This week in Antisemitism: bringing some of the ideas together in lists

personby Gillian Polack
schedulePosted on

This last post is very long. It’s also a bit less clear than the earlier ones. I was going to explain the current meanings of Zionism, updating the previous post. Interestingly, so many people have their own views of the definition and want to correct even the groups made from nearly two hundred opinions. Instead of giving you cute names attached to views of the word ‘Zionism’ (I so wanted to include Mountains of Madness Zionism) I’ll begin with a quick revision that allows anyone to slot new thoughts into the three groups.

Anything that prioritises Jewish definitions of a Jewish concept is going to describe Zionism as related to the state of Israel. Alas, this includes those arguing that it should not exist. Why the ‘alas’ – because all arguments about its non-existence either fail to take into account those who want all Jews dead, or actually celebrate all Jews dying. If they would solve antisemitism and violence against Jews before inventing a county where Jews cannot live, I would have more sympathy with them. If they lived in 1938, they would be helping the building of death camps either literally or socially. When I tried to talk with some of these people, they fell into two groups. One believes that Jews have not really been murdered, ever. The other believes that we should all be murdered and that Israel is a good start. Accepting that Zionism refers to Israel existing is not quite the same as Zionism referring to Israel as a Jewish state that should exist. Many of those who support Israel are now explaining that second part (that it has a right to exist, that Jews need it, that there are ancient links to the land) to distinguish themselves from those who try to have their cake and eat it to, by saying that yes, Israel exists, but it should not.

This is actually not as muddy as I made it sound. If all Jews are to be killed, then Israel doesn’t exist. Using ‘Zionism’ in this way is a false claim. I now try to work out from other things a person says if they give Jews equal rights to other people. That helps explain whether their acceptance of Israel as a country is temporary or false.

In some cases, the thoughts can be attached to groups two and three together. Hate seeps into everything once its become part of general conversation. I can’t explain this as well as I should, because every single person I’ve found who uses the second group of definitions of Zionism with the hate and mirroring from the third… blocks me quite quickly. I’ve looked around, and I’m not the only one blocked and the blocking is not restricted to Jews. Iranian Diaspora activists are also blocked, as are general supporters of Jews and Iranians. Those who combine the second and third group of definitions are creating their own echo chamber. This worries me.

As I said last post, there are an increasing number of personal definitions of Zionism. I’m not even going to try to make a complete list. They still mostly fall into the categories I established last post, so the best thing to do is to categorise them and find out what the person explaining Zionism thinks and where they fit politically and on the hate spectrum. Otherwise we argue about minutiae and the problem of hate ferments all by itself in the background. Also, identifying the groups of definitions helps anyone who is subject to the hate to identify it quickly and address it in the best way for them. For many, this means hiding from the bigots, because there is so much violence attached to certain parts of both the second and third groups of definitions. In others, it can be talking things through and finding common ground. How to deal with local hate would be a whole new post, though. I’ve done it all my life (including advising those in politics, the public sector, and in community organisations deal) and am willing to talk about these things, but not here and not today.

So what am I doing today?

I am about to give simple explanations with simple examples of some very complex stuff. This is only a blog post, after all. I could write a book on each of these, and then another explaining how it all holds together and the history behind it. I am not going to write those books. The book still seeking a home (the history one) shows how we are given narratives that support all the things I’m about to talk about. This post, by comparison, is me dipping my big toe in the water, just to show you that there is water. I’ve done it in form of a series of points, because I am running out of time. Other weeks I’ve had hours to spare, this week I have editing and deadlines and possibly will find time to get dressed later today. Possibly.

The series of points

1. Zionism and its related words rely on a fabric of understanding. Not all Zionists are Jewish, but all Zionism is linked to Judaism. It’s one of the words and sets of ideas that connect Jews to the non-Jewish world.

2. We learn about what the world thinks about us from the way groups or individuals use words related to Judaism. I was told just yesterday that I had tikkun olam entirely wrong… and also two thousand years of historical Judaism. This was from the third person in two days who knew a little, but not enough to know what they did not know. Even with the best intentions, telling someone that they don’t know who they are and that everything they know since childhood is wrong… is not kind. There is a lot more to the ‘splaining and erasing Jewish knowledge of ourselves than the unkindness it manifests.

First, as women discover when we are mansplained, that kind of explanation indicates, to the person doing the ‘splaining, that Jews (or women) are secondary. Less important people. Children who have to be told things because we cannot think for ourselves.

With Zionism, this produces a really interesting quandary. As I said earlier (in different words) some people who use the standard definition of Zionism (Israel’s existence) are anti-Zionist for the same reason they ‘splain. In their minds, Jews are not capable of running our own lives or even knowing our own religion and culture. If we lack the capacity of adults, how could there possibly be a Jewish country?

This is an old form of antisemitism, where Jews are considered to be better off subservient. I know its European origins, but the dhimmi system also implies religious immaturity and gives secondary status to Jews. It’s for our own good that we are told things and that there should be no Israel. We’re not mature enough yet. Or are just made to be ruled by others, especially others like the person ‘splaining.

3. Another link is made by those who have not directly experienced antisemitism. In their eyes, others must be exaggerating for attention. This is where the accusations of playing the victim card and pearl clutching enter. The sense that this can’t be right (too dramatic, or “I don’t see these things”) proves the antisemitic trope of Jews being liars. Perceiving Jewish hurt as false cements antisemitism in many peoples’ minds. The best equivalent I can give is the attitude some men have to child-bearing as painless and natural. Lived experience is not considered relevant in either case.

4. ‘Zionism,’ ‘Judaism’ and a bunch of connected terms are also triggers for people to erase others from their lives. Many of us have lost whole social circles in the past two years, simply because of non-existent Jew cooties. I say “I’m Jewish” and some friends say, “You could not tell anyone” and others disown me for being public about it. I’m a “bad Jew” for making those words mean the wrong thing.

