Zionism

[BigMike]

Sorry, I am still interested in talking about Zionism. It is an important topic. Did any of you marvelous people hear what Rabbi Yaakov had to say? I cannot help but see Zionism, which developed among secular Jewry in Europe, as (allow me to put it this way) a desperate survival strategy. The catastrophe in Europe — the loss of life, the loss of place, the intense existential insecurity, produced a sort of madness which had been developing for decades, but post-Emancipation: Never again would these Jews allow such a fate to befall Jewry. Jewish God be damned.

European Jews had no other option except to realize that God abandoned them. God betrayed them. And when they interiorized what had happened (Shoah has the same sense as Nakba) they really had few options: to come to see that this God Yahweh was either a merciless nut job or a figment of the imagination.

Who (among Jewry) could any longer sustain the notion of the Biblical, historical Jewish God? And also consider this: that this God teamed up with Nazis and a general European antipathy to Jews, Jewish will, Jewish tendency to get to the head of the class. If you read Jewish postwar literature the psychic rupture was shattering.

Zionism is, in this sense, a rebellion against Jewish history and Jewish fate. “We will take matters into our own hands” say the Zionist-atheists. And in that sense cease to be historical Jews.

What many Gentiles do not understand — why would they? — is that the United States represents for world-Jewry an opportunity that had never, ever been presented in history. Jews are highly historically conscious. They recognized the opportunity and seized it.

It is an unfortunate fact that Israel was predicted to be a huge mistake by (many) Jews themselves. Everything was foreseen.

The extreme violence unleashed against those who perpetrated the 7th of October had all the resonances of psychotic, paranoid, uncontrollable fear and extreme anxiety. The attacks on Gaza were genocide-like, but with destruction at that level how do you measure the will to retribution?

Israeli Jewry is in an existential trap. And how horrid, how utterly unlivable it is to feel at a fundamental level that your very existence is threatened. That there is no “ground” for you. That God Himself is in effect your enemy and the agent of your destruction.

Religious Jews have all sorts of mechanisms to quash or limit this ever-present anxiety. The structure of the faith is itself a fortress. Secular Jews are in a different situation. They are only quasi-religious and in this sense quasi-Jews. They will not sit by while their own flesh and blood is being attacked.

But Israel, established by conquest, was a deep historical mistake. How this situation gets resolved now is anyone’s guess.

The best laid plans of mice and men …

"You shall betroth a wife, but another man will violate her; you shall build a house, but you will not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but you will not use its fruit. 31 Your ox shall be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will not eat of it; your donkey shall be torn away from you, and will not be restored to you; your sheep shall be given to your enemies, and you will have none to save you. 32 Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, while your eyes look on and yearn for them continually; but there will be nothing you can do. 33 A people whom you do not know shall eat up the produce of your ground and all your labors, and you will never be anything but oppressed and crushed continually. 34 You shall be driven mad by the sight of what you see." (Deut 28:30-34)

Alexis, you really outdid yourself with this one—truly a breathtaking piece of theatrical fatalism wrapped in Biblical quotes and poetic grief. But underneath the performance? Nothing but mystified nonsense and historical hand-wringing disguised as insight.

Let’s unpack it: You say Zionism was born from madness, trauma, and existential insecurity—as if that somehow makes it a metaphysical tragedy rather than the entirely predictable outcome of cause and effect. You think you're explaining something profound, but all you're doing is adding dramatic lighting to a completely deterministic process.

People get brutalized for centuries, they're systematically dehumanized, they're exterminated by the millions, and what do they do? They organize. They defend. They overcorrect. They do exactly what every group in human history has done when backed into a corner. There’s no mystery here, no curse of Yahweh, no divine betrayal—just trauma, fear, realpolitik, and survival instinct. It’s as natural and inevitable as tectonic plates shifting.

But you can’t accept that simplicity. You have to turn it into a moral-metaphysical opera. You quote Deuteronomy like it’s an existential truth instead of the fever dream of a violent tribal god invented by men who didn’t know where the sun went at night.

