Exactly who is it that is in ‘Denial’?

February 16, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

A somewhat biased film review

By Gilad Atzmon

In her book Denying the Holocaust (1993), Deborah Lipstadt confessed that it was David Irving’s considerable reputation as an historian that made him “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.” “Familiar with historical evidence,” she wrote, “he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.” Irving responded by claiming that Lipstadt’s words were libellous and filed a legal case against her and her publisher Penguin Books.

Was Irving brave or naïve in putting the Holocaust on trial? Probably both. Back in 1996, was Irving a hero or just grossly miscalculating in believing he stood a chance in taking on the Holocaust, still the most popular Jewish religion? Again, probably both.

The other day, I watched Mick Jackson’s ‘Denial’. The film tells the story of Irving’s 2000 defeat in court – a disaster he voluntarily brought upon himself and indeed, Irving has clearly made some mistakes in his life. Yet, in 2017 it is impossible to deny that, back in 2000, Irving was well ahead of most of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYcx43AmAyY

Watching the film in the aftermath of Brexit, the Trump victory and the surge of Right Wing consciousness in the West in general, it is clear that Irving, undoubtedly one of the greatest living biographer of Hitler, understood human nature better than the British judge, Lipstadt’s legal team, the BBC and probably the rest of us altogether.

Back in 2000, the Holocaust narrative was as solid as a rock. The Jews were perceived as the ultimate victims and their plight at the time of World War II was unquestionable.  No one dared ask how is it is possible that, three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the newly-born Jewish state ethnically cleansed Palestine of its indigenous population? At the time of the trial, no one dared ask why is the Jewish past just a chain of holocausts – that is, no one except David Irving (and a few others).

At the time of the trial, I read an interview with David Irving that opened my eyes to the idea that history is a revisionist adventure, an attempt to narrate the past as we move along. I realised then that the past is subject to changes. It morphs along with humanity.

In that interview, Irving was quoted as‘ blaming the victims.’

“If I were a Jew,” he said, “I would ask myself why it always happens to us?”

At the time, I was a still Jew but I took up Irving’s challenge. I looked in the mirror and didn’t like what I saw so I decided to leave the tribe and I stopped being a Jew.

But Irving is no longer a lone voice. Two weeks ago, on Holocaust Memorial Day, it was actually the American president himself who managed to universalize the Holocaust by omitting to mention the Jews or their shoah. As we Westerns obliterate country after country with our immoral interventionism, the Holocaust is no longer a Jews-only domain and all the time more and more people grasp that it is actually Israel and its affiliated Jewish lobbies that are pushing us into more and more unnecessary global conflicts.

‘Denial’ was made to sustain a ‘progressive’ vision of the past. In this progressive but misguided universe, people ‘move forward’ but their past remains fixed, often sacred and always untouched. Nationalists, on the other hand, often see the past as a dynamic, vibrant reality. For them, nostalgia, is the way forward.

But some Jews are tormented by this nostalgia. They want their own past to be compartmentalized and sealed, otherwise, they are fearful that some people may decide to examine Jewish history in the light of Israeli crimes.

In the film, Irving is an old style British gent who sticks to his guns and refuses to change his narrative just to fit in with any notions of correctness. Irving states what he believes in and stands firmly behind it.

For Irving, one of the most damaging pieces of evidenced presented to the court was a little ditty he wrote to his daughter when she was just a few months old, and conceived by the court as the ultimate in crude misanthropy.

 

“I am a Baby Aryan,

Not Jewish or Sectarian.

I have no plans to marry-an

Ape or Rastafarian.”

 

On the day of the verdict, Irving visited the BBC Newsnight studio to be grilled by Jeremy Paxman who read the little ditty to Irving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anx4ZRgpQbY&t=23m7s

“What’s racist about that?” Irving wondered. “You are not being serious,” was Paxman’s  reply. Paxman, one of Britain’s best TV journalists, was, like the rest of us, trained to react to soundbites. “Aryan is a racial categorisation” he insisted.

