the equivalent of a revolutionary crises, neurotically embracing a profound role within our breasts, suffering from dis-utopia as screams of reciprocated “blames” are requested from God upon the lured “white devil”. A “white devil” they proclaim has robbed us through appalling battles and left us bleeding. “The White devil” deprived us of the possibility of being human. The resultant is an alienation, a propagation of the racial stereotypes in an implacable drift, to the point of an absolute void, where what you do say embraces an a point of absolute void as an attempt at liberating yourself from isolation. To do those who embark on this, the necessity arises to examine ?????? (that which you are hiding from), quite blocking every compromise resulting from a defeat and construct away out of your identity crises and God knows best.
    People of color keep the Gestapos packed, locked up in state prisons, busy by their own accord and as they fill up, the torturers, ourselves, screaming “How strange that it is that we suffer everlastingly?” The metaphysical denotation “everlastingly” is now a proclamation for everything discovered, but indeed the responsibility to venture on a search for the “Forbidden City” has faded within us as an inspiration Wa-oz Bi-Allah (God Forbid). People of color, for the most part, have forsaken justice and embraced absolute delivery as fair exchange for our “suffering”. We have become introverts of Jean Veneuse, categorizing “other” people of color in a tripod neurotic eye as we become frustrated with the anguish created by our own abandonment and the aggression which partially arises, due to its amalgamation with the devaluation and degradation that flows resentfully out of us. Repeat it three times: “Ruined are those who insist on hardship in matters of the Faith.'’
    Our prayers (intentions) ought to correspond to our compromised walks (actions), sedating an eruption within the ego of clusters, that are connected via networks, due to a mythical reaction (when based on homogenous categorizations based solely on categories of race, gender, ethnicity, religion and the like and dislike) to chosen dead and false germinations that remain unresponsive. Imprisoned, lacking air and surface space despite the barren land that lays ahead, dignity and strength waver, ever since we relapsed away from affinity based germination. For Muslims, veiled supplications are aroused leaving our faces with a place to sprout and live, though in the meanwhile we engage in heresy and hypocrisy, refusing to plant seeds (where intentions correspond to actions, within one’s best ability) sincerely, awaiting instead for God delivery us and resurrections to commence (Musnad Imam Ahmad: 2: 191). How then could supplications be accepted, when our acquired property is through theft, the food we eat is based upon the sufferings of a fellow species, and the drink is laced with additives?
    Alas, every dormant formation needs to erupt following a cycle of uprisings and resistances against its seed coating(s). The question is when, internally and externally, will adequate moisture (that is the undiffused Ijtihad) dialectically vaporize into an identifiable Jihad on every discovered and undiscovered front. Repeat it three times: “Ruined are those who insist on hardship in matters of the Faith.'’ The hallucinogen oxygen and light require the temporal abandonment of the underground whip; to allow the hybridization process into the radicle, a temporary photosynthesized uprising, to commence (over come your fear and develop your difference as an “other” while recognizing potential roots from building solidarity with someone else). Otherwise and God knows best, expect situations of frustrations, instead of writing letters to our unborn seeds as a starting point for autonomy. Watch a priest carrying a prayer book, thought to be not subject to interpretations save from their end, and make him/her believe that the book of prayers is nothing more than a deck of cards to be adopted and implemented in given circumstances and situations. The echo of Ijtihad reigns. This is an offering of a folklore constituted in the tactical magic potions of poststructuralist germination(s). That is, the ability to partake in imperceptible transitions of maneuverability in accordance with the parlor inadequacies of these “postmodern” times. Allow for colored shadows to emerge, in place of the white masks and permit mobility on the surface level without a hegemonic strategy of one for all and all for one, in sight. Recall “Allah loves a slave who is pious, free of all wants and the unnoticed (Riyad Al-Saliheen: 597).
    An infant is unaware of the limits to his/her own power of engaging in space maneuvers and thus becomes a Wizard of Oz because of the very absence of the superego in companionships, particularly those based on mutual struggles. The dormant superego has yet to access the child, making it revolt against itself and turning it into a coward. In midsummer festivals of Vedic times priests and prostitutes reviled one another and then engaged in intercourse; for the purpose(s) of germination(s) and Allah (SWT) knows best. This intercourse is like the helper cells of germination(s), co-existing with one another, intersecting at various junctures, easing the burden upon one another and themselves by confiscating residues and remnants of that authority that we covet for, forgetting meanwhile that the “original seed of that authority”, “will be a cause of humiliation and remorse on the Day of Resurrection (Riyad Al-Saliheen)” & capitalism, simply two of the suppressor cells. The new ghetto: Asabiyah (Social solidarity).
    Begin to run wild and “Plough (the earth) well, for verily, plough-ing is a blessed task…sow many seeds” and become “like seed produce that puts forth its sprout then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers” (Qurran: 48:29).
    Now imagine if you could backup, abuse your own kind because they are of a different “race”, with your supreme ideology; you become null and void, with an empty soul, losing the will to survive all the meanwhile claiming your innocence on grounds of insanity because of what “wrong” has been done towards you. Till the end of time you lose touch, become arrogant, as you hegemonically terrorize and destroy those perceived to be below you, while dismissing that “On Doomsday, if any one has a palm-shoot in hand, he should plant it” (Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal: 5:440 and 3:184). Now who is to say if I am right and wrong, but what I see is breathing, raw and closer to achieve for tilling that which is barren. The missed Darce (lesson) created contemporary preachers positioned on phony pillars, a buried Ijtihad where every hand is a “losing” hand.
    The last sermon of the Prophet, is now diluted, as all that is now beckoned and encountered is a proclamation and indoctrination of re-claimed islam-itude(s). We have created the anti-racism & fascism for our selves and abandoned by auditing the last sermon as diversity, multiplicity, the infinite Différend, is now being proposed to be an “ailment”. Need we be reminded that “an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action” (The Last Sermon). “All actions are but by intentions (that between the breasts),” and that everyone shall have that which is intended (Saheeh Al-Bukhari and Muslim). The demagogic “losing” hand engaged in running away, cheats its marriage and responsibility with an artificial superiority claiming authority, subjugating it with calculations of judgment after judgment, and as it is afraid to lower its guns to keep. It is now hereditary, this industrialized “claim to righteousness”, piety and the reciprocal ritualized pressure on a wound adorably still bleeding and a scar regulated by an addiction to terror. Perhaps I am forsaken. The demagogues have apparently attained knowledge of all our intentions, reconciling an abandoned monotheism with an embraced polytheism. The sun of your native “identity” is now nothing but a shadow, regurgitating the flood of lofty empty words as you listen to a tyrants voice and the “objectionable” is neither altered, with the hand, tongue nor with the heart.
    An alternative lays in germinating. Germinate whilst you are in this world like a stranger, nomad, traveler/wayfarer for you know not “when evening comes, do not expect (to live till) morning, and when morning comes, do not expect (to live till) evening. Take from your health (a preparation) for your illness and from your life for your death” (Forty Hadith). Magic (Germinations) are revolts against the discovered “losing” hands of these demagogues. Embrace the sorcerer’s tactics as the Pitjentara youth did at the age of eight or ten in their sublime conquests for “white flesh” across desert terrains; embrace rudimentary nomadic fashions. Flirt with art and transition slowly from the insatiable empathetic abandonment coloured neurotic, to a network mosaic of refracted white tonalities. Accept going blind and stand on surface seashells only to abandon words, embrace silence and temporarily privilege another. Fast for a month in solidarity with those unprivileged. Feel what it is to have nothing for you are nothing. Witness the occupations of a former dispossessed network and the potential that is now paraded in an endeavoured conquest. Practice austerities for unions with the infinite.
    Rhythmically even ballads of dead soldiers germinate in prison cells with no witnesses to scream bloody murder. Dis-alienate for “It is He Who sends down rain from the skies; with it We produce green [crops], out of which we produce grain, heaped up [at harvest]; out of the date-palm and its sheaths [or spathes] [come] clusters of dates hanging low and near; and [then there are] gardens of grapes, and olives, and pomegranates, each similar [in kind] yet different [in variety]; when they begin to bear fruit, feast your eyes with the fruit and the ripeness thereof. Behold! in these things there are signs for people who believe.(Qurran-6: 99)” For those who don’t have none but want some; let the punks know about the prelude: Everything they owe stipulated in the “constitution”.
    Watch and witness the concepts of power and religion, as they de-funk, within Eurocentric Classical Traditions in Anarchism(s). “My People” are now living somewhere free and you begin to get a flash back: “You got what is mine and I want that”.
    If we choose to rise then we become subjected to the stipulated personified union of an ideology of recently lost times, that shed tattoo tears for most cosmological inspirations, migrating instead to an overture of almost exclusively psychological value. Tectonic lines eroticize the isomorphic naked reality that lies in the midst of its “fantastic” fog leading to Astigmatism. With Astigmatism commissioned visions pry into the umbrella despite the image’s duty-bound alliance with the respective “distorted” and wavy mirror. To assume that the process of intercourse, between unions, has reached climax (no longer space for tactical affinities) acknowledges a restriction, impoverishment and paralyzed de-amplification of the skill in being somewhere else and seeing the mistress without feeling dutifully bound to her by marriage. Alternatively, one ought to ride the wave of the germinating nomad embracing the radiance without disregarding that which remains as multiplicities of discovered and undiscovered background choruses. Prepare an arsenal and reserve of disorderly, flourishing and “abused” radical “subaltern” literature(s) transitioning from the politics of demand to politics of tactical affinities in an attempt to minimize the hierarchy in your own mind, thereby terrorizing the manipulating and privileged center of marriage; ‘totalities and closed holisms’ of “Classical” Traditions. Our Muqqadimah (the beginning), pays homage to my Brother Ibn Khaldun, is a cloud ushered beneath the winds, not as a reaction to confusion, but as a hybrid of blackouts and the evident lack of sufficient light, for the spiritual and mental infinite family of toric singularities, belonging to known or unknown horizons. So let it begin. Power does not stop here. Let it dislodge into migratory radicles sufficed by intentions and actions dependent on Asabiyah(s); Affinities.
    An Exodus towards “Chaos”
