#crusades — Public Fediverse posts

Ashkenazi Jews

Author’s Note: This post has mentions of Nazis, the Holocaust, & Nazi Germany. We completely understand if you wish to skip over this post. We’ll catch you in the next one!

Also known as Ashkenazic Jews, Ashkenazis, or Ashkenazim.

This is a form of distinct ethnic subdivision of the Jewish Diaspora. Emerging from the Jewish communities that consolidated during the 10th century in the Rhineland (Western Germany) & northern France. They migrated there from centers such as the Italian peninsula & the Southern Levant. This includes present-day Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, & Jordan.

After numerous massacres of Jews during the Crusades (11th-13th centuries), they began a gradual eastward migration due to mounting restrictions within the Holy Roman Empire & the favorable policies of Casimir the Great & others.

This diaspora ramped up after the persecution during the Black Death of the 14th century. The bulk of the Ashkenazi Jews had migrated to the Kingdom of Poland (which includes modern-day Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, & parts of Russia). This area became the main center of Ashkenazi Jewry until the Holocaust.

Ashkenazim adapted their traditions, rites, & customs to Europe. They traditionally followed the German rite synagogue ritual & until the Holocaust primarily spoke Yiddish, an offshoot of Middle High German written in a variety of the Hebrew script, with significant Hebrew, Aramaic, & Slavic influences.

The Yiddish language progressively declined in prestige, in favor of national languages & Hebrew, being stigmatized by assimilationists & later also Zionists. Though it was spoken by over 11 million people worldwide before the Holocaust. The Yiddishist movement, which sought to preserve & revive the language, faded through the 20th century. Including Duolingo adding Yiddish as a language.

As a proportion of the world Jewish population, Ashkenazim were estimated to be 3% in the 11th century, rising to 92% in 1930, near the population’s peak. The Ashkenazi population was significantly diminished by the Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germany during WWII, which killed around 6 million Jews. Before WWII, the estimated worldwide Jewish population was 15.3-16.7 million, with 92% being Ashkenazi. As of 2023, the population of Ashkenazim was estimated to be around 10-13 million out of 15.8 million total Jews.

The name Ashkenazi comes from the biblical figure of Ashkenaz. He’s the 1st son of Gomer, grandson of Japhet, great-grandson of Noah, & a Japhetic patriarch in the Table of Nations. The name for Gomer has often been linked to the Cimmerians.

The Biblical Ashkenazis are usually derived from Assyrian Askuza, a people who expelled the Cimmerians from the Armenian area of the Upper Euphrates. The name Askuza is identified with the Scythians.

In Jeremiah 51:27, Ashkenaz figures as 1 of 3 kingdoms in the far north, the others being Minni (or Mannaea), an ancient kingdom that flourished in northwestern Iran, & Arrat (corresponding to Urartu), called on by God to resist Babylon.

Ashkenaz is linked to Scandza/Scanzia (usually identified with Scandinavia), viewed as the cradle of Germanic tribes, in the 6th-century gloss to the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius. In the 10th century, in the History of Armenia of Yovhannes Drasxanakertci, Ashkenaz was associated with Armenia.

As it was occasionally in Jewish usage, where its denotation extended at times to Adiabene, Khazaria, Chimea, & areas to the east. They’re also identified with the Slavim or Slavs. In keeping with the custom of designating areas of Jewish settlement with biblical names, Spain was called Sefarad (Obadiah 20), France was called Tsarefat (I Kings 17:9), & Bohemia was called the Land of Canaan.

Given the close links between the Jewish communities of France & Germany following the Carolingian unification, the term Ashkenazi came to refer to the Jews of both medieval Germany & France.

In later times, the word Ashkenaz is used to designate southern & western Germany, the ritual of which sections differs somewhat from that of eastern Germany & Poland. Thus, the prayer book of Isaiah Horowitz (a prominent rabbi & mystic), & many others, give the piyyutim (a Jewish liturgical poem), according to the Minhag of Ashkenaz & Poland. A Minhag is an accepted tradition or group of traditions in Judaism.

In a religious sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is any Jew whose family tradition & synagogue ritual follow Ashkenazi practices (German rite). Until the Ashkenazi community 1st began to develop in the Early Middle Ages, the centers of Jewish religious authority were in the Islamic world, at Baghdad & Islamic Spain. German Ashkenaz was so geographically distant that it developed a minhag of its own.

The counterpart of Ashkenazi is Sephardic. Since most non-Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews follow Sephardic rabbinical authorities, whether or not they’re ethnically Sephardic. By tradition, a Sephardic or Mizrahi (a.k.a. Oriental Jews; Jews who lived in the Muslim world) who married into an Orthodox or Haredi (a.k.a. ultra-Orthodox) Ashkenazi Jewish family raises her kids to be Ashkenazi Jews.

On the other hand, an Ashkenazi woman who married a Sephardi or Mizrahi is expected to take on Sephardic practices & the kids will “inherit” a Sephardic identity. Though in practice, many families do compromise. A “convert” usually follows the practice of the rabbinical court (beth din) that converted them.

Culturally, an Ashkenazi Jew can be identified by the concept of Yiddishkeit, which means “Jewishness” in the Yiddish language. Before the Haskalah (a.k.a. the Jewish Enlightenment) & the emancipation of Jews in Europe, this meant the study of the Torah & the Talmud for men, & communal life governed by the observance of Jewish Law for men & women.

From the Rhineland to Riga (the largest city in Latvia) to Romania, most Jews prayed in liturgical Ashkenazi Hebrew, & spoke Yiddish in their secular (worldly) lives. But with modernization, Yiddishkeit now includes not just Orthodoxy & Hasidism, but a broader range of movements, ideologies, practices, & traditions in which Ashkenazi have participated & somehow kept a sense of Jewishness. Although pockets of Jews still speak Yiddish, Yiddishkeit can be identified in manners of speech, styles of humor, & in patterns of association.

As Ashkenazi Jews moved away from Europe, mostly in the form of aliyah to Israel. Or immigration to North America, South Africa, Europe (particularly France), & Latin America, the geographic isolation has given way to mixing with other cultures, & with non-Ashkenazi Jews who, similarly, are no longer isolated in distinct geographic locales.

Hebrew has replaced Yiddish as the primary Jewish language for many Ashkenazi Jews. Although many Hasidic & Hareidi groups still use Yiddish in daily life. Aliyah is the immigration of Jews from the diaspora to, historically, the geographic Land of Israel or the Palestine region, where the State of Israel was established.

France’s blended Jewish community is typical of the cultural recombination that’s going on among Jews throughout the world. Although France expelled its original Jewish population in the Middle Ages, by the time of the French Revolution, there were 2 distinct Jewish populations.

One consisted of Sephardic Jews, originally refugees from the Inquisition (which no one expects! Sorry, we’re Monty Python fans here.) & concentrated in the southwest. While the other community was Ashkenazi, concentrated in formerly German Alsace, & mainly speaking a German dialect similar to Yiddish.

The 3rd community of Provencal Jews living in Comtat Venaissin was technically outside France, & was later absorbed into the Sephardim. Comtat Venaissin (called Comtat, for short) was a part of the Papal States from 1274 to 1791.

But after emancipation, a sense of a unified French Jewry emerged, especially when France was wracked by the Dreyfus Affair in the 1890s. (We’ll be doing a post about the Dreyfus Affair.) In the 1920s & 30s, Ashkenazi Jews from Europe arrived in large numbers as refugees from antisemitism, the Russian Revolution, & the economic turmoil of the Great Depression.

By the 1930s, Paris had a vibrant Yiddish culture, & many Jews were involved in diverse political movements. After the Vichy years & the Holocaust, the French Jewish population was augmented once again, 1st by Ashkenazi refugees from Central Europe, & later by Sephardi immigrants & refugees from North Africa, many of them francophone. Francophone refers to people/organizations who use French (language) regularly.

Ashkenazi Jews didn’t transmit their traditions or achievements by text. Instead, these traditions were passed down orally from one generation to the next. The desire to maintain pre-Holocaust traditions relating to Ashkenazi culture has often been met with criticism by Jews in Eastern Europe.

In an ethnic sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is a descendant of the Jews who settled in the Central European region of “Ashkenaz.” For roughly 1,000 years, the Ashkenazim were a reproductively isolated population in Europe.

Despite living in many countries, with little inflow or outflow of countries from migration, conversion, or intermarriage with other groups, including other Jews. Since the mid-20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities & non-Jews.

Religious persecution of the Jews in Western & Central Europe led to a significant migration of the Ashkenazi Jews into Eastern Europe. This resulted in a major cultural divide between Western/Central & Eastern Ashkenazi communities. In particular, this was reflected in the division of Yiddish into Western & Eastern Yiddish dialects. As well as in other cultural distinctions: traditions, food, dress, etc.

Initially, the Jews of Eastern Europe enjoyed relative freedom in terms of movement, being invited by the kings of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Over time, the situation was reversed. By the 19th century, the Jews in the West had gradually been integrated into the general society.

While the Eastern Ashkenazi maintained their strict Jewish traditions & were mostly confined to ghettos, especially in the Pale of Settlement of the Russian Empire, which incorporated a considerable amount of land where the Eastern Ashkenazi lived: Poland & Lithuania.

Well-known differences in practices include:

• Observance of Passover (Pesach)
  • Ashkenazi Jews traditionally refrain from eating legumes, grain, millet, & rice. Quinoa has become accepted as a food grain in North American communities. Sephardi Jews typically don’t prohibit these foods.
• Notwithstanding stricter requirements for the ACTUAL slaughter, Sephardi Jews permit the rear portions of an animal after proper Halakhic removal of the sciatic nerve. While many Ashkenazi Jews don’t.
• Ashkenazi Jews often name newborns after deceased family members, not after living relatives. Sephardi Jews often name their kids after their grandparents, even if those grandparents are still living. An exception to this is among Dutch Jews, where Ashkenazi for centuries used naming conventions otherwise attributed exclusively to Sephardim, such as Chuts. Chuts is the name given to Jews who immigrated to London from the Netherlands in the 1850s-1860s.
• Ashkenazi tefillins are wound toward the body, not away from it. Ashkenazim put on the tefillin while standing up. Other Jews generally do so while sitting down. A tefillin(s) is/are sets of small black leather boxes with leather straps having scrolls of parchment written with verses of the Torah inside.
• The prayer shawl (tallit/tallis) is worn by all Ashkenazi men AFTER marriage. Except for Western European Ashkenazi men who wear it from the bar mitzvah. In Sephardi or Mizrahi Judaism, the prayer shawl is commonly worn from early childhood.