Back in 2000, Paxman probably failed to see that,

if Jews are entitled to identify politically as a race, as a biology or as set of cultural symptoms then Whites, Muslims and everyone else must surely be entitled to do the same.

Back in 2000, Irving understood this potential Identitarian shift. Sixteen years later, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage translated this Identitarian shift into a victory. The Clintons, the Soros’ and the Deborah Lipstadts of this world are still struggling to make sense of it.

‘Denial’, is actually a film about righteousness, exceptionalism and victimhood.  It is about the condition of being consumed by self-love, that blind belief that justice is always on your side, that you are the eternal victim and the other, namely the ‘Goy’ is always the murderous aggressor.

But this type of ‘denial’ can be dealt with easily and here is just one example: The Jewish press in Britain  complains constantly that antisemitism is soaring. The more funds the British government dedicates to fighting antisemitsm, the more antisemitic incidents are recorded. I guess the time is ripe for Jews to listen to David Irving and ask themselves why?

If Jews want anti-Semitism to come to an end once and for all, all they need do is to self-reflect. However, my personal experience suggests that once you do that, you may stop being a Jew.

Note: It is worth mentioning that, since the 2000 trial, Irving is on record on numerous occasions as revising his views on the Holocaust and on the destruction of European Jews. Certainly, as he moves along, David Irving at least is able to revise the past.

 

Identitarians vs. Patriots – Elaborating on Progressive duplicity and the Rise of the Right (video)

December 29, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

In this Manhattan gathering I examine the ideologiesthat were set to divide the  working people and their ability to resist Globalisation. I point at the bond between the New Left and Jewish progressive intelligentsia.

Those who are interested in my work may find this talk very interesting.

https://youtu.be/ewvTPCJl3F8

UN Resolution 2334 Is good For Israel

December 25, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

On 23 December the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted to adopt a resolution condemning Israeli settlement activity as illegal, and demanding that Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem”.

For once, the USA decided to join the rest of humanity and didn’t veto the resolution.  The message is obvious: if Zionism was a promise to make the Jews people like other people, its failure is colossal. The Jewish State and its lobbies are people like no other. 14 out of 15 members of the UNSC voted against Israel, the US abstained. In the most clear terms, the UNSC denounced the Jewish state’s treatment of the Palestinian people. If Israel would be an ordinary state, as Zionism initially promised,  it would take some time to reflect on the resolution and consider the necessary measures to amend its public image. But as one would expect, the Jewish State did the complete opposite. It took the path of the bully and decided to punish the world.

In his first reaction to the resolution Israeli PM Netanyahu told his followers that the Security Council’s behaviour was “shameful.” He also harshly denounced President Obama’s choice to abstain. A list of American elected spineless characters were quick to cry havoc and promised to correct the damage.  Netanyahu has instructed Israel’s ambassadors in New Zealand and Senegal to “return to Israel for consultations.” A scheduled visit of the Ukrainian PM in Jerusalem next week was cancelled.  Netanyahu also ordered to block the shekel pipeline to some UN institutions.

But things may be slightly more complicated than they look at first glance.  If the One (Bi-National) State is an existential threat to Israel being the Jewish state, then the recent UN resolution is obviously a last attempt to revive the Two-State Solution. It, de facto, legitimises the existence of the Jewish State within the pre-1967 borders. The resolution provides Israel with a practical and pragmatic opportunity to dissolve the West Bank settlements. Banks and businesses may start to refrain from operating in the occupied territories. Israeli military personnel serving in the occupied territories are about to become subject to the scrutiny of international law. Netanyahu, so it seems, made a fuss about the resolution, but the resolution plays into his hands. It provides him with an opportunity to break the stalemate with the Palestinians. Netanyahu knows it. President Obama knows it, the president-elect will be advised about as soon as he takes some time off Twitter.