    The birth of a “sub-cultural race” had begun. It’s inherent desires where in setting the stage to reconstruct the eminent and transcendent double-edged sword of worldly ignorance and venom. Its image would spiral continuously over the course of its history, resurrecting itself not merely as an idea passed from generation to generation, like that shadow of a whisper in the dark alleyways of the urbanized slums, but rather as a way of life.
    European Classical Anarchism(s) conception of power and religion, require a rewinding of the tape back to the schisms between Bakunin and Marx, of the Paris Commune of 1871 and the International Working Men’s Association of 1872, through Michael Bakunin’s to its influence by Poststructuralist philosophies, where “minds and things” are called to jurists for deliberation, as for bodies (astral and vegetal) they are language where every word is a symptom.
    Bakunin emphasized the indispensable need for the “disassembly” of both the State and the Western church for “the real enfranchisement of society” to begin. It is through this process of disassembly that these two top-down, hierarchical, exploitative, and suppressive structures are broken down and that their power is redistributed. Thus, there I derive, though do not constrain my language to two postulates that could be derived or are given rise to from the above statement: one regarding power and the second pertaining to religion. The first postulate recognizes that if there is to be any future for “humanity”, then the social setting in which they reside ought to be dictated not by an authority figure ( A Hobessian Sovereign or Leviathan), a ruling aristocracy, or even a national assembly, but rather, by an inverted “approach”. This bottom-up approach occurs through the “free association or federation of workers, starting with the associations, then going on to the communes, the regions, the nations, and, finally, culminating in a great international and universal federation”. This proposal highlights the nature of European Classical Anarchism(s) analysis of countering and resisting state power, unlike dimensions and interpretations of Marxism (artists that gave rise to the work to come), and the state’s insatiable infatuation with using a suppressive force. Bakunin’s conception is an articulation of power that based upon a negative, limited, centralized, confined and consolidated understanding of power as a force strictly utilized to serve the interests of the sovereign minority at the expense of the majority, through the mere existence of the authoritarian state. It is not that the minority possesses social evils that such a minority, need to be rid of or to undergo an “expropriation”, articulated through Kropotkin. Bakunin posits that it is through glorified social positions provided by the multiplicity of irrational inorganic and hence organized structures within a society that are based upon injustice, which such institutionalized forms of power exist and it is these types of evils that ultimately ought to be resisted!
    In order to shed light on the Bakunin’s second postulate highlighted above regarding religion, I will shift focus onto another Classical Anarchist, the dearly beloved Emma. Goldman’s sentimentality reiterates Bakunin’s notions regarding religion and its ability to confiscate the masses and pollute them when she proclaims that the tyrannical “God, the State and society are nonexistent; that their promises are null and void, since they can only be fulfilled only by man’s subordination”. Goldman’s, religion is the dominion of the human mind. The fettered human mind requires liberation from this obtrusive structure, which is imposed upon, rather than consciously chosen by, the ignorant masses. Espoused in “Classical Anarchism(s)” is that “religion” masks its motivating force, namely, the attainment of social control and power, thereby degrading and humiliating the masses. This degradation and humiliation is germinated and nurtured by the constant obligation upon “la masse” to follow the preacher’s rhetoric, by responding to the shepherd who calls for the complete submission of the flock of sheep. After all, such preachers have been given a right by God, as in Nietzsche’s Christianity, and thus, their authority cannot be called into question by the common person. The image invoked is that of the preacher’s rhetoric of “truth” dissipating and spiraling downwards to the populous and thereby, in Goldman’s opinion, resembles that of top-down structure of the oppressive state. However, although it is notoriously “understood” that Goldman and Bakunin’s notions regarding “religion” are predominantly influenced by a particular type of a particular “sect” of “religion”; namely a particular form of Christianity brought forth by the formerly mentioned Constantinian shift, using the signifier “religion” to indicate a “particular perception or a particular kind” of it, remains inappropriate.
    Classical Anarchism(s) objectives are primarily the reconstruction and liberation of humanity from the double-edged swords of worldly ignorance (the dominion of religion through its reliance on the blind following populous) and venom (the state through its exercise of forces of oppression). At this point, I will introduce and infract an examination of Classical Anarchist theorists’ notions of the totalistic conception of such a top-down model of power within a society, as being construed as purely negative and consolidated in the hands of a minority. It is construed since Bakunin’s vision of Anarchism as a “unique religion that can stir hearts and create a saving collective strength”, along with Goldman’s assertion that “Anarchism …stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion….liberation from the shackles and restraint of government” along with Anarchism(s) direct-active-capacity to permeate every phase of human endeavor, all indicate the potential for Anarchism(s) to be viewed contrarily as a positive, libratory form of power. Therefore, Bakunin and Goldman’s statements imply that power is not necessarily consolidated, centralized, restrictive, or repressive. Rather, power can possess a libratory attribute as well and the potential respectively, at least from a Classical Anarchist perspective, to liberate human beings.
    As such, Anarchism(s) unconsciously “purified”, “Orientalist” and “classical” images of power mutates and spirals with the advent of Post-Structuralism, continuously through the course of its history, resurrecting Anarchism(s) not merely as an idea passed from generation to generation, but rather as a way of life. Whether such (Goldman and Bakunin) conceptions of Eurocentric Classical Anarchism(s) propagate the larval stage or discourse of Proudhon’s Mutualism, Bakunin’s Collectivism, Kropotkin’s Communism, French Anarcho-Syndicalism, or otherwise, they emulate bamboo roots in allowing organic and fluid attitudes to partake within and “underneath” the umbrella of moral self-realization and obligation without an authoritarian governance, be it state or religious, to enforce it. We begin to see a recurring “theme”, which requires more, as they represent blocks that ought to be comprehended for “Le Différend” to have room.
    Insurgencies and Assaults upon the Exodus: Towards infinite migrations
    An endorsement of the fundamental view described above, namely, that power is not solely oppressive and “negative” but resistive and “positive” as well propels itself to the forefront.
    The single perception of that, which is “revolutionary” and total, associated with a European vision of Classical Anarchism(s) which lies in its idea of “oneness”. It becomes necessary for Eurocentric Classical Anarchism(s), and respectively its particular multiplicitous shade(s), to comprehend as an example, the cultural and ethnic diversities which had been discounted, consciously or unconsciously, amongst “anarchist/anti-authoritarian movements active today”.
    This is due to the fact that, identities, whether they are associated with gender, sexuality, race, or religion, are immeasurable and infinite in their representations. “First wave Anarchism(s)”, as recognized by some though the term is not endorsed nor is particularly appealing to myself and its ability to re-conceptualize history and theory recognizes the latter’s development of “alternative” Anarchism(s), as they exist amongst what is defined by some as the “people without history”. The complexity and diversity of the multiple developments that branched out of “Classical Anarchism(s)” ought to be recognized and commended. Therefore, former writing(s) and literature of the Classical that have been presented witness an unspoken assumption that the state and religion are always the primary and dominant forces of oppression. Furthermore it is assumed that Classical Anarchism(s) is the sole savior and that only “it”, as if there is a one “it”, is/are capable of resisting the negative and oppressive forces, thus ushering in what Goldman refers to as the “new Dawn”. This viewpoint does not give much, if any, consideration to the historiography of Non-Eurocentric Anarchism(s) or other movements, like certain shades of Islam which will be briefly highlighted, that maybe anti-authoritarian and non-hierarchal (“Mutazillate” and “Kharijites”), and that predominantly reside in Non-European spaces. “The most available anarchist literature does not tell this history not to a necessarily malicious disregard of non-Western Anarchist movements but rather to the fact that even in the context of radical publishing, centuries of engrained Euro-centrism has not really been overcome”.
    However a failure to grasp the complexity of such interconnectedness and an attempt to develop a genealogy of Non-Western forms of Anarchism(s) itself, on an international level though luring is destructive, as it too engages in holisms: Everything is not Everything… from Sam Mbah’s African Anarchism to Frank Fernandez’s Cuban Anarchism. The effect of this approach mirrors Classical Euro-centric Anarchism(s) tendency to utilize literature to totalize once more the “superficial surface” pertaining to the conceptions of power and religion. A case example of the “undiscovered subaltern other” is that of the Indigenous movement in the “West”. Though it could be easily contested that such a movement still geographically exists within the “Western hemisphere” this would be a misconstrued conception because of the context of what could be geographically defined as the “West” to begin with. Radical literature as “Wasase” conceptualizes what is defined as “Anarcho-Indigenism” as a starting point or a means of resisting post-colonialism, whether through the “Gandhian strategy of non-cooperation” or otherwise, state power and the Neo-Liberal Capitalist Global project.
    Furthermore there are “philosophical connections between indigenous and some strains of Anarchist thought on the spirit of freedom and the ideals of a good society; parallel critical ideas and visions of post-imperial futures that emerge from the two traditions of thought” and which “have been noted by a few thinkers”. However, despite “Anarcho-Indigenism possessing” these characteristics, there is at times no mention of such a movement, although an entire section on Resistance in “Euro-Centric” literature is dedicated to such and such, thereby not acknowledging and gendering interest in “Le Différend”. The pitfall of Eurocentric Classical Anarchism(s)’s tendencies of ignoring certain Non-Western movements or oversimplifying them or imposing their own conceptions upon them lurks, though this does not imply that affinity and solidarity could take place at the grass-roots or within academia. Any broad analysis of “Non-Western Anarchism(s)” risks the development of an over-exaggeration of certain elements and relations which are espoused by the author, but that are, in reality, superficial. The examination of an Anarchism of India, as an example, may fail to mention or develop a critical examination of the “caste” system in Hinduism, along with a Gandhian perspective pertaining to it. Instead what is drawn upon is “Gandhi’s passion for collective liberation” and his endorsement of non-violent pacifism and the necessity of removing “social evil” which, according to Gandhi, is the cause of the “state evil”. Gandhi’s notion of the origins of the state as an oppressive force does differ drastically though from Goldman and Bakunin’s conception of the state as the source of the “social evil” and oppression. Upon conducting more research one would also find that in reference to the caste system in India, that through “Gandhi: Saint or Sinner”, Gandhi is quoted, as believing that “to destroy the caste system and adopt the Western European social system means that Hindus must give up the principle of hereditary occupation, which is the soul of the caste system…The hereditary principle is an eternal principle”. As such a more detailed study, reveals that Gandhi’s conception of the importance in preserving the caste system, though non-hierarchally, has “saved Hinduism from disintegration”. This alters and drastically undermines the belief mentioned earlier, regarding “Gandhi’s passion for collective liberation”, since it is radically different due Gandhi’s endorsement of a divided system of social order. However, what is often sought is a virtual “wish” to see Anarchistic conceptions of collective liberation as