The term Ashkenazi also refers to the Nusach Ashkenaz, the liturgical tradition used by Ashkenazi Jews in their siddur (prayer book). A nusach is defined by a liturgical tradition’s choice of prayers, the text of prayers & melodies used in the singing of prayers. 2 other major forms of nusach among Ashkenazi Jews are Nusach Sefard (not to be confused with the Sephardic ritual), which is the general Polish Hasidic nusach, and Nusach Ari, used by those in Chabad.

Make a one-time donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a monthly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a yearly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Rate this:

Ashkenazi Jews

Author’s Note: This post has mentions of Nazis, the Holocaust, & Nazi Germany. We completely understand if you wish to skip over this post. We’ll catch you in the next one!

Also known as Ashkenazic Jews, Ashkenazis, or Ashkenazim.

This is a form of distinct ethnic subdivision of the Jewish Diaspora. Emerging from the Jewish communities that consolidated during the 10th century in the Rhineland (Western Germany) & northern France. They migrated there from centers such as the Italian peninsula & the Southern Levant. This includes present-day Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, & Jordan.

After numerous massacres of Jews during the Crusades (11th-13th centuries), they began a gradual eastward migration due to mounting restrictions within the Holy Roman Empire & the favorable policies of Casimir the Great & others.

This diaspora ramped up after the persecution during the Black Death of the 14th century. The bulk of the Ashkenazi Jews had migrated to the Kingdom of Poland (which includes modern-day Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, & parts of Russia). This area became the main center of Ashkenazi Jewry until the Holocaust.

Ashkenazim adapted their traditions, rites, & customs to Europe. They traditionally followed the German rite synagogue ritual & until the Holocaust primarily spoke Yiddish, an offshoot of Middle High German written in a variety of the Hebrew script, with significant Hebrew, Aramaic, & Slavic influences.

The Yiddish language progressively declined in prestige, in favor of national languages & Hebrew, being stigmatized by assimilationists & later also Zionists. Though it was spoken by over 11 million people worldwide before the Holocaust. The Yiddishist movement, which sought to preserve & revive the language, faded through the 20th century. Including Duolingo adding Yiddish as a language.

As a proportion of the world Jewish population, Ashkenazim were estimated to be 3% in the 11th century, rising to 92% in 1930, near the population’s peak. The Ashkenazi population was significantly diminished by the Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germany during WWII, which killed around 6 million Jews. Before WWII, the estimated worldwide Jewish population was 15.3-16.7 million, with 92% being Ashkenazi. As of 2023, the population of Ashkenazim was estimated to be around 10-13 million out of 15.8 million total Jews.

The name Ashkenazi comes from the biblical figure of Ashkenaz. He’s the 1st son of Gomer, grandson of Japhet, great-grandson of Noah, & a Japhetic patriarch in the Table of Nations. The name for Gomer has often been linked to the Cimmerians.

The Biblical Ashkenazis are usually derived from Assyrian Askuza, a people who expelled the Cimmerians from the Armenian area of the Upper Euphrates. The name Askuza is identified with the Scythians.

In Jeremiah 51:27, Ashkenaz figures as 1 of 3 kingdoms in the far north, the others being Minni (or Mannaea), an ancient kingdom that flourished in northwestern Iran, & Arrat (corresponding to Urartu), called on by God to resist Babylon.

Ashkenaz is linked to Scandza/Scanzia (usually identified with Scandinavia), viewed as the cradle of Germanic tribes, in the 6th-century gloss to the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius. In the 10th century, in the History of Armenia of Yovhannes Drasxanakertci, Ashkenaz was associated with Armenia.

As it was occasionally in Jewish usage, where its denotation extended at times to Adiabene, Khazaria, Chimea, & areas to the east. They’re also identified with the Slavim or Slavs. In keeping with the custom of designating areas of Jewish settlement with biblical names, Spain was called Sefarad (Obadiah 20), France was called Tsarefat (I Kings 17:9), & Bohemia was called the Land of Canaan.

Given the close links between the Jewish communities of France & Germany following the Carolingian unification, the term Ashkenazi came to refer to the Jews of both medieval Germany & France.

In later times, the word Ashkenaz is used to designate southern & western Germany, the ritual of which sections differs somewhat from that of eastern Germany & Poland. Thus, the prayer book of Isaiah Horowitz (a prominent rabbi & mystic), & many others, give the piyyutim (a Jewish liturgical poem), according to the Minhag of Ashkenaz & Poland. A Minhag is an accepted tradition or group of traditions in Judaism.

In a religious sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is any Jew whose family tradition & synagogue ritual follow Ashkenazi practices (German rite). Until the Ashkenazi community 1st began to develop in the Early Middle Ages, the centers of Jewish religious authority were in the Islamic world, at Baghdad & Islamic Spain. German Ashkenaz was so geographically distant that it developed a minhag of its own.

The counterpart of Ashkenazi is Sephardic. Since most non-Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews follow Sephardic rabbinical authorities, whether or not they’re ethnically Sephardic. By tradition, a Sephardic or Mizrahi (a.k.a. Oriental Jews; Jews who lived in the Muslim world) who married into an Orthodox or Haredi (a.k.a. ultra-Orthodox) Ashkenazi Jewish family raises her kids to be Ashkenazi Jews.

On the other hand, an Ashkenazi woman who married a Sephardi or Mizrahi is expected to take on Sephardic practices & the kids will “inherit” a Sephardic identity. Though in practice, many families do compromise. A “convert” usually follows the practice of the rabbinical court (beth din) that converted them.

Culturally, an Ashkenazi Jew can be identified by the concept of Yiddishkeit, which means “Jewishness” in the Yiddish language. Before the Haskalah (a.k.a. the Jewish Enlightenment) & the emancipation of Jews in Europe, this meant the study of the Torah & the Talmud for men, & communal life governed by the observance of Jewish Law for men & women.

From the Rhineland to Riga (the largest city in Latvia) to Romania, most Jews prayed in liturgical Ashkenazi Hebrew, & spoke Yiddish in their secular (worldly) lives. But with modernization, Yiddishkeit now includes not just Orthodoxy & Hasidism, but a broader range of movements, ideologies, practices, & traditions in which Ashkenazi have participated & somehow kept a sense of Jewishness. Although pockets of Jews still speak Yiddish, Yiddishkeit can be identified in manners of speech, styles of humor, & in patterns of association.

As Ashkenazi Jews moved away from Europe, mostly in the form of aliyah to Israel. Or immigration to North America, South Africa, Europe (particularly France), & Latin America, the geographic isolation has given way to mixing with other cultures, & with non-Ashkenazi Jews who, similarly, are no longer isolated in distinct geographic locales.

Hebrew has replaced Yiddish as the primary Jewish language for many Ashkenazi Jews. Although many Hasidic & Hareidi groups still use Yiddish in daily life. Aliyah is the immigration of Jews from the diaspora to, historically, the geographic Land of Israel or the Palestine region, where the State of Israel was established.

France’s blended Jewish community is typical of the cultural recombination that’s going on among Jews throughout the world. Although France expelled its original Jewish population in the Middle Ages, by the time of the French Revolution, there were 2 distinct Jewish populations.

One consisted of Sephardic Jews, originally refugees from the Inquisition (which no one expects! Sorry, we’re Monty Python fans here.) & concentrated in the southwest. While the other community was Ashkenazi, concentrated in formerly German Alsace, & mainly speaking a German dialect similar to Yiddish.

The 3rd community of Provencal Jews living in Comtat Venaissin was technically outside France, & was later absorbed into the Sephardim. Comtat Venaissin (called Comtat, for short) was a part of the Papal States from 1274 to 1791.

But after emancipation, a sense of a unified French Jewry emerged, especially when France was wracked by the Dreyfus Affair in the 1890s. (We’ll be doing a post about the Dreyfus Affair.) In the 1920s & 30s, Ashkenazi Jews from Europe arrived in large numbers as refugees from antisemitism, the Russian Revolution, & the economic turmoil of the Great Depression.

By the 1930s, Paris had a vibrant Yiddish culture, & many Jews were involved in diverse political movements. After the Vichy years & the Holocaust, the French Jewish population was augmented once again, 1st by Ashkenazi refugees from Central Europe, & later by Sephardi immigrants & refugees from North Africa, many of them francophone. Francophone refers to people/organizations who use French (language) regularly.

Ashkenazi Jews didn’t transmit their traditions or achievements by text. Instead, these traditions were passed down orally from one generation to the next. The desire to maintain pre-Holocaust traditions relating to Ashkenazi culture has often been met with criticism by Jews in Eastern Europe.

In an ethnic sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is a descendant of the Jews who settled in the Central European region of “Ashkenaz.” For roughly 1,000 years, the Ashkenazim were a reproductively isolated population in Europe.

Despite living in many countries, with little inflow or outflow of countries from migration, conversion, or intermarriage with other groups, including other Jews. Since the mid-20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities & non-Jews.

Religious persecution of the Jews in Western & Central Europe led to a significant migration of the Ashkenazi Jews into Eastern Europe. This resulted in a major cultural divide between Western/Central & Eastern Ashkenazi communities. In particular, this was reflected in the division of Yiddish into Western & Eastern Yiddish dialects. As well as in other cultural distinctions: traditions, food, dress, etc.

Initially, the Jews of Eastern Europe enjoyed relative freedom in terms of movement, being invited by the kings of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Over time, the situation was reversed. By the 19th century, the Jews in the West had gradually been integrated into the general society.

While the Eastern Ashkenazi maintained their strict Jewish traditions & were mostly confined to ghettos, especially in the Pale of Settlement of the Russian Empire, which incorporated a considerable amount of land where the Eastern Ashkenazi lived: Poland & Lithuania.