And your distinction between “religious Jews” with their fortress of faith and “quasi-Jews” with their secular anxiety? That’s not deep—that’s just the usual appeal to spiritual essentialism. Whether you’re talking about Orthodox Jews, secular Zionists, or your own overinflated metaphysical pronouncements, it’s all just psychology and conditioning. No god required.

Your whole analysis is steeped in this idea that there’s something uniquely tragic or metaphysically cursed about Jewish history. There isn’t. There’s something human about it. And if we understood that—if we stopped dressing it up in esoteric rambling and just acknowledged the cold mechanics of cause and effect—we might actually find a path forward that isn’t paved with more prophecy, retribution, and religiously-justified despair.

But no, you’d rather sigh poetically while the world burns, quoting ancient scripture and pretending it's analysis. Your take on Zionism isn’t wisdom—it’s mystified fatalism parading as depth.

[Alexis Jacobi]

People get brutalized for centuries, they're systematically dehumanized, they're exterminated by the millions, and what do they do? They organize. They defend. They overcorrect. They do exactly what every group in human history has done when backed into a corner. There’s no mystery here, no curse of Yahweh, no divine betrayal—just trauma, fear, realpolitik, and survival instinct. It’s as natural and inevitable as tectonic plates shifting.

What I said after Don Sr Pistolero was banned still stands: A depth conversation on the very inner dimensions of Judaic belief, and its refraction through Christianity, is a topic too hot for this forum and, I also think, for any public forum in our present.

However, the “logic” or “strategy”, if you will, that motivated the early Zionists — this is what my post touched on — is something relatively comprehensible and understandable to people 1) superficially versed in Jewish history in Europe, and 2) who have an interest (concerns) about the machinations of Zionism as it crushes “Amalek” in Gaza.

It is topical enough that it is fair game for discussion since even the mega-philosophers on this forum likely have some concerns about what is happening in Israel, the threats of war, and all the rest. It is really a topic “up for discussion” if it is carried out fairly and if negative animus is curtailed.

As to the part of your post that I selected and quoted — I am not going to comment on it because it is all too hot. I do suggest examining and thinking about Adam Green’s presentations which have a lot of substantial perspectives (though they are radical and also “hot”).

And I also want to make it clear to you that your ultra-reductionist views and your deterministic views of man, history and metaphysics is of no interest to me. I spent time engaging you earlier, but only up to the point when I realized it really was futile. You are locked into an empowered and ultra-hopped-up form of reductionism and, I suppose, must carry it through to its final points.

Receive my blessings for your project.

This is my last response to you since futile conversation is a waste of my time. Naturally, I expect one (at least) more boilerplate type responses from you.

The field is all yours, Mike. Have at it!

[BigMike]

People get brutalized for centuries, they're systematically dehumanized, they're exterminated by the millions, and what do they do? They organize. They defend. They overcorrect. They do exactly what every group in human history has done when backed into a corner. There’s no mystery here, no curse of Yahweh, no divine betrayal—just trauma, fear, realpolitik, and survival instinct. It’s as natural and inevitable as tectonic plates shifting.

What I said after Don Sr Pistolero was banned still stands: A depth conversation on the very inner dimensions of Judaic belief, and its refraction through Christianity, is a topic too hot for this forum and, I also think, for any public forum in our present.

However, the “logic” or “strategy”, if you will, that motivated the early Zionists — this is what my post touched on — is something relatively comprehensible and understandable to people 1) superficially versed in Jewish history in Europe, and 2) who have an interest (concerns) about the machinations of Zionism as it crushes “Amalek” in Gaza.

It is topical enough that it is fair game for discussion since even the mega-philosophers on this forum likely have some concerns about what is happening in Israel, the threats of war, and all the rest. It is really a topic “up for discussion” if it is carried out fairly and if negative animus is curtailed.

As to the part of your post that I selected and quoted — I am not going to comment on it because it is all too hot. I do suggest examining and thinking about Adam Green’s presentations which have a lot of substantial perspectives (though they are radical and also “hot”).