But if the resolution serves Israeli national and security interests, why did Netanyahu react like a bully? The answer is simple. Bibi is a populist. Like president-elect Trump he knows what his people are like. He knows what the Jews and the Israelis seek in their leader. They want their king to celebrate Jewish exceptionalism. They want their master to perform contempt towards the Goyim. PM Netanyahu knows very well that David Ben Gurion (the legendary first Israeli PM)  dismissed the UN, famously saying “it doesn’t matter what the Goyim say, the only thing that matters is what Jews do.”

It is far from clear whether Ben Gurion was really dismissive of Goyim. However, he was loved by his people for conveying the image as if he did. Bibi follows the same rule. In the public eye, he is dismissive of the UN, he is full with contempt to the nations and Goyim in general. But in practice he knows that the resolution is essential for the existence of the Jewish state. It is probably the last opportunity to scale down the pretentious Zionist dream and make it fit with the reality on the ground.  Let me reassure you, I don’t hold my breath. In reality it is actually the Israelis who don’t miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Related Articles

 

Theresa May’s Personal Message to the Jews

December 17, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

Every British citizen  should read the following letter from Prime Minister Theresa May  to British Jews and wonder why is our PM so concerned with, and committed to the interests and security of the people who are probably the most privileged ethnic group in the country.   

My advice to Mrs May would be that it is not she who can really fight Anti-Semitism. The only people who can defeat anti-Semitism are the Jews themselves. All they have to do is to drop their choseness and become ordinary people – in effect, stop being so special and join the human race.

But then, when the Jew is no longer chosen, there is very little left for the Jew to celebrate or is it that when the Jew is no longer ‘chosen’ he/she is no longer a Jew?  

https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/i-ll-keep-you-safe-1.429387

Theresa May Writes For The JC: ‘I’ll Keep You Safe’

The fact that antisemitism is on the rise again in mainland Europe should sicken us all; the fact it is on the rise here in Britain should shame us all.

As Prime Minister, I want to speak very directly to every Jewish family in the UK, to assure you of my personal determination to do everything possible to keep you safe and to rid this scourge of hatred from the soul of our country.

I know fighting against the divisive prejudice and extremist ideology that lies at the heart of antisemitism is part of the good that government can do. As I have said before, without its Jews, Britain would not be Britain; just as Britain would not be Britain without its Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and people of other faiths too.

So the first step in defeating antisemitism is to define it clearly, to remove any doubt about what is unacceptable, so that no one can plead ignorance or hide behind any kind of excuse.

That is why the announcement I made on Monday is so important. Thanks to the work of Sir Eric Pickles as my Post-Holocaust Issues Envoy, Britain has led the way in establishing an international definition of antisemitism, through the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Just last week we were at the forefront of trying to ensure that definition was adopted across the continent at the Summit of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, with 56 countries in favour and only Russia opposed.

This week, thanks to the work of the Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, this Conservative government is now taking a ground-breaking step by adopting this definition here in Britain.

Through this definition we will call out anyone guilty of any language or behaviour that displays hatred towards Jews because they are Jews — and we will actively encourage the use of this definition by the police, the legal profession, universities and other public bodies.

I want to be very clear about what this means, because it goes to the heart of the lessons identified by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism.

Its report showed a rise in antisemitism in 2014 linked to growing criticism of the actions of the Israeli government.

We have to break these two issues apart. Through this new definition we can be unequivocal that criticising the government of Israel can never be an excuse for hatred against the Jewish people — any more than criticising the British government can be an excuse for hatred against the British people.

Put simply, there can be no excuses for any kind of hatred towards the Jewish people. Full stop.

But defeating antisemitism requires more than defining it. It means recording it and punishing those responsible for it, it means acting to keep Jewish people safe and it means educating future generations to fight hatred and prejudice in all its forms. This Conservative government is committed to doing all three.

As Home Secretary I required all police forces to record religious hate crimes separately, by faith. I made sure we kept extremism, including the sort that peddles antisemitic vitriol, out of our country.

That is why I said no to comedians like Dieudonné coming to Britain. It is why I stopped Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Pastor Terry Jones coming too, because Islamophobia comes from the same wellspring of hatred.