5. This leads to Schrödinger’s Jew, where it’s fine to be Jewish or have Jewish ancestors as long as nothing is visible publicly and there is plausible deniability. Jews can march with other pro-Pals as long as no magen davids are worn and they eat bacon and don’t talk about their Jewishness. This relates to the silencing of most Jewish voices, especially those from the Jewish left. Certain Australian writers’ festivals are really good examples of this.

6. Many bigots say, “We’re hurting too.” Other people have suffered awful things. These people of course need our support and help. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the deliberate destabilising of discussion about Jews, Israel, Zionism by changing the subject. This can be gaslighting.

7. More everyday, is when people refuse to learn about Jewish stories or culture and then fill the artificial vacuum with stereotypes and an understanding of Judaism drawn from Jew haters. This is related to whether Secular Judaism/ Jewishness is seen as an ethnicity or simply a name tag. There are secular Jews, but this is not them.

8. Some people use a modified set of terms to indicate some rather big things: Jews as a problem, the West as a problem, settler colonialism as a problem, for instance. The style of terms is “Zionist entity” instead of “Israel” or “So-called Australia” instead of  “Australia.” Sometimes this comes from far-left people and shows hints of Marxism. Sometimes it comes from those who listen to the spokespeople for organisations link to the Muslim Brotherhood. I see this as indicating that some of the far left may be linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. This may be linked to the groups and collectives where there’s not a lot of shared understanding of Judaism, but much support for Hamas. It also can be linked to using language from DEI, Critical Race Theory, and is often shared by BDS folk in my vicinity.

9. Dehumanisation of Jews. An oldie but just as nasty as it ever was. Watch for how haters talk to Jews and about Jews – check that we’re still human in their eyes. An example from X:  Leon Knight @KnightLeon34974 wrote “I don’t want my kids to suffer any kind of religious indoctrination in their education, but especially not from a satanic death cult like Zionism.”

10. Performative stuff, using slogans and banners and marches tends to (because of its nature), play favourites. One of the worst things about this is that the kindness and support for underdog some shouters claim (I suspect this might include Grace Tame in Australia) is an image and not real. I always look for more than the slogans to find out how people reach those slogans. Almost always, in the case of matters relating to Judaism and Israel, they reflect many of the things I’ve just listed.

11. Statements that look obvious, but that are part of a silencing. “Gazan voices are being hidden” is one of the more interesting statements, because it’s partly true. Very few non-Hamas and non terrorist supporter voices from within Gaza are heard – but those voices are not the ones protested about. Randa Abdel-Fattah and Omar Sakr claiming that they themselves are silenced in Australia and that Jews have loud voices are a more useful example.

All of these elements can lead to a lack of context and destroyed narrative. More and more people think they know about a subject and they really, really don’t. This makes hate much worse. There are also rhetorical devices that make hate worse by reinforcing certain thoughts or by spreading them. I don’t have time or energy to give you a complete list and big explanations of these devices. I’ll give another list, I think, just so that some of them are more visible.

When people tell hate stories, these are some of the techniques they use

1. Repeat and repeat and repeat an idea or a word. When you say it often enough, then most of us stop arguing with it. This is why marches include slogans and accusations and chants. It’s also why so many interviews of those marching are hilarious. When a marcher only knows the repetitions, they find it difficult to answer questions about why they march.

Query constant repetition and find out what story it’s telling.

In the case of ‘globalise the intifada’ and ‘from the river to the sea’ those who shout it also say that the meanings are benign. There are two sensible approaches to the claim of benign meaning. The first is to look into historical uses of the terms eg if people were killed when other claims of intifada were made then the use is violent and the claim to benign meaning is false, for instance.

The second is to find out if those who insist on using the terms have used others, with less fraught ancestral use. An Australian example is whether anyone shouting ‘globalise the intifada’ has thought about the relationship of the Bondi shooting or of the death of Malki Roth and whether they have changed their language to not hurt the families of those killed. If they haven’t used other terms that don’t hurt people… then those terms are not benign and they’re using the lie of them being benign to spread hate. The best answers to questions about repeated words and what the users intend, then, is in the use of the words, both historically and currently, and also in whether the users are willing to change things so as not to hurt anyone.

2. I know my favourite tool from Medieval French epic legends. Roland was always ‘the brave’ and Olivier was always ‘the wise.’ If you put a single adjective in front of a noun incessantly for a time, then eventually all the people who see it will include that adjective as part of their understanding of the noun. Trump does this all the time. So do antisemites. “Evil Jews”, “genocidal Israel”: no proof, no argument, just the identification of the word with the thought so that we can’t help thinking about a thing in those terms.

This example of “vile Talmud” from 22 February gives exceptionally good context for why ‘vile’ is a problem. “Ashkenazis are such annoying war mongers who follow the vile Talmud that condones the rape of 3 year old non-jewish children. The problem is that even if you murder another 1 million people you will not feel ‘safe’ as you know your time is linked to US support and you are thieves” 3:37 PM · Feb 22, 2026

3. Claims without evidence are true of many bigots in history – saying something does not make it true, and running away when people ask for evidence is one of the ways of discovering there is no evidence. The most common one in my timeline right now is people talking about Israel’s live-streamed genocide. Not a single person I’ve asked (or others have asked) has proivided any link to the live-streaming. Some duck and run, while others say “It’s so obvious, find it yourself.”

4. This links back to my earlier list because it’s to do with how we see words. Some people cannot or will not explain the words they’re using and then say “You know you know this” are adding to hate by creating fuzzy (and negative) definitions. When I ask and explain that I’m looking into definitions and word use, I often get some really interesting examples of Jew hate. This is something that looks innocuous, but may not be.

I don’t assume that lack of knowledge = hate. I find out if the person can and will explain without falling into hatespeech before I make any decisions on this. In other words, there are people who genuinely don’t know standard definitions and are willing to talk. We may not agree at the end of the conversation, but they are not spreading hate.

5. This has come up before: episodic memory, where brief anecdotes take the place of historical understanding.

And this is the moment where we move beyond rhetorical devices and into knowledge-based issues.