Well-known differences in practices include:

• Observance of Passover (Pesach)
  • Ashkenazi Jews traditionally refrain from eating legumes, grain, millet, & rice. Quinoa has become accepted as a food grain in North American communities. Sephardi Jews typically don’t prohibit these foods.
• Notwithstanding stricter requirements for the ACTUAL slaughter, Sephardi Jews permit the rear portions of an animal after proper Halakhic removal of the sciatic nerve. While many Ashkenazi Jews don’t.
• Ashkenazi Jews often name newborns after deceased family members, not after living relatives. Sephardi Jews often name their kids after their grandparents, even if those grandparents are still living. An exception to this is among Dutch Jews, where Ashkenazi for centuries used naming conventions otherwise attributed exclusively to Sephardim, such as Chuts. Chuts is the name given to Jews who immigrated to London from the Netherlands in the 1850s-1860s.
• Ashkenazi tefillins are wound toward the body, not away from it. Ashkenazim put on the tefillin while standing up. Other Jews generally do so while sitting down. A tefillin(s) is/are sets of small black leather boxes with leather straps having scrolls of parchment written with verses of the Torah inside.
• The prayer shawl (tallit/tallis) is worn by all Ashkenazi men AFTER marriage. Except for Western European Ashkenazi men who wear it from the bar mitzvah. In Sephardi or Mizrahi Judaism, the prayer shawl is commonly worn from early childhood.

The term Ashkenazi also refers to the Nusach Ashkenaz, the liturgical tradition used by Ashkenazi Jews in their siddur (prayer book). A nusach is defined by a liturgical tradition’s choice of prayers, the text of prayers & melodies used in the singing of prayers. 2 other major forms of nusach among Ashkenazi Jews are Nusach Sefard (not to be confused with the Sephardic ritual), which is the general Polish Hasidic nusach, and Nusach Ari, used by those in Chabad.

Make a one-time donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a monthly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a yearly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Rate this:

Ashkenazi Jews

Author’s Note: This post has mentions of Nazis, the Holocaust, & Nazi Germany. We completely understand if you wish to skip over this post. We’ll catch you in the next one!

Also known as Ashkenazic Jews, Ashkenazis, or Ashkenazim.

This is a form of distinct ethnic subdivision of the Jewish Diaspora. Emerging from the Jewish communities that consolidated during the 10th century in the Rhineland (Western Germany) & northern France. They migrated there from centers such as the Italian peninsula & the Southern Levant. This includes present-day Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, & Jordan.

After numerous massacres of Jews during the Crusades (11th-13th centuries), they began a gradual eastward migration due to mounting restrictions within the Holy Roman Empire & the favorable policies of Casimir the Great & others.

This diaspora ramped up after the persecution during the Black Death of the 14th century. The bulk of the Ashkenazi Jews had migrated to the Kingdom of Poland (which includes modern-day Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, & parts of Russia). This area became the main center of Ashkenazi Jewry until the Holocaust.

Ashkenazim adapted their traditions, rites, & customs to Europe. They traditionally followed the German rite synagogue ritual & until the Holocaust primarily spoke Yiddish, an offshoot of Middle High German written in a variety of the Hebrew script, with significant Hebrew, Aramaic, & Slavic influences.

The Yiddish language progressively declined in prestige, in favor of national languages & Hebrew, being stigmatized by assimilationists & later also Zionists. Though it was spoken by over 11 million people worldwide before the Holocaust. The Yiddishist movement, which sought to preserve & revive the language, faded through the 20th century. Including Duolingo adding Yiddish as a language.

As a proportion of the world Jewish population, Ashkenazim were estimated to be 3% in the 11th century, rising to 92% in 1930, near the population’s peak. The Ashkenazi population was significantly diminished by the Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germany during WWII, which killed around 6 million Jews. Before WWII, the estimated worldwide Jewish population was 15.3-16.7 million, with 92% being Ashkenazi. As of 2023, the population of Ashkenazim was estimated to be around 10-13 million out of 15.8 million total Jews.

The name Ashkenazi comes from the biblical figure of Ashkenaz. He’s the 1st son of Gomer, grandson of Japhet, great-grandson of Noah, & a Japhetic patriarch in the Table of Nations. The name for Gomer has often been linked to the Cimmerians.

The Biblical Ashkenazis are usually derived from Assyrian Askuza, a people who expelled the Cimmerians from the Armenian area of the Upper Euphrates. The name Askuza is identified with the Scythians.

In Jeremiah 51:27, Ashkenaz figures as 1 of 3 kingdoms in the far north, the others being Minni (or Mannaea), an ancient kingdom that flourished in northwestern Iran, & Arrat (corresponding to Urartu), called on by God to resist Babylon.

Ashkenaz is linked to Scandza/Scanzia (usually identified with Scandinavia), viewed as the cradle of Germanic tribes, in the 6th-century gloss to the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius. In the 10th century, in the History of Armenia of Yovhannes Drasxanakertci, Ashkenaz was associated with Armenia.

As it was occasionally in Jewish usage, where its denotation extended at times to Adiabene, Khazaria, Chimea, & areas to the east. They’re also identified with the Slavim or Slavs. In keeping with the custom of designating areas of Jewish settlement with biblical names, Spain was called Sefarad (Obadiah 20), France was called Tsarefat (I Kings 17:9), & Bohemia was called the Land of Canaan.

Given the close links between the Jewish communities of France & Germany following the Carolingian unification, the term Ashkenazi came to refer to the Jews of both medieval Germany & France.

In later times, the word Ashkenaz is used to designate southern & western Germany, the ritual of which sections differs somewhat from that of eastern Germany & Poland. Thus, the prayer book of Isaiah Horowitz (a prominent rabbi & mystic), & many others, give the piyyutim (a Jewish liturgical poem), according to the Minhag of Ashkenaz & Poland. A Minhag is an accepted tradition or group of traditions in Judaism.

In a religious sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is any Jew whose family tradition & synagogue ritual follow Ashkenazi practices (German rite). Until the Ashkenazi community 1st began to develop in the Early Middle Ages, the centers of Jewish religious authority were in the Islamic world, at Baghdad & Islamic Spain. German Ashkenaz was so geographically distant that it developed a minhag of its own.

The counterpart of Ashkenazi is Sephardic. Since most non-Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews follow Sephardic rabbinical authorities, whether or not they’re ethnically Sephardic. By tradition, a Sephardic or Mizrahi (a.k.a. Oriental Jews; Jews who lived in the Muslim world) who married into an Orthodox or Haredi (a.k.a. ultra-Orthodox) Ashkenazi Jewish family raises her kids to be Ashkenazi Jews.

On the other hand, an Ashkenazi woman who married a Sephardi or Mizrahi is expected to take on Sephardic practices & the kids will “inherit” a Sephardic identity. Though in practice, many families do compromise. A “convert” usually follows the practice of the rabbinical court (beth din) that converted them.

Culturally, an Ashkenazi Jew can be identified by the concept of Yiddishkeit, which means “Jewishness” in the Yiddish language. Before the Haskalah (a.k.a. the Jewish Enlightenment) & the emancipation of Jews in Europe, this meant the study of the Torah & the Talmud for men, & communal life governed by the observance of Jewish Law for men & women.

From the Rhineland to Riga (the largest city in Latvia) to Romania, most Jews prayed in liturgical Ashkenazi Hebrew, & spoke Yiddish in their secular (worldly) lives. But with modernization, Yiddishkeit now includes not just Orthodoxy & Hasidism, but a broader range of movements, ideologies, practices, & traditions in which Ashkenazi have participated & somehow kept a sense of Jewishness. Although pockets of Jews still speak Yiddish, Yiddishkeit can be identified in manners of speech, styles of humor, & in patterns of association.

As Ashkenazi Jews moved away from Europe, mostly in the form of aliyah to Israel. Or immigration to North America, South Africa, Europe (particularly France), & Latin America, the geographic isolation has given way to mixing with other cultures, & with non-Ashkenazi Jews who, similarly, are no longer isolated in distinct geographic locales.

Hebrew has replaced Yiddish as the primary Jewish language for many Ashkenazi Jews. Although many Hasidic & Hareidi groups still use Yiddish in daily life. Aliyah is the immigration of Jews from the diaspora to, historically, the geographic Land of Israel or the Palestine region, where the State of Israel was established.

France’s blended Jewish community is typical of the cultural recombination that’s going on among Jews throughout the world. Although France expelled its original Jewish population in the Middle Ages, by the time of the French Revolution, there were 2 distinct Jewish populations.

One consisted of Sephardic Jews, originally refugees from the Inquisition (which no one expects! Sorry, we’re Monty Python fans here.) & concentrated in the southwest. While the other community was Ashkenazi, concentrated in formerly German Alsace, & mainly speaking a German dialect similar to Yiddish.

The 3rd community of Provencal Jews living in Comtat Venaissin was technically outside France, & was later absorbed into the Sephardim. Comtat Venaissin (called Comtat, for short) was a part of the Papal States from 1274 to 1791.

But after emancipation, a sense of a unified French Jewry emerged, especially when France was wracked by the Dreyfus Affair in the 1890s. (We’ll be doing a post about the Dreyfus Affair.) In the 1920s & 30s, Ashkenazi Jews from Europe arrived in large numbers as refugees from antisemitism, the Russian Revolution, & the economic turmoil of the Great Depression.

By the 1930s, Paris had a vibrant Yiddish culture, & many Jews were involved in diverse political movements. After the Vichy years & the Holocaust, the French Jewish population was augmented once again, 1st by Ashkenazi refugees from Central Europe, & later by Sephardi immigrants & refugees from North Africa, many of them francophone. Francophone refers to people/organizations who use French (language) regularly.

Ashkenazi Jews didn’t transmit their traditions or achievements by text. Instead, these traditions were passed down orally from one generation to the next. The desire to maintain pre-Holocaust traditions relating to Ashkenazi culture has often been met with criticism by Jews in Eastern Europe.

In an ethnic sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is a descendant of the Jews who settled in the Central European region of “Ashkenaz.” For roughly 1,000 years, the Ashkenazim were a reproductively isolated population in Europe.

Despite living in many countries, with little inflow or outflow of countries from migration, conversion, or intermarriage with other groups, including other Jews. Since the mid-20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities & non-Jews.

Religious persecution of the Jews in Western & Central Europe led to a significant migration of the Ashkenazi Jews into Eastern Europe. This resulted in a major cultural divide between Western/Central & Eastern Ashkenazi communities. In particular, this was reflected in the division of Yiddish into Western & Eastern Yiddish dialects. As well as in other cultural distinctions: traditions, food, dress, etc.