It is why I kicked out Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada as well. And it is why I brought together internet companies and government to tear down the poisonous propaganda that infects minds online.

I was also pleased to commit over £13 million of funding at the Community Security Trust dinner earlier this year to support the security of Jewish faith schools, synagogues and communal buildings, and I will continue to ensure you have the resources you need to protect the community at all times.

But the ultimate way of defeating antisemitism is to create an environment that prevents it happening in the first place.

So I am proud to be continuing the work to create a National Memorial to the Holocaust next to Parliament, together with an accompanying educational centre, which will include the first-hand testimony of Britain’s Holocaust survivors.

The location of this memorial and its educational centre will send a powerful message about our values as a country. Together we will stand up for the British values of tolerance and respect for others that are epitomised by the mother of all Parliaments. Together, we will educate every generation to fight hatred and prejudice in all its forms and we will defend the hard-fought British liberty of freedom of religion or belief.

Together, we will keep Jewish people in our country safe and defeat the scourge of antisemitism by standing up for our values and our way of life — today, and for every generation to come.

Israel National News Against Gilad Atzmon

December 10, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Jews can be anti-Semites too!” is the title of Jewish settlers outlet Israel National News’ article dedicated to my work by one Manfred Gerstenfeld.  Needless to mention that being subject to a smear campaign led by the Israeli ultra nationalist outlet is pretty much the kind of publicity I wish for. However, I would point out to Gerstenfeld that his title is slightly misleading. Jews are not Semites and I haven’t even been a Jew for two decades now.

Settler Gerstenfeld is desperate to prove that yours truly is an ‘antisemite’. Let’s examine his arguments, one by one. I am genuinely quoted as saying that I am totally “against Holocaust denial.”  I clearly resent those who deny the genocides taking place in the name of the Holocaust. Palestine is one example…” (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/after-all-i-am-a-proper-zionist-jew-by-gilad-atzmon.html)

I guess that in the eyes of settler Gerstenfeld, supporting Palestine equals anti-Semitism.  But considering the obvious fact that the Palestinians are Semites*, taking their side is actually the ultimate form of philo-Semitism. But I will dutifully address Gerstenfeld’s concern regarding the Holocaust and its denial. I believe that history must be subject to revision. This applies, as well, to the Holocaust otherwise it becomes alienated from history and alien to historicity. The Holocaust in its current state is reduced into a religion, a dogma. To insist that the Holocaust is subject to revision is by no means a form of denial. On the contrary, it integrates this chapter into our human past. It becomes a universal ethical lesson instead of another celebration of the primacy of Jewish suffering.  Such a transition in our take on the holocaust can prevent the Jews and their institutions from repeating the same mistakes that they have made throughout their history, having made the Jewish past look like a Shoah continuum.

Gerstenfeld, who writes in an ultra right-wing settler outlet curiously complains that in my work I “attack”, as well, some Jewish anti-Zionists. In an article titled Goyim Must Obey, Atzmon accuses the Jewish anti-Zionists of telling “Goyim and even Palestinians what they may or may not do and who they may or may not listen to.”  Here, Gerstenfeld’s language lacks accuracy. I do not “attack” people. This is what Israel does to its enemies. I actually criticize people whom I believe to be wrong. My weapon is my pen. However, the quote above is genuine and I stand by my words. I believe Jewish political lobbying is a total disaster.  It is very dangerous for Jews, in particular.

I am indeed critical of all forms of Jewish politics, left and right, Zionist and ‘anti’. I challenge Jewish political identification because it is racially oriented. I argue in the open that from a Judeo-centric perspective Israel and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) are identical. We are dealing with two racially exclusive Jewish clubs. In fact, and this is slightly embarrassing, Israel may even be mildly less racist than JVP, for in the Israeli Knesset the 3rd biggest party is Arab, yet JVP leadership is purely and exclusively Jewish.