And I also want to make it clear to you that your ultra-reductionist views and your deterministic views of man, history and metaphysics is of no interest to me. I spent time engaging you earlier, but only up to the point when I realized it really was futile. You are locked into an empowered and ultra-hopped-up form of reductionism and, I suppose, must carry it through to its final points.

Receive my blessings for your project.

This is my last response to you since futile conversation is a waste of my time. Naturally, I expect one (at least) more boilerplate type responses from you.

The field is all yours, Mike. Have at it!

Ah, the classic retreat cloaked in condescension. “Too hot,” you say? No, Alexis—it’s just too exposing. You’ve run out of room to mystify, dodge, or sermonize, so now you wrap it all up with a wink, a halo emoji, and a forced benediction. Cute.

You talk about futility—but here's the thing: you’ve never once addressed the content of my arguments. Not once. You haven’t falsified a single point, challenged a single law of nature, or provided a viable alternative to causality. You just keep repeating that it’s all too "reductive" for your tastes. Translation: it's too real, too grounded, too hard to twist into your poetic dreamscape.

And now you're off to hide behind Adam Green videos? Really? That's your final refuge? A YouTube conspiracy peddler who replaces evidence with innuendo and calls it “perspective”? That's not intellectual depth—that’s intellectual cowardice.

You say this topic is “fair game” if it avoids “negative animus”—yet you spew contempt for scientific rigor and call it “ultra-hopped-up reductionism.” You’re not trying to elevate the conversation—you’re just trying to filter out anything that might dissolve your carefully arranged mythology.

So sure, exit stage left. Declare yourself too deep, too enlightened, too spiritually nuanced to waste time with “boilerplate.” But we both know what’s actually happening here: when faced with determinism, facts, and a worldview that doesn’t flatter your need for cosmic drama—you fold. You call it futile, but I call it checkmate.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Anything else on your mind, Mike?

[BigMike]

Anything else on your mind, Mike?

Yeah, Alexis—one more thing.

I think you know you're being dishonest. I think, deep down, you realize you're wrong. You’re smart enough to see through the fog—you’ve glimpsed the machinery behind the myths you peddle. Maybe that’s exactly why you lean harder into the performance.

Maybe your livelihood, your identity, your social capital—it all depends on you continuing to posture, to lecture, to wrap the old lies in new language. You’ve built your persona around ideas you now secretly know are laughable, brittle, and hollow. But walking away from them? That would mean admitting you wasted years, maybe decades, promoting ornate nonsense dressed up as insight.

So you keep up appearances. You avoid real engagement. You fall back on mysticism, poetry, and safe vagueness. Because facing reality—the deterministic, godless, causally-bound truth of it—would mean starting over. And that terrifies you.

Yeah, I think you know.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’ve thoroughly expressed your poignant thoughts. As I said I am not interested in communication with you. And since I have nothing to add are you comfortable leaving it at that?

[BigMike]

You’ve thoroughly expressed your poignant thoughts. As I said I am not interested in communication with you. And since I have nothing to add are you comfortable leaving it at that?

Sure, Alexis — but let’s be honest: you say you have “nothing to add,” but what exactly would you be adding to? You’ve contributed nothing coherent, nothing substantive, and nothing worth engaging with. So yes — I’m more than comfortable with you adding nothing to nothing. That’s exactly the contribution level anyone could have expected. Zero it is.

At least in your own words, I’ve thoroughly expressed my thoughts. I’ll take that. I can’t say the same about you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’ve thoroughly expressed your poignant thoughts. As I said I am not interested in communication with you. And since I have nothing to add are you comfortable leaving it at that?

Sure, Alexis — but let’s be honest: you say you have “nothing to add,” but what exactly would you be adding to? You’ve contributed nothing coherent, nothing substantive, and nothing worth engaging with. So yes — I’m more than comfortable with you adding nothing to nothing. That’s exactly the contribution level anyone could have expected. Zero it is.

At least in your own words, I’ve thoroughly expressed my thoughts. I’ll take that. I can’t say the same about you.

Fully understood. And we can now leave it at that.

[BigMike]

You’ve thoroughly expressed your poignant thoughts. As I said I am not interested in communication with you. And since I have nothing to add are you comfortable leaving it at that?

Sure, Alexis — but let’s be honest: you say you have “nothing to add,” but what exactly would you be adding to? You’ve contributed nothing coherent, nothing substantive, and nothing worth engaging with. So yes — I’m more than comfortable with you adding nothing to nothing. That’s exactly the contribution level anyone could have expected. Zero it is.

At least in your own words, I’ve thoroughly expressed my thoughts. I’ll take that. I can’t say the same about you.

Fully understood. And we can now leave it at that.

Oh, “fully understood,” is it? Does that mean you finally grasped the content, or just realized you weren’t going to win the exchange and decided to pretend it was your choice to bow out? Because if by “fully understood” you mean “I now acknowledge, accept, and quietly retreat from the uncomfortable truths I failed to address,” then yes—fully understood indeed.

Bravo. A graceful exit cloaked in semantic fog. Almost convincing. Almost.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Mike, I get the distinct impression that you just will not let this go. But I would appreciate it if you’d make a Herculean effort. It is a sincere — and a polite — request.

[BigMike]

Mike, I get the distinct impression that you just will not let this go. But I would appreciate it if you’d make a Herculean effort. It is a sincere — and a polite — request.

A Herculean effort, is it? Oh Alexis, bless your threadbare toga. You misread the myth entirely—Hercules didn’t quit when the stables were filthy. He rolled up his sleeves and washed the rot out.

See, I’m not here out of petty stubbornness—I’m here because the intellectual sewer you're pumping out doesn’t get to go unchallenged. If I walk away, it’s not surrender. It’s silence. But make no mistake: if you keep polluting the forum with your sleazy, dishonest, hypocritical claptrap, I’ll be back with a rhetorical pressure washer and a sharper blade.

You want peace? Earn it. Speak truthfully. Coherently. Or go home and try again when you’ve learned to distinguish “polite” from “pathetic.”

[Atla]

Will there be a last last last last last last response?

[Alexis Jacobi]

These things have been determined since before even Time began, and my theory is that they can be known. Now, in respect to your pagan ancestors and to give glory and a voice to the gods, would you please do the honor of sacrificing a wabbit and examining its liver? for there is an answer; it will be revealed!

[BigMike]

These things have been determined since before even Time began, and my theory is that they can be known. Now, in respect to your pagan ancestors and to give glory and a voice to the gods, would you please do the honor of sacrificing a wabbit and examining its liver? for there is an answer; it will be revealed!

Ah yes, when all else fails—retreat to theatrical mysticism and irony. Invoke gods and rabbit livers, and pretend you’re being both clever and profound. It’s your classic move, Alexis: when facts corner you and logic exposes the rot, you fall back on performance—hoping a wink and some pagan flair will distract from the hollowness underneath.

You talk about things being “determined since before Time began” like it’s a profound metaphysical insight. It’s not. It’s just dressed-up confusion—your last-ditch attempt to sound deep when you’re out of arguments. You’re not exploring the unknown. You’re avoiding the obvious.

And honestly, this whole act of yours—layered references, mystical language, evasive irony—it’s all rooted at the bottom of Bloom’s taxonomy. You’re stuck in the realm of vague remembering and shallow interpreting, utterly incapable of climbing toward analysis, evaluation, or actual creation of new understanding. You can’t engage with ideas critically, because the second you do, the illusion falls apart.

So keep waving your incense and cracking jokes about entrails. But don’t pretend you’re ascending some intellectual mountain. You’re circling the base, terrified of the climb.

[BigMike]

Will there be a last last last last last last response?

I hope so.

The moment Alexis stops spreading lies, falsehoods, and mystified nonsense dressed up as insight—I’ll stop responding.

Until then, I’ll keep shredding that dangerous drivel to pieces. Someone has to.