Someone on Twitter mentioned Israel’s desperate need for a sort of “first world right wing” politics. I don’t think October 7 was any less of an indictment of the left’s ideology or understanding of Arabs than the right’s. The truth is that the Arab Jew does in fact understand Arabs in ways the high IQ Ashkenazis don’t.. and that they also lack the analytical capacity and time preference setting to actually utilize that understanding. The competent classes would do well to stop ignoring realities about Arabs (which they do - the average Tel Avivi believed pre 10/7 that the average Palestinian just wanted to live in peace) and accept the understanding of the brownoids while providing intellectually competent solutions.
Maybe if you say "retard" or "rightoid" one more time your idiotic arguments will start to make sense. You believe that zionism itself was a mistake, you believe the state should never have been established, shouldn't you support the so called rightoids who you believe jeopardized Jewish immigration? You ignore, intentionally I'd say, the successes of the those people whom you call rightoids. Even if your version of the 1929 riots is correct, it is indisputable that when Israeli governments, whether officially right or left, adopt right wing policies, we have success. We have failure with left wing policies. Consider: In 1940, only the Lehi believed that military force was the only way the British would ever give us a state. By 1946 the entire Yishuv accepted this as true. In the war of independence, intentional efforts were made to expel the Arabs from our land, though it is disputed how widespread they were. Contrast this with our policy during the 6 day war, which you laud as a success. The supposedly left wing Ben Gurion sent Unit 101 to commit "reprisal attacks", or in the modern vernacular "price tag attacks". I'm sure you're familiar with Operation Shoshanna. These were more extensive that anything Harav Kahane ever advocated (you seem to have forgotten the Rav before his name. An honest mistake I'm sure). Since the beginning of the state the leaders have acted more left wing in fact, culminating in the rights tacit acceptance of the Oslo paradigm. That's why I don't call myself "true right winger", I call myself "TRUE SETTLER". So your arguments fall flat, which is why you need to coat them with insults you think are clever so people don't see how truly pathetic they really are.
I do not give Kahana the honorific Rav for a number of reasons, but chief among them is his penchant for schtupping shiksas. You shouldn't sell yourself short; you are a true rightoid.
"What on earth is going on here? Beats me. You might think you have an explanation, but I think you are wrong."
I'm fairly certain that it's an attempt at messaging that the hostages were killed by the Israelis, because, well, who else would kill innocent hostages? 'Why look, you can even see Bibi with blood dripping out of his fangs! What more evidence could you possibly need???'
Contra Collingwood, I think you *can* tell when a monstrously sociopathic terror group attempts to solve a P.R. problem and that, as they say in Israel .התוצאות בהתאם
I think that's part of why Hamas agreed to skip the ceremonies and handed over the latest batch of bodies quietly in Egypt. But we'll hopefully have a better idea soon when we see how they handle the next transfer of living hostages. (Assuming phase 2 actually happens.)
"R.G. Collingwood was a British philosopher from back in the good old days when, if you were clever enough, Oxford would just let you keep hanging around after your degree, reading books for money, and writing whenever you felt like it. One of the things he wrote when he felt like it was his intellectual autobiography,"
I confess to never having heard of R.G. Colingwood before now. But based on those musings of his you excerpted, he sounds a bit deranged. (I shall not here attempt to define derangement, for the matter will surely be clear to the reader....)
"For a second, it sure looks like Israel’s military history is divided into two parts: the period when MENA Jews were second class citizens with no say in how anything was run (this is how they tell it, not me), and the period after they achieved a measure of equality, with the first being characterized by relentless, near miraculous success, and the second unremitting failure."
I don't buy this dichotomy. For starters, when is your cutoff point?
The dichotomy is not original to me, it is a commonplace of Israeli rightoid discourse. If they had presence of mind, they would realise that they stand condemned out of their own mouth, but to have presence of mind, you first need to have mind.
It’s funny, through the Jewish/Israeli coded posts I have seen here it seems that in a weird way, the « cousin » peoples through warfare and mimetic forces are now starting to ressemble each other more and more. The right winger side of Israel is falling into the derangement that started many decades ago on the Palestinian side.
The retarded right winger you deride is basically the status-quo arab leaders of yesterday (slowly the ones of tomorrow seem to be more smart), and the growing Kahanists seem to act in a similarly deranged way towards Palestinians that Arabs used to act around Jews.