Gerstenfeld mistakenly writes, “Atzmon even attacks Jews who completely disavow Judaism and Zionism.” Once again the settler believes that I have “attacked” Shlomo Sand and Avigail Abarbanel. I have great respect for Sand and dedicated to his work a chapter in my previous book, “The Wandering Who.”  I am critical of some aspects of the work of Sand and of Abarbanel. And yet, I wonder, does intellectual criticism of Jewish writers equate to anti-Semitism? If it does, it suggests that Jews are actually beyond criticism. This is probably the real meaning of  “chosenness” in the eyes of some rabid Zionists.

Gerstenfeld is desperate to prove that I am an anti-Semite. But the one thing he can’t find is where I express hatred to Jews for being Jews. Instead, he seeks the help of the IHRA’s (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of anti-Semitism. According to the IHRA “making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews, as such, or the power of Jews as a collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy, or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions, is an example of anti-Semitism.”

Gerstenfeld suggests that some of my remarks fall in the above category. Gerstenfeld then attempts at cherry-picking but fails to find fruit.  “Why are the Jews, a people who are obsessed with their own past, so afraid of other people, say, ‘White’ people, being nostalgic for their own past?” (www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/8/28/utopia-nostalgia-and-the-jew) Gerstenfeld is kind enough to also quote my answer. “The progressive Jew grasps that the working class is nostalgic for a pre-Jerusalem-dominated society – a time when American politics wasn’t controlled by the likes of Saban, Soros, Goldman Sachs and other global capitalists who are isolated from production, manufacturing, and farming.”

Gerstenfeld foolishly fell into a trap here. He actually admits that my reference is not to the Jewish people, per se, but to the progressive Jews which is a politically identified sector within American Jewry.

I do accept that Gerstenfeld is not happy with me pointing the finger at Jewish oligarchs like Soros, Saban and, more precisely, at their corrosive role within American politics. But maybe Gerstenfeld should make sure that Jewish press outlets stop bragging about Jewish billionaires being the ‘Five Top Democratic Donors’ as they do here, here and here

Gerstenfeld, who is probably not the most developed thinker, repeats the same mistake. The IHRA definition asserts that “accusing Jews ‘as a people’ of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews is anti-Semitism.” I totally agree with the IHRA definition. Jewish people shouldn’t be implicated collectively by the crime of a single Jewish felon, a sex offender, or a tyrant.  But in the following quote I suggest the complete opposite. “Talking of apologies, the Board of Deputies (BOD) has yet to apologize for Lord Janner allegedly raping British orphans when he was their president and therefore pretty much the representative of British Jews.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL3t3cXjXGU

Rather than asking Jews, or British Jews, for that matter, to disassocite themselves from Lord Janner, I expect the Board of Deputies of British Jews to apologize for the sex crimes allegedly committed by their President, especially because the BOD claims to represent British Jews. Is it truly anti-Semitic, I wonder, to expect Jewish institutions to take responsibility for their actions and associations?

In my recent satirical dictionary “A to Zion” I define anti Semites as ‘brutally honest people, often of Jewish origin.’ I guess that I should confess. I am brutally honest and I was a Jew for thirty years.

 

* I am fully a ware that Semite is a reference to a set of languages rather than race.

Gilad Atzmon on The Richie Allen Show-Identity politics backfired…

Political Correctness, Identity politics, New Left, Cultural Marxism..people had enough…

https://youtu.be/E7KATHMZS1A

On Trump’s Victory: Gilad Atzmon

November 10, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

It occurred to me in recent years that the act of being Progressive is not a political position but rather a mental state.

The incapacity of the entire American progressive and Left establishment to foresee Trump’s landslide victory suggests that we are dealing with people who areinstitutionally detached

Just three days ahead of the presidential elections, the Huffington Post pathetically criticised star pollster Nate Silver of “Unskewing Polls in Trump’s direction,” for suggesting that Trump victory was realistic.  Ryan Grim wrote: “HuffPost Pollster is giving Clinton a 98 percent chance of winning, and The New York Times’ model at The Upshot puts her chances at 85 percent.”

