The Anarcho-Kabbalist Manifesto Draft 1 By Levi Mathaeus Hahahaaa- what’s poppin’ babes, it’s your boy Levi Mathaeus coming back with another banger fringe political ideology that he hopes will take off soon. Anarcho-Kabbalism has been around for a while. You’ve probably seen it in some form or other in your life. I’m writing this to try and define it in my own mind because at present it’s sort of just a collection of aesthetics that I think go well together, but I do believe that there is some kind of unifying theory of the current state of the world underlying them. Oftentimes, religious types have blamed the current state of the world on demonic forces pervading power structures that keep us in service to capital. I am not necessarily ruling this out, but I want to clarify my admittedly incoherent beliefs regarding capitalism and the spiritual state of the world. Many modern “intellectuals” have used mythic and religious imagery and language to refer to their own understanding of their place in the world, and in turn, insist that this is the way that religion has been meant to be consumed all along. I think that this is dumb as hell. Joseph Campbell was a great guy and all and I definitely owe him for writing star wars, but he helped create this incredibly weird mindset in which spiritual subjects are taken purely as allegory in the modern secular world. This is not to say that they do not act as metaphors, but just not entirely intangible ones. Let me explain- I dated this one girl for like a month a few months ago. She claimed to be Catholic but when I asked her if she actually believed in any specific Catholic doctrine she refused to comment. She wouldn’t even definitively state for me whether or not she believed in God, but when I asked what she d id believe in so much that she would consider herself a Catholic, she responded with something to the effect of “The Ten Commandments Are Pretty Good Rules”. We live in a world where our spiritual “beliefs” and the “beliefs” of others around us are more informed by what they think is right, rather than what they think is t rue. It must stem from some innate need to see our own morals reflected in cosmic principles which govern the universe, to the point in which we can’t imagine a god who isn’t loving and merciful and charitable- because w e are loving and merciful and charitable. Whether or not any human being actually is any of those things is beside the point, the point is that our understanding of truth is muddled by our desire for comfort and order. And through this, we pick up ideas we have no basis for “believing in” other than the fact that they should be true. Enter the Campbellian secular “spiritualist” who merely uses religion as a tool to explain their own beliefs about the world to themselves without necessarily “believing” in it themselves. This is related to but not identical to the non-investigative believer. This is someone who cannot imagine spirituality as anything other than a personal mythology that turns their own life and thought processes into a story they can tell themselves and convince themselves that they’re a deeper and more complete person with. And yet, there is some truth to the idea that spirituality is a story that you tell yourself about the world, though in my own personal experience it’s one which straddles the line between true belief and personal allegory. It is the ultimate metaphor in the sense that the mythic or religious image is not just the image of your tangible life and thoughts, but that it is these things in themselves. I can’t articulate this point well, and I don’t know whether or not I’ll ever be able to, but to me the spiritual life is simply one’s normal life filtered through awareness of manipulation of perception through story, language, and other human inventions and attitudes, and points at a manner of existence beyond anything human which still “exists” just as tangibly as a rock or a tree. Not to be one of those guys, but I’m pretty tired right now, but to maybe make a short parable/analogy of this, thinking spiritually to me means knowing that a character truly dies once you close the book. It’s knowing that there is a mode of existence outside of “real” and “fictional”. It’s knowing that there are things, and there are ideas, and there are ideas of ideas, and we filter them all through a human lense because anything else would be madness but in a very concrete and direct way, all of these things are real, and it’s not the same as simply saying “perception shapes reality”/baseline metaphysical idealism. Enter Kabbalah. I myself am not Jewish, but like many edgy white guys in college, I’m pretty interested in Kabbalah. And why shouldn’t I be? It’s a fascinating belief system, and one which draws a lot of outsiders to its attention. Harold Bloom, in reference to the popularization of Kabbalah through essayist Gershom Scholem said: “the Kabbalah [...] is now more normative than normative Judaism itself.” And in my own personal experience, I agree. It’s hard to find a lot of hardcore, discriminating believers in any kind of orthodox, non mystical belief system in New York State. And I say “non mystical” to mean a belief system which does not offer direct communion with the divine, which is something which most mystic traditions, and especially Kabbalah does. I may not believe in the typical idea of “god”, but most of what I understand of Kabbalah coincides with my own experiences of feeling an inherent sense of “otherness” through language and art and representation. Like these are just tools pointing to something much bigger and stranger than the tangible world, but which I fail to describe to others. The use of language, and its effect on reality is of a central focus in what I understand to be mainstream Kabbalist thought, and its importance cannot be understated in understanding many Jewish and Christian mystic ideas about the divine. I don’t exactly remember where, but I remember reading about an old Kabbalist story about an old man who sees a young man writing something down on a piece of parchment, and the old man says “what are you doing there?” And the young man says “Writing” And the old man thinks for a second, before responding “Well be careful with that, you’re taking on the work of God you know.” Enter politics. Ah yes, our old friend. The friend-maker, the thanksgiving-ruiner, the thorn in every free thinking