    “real” threads in India when in fact a contradiction is played upon and which more research has “uncovered”.
    Once more, with the advent of Poststructuralist philosophy, the philosophical and political image(s) of power moves away from a centralized or subordinating and oppressive force to one that is interconnected and productive. The implications of this shift could simply be stated as follows:
    Power is and always will be infinitely produced and consumed not solely in between the oppressors (state and religion) and resistors (Anarchists) as was formerly perceived by Eurocentric Classical Anarchists like Bakunin and Goldman. The repercussions of this are that, once more, “power not only intervenes in more places; its intervention is of different types” and that it is that power exercised through oppression that gives rise to resistance within a given “social space”. A chosen terrain for the conception of the “social space” lies in digesting a philosopher’s network.
    If the imagery of an upside-down and uprooted tree in European Classical Anarchism(s) is juxtaposed with that of a decentralized multiplicity of networks in Post-Anarchism(s), then the philosophical tactics espoused by Goldman and Bakunin that are aimed at deconstructing the hierarchal and centralized state or religious powers are misconceived. Hence, oppression is never localized or confined to a social space, nor does it find its origins solely in the state or religion.
    Oppression in Eurocentric Classical Anarchism(s) was displaced, and its effects undermined by European Classical Anarchism(s)’s displaced and misperceived roles of power. Furthermore, Classical Anarchism(s) identifies power through its suppressive force(s) rather than consciously recognizing the libratory or resistive force(s) which arises from it. The image of power with which Classical European Anarchism(s) “operates is that of a weight, pressing down- at times destroying- the actions, events, and desires with which it comes into contact”. This imagery, associated with Classical European Anarchists like Bakunin and Goldman, has an adverse psychological effect, relying primarily and solely on state decentralization as a form of resistance, thereby achieving no significant change, and even if there was historically it was merely temporarily, on the micro or macro levels. On this matter, a philosopher discovers that Bakunin and other Classical European Anarchists adopted a hegemonic vision of power, engaging with it only in the context of the “macro”, where the main objective of the “Classical Anarchist Project” was to call towards a “decentralization in order to resist the reductiveness of centralization while at the same time offering a vision of decentralization that was itself reductive”. This process became tautological in its nature, never really identifying the diversity of distinctive modes of resistance, like those adopted historically by Non-Western Anarchism(s), and the relationships that these modes have with power. In essence, this viewpoint leads to a one dimensional battle, pitting Classical Anarchism against an illusive, anonymous, and at times impersonal structure: authority. However, this section argues that neither the state nor religion necessarily assigns authority and that the authority’s resultant attributes, power, takes on various directions of motion, as the rhizome, within a given “social space”. Furthermore, though it is not disputed that there is such a force whose nature is oppressive by the state through its social structures, this force does not descend upon the social space it occupies, let alone exist on its own. It is accompanied by other exploitative forces and potentially resistive, forces, providing a dichotomous affair between both, with neither necessarily “winning” nor “losing” permanently. Instead, it is a temporary struggle, or tug of war, between these two “discovered” occupants of the networks within the recognized space. It ought to be understood as well, that in the process, these forces are never simply haphazardly “present” in a network but rather, are discovered through a collectivity of infinite sites territorialized by,through fate or chance (choose what you’d like) knowledge/ignorance (acknowledging that they exist, or have the potential to, in a given paradigm by studying literature) coupled with similarly infinite experience/inexperience (acknowledging that they exist, or have the potential to, in a given paradigm by direct action).
    Poststructuralist philosophy thereby challenges Classical Anarchism(s) unitary, totalistic, and holistic views on power and liberation, as well as the resulting existentialist bleakness that such a viewpoint places upon an individual, in order to jettison the subject as a relevant source of its own constitution or action. Post-structuralism, “confine[s] itself to neither analyzing the interiority of the subject nor the exteriority of the structures, but rather to occupy itself with examining the networks of the contingent practices that produces both the subjects and structures”. The rejection of subjectivity as a “viable source of political activity” as well as the denial of a solely negative and repressive vision of power, represent some of the influences that Poststructuralist philosophy had upon some Classical Anarchism(s), as remnants and residue remain behind, through the theoretical and grassroots. The strategy as posited by some is a new type or hybrid of Anarchism(s), Post Anarchism or Poststructuralist Anarchism(s) (Though I disagree with the name!), whose perspective is defined through the rejection of the strategic concepts of power and subjectivity, in the context highlighted above, and instead sets them up as tactical a priori’s of traditional Eurocentric Classical Anarchism(s).
    If these proposed “Post-Anarchistic” contours, “along with some of the specific theoretical interventions that characterize it” are indeed to fulfill their vowed promises of incorporating the infinite multiplicity of perspectives and “subject positions” along with their uncovering of the inescapable plurality of representations, then that covenant needs to be further developed through the conclusion of the author of ‘Who is this we that gives the gift? Native American Political Theory and the Western Tradition’. The author comments that the response of liberal multi-culturalism to diversity results in the exclusion of dissenting voices from intercultural dialogue. Although the author focuses on Native American and Indigenous identity, the same issues also apply to other minority groups. While the author’s theories may be utilized to examine “subaltern” groups other than Native Americans, it is important to avoid making generalizations that deny the different environments, cultures, and circumstances of other minority groups. Although the circumstances are different, there are indeed nodes or points of intersection worth examining, whether in the context of a particular type of oppression or its reciprocated force of resistance. Hence Solidarity without solidity! Thus, Post-Anarchism(s) intends to avoid tactically seeking a “single common language, but engage[s] in the creation of a diversity of languages that correspond to the diversity of” infinite subjectivities unlike Eurocentric or Non-Euro-centric Classical Anarchism(s), while supporting the idea that infinite subjectivities are yet unrecognized or undiscovered. However, to begin this task that involves the inclusion of the “subaltern other” in Post-Anarchism(s) it is necessary to remember that the potential for homogenizing needs to be evaded. In other wards, these Anarchistic elements, which a warrior chooses to highlight in accordance to his/her or hybrid of these socially constructed categories, particular visions of Anarchism(s) resulted in a broad and bleak vision of them, since as illustrated earlier they merely skim the contour of these movements, leading to an unjust and sometimes falsified representation of them.
    Get Busy Child: The Muqaddimah:
    In accordance with the Poststructuralist theories espoused a philosopher in some book, interprets that “if power creates its own resistance, then the liberation from specific forms of power must take into account of the kind of resistance that is being engaged in, on pain of repeating that which one is trying to escape”. Therefore, if as I believe that the genealogy of Eurocentric Classical philosophies has propelled itself solely to the forefront downplaying, in the meanwhile, the importance and agency of, as an example, the Non-Eurocentric, then the introduction of Islamic philosophies and an examination of their genealogy are necessary in Eurocentric academia as is vice versa.
    “To take Islam(s) as an example – the ‘hyper-orthodox’ & the ulemocracy cannot so easily reduce it”, as had been done historically with regards to “religion” through Christianity by Nietzsche. It becomes necessary therefore to abstain from “a hegemonistic/universalistic ideology as to rule out divergent forms of ‘sacred politics’ informed by Sufism [e.g. the Naqshabandis], ‘radical’ Shia-ism [e.g. Ali Shariati], Isamilism, Islamic Humanism, Sunni-ism, the ‘Green Path’ of Col. Qadafi (part neo-Sufism, part anarcho-syndicalism), or even the ‘cosmopolitan Islam of Bosnia”. Henceforth to comprehend and indicate that there is and will not be a single “monolith” of Islam let alone Islamic fundamentalism, is more than just a slanting ray of the setting sun, an odor, a flavor, a draft, an ephemeral qualitative complex that owes its value to the “subjective aspect” which is never the last word of the search, but merely a “truth”. These variant and divergent traditions in Islam(s) could permit the creation of a new open, un-holistic constellation whose contours are defined, just as Poststructuralist philosophy(s) is, through the specific theoretical and theological interventions that characterize them and are committed to their creativity. In treading this ground it becomes important to tread cautiously, not solely to avoid the pitfalls due to generalizations which may not be true, and not hegemonic-ally exploiting a tradition of Islam(s) as the only “green shade”, as there will never be one so quite claiming, voluntarily and involuntarily, that your foliage is superior to another.
    Ibn Khaldun, acclaimed by some as the forerunner of modern, historiography, sociology and economics, wrote Al-Muqqadimah- Prolegomena to History in the 14th century in Tunis. Ibn Khaldun’s grasp of the various branches, at the time, of Islam(s) theological and sociological models and practices of agency, identity, power, authority and the state, along with the influence of his writing(s) upon other Muslim scholars, has led to an engagement with the creativity of Islam(s). These Islam(s), in my opinion, retain the project of social justice, in the broadest sense, without necessarily having to rely on a theory of law based on a homogeneous collective identity and thus embrace the Poststructuralist philosophical concept of multiplicity.