6. Bringing debunked knowledge into play and denying scholarly work on the subject. Khazars, genes, that no modern Jews have ancestry in the pre-Roman Levant, that all Jews are converts, that all Jews are… all kinds of things. The blood libel is one of them and I was blocked by someone claiming the 12th century story as true. Others weren’t blocked for arguing, so I suspect that my PhD in Medieval History was what got me blocked. 

7. Who we believe. I’ve noticed, for example, that Amnesty tends to believe Hamas over the Israeli government. The solution for this is to be a critic and scholar. Look at all the evidence. Don’t trust simple data. Not from Amnesty, not from the Israeli military, not from anyone. Question it. Question it deeply and profoundly and very, very critically.

One of the reasons Hamas does not get questions and their clear statements that they prefer their Jews dead are accepted is because of that mirror I mentioned in the last post. Hate gets reflected onto Jews and therefore the assumption is that all Jews are murderers and Hamas is a resistance movement. This is why we all fatalities in a given day attributed to the Israeli army on social media, while the (non-Israel) observers say “Hamas killed 20 people from a family that opposes it” and those fatalities are still attributed to Israel by most media. We don’t know how many people were killed by whom… hence the need to question.

8. Jews as aliens in all places. This is enhanced by how many stories are framed. eg SBS Australia leaves Jewish food off its food page except for certain select recipes. There are no regular articles or recipes, but there are for other Aussie minorities. (SBS is the multicultural broadcaster, so this goes against one of their core values.) And… this is what the book is about, the one I need to find a publisher for.

9. Jews having ‘hidden motives’ – even the most literal person (that would be me) is told regulatory “You don’t mean what you say. You’re hiding your secret agenda.” This is closely linked to those forcing Jewish culture to be hidden, obviously.

Much hate is being couched in very precise language eg previous post and the differences Zionist/ism can have. Much hate revolves around whether Israel should exist, whether Jews should be allowed to live but hidden under “We support those who are being hurt by evil” ie Gazans/Palestinians. Defining that hate and defining Jewish concepts that help reveal that hate (see previous posts) helps us see whether the conversation hides the hate or whether it’s less or even non-problematic. I have had good conversations with supporters of Gazans where those supporters do not use the 2nd and 3rd groups of definitions of Zionism ie do not bring antisemitism and antizionism into the conversation. Identifying this can be as simply as seeing if Zionist/Zionism/Israel/Jew are used pejoratively.

The three most obvious paths for identifying this are:

1) through the David Duke use of zio and its descendants, such as ziofascist, which I tend to think of as ziomostthings. The hate in the doxxing of Australian creatives in 2024 was really clear, for instance, because they were called the ‘zio600’ by haters. Some of those haters sent death threats. When name-calling stops being passive, then we’re all in trouble;

2) Through the Nazi terminology and evoking Nazi history. Last week I saw “Your grandparents were lampshades and soaps” three times, but more common is “You should be dead.”

3) Through the Protocols and its various descendants.

 

Adam Louis-Klein talks about us entering the antizionist era. His work and the work of those who talk with him and about his work is documenting the changes he observes. I don’t always agree with him, but I’m not going to do a giant summary of either his work or my thoughts on it. I’m not even going to give you a small summary. Instead, I’m going to suggest that he and his circle are lucid and thoughtful and worth looking into and forming your own opinions about. What is important right now, here, is what his work does to words like ‘Zionism.’

Right now, uses of ‘Zionism’ can be generally grouped, but within that group there is total mayhem. We’re moving past this moment of total mayhem (and he is one of the reasons why), and into new definitions that are shared by some and other definitions that are shared by others. Diacultural groups are changing, day by day.

Some of the constructs of hate will adapt to meet Louis-Klein’s work (and that of others – he’s an example, not the only scholar in the field), because they are challenged by them. The second group from the third post (that sounds so strange) will change even more, because Louis-Klein and company are uprooting their work and bringing it into the clear light of day. And some won’t care, won’t look.

The propaganda arm of whoever is propagandising will find other ways of sharing hate for Jews for as long as we’re a handy target. And as long as antisemitism exists, we’re a target. It’s nothing to do with Judaism (as the Zionism definitions show) and everything to do with pushing this society or that in this direction or that. When people decide not to be pushed in that direction, the hate diminishes.

This week, quite a few antisemites preened and gently threatened in my direction. More public Jews (I’m only semi-public) get regular and very nasty direct threats. There is an element of narcissistic show-off in Jew-hate, and that element has led many people into dark places since October 7. It has also caused many people to move gently away from once-friends who happen to be Jewish, lest the Jew cooties infect.

The microcosmos of antisemitism is like a teenage schoolyard in a really bad school, with bullies and mean girls and that boy who jumps off the roof because he wants to show off.

Two Hundred Opinions

personby Gillian Polack
schedulePosted on

Let me borrow from the earlier posts to remind you that this is post #3 in an exploration of the various ways people currently use the words Zionism and Zionist. Two years ago, I checked with around 200 people and discovered around eight definitions. This is a perfectly normal number of definitions for a single word. In big dictionaries many words have six to eight definitions. This made them easy to work with. These definitions of Zionism fell into three groups. To understand where someone was coming from culturally or politically, all I had to do two years ago was find which group of definitions they used. Technically, those groups establish diacultural traits on the subject: who shares what with whom shows who knows whom and lives in similar worlds.

Right now, there are a lot more definitions than eight. Language is an ever-changing glory (as is diaculture), and when things come into the public gaze and when there are groups actively trying to erase standard definitions and add new ones, shifts will happen quite quickly. When those changes happen in many countries and in many different cultural and political groups, those changes create a really fuzzy world that’s difficult to navigate.

