Gary Spedding – Sabbos Goy or Israeli Agent?

July 24, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

“We in the Palestinian Solidarity Movement Have a Problem With anti-Semitism,” writes Gary Spedding, a pro Palestinian ‘lobbyist’ in the Israeli outlet Haaretz.   Spedding claims to be a Palestinian solidarity activist but his activism is better described as that of an ‘Israeli agent.’ Spedding’s article provides us with an extraordinary view of Left duplicity and its disastrous role in the solidarity movement.

“For me,” writes Spedding, “being equipped to recognize and call out anti-Semitism can only strengthen my Palestine advocacy.” And why? Because“having a clear definition of anti-Semitism helps to reassure the Jewish community.” The first question that comes to mind is why a ‘pro’ Palestinian wants to ‘reassure the Jewish community?’ If Spedding really wants to appease the Jews he should join AIPAC  or enlist in the IDF’s Unit 300.

Pro Palestinian pretender Spedding doesn’t want us to use “anti-Semitic Jewish power tropes” he doesn’t want us to ‘vilify’ those “Jews who do identify with Zionism.” The obvious next question is, ‘what in hell makes Spedding think that he is a Palestinian solidarity activist?’ This guy is a text book ultra Zionist merchant, probably an Hasbara agent.

Spedding’s criticism of the solidarity movement is identical to the British Jewish Lobby’s campaign against Corbyn.

“Some activists have tried to hide their intentions, again playing semantics, by replacing the word ‘Jew’ with ‘Zionist.’ It’s now ‘Zionists control the media’ or ‘Zionists already decided who the next US president will be’ instead of ‘the Jews.”

For once, I completely agree with Spedding. Instead of referring to ‘Zionist power’ and ‘Zionist control,’ which are, in fact, misleading terms, we must be honest and straightforward and refer more properly to the ‘Jewish lobby’, ‘Jewish power’ and ‘Jewish interests.’

In total congruence with ardent Zionist Alan Dershowitz,  Spedding argues that

“Anti-Zionist Jews are also not immune from being complicit in, and promoting, anti-Semitism. If a Jewish person is repeating an anti-Semitic trope it doesn’t suddenly make it kosher for others to repeat.”

Spedding confesses, “when people like me raise concerns about anti-Semitism we are often told that we are ‘useful idiots’ for the Zionists and their agenda.” Well, yes, Spedding is an idiot and a very useful one. He tells us everything we need to know about the dysfunctional Palestinian solidarity movement and the deceitful Left. He helps us to spot the enemy within.

Spedding meticulously repeats the Hasbara guidelines: “We must also stop using the Israel – Nazi Germany analogy.”   He support his inane call by quoting Israeli Zionist political commentator, Noam Sheizaf: “Saying someone is a Nazi means he represents the ultimate evil – something that shouldn’t be negotiated or compromised with, but only fought.”

Spedding needs to understand that for many of us Israel, its Lobby, the Neocons and their Zionist interventionist wars do represent the ultimate evil.

Spedding continues, “Activists should walk away from rhetoric that encourages the conflation of right-wing Zionism/Israel’s policies with Judaism and Jewish identity.” Spedding forgot to mention my name here. I claim some of the credit for this  ‘conflation’ and I am proud of it. Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols.  Accordingly, each of Israel’s crimes and its Lobby must be interpreted in light of Jewish culture, Jewish identity, Judaism and Jewish heritage!

Spedding insists that

“Palestine activists should stop obsessing over identifying whether someone is Jewish or not, with the assumption that Jews must be given a litmus test on whether they’re pro-Israel, and thus assumed to be untrustworthy.”

I wonder if Spedding would communicate the same advice to an anti Nazi group in the 1930’s.  Would he advise the group not to be suspicious of supporters who, for some peculiar reason, identify politically as ‘Aryans?’

“We on the left” says the presumptive Israeli agent, “must stop procrastinating about anti-Semitism.” And the reason: “The Jewish community is an oppressed group.”  I couldn’t agree more. Jews are amongst the poorest people, despite the fact that they are amongst the hardest working people. Jews make up 99% of the West’s population; but their representation in the media, politics, banking and academia is imperceptible. The Left must bring this discrimination to an immediate end. Jews must be proportionally represented once and for all.