    The phantasmal lure of Ibn Khaldun prevails in his ability to fashion and engage with theoretical paradigms a priori to the philosophers examined above; Hegel and Nietzsche. Ibn Khaldun perceives “the state” as a natural goal of Asabiyah. Asabiyah is derived from the Arabic root asab (to bind); that is to bind the individuals into asabtun (a social group). Asabiyah is also derived from asaba, which designates the concept that is etymologically abstracted from the concrete form. Amongst the translations in which Asabiyah had been translated to are “spirit de corps”, “tribal spirit or loyalty” and “collective consciousness”. Asabiyah is an abstract concept, not necessarily prefaced in a consanguinal relation, but is rather a natural bond that can be used to measure the strength and stability of social groupings. It is social, as well as psychological and physical prescribed though not confined to nomadic or tribal groups and thus is heterogeneously subject to multiplicities in its variation to individual and collective, subjectivities and identities respectively. Ibn Khaldun highlights that once asabiyah has “established superiority over the people who share it, it will, by its very nature, seek superiority over people of other asabiyahs…if an asabiyah overpowers another asabiyah and makes it subservient to itself, the defeated one gives added power to the victorious one, which as a result sets its goal of domination higher than before”. Ibn Khaldun continues and posits respectively that “the weak people will have to submit to this new power”. One of the most important aspects of a dominant class’s hegemony is its ability “to struggle to assimilate and to conquer ‘ideologically’” a social space, whether intellectually or otherwise, while sacrificing the interests of numerous individuals “to serve the interests of the few”. This clearly resembles the work and perception of Ibn Khaldun, save that the Muslim philosopher and sociologist had discovered the logic of hegemony from his derived concept of asabiyah in the 14th century in contrast to Gramsci who writes regarding it in the 19th century. Alas Ibn Khaldun’s conception is not strictly however confined to the logic of hegemony and that of hegemony of hegemony (the struggle for power between two dominant groups), but rather I would venture and posit that he proposed a logic of affinity as well. Ibn Khaldun comments that “if an asabiyah is equal to another in strength, each will have to maintain its sway over its own domain and people…through cooperation”. This resembles and falls in line with Guattari’s “Fluidarity” and the author of “Gramsci is Dead: Anarchist Currents in the Newest Social Movements” whose representation of affinity based relationships as being non-coercive and non-universalizing, non-hierarchal and engaged in mutual aid offer a mutual un-soldering fusion. Since Ibn Khaldun anticipates the potential of communities equal in strength the potential thereby that he identifies that these groups refuse or are compelled not to exercise hierarchy or coerciveness in search for dominating “Le Différend” exists, whilst in the meanwhile these coming communities engage in mutual cooperation and respect. Ibn Khaldun engages in other worlds beyond those of merely abstract information, to engender universes of reference and existential territories where singularity and finitude are taken into consideration allowing thus for “Fluidarity” to exist, as friction begins to unfold between the associative commitment to the micro-politics of individuality and the macro-politics of solidarity.
    The tenor of Eurocentric Classical philosophies undermines itself, as much as possible within a given social terrain, positing the necessity of offering a multi-polar approach, which engages in the spirit of affinity with Non-Eurocentric traditions that have the potential of revolting and reshaping the study of philosophy. They eliminate many things and many people in the course of a search of a telos, and these form an apparently incongruous group: observers, friends, philosophers, talkers, homeless, homosexuals à la grecque, transsexuals, intellectuals along with their varying degrees of participation and characterizations within the logos.
    Islam(s) represent here “that which is veiled”, but that which is veiled “is not absent or invisible, since the veil is a sign of presence, its imaginal reality, its power…. is unseen”. The sweetest dreams that I offer is that of an Auturi who could be a nomad that identifies as a Muslim…the nomad that who has no horizon, coming from no land and errant, is dispossessed of any material belonging, and whose position of dispossession facilitates a chance of an encounter and also of an infinite disposed conversation
    Dramatic Dead Ends: My Death toll in the thousands:
    Un-trapping the double pincer movement(s), Islam(s) and Anarchism(s) are not consequences of Chernobyl-style accidents. One needs hardly mention the almost delirious stockpiling of thousands of dominant modes in which any attempt to homogenize any groupings of these could lead to collective extermination of any hope of “Fluidarity”.
    “At the time I loved Gilbert, I still believed that love really existed outside ourselves…it seemed to me that if I had, my own accord, substituted the simulation of indifference for the sweetness of avowal, I would not have only deprived myself of a series of pleasures I had long dreamed of, but that I would have fabricated, to my own taste, a fictitious and worthless love.”
    Sections of collective subjectivities are floundering or simply huddled around archaisms of religious and ideological fundamentalism. Moderation, leaning neither the far to the left or the right is a response to this crises. Visible relations of force of the grand scale are not to be discounted but rather they ought to take into account that which is of the molecular. All actions are but by intentions. Abstain from Demagoguery.
    Chains of commands attempt to over-code all possible points and connections within the network to regimes in Arborescent systems that implement Hegelian dialectics that confine, dine and drink too little wine, us to an airtight vacuum in search of a pre-ordained “God-given” teleological outcome. Your fate with society is written. You cannot divert under the panoptic eye of surveillance, though once in a while you can shop at 9-11. However, Professor Challenger neither subscribes obedience to your rules. Professor Challenger just drilled a whole to the earth, spat on a button and the earth recognized ?????? (that veiled) as it was interrupted.
    An alternative is to interrupt and engage in Bakhtinian dialogics, where no one is in control, decisions are emergent be they through consensus or otherwise, as are the very identities engaging in the process through which decisions are made. The Rhizomes implement that which is Bakhtinian, making a map and not a tracing, between semiotic chains utilizing the events of the social space and engaging with war-machines. Be ware of the false rhizomes that profess the local and multiple yet remain subject to a singular authoritarian logic. If the war-machine fails destroy it before it is incorporated into the state’s apparatus. Engage in community building and know thy neighbor: Node one. “…and do good to parents, kins-folk, orphans, the poor who beg, the neighbor who is near of kin, the neighbor who is a stranger…” (Qurran: 4:36) and if you’re interested recall that your neighbor is not immune from your mischief.
    Ali Abd Al-Razeq’s expression in Al-Islam Wa-Usul Al-hukum offers a re-shaping. The government of the Islamic “state” can be of any kind: Node two. “It can be an autocracy or bureaucracy; a monarchy or republic, a dictatorship or constitutional or consultative government; it can be democratic, socialist or Bolshevik; that the prophet was nothing but a Rasul or messenger for a religious call, purely for the sake of religion, unblemished by any tendency to rule or call for the formation of a state”. On the contrary Islam is a religious unity and the prophet called for that unity. It should be realized that ‘al-risalah in itself required the prophet to acquire some power over the umma (nation and community). But this is very far from the leadership of kings and their power over their subjects. Hence one must not confuse the leadership of al-Risalah with that of a king”. It is untainted by the urge to rule. For recall that you(Muslims) are all guardians and you are all responsible for your wards. Node Three. If everything on Earth belongs to Allah (God) alone, and people are only entrusted with managing them, and live off the Earth and its products a paradox envelopes with the capitalist concept of ownership based on the Roman doctrine of “the right to use and abuse”. Islam lays the foundation for ecology, as the creations of Allah (including plants and animals). This is similar to the concept of private possessions, introduced by Proudhon’s “What is Property?” and shared by most Anarchists. A primary pillar, Zakat (Alms Tax), “ant-capitalist levy on wealth” and the right of the poor over the wealthy as opposed to Riba (Interest). Riba to increase or grow endlessly without a service or labor in exchange becomes the “The usury that is practiced to increase some people’s wealth, does not gain anything at God. But if you give to charity, seeking God’s pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward many fold.”
    Zakat acts a purification and a reminder for Muslims to remember “what truly matters in life”, to not forsake morality for the sake of materialism (Islam’s ethical conceptions of human relations and social organizations). A beloved Ramdan claims that, “The person who possess has duties before God and not before man. Islam does not conceive of poverty as a normal fact of the social universe. Nor does it envisage that the treatment to this distortion be the free generosity towards others, that in the hope of some miracle there will be a balance. The obligation places the question rather in the domain of morality and cannot be left to the discretion of each person. Social solidarity is a part of faith, as it is its most concrete testimony. It is not a question of goodness…rather a question of justice. Furthermore the managing of personal spending is to fight against egoism and hoarding.” To possess it is tantamount to having to share …it is impossible to shamelessly increase one’s property at the price of exploitation and social injustices.
    Node Four. Ramadan’s proposal lay in the need of a concrete strategy and thought-out solutions which are inscribed in and by solidarity without solidity which alone will allows us to achieve a real alternative project, as Islam in its fundamentals is radically opposed to the existing liberal economic order. Cooperatives and the function of logics of “fluidarity” and affinity propelled by popular participation must be the subject of more in-depth studies. This is merely the beginning of the end of the beginning.
    Node Five. An alternative view, illustrates a multiplicity of interpretation, Annihilating demagogues and gods of war where “The choice of the one placed ahead is delegated in Islam to those who leave themselves behind. One can be chosen by means of elections, a representative system or any other original idea. The important thing is that the people choose their representative. This means, fortiori, that one must be granted all the conditions that allow one the opportunity to choose with full knowledge of the facts. Any pressure or attempt (coercion), to influence public opinion must be the subject of strict regulations, for this means that there is a real deficit in the real participation of the people. Just as is the case, moreover, with ignorance, illiteracy and misery which are, as many social phenomena, obstructing the real participation of the grassroots. The multi-polar solidarity brings forth issues of contention where proof lies in Surat Al-Hajj, where in “In Islam general principles were given in the field of politics and social affairs. But the Qurran does not mention details and particulars which have been left for the Muslim ummah to formulate according to the needs of time and space.” Consensus and seeking consultation as Abu Hurirah’s “I’ve never seen anyone else who seeks consultation of his companions more than prophet” escalate Surat Al-Shura (43:38) to new heights higher than the sun.
    Is it not more compatible with the Islamic method of Islamic legislation to leave matters to be brought before Shura unspecified and undefined, establishing only principles and general rules and leaving details to be worked out by Muslims in adapting the law of Islam to a particular time and place, or where Abu Hanbal, Abu Hanefa and the like prophets determining “indefinite lifestyle islam(s)” closing the door to Ijtihad. Engage in Asabiyah.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/03/2006 12:02:00 PM  