American’s collective side. “What does politics have to do with your weird religion/language ideas, Levi?” I hear you asking. Well I don’t hear you asking, I’m seeing it on the paper. And I’m not really seeing it either, I’m reading it, and reading is something that separates me from your true intentions and yet brings me closer to the higher reality which exists beyond ideas like “things” and “representation”. Isn’t this fun, kids? If you’ve ever been an edgy 14 year old and have wanted to stick it to your [insert undesirable political position] parents, you’ve probably read 1984 by George Orwell. I know I have, and I got absolutely none of its deeper meaning, I only remember thinking that the rats part was creepy and that Winston and Julia’s age gap was a little suspisch. Anyway, having reread it more recently I was finally able to appreciate the parts in which newspeak affected each character’s ability to think politically. The party continually simplified language bit by bit over the years until it became nearly impossible for the average citizen to think controversial thoughts. This was not just a simple case of creating new words for old concepts, but even created new concepts through the use of certain words to entirely alter each citizen’s perception of reality, such as with “doublethink”, a word (and corresponding concept, don’t forget that) which enabled one to think two contradictory thoughts at the same time and accept them both as true. Newspeak terms such as doublethink did not function as simple lies that the state told, but entirely altered the citizen’s concept of the possible through creating the terms necessary to allow these new aspects of reality to come to light. It makes one think of the purpose of words, and deriving meaning from meaningless terms and phrases. I can imagine the first caveman inventing a word, probably for an object he had personally encountered throughout his life, or for a simple activity which he undertook daily, and I suppose language must have been very useful back then for things like planning a hunt or teaching one to forage. I can also imagine, perhaps, his confusion upon first hearing a word for a concept which did not manifest physically. Maybe it was the first time somebody said “hello”. Not a literal “hello” but a greeting nonetheless. There are many things we can interpret from “hello”. 1- that whoever is saying it is seeing somebody for the first time in a while, thus necessitating the greeting. 2- that this person is friendly, or is at least attempting friendliness. And 3- that there is likely nothing urgent about the situation that they would rather open with a warning of some kind. But what does the word “hello” mean? On it’s own, derived of context, it’s gibberish. It has no meaning in relation to something else as many other language’s greetings do. The French say “bonjour”, it means “good day”, it is a comment on something else that’s happening around the speaker. The Chinese say “ni hao”, it means “you good”, or less literally “how are you?”, in which the acknowledgment that the speaker has not seen the recipient in some time is there, but the phrase itself still refers to some outside events or objects. But NO, we speak english and all we have is “hello”, or an equally meaningless “hi”. Those words have no function outside of a greeting, and are untranslatable literally unless you wanted to take this concept all the way and translate them to “I have not seen you in a while and am now acknowledging your presence.” There’s so much disconnect between the meaning of the phrase and the phrase itself that we all collectively agreed to not point out the fact that “hello” is nearly complete nonsense. On second thought, I should’ve used the paragraph opener “Enter Politics” here, so pretend like I did. Enter Politics. The friend-maker, the thanksgiving-ruiner, the thorn in every free thinking American’s collective side. “What does politics have to do with your weird religion/language ideas, Levi?” I hear you asking. Well it’s like this- this sort of common phrase deprived of any sort of tangible meaning is present all the time in our everyday lives, but it often comes in the form of political propaganda. I can, quite easily right now on this keyboard, type the phrase “that sound was very orange”. The words are there, and they seem to be stringing together some kind of meaning, but our old friend “meaning” has indeed left the building. Such is the case with terms like “electability”, “alternative facts”, and “sustainability”. These terms are inherently satanic. I will not budge on this position. Not only have these terms been purposefully used by the right to mislead the public on certain contentious issues any number of times, but they also have no inherent meaning in and of themselves, though they appear to, such as with the phrase “that sound was very orange” or “hello”. The only difference being, these terms were invented to warp reality in such a way that right-wing and liberal candidates can win on issues that don’t even exist. Likewise, they will use this new demonic language disguised as history and statistics, changing reality to dissuade anybody from seeking ideas outside of the Overton window in a manner of reality changing far more sinister than simple “lying”. And here, we come to the core of the Anarcho-Kabbalist philosophy. I don’t think we’ll win with prayer circles or by building golems, but we are for all intents and purposes, in a spiritual and reality-shaping war with the Disney-run deep-state pedophile cabal, and it will not be an easy one. Our chief weapon is representation and language, and we must use it to dispel, or at the very least warp the reality that has been presented to us by the government, mainstream media outlets, and the english language itself. Language and representation can be oppressive, but in the right hands it can also be liberating as long as we remain aware of the intent behind every buzzword and turn-of-phrase to keep ourselves grounded in the reality in which the modern socialist movement has any sort of chance against the machine. As the great fictitious writer Gregory Berrycone once stated in his unwritten absurdist novella-within-a-novella- “Love stands least full or short in with according shall such your context opposed evident.” And with that, dear gamers, I bid you to go onward. Onward to the truth! Let the Prayer War Begin!!!