Initially, the Jews of Eastern Europe enjoyed relative freedom in terms of movement, being invited by the kings of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Over time, the situation was reversed. By the 19th century, the Jews in the West had gradually been integrated into the general society.

While the Eastern Ashkenazi maintained their strict Jewish traditions & were mostly confined to ghettos, especially in the Pale of Settlement of the Russian Empire, which incorporated a considerable amount of land where the Eastern Ashkenazi lived: Poland & Lithuania.

Well-known differences in practices include:

• Observance of Passover (Pesach)
  • Ashkenazi Jews traditionally refrain from eating legumes, grain, millet, & rice. Quinoa has become accepted as a food grain in North American communities. Sephardi Jews typically don’t prohibit these foods.
• Notwithstanding stricter requirements for the ACTUAL slaughter, Sephardi Jews permit the rear portions of an animal after proper Halakhic removal of the sciatic nerve. While many Ashkenazi Jews don’t.
• Ashkenazi Jews often name newborns after deceased family members, not after living relatives. Sephardi Jews often name their kids after their grandparents, even if those grandparents are still living. An exception to this is among Dutch Jews, where Ashkenazi for centuries used naming conventions otherwise attributed exclusively to Sephardim, such as Chuts. Chuts is the name given to Jews who immigrated to London from the Netherlands in the 1850s-1860s.
• Ashkenazi tefillins are wound toward the body, not away from it. Ashkenazim put on the tefillin while standing up. Other Jews generally do so while sitting down. A tefillin(s) is/are sets of small black leather boxes with leather straps having scrolls of parchment written with verses of the Torah inside.
• The prayer shawl (tallit/tallis) is worn by all Ashkenazi men AFTER marriage. Except for Western European Ashkenazi men who wear it from the bar mitzvah. In Sephardi or Mizrahi Judaism, the prayer shawl is commonly worn from early childhood.

The term Ashkenazi also refers to the Nusach Ashkenaz, the liturgical tradition used by Ashkenazi Jews in their siddur (prayer book). A nusach is defined by a liturgical tradition’s choice of prayers, the text of prayers & melodies used in the singing of prayers. 2 other major forms of nusach among Ashkenazi Jews are Nusach Sefard (not to be confused with the Sephardic ritual), which is the general Polish Hasidic nusach, and Nusach Ari, used by those in Chabad.

Make a one-time donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a monthly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a yearly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Rate this:

Apocalypticism

This is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one’s own lifetime. This belief is usually accompanied by the idea that civilization will soon come to a tumultuous end due to some sort of catastrophic global event.

Apocalypticism is 1 aspect of eschatology in certain religions, the part of theology concerned with the final events of human history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity (societal collapse, human extinction, & so on). Religious views & movements often focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, & cataclysmic intervention of a god in human history; the judgment of humankind; the salvation of the faithful elect; & the eventual rule of the elect with the god in a heaven &/or upon a renewed Earth.

Arising originally in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in the eschatological speculations of Judaism, Christianity, & Islam (Abrahamic religions). Religious apocalypticism often involves themes such as God’s judgment, salvation of the faithful, & the eventual establishment of a renewed world.

Apocalypticism is often combined with the belief that esoteric knowledge will likely be revealed in a major confrontation between good & evil forces, destined to change the course of history. Apocalypse can be seen as good, bad, ambiguous, or neutral. This is highly dependent on the particular religion/belief system promoting them. It’s not exclusively a religious idea.

It’s not exclusively a religious idea. There are end times/transitional scenarios based on modern science, technology, political discourse, & conspiracy theories.

Various Christian eschatological systems have developed among different Christian denominations throughout the history of Christianity. Providing different frameworks for understanding the timing & nature of apocalypse vision. While others like postmillennialism & amillennialism.

While teaching that the end of the world could come at any moment tends to focus on the present life & contend that 1 shouldn’t attempt to predict when the end will come. Though there have been exceptions, such as postmillennialist Jonathan Edwards, who estimated that the end times would occur around the year 2000.

In Western Europe, during the year 1,000, Christian philosophers held many debates on when Jesus was actually born & the debates continue to today. This caused confusion among the common people about whether or not the apocalypse would occur at a certain time. Because both literate & illiterate people commonly accepted this idea of the apocalypse, they could only accept what they heard from religious leaders on when the disastrous event would occur.

Religious leader Abbo of Fleury believed that Jesus was born 21 years after the year 1, which was commonly accepted by close circles of his followers. Abbot Heriger of Lobbes argued that the birth of Jesus occurred not during the year 1 but rather during the 42nd year of the common era.

Many scholars came to accept that the apocalypse would occur sometime between 979 & 1042. Under the influence of the Sibylline Oracles & figures such as Otto III & Abbot Adso of Montier-en-Der, many believed that the apocalypse would soon occur.

Some historians think there were ample apocalyptic expectations at the approach of the year 1000 & again at the approach of 1000 anno passionis (1033). Other historians claim that the fear of the year 1000 is a myth & there was no widespread apocalypse sentiment.

As evidence, on December 31, 999, Pope Sylvester II granted certain privileges & guarantees to the Abbey of Fulda, without any indication that either the Pope or the abbot believed that the world was soon to end. There’s also a document from October 3, 999, in which Otto III grants future concessions to Farfa Abbey.

Another document in 999 shows 2 brothers taking a 29-year loan on lands of the abbey of San Marciano in Tortona, suggesting that even common people didn’t believe the world was ending. On the other hand, the fact that Otto III visited the tomb of Charlemagne, the emperor of the year 6,000 (Annus Mundi) on Pentecost of the year 1,000, suggests that even the man who appointed Sylvester pope had his own views on the matter.

The Crusades were filled with apocalyptic expectation & prophecy, beginning with the preaching of figures like Peter the Hermit to inspire knights, nobles, & commorers to March to the Holy Land, & take Jerusalem. Count Emicho, a leading figure of the People’s Crusade, claimed that Christ appeared & ordered him to fulfill apocalyptic prophecy by marching on Constantinople, seizing Jerusalem, triggering the Second Coming, & beginning the end times struggle against the Antichrist.

Leaders of the following Prince’s Crusade, such as Raymond of Aguilers (he was a participant & chronicler of the 1st Crusade & became the chaplain of Count Raymond IV of Toulouse, the leader of the Provençal army of crusaders), understood their conquest of Jerusalem as being a victory of Christendom over the Saracen “pagans” & as a sign of the oncoming Apocalypse & Second Coming.

Christian chronicles (like Matthew of Edessa) illustrated the Crusades in an apocalyptic framework, connecting the Frankish rule with the 4th kingdom in Daniel’s prophecy. Many other European writers emphasized the bloodlines during the massacre of Jerusalem as fulfilling the violent prophecies of Revelation.

Joachim of Fiore & other millenarian thinkers perceived the Crusades as temporary, foreseeing the voluntary conversion of the Islamic world over time.

The Fifth Monarchists/Fifth Monarchy Men were an extreme Puritan sect active for 11 years (1649-1660) during the Interregnum, following the English Civil Wars of the 17th century. They took their name from a prophecy in the Book of Daniel (which we, personally, can’t wait to get into!! Well, our founder, anyway. They adore apocalyptic prophecies! They’ll probably end up writing the whole Book of Daniel. With a TON of commentary.), that 4 ancient monarchies (Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, & Roman) would precede the kingdom of Christ.

The Great Disappointment in the Millerite Movement was the reaction that followed Baptist preacher William Miller’s predictions that Jesus Christ would return to the Earth by 1844, which he called the Second Advent. His study of the Daniel 8 prophecy during the Second Great Awakening led him to the conclusion that Daniel’s “cleansing of the sanctuary” was cleansing of the world from sin when Christ would come, & he & many others prepared. But October 22, 1844, came & they were disappointed.

These events paved the way for the Adventists who created the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They contended that what had happened on October 22 wasn’t Jesus’ return, as Miller had thought, but the start of Jesus’ final work of atonement, the cleansing in the heavenly sanctuary, leading up to the Second Coming of Christ.

The Mormon tradition teaches that followers are living shortly before the Second Coming of Christ. The term “latter days” is used in the official names of several Mormon churches, including the Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints. LDS president Wilford Woodruff (1889-1898) preached multiple times that many then-living followers “wouldn’t taste death” before witnessing the return of Christ.

According to LDS Church teachings, the true Gospel will be taught in all parts of the world before the Second Coming. Church members believe that there’ll be increasingly severe wars, earthquakes, hurricanes, & other man-made & natural disasters before the Second Coming.

The eschatology of Jehovah’s Witnesses is central to their faith & religious beliefs. They believe that Jesus Christ has been ruling in Heaven as king since 1914. This was a date they believed was prophesied in Scripture. After that time, a period of cleansing occurred, resulting in Charles Taze Russell being his people in 1919.

They also believe the destruction of those who reject their message & thus willfully refuse to obey God will shortly take place at Armageddon, ensuring that the beginning of the new earthly society will be composed of willing subjects of that kingdom.

The Watch Tower Society has stated that its early leaders promoted “incomplete, even inaccurate concepts.” The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses says that, unlike Old Testament prophets, its interpretations of the Bible aren’t inspired or infallible.

Witness publications say that Bible prophecies can be fully understood only after their fulfillment, citing examples of biblical figures who didn’t understand the meaning of prophecies they received. Watch Tower publications often cite Proverbs 4:18, “The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter & lighter until the day is firmly established,” to support their view that there would be an increase in knowledge during “the time of the end,” as mentioned in Daniel 12:4.

Jehovah’s Witnesses state that this increase in knowledge needs adjustments. Watch Tower publications also say that unfulfilled expectations are partly due to eagerness for God’s Kingdom & they don’t call their core beliefs into question.

For Christadelphians, Armageddon marks the “great climax of history when the nations would be gathered together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon,” & “the judgment of them would herald the setting up of the kingdom of God.”

After this, Christadelphians believe that Jesus will return to the earth in person to set up the kingdom of God in fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham & David. This includes the belief that the coming kingdom will be the restoration of God’s First Kingdom of Israel, which was David & Solomon. For Christadelphians, this is the focal point of the Gospel taught by Jesus & the apostles.