  • Just wanted to say that I don't see why you can't be both spiritual and anarchist at the same time. I'm not a muslim (but i'm friends with a bunch so i think i have some understanding about it) and I think that if it were possible to see the difference between your belief and your love for Allah, and the rules that others set out for you in Allah's name (for example, all that stuff about hijab) then there would be no conflict.
    I know you are taught to believe the Koran is the word of God. As christian children are told about the Bible. To me, though, I see people who try to manipulate God to gain power and control. It's not God who wants all this conflict and war and hatred. I hardly think God cares who lives in Isreal so long as they are kind to eachother. I don't think God cares if you are married in a church, or if you are married in your hearts, so long as you aren't raping and killing eachother. All that other stuff seems to me a tool of control. That a man can claim to be the mediator between you and your God.

    And so you can be an anarchist, and have a deep love and respect for Allah. You can cast aside all the rules that others have laid out for you, and learn from Allah yourself. Your heart is telling you that something is wrong here, this is why you are drawn to anarchism. What makes you think that it is not Allah who puts that feeling in your heart?

    Ok, so i'm not muslim. I don't know if that idea is offensive to you, but since i cast aside all the strict rules and fear instilled by the religion of my youth, I have developed what I can only see as a direct relationship to the divine. I do not think God wants us to submit ourselves to him. I think he loves us, and only wishes we love him in return (and eachother) and that we fight injustice against his other children. Isn't that what you would want from your children?