Spedding continues, “by tackling anti-Jewish oppression on the left we actually strengthen our movement and allow it to grow.” Corbyn tried to do just that and saw his party reduced to dust. Instead of fighting Jewish power and emancipating his Party from it, Corbyn tried to appease Labour’s Jewish paymasters and the Jewish Lobby.  The outcome was disastrous. The British Left is now a nostalgic interest.

Spedding ends his horrendous rant by addressing his comrades:

“I urge my fellow activists to be sensitive to the concerns of Jewish individuals and communal groups whenever concerns about anti-Semitism are raised.” I recommend the complete opposite approach. Those who air the concerns of anti-Semitism, people like Spedding, Max Blumenthal, JVP and others, should be presumed to be tribal activists, Israeli agents and/or controlled opposition operatives.

Gary Spedding comes just short of admitting to being guilty of all the above. 

Elie Wiesel–Oy Vey!!! Who Can Replace Him???

ewiesel

Jewish Tribalism on Display in JTA Article

First off, let me say this is not satire. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, or JTA, solicited the views of a number of prominent Jews on the question of who, if anyone, might be able to replace the late Elie Wiesel as a unifying force among American Jews.

Apparently it’s a burning question.

The JTA’s rather instructive article on the matter, posted Monday and available here, is written by Ben Sales, and opens with the following line:

Being an American Jew, more than anything else, means remembering the Holocaust.

Stop and think for a moment what that means. It would suggest, perhaps among other things, that self-identifying as a victim is a major part of what it means to be an American Jew. Could it perhaps also suggest a desire for evening the score? If you accept that 6 million Jews died in what is known as the “holocaust,” and if remembering this is a central part of who you are, then what are likely to be your feelings toward the non-Jewish world? Or at least toward those in the non-Jewish world who have been critical of Jews, Jewish lobbies, or the state of Israel?

The second paragraph of the story reads as follows:

That’s what nearly three quarters of Jewish Americans said, according to the Pew Research Center’s landmark 2013 study on American Jewry. Asked to pick attributes “essential” to being Jewish, more Jews said Holocaust remembrance than leading an ethical or moral life, caring about Israel or observing Jewish law.

Wait a minute! Did we read that right? Do an overwhelming majority of American Jews–nearly three quarters–believe that remembering the holocaust is more important, more “essential” to “being an American Jew,” than incorporating ethics or morality into one’s life? Is that what this is saying?

One normally wouldn’t think of the JTA as an “anti-Semitic website,” but what the article seems to be giving us is a full-on, frontal view of Jewish tribalism, warts and all.

Sales states that Wiesel “personified that consensus,” (i.e. the consensus that being Jewish “more than anything else, means remembering the Holocaust”) and goes on to describe him as the “survivor who through his writing and speaking turned himself into perhaps the leading moral voice of American Jewry.”

A few malcontents on the Jewish left “derided” Wiesel for being insufficiently concerned about the Palestinians, Sales avers, but overall he was “the closest thing American Jews had to a unifier.”

The author then hits us with another eye-opening paragraph:

Regardless of religious observance or thoughts on Israel, nearly all Jewish Americans agreed with Wiesel’s message of remembering the genocide and preventing another one.

Sales seems to be trying to make a case: that the reason Jews view holocaust remembrance as so important, and as such a central part of their identity, is due to their innate concerns over “preventing another one.” This begs the question: what do the words “preventing another one” exactly mean? Is it a reference to preventing any future genocide of any people? Or preventing “another” genocide only of Jews?

If it means preventing any genocide of any people at all, then certainly that would be a noble sentiment. But then why does the state of Israel refuse, to this day, to recognize the Armenian genocide?

And why on earth–if the genuine concern is over any genocide at all–do the vast majority of American Jews support the state of Israel?

As I’ve said on a number of occasions, Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians probably meets the legal definition of the crime of genocide.

Following Wiesel’s death on July 2, will another consensus leader rise to take his place? Or is the American Jewish community too divided to unite under any one person’s moral voice?

Sales then goes on to gives us views on this question from ten different prominent Jews, including attorney Alan Dershowitz, who is a long time associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Before I give you the quote from Dehshowitz, let me give you a quote about Dershowitz from journalist Rania Khalek, who wrote the following in January of 2015:

There are two groups of people Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz has spent his career resolutely defending. The first is Israeli war criminals. And the second is accused and convicted rapists.