There is one outlier, however, that is causing waves of panic among Democrats around the country and injecting Trump backers with the hope that their guy might pull this thing off after all. Nate Silver’s 538 model gives Donald Trump a heart-stopping 35% chance of winning as of this weekend.”

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com)

The Huffington Post goes as far as accusing Silver of“making a mockery of the very forecasting industry that he popularized.”

In perspectives, Nate Silver and his 538 were obviously spot on. The Huffington Post and The New York Times were totally off the mark. Is it a coincidence?

How is it possible that the Democratic Party, the mainstream media and Wall Street have managed to totally miss the level of anger that unites the American masses. These questions go far beyond polling strategy or the science of statistics.  We are dealing with a state of being aloof on the verge of total detachment.

Left and progressive thinking is shaped like a dream. It tells us what the world ought to be. Progressives often seem to forget what the world really is and what its people are really like.  Hillary Clinton and her campaign, just like the New York Times and The Huffington Post, were in a state of denial. Boasting in righteous hubris, they failed to read the map.

But this shouldn’t take us by a complete surprise. Detachment wasn’t invented by Clinton and her team. Detachment and alienation are ingrained in progressive thought. To be a progressive is to believe that some of the ‘other’ people are simply a bunch ofunaware ‘reactionaries.’ Progressive thought is the secular manifestation of ‘chosenness’. It is inherently Jewish, a fact that explains why Hillary Clinton’s top five donors were Jewish billionaires.

Since being progressive is a form of supremacy. I would go as far as suggesting that progressives’ antagonism towards ‘white supremacy’, is at large, a form of projection. the progressive attributes to ‘Whiteness’ his own exceptionalist inclinations.

 

Americans vs. Identitarians

On election day, we learned that the Democratic Party was hanging on a thread, hoping to be saved by Florida’s ‘Hispanic vote.’ Clinton’s political future depended upon the hope that Trump had managed to upset enough Latinos. This peculiar development in which a national party is dependent on group politics shouldn’t take us by surprise anymore

The 2016 American presidential election divided America into two camps:

The Americans on one side and the Identitarians on the other. The Americans are those who see themselves primarily as American patriots. They are driven by rootedness and heritage. For them, the promise to make ‘America great again’ confirms that utopia is nostalgia and that the progressive reality is nothing short of dystopia.  The Identitarians, on the other hand, are those who subscribe to progressive sectarian politics. They see themselves primarily as LGBTQ, Latino, Black, Jews, Women, and so on. Their bond with the American national or patriotic ethos is secondary and often non-existent.  The future of the Democratic party, in its current form, depends upon the hope that American subscriptions to sectarian ideologies will gradually increase and, as a result, will eventually strengthen the context of identity or group politics.  The progressive agenda banks on the divestiture of the national and patriotic ethos. Needless to mention that half of America voted for Clinton. Hence, this political agenda is far from being farfetched or delusional.

But the Identitarian agenda backfired. It was only a question of time before the so-called ‘whites’ or ‘rednecks’ grasped that their backs have been pressed to the wall.  They also started to act and think as an identitarian political sector.  Hillary Clinton calling Trump’s voters a “basket of deplorables” was a clear sign for white poor Americans that Hillary wasn’t exactly their ally. However, Hillary was far from being alone. Almost every Jewish writer within the American press didn’t miss the opportunity to attribute the “White Supremacist” label to Trump’s voters.  For Cheryl Greenberg, Trump’s popularity was “the final gasping of white supremacy.”  For Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall,  Trump’s closing ad was packed with “anti-Semitic dog whistles, anti-Semitic tropes, and anti-Semitic vocabulary.”  For Marshall and Goldberg, half of the American people were dogs obeying their master’s whistle.

It shouldn’t take us by surprise that half of the American people would eventually react. They became weary of Jewish progressives like Marshall and Goldberg seeing them as dogs and white supremacists. The time was ripe for a revolution.

So is the revolution here? I’m not holding my breath. The people who crowned Trump are certainly exhausted. They are ready for a change. Can Trump introduce such a change? No one knows. He is certainly going to keep us entertained.

%d bloggers like this: