Talk:Abba Ahimeir

Fascist

I note that someone/some people has been removing the Fascist category on a regular basis. Unfortunately we cannot revise the past (though some would try). Ahimeir and his friends were self-declared Fascists influenced by Mussolini's party. This can't just be airbrushed out. --MacRusgail (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I heartily applaud the anti-moralistic, anti-populist enthusiasm displayed, but, on the other hand, simplistically tagging Ahimeir as a mere "Fascist", without further ado and end of story, is as equally academically irresponsible as pretending Ahimeir had absolutely NO "para-fascistic" inclinations or traits...

If Ahimeir is going to be explicated as a Fascist, we need a top-notch brain-worker to make sure the subtleties of Ahimeir's personally idiosyncratic, atypical "Fascism" are duly emphasized, explaining deep political ontology in a magical way to the reader... Any correspondingly, genius-level, superbly cognitively-equipped editors, with an interest in political philosophy and human ideology's influence on practice, etc., etc., fit the bill here...? I know my humble status.

"Para-Fascist" is as far as I shall go... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:45B9:9D2:2589:EE59 (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The following text of mine was recently obviously removed by partisan editorial misbehavior and, if imperfect, the core information is solid and instead of being glibly, mindlessly deleted, can be simplified or re-phrased.

Political Philosophy and Ideology

The "Revisionist Maximalist" and/or "Revisionist Monistic" variant of Zionism of which Ahimeir represented, as Eran Kaplan and others document, perceived the process of Jewish history as a process of dissolutive deracination along vitalistic, Sorelian-Nietzschean philosophical lines, where the return to Zion in territorial-political terms, signified the regenerative ascendant rebirth of the multiply ailing Jewish "folk-soul".

In this context, Abba Ahimeir, in his doctoral dissertation on Oswald Spengler, dedicated a section powerfully pathos-ridden and philosophically searching, to the "self-torn" "Jewish soul." While agreeing with Spengler's overall analysis, he rejected the Spenglerian identification of Judaism as a "Magian culture" and Spengler's deterministic appraisal of Judaism as allegedly inevitably doomed to self-immolation. Spengler argued Jewish decadence arose connected to the emergence of the Jewish ghetto in pre-modern Christian Europe or Christendom. Ahimeir was more radical than Spengler, and, interestingly, extremely close to the philo-Judaic assessment of Friedrich Nietzsche, celebratory of primordial pre-Temple and early-Temple Israelite Judaism before its putative self-disfigurement, whose condemnation of late-Judaism popularly was misunderstood as having anti-Semitic connotations when the very opposite reality existed in the thinker's own mind. The medieval Jewish ghetto was far too historically late as marking Jewish decline, Ahimeir counter-argued: Ahimeir iconoclastically pegged the initial point of Jewish social-civilizational decline or decadence onto the appearance of the reformist Jewish prophet, Ezra.

Contra Spengler, Judaism was not a historically anomalous, "Magian" nation foredoomed to degeneration in Western culture ineluctably, but, Ahimeir asserted, Judaism constituted a previously normal national-religious entity subjected to extreme decline, a decline not terminal in irreversibility, Ahimeir emphatically declared - resulting from the deprivation of its national homeland and remediated in the re-appropriation in totality of this homeland. In the "philosophical" analysis of Ahimeir, the "Jewish tragedy" was the re-invention of Judaism of itself after suffering the dispossession of its own organic territorially-rooted home, quintessentially, Jerusalem. Ahimeir contentiously argued the Judaism developing on the ruins of the Roman conquest and brutal annihilation of Jerusalem was a Judaism of "artificial internationalization", a phenomenon of psychological self-schism of neurosis writ large ethnologically. Ahimeir believed the movement of distortion and downward disintegrating tendency was perhaps best exhibited in how, historically, within Jewish "religiosity", the displacement and supersession of the Bible/Torah/Tanakh had taken place by the rabbinically-generated Talmud - the Bible in his eyes being the story of a sovereign national organism and folk living and working fruitively on its specifically unique, distinctively peculiar, territorially-indissociable land. Ahimeir understood the rabbinic Talmud as born of the purely abstract, extraterritorial religious current emanating from the "pseudo-Jerusalem" of Yavneh, the Talmud being (allegedly) an "artificially over-religious" "excrescence" of the early phase Diaspora and its disintegrative energy, in the thought and words of Ahimeir.

Kaplan summarizes the "Revisionist Monist" (or "Revisionist Maximalist") perception, of which Ahimeir was the most forceful expositor, in The Jewish Radical Right: Revisionist Zionism and Its Ideological Legacy (Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 2005, pg. 35):

"Once a nation whose heroes had been the great judges and king who fought for Jewish independence and sovereignty, the Jews became dominated by prophets and rabbis, and their existence as a unique group of people dependeded solely on the observance of the 613 commandments of the Torah and Talmudic rabbinism ... For the Revisionists, universalism and internationalism were emblematic of a people without a land."

Controversial Interaction of Ideology, Personal Action and Contemporary History... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:45B9:9D2:2589:EE59 (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

AND NO, the above is not an irrelevant stupid "essay" but even if imperfect, stylistically abominable whatever - it is the grounds of belief serving as the intangible variable motivating the life and activities of the individual...

If too essay-like in outward style and format, the externality tinsel academe loves to pretend constitutes "learnedness", the core information utterly material and relevant to the case, should still be salvaged, and easily could be re-incorporated by a more gifted editor instead of simply being ideologically obliterated by an obvious self-interested activist partisan, for God's sake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:45B9:9D2:2589:EE59 (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You have a poor idea of what Wikipedia is about. Your text violates multiple WIkipedia guidelines. First, articles should be written in a manner accessible to a general readership. That means plain English; there is no place here for affected phrases like "regenerative ascendant rebirth" or "disintegrative energy" that most readers will not understand. Second, every opinion expressed in an article must be cited to a person making that opinion in a reliable source. There is no place here for your opinion, you are only allowed to report published opinions. Lastly, you better read WP:NPA. Zero^talk 11:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia about, is the question you should ask yourself, NOT my self.

My text violates only minor tinsel of academician stylistic quibbles I confess. The CORE DATA however should be retained by I more than concede, a linguistically more talented editor...

"Plain English"...? How can we then quote from academic books at all, period? The words you derisively mock me about - "regenerative ascendant rebirth" - are WORD FOR WORD in the most relevant, high-quality book on this subject - how far should Wikipedia be "democratic"...? Is democratic synonymous with "dumbing down so hideously as to render meaningless"? How stupid do you think the general population is of readers? I am less elitist in my presuppositions...

True, I suppose, I summarized through my own words through my own personal knowledge and possession of Ahimeir's doctoral text (a masterpiece of post-Marxist, neo-Nietzschean thought, I may add)...

On the other hand, I contextualized things and repeatedly cited OBJECTIVE SUPER-PERSONAL "sourcing" to make the matter clear - what exactly are you objecting to...?

"Palingenetic" rebirth is a commonly cited thematic conceptual item in the Z.R.M. and its "philosophical political ontology" - how is a person supposed to "democratically" phrase their ideological emphases, "Sir"?

The Jewish Radical Right: Revisionist Zionism and Its Ideological Legacy (ETC.) is not scholarly source-work for Wikipedia? All I did was, at the end my allegedly "pseudo-intellectualistic mock-essay", quote word for word from this book, as I could have from a dozen other works covering the subject adequately...

Basically, I am being attempted to be "socially delegitimized" through quibbling and other fallacies, as what I have "bared to the light", is real, but controversial...and by editors (seemingly?) with no good faith or good will (I re-emphasize seemingly).

I concede external flaws but these flaws hardly negate the relevance or importance of the basic content of what I posted; and the "proprietary" way to publish what I have put out, can or could easily be done, - but who here is interested in the objective, trans-personal truth?

My opinion I value as offal and nullity. I contrary to you personal attacks am interested in not my "OPINION" (you denigrate me here because I paraphrased through my own words Ahimeir's doctoral work - I confess the stylistic defect but this hardly makes these things my "OPINION"), not my opinion, but the apparently "tabooed" truth...

Am I alone in being of objective mind-set here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abba Ahimeir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217214450/http://terrorismexperts.org/terrorism_research_roots1.htm to http://terrorismexperts.org/terrorism_research_roots1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806051154/http://www.salon.com/col/hitc/1998/04/13hitc.html to http://www.salon.com/col/hitc/1998/04/13hitc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806051154/http://www.salon.com/col/hitc/1998/04/13hitc.html to http://www.salon.com/col/hitc/1998/04/13hitc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)