How do u reconcile this with the fact that the intellectuals behind labour Zionist were retarded Marxists like Hess who thought Jews needed to proletarinise whereas jabotinsky was a goat respecter of the middle classes.
It's an interesting question. I'm still thinking about it. However some factors are:
1) Most Jews who shared Jabotinsky's bourgeoisism weren't interested in Zionism, still less actually coming to Palestine. So he had to recruit from what was to hand, which meant whackjobs.
2) Left Zionists benefitted from picking up EHC from within Russian Marxism who realised that Bolshevism was going to shit, but didn't want to have to abandon all of their old beliefs.
3) Jabotinsky had the erroneous, but very current belief that nationalism was the natural condition of mankind, and so projected this onto Arabs.
4) Jabotinsky didn't have enough smart people on his team to give him constructive criticism.
Overall, this is a provocative and entertaining read, but one that sacrifices nuance in favor of sharp wit and brutal takedowns. It’s an argument designed to score points rather than seek truth—compelling in its rhetoric but flawed in its sweeping conclusions.
Is this a correct usage of שניט? In any case, yes, I think that taking a rational perspective on the Israeli Palestinian conflict will be catastrophic for the religious faith of many, and likely most Jews. But it's too bad. The Rabbis tried to warn us not to do this; we did it anyway, and now we must deal with it.
The right in Israel predates 48. Who was fighting the British during the Mandate? Lechi? Were they not rightoids, in your verbiage?
The problem of the Palestinians can be viewed as a uniquely Jewish problem, or can be seen in a larger context of the UK pandering to their own radical Islamists, Germany hanging in through car rammings on their soil, France making peace with Charlie Hebdo, Sweden becoming a not safe place to walk. Etc.
Israel’s battle with the Palestinians is for its immediate existence and proximate murder of a significant proportion of its citizens. But Europe and the US is on its way to fighting a very real battle in the same terms, just diluted.
1) This is true, but I don't follow your point. A major part of the article is about how rightoids caused the 1929 riots and thus the White Paper.
2) European countries are unwise to import Muslim populations because they are not worth the hassle. They would do well to stop immediately and being a policy of gentle repatriation. But this is clearly nothing like having a 50 year military occupation of the West Bank, with increasing severity just to stop there being daily suicide bombings.
3) Probably not. If they stop immigration, definitely not.
Okay then, what exactly is it that you want to happen? What would you do personally if you had the ability, the power, and the will? Is there a non violent solution to this mess? I'm honest enough to say this: "for various reasons I dislike Palestinians and their culture. I do not like having to be around them. I dislike hearing the Arabic language spoken in our land. I have nothing against Arabs and Muslims in their own countries. I especially enjoy the company of the refined and educated ones, who remain in their own countries. It is a pity that we didn't expell them in 1948 when we had the opportunity. We are now paying the price. We were given another opportunity in 1967, but both the leftist traitor Moshe Dayan and the eidah charedis felt we don't really have the right to take back our homeland." What do we have now? A stupid leadership who believes it's better to send more soldiers on suicide missions than to actually win by flattening Azza and moving the Fakestinians to Muslim majority countries. It's a big mess indeed.
Someone on Twitter mentioned Israel’s desperate need for a sort of “first world right wing” politics. I don’t think October 7 was any less of an indictment of the left’s ideology or understanding of Arabs than the right’s. The truth is that the Arab Jew does in fact understand Arabs in ways the high IQ Ashkenazis don’t.. and that they also lack the analytical capacity and time preference setting to actually utilize that understanding. The competent classes would do well to stop ignoring realities about Arabs (which they do - the average Tel Avivi believed pre 10/7 that the average Palestinian just wanted to live in peace) and accept the understanding of the brownoids while providing intellectually competent solutions.
Maybe if you say "retard" or "rightoid" one more time your idiotic arguments will start to make sense. You believe that zionism itself was a mistake, you believe the state should never have been established, shouldn't you support the so called rightoids who you believe jeopardized Jewish immigration? You ignore, intentionally I'd say, the successes of the those people whom you call rightoids. Even if your version of the 1929 riots is correct, it is indisputable that when Israeli governments, whether officially right or left, adopt right wing policies, we have success. We have failure with left wing policies. Consider: In 1940, only the Lehi believed that military force was the only way the British would ever give us a state. By 1946 the entire Yishuv accepted this as true. In the war of independence, intentional efforts were made to expel the Arabs from our land, though it is disputed how widespread they were. Contrast this with our policy during the 6 day war, which you laud as a success. The supposedly left wing Ben Gurion sent Unit 101 to commit "reprisal attacks", or in the modern vernacular "price tag attacks". I'm sure you're familiar with Operation Shoshanna. These were more extensive that anything Harav Kahane ever advocated (you seem to have forgotten the Rav before his name. An honest mistake I'm sure). Since the beginning of the state the leaders have acted more left wing in fact, culminating in the rights tacit acceptance of the Oslo paradigm. That's why I don't call myself "true right winger", I call myself "TRUE SETTLER". So your arguments fall flat, which is why you need to coat them with insults you think are clever so people don't see how truly pathetic they really are.
I do not give Kahana the honorific Rav for a number of reasons, but chief among them is his penchant for schtupping shiksas. You shouldn't sell yourself short; you are a true rightoid.
"What on earth is going on here? Beats me. You might think you have an explanation, but I think you are wrong."
I'm fairly certain that it's an attempt at messaging that the hostages were killed by the Israelis, because, well, who else would kill innocent hostages? 'Why look, you can even see Bibi with blood dripping out of his fangs! What more evidence could you possibly need???'
Contra Collingwood, I think you *can* tell when a monstrously sociopathic terror group attempts to solve a P.R. problem and that, as they say in Israel .התוצאות בהתאם
Was it a PR victory for Hamas or for Israel?
It was a PR disaster for Hamas, and since it's pretty zero-sum, thereby a PR victory for Israel. That's because Hamas isn't terribly good at understanding that ghoulish cartoons aren't terribly convincing to people who aren't being force-fed Hamas propaganda like the Palestinians in Gaza. https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/hamas-hands-over-bodies-of-4-hostages-to-israel-as-dozens-of-palestinians-leave-israeli-prison/#:~:text=Earlier%20Wednesday%2C%20Prime,the%20hostages. So what they were trying to do turned out to be the opposite of what actually happened. Since everyone in the west but a few college students thinks that Hamas had no businesses taking hostages like that in the first place, it just reinforced their ISIS-type image.
I think that's part of why Hamas agreed to skip the ceremonies and handed over the latest batch of bodies quietly in Egypt. But we'll hopefully have a better idea soon when we see how they handle the next transfer of living hostages. (Assuming phase 2 actually happens.)
"R.G. Collingwood was a British philosopher from back in the good old days when, if you were clever enough, Oxford would just let you keep hanging around after your degree, reading books for money, and writing whenever you felt like it. One of the things he wrote when he felt like it was his intellectual autobiography,"
I confess to never having heard of R.G. Colingwood before now. But based on those musings of his you excerpted, he sounds a bit deranged. (I shall not here attempt to define derangement, for the matter will surely be clear to the reader....)
"For a second, it sure looks like Israel’s military history is divided into two parts: the period when MENA Jews were second class citizens with no say in how anything was run (this is how they tell it, not me), and the period after they achieved a measure of equality, with the first being characterized by relentless, near miraculous success, and the second unremitting failure."
I don't buy this dichotomy. For starters, when is your cutoff point?
Put another way, the 6 day war and the Yom Kippur war were only a few years apart. One was 'near miraculous' and one was nearly catastrophic- to the point where ('whitey') politicians like Golda Meir wondered if she should commit suicide, https://www.jta.org/archive/mrs-meir-was-close-to-suicide-at-early-stages-of-the-yom-kippur-war and Moshe Dayan to fear 'churban bayit shlishi.' https://www.5tjt.com/days-of-fear-and-trembling-a-yamim-noraim-reflection-on-the-yom-kippur-war/ Those all *preceded* the mahpach.
The dichotomy is not original to me, it is a commonplace of Israeli rightoid discourse. If they had presence of mind, they would realise that they stand condemned out of their own mouth, but to have presence of mind, you first need to have mind.
It’s funny, through the Jewish/Israeli coded posts I have seen here it seems that in a weird way, the « cousin » peoples through warfare and mimetic forces are now starting to ressemble each other more and more. The right winger side of Israel is falling into the derangement that started many decades ago on the Palestinian side.