Realized eschatology is a Christian eschatology theory popularized by J.A.T Robinson, Joachim Jeremias, Ethelbert Stauffer, & C.H. Dodd that holds the eschatological passages in the New Testament do not refer to the future. But instead refers to the ministry of Jesus & his lasting legacy.

Eschatology is therefore not the end of the world, but its rebirth instituted by Jesus & continued by his disciples, a historical (rather than transhistorical) phenomenon. Those holding this view generally dismiss end-times theories, believing them to be irrelevant. They hold that what Jesus said & did, & told his disciples to do likewise, are of greater significance than any Messianic expectations.

David Meade is the pen name of an American end-times conspiracy theories & book author who has yet to disclose his real name. He’s best known for making numerous predictions, which have passed, regarding the end times, including that a hidden planet named Nibiru (a.k.a. Planet X) would destroy the Earth.

Meade predicted that planet Nibiru would collide with Earth on September 23, 2017, destroying it. After his prediction failed, he revised the apocalypse to October, where he stated that the 7-year tribulation would possibly start, followed by a millennium of peace.

In 2008, Meade again made several predictions for that year. For example, North Korea would become a superpower in March 2018, & that Nibiru would destroy the Earth in spring. But didn’t predict the exact date this time. After March 2018 passed, he moved the apocalypse to April 23, 2018, in which he also predicted the Sun, Moon, Jupiter, & Virgo would signal the Rapture, & that Nibiru would destroy the Earth that day.

However, before that date, he said that reports that he predicted at the end of April 23 were “fake news.” But that the Rapture – but not the end of the world – would take place on an unspecified date between May & December 2018.

UFO religions (think Heaven’s Gate, but without the unaliving) sometimes feature an anticipated end-time scenario in which extraterrestrial beings will bring about a radical change on Earth &/or “lift” the religious believers to a higher plane of existence.

Some followers of UFO religions believe that the arrival or rediscovery of alien civilizations, technologies, & spirituality will enable human beings to overcome current ecological, spiritual, political, & social problems on planet Earth.

Issues such as hatred, war, bigotry, poverty, & so on are said to be resolvable through the use of superior alien technology & spiritual abilities. Such belief systems are also described as millennial in their outlook.

The Zoroastrian eschatological ideas are only alluded to in the surviving texts of the Avesta, in particular in the 9th-century text Bundahishn. The accompanying story, as it shows up in the Bundahishn, says: At the end of the “3rd time” (the 1st being the age of creation, the 2nd of mixture, & the 3rd of separation), there will be a great battle between the forces of good (yazata) & those of evil (daeva), in which the good will triumph.

On Earth, the Saoshyant will bring about a resurrection of the dead in the bodies they had before they died. This is followed by a Last Judgment through an ordeal. The yazata Airyaman & Atar will melt in the hills & mountains, & the molten metal will then flow across the earth like a river.

But for the righteous (ashavan), it will seem to be a river of warm milk, while the wicked will be burned. The river will then flow down to Hell, where it will annihilate Angra Mainyu & the last vestiges of wickedness in the universe. The narrative continues with a projection of Ahura Mazda & the 6 Amesha Spentas solemnizing a final act of worship (Yasna), & the preparation of parahaoma from “white haoma.” The righteous will partake of the parahaoma, which will confer immortality upon them.

Therefore, humankind will become like the Amesha Spentas, living without food, without hunger or thirst, without weapons or possibility of bodily injury. The material substance of the bodies will be sol ight as to cast no shadow. All humanity will speak a single purpose & goal, joining with the divine for a perpetual exaltation of God’s glory.

Although Frashokereti is a restoration of the time of creation, there’s no return to the uniqueness of the primordial plant, animal, & human. While in the beginning there was 1 plant, 1 animal, & 1 human, the variety that had since been issued would remain forever.

Similarly, the host of divinities brought into existence by Ahura Mazda continue to have distinct existences, “& there is no prophecy of their reabsorption into the Godhead.”

Make a one-time donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a monthly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a yearly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Rate this:

Apocalypticism

This is the religious belief that the end of the world is imminent, even within one’s own lifetime. This belief is usually accompanied by the idea that civilization will soon come to a tumultuous end due to some sort of catastrophic global event.

Apocalypticism is 1 aspect of eschatology in certain religions, the part of theology concerned with the final events of human history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity (societal collapse, human extinction, & so on). Religious views & movements often focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, & cataclysmic intervention of a god in human history; the judgment of humankind; the salvation of the faithful elect; & the eventual rule of the elect with the god in a heaven &/or upon a renewed Earth.

Arising originally in Zoroastrianism, apocalypticism was developed more fully in the eschatological speculations of Judaism, Christianity, & Islam (Abrahamic religions). Religious apocalypticism often involves themes such as God’s judgment, salvation of the faithful, & the eventual establishment of a renewed world.

Apocalypticism is often combined with the belief that esoteric knowledge will likely be revealed in a major confrontation between good & evil forces, destined to change the course of history. Apocalypse can be seen as good, bad, ambiguous, or neutral. This is highly dependent on the particular religion/belief system promoting them. It’s not exclusively a religious idea.

It’s not exclusively a religious idea. There are end times/transitional scenarios based on modern science, technology, political discourse, & conspiracy theories.

Various Christian eschatological systems have developed among different Christian denominations throughout the history of Christianity. Providing different frameworks for understanding the timing & nature of apocalypse vision. While others like postmillennialism & amillennialism.

While teaching that the end of the world could come at any moment tends to focus on the present life & contend that 1 shouldn’t attempt to predict when the end will come. Though there have been exceptions, such as postmillennialist Jonathan Edwards, who estimated that the end times would occur around the year 2000.

In Western Europe, during the year 1,000, Christian philosophers held many debates on when Jesus was actually born & the debates continue to today. This caused confusion among the common people about whether or not the apocalypse would occur at a certain time. Because both literate & illiterate people commonly accepted this idea of the apocalypse, they could only accept what they heard from religious leaders on when the disastrous event would occur.

Religious leader Abbo of Fleury believed that Jesus was born 21 years after the year 1, which was commonly accepted by close circles of his followers. Abbot Heriger of Lobbes argued that the birth of Jesus occurred not during the year 1 but rather during the 42nd year of the common era.

Many scholars came to accept that the apocalypse would occur sometime between 979 & 1042. Under the influence of the Sibylline Oracles & figures such as Otto III & Abbot Adso of Montier-en-Der, many believed that the apocalypse would soon occur.

Some historians think there were ample apocalyptic expectations at the approach of the year 1000 & again at the approach of 1000 anno passionis (1033). Other historians claim that the fear of the year 1000 is a myth & there was no widespread apocalypse sentiment.

As evidence, on December 31, 999, Pope Sylvester II granted certain privileges & guarantees to the Abbey of Fulda, without any indication that either the Pope or the abbot believed that the world was soon to end. There’s also a document from October 3, 999, in which Otto III grants future concessions to Farfa Abbey.

Another document in 999 shows 2 brothers taking a 29-year loan on lands of the abbey of San Marciano in Tortona, suggesting that even common people didn’t believe the world was ending. On the other hand, the fact that Otto III visited the tomb of Charlemagne, the emperor of the year 6,000 (Annus Mundi) on Pentecost of the year 1,000, suggests that even the man who appointed Sylvester pope had his own views on the matter.

The Crusades were filled with apocalyptic expectation & prophecy, beginning with the preaching of figures like Peter the Hermit to inspire knights, nobles, & commorers to March to the Holy Land, & take Jerusalem. Count Emicho, a leading figure of the People’s Crusade, claimed that Christ appeared & ordered him to fulfill apocalyptic prophecy by marching on Constantinople, seizing Jerusalem, triggering the Second Coming, & beginning the end times struggle against the Antichrist.

Leaders of the following Prince’s Crusade, such as Raymond of Aguilers (he was a participant & chronicler of the 1st Crusade & became the chaplain of Count Raymond IV of Toulouse, the leader of the Provençal army of crusaders), understood their conquest of Jerusalem as being a victory of Christendom over the Saracen “pagans” & as a sign of the oncoming Apocalypse & Second Coming.

Christian chronicles (like Matthew of Edessa) illustrated the Crusades in an apocalyptic framework, connecting the Frankish rule with the 4th kingdom in Daniel’s prophecy. Many other European writers emphasized the bloodlines during the massacre of Jerusalem as fulfilling the violent prophecies of Revelation.

Joachim of Fiore & other millenarian thinkers perceived the Crusades as temporary, foreseeing the voluntary conversion of the Islamic world over time.

The Fifth Monarchists/Fifth Monarchy Men were an extreme Puritan sect active for 11 years (1649-1660) during the Interregnum, following the English Civil Wars of the 17th century. They took their name from a prophecy in the Book of Daniel (which we, personally, can’t wait to get into!! Well, our founder, anyway. They adore apocalyptic prophecies! They’ll probably end up writing the whole Book of Daniel. With a TON of commentary.), that 4 ancient monarchies (Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, & Roman) would precede the kingdom of Christ.

The Great Disappointment in the Millerite Movement was the reaction that followed Baptist preacher William Miller’s predictions that Jesus Christ would return to the Earth by 1844, which he called the Second Advent. His study of the Daniel 8 prophecy during the Second Great Awakening led him to the conclusion that Daniel’s “cleansing of the sanctuary” was cleansing of the world from sin when Christ would come, & he & many others prepared. But October 22, 1844, came & they were disappointed.

These events paved the way for the Adventists who created the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They contended that what had happened on October 22 wasn’t Jesus’ return, as Miller had thought, but the start of Jesus’ final work of atonement, the cleansing in the heavenly sanctuary, leading up to the Second Coming of Christ.

The Mormon tradition teaches that followers are living shortly before the Second Coming of Christ. The term “latter days” is used in the official names of several Mormon churches, including the Church of Jesus of Latter-day Saints. LDS president Wilford Woodruff (1889-1898) preached multiple times that many then-living followers “wouldn’t taste death” before witnessing the return of Christ.

According to LDS Church teachings, the true Gospel will be taught in all parts of the world before the Second Coming. Church members believe that there’ll be increasingly severe wars, earthquakes, hurricanes, & other man-made & natural disasters before the Second Coming.