There is just one more post after this, although if it’s very long, it may be in more than one part. In that post, I will introduce some of the current definitions of Zionism as I saw the word used … until the moment I was blocked by so many bigots that I lost access to their language. Tomorrow’s post will be a snapshot of the use of the word from about December 2025 to the end of January 2026. Establishing a snapshot of key terms is one of the approaches to culture that I use as an historian. When I need to analyse a text (medieval or modern or something else entirely) I often make a private snapshot of the use of key words and phases. This gives me a grounding for understanding the views that are being expressed. It also helps me understand the path language takes after that snapshot. Thank my historian self, then, for leading you astray, and not my novelist self.

I borrowed from my own work, because two books urgently need editing and a short story must be written and there is an essay for Patreon and… I have insufficient time to write this post from the beginning.

 

1. Jewish definitions

There are two general classes of straightforward Jewish definitions of Zionism. I’ve included the religious Christian view here because it didn’t come up in my query and it should have. It really deserves its own sub-heading with several categories, but I didn’t have any descriptions of it back then, so I will just note how it fits into a Jewish definition. I’ve left out the Naturei Karta and other extreme variants, because I’m not convinced that one can call it Zionism when there is no nation contemplated unless we’re in Messianic times. Both the Christian and the fundamentalist Jewish are therefore unsatisfactory – I’m sorry.

a) Herzl’s Zionism – an historical artefact, that died in 1948 with the advent of Israel. This was the least common definition of those from my original query. It was mentioned by only two people of the almost two hundred who gave me their thoughts. Those two people explained that now Israel is in existence, there is no need for Zionism. Herzl’s aim was achieved, end of story. The proper use of this definition, one of them clarified, is in histories.

b) support for Israel as a country. This is the most common use of the word and expresses simple support or complex of the existence of Israel as a modern country, and most of those who said “I am Zionist” as part of their definition of Zionism add the proviso that they reserved the right to criticise the actions of the Israeli government and to express their concern about problematic Israeli individuals or groups. I asked for examples. Those people considered problematic were often connected to Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir, or to the West Bank settlers.

Most of those who expressed this view to me were American, Canadian, British, Australian or Israeli, and they represented a wide range of Jewish practice and culture. The Jewish religious practice and culture all link back to Am Yisrael, Eretz Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael. How anyone uses the definitions (because there is variance in their use) depends very much on the relationship between Am, Eretz, and Medinat in their mind. It’s not a definition so much as the expression of a relationship that shows how modern Israel (Medinat Yisrael) fits in with the religious expressions that relate to the land (Eretz Yisrael) and, of course, the Jewish people (Am Yisrael). This complex set of relationships are open to almost infinite variation because we like talking things through rather than dictating belief. They’re also open to an enormous amount of variation because of the complexity of Jewish culture. Even a snapshot of one moment in a Jewish explanation will reflect variants that come from rabbis spoken to, books read, opinions of family and friends and so forth. This is why most of the cute non-Jewish diagrams showing what Zionism is or may be do not actually reflect a great deal of how Jews describe it. Simple words are used to explain this approach to Zionism. The simple words mask a wonderfully fruitful discourse.

The Christian use of it varies according to the nature of the Christian belief. Whether it’s passionate loyalty to a country, belief that the country has the right to exist, or belief that the end of days requires it to exist…it all comes down to Israel existing.

 

2. Russian-origin definitions

The second group of definitions has a fairly straightforward origin. Russia prior to 1917 dealt with its Jews a bit differently to, say Germany in the 1930s. It had extraordinary tough conscription for Jewish boys (my ancestor, Abraham Polack was one) and it also derived from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which itself plagiarised works that were about entirely different subjects. The Protocols have not been out of print since 1903, as far as I know, and wherever this set of definitions of Zionism is used, it harks back to the Protocols. This is intended and carefully crafted prejudice.

The Russian Empire fell, but their rather nasty explanation of Zionism didn’t.

Soviet Russia used the base the Russian Empire gave. It claimed it didn’t hate Jews, just Zionists and any Jew who saw Am Yisrael or anything related. So many Jews lost their religion and their culture and links to family elsewhere in the world… but were permitted to live.

In this set of definitions, Zionism was linked to Western Imperialism, just as now, it’s linked to Colonialism. This has been called ‘sanitised antisemitism’ – a lot of the hate in Australia right now is yet another version of sanitised antisemitism. Good Jews/Bad Jews, purity statements that mean you’re worthy of remaining in a group – these are two traits of sanitised antisemitism.

Even two years ago, this group of definitions of Zionism was a set. Most people thought they were saying the same thing, but, really, they agreed on the bigotry in the heart of the definitions and not on the definitions themselves. In each of these definitions, Zionists are many, many different things, all of which define Jews as ‘other.’ Most of them are used when people want to share hate for Jews without being seen as antisemites. This brings the use of ‘Zionist’ into play: it’s often used as a deniable replacement for ‘Jew.’ This manifests as “I am not a bigot. I was talking about Zionists, not Jews.”

How you tell the difference is to look at what else the person who uses ‘Zionist’ negatively says. If there are no links to Israel and heaps of links to personal actions or to antisemitic tropes, the person is using ‘Zionist’ but talking about Jews.

While the fervour and the almost religious belief in the accuracy of these definitions are consistent, the actual qualities applied to Zionists varied in 2024. They began from the literature of hate and then found their own paths to express that hate.

In 2025 many of its users do not share their understanding of qualities and explain the word quite vaguely. I was even told “You already know what I’m talking about” when I ask for clarification. Jews are supposed to be marvellously intuitive, I suspect, and also, the person using the word has not considered how to explain it. This explains the passion behind the word ‘Zionism.’ It has the force of emotion without the qualifications of nuance.

Many users, when they talk about matters Jewish and about matters Israeli, follow the classic form of antisemitism. Many don’t. The mix of evil qualities attributed to Zionists changes from person to person. Again, this is passion without clarity. The variants on this usually link with the Russian historical definitions of Zionism. The original of these was the one derived from anti-Jewish propaganda.

 

3. Pure hate

‘Zionism’ according to these people is a word imbued with passion and truth and almost a religious fervour. That fervour contains no love. It is flooded with hate and distrust. Zionists are liars and want to own the world. Zionists are propaganda experts and manipulative and violent.

