Here I share some more material from the latest Acorn bulletin which I edit over on winteroak.org.uk. These fragments, in their apparent variety, in fact all point to one overall picture with which my readers will by now be familiar…
If keeping up with the Acorn was homework in my school-years, I would have enjoyed it! And that in itself would have been a miracle. As always, thanks for the round-up!
The word Zionism is shape-shifting again, at least within the context of Israeli political and nationalist discourses.
The Z-word is now attached to the potential 'anti-Netanyahu' bloc—a spectrum of Hebraic genocidal enthusiasts who oppose Netanyahu over sporadic personal disputes (rather than ideological, ethical, humanitarian issues).
One may rightly wonder: if the anti-Netanyahu league refers to themselves as 'The Zionists,' how does Netanyahu's coalition (Ben Gvir, Smotrich, the Orthodox parties, Likud, etc.) refer to themselves? You may have guessed correctly: they call themselves 'The Jews'.
What are the differences between 'The Zionists' and 'The Jews'? It is pretty simple. The Jews see Israeli politics as a materialisation of the Judaic call. The Gaza human-sacrifice orgy is, for them, a fulfilment, a materialization, and an accomplishment of the Biblical 'homecoming' divine order to settle in the whole of Greater Israel and to annihilate everything remotely indigenous (Deuteronomy).
'The Zionists,' of course, didn't oppose the genocide—not one of them did. They have their own reasons to murder en masse. They refer to it as 'Israel's right to defend itself.'
As opposed to the 'Jews,' who are driven by a theological ethos, the so-called 'Zionists' murder in the name of Israeli statehood(ness).
Interestingly enough, the Hebrew word for statehood (ממלכתיות) is etymologically rooted in the word king and literally translates into "kingdomhood." The Hebrews don't really have a word for statehood, probably for the same reason they lack a Hebrew word for civilisation. These two concepts that were at the root of the promised Zionist transition never made it into modern Hebrew, for the obvious reason that they don't agree with Jewishness and Judaism.
Why is all of that fascinating? Of course, it means that the government/coalition that de facto ordered and committed the Gaza genocide refers to itself as The Jewish Coalition, yet not one Palestinian solidarity activist or influencer dares to point at the J-word or the J-element as the core driving force behind Israel's pathological criminality.
In previous posts, I reviewed the history of the Zionist signifier within Israeli political and cultural discourses. I argued that the word Zionism, pretty much, disappeared from Hebrew politics and discourse after 1948. Zionism was, for Israelis, a pre-state historical chapter. The notion of Zionism as a morphing vector was replaced by ‘Israeliness.’ However, in the 1980s, following the Israeli crimes in the Lebanon War, the Z-word was re-introduced to the Palestinian solidarity discourse by progressive Jews who wanted to disassociate themselves from the crimes committed by the Jewish state, yet sustain their Jewish identification. They saw the need to divert attention from the Jewishness and Judaism of the Jewish state and made the Z-word into their straw-man tool.
While the anti-Zionist call had zero impact on Israelis—as they didn't see themselves as Zionists, but as Israelis or Jews—it was the Israeli right that capitalised on the Jewish 'anti-Zionist' dishonest strategy.
The Israeli right realised that fighting back against 'anti-Zionism' shields the Jewishness and Judaism of the Jewish state. I would argue, in that regard, that either consciously or unconsciously, the so-called Jewish anti-Zionists and the most radical genocidal Israelis were operating in concert in fighting over 'Zionism' while concealing the true Judaic driving force at the heart of the Jewish State.
Yet, all that time, the Jewish State had been committing a slow genocide in Gaza inspired by Judaic scriptures. In October 2023, this slow destruction of Palestinian civilisation quickly escalated into the worst documented genocide in human history.