The retarded right winger you deride is basically the status-quo arab leaders of yesterday (slowly the ones of tomorrow seem to be more smart), and the growing Kahanists seem to act in a similarly deranged way towards Palestinians that Arabs used to act around Jews.
Not a nice thing to see
Instead of being 500 years ahead, perhaps Israël is just 100 behind Palestine
That's an interesting thing to write. What do you mean?
I think my assertion is adequately contextualized by Admy's comment above
Can you tell it to me like I'm retarded?
Palestinians became barbarians first, Israelis are just now catching up
How do u reconcile this with the fact that the intellectuals behind labour Zionist were retarded Marxists like Hess who thought Jews needed to proletarinise whereas jabotinsky was a goat respecter of the middle classes.
It's an interesting question. I'm still thinking about it. However some factors are:
1) Most Jews who shared Jabotinsky's bourgeoisism weren't interested in Zionism, still less actually coming to Palestine. So he had to recruit from what was to hand, which meant whackjobs.
2) Left Zionists benefitted from picking up EHC from within Russian Marxism who realised that Bolshevism was going to shit, but didn't want to have to abandon all of their old beliefs.
3) Jabotinsky had the erroneous, but very current belief that nationalism was the natural condition of mankind, and so projected this onto Arabs.
4) Jabotinsky didn't have enough smart people on his team to give him constructive criticism.
Overall, this is a provocative and entertaining read, but one that sacrifices nuance in favor of sharp wit and brutal takedowns. It’s an argument designed to score points rather than seek truth—compelling in its rhetoric but flawed in its sweeping conclusions.
From Chatgpt analysis
😎
I understood maybe 30% of this post but I really enjoyed reading all of it.
> "It has no special moral or spiritual or eschatological significance"
This is something every single schnit of Jew will argue with, and for good reasons.
Is this a correct usage of שניט? In any case, yes, I think that taking a rational perspective on the Israeli Palestinian conflict will be catastrophic for the religious faith of many, and likely most Jews. But it's too bad. The Rabbis tried to warn us not to do this; we did it anyway, and now we must deal with it.
It got my point across so it served its purpose.
> will be catastrophic for the religious faith of many, and likely most Jews.
They'll simply keep the faith and not take the rational perspective.
Gosh this was long.
Can someone dumb it down for me?
Look: Israel really let its defenses down before 7 October. If that's called believing in the Iron Wall, I'll take it. Because it did.
The right in Israel predates 48. Who was fighting the British during the Mandate? Lechi? Were they not rightoids, in your verbiage?
The problem of the Palestinians can be viewed as a uniquely Jewish problem, or can be seen in a larger context of the UK pandering to their own radical Islamists, Germany hanging in through car rammings on their soil, France making peace with Charlie Hebdo, Sweden becoming a not safe place to walk. Etc.
Israel’s battle with the Palestinians is for its immediate existence and proximate murder of a significant proportion of its citizens. But Europe and the US is on its way to fighting a very real battle in the same terms, just diluted.
1) This is true, but I don't follow your point. A major part of the article is about how rightoids caused the 1929 riots and thus the White Paper.
2) European countries are unwise to import Muslim populations because they are not worth the hassle. They would do well to stop immediately and being a policy of gentle repatriation. But this is clearly nothing like having a 50 year military occupation of the West Bank, with increasing severity just to stop there being daily suicide bombings.
3) Probably not. If they stop immigration, definitely not.
Okay then, what exactly is it that you want to happen? What would you do personally if you had the ability, the power, and the will? Is there a non violent solution to this mess? I'm honest enough to say this: "for various reasons I dislike Palestinians and their culture. I do not like having to be around them. I dislike hearing the Arabic language spoken in our land. I have nothing against Arabs and Muslims in their own countries. I especially enjoy the company of the refined and educated ones, who remain in their own countries. It is a pity that we didn't expell them in 1948 when we had the opportunity. We are now paying the price. We were given another opportunity in 1967, but both the leftist traitor Moshe Dayan and the eidah charedis felt we don't really have the right to take back our homeland." What do we have now? A stupid leadership who believes it's better to send more soldiers on suicide missions than to actually win by flattening Azza and moving the Fakestinians to Muslim majority countries. It's a big mess indeed.