This group has two categories.

a) It took me a while to realise that, in 2024, when I asked for definitions of Zionism, a number of people gave me a description of an evil individual compiled from their own fears and fears folded into stereotyping and hate. They looked in a mirror and saw hate and said, “These people who are not like me are the cause of that hate because they personally embody the qualities I hate.” These individuals will then apply that definition to anyone Jew who does not follow a route that will demonstrate that they are one of the rare Good Jews. This route often entails expressing active hate for all things Israeli and distrust of Jews in general.

b) Zionism as an evil cult, practising the most evil thing of the moment. Genocide and paedophilia are used a lot right now, for instance. I also encounter worshipping Satan and drinking the blood of children. (By ‘encounter,’ I mean that I have been accused of all these things.) This is irrational hate transformed into the darkest fantasy the person can imagine.

Some of those doing the imagining do a simple translation between their invention and Judaism. Those accusing claim to have read about Judaism and to know it better than me, but when I told them to take their evidence of me as a murderer to the police or when I asked for a definition of Zionism that explains what they’re telling me, they mostly disappeared like snow in summer. Just one person in 2024/5 asked me why I was asking and I linked him to Jewish history sites and… I’ve not seen him hate since. Some of it, then, is lack of education about Judaism, or is education only from antisemites.

The big lesson I learned from exploring these views of Zionism, is that we can’t actually converse until we’re certain we’re on the same page, but that’s another story.

Next up, I’ll talk about current views. That has to wait until Monday, I’m afraid, because I have over 450 pages to edit and the more I can do this weekend, the easier next week will be.

Misogyny on Steroids

personby Nancy Jane Moore
schedulePosted on

We regularly see whining about why the world imagined by science fiction writers of the so-called Golden Age (i.e., mostly the 1950s) hasn’t come to pass. Where are the flying cars and jet packs? Why don’t we have settlements on the Moon?

And then, of course, we get all the hype around LLMs, as if it is going to become the artificial intelligence we were promised. (Pro tip: it’s not.)

The problem is, I think, that people have focused too much on the wrong science fiction, the technocentric and technophilic stuff that is convinced that computer tech is going to save the world.

Right now, the science fiction writer whose visions are closest to reality is Octavia Butler, particularly the world she wrote about in Parable of the Sower and Parable of the Talents. While that world is certainly not as much fun to contemplate as living on the Moon, it does have a great deal to recommend it in terms of how things might happen.

I’m fairly sure she meant it as a warning (or perhaps saw it all too clearly); certainly nobody except a few of the grifters currently in power wanted to see it.

Recently the creepy guy who leads the Groypers (and no, I don’t know what that means nor do I want to know) got on a podcast and said that all women – and that includes white ones and maybe even the Kristi Noems and Pam Bondis – should be rounded up and put into gulags, with the ones who would be good breeders (I assume he means the white ones, since he’s an extreme racist as well as misogynist) moved to a birthing gulag.

And that got me to thinking about another science fiction writer: Suzy McKee Charnas.

I mean, you’d almost think he’d read her four-book series, The Holdfast Chronicles, which takes place in a world that does just that with women and includes the racism as well.

I haven’t read those books in a long time, but I’ve just started to re-read them now because they are, in fact, relevant. In fact, I suspect they are even more relevant than The Handmaid’s Tale. Though I hope they aren’t quite as close to reality as Parable of the Sower.

I’m currently reading the first book, Walk to the End of the World, and I have to say that the male world she depicts is the kind of toxic masculinity on steroids that such men seem to want. I recall thinking it was too extreme when I first read it, but given current events, I’m no longer sure about that.

I wish Suzy was still with us to discuss that point. Continue reading “Misogyny on Steroids”…

So Much Book

personby Madeleine Robins
schedulePosted on

I am reading as a judge for the World Fantasy Awards. It’s… a lot. Even with five judges, and an initial pass where every work gets read by two of us… it’s a very lot. If you can’t find me, look under the pile of words.

It’s made me think about my reading habits when I was a teenager. My father used to accuse me of sucking down books like a vacuum cleaner, and wondered if I even noticed what I was reading. In fact, I did notice: to this day there are passages from books I read at 15 that I could probably recite. And some of those books were not great–they just offered me something I, as a 15-year-old reader, wanted. I read every SF book I could find on the drugstore spinner racks; all the Regency romances, ditto, and the gothic romances (the term meant something different then than it appears to mean now). I was not reading the best literature, as it was defined by the NY Times Book Review and my mother: I was consuming books like Fritos. Some of them had nutritional value; some didn’t.

So now I’m reading to find the fantasy and horror from 2025 that is not only nutritious but is working at a Michelin star level. That’s a pretty high bar to clear. I don’t think most writers intend to write “Frito” books–I certainly didn’t when I wrote my first Regency romance (I wanted to write a book that would give me something of the same feeling I had when I read Georgette Heyer). I think many writers just want to tell themselves and the rest of the world a story, just as many home cooks just want to make a good pot roast and feed the family. Let me note that good home made pot roast is hard to beat. But my brief, as a judge, is to find the Best. To do that I have to keep my eye on my prejudices  (and I’ll note: everyone has prejudices. The trick is to know it, and get a handle on what they are.)

For instance: I sort of wish that the books (well over 200 so far, and there are some I know haven’t arrived yet) came without covers, because I have to keep an eye on how the cover of a book colors my approach to the book itself. There have been a few books where the covers visually promised sophistication and depth that the text did not deliver. Likewise, there have been a couple of books that had frankly uninspiring covers, but were themselves well worth reading. Years ago I trafficked covers for Tor Books, which meant I saw all the artwork before it was put into covers. My father was a designer. My brother is a painter. I have opinions, but I’m putting them into a box for now.

I have a tendency to prefer stand-alone books (or books in a series which are discrete episodes rather than “continued on the next rock” contributions to a very long saga) in part because the further along in a series you are, the more backstory you have to fill in for a new reader (and a writer who doesn’t accept that some readers will come in in media res is just–no, you can’t demand that they go back and find the first three books of your series). So books that come in with the label “Book Three in the Artichokes of Dread Saga” or what have you make me worried.