You may ask why Naftali Bennett, a genocidal psychopath, and Yair Golan, a 'sympathetic mass killer' (as some of my Palestinian friends refer to him), prefer to take cover under the 'Zionist umbrella'. What is it in the Z which they seem to adhere to? For them, Zionism currently means the push for the Jewish state to be a ‘liberal democratic state of the Jewish nation.’ This is, of course, a phantasm, as the notion of Jewishness has nothing to do with either democracy or liberalism. My belief is that nostalgia for the pre-revolutionary Zionist phase is the answer. In the Jewish state, at least for some, the notion of Zionism evokes the memory of the idealist dream of an emerging Jewish civilisation, the time when Zionist pioneers were widely respected for their will to transition into a respected, productive, self-sufficient Volk, and the days when the IDF won wars.
But there is one crucial thing that they are all missing. Zionism at its early and short-lived, glamorous moment, was driven by genuine Jewish self-repulsion. The early Zionists despised the 'diaspora' Jewish identity. They promised to bring about a different and new Hebrew: a productive, empathetic, and ethical one. The one 'who shoots and sobs', the one who is upset with the Arabs "because they made us kill their children" (Golda Meir). Zionism is, for them, a nostalgic yearning for the promise to erect a form of Jewish humanism, a promise that remained unfulfilled most likely because Jewish humanism is a contradiction in terms. You ask why? Because humanism is a form of universal brotherhood, the complete rejection of Choseness.
The tragic truth of the matter is that the nationalist 'civilised Jew' never made it into a living being. The ones who were mildly ethical and civilised left the country and drifted away from the dream, as well as the tribe.
When it comes to me, I have witnessed with my own eyes the brutality of the Jewish State four decades before the Gaza genocide. I saw the pathology back in 1982 in Lebanon. I knew already then that I wanted nothing to do with these people, the nation, the tribe. This was 15 years before Netanyahu became the Jewish king. The collective pathology was already there. Of course, some Israelis saw this pathology well ahead of me. Some realised the hopeless situation as early as 1967; more than a few grasped it all by 1948. -- GA
Israel - a psychotic kid with a catastrophic speech impediment
Earlier today, I came across an astute Israeli commentator who pointed out that Israeli policy is guided by a 9-to-1 aggression-to-diplomacy ratio. The Jewish state is engaged in an endless war against everything and everyone around it, and beyond. It kills en mass, it flattens, it assassinates leaders, journalists, intellectuals, it invests in havoc, and it dismantles the prospect of any future dialogue, let alone reconciliation. In comparison, Iran’s violence-to-diplomacy ratio stands at 1 to 9 in favour of diplomacy. Iran refrains from using its military power, and when it does, it is always measured. Iran will instead invest 90% of its energy in diplomacy. Iran will talk to its neighbours; it will only use its military as a ‘continuation of politics by other means.’
In light of the above, the astute Israeli equated the Jewish State to a psychotic, violent kid with a catastrophic speech impediment. We are basically dealing with an unbearable infant, consumed by constant tantrums that has been kicked out of every possible care system—a reckless young human infant growing into a pathological misanthropic character.
Bizarrely enough, the way in which the so-called ‘Only Democracy’ of its own kind chooses to behave is hardly a coincidence or an outcome of specific political circumstances.
This misanthropic reality is the real meaning of Jewish ‘homecoming.’ It is consistent with the Biblical homecoming narrative. It fits nicely with Jewish history, scriptures, theology and spirit. It is a natural continuation of an endless chain of Jewish historical catastrophes with just a few coffee breaks.
Netanyahu has been in power for so long only because he provides his base with this exact unruly toddler behaviour. Yet, the so-called opposition to Netanyahu—whether it is Bennett, Eizenkot, Lapid, or Liebermann—is equally composed of disturbed warmongers dedicated to the exact same misanthropic behaviour and worldview.
Yet, Israel is hardly alone. The Ziocon philosophy that has been dominating the English-speaking empire’s geopolitical adventures mirrors the Jewish State's ‘rational’. Like the Jewish State, both the USA and Britain are committed to violence and face growing isolation and cosmic unpopularity.
In the world in which we live, the Jewish State has made a name for itself as a grossly disturbed, angry, psychotic infant throwing its toys out of the pram, yet Iran consistently proves to be the adult in the room. -- Gilad Atzmon
“The great ability of those who are in control in the modern world lies in making the people believe that they are governing themselves”.
This sums up what the "modern life" really is.
made possible only by us if we comply.