The eschatology of Jehovah’s Witnesses is central to their faith & religious beliefs. They believe that Jesus Christ has been ruling in Heaven as king since 1914. This was a date they believed was prophesied in Scripture. After that time, a period of cleansing occurred, resulting in Charles Taze Russell being his people in 1919.

They also believe the destruction of those who reject their message & thus willfully refuse to obey God will shortly take place at Armageddon, ensuring that the beginning of the new earthly society will be composed of willing subjects of that kingdom.

The Watch Tower Society has stated that its early leaders promoted “incomplete, even inaccurate concepts.” The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses says that, unlike Old Testament prophets, its interpretations of the Bible aren’t inspired or infallible.

Witness publications say that Bible prophecies can be fully understood only after their fulfillment, citing examples of biblical figures who didn’t understand the meaning of prophecies they received. Watch Tower publications often cite Proverbs 4:18, “The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter & lighter until the day is firmly established,” to support their view that there would be an increase in knowledge during “the time of the end,” as mentioned in Daniel 12:4.

Jehovah’s Witnesses state that this increase in knowledge needs adjustments. Watch Tower publications also say that unfulfilled expectations are partly due to eagerness for God’s Kingdom & they don’t call their core beliefs into question.

For Christadelphians, Armageddon marks the “great climax of history when the nations would be gathered together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon,” & “the judgment of them would herald the setting up of the kingdom of God.”

After this, Christadelphians believe that Jesus will return to the earth in person to set up the kingdom of God in fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham & David. This includes the belief that the coming kingdom will be the restoration of God’s First Kingdom of Israel, which was David & Solomon. For Christadelphians, this is the focal point of the Gospel taught by Jesus & the apostles.

Realized eschatology is a Christian eschatology theory popularized by J.A.T Robinson, Joachim Jeremias, Ethelbert Stauffer, & C.H. Dodd that holds the eschatological passages in the New Testament do not refer to the future. But instead refers to the ministry of Jesus & his lasting legacy.

Eschatology is therefore not the end of the world, but its rebirth instituted by Jesus & continued by his disciples, a historical (rather than transhistorical) phenomenon. Those holding this view generally dismiss end-times theories, believing them to be irrelevant. They hold that what Jesus said & did, & told his disciples to do likewise, are of greater significance than any Messianic expectations.

David Meade is the pen name of an American end-times conspiracy theories & book author who has yet to disclose his real name. He’s best known for making numerous predictions, which have passed, regarding the end times, including that a hidden planet named Nibiru (a.k.a. Planet X) would destroy the Earth.

Meade predicted that planet Nibiru would collide with Earth on September 23, 2017, destroying it. After his prediction failed, he revised the apocalypse to October, where he stated that the 7-year tribulation would possibly start, followed by a millennium of peace.

In 2008, Meade again made several predictions for that year. For example, North Korea would become a superpower in March 2018, & that Nibiru would destroy the Earth in spring. But didn’t predict the exact date this time. After March 2018 passed, he moved the apocalypse to April 23, 2018, in which he also predicted the Sun, Moon, Jupiter, & Virgo would signal the Rapture, & that Nibiru would destroy the Earth that day.

However, before that date, he said that reports that he predicted at the end of April 23 were “fake news.” But that the Rapture – but not the end of the world – would take place on an unspecified date between May & December 2018.

UFO religions (think Heaven’s Gate, but without the unaliving) sometimes feature an anticipated end-time scenario in which extraterrestrial beings will bring about a radical change on Earth &/or “lift” the religious believers to a higher plane of existence.

Some followers of UFO religions believe that the arrival or rediscovery of alien civilizations, technologies, & spirituality will enable human beings to overcome current ecological, spiritual, political, & social problems on planet Earth.

Issues such as hatred, war, bigotry, poverty, & so on are said to be resolvable through the use of superior alien technology & spiritual abilities. Such belief systems are also described as millennial in their outlook.

The Zoroastrian eschatological ideas are only alluded to in the surviving texts of the Avesta, in particular in the 9th-century text Bundahishn. The accompanying story, as it shows up in the Bundahishn, says: At the end of the “3rd time” (the 1st being the age of creation, the 2nd of mixture, & the 3rd of separation), there will be a great battle between the forces of good (yazata) & those of evil (daeva), in which the good will triumph.

On Earth, the Saoshyant will bring about a resurrection of the dead in the bodies they had before they died. This is followed by a Last Judgment through an ordeal. The yazata Airyaman & Atar will melt in the hills & mountains, & the molten metal will then flow across the earth like a river.

But for the righteous (ashavan), it will seem to be a river of warm milk, while the wicked will be burned. The river will then flow down to Hell, where it will annihilate Angra Mainyu & the last vestiges of wickedness in the universe. The narrative continues with a projection of Ahura Mazda & the 6 Amesha Spentas solemnizing a final act of worship (Yasna), & the preparation of parahaoma from “white haoma.” The righteous will partake of the parahaoma, which will confer immortality upon them.

Therefore, humankind will become like the Amesha Spentas, living without food, without hunger or thirst, without weapons or possibility of bodily injury. The material substance of the bodies will be sol ight as to cast no shadow. All humanity will speak a single purpose & goal, joining with the divine for a perpetual exaltation of God’s glory.

Although Frashokereti is a restoration of the time of creation, there’s no return to the uniqueness of the primordial plant, animal, & human. While in the beginning there was 1 plant, 1 animal, & 1 human, the variety that had since been issued would remain forever.

Similarly, the host of divinities brought into existence by Ahura Mazda continue to have distinct existences, “& there is no prophecy of their reabsorption into the Godhead.”

Make a one-time donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a monthly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Make a yearly donation

Your contribution is appreciated.

Rate this:

Excerpt from "Commons, #Libraries & #Degrowth" by Andrewism

"How has the potent alternative present in the commons been so wiped from our collective memory?

"It goes back to the feudal concept of land ownership, the age of European #colonialism, and of course, the rise of #IndustrialCapitalism. The king of England, for example, owned all the land in feudal England but bestowed titles for pledges of loyalty to powerful members of the nobility that allowed them to rule over large estates. These lords leased the land they were given to aristocrats, who also leased parts of their land as payment, for military aid, or for rent. This rigidly hierarchical system of obligation between landed lords and their tenants or vassals reinforced the monarchy’s ability to stake a claim on the land in their kingdom. However, at the bottom of this system were the peasants, who did all the actual work on the common land on the lord’s estate. Many were generationally serfs; legally prohibited from leaving the land they cultivated without their lord’s permission. Lords may have come and gone, but their bondage to the land was basically forever.

"After the #MagnaCarta, the #BlackDeath, the #Crusades, and all the other dramas that brought #feudalism into decline, the nobility initiated a process of #privatisation that laid the groundwork for early #capitalism through acquisitions, settlement, and enclosure of the commons. But even though revolutions and reforms came and went and most of us have gotten rid of our inbred kings and queens and their right to rule, the concept of sovereignty over private parcels of land and the feudal relationship of landlord and tenant has endured to this day, exported globally through #EuropeanColonialism.

"Despite this violent and antisocial theft of our access to even the means of subsistence, some commons have survived and thrived, though they operate within the constraints of the State and the #GlobalCapitalist status quo. Still, there is a lot we can learn from them when it comes to how to manage the commons.

"Why have they succeeded where others have failed in maintaining their commons? All efforts to organise collective action, including the commons, must address a common set of problems: how to supply new institutions, how to solve commitment issues, and how to maintain stability. It’s not easy. And yet some individuals have created institutions, committed themselves to following the rules they’ve come up with together, and assessed their own and others’ conformance to the rules in order to maintain the stability of their shared commons. Again, why have they succeeded where others have failed? External factors seem to play a significant role. Some have more autonomy than others to change their own institutions while others have change happen too rapidly for them to respond and adjust. Regardless, people try their best to solve the problems they face, despite their limitations. What factors help or hinder them in these efforts is a matter of careful study if we wish to succeed in organising and running our own commons.

"But first, we need to clarify some definitions.

"The commons are based on a common-pool resource or CPR, which is a natural or man-made resource system that benefits a group of people, but provides diminished benefits to everyone if each individual pursues their own self-interest. We must draw a further distinction between the resource system and the resource units produced by the system. Resource systems include #forests, #groundwater basins, irrigation canals, #lakes, #fisheries, #pastures, and even #infrastructure like windmills and the internet, while resource units consist of whatever users appropriate from those resource systems, such as cubic metres of lumber harvested and water withdrawn, tons of fish harvested and fodder grazed, kilowatts generated and network bandwidth used. It’s also important to maintain the #renewability of a resource system by ensuring that the average rate of withdrawal does not exceed the average rate of #replenishment.

"The term ‘appropriators’ refers to those who withdraw resource units from a resource system, like a fisher or farmer. Appropriators may use the resource units they withdraw, like residents powering their homes or farmers watering their crops, or they may transfer the resource units for others to use, such as a logger sending lumber to a hardware store for sale. Those who arrange for the provision of a CPR through financing or design are providers, while producers are those who actually construct, repair, and sustain the resource system itself. Providers, producers, and appropriators are often all the same people.

"Appropriators who share a CPR are deeply intertwined in a tapestry of interdependence. Acting selfishly and independently will usually obtain less benefit than they could have had they collectively organised in some way. The process of organising enables us to coordinate and change our shared situations to obtain higher shared benefits and reduce shared harm.

"Some of the commons institutions that endure today are as old as over a thousand years, while others are a few hundred at most. They exist alongside the personal property of the appropriators involved, such as their crops and livestock, but have remained at the core of these communities’ economies for generations. They have survived #droughts, #floods, #wars, #pestilences, and many major economic and political changes. From the alpine meadows of Torbel, Switzerland to the 3 million hectares of Japanese forest to the irrigation systems of Spain and the Philippines, these projects have evolved over time in response to experience and circumstance. None of them are perfect demonstrations of anarchy or anything, nor are they necessarily the most ‘optimal’ by some metrics. But they are successful in establishing a level of #autonomy and #resilience in the people involved in them, and they’ve managed to carefully maintain the ecology of the regions they inhabit.

"These institutions exist in different settings and have different histories, yet they simultaneously share fundamental similarities. Unpredictable and complex environments combined with engineering and farming skills combined with a predictable population over an extended period of time. These fairly egalitarian communities have developed extensive norms that define proper behaviour, involving honesty and reliability, allowing them to live without excessive conflict in a deeply interdependent environment. The perseverance of these institutions is due to the seven, and in some cases eight, key principles that Elinor Ostrom outlines in Governing the Commons..."

Read more:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andrewism-commons-libraries-degrowth
#SolarPunkSunday #AnarchistLibrary #ClimateCrisis #Resiliency

Excerpt from "Commons, #Libraries & #Degrowth" by Andrewism

"How has the potent alternative present in the commons been so wiped from our collective memory?

"It goes back to the feudal concept of land ownership, the age of European #colonialism, and of course, the rise of #IndustrialCapitalism. The king of England, for example, owned all the land in feudal England but bestowed titles for pledges of loyalty to powerful members of the nobility that allowed them to rule over large estates. These lords leased the land they were given to aristocrats, who also leased parts of their land as payment, for military aid, or for rent. This rigidly hierarchical system of obligation between landed lords and their tenants or vassals reinforced the monarchy’s ability to stake a claim on the land in their kingdom. However, at the bottom of this system were the peasants, who did all the actual work on the common land on the lord’s estate. Many were generationally serfs; legally prohibited from leaving the land they cultivated without their lord’s permission. Lords may have come and gone, but their bondage to the land was basically forever.

"After the #MagnaCarta, the #BlackDeath, the #Crusades, and all the other dramas that brought #feudalism into decline, the nobility initiated a process of #privatisation that laid the groundwork for early #capitalism through acquisitions, settlement, and enclosure of the commons. But even though revolutions and reforms came and went and most of us have gotten rid of our inbred kings and queens and their right to rule, the concept of sovereignty over private parcels of land and the feudal relationship of landlord and tenant has endured to this day, exported globally through #EuropeanColonialism.

"Despite this violent and antisocial theft of our access to even the means of subsistence, some commons have survived and thrived, though they operate within the constraints of the State and the #GlobalCapitalist status quo. Still, there is a lot we can learn from them when it comes to how to manage the commons.

"Why have they succeeded where others have failed in maintaining their commons? All efforts to organise collective action, including the commons, must address a common set of problems: how to supply new institutions, how to solve commitment issues, and how to maintain stability. It’s not easy. And yet some individuals have created institutions, committed themselves to following the rules they’ve come up with together, and assessed their own and others’ conformance to the rules in order to maintain the stability of their shared commons. Again, why have they succeeded where others have failed? External factors seem to play a significant role. Some have more autonomy than others to change their own institutions while others have change happen too rapidly for them to respond and adjust. Regardless, people try their best to solve the problems they face, despite their limitations. What factors help or hinder them in these efforts is a matter of careful study if we wish to succeed in organising and running our own commons.

"But first, we need to clarify some definitions.

"The commons are based on a common-pool resource or CPR, which is a natural or man-made resource system that benefits a group of people, but provides diminished benefits to everyone if each individual pursues their own self-interest. We must draw a further distinction between the resource system and the resource units produced by the system. Resource systems include #forests, #groundwater basins, irrigation canals, #lakes, #fisheries, #pastures, and even #infrastructure like windmills and the internet, while resource units consist of whatever users appropriate from those resource systems, such as cubic metres of lumber harvested and water withdrawn, tons of fish harvested and fodder grazed, kilowatts generated and network bandwidth used. It’s also important to maintain the #renewability of a resource system by ensuring that the average rate of withdrawal does not exceed the average rate of #replenishment.

"The term ‘appropriators’ refers to those who withdraw resource units from a resource system, like a fisher or farmer. Appropriators may use the resource units they withdraw, like residents powering their homes or farmers watering their crops, or they may transfer the resource units for others to use, such as a logger sending lumber to a hardware store for sale. Those who arrange for the provision of a CPR through financing or design are providers, while producers are those who actually construct, repair, and sustain the resource system itself. Providers, producers, and appropriators are often all the same people.

"Appropriators who share a CPR are deeply intertwined in a tapestry of interdependence. Acting selfishly and independently will usually obtain less benefit than they could have had they collectively organised in some way. The process of organising enables us to coordinate and change our shared situations to obtain higher shared benefits and reduce shared harm.

"Some of the commons institutions that endure today are as old as over a thousand years, while others are a few hundred at most. They exist alongside the personal property of the appropriators involved, such as their crops and livestock, but have remained at the core of these communities’ economies for generations. They have survived #droughts, #floods, #wars, #pestilences, and many major economic and political changes. From the alpine meadows of Torbel, Switzerland to the 3 million hectares of Japanese forest to the irrigation systems of Spain and the Philippines, these projects have evolved over time in response to experience and circumstance. None of them are perfect demonstrations of anarchy or anything, nor are they necessarily the most ‘optimal’ by some metrics. But they are successful in establishing a level of #autonomy and #resilience in the people involved in them, and they’ve managed to carefully maintain the ecology of the regions they inhabit.

"These institutions exist in different settings and have different histories, yet they simultaneously share fundamental similarities. Unpredictable and complex environments combined with engineering and farming skills combined with a predictable population over an extended period of time. These fairly egalitarian communities have developed extensive norms that define proper behaviour, involving honesty and reliability, allowing them to live without excessive conflict in a deeply interdependent environment. The perseverance of these institutions is due to the seven, and in some cases eight, key principles that Elinor Ostrom outlines in Governing the Commons..."

Read more:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andrewism-commons-libraries-degrowth
#SolarPunkSunday #AnarchistLibrary #ClimateCrisis #Resiliency

Excerpt from "Commons, #Libraries & #Degrowth" by Andrewism

"How has the potent alternative present in the commons been so wiped from our collective memory?

"It goes back to the feudal concept of land ownership, the age of European #colonialism, and of course, the rise of #IndustrialCapitalism. The king of England, for example, owned all the land in feudal England but bestowed titles for pledges of loyalty to powerful members of the nobility that allowed them to rule over large estates. These lords leased the land they were given to aristocrats, who also leased parts of their land as payment, for military aid, or for rent. This rigidly hierarchical system of obligation between landed lords and their tenants or vassals reinforced the monarchy’s ability to stake a claim on the land in their kingdom. However, at the bottom of this system were the peasants, who did all the actual work on the common land on the lord’s estate. Many were generationally serfs; legally prohibited from leaving the land they cultivated without their lord’s permission. Lords may have come and gone, but their bondage to the land was basically forever.

"After the #MagnaCarta, the #BlackDeath, the #Crusades, and all the other dramas that brought #feudalism into decline, the nobility initiated a process of #privatisation that laid the groundwork for early #capitalism through acquisitions, settlement, and enclosure of the commons. But even though revolutions and reforms came and went and most of us have gotten rid of our inbred kings and queens and their right to rule, the concept of sovereignty over private parcels of land and the feudal relationship of landlord and tenant has endured to this day, exported globally through #EuropeanColonialism.

"Despite this violent and antisocial theft of our access to even the means of subsistence, some commons have survived and thrived, though they operate within the constraints of the State and the #GlobalCapitalist status quo. Still, there is a lot we can learn from them when it comes to how to manage the commons.

"Why have they succeeded where others have failed in maintaining their commons? All efforts to organise collective action, including the commons, must address a common set of problems: how to supply new institutions, how to solve commitment issues, and how to maintain stability. It’s not easy. And yet some individuals have created institutions, committed themselves to following the rules they’ve come up with together, and assessed their own and others’ conformance to the rules in order to maintain the stability of their shared commons. Again, why have they succeeded where others have failed? External factors seem to play a significant role. Some have more autonomy than others to change their own institutions while others have change happen too rapidly for them to respond and adjust. Regardless, people try their best to solve the problems they face, despite their limitations. What factors help or hinder them in these efforts is a matter of careful study if we wish to succeed in organising and running our own commons.

"But first, we need to clarify some definitions.

"The commons are based on a common-pool resource or CPR, which is a natural or man-made resource system that benefits a group of people, but provides diminished benefits to everyone if each individual pursues their own self-interest. We must draw a further distinction between the resource system and the resource units produced by the system. Resource systems include #forests, #groundwater basins, irrigation canals, #lakes, #fisheries, #pastures, and even #infrastructure like windmills and the internet, while resource units consist of whatever users appropriate from those resource systems, such as cubic metres of lumber harvested and water withdrawn, tons of fish harvested and fodder grazed, kilowatts generated and network bandwidth used. It’s also important to maintain the #renewability of a resource system by ensuring that the average rate of withdrawal does not exceed the average rate of #replenishment.

"The term ‘appropriators’ refers to those who withdraw resource units from a resource system, like a fisher or farmer. Appropriators may use the resource units they withdraw, like residents powering their homes or farmers watering their crops, or they may transfer the resource units for others to use, such as a logger sending lumber to a hardware store for sale. Those who arrange for the provision of a CPR through financing or design are providers, while producers are those who actually construct, repair, and sustain the resource system itself. Providers, producers, and appropriators are often all the same people.

"Appropriators who share a CPR are deeply intertwined in a tapestry of interdependence. Acting selfishly and independently will usually obtain less benefit than they could have had they collectively organised in some way. The process of organising enables us to coordinate and change our shared situations to obtain higher shared benefits and reduce shared harm.

"Some of the commons institutions that endure today are as old as over a thousand years, while others are a few hundred at most. They exist alongside the personal property of the appropriators involved, such as their crops and livestock, but have remained at the core of these communities’ economies for generations. They have survived #droughts, #floods, #wars, #pestilences, and many major economic and political changes. From the alpine meadows of Torbel, Switzerland to the 3 million hectares of Japanese forest to the irrigation systems of Spain and the Philippines, these projects have evolved over time in response to experience and circumstance. None of them are perfect demonstrations of anarchy or anything, nor are they necessarily the most ‘optimal’ by some metrics. But they are successful in establishing a level of #autonomy and #resilience in the people involved in them, and they’ve managed to carefully maintain the ecology of the regions they inhabit.

"These institutions exist in different settings and have different histories, yet they simultaneously share fundamental similarities. Unpredictable and complex environments combined with engineering and farming skills combined with a predictable population over an extended period of time. These fairly egalitarian communities have developed extensive norms that define proper behaviour, involving honesty and reliability, allowing them to live without excessive conflict in a deeply interdependent environment. The perseverance of these institutions is due to the seven, and in some cases eight, key principles that Elinor Ostrom outlines in Governing the Commons..."

Read more:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andrewism-commons-libraries-degrowth
#SolarPunkSunday #AnarchistLibrary #ClimateCrisis #Resiliency

Excerpt from "Commons, #Libraries & #Degrowth" by Andrewism

"How has the potent alternative present in the commons been so wiped from our collective memory?

"It goes back to the feudal concept of land ownership, the age of European #colonialism, and of course, the rise of #IndustrialCapitalism. The king of England, for example, owned all the land in feudal England but bestowed titles for pledges of loyalty to powerful members of the nobility that allowed them to rule over large estates. These lords leased the land they were given to aristocrats, who also leased parts of their land as payment, for military aid, or for rent. This rigidly hierarchical system of obligation between landed lords and their tenants or vassals reinforced the monarchy’s ability to stake a claim on the land in their kingdom. However, at the bottom of this system were the peasants, who did all the actual work on the common land on the lord’s estate. Many were generationally serfs; legally prohibited from leaving the land they cultivated without their lord’s permission. Lords may have come and gone, but their bondage to the land was basically forever.

"After the #MagnaCarta, the #BlackDeath, the #Crusades, and all the other dramas that brought #feudalism into decline, the nobility initiated a process of #privatisation that laid the groundwork for early #capitalism through acquisitions, settlement, and enclosure of the commons. But even though revolutions and reforms came and went and most of us have gotten rid of our inbred kings and queens and their right to rule, the concept of sovereignty over private parcels of land and the feudal relationship of landlord and tenant has endured to this day, exported globally through #EuropeanColonialism.

"Despite this violent and antisocial theft of our access to even the means of subsistence, some commons have survived and thrived, though they operate within the constraints of the State and the #GlobalCapitalist status quo. Still, there is a lot we can learn from them when it comes to how to manage the commons.

"Why have they succeeded where others have failed in maintaining their commons? All efforts to organise collective action, including the commons, must address a common set of problems: how to supply new institutions, how to solve commitment issues, and how to maintain stability. It’s not easy. And yet some individuals have created institutions, committed themselves to following the rules they’ve come up with together, and assessed their own and others’ conformance to the rules in order to maintain the stability of their shared commons. Again, why have they succeeded where others have failed? External factors seem to play a significant role. Some have more autonomy than others to change their own institutions while others have change happen too rapidly for them to respond and adjust. Regardless, people try their best to solve the problems they face, despite their limitations. What factors help or hinder them in these efforts is a matter of careful study if we wish to succeed in organising and running our own commons.

"But first, we need to clarify some definitions.

"The commons are based on a common-pool resource or CPR, which is a natural or man-made resource system that benefits a group of people, but provides diminished benefits to everyone if each individual pursues their own self-interest. We must draw a further distinction between the resource system and the resource units produced by the system. Resource systems include #forests, #groundwater basins, irrigation canals, #lakes, #fisheries, #pastures, and even #infrastructure like windmills and the internet, while resource units consist of whatever users appropriate from those resource systems, such as cubic metres of lumber harvested and water withdrawn, tons of fish harvested and fodder grazed, kilowatts generated and network bandwidth used. It’s also important to maintain the #renewability of a resource system by ensuring that the average rate of withdrawal does not exceed the average rate of #replenishment.

"The term ‘appropriators’ refers to those who withdraw resource units from a resource system, like a fisher or farmer. Appropriators may use the resource units they withdraw, like residents powering their homes or farmers watering their crops, or they may transfer the resource units for others to use, such as a logger sending lumber to a hardware store for sale. Those who arrange for the provision of a CPR through financing or design are providers, while producers are those who actually construct, repair, and sustain the resource system itself. Providers, producers, and appropriators are often all the same people.

"Appropriators who share a CPR are deeply intertwined in a tapestry of interdependence. Acting selfishly and independently will usually obtain less benefit than they could have had they collectively organised in some way. The process of organising enables us to coordinate and change our shared situations to obtain higher shared benefits and reduce shared harm.

"Some of the commons institutions that endure today are as old as over a thousand years, while others are a few hundred at most. They exist alongside the personal property of the appropriators involved, such as their crops and livestock, but have remained at the core of these communities’ economies for generations. They have survived #droughts, #floods, #wars, #pestilences, and many major economic and political changes. From the alpine meadows of Torbel, Switzerland to the 3 million hectares of Japanese forest to the irrigation systems of Spain and the Philippines, these projects have evolved over time in response to experience and circumstance. None of them are perfect demonstrations of anarchy or anything, nor are they necessarily the most ‘optimal’ by some metrics. But they are successful in establishing a level of #autonomy and #resilience in the people involved in them, and they’ve managed to carefully maintain the ecology of the regions they inhabit.

"These institutions exist in different settings and have different histories, yet they simultaneously share fundamental similarities. Unpredictable and complex environments combined with engineering and farming skills combined with a predictable population over an extended period of time. These fairly egalitarian communities have developed extensive norms that define proper behaviour, involving honesty and reliability, allowing them to live without excessive conflict in a deeply interdependent environment. The perseverance of these institutions is due to the seven, and in some cases eight, key principles that Elinor Ostrom outlines in Governing the Commons..."

Read more:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andrewism-commons-libraries-degrowth
#SolarPunkSunday #AnarchistLibrary #ClimateCrisis #Resiliency

Excerpt from "Commons, #Libraries & #Degrowth" by Andrewism

"How has the potent alternative present in the commons been so wiped from our collective memory?

"It goes back to the feudal concept of land ownership, the age of European #colonialism, and of course, the rise of #IndustrialCapitalism. The king of England, for example, owned all the land in feudal England but bestowed titles for pledges of loyalty to powerful members of the nobility that allowed them to rule over large estates. These lords leased the land they were given to aristocrats, who also leased parts of their land as payment, for military aid, or for rent. This rigidly hierarchical system of obligation between landed lords and their tenants or vassals reinforced the monarchy’s ability to stake a claim on the land in their kingdom. However, at the bottom of this system were the peasants, who did all the actual work on the common land on the lord’s estate. Many were generationally serfs; legally prohibited from leaving the land they cultivated without their lord’s permission. Lords may have come and gone, but their bondage to the land was basically forever.

"After the #MagnaCarta, the #BlackDeath, the #Crusades, and all the other dramas that brought #feudalism into decline, the nobility initiated a process of #privatisation that laid the groundwork for early #capitalism through acquisitions, settlement, and enclosure of the commons. But even though revolutions and reforms came and went and most of us have gotten rid of our inbred kings and queens and their right to rule, the concept of sovereignty over private parcels of land and the feudal relationship of landlord and tenant has endured to this day, exported globally through #EuropeanColonialism.

"Despite this violent and antisocial theft of our access to even the means of subsistence, some commons have survived and thrived, though they operate within the constraints of the State and the #GlobalCapitalist status quo. Still, there is a lot we can learn from them when it comes to how to manage the commons.

"Why have they succeeded where others have failed in maintaining their commons? All efforts to organise collective action, including the commons, must address a common set of problems: how to supply new institutions, how to solve commitment issues, and how to maintain stability. It’s not easy. And yet some individuals have created institutions, committed themselves to following the rules they’ve come up with together, and assessed their own and others’ conformance to the rules in order to maintain the stability of their shared commons. Again, why have they succeeded where others have failed? External factors seem to play a significant role. Some have more autonomy than others to change their own institutions while others have change happen too rapidly for them to respond and adjust. Regardless, people try their best to solve the problems they face, despite their limitations. What factors help or hinder them in these efforts is a matter of careful study if we wish to succeed in organising and running our own commons.

"But first, we need to clarify some definitions.

"The commons are based on a common-pool resource or CPR, which is a natural or man-made resource system that benefits a group of people, but provides diminished benefits to everyone if each individual pursues their own self-interest. We must draw a further distinction between the resource system and the resource units produced by the system. Resource systems include #forests, #groundwater basins, irrigation canals, #lakes, #fisheries, #pastures, and even #infrastructure like windmills and the internet, while resource units consist of whatever users appropriate from those resource systems, such as cubic metres of lumber harvested and water withdrawn, tons of fish harvested and fodder grazed, kilowatts generated and network bandwidth used. It’s also important to maintain the #renewability of a resource system by ensuring that the average rate of withdrawal does not exceed the average rate of #replenishment.

"The term ‘appropriators’ refers to those who withdraw resource units from a resource system, like a fisher or farmer. Appropriators may use the resource units they withdraw, like residents powering their homes or farmers watering their crops, or they may transfer the resource units for others to use, such as a logger sending lumber to a hardware store for sale. Those who arrange for the provision of a CPR through financing or design are providers, while producers are those who actually construct, repair, and sustain the resource system itself. Providers, producers, and appropriators are often all the same people.

"Appropriators who share a CPR are deeply intertwined in a tapestry of interdependence. Acting selfishly and independently will usually obtain less benefit than they could have had they collectively organised in some way. The process of organising enables us to coordinate and change our shared situations to obtain higher shared benefits and reduce shared harm.

"Some of the commons institutions that endure today are as old as over a thousand years, while others are a few hundred at most. They exist alongside the personal property of the appropriators involved, such as their crops and livestock, but have remained at the core of these communities’ economies for generations. They have survived #droughts, #floods, #wars, #pestilences, and many major economic and political changes. From the alpine meadows of Torbel, Switzerland to the 3 million hectares of Japanese forest to the irrigation systems of Spain and the Philippines, these projects have evolved over time in response to experience and circumstance. None of them are perfect demonstrations of anarchy or anything, nor are they necessarily the most ‘optimal’ by some metrics. But they are successful in establishing a level of #autonomy and #resilience in the people involved in them, and they’ve managed to carefully maintain the ecology of the regions they inhabit.

"These institutions exist in different settings and have different histories, yet they simultaneously share fundamental similarities. Unpredictable and complex environments combined with engineering and farming skills combined with a predictable population over an extended period of time. These fairly egalitarian communities have developed extensive norms that define proper behaviour, involving honesty and reliability, allowing them to live without excessive conflict in a deeply interdependent environment. The perseverance of these institutions is due to the seven, and in some cases eight, key principles that Elinor Ostrom outlines in Governing the Commons..."

Read more:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andrewism-commons-libraries-degrowth
#SolarPunkSunday #AnarchistLibrary #ClimateCrisis #Resiliency