As rape allegations against Dershowitz intensify, his increasingly bellicose denials, steeped in brazen hostility towards child victims of sexual abuse, are raising eyebrows.

With smear tactics that closely resemble the manner in which he attacks Palestinian victims of Israeli violence, Dershowitz rejected the latest allegations as fabrications, telling Local 10 News that his accuser, Virginia Roberts, is a “serial liar” and “prostitute.”

Dershowitz was later formally cleared of the allegations, and apparently in Sales’ mind, this makes his views (on morality, no less!) worth quoting:

“No one can replace Elie as the moral voice,” Dershowitz wrote in an email to JTA. “There will be new voices, but none represents the combination of tragedy and hope that Elie characterized.”

The article also includes quotes from Atlantic correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg, who describes Wiesel as “the closest thing we had to a saint,” and Abe Foxman who praised him for his unique ability to be “comfortable in our very, very partisan, unique Jewish world and experience.”

Reflections on Wiesel, though from a vastly different outlook, can also be found on another website–Elie Wiesel Cons the World. The site is dedicated to exposing the “inaccuracies and contradictions” about some of Wiesel’s claims, and is run by Carolyn Yeager, who in an article here offers an analysis of some previously unreleased photos of Wiesel that have come to light only since his death.

So what does it mean if Jews see themselves as inhabiting–in Foxman’s words–a “very, very partisan, unique Jewish world and experience”? Would this possibly account for why Israel stands in violation of so many UN resolutions? And could it also explain why the Jewish state finds it eminently acceptable to continue stealing Palestinian while at the same time professing to the world that it wants peace? The answers to these questions are not cut and dried, but they definitelyare worth exploring.

Another question in dire need of being place under the microscope for analysis is: why does the world let them get away with it?

_________________

UPDATE:

A little bit more on the adage that “being a Jew means remembering the holocaust.” Shortly after posting this article, I discovered a new post from blogger Richard Silverstein, whose latest revelation is that Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has appointed a rabbi named Eyal Krim to serve as the army’s new chief rabbi. Krim seems to be living in that “very partisan, unique Jewish world” that Foxman so eloquently described, having once proclaimed it would be acceptable for Israeli soldiers to rape non-Jewish women they may happen to find among the enemy.

“It is permitted to break the bounds of modesty…and to satisfy evil [sexual] urges through having sexual relations with attractive non-Jewish women against their will, out of consideration for the hardships of war and for the good of the whole [army’s objectives],” Krim wrote, as quoted by Silverstein.

How on earth could “the most moral army in the world” have such a man serving as it’s chief rabbi? Perhaps that’s what happens when we lose a major “moral,”  “unifying” voice like Eli Wiesel’s.

What Dershowitz, Prince Andrew and Maxwell Have in Common

March 18, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

The British socialite madam Ghislaine Maxwell (the daughter of) stands accused of recruiting Jeffrey Epstein’s “teen sex slaves.” Ms. Maxwell was ordered by a Manhattan judge to hand over any correspondence she has had with the billionaire pedophile.

The alleged madam will also have to produce any documents from between 1999 and 2016 that mention the sex-trafficking ring she and Epstein allegedly operated.

Victim Virginia Roberts has sued Maxwell in Manhattan federal court for defamation. Roberts, who is now 32, has also claimed Maxwell pimped her out to Epstein’s wealthy pals, including Prince Andrew.

Roberts escaped from the sex ring in 2002 after fleeing to Australia when Epstein and Maxwell allegedly sent her to Thailand to study massage.

Madam Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of the late ultra Zionist British media mogul Robert Maxwell. I do understand that famed pedophile Epstein, Alan Dershowitz and madam Maxwell have at least one thing in common: yet I refuse to believe that our Royal family mixes with these people. I prefer my imagery of our monarchy as slightly more aristocratic. I guess that as an immigrant I may be too idealistic about the kingdom and its rulers.