If keeping up with the Acorn was homework in my school-years, I would have enjoyed it! And that in itself would have been a miracle. As always, thanks for the round-up!
You can add scients, the peer review process that lead to the zionist injection called cv19. The invention of virus, poison in food, air and water.
Then add all the false flag with NATOs gladio.
These people you cant understood by applying human thought.
The expert on the jewish question in my view is Christopher Jon Bjerknes(cjbbooks on substack).
The Jewish Coalition vs. The Zionist Bloc
The word Zionism is shape-shifting again, at least within the context of Israeli political and nationalist discourses.
The Z-word is now attached to the potential 'anti-Netanyahu' bloc—a spectrum of Hebraic genocidal enthusiasts who oppose Netanyahu over sporadic personal disputes (rather than ideological, ethical, humanitarian issues).
One may rightly wonder: if the anti-Netanyahu league refers to themselves as 'The Zionists,' how does Netanyahu's coalition (Ben Gvir, Smotrich, the Orthodox parties, Likud, etc.) refer to themselves? You may have guessed correctly: they call themselves 'The Jews'.
What are the differences between 'The Zionists' and 'The Jews'? It is pretty simple. The Jews see Israeli politics as a materialisation of the Judaic call. The Gaza human-sacrifice orgy is, for them, a fulfilment, a materialization, and an accomplishment of the Biblical 'homecoming' divine order to settle in the whole of Greater Israel and to annihilate everything remotely indigenous (Deuteronomy).
'The Zionists,' of course, didn't oppose the genocide—not one of them did. They have their own reasons to murder en masse. They refer to it as 'Israel's right to defend itself.'
As opposed to the 'Jews,' who are driven by a theological ethos, the so-called 'Zionists' murder in the name of Israeli statehood(ness).
Interestingly enough, the Hebrew word for statehood (ממלכתיות) is etymologically rooted in the word king and literally translates into "kingdomhood." The Hebrews don't really have a word for statehood, probably for the same reason they lack a Hebrew word for civilisation. These two concepts that were at the root of the promised Zionist transition never made it into modern Hebrew, for the obvious reason that they don't agree with Jewishness and Judaism.
Why is all of that fascinating? Of course, it means that the government/coalition that de facto ordered and committed the Gaza genocide refers to itself as The Jewish Coalition, yet not one Palestinian solidarity activist or influencer dares to point at the J-word or the J-element as the core driving force behind Israel's pathological criminality.
In previous posts, I reviewed the history of the Zionist signifier within Israeli political and cultural discourses. I argued that the word Zionism, pretty much, disappeared from Hebrew politics and discourse after 1948. Zionism was, for Israelis, a pre-state historical chapter. The notion of Zionism as a morphing vector was replaced by ‘Israeliness.’ However, in the 1980s, following the Israeli crimes in the Lebanon War, the Z-word was re-introduced to the Palestinian solidarity discourse by progressive Jews who wanted to disassociate themselves from the crimes committed by the Jewish state, yet sustain their Jewish identification. They saw the need to divert attention from the Jewishness and Judaism of the Jewish state and made the Z-word into their straw-man tool.
While the anti-Zionist call had zero impact on Israelis—as they didn't see themselves as Zionists, but as Israelis or Jews—it was the Israeli right that capitalised on the Jewish 'anti-Zionist' dishonest strategy.
The Israeli right realised that fighting back against 'anti-Zionism' shields the Jewishness and Judaism of the Jewish state. I would argue, in that regard, that either consciously or unconsciously, the so-called Jewish anti-Zionists and the most radical genocidal Israelis were operating in concert in fighting over 'Zionism' while concealing the true Judaic driving force at the heart of the Jewish State.
Yet, all that time, the Jewish State had been committing a slow genocide in Gaza inspired by Judaic scriptures. In October 2023, this slow destruction of Palestinian civilisation quickly escalated into the worst documented genocide in human history.