    I love my children, and want them to be good. I don't want them to fear me, or submit to me. I want a relationship with them, I want them to be kind and happy. I want them to be free and fight injustice. I am an anarchist, and I beleive in the Divine. C'est tout.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/24/2006 09:51:00 AM  

  • Introduction to Anarcho-Islam

    One of the major problems with the anarchist movement today is the failure of our intellectuals to articulate their ideas in a manner that can be understood by the masses. The movement, like any, needs artists and dreamers, but it also needs good, down to earth men and women. Hakim Bey has made some very important contributions to anarchist philosophy, but nine out of ten people can't understand half of what he's written. Anarchism is not a philosophy to be discussed by students in wine bars, it is a philosophy to be lived. It is a philosphy to be practiced, day by day and by ordinary people.

    Anarchism is represented by popular media as little more than a joke, an alternative fashion statement at best. Few people outside of the movement understand what anarchists really believe and even less realise how powerful a movement it is globally. This is, in part, due to the fact that anarchists oppose authority fundamentally and thus, organise horizontally, with nobody holding power over anybody else. This means that, unlike other groups with their popes or presidents or prime ministers, anarchists have no ruling class, no Bush to read statements, no Bin Laden to hate on. Whilst this lack of leadership makes us look weak, it is, in fact, our very greatest strength.

    The horizontal organisation of the movement allows for the use of guerrilla tactics. Pyramid control structures like countries, armies or corporations organise vertically. They can not use guerrilla tactics, they are too big and too slow to change. Guerrillas can spot an opportunity and expliot it instantly, targeting the enemy whenever and wherever it is exposed. A soldier in a national army must wait for the orders of those at the top to filter down the ranks. If every soldier acted on his or her own initiative the army would collapse. Discipline, that is doing what you are told without question, is fundamental to any pyramid control structure, without subordination to higher ranks all pyramid control structures disintergrate.

    Governments and banks are there to control people, to make people do things they don't want to do and to prevent them from doing the things they'd like to do. Many people would argue that this point is obvious, that's what governments and banks should do, if they didn't there would be "absolute fucking carnage". It is here that we anarchists disagree with the popular opinion.

    Let's look at the people refered to as 'Australian aborigines'. Aborigines are anarchists in their own way. Aborigines have no prime minister, police, cash, human rights laws, national curriculum, no social services, no courts, no prisons and no class system, yet they have lived according to their anarchistic traditions for millions of years without wars, poverty or child porn on the internet. They don't kill or rape each other, they don't steal, well rather they can't steal as they have no concept of private property and they're generally quite eco-friendly. They do laugh though, they do tell stories and sing songs and smoke bongs and get creative on the old didgeridoo, they have community and purposes in life. They have sex, they have dreams and they fall in love. In short, they have everything they feel they need to be happy and happiness is the only true measure of the quality of life.

    To believe that you must live under another persons authority in order to be happy is, frankly, the most vaulgar and disgustingly weak minded philosophy ever accepted.

    Communism, Capitalism, Roman Catholicism, Nationalism... all flawed. No universal ideology is even worth thinking up. People are way too diverse to have a single system for all.

    Not everybody wants to have their lives defined by some abstract concept of 'cash' held in 'their account' nor do they all wish to seek redemption through some Herculian diety called The Lord Jesus Christ. Not everybody wants to accept God. Not everybody want to deny all divinity.

    Anarchism is not a religion nor is it a political ideology. It does not promote or oppose religion. Anarchists have no central ideology, this is fundamental. Anarchism is based on a principle of freedom.

    However, anarchists consider all human beings to be ideological by nature, all people have a set of ideals which they consider to be 'right'. When a person says "in an ideal world..." they talk of the world as it would be if it were 'put right' so to speak.

    What one man might consider right, another may object to. For example, many Catholics drink wine at Mass whilst many Muslims would be horified by wine based religious practices. This perpetual diversity of mankind creates a multitude of ideological conflicts between us. It is these conflicts that anarchism addresses.

    There is, within the anarchist movement, an element which claims anarchism to be atheistic. This element and it's members are not true anarchists. Their religious intolerance runs contrary to anarchist philosophy and this element should be rooted out and destroyed.

    Not all atheist anarchists are guilty of this betrayal of the anarchist movement, many are quite happy to allow others to practice religion so long as it is not forced upon anyone against their will, these people may be taken as allies.

    Whilst the Zionists, the Vatican and many other religious control structures are the natural enemies of all anarchists, God and religion are not. Many well respected anarchists believe in God and there are anarcho-Christian and anarcho-Islamic movements with huge followings.

    Those of us that believe in God may think that all atheists, anarchist or otherwise, should be tarred with the same brush and that we should act against them all regardless. This runs contrary to God's command that there is no compulsion in religion. All worship must be voluntary, an exercise of free will, or it is not worship at all.

    Atheists deny God, the greatest of all sins, but this is between them and God and He will hold them to account. It is not our place to 'burn the disbelievers' or any other such nonsense.

    Again, it is not atheist anarchists that should be made a target of. The problem is atheists that falsely claim to be anarchists then try to corrupt the movement towards their own brand of ideologically intolerant atheism. Their arguments rarely constitute more than baseless claims and their literature (see Crimethink's babbling for examples) only emphasises this weakness. However, it is not their claims, but the influence these claims have on others, which is cause for concern.

    This is a matter of concern for all true anarchists, regardless of religious beliefs, as it is a corruption of our philosophical creed. Followers of God's prophets, regardless of philosophy or denomination, should also be oppossed to any attempt to corrupt a movement which fights oppression, accepts diversity and promotes the establishment of small autonomous communities each defining it's own social system. In fact, in the US, Christians have established hundreds of self sufficiant, anarchist communities in defiance of the state, government, police, laws or any other abstract concept based on authority not granted by God.

    Islam, in my opinion, can only be successful in practice if it adopts an anarchist philosophy to global and local social interactions. Further, Christianity will only come out from under the tyranny of the Church and it's ordained clergy if it's followers adopt anarchism as there philosophy to life. This would in turn lead many to question obvious contradictions within Christianity, the logical progression is Islam.

    Anarchism is the correct philosophy to life as it is the only natural philosophy to life, but again, it is not a religion and it is not a political ideology.

    There are many anarchists who, ignorant in their atheism, believe the human race can basically live forever and build for a utopian dream future where we will all live in harmony. It's a nice dream, but fantasy also. The human race, like the planet, the Sun, the Milky Way and all the other Galaxies that make up this entire Universe, will die. Nothing lasts forever in this world. It is not built to last, that is not His plan. We know this because it has been revealed to us and because, enlightened, we see it in Nature.

    Our job then is not to build utopian, fanstastical super futures, but Islamic communities based on anarchist principles. Much anarchist writtings are, as a result, inadaquate for our purposes and so we must create our own body of anarcho-Islamic literature.

    In many parts of the Muslim world natural anarchy still exists as those people that live there were never currupted by the concept of the 'nation' or the 'state'. It is only when these people are forced to interact with states and nations that their lives and cultures are torn to shreads.

    Natural anarchy is being eradicated by the ideological imperialism of believers in nations and states. What's left of it now will be destroyed soon enough. Anarchy is weak, anarchism is strong.

    It is now more important than ever that our Islamic scholars and philosophers embrace anarchism and make it our own. The rulings of scholars from old times do not apply in modern times when modern scholars rulings are more valid. Anarchism as an Islamic philosophy offers the only natural way to bridge the gap between the world we wish to live in and the world we currently live in.

    I also believe that, within the anarchist movement, there are many potential reverts and sympathisers with which we could establish deep, strong roots in Western soil.

    Anarchists believe that all people have the absolute right to live however they please so long as they don't prevent anybody else enjoying that same privilage. Because people naturally bond with 'their own', a trait known as ethnocentricity, and because humans are naturally social creatures, anarchists believe that the only natural social system is tribal.