On the other hand, I hope to be surprised.

That’s really the secret to this process. I long to be surprised and delighted. And I am confident I will be.

 

Three Jewish concepts

personby Gillian Polack
schedulePosted on

I promised some folks on Facebook an explanation of the various ways people currently use the words Zionism and Zionist. Two years ago, I checked with around 200 people and discovered around eight definitions. This is a perfectly normal number. Look up the Oxford English Dictionary (its biggest and most detailed versions) and so many words have six to eight definitions. Those definitions fell into three groups. To understand where someone was coming from, it was simply a matter of finding out which definition they related to.

Now, there are a lot more. Language is an ever-changing glory, and when things come into the public gaze and when there are groups actively trying to bring down standard definitions shifts will happen quite quickly. When they happen in many countries and in many different cultural and political groups, those changes create a really fuzzy world that’s difficult to navigate.

I’ll do the best I can to explain what I see, and I hope it helps. I’ll begin (in this post) with 3 Jewish ideas that inform various Jewish views of what Zionism is. These ideas that make it easier for most Jews to determine their relationship with their own definitions of Zionism.

In the next post, I’ll describe the three groups of definitions, from two years ago to lay a base for understanding why everything is so apparently chaotic right now and conversations are stymied.

After that, in my final post, I will introduce some of the current definitions of Zionism as I see the word used. Think of the last section as a snapshot of a moment in time. The changes in meaning are that turbulent. Understanding now, however, helps understand future uses of the words. This is (if you’re curious) one of the approaches to culture that I use as an historian. When I need to analyse a text (medieval or modern or something else entirely) I often make a private snapshot of the use of key words and phases. This gives me a grounding for understanding the views that are being expressed. It also helps me understand the path language takes after that snapshot. Thank my historian self, then, for leading you astray, and not my novelist self.

 

Part One: Jewish concepts

The three concepts I want to introduce here are Am Yisrael, Eretz Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael. Not all Jews know them as words, but they hold so much of our everyday together. Our relationship to them shapes so much of our lives, whether we make aliyah or are proud and happy with being Diaspora Jews is probably the second most important one in this context. The most important one… I’ll get to.

Just to make it clear, these are my views of those concepts right now, in relation to the current wave of antisemitism. Jews like to discuss these things and I’d be very happy to see other views in your comments on this post.

Am Yisrael

This is the “O Israel” in our most famous prayer. It’s us, the people (‘Am’), anywhere and in any state. It takes an awful lot to not be part of Am Yisrael. We’ve been in Diaspora and out of Diaspora and in Eretz Yisrael on and off since the Babylonian Empire. This makes it a strong and complex construct that most antisemites rail against but do not understand.

Am Yisrael is the chief reason why so many people were happy to see Herzog when he visited Australia. It had a lot to do with Israel for some Australian Jews, and others were happy to see him for quite different reasons.

If you have a very big family and it’s spread everywhere, it’s meaningful when a senior family member visits to support you in an impossible time. And a senior family member from Eretz Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael (both!) shows us that we are loved and that we will get through this dark time. It wasn’t a religious visit, but the visit was connected, profoundly, to Judaism.

How do we express Am Yisrael everyday? Well, there are the prayers. Many prayers talk about all of us as part of our own nation. Some people call it tribal, but it’s rather more complicated than that, because it’s informed by cultural practice and religious practice and the assumption that the enxt Jew you meet might be a long lost relative.

One element of the cultural side is the welcome most Jews give other Jews. We check if we’re related, if we have ancestors in common or religious practice or recipes in common (so often we exchange recipes as part of this) or if we know each other in some other way.

Jewish culture is often about making connections, and not all of them are within the synagogue. Rabbinical Judaism only goes back 2000 years, after all, and Am Yisrael goes back to our origin, those twelve tribes, those ancient people. We still connect and we still care. We do it in a hundred thousand different ways, but the Shema, with its mention of ‘Am Yisrael’ is still our most famous prayer.

Other Jews will argue with me. This is also a part of that culture. Why? Because the argument and discussion is help connect us and grow our learning and understanding. Some Jews have to agree with everything and some don’t, but Rabbinical Judaism is all about discourse. It’s another form of that connection.

Eretz Yisrael

Eretz Yisrael (Eretz literally means land) is the spiritual aspect of that piece of land everyone’s fighting about. It’s part of the Covenant.

I wish people would stop telling me about the covenant without knowing what it is. It’s a “Yes, we’re going to behave and be good people and learn lots” kind of promise, not “We are holy and special and love ourselves to pieces” kind. It’s also not about going to Heaven or Hell. Judaism has quite different notions of these tings to Christianity.

Eretz Yisrael is best known by Jews who are religious (even slightly) and is part of a conversation that began thousands of years ago. We know this because texts that date back to the time of David and Solomon are also part of that conversation. Most of our religious texts and interpretative texts in some way are part of that conversation. What does that conversation do? It gives us a bunch of cultural tools that express our relationship to the land.

I have spoken with Indigenous Australians about this and we have overlap in some of that culture, especially in the sense sense of country and being custodian. I have spoken to people from the various colonies of Britain (yes, I spoke to myself as part of this) and the US doesn’t have this sense, but First Nations in North America do.

Most Commonwealth countries used to have a different aspect of this sense of land to which we belong: the notion that Britain is ‘home.’ I wrote an essay on that once, and if you’re interested, I can share it here one day. Not on the Jewish side, but on how some Commonwealth folks used to see Britain as “Home’ and their own country as ‘home.’ That’s changed and mostly not true, but it was true for fifty years after Britain released its hold on most of its Empire.

The way Jews maintain the memory of that relationship with a particular piece of land is rather wonderful. The more observant a Jew is, the more connected they are to Eretz Yisrael. Even anti-Zionist Jews who are religious have that connection.