You may ask why Naftali Bennett, a genocidal psychopath, and Yair Golan, a 'sympathetic mass killer' (as some of my Palestinian friends refer to him), prefer to take cover under the 'Zionist umbrella'. What is it in the Z which they seem to adhere to? For them, Zionism currently means the push for the Jewish state to be a ‘liberal democratic state of the Jewish nation.’ This is, of course, a phantasm, as the notion of Jewishness has nothing to do with either democracy or liberalism. My belief is that nostalgia for the pre-revolutionary Zionist phase is the answer. In the Jewish state, at least for some, the notion of Zionism evokes the memory of the idealist dream of an emerging Jewish civilisation, the time when Zionist pioneers were widely respected for their will to transition into a respected, productive, self-sufficient Volk, and the days when the IDF won wars.
But there is one crucial thing that they are all missing. Zionism at its early and short-lived, glamorous moment, was driven by genuine Jewish self-repulsion. The early Zionists despised the 'diaspora' Jewish identity. They promised to bring about a different and new Hebrew: a productive, empathetic, and ethical one. The one 'who shoots and sobs', the one who is upset with the Arabs "because they made us kill their children" (Golda Meir). Zionism is, for them, a nostalgic yearning for the promise to erect a form of Jewish humanism, a promise that remained unfulfilled most likely because Jewish humanism is a contradiction in terms. You ask why? Because humanism is a form of universal brotherhood, the complete rejection of Choseness.
The tragic truth of the matter is that the nationalist 'civilised Jew' never made it into a living being. The ones who were mildly ethical and civilised left the country and drifted away from the dream, as well as the tribe.
When it comes to me, I have witnessed with my own eyes the brutality of the Jewish State four decades before the Gaza genocide. I saw the pathology back in 1982 in Lebanon. I knew already then that I wanted nothing to do with these people, the nation, the tribe. This was 15 years before Netanyahu became the Jewish king. The collective pathology was already there. Of course, some Israelis saw this pathology well ahead of me. Some realised the hopeless situation as early as 1967; more than a few grasped it all by 1948. -- GA
Israel - a psychotic kid with a catastrophic speech impediment
Earlier today, I came across an astute Israeli commentator who pointed out that Israeli policy is guided by a 9-to-1 aggression-to-diplomacy ratio. The Jewish state is engaged in an endless war against everything and everyone around it, and beyond. It kills en mass, it flattens, it assassinates leaders, journalists, intellectuals, it invests in havoc, and it dismantles the prospect of any future dialogue, let alone reconciliation. In comparison, Iran’s violence-to-diplomacy ratio stands at 1 to 9 in favour of diplomacy. Iran refrains from using its military power, and when it does, it is always measured. Iran will instead invest 90% of its energy in diplomacy. Iran will talk to its neighbours; it will only use its military as a ‘continuation of politics by other means.’
In light of the above, the astute Israeli equated the Jewish State to a psychotic, violent kid with a catastrophic speech impediment. We are basically dealing with an unbearable infant, consumed by constant tantrums that has been kicked out of every possible care system—a reckless young human infant growing into a pathological misanthropic character.
Bizarrely enough, the way in which the so-called ‘Only Democracy’ of its own kind chooses to behave is hardly a coincidence or an outcome of specific political circumstances.
This misanthropic reality is the real meaning of Jewish ‘homecoming.’ It is consistent with the Biblical homecoming narrative. It fits nicely with Jewish history, scriptures, theology and spirit. It is a natural continuation of an endless chain of Jewish historical catastrophes with just a few coffee breaks.
Netanyahu has been in power for so long only because he provides his base with this exact unruly toddler behaviour. Yet, the so-called opposition to Netanyahu—whether it is Bennett, Eizenkot, Lapid, or Liebermann—is equally composed of disturbed warmongers dedicated to the exact same misanthropic behaviour and worldview.
Yet, Israel is hardly alone. The Ziocon philosophy that has been dominating the English-speaking empire’s geopolitical adventures mirrors the Jewish State's ‘rational’. Like the Jewish State, both the USA and Britain are committed to violence and face growing isolation and cosmic unpopularity.
In the world in which we live, the Jewish State has made a name for itself as a grossly disturbed, angry, psychotic infant throwing its toys out of the pram, yet Iran consistently proves to be the adult in the room. -- Gilad Atzmon