To learn  more about the above sex trafficking scandal

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/court-hear-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-sex-trafficking-article-1.2568619  

 

How to Avoid Incitement to Hate Accusations

Source

The trial of Arthur Topman has a lot of people worried, as well they should be. The laws in force in all European countries, including Rumsfeld’s “new Europe,” against “discrimination and incitement to hate” curtail the freedom of expression and stifle historical research. Prison terms have been imposed for years now in France on those who have taken issue, or even looked askance, at the official Holocaust narrative. More recently, criticism of Israel has been categorized as anti-semitism. But are these critics bona fide anti-semites?

Many, if not most, of those who level criticism at “Jewish power,” “Jewish behaviors,” “Jewish political identity,” zionism, and Israel, and who point to the malfeasance of Jews in global and national politics, war mongering, terrorism, banking, media and culture are not in fact anti-semites. They are quite likely merely victims of a logical fallacy and of constructing false syllogisms.

Consider this false syllogism (per Eugene Ionescu’s Bald Soprano): The cat has four legs, the table has four legs. Therefore, cats are tables. It is the very same mistake those logic-challenged people make when they isolate the Jewish ethnicity as the defining common trait of the malefactors.

Their fallacy arises from taking a minor, accidental and meaningless commonality (Jewishness, or four legs) as the defining trait (“specific difference”) of the given group.

Examine the photographs below and try to discern what this sample group of malefactors have in common, notably both men and women.

Is it that they are Jews? No, that would be the four-leg fallacy and legitimately make you the target of accusations of anti-semitism and incitement to hate.

Look again! They are all bald or balding. Netanyahu’s alopecia is poorly masked by his combover, Greenspan is even pointing with his index finger to where his hairline use to be, and as for Dershowitz, you don’t even need a photo: he is known for his bald lies. The young master, Nathaniel Rothschild, opts for a Napoleonic swirl, using what growth he can draw forward towards the areas of permanent deforestation. Bernie Madoff sported the winged look, a tonsorial trick of misdirection to  shift attention from the bald pate.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Alan Dershowitz

Alan Greenspan
Shimon Perez
Bernie Madoff

Natan Sharansky

Nathaniel Rothschild

Madeleine Albright

So, it’s not the Jews, it’s the Baldies! The link between Baldness and an indurated tendency to criminality and sociopathy has not been elucidated. It may be one of cause and effect without a known mechanism or simply one of association, in which baldness serves as a marker in the same way in which, for example, large, detached earlobes are associated with a predisposition to cardiac illness.

Is Baldness genetically inherited? Has it been systematically bred in by eugenics in the secrecy of cloistered Baldness enclaves in 19th century Russia, as Gilad Atzmon (a self-hating Baldie) maintains? (He claims that the baldest denizens of the enclaves were purposefully mated with rich females to create a Bald elite.)

Or is Baldness being just as systematically induced in the young by applying constant pressure on the skull with a device called “kippa”?

There are advocates of the “state of mind” theory, according to which to be truly Bald you have to adhere to the precepts of the ideology laid out in the hair-hating Book of  Bald (hence the name “people of the Book”).

What is important to remember when trying to avoid the peril of falling into anti-semitism (for which the condition of being a non-Jew is a marker) is that you can say with confidence and complete impunity, “It’s the Baldies!”

Nevertheless, don’t fall into the trap of unwarranted generalizations because there are exceptions (in turn only serving to confirm the rule):

Mordecai Vanunu

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

A Battle With No Front

November 14, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday morning, the news was broadcast of extensive ‘heroic’ allied drone attacks in Iraq and Syria in support of the battle for Sinjar. We also learned about the assassination of Jihadi John. We were told some revenge might be on the way.  As promised, last night Paris was bathing in blood.

Welcome to World War III – a global conflict with unlimited battlefronts. We, as people of the world, are all caught in the middle in this disaster. We see that our universe is crumbling, we want peace, yet we don’t even know who the enemy is.

For some of us, this recent escalation is not a surprising development. We have been writing about it for years. We have been scrutinising the disastrous impact of the matrix of Ziocon immoral interventionist lobbies that have been relentlessly advocating more and more conflicts.  The CRIF in Paris, CFI in London and AIPAC in Washington all push for escalation of the battle against Arabs and Muslims in accordance with the Israeli plan for a new Middle East.

We are forced to accept the fact that extremist Muslims are very upset and they can hit hard and in a very short time. Russia saw one of its planes falling out of the sky, killing more than two hundred innocent holiday makers. Paris has again suffered. We must ask, is it necessary? Do we have to live in fear from now on? Is peace an option?

The terror is a message that we have to understand. What is its message? ‘Leave us alone’ is what these homicidal terrorists are trying to tell us. Is that too complicated for the Western subject to take in?  ‘Live and let others be,’ is what this is about. The pragmatic implication is obvious. The West must immediately stop serving Israeli and global Zionist interests. We must cease all operations in Arabia and the Mid East. For that to happen, and for a chance for peace, opposition to global Zionism and Israeli lobbying is imperative.

Here is some practical advice; next time Bernard Henri Levy, David Aaronovitch or Alan Dershowitz attempt to sell a new conflict-pack in the name of ‘human rights,’ we should politely advise them that we have learned our lesson – no more wars for Zion. Then, peace may prevail.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian 

  

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Alan Dershowitz’ Plight

June 06, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

Alan Dershowitz , the infamous ethnic cleansing enthusiast, has recently filed a  lawsuit against TD Garden in Boston, Massachusetts, for injuries he sustained during a slip and fall in the bathroom .  

(Dershowitz’s complaint alleges that “[t]he bathroom at this time — and plaintiff believes for at least 60 minutes before his entry into the restroom — had no paper towels to allow male patrons to dry their hands post washing of them. This dangerous condition allowed water from the recently washed hands of each of the myriad bathroom users to drip or be ‘shaken’ onto the floor, negligently creating a hazardous situation for all users.”) Oy Vey…

for more info click here

A Very Kosher Dishonesty (must read!!!)

March 21, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Paul Eisen

http://pauleisen.blogspot.com/

It’s now well known that the Royal Northern College of Music (RNCM) was pressured by Zionist lobbyists North West Friends of Israel (NWFOI) to cancel a concert by internationally acclaimed jazz saxophonist Gilad Atzmon. What is less well known is that the co-chair and spokesperson for NWFOI is one Anthony Dennison (Mr Dennison’s name and role in the organisation may be confirmed here). These machinations by the NWFOI and the leading role played by Mr Dennison were duly reported by the Jewish Chronicle

So far, so… well, if not exactly good, certainly understandable.

Less understandable is the fact (not mentioned by the JC) of Mr Dennison’s documented and well-known dishonesty. Because of his dishonesty, Anthony Dennison, once a lawyer closely associated with the no win, no fee scam was found by the High Court to be unworthy to practice law and was duly struck off

Everyone knew about it. The BBC knew about it, the Solicitor’s Journal knew about it, The Daily Telegraph knew about it, and The Manchester Evening News knew about it so it’s safe to say that the NWFOI and the JC certainly knew about it.

But Mr Dennison is not only an aficionado of white-collar dishonesty; in fact he’s not at all averse to getting down and dirty because it seems that Anthony Dennison is also a bit of a football hooligan. Perhaps you remember the incident from October 2014 when Mr Dennison’s all-Jewish football team (Maccabi) was about to be wiped out in a match (9:2 with only 10 minutes left to play) and Mr Dennison took his young players off the pitch claiming ‘anti-Semitic abuse.’ The fledgeling anti-Semite was duly disciplined but Dennison was also later banned and fined by the FA – for his “foul and abusive behaviour”. And yes, the incident was duly reported by the JC here and here

So are we entitled to conclude that Anthony Dennison is both dishonest and a hooligan? And if we are, is it then surprising that, when orchestrating the pressure on the RNCM, he should call to his support the now implicated in theJeffrey Epstein under-age sex scandal none other than fellow discredited lawyer Alan Dershowitz?

Leaving aside whether we should allow such a man as Anthony Dennison to bully a British artist and academic and a beloved cultural institution, there is another, wider question to be asked: How come a supposedly respectable lobbying organisation like NWFOI is happy to have as a prime representative a man known to be dishonest and also an occasional hooligan? And further, how come the premier Jewish media outlet representing mainstream Jewish opinion in this country has nothing to say on this matter?

How come?

Well, for us Jews, when something is legitimate and acceptable we say it is kosher. So, in the case of Anthony Dennison we have to admit that some dishonesty is well…kosher!

%d bloggers like this: