israel – Maktoub

Everyday is Ash Wednesday

May 14th, 2024

If state is the exercise of power in the form of regulation of social antagonism, the church in 18th century Europe was a state that chose church imperialism as means for such regulation.

Assuming “politics” then is simply a pointer at the “act of politiking,” redistribution of the perceptible, then what is the redistribution of the exercise of power called? Sure we can call them both “politics” but one sense of the word is much more restrictive than the other. In the former sense, politics belongs to equality, the latter is robbed from it through exclusivity.

By allowing such overdeterminism, of language in this case, the state was separated from the church, the missionary transformed to a colonizer, and Jesus to John Locke. The result was a conflation. Was the separation of the church and the state one aimed against oppression innate to the act of regulation, or in the mechanics of the act of oppression/regulation? While the latter is enough to abolish the church, the former would result in abolishing the state, of which church imperialism only a form.

The conflation, between means and ends, nonetheless is granted. The price of dereligionizing the state was religionizing politics: with language going out of business now in this overdeterministic utopia, language can only exist if its sacred. Sacred here does not point at a language that is not open for interpretation but rather language that conforms to one’s desired interpretation. With inequality implicit now, that “one” whose desire is what language now strives to conform to is the “superior” one: the king, the prince, the civilized, the educated, the genius; the chosen one.

[Israel’s Prime Minister]: “It is either that the Palestinian Armed factions surrender or the world should expect the atrocities to continue.”

Without specifying whose atrocities he meant, the perversion resulting from the unproductive language here is in equating between the act of the oppressor and the act of the oppressed. But that is only one axis of perversion in this statement.

More interestingly is the following statement.

[President of the US]: “Unshakable support it Israel [Genocide].. No to Rafah invasion.. Yes to a Palestinian state.”

Two distinct statements by two distinct parasites must converge is what language is now: existing outside its own. Unshakable support to genocide but with restrictions (redundancy) is what the first two phrases of the latter statement says. Necessary however if the statement will end with “Yes to a Palestinian state.”

But the Palestinian struggle is a refugee struggle first and foremost. The arithmetic of the two-state solution can only work however if the refugees are cancelled out, if the struggle is trivialized: still oppressed, but now under a different mechanism.
Revenge and punishment

April 12th, 2024

Prisons are not made for rehabilitation. Imprisonment is a mode of punishment and nothing else. For time in prison teaches the convict nothing about the “what?” and the “why?” but only the “what happens if?”. The reason the institutionalization of the crime is necessary is often less about corruption. Rather means of regulating crimes into essential ones.

In the utopia of punishment for instance, a prison inmate convicted for robbing a bank would be a polished stock broker by the time they served their sentence. Still robbing, except the bank is now the regulator rather than the victim of robbery.

Now when Germans show up to court defending genocide in Gaza, do not say “Germans are the scum of the earth” for they are not solely so. And frankly, it is hard to make a case against them or blame them in any way. See when Germans got a chance to learn from their Nazi experience, the West, dictated by the economies of scale, dumped Nuremberg on them: prosecution only. The question of “Why Germans turned Nazi?” was of far less importance to the Western bloc than “How can we make Germany like the rest of us? Genocidal in a conforming manner.” Or in today’s language “Genocidal in accordance with the international law.”

At the ICJ, Germany made the West, and the international law for that matter, proud.

But regulation of far-right German tendency was not the only outcome of Nuremberg. For if one tried to visualize Nuremberg it is much more likely to appear a circle than a line. A high profile Israeli official in the Mossad made a “no-brainer” statement to anyone with even a shallow grasp of the notion of popular armed struggle: dismantling Hamas, and eliminating all its leaders will not make the Palestinians stop fighting, for these combatants neither need nor fight for their leaders.

So is it collective punishment, or revenge that Israel is looking for in this war? A granted question and a granted confusion. But first: what is the difference between revenge and punishment?

A state does not, for instance, take revenge against an individual. At least that is never how it is framed, and rightfully so. Instead, it punishes the individual. Not for the sake of justice, but rather for its own good. Unlike punishment, revenge is an affair involving equals, and with equality what is state-privilege? A state capable of revenge against an individual is already a perished one.

By this token, an insurgent against state and order can never punish the state, but only take revenge against it, for state disorder starts from equality, and not reverse inequality as the perverted mind might think. So naturally, from a human point of view, there is a positive sentiment that is associated with revenge. If one decides to rate the ugly reality higher than beautiful delusion: its a cleansing act, that takes a stab at both the philosopher-king, and the induced-monster of oppression within its victims. Punishment on the other hand, that which can only breath the air of inequality, works in reverse: feeds the two monsters at the two ends of the superior-inferior interplay.

See, American atrocities in Vietnam, and French atrocities in Algeria stirred, to some extent, the contribution of the American and French popular body to putting an end to their colonial presence in the corresponding countries. While each colonial entity has its particularity, not limited to locality in space and time, Israel’s particularity, so far at least, seems to lie in the fact that Israeli atrocities work in the opposite direction: atrocities fuel more atrocities. Genocide on TikTok. But why not? For the implications of Nuremberg, and the economies of scales that incentivized it, fed the monster a confusion between revenge and punishment.