Why is this so? That connection flows through our prayers, as I’ve said, but also through our calendar. We can tell you planting times and harvest times and even our leap year was instituted to align the calendar with the sun because the needs of the land are more important than neatness of numbers. We don’t learn the current year of the land from our calendar. We know the land cycle as it was the last time when that region had Jewish rule. There are so many interesting things inside our calendar – you can trace much of Jewish history by it. Right now, though, the fact that any Jew who uses the traditional calendar knows the farm cycle and lives it every single year means that we are connected to Eretz Yisrael. And it still works. I checked with a chazan (synagogue cantor) friend and he says that the prayer for rain comes after a dry period and the prayer is said and lo, the rains come. If you go to synagogue for the right festival, you know when the rain comes in Israel.

Medinat Yisrael

Medinat Yisrael doesn’t need a long explanation. It is, quite simply, Israel the modern country.

Next time… the groups of definitions and where they come from.

Baggage

personby Gillian Polack
schedulePosted on

I’m about to embark on a big essay. As a prequel to it, however, I want to introduce you to a book.

A-many years ago, when I was young and charming, I edited an Australian anthology called Baggage. It’s still in print, published by Wildside in the US. The Australian original was taken out of print when the collapse of Borders in Australia imploded the publisher. Every piece Eneit Press published was special (maybe excepting my novel – I cannot judge my own writing) and the loss of the press shut many doors for readers.

Why is Baggage so important to me today? I asked writers for stories of science fiction or fantasy that discussed the cultural baggage we all carry. I had an initial list of the perfect people to make the best anthology. It had two parts, since I couldn’t ask everyone at once. I emailed the writers on the first part of my initial first (obviously) and all but one of them agreed. The rest of the wonderful authors I had on my list don’t even know they were on my list, which I find sad. I still want to read stories by them. Every single story I was given by those writers is a treasure and thought-provoking and none of them overlap and they created such a fine anthology that I’ve been nervous about trying another.

These are not Jewish stories. For those most part, these are not Jewish writers. Yet the collection is one that will help anyone trying to understand about the current wave of antisemitism. How? It demonstrates, through story, some of the massive differences in the cultural baggage we each bear. What we carry, how we carry it, how much of a burden it can be and how different people see it quite, quite differently. It achieves all this through very well told story. Which means, if you don’t want to jump straight into theory and definitions and cultural analysis, you don’t have to. You can read some of the best short stories I’ve ever edited.

Then I’ll bring in the heavy stuff, either here or on my own blog. In this difficult few years, however, we don’t always need to confront. Sometimes we can simply read and enjoy and find our own paths from what we read. This is why I’m giving you a prologue, which is Baggage.

 

Reading The Body Digital by Vanessa Chang

personby Nancy Jane Moore
schedulePosted on

cover of the book The Body DigitalMy morning reading book for the past several weeks has been The Body Digital, by Vanessa Chang. It’s a powerful book and I’m still integrating it into my own thinking.

Part of my practice is to copy some of the sentences that really strike me when reading. I do this rather than taking notes, though sometimes I add a few notes as well.

I’ve chosen a few that are related to writing to share here today. That will give you some flavor of the book, though it’s only a small part of what Chang is doing.

It can be easy to forget that writing is an embodied technology.

There are three powerful thoughts in those few words.

First of all, it’s easy to forget these things about writing because we take it for granted. We don’t think about it much, unless we’re sitting down to do some of it. It’s a fact of life in our world.

Secondly, it’s embodied – we use our bodies to do it. Now right now I’m writing on a keyboard, which is my preferred way to write, but even that requires physical movement.

Writing by hand requires other kinds of movement, and dictation to produce written words a third kind. All of those are physical.

Chang goes on to say:

While much of writing’s profound impact lies in its massive capacity to store and transmit ideas, its ancestry in handmade marks makes it the twin of drawing.

I’ll get to the first part of that in a minute, but the idea that writing is much like drawing – which preceded it – amplifies the fact that it’s an act of our bodies. I keep thinking about Japanese and Chinese writing and particularly about how people do calligraphy with words in those languages, creating their own understanding of the word through the way they do the lines.

Much of the traditional poetry in those languages is also done as art. It’s a physical act – you could dance it, really – but it also stirs the mind, makes you think about ideas. Continue reading “Reading The Body Digital by Vanessa Chang”…

Things Happen

personby Gillian Polack
schedulePosted on

I’m late!

This is because Australia is antisemitism central again and I’ve been dealing. You don’t need yet another post on Australia’s problems, so let me tell you the story of a book.

Some years ago, I wrote a novel. A publisher signed it up but said “This should be a duology.” I rewrote the first book and added the sequel. Then they went bust.

Shortly after, another publisher fell in love with the duology but said, “I want the rest of the story.” I did the rewrite and the last volume and it became a trilogy. The COVID hit and the publisher ran into so much trouble. I’m still with them for other books, but we agreed I should find a new publisher for the trilogy.

A US publisher has taken on the first volume. If it sells well, then the trilogy will finally emerge. I so hope it sells well. I’ve been quiet about it because this book was having so much bad luck. Not as much bad luck as my cursed novel, but still, much bad luck.

However, we are finally in a “Watch this space” moment. The cover artist has Ideas and the editor is getting back to me very soon.

When there is an official announcement, I promise to share it. In the meantime, it’s about time I talked about my other published work. I might do a series of posts, to remind myself of novels written and books published.

That gives you two reasons to watch this space.

The State of Things

personby Nancy Jane Moore
schedulePosted on

I’ve seen a lot of pieces about how things are going a year into the grifter’s second occupation of the White House. Apparently most of the people who said “It won’t be that bad” and called the rest of us hysterical don’t have much to say, though they’re still not admitting they were wrong.

I think they’re mostly the kind of people who never admit they were wrong.

Me, I find things absolutely as bad as I thought they would be after I got that very sick feeling on Election Day. About the only thing that surprised me was how fast so many institutions fell apart.