    An extension of the anarchist's pro-tribalism is the concept of Temporary Autonomous Zones as a means to freedom now and 'anarcho-syndicalism' as a program for the fututre. These two concepts are very important to any anarcho-Islamic philosophy.

    Please remember, this is not a call to arms. This is a scholars jihad and the pen is much mightier than the sword.

    This jihad is one of abstractions and phsychology and it is for our scholars to understand such things.

    You see, the system is not actually real. You can not throw bricks at it. You can not blow it up nor smash it down. It exists only in the minds of people. It is an abstract concept, a systematic formula for the manipulation of perception.

    Perception is everything.

    Reality is, from the human perspective, unknowable. The human mind does not deal with reality. People are taught that we see with our eyes, but this is obviously not true. Our eyes are just physical organs that simply respond to photons bouncing against them, this causes nerves to move, sending eletrical signals to trillions of different points in the brain. These signals are then used by the brain to imagine what you see. There is no screen in your brain onto which the image is displayed, the image is not an image in any normal sense of the word, it is not like a photo, the image exists as a visable thing only in your imagination.

    You'd be suprised by how little of what you think you see actually comes from sight and how much of it actually comes from memory. It's what you expect to be there that enables your imagination to fill in the gaps so the blur in the corner of your eye is mentally registered as 'a wall' or 'the sky'.

    Most people have two working eyes in two different locations so you actually receive two different, slightly offset, two-dimensional images that are then superimposed into one three-dimensional image by your brain. Further, each eye collects two types of infromation creating a monochrome image with some definition and a colour image thats very 'blurred'. So in fact your brain is receiving four sets of visual information which you see in your mind as one image.

    When we look around, what is actually there, before our eyes, is never seen. When you turn on a tap, do you see intermolecular bonding between hydrogen and oxygen atoms or do you see water? Water doesn't actually exist, Einstein knew that, but he could still enjoy a cold glass of it.

    Water is an abstract concept. It isn't a real thing, but an imaginary thing that exists only as a concept. In fact, molecules don't exist, they're only a superficial way of seeing a collection of atoms and forces, these atoms and forces do not end at the 'egde' of the molecule. Molecule is a word that humans invented and use to describe a number of different things in a simple way. Atoms do not exist either, they are only collections of smaller particles which in turn, are only collections of other smaller things.

    It is this lack of knowledge of the true reality of things that forces all humans to create abstractions or simplifications of reality. To break the real world down into a collection of imaginary things that are sensable, that is, to enable our senses, sight, sound, taste, touch and scent to provide useful information.

    It is worth mentioning here that, were you born deprived of all five senses, you would not even know that you existed.

    When you're born you know nothing, you have only got five senses to go on, that is the rather pathetic range of human sense.

    Our sensory input often leads us to imagine things to be true that we find out are not. Think of how many times you've seen a person go to answer the phone, when the ringing noise was actually on the telly. The phone did not ring, but they thought it did, not because their ears heard the sound wrong, but because their imagination was fooled by the signals sent. To them, from their perspective, the phone really was ringing, right up until other signals lead them to imagine that it wasn't true.

    All five of the senses can lead a person to believe in things that are obviously not true like when our eyes 'play tricks' on us. With touch, we might feel a creepy bug on our arm and flinch away only to realise the bug was actually the bit of string hanging from your hooded top.

    We rely on a set of abstract concepts, water, bug, tree etc. which condition our imaginations to respond to signals in certain ways. If you'd never thought that creepy bugs existed, you would never imagine one was crawling up your arm.

    A lot of people may think that this means that we are all crazy. That depends on your definition of crazy. I would suggest that the only people who are crazy are the ones that are genuinely delusional, that is, the people that believe they live in 'the real world'. Those people who accept that the world as they percieve it is imaginary and that reality is unknowable are not deluded by any fantastical materialism and thus, can be considered sane.

    Einstein's perception allowed him to see beyond the concepts of glass or water and onwards to the concepts of energy and matter, but his theory of relativity is no less an abstraction, though a far more realistic one. Far more realistic yes, but far less helpful when your thirsty and just want a glass of water.

    The point of an abstract concept is not to be as realistic as possable, but to be as useful as possable. Humans have the capacity to create abstractions for a reason, if they didn't they'd have died out ages ago. To catch himself a fish for supper, man did not need to know how the universe worked at a sub-atomic level, he simply needed a superficial understanding adequate for his survival.

    In the same way that you do not need to know about atomic structure and the elements to catch a fish, you do not need to know how an engine works to drive a car. Pushing the accelerator down does not, in reality, 'make the car go', it only seems that way to a superficial observer.

    Being superficial is natural to all human beings. We don't have the time to analyse planetary motion every time we look at a watch or calendar. So long as our undertstanding is adequate for our continued, comfortable survival, we're generally quite content to think in abstract, superficial ways.

    The problem is not that we live in a false reality, but that so many of us think that it's real. You see, once a person is so deluded by fantastical materialism that they cease to be aware that it's a fantasy at all, they open themselves up to the control of the what where once known as magicians.

    Magic is not the ability to pull a rabbit from a hat, but only the ability to create the perception that you have done so. Perception is everything. Perception, at least in the minds of the materialists, is reality itself. They have no ability to create any definition between the two.

    If you take a group of materialists and you have the ability to alter their perceptions, you have the ability, at least from their perspective, to change reality. Events that are impossable can appear to take place before their very eyes. Watch these fools and see their pitiful amazement, never any less impressed with each new rabbit..

    Magic is a powerful ability that can be used for good or bad, this is the basis of the ancient concepts of 'white magic' and 'black magic'. Magic can only work on people who suffer fantastical materialism, rational people can not be fooled by magic.

    Many people think magic is relatively harmless and, if it had stuck to pulling rabbits from hats, they might have been right. The problem here is that magicians have moved on to far more powerful manipulations and the general public have become ever more deluded by materialism.

    Behind the delusion of the materialist's 'real world', is a world of manipulation and deception. This is the world of the magicians. Magicians have no real power, their power is directly dependant on the delusional beliefs of materialists. They can alter perceptions and they can do it very well, but this only affects the fantasy land materialists live in.

    In the West, many people are raised by fools to be foolish. In schools, a psychotic tyrant known as the Teacher, conditions the mind of the child to think only in materialistic terms. Never, under any circumstances, can this false doctrine be questioned. Children are punished for being late to class, conditioning them to believe that time is a real thing which it is not. Local children are taught that they are British, despite countries being an abstract concept. They are conditioned to believe in all sorts of concepts from money to laws to goverments, there is even now a subject taught called citizenship.

    It's not that I oppose knowledge of these abstractions, but I object absolutely to them being taught as reality. It is not a reality that you are British or any other nationality, but it is taught to you as if it were beyond question. You are further conditioned to perceive yourself as belonging to this non-existant entity, your country, and so your very identity is now also based on a delusion.

    Money is not real, it is a scam, black magic to use older terminology. Rationalists see money for what it is, a trick, but materialists can not see how the trick is pulled and don't know it's a trick at all, so they think money is real. Here the scam lies in the false perception that money represents material things and that it can be exchanged for material things which it can't. The magicians using this trick have three things going for them, the trick will continue to work and grow more powerful so long as the magician is one step ahead of the targets, not all the targets have to fall for it for it to work and it's a numbers game.

    Money is based on maths, maths is based on numbers and numbers are the oldest abstraction going. If I have 6 apples and wish to share them evenly between my 3 friends then I should, according to maths at least, give each one 2 apples. This is said to be correct because 6 divided by 3 equals 2 and if each friend has 2 apples then they all have the same. This is not true. In actual fact, no two apples are identical, one friend might get two small apples, another, two sour apples and so on. Numbers and maths are very, very useful sets of abstract concepts, but they are not real.

    Because the abstraction known as ecomonics is never an easy thing to explain, I will instead here offer a short history of the abstraction of 'fractional reserve banking' for you to ponder over. It is the system upon which the British economy, like most others, is based. If you understand the fundamental con here you will see the problem with usury in general.

    Once upon a time people produced goods which they traded for other goods with other people. As the economy grew more diverse and larger ranges of goods and greater bulks of goods were produced, this sytem of exchange became inadequate for a number of obvious reasons.

    People began to use small, valuable items as 'tokens of exchange'. Many different things were used, but peices of metal, then much less commonplace than today, became the most popular exchange media. Gold, silver, copper, bronze and even iron was used. Pieces of metal had a direct value in their own right and so people felt secure accepting payment in metals as they could be sold to smiths and jewelers as materials. Metal can also be cut into smaller pieces of less value creating 'change'. Unlike other valuables like food, metal does not rot and lose value. It is also small, easy to carry and conceal.

    This ease of trade produced merchants who did nothing else. Traveling from place to place, they would buy cheap where demand was low and supply high and then trade in places where supply was low and demand high. They became very wealthy and built up large stocks of gold and silver. This left them with a problem. They only needed to take a small percentage of their wealth with them at any time, just enough to trade with, so what to do with the rest?

    The merchants had a few choices, each of rather limited appeal. They could carry ever larger hoards of wealth around until they got robbed, they could bury it or they could trust somebody else to look after it.

    The goldsmiths, oddly all Jewish, proposed a solution to the merchant's problem. They offered to hold the wealth of the merchants in their vaults. Goldsmiths, not traveling around to do business, had long since established secure means of storing gold. It was their business to use gold, to have gold and they obviously couldn't leave it lying around at night etc. Merchants would deposit their gold and silver and would be issued with a reciept. Silver would be accepted, but the reciept was for the silver's value in gold, this later led to the Gold Standard. Everything in the economy from this point could be priced by it's value in gold.

    These reciepts were exchangable for gold by the bearer upon demand. It wouldn't be your old gold back, you may of deposited silver, but you would by given the amount of gold the reciept declaired you entitled to. You would pay a fee when you made the deposit so you would get the full sum on the reciept. Goldsmiths, now bankers, made their money from the fees charged for deposits.

    No con so far. All seems well.

    Over time people began to trade the reciepts themselves, hence the saying "as good as gold". Merchants would accept a reciept happy in the knowledge it was payable to the bearer upon demand. Bankers began issuing a range of reciepts of different values. You could deposit ten pounds of gold, minus fees, and receive a reciept for five pounds and five for one pound. This encouraged the trading of reciepts. As this became common practice the bankers began to get very rich, not rich with paper money, that was useless to them, but with hoards of gold.

    Reciepts were often destroyed by water or fire and many people never returned from trips to far away places, different things happened, but the end result was that these peices of paper, the value of which was nothing, were often never reverted back into gold, somthing people actually valued.

    Because there was, at any given time, tons and tons of this 'good as gold' paper money in the economy, the bankers not only had their ever growing fortunes, but also held untold wealth in the form of deposits. This was not theirs, but they had control of it until it was claimed back.

    Here comes the scam.

    The bankers then began money lending. They offered loans and people borrowed money. They issued paper money, but, if you wished, you could demand gold with the paper money you were given. Most people didn't bother as they thought the money was as good as gold, meaning that all that actually happened most of the time is people borrowed peices of paper and owed gold.

    Because the huge bulk of the gold was always in the vaults and it never went below a certain amount, it was safe for the bankers to issue more money, there was gold in the vaults to cover it. They issued tons of money. They had already issued reciepts for the gold upon deposit, but had now reissued more 'reciepts' without actually holding the relevant gold. The value of all the reciepts in circulation was now many times the value of the gold in the vaults, which was no small sum.

    The bankers were now printing gold. This would of course go very badly wrong if even a significant percentage of people tryed to convert their paper back to gold as the gold didn't exist for the most part. The bankers now needed to ensure this never happened, easier said than done, but done it they have.

    The money we all spend is not real and is exchangable for material things as long as we only spend a small amount of it. People and companies always have money, not all of them, but enough of them, enough to make it work. Once this system starts to work it is self supportive, people just have to make sure that most of them don't want most of their wealth in actual things of value. These days most people have been conned into accepting a figure on a pc screen as wealth and often do a weeks solid labour for an entry in their account.

    These bankers, ever so oddly, still all Jewish, obviously don't want loads of their own paper money, or a bunch of absolutely worthless numbers in 'their accounts' so what do they want?

    They want power over other people, they're just modern black magicians. They've developed a wide range of tricks from credit cards to insurance, but fractional reserve banking is the fundamental con that established the dark school of usury based economics.

    This isn't about the fact your money isn't actually real, it's about the fact that you still allow it to dictate your behaviour.

    Governments and laws, just like money, are an abstract concept and their point is to be useful to you and me, not 'citizens' or the 'public', 'society' or any other collective noun. As soon as any concept becomes less than useful, a rational man will simply forget it and make up a better one. Only a materialist, completely blind to anything beyond their isolated senses, fails to grasp this point.

    Don't blame the materialists, pity them. It is hardly their fault that they were raised that way, besides, blame is generally such a useless concept anyway. It isn't the fault of the victims, but the magicians that tricked them.

    Avoid TV for it's the most powerful prop in the magician's set, a superficial dream machine. Avoid formal education, Walt Disney propaganda, popular music, mass produced drugs like McDonalds, the news, fashions, in particular 'alternative fashions', avoid money, wage slavery, banks and employment agencies. They are all tricks.

    You can't destroy a system by attacking it materially, please put down your molotow cocktails. You only need understand how the system works and you become a master of it. You can only know how the system works by seeing through the trick. You can not see through the trick if you're dumbly sat watching what the magician wants you to look at.

    The fundamental weakness to the system is that is doesn't actually exist at all. Not everyone has to think it's real for it to work, only enough to keep the others in line. The police can not protect an elite from ordinary people, the police are ordinary people. It is only because people think police are real, including the people who think they are one of the police, that the system is able to police the people. We police ourselves, but under the orders of an elite.

    The elite is not in Downing Street, the White House or in Brussels, it is not the politicians or media monopoly holders either. They are only materialistic psychotics like the majority of people from 'developed countries'.

    The elite is behind the scenes, pulling the strings of puppet governments, devising ever more mind destroying propaganda and, of course, plans for how to turn it into 'pop culture', the elite is not part of the spectacle, they create the spectacle to keep eyes away from the slight of hand.

    The elite, oddly all Jewish, are not easily found and there's little point to trying anyway. They have no power once people see how the trick works so they do not need to be found to be stopped. As for us punishing them, how would that help?

    If you raise a baby to a child to an adult, all the while conditioning them to do things that are evil, but conditioning them to think of these evils as duties or responsabilities, you can hardly be suprised if the child grows up knowing no different.

    Blaming the Zionist Jews is pretty pointless, why not blame their parents? The fact is that we are all to blame if any of us, but it's not about blame, it's not about 'putting things right' or about punishments. It is about accepting who you are and who you are not and how you're going to live from now on.

    God's Will, The Word, the Universal Laws of Physics, Mother Nature, Gaia Theory or whatever abstract concept you wish to know it as, is absolute. You can not change it or beat it or avoid it. You can try, you can live your whole life trying, but you can never succeed even once, even partially. God's Will is the basis of all existance. You can submit to it and accept it and come into harmony with it or you can destroy your soul trying to rebel against it.


    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6/19/2007 10:48:00 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Adam O'Connell, at 3/30/2010 11:05:00 PM  

  • Salaam. Anarchism is about the limited role of government. It should be about defending the people from external threats and keeping the peace inside. The core moral code of a western anarchist are the natural laws, which happen to be Islamic/judaic.
    Keep the peace, protect person and property, fairness in trade.
    The early Islamic governments where not intrusive. People were not dragged out of bed for adultry. It was only when it breached the peace and became public was it punishable. There where no restrictions on trade and travel.

    There should be a lot more discussion on this. But anyhow I would classify myself as a muslim anarchist

    By Anonymous themuslimanarchist, at 6/28/2011 02:22:00 AM  

  • I see anarchism as the reduction of government to its most basic level, that of keeping the peace and protectin the people.
    Early islamic governments where not intrusive, life was mostly regulated by the self, and not by law.
    Todays socieites, muslim or western control every aspect of your life, from your education to your diet to your ideas, to your ability to work and live.

    By Anonymous themuslimanarchist, at 6/28/2011 06:53:00 PM  

  • Anarca-Islam:~http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/mohamed-jean-veneuse-anarca-islam


    Islam & Anarchism
    Relationships and Resonances:~http://www.akpress.org/islam-anarchism.html

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/16/2013 03:59:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home