A confusion particularly sensitive in the context of the Zionist ideology that is centered around a delusion: one can be simultaneously a stateman and a victim. The result is a sick, blood-thirsty, society for as long as it persists.
If God was a colonizer

March 2nd, 2024

Conflating the mean with the end is a way of being for a parasite because, well in this case, the mean is in fact the end. But if this was going to be the case for humans then what is intelligence for? Nevertheless, parasitic tendencies persisted anyway and led up to the kingdom of lice that we live in today.

It seems like thinking beings were never able to wrap their heads around it and that is why it persisted. But it is worth thinking where would such perversion stem from for parasitism not to be called out and then neutralized? An article written by a parasite titled “The case for colonizing Gaza” can give you just the hint. For parasitic production is rarely perceived as intellectually-provoking, but rather emotionally-provoking. The result then, either positive emotions by other fellow parasites, or negative emotions with no take or lesson.

The parasite of interest here starts with two introductory paragraphs trashing the notion of “reason” and “history” before concluding their intro with ” the root cause of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians—lies with the Palestinian people themselves and their hate-soaked culture.” So, accordingly, there is no such thing as “historical development,” “cause and effect,” or room for anything other than convenience (parasitic): Palestinians were born blood and hate thirsty. Do not blame this parasite just yet for to advocate for Israel is to advocate for the “origin-less” . With “reason” now out of a picture centered around “certainty” this parasite takes a peculiar position for its nature.

I wanted to entertain a fun exercise of imagining a world where God is a parasite but naturally the rest of the article spoiled it for me. This parasite goes on to make a similar statement about Nazi Germany and fascist Japan as if Nazism and fascism, again just like everything else, good or bad, in their world, has no origin. Interestingly, however, from that point onwards, “we” becomes the dominant theme of the article: “Thankfully in the case of both Germany and Japan, we were able to save their victims and their own citizens, not only from the regimes that ruled them but from the hell we would have otherwise been forced to visit upon them had their salvation been impossible.”

Who are “we”? I am not sure. But according to the article whoever “we” is pointing at, it must be something superior, incomprehensible to anything from without. This, to me at least, is the notion of “God.” But even God can have humor: this parasite talks about how Germany was de-nazified when all that the Western bloc ever did to counteract against their own fascist tendency, in Germany or elsewhere, was a “vasectomy” whenever blood, and murder was achieved in non-conventional means. You can now guess the first verse in the bible of this parasite God, the colonizing God: Thou shalt not jeopardize the “civilizing mission.”

Which got me thinking that conforming with Western way of being and living is exactly this: we are all children of God, but God is also a colonizer. By induction, in such world Gazans are in fact children of the dark as the article says. For they chose to disobey God through the biggest sin there is: liberation.
Feed the greedy

March 1st, 2024

“Hungry Palestinians looking for food made Israeli soldiers feel unsafe.” An understandable headline, for there is a direct correlation at play. The ‘Do you condemn Hamas?’ symphony did not come about solely through the dictation of politics and policy. That symphony was composed not out of inspiration, but because it is the only symphony the instrument of ‘democracy’ could play.

See you cannot condemn the entire Palestinian resistance body. To do that, is to acknowledge the reality for what it is. No one wants that, and rightfully so. But more importantly, putting a name or a label is the first step in giving a shape and form to the otherwise infinite, and, from a material point of view, incomprehensible, and by induction inconsumable: in this case, armed struggle. If it is inconsumable then what is there to demonize, or even glorify for that matter?

Too wordy. A different angle is what the director of this should play should consider. If it is not the Palestinians, one way or the other, to condemn then who is it to condemn? In a materialist utopia the answer would be perversion: I look at the TV and say ‘condemn Israel.’ What is at stake however is much higher than dismantling a holocaust milking enterprise. It is condemning what Israel is merely a louder, more extreme, representation off: condemn oppression, condemn hunger. Apocalyptic. For what is “state,” “policy,” & “order” as we know today if there is no “hungry”?

A phone call between the Qataris (wanna-be glorified parasites) and the Americans (remnants of glorified parasites) discussing the massacre committed by Israel against Gazans as they were gathered in thousands waiting for aid concluded with a joint statement: if a hostage swap deal is to be made it will ensure the starving are well-fed and safe for “at-least a month and a half.” What is blackmail? But every state was once a cartel.

Those sending aid to Gaza on the other hand spend more time in producing cinematic short films of themselves delivering aid than on “where to send it?”, “what is the best way to send it?”, and “how to make sure they are received?” Again, rightfully so. For those who identify themselves as caretakers, and the protectors will perish on the first night with no boot stamping on anyone’s face.

Wait! The price of ending world hunger is a few billion dollars. That does not mean it is the cost of ending world hunger. If that who is hungry is no where to be found, where would “Nike” find a minor who is willing to work 25 hours a day for a few peanuts per hour to knit a pair of sneakers that costs a few bags of peanuts worth only to be sold for one-month supply of food for a small to medium family worth? Total collapse. The cost of ending world hunger then could very much turn-out to be the complete abolition of the notion of privilege, and its construct.

So if one now asks: do you want stand-alone peace? You do not need progressive at all. On the contrary. Reaction is what is needed: just keep feeding the greedy.

Everyday is Ash Wednesday

Revenge and punishment

If God was a colonizer

Feed the greedy