I don’t just mean the law firms and universities that caved early on. And I was already aghast at where big media – newspapers and broadcast – were headed.

I mean I was surprised that the Civil Service and various government agencies weren’t more robust. I’m not blaming government employees for that – this isn’t the case of people caving. In fact, some of them tried hard not to give in.

There turned out to be a lot of loopholes in Civil Service protection, the most obvious one being probationary employees, a system intended to allow removal of people who didn’t work out, not the firing of people wholesale.

The gutting of agencies by the DOGE (pronounced dodgy) minions happened much faster than I thought it could. A lot of it was likely illegal, but it wasn’t something that could be fought quickly.

Our courts have worked reasonably well, despite the embarrassment that is our Supreme Court, but legal action is slow at the best of times and doesn’t do well in handling the move fast and break things crowd, especially when they are trying to break things permanently.

So much of our government has always worked on the assumption that people would stay within the norms.

The last time I remember seeing government destruction on this scale was when Reagan first took office, and there the norms held to a great degree. Reagan did a lot of harm – harm that led to the current grifter – but he didn’t break all the rules wholesale.

I was horrified in November 2016 and even more horrified in November 2024. I learned my lesson about what happens when unqualified and generally awful people end up in the presidency after the 2000 election. I was angry about the Supreme Court handing the job to Junior Bush, but I said, “Oh, well, how much harm can he do in four years? At least we’re not rioting in the streets.”

We should have rioted in the streets.

On the other hand, despite things being not just as bad as I expected, but even worse, I do think the grifter and his fascist crew are losing. Something has given in the last month or so. I’m not the only person who feels that way. Rebecca Solnit has written about it well. (I find her Meditations in an Emergency newsletter well worth reading these days.) Continue reading “The State of Things”…

Yes, Things Were Different Back Then

personby Madeleine Robins
schedulePosted on

A few years ago, an editor I very much admire said something that made my eyes cross.  I’m paraphrasing here, because I’m too lazy to go look the exact quote, but, in answer to a neophyte writer who wanted to know if she had to do a whole lot of research in order to write historical fiction or historical fantasy, the editor said (paraphrasing, right?): you have to do some, but people are basically people, no matter when/where you set them.

Eyes crossing right now.

The world has changed since I was a young human.  I know this because every time I watch an older movie with my daughters there will be moments when they look at me, dumbfounded.  “Was it really like that when you were young?” they ask (about women wearing gloves to leave the house, or men condescending to female lawyers, sexual double standards, really weird hairdos), and I have to say, well, yes it was.  The far past is exotic, but we think we know what it was like because we’ve seen movies and read books and stuff like that.  But the near past, which we think we know because we were there (for some part of it, anyway) is just as exotic.

Case in point: a few years ago I was given the 1945 edition of Etiquette, by Emily Post.  This book was published during WW II; women were working jobs vacated by men who went off to war; the world had gone through sixteen kinds of sea change since the end of the last world war (voting women! talking pictures! radio! sulfa drugs and penicillin just on the verge of being mass-produced!) and we think we know what it was like, how people behaved, what they thought and aspired to.

Then you read Etiquette and have to revise your thinking. Mrs. Post’s books may have harkened back to a more formal time, but she was still the arbiter of social usage.  Etiquette covers the waterfront, social usage-wise: exhaustive and exhausting information on weddings and advice on the protocol of engagements (“Correctly, the mother, father, sisters,brothers, aunts and cousins of the bridegeroom-to-be should go at once and call upon the bride and her family.”   I’m imagining the terror as this army descends upon the bride’s hapless family, brandishing visiting cards.  Also, Mrs. Post points out that “THE ENGAGEMENT RING IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THE BETROTHAL.”  Caps hers).  She’s got the scoop on christenings and, speaking to the modern woman, she includes the wording for an announcement of adoption (“Mrs. and Mrs. Nuhome have the happiness to announce the adoption of Mary, aged thirteen months.”).

The section on funerals and mourning is fabulous (in the enlightened year of 1945 a widow need only stay in deep mourning for a year, with another year of second mourning–grays, I suppose–to follow.  And as always, men get off easier.  “Although the etiquette is less exacting for a man than for a woman, a widower should not be seen at a dance or any large and solely social entertainment for from six to eight months; a son from four to six months; a brother for three–at least! The length of time a father stays in mourning for a child is from four to eight months.”  A child under eight, however, should never be put into black, no matter what Charles Dickens says).  It’s revelatory to anyone who has been to a funeral in the last thirty years; I’ve never been to one where everyone wore black, have you?

And Mrs. Post talks about servants.  The staff for a large house (the Butler is more important than the Housekeeper, but just barely), includes the butler and housekeeper, footmen, chauffeur, cook, kitchen maids, house maids, lady’s maid, valet, tutor, nursery maid–I feel like I’ve wandered into a Lord Peter Wimsey mystery!  Advice is given to those who have persistent trouble with the help.  To her credit, Mrs. Post stresses rigorous firmness and fairness with the help; no taking your bad mood out on your social inferiors, that’s tacky.  And she talks to the woman with only one maid in a small apartment as well: the maid will of course live in, and you should make her room as pleasant as possible, and allow her a decent afternoon off once a week….

And on it goes.  I could quote you passages (“Business Women in Unconventional Situations: Certain jobs–particularly those of responsibility leading to the heights of success–carry with them the paradoxical responsibility of upholding a moral code of unassailable integrity while smashing to bits all rules of old-fashioned propriety!”) until your eyes glaze over.  Mine won’t; this is like catnip to me, a window into another time and another way of thinking.  Emily Post was not writing for the wealthy who had been wealthy all their lives–they knew this stuff.  She was writing for the people who aspired to be wealthy, or upper middle class, or middle class.  The people who wanted to know how they were supposed to be living their lives.

I would say to my editor friend: yes, if you want to create a different place, you have to do enough research to understand how the place shapes the beliefs and the behaviors, and vice versa.  If you’re looking at the near past, Emily Post is not a bad place to start.