I own my Words!

To sign a petition in support of Gilad click here

Lodge a formal complaint with Islington Council: https://www.islington.gov.uk/contact-us/comments-and-complaints?status=inprogress

Email: assemblyhall@islington.gov.uk

Contact the Council: +4420 7527 2000

To support Gilad’s legal battles:  https://donorbox.org/gilad-needs-additional-support

Transcription:

Hello Everybody,

The smear campaign against me didn’t stop for Christmas.  However, it is becoming clear that thousands of people are behind me. So far almost 5000 people have signed a petition expressing their disgust with the Islington council’s decision against me. We are winning this essential battle for freedom.

Despite the orchestrated slander campaign against me, no one has produced a single racist or hateful quote by me. I have challenged those who called me a racist and a holocaust denier to find a single writing or speech by me in which I criticise Jews as a people, an ethnicity,, a  race or for biology.  I have also asked them to show me where I have denied the holocaust? Guess what: No ones found such a reference.

What this means is that in Britain in 2018, you can be accused of a hate crime (even by the mainstream press) without having committed or been charged with a single crime, let alone a hate crime.

The Guardian made an attempt to produce the ‘evidence’ of my most controversial quotes. They quoted my thoughts fairly accurately. This is fine, I actually own each of these quotes with pride. They are my opinions and I substantiate them in my writing.

The Guardian writes, “Atzmon has previously accused Jews of exploiting the Holocaust and distanced himself from his Jewish heritage.”  This is not a quote but it is true. But I am hardly alone. Norman Finkelstein makes a similar point in  ‘The Holocaust Industry’ and in the 1950s, Abba Eban, the legendary Israeli diplomat, coined the famous phrase ‘there is no business like Shoah Business.’ I guess this means that neither Abba Eban nor Norman Finkelstein are allowed to play saxophone in Islington.

In a 2003 essay, Atzmon (me) wrote: “We must begin to take the accusation that Zionists are trying to control the world very seriously.” Surely I should receive an award for saying that three years before Mearsheimer and Walt published their bestseller ‘The Israeli Lobby’ and many years before Bibi Netanyahu disrespected the Obama Administration by giving a sermon to the Joint Houses of Congress in America. I suggest that  Brits here check out how many of your MPs are members of Israel’s friends’ clubs.

The Guardian continues, in another article, he [Atzmon] denounced “the Holocaust religion” and said “Holocaust denial laws should be reconsidered.” Yes, I do believe that history should be subject to open discussion. And, guess what, I am not alone. Deborah Lipstadt, the legendary Jewish historian and probably the strongest opponent  of holocaust denial (as she calls it) also opposes holocaust denial laws. I am against all history laws. I believe that slavery, the Irish Famine, the Holodomor, the Nakba and the Holocaust; everything that happened in the past should be discussed freely.

“Atzmon” the Guardian reports,  “has suggested attacks on synagogues should be considered political acts rather than hate crimes.” “I am here to announce as loudly as I can: there is no antisemitism any more,” he wrote.  “In the devastating reality created by the Jewish state, antisemitism has been replaced by political reaction.” I  accept that some may not like what I’m saying, but this is what I believe. I don’t believe that the present situation is like  the 30s, when people hate Jews because of their genes. This may happen in some corners of society but a lot of the opposition we see to Jewish politics, institutions, political bodies, Israeli lobbying and so on are political reactions.

“I am not saying that synagogues haven’t been attacked, or that Jewish graves have not been brutally smashed up. I am saying that these acts, that are in no way legitimate, should be seen as political responses rather than racially motivated acts or ‘irrational’ hate crimes.”

Now, is this a hateful statement?  Not at all. Is this a call for violence or an incitement to violence? It’s actually the opposite. Why are some people so upset by my statement? Is it because it searches for rationality, reason, cause and effect where others insist upon imposing their view that hatred is always irrational? This is something that we see a lot in the left discourse in the western world. We use the word ‘phobia’ – Islamophobia, Judeophobia, transphobia, gayphobia to label hatred of a group. Once we label a ‘phobia,’ we somehow don’t examine it, we declare it irrational. I suggest that we do the opposite. We can try to understand where hatred is coming from. We are not justifying hatred, instead we try to understand its rationale in order to best tackle it. I insist that ‘rationality,’ the search for reason, is what we have lost in our public debate.

Instead of trying to understand, we are forced to navigate through minefields in which we must not speak without violating the  tyranny of correctness imposed on us by authoritarian forces.

To me, this war  is the most important war we must fight. We must reinstate our elementary freedoms to say what we think, to say what we believe to be true; to exercise our right to make mistakes, and to be corrected through open debate. Silencing and witch-hunts are not the answer. It’s the path towards darkness.

That’s all for today. I’ll meet you again in a few days, with more details on this battle, Thank you so much for

Gilad Atzmon’s Christmas Message (2018)

December 23, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Following the intense smear campaign against me, my work, my writing and my livelihood, I decided to produce this short Christmas message and address the ludicrous accusations against me and also to wish you all merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Thank you all for your support.

Please share with friends and foes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=WwTWlKmQX2I

//www.youtube.com/embed/WwTWlKmQX2I?time_continue=2&wmode=opaque&enablejsapi=1","url":"https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=WwTWlKmQX2I","width":854,"height":480,"providerName":"YouTube","thumbnailUrl":"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WwTWlKmQX2I/hqdefault.jpg","resolvedBy":"youtube"}” data-block-type=”32″>

To sign a petition in support of Gilad click here

Lodge a formal complaint with Islington Council: https://www.islington.gov.uk/contact-us/comments-and-complaints?status=inprogress

Email: assemblyhall@islington.gov.uk

Contact the Council: +4420 7527 2000

To support Gilad’s legal battles:  https://donorbox.org/gilad-needs-additional-support


Transcription`;

Hello everybody.

I make this video because as you may be aware I am subject to a serious vile defamation campaign.

We have seen the same characters attacking George Galloway,  Ken Livingstone, Assange and Corbyn . But when it comes to me, it is an open attempt to wipe out my existence to the point that the Israeli Lobby together with some segments in the compromised British Labour [party] are now united against my saxophone, believe it or not.

All of that probably means that I am on the right track. When you get some flack it only means that you are above target.

I made this video today to clarify my position and counter the crude lies that are spread about me and my work in the Jewish media outlets such as the Jewish Chronicle, Times of Israel and so on….

First let me be clear. I’ve been writing about Jewish Identity politics for 20 years. Despite the slanderous accusations attributed to me, not once in my entire life did I criticise Jews or anyone else as a race, people, ethnicity or biology. I have seen anti-Semitism attributed to me on a daily basis in the last decade. However, not once in my entire life was I questioned by a single law enforcement body about anything I have ever written or said. 

How is it possible that I am accused of being a racist while not being charged or even questioned by police about anything I have ever said? 

I am accused of being a holocaust denier but no one has managed to put a finger on my denial. I am working, intensively performing and teaching in countries that are subject to holocaust denial laws. Yet, not once was I questioned about my views in that regard either.

Let me sum up my most controversial views to you, and you’ll decide yourself whether I’m a racist or a person who is working intensely to seek the truth:

 My politics:

I have never identified with any political party or institution.

 My moral and ideological commitment:

I am avidly anti-racist. However, I am also critical of all forms of political identifications that  are defined by biological factors, such as gender, race, sexual orientation and so on. I believe that in order to improve the world and save ourselves from the current dystopia, we must learn once again to search for that which unites us as people instead of inventing ideologies which separate us. As such I am critical of [the] Identitarian left as much as I am critical of [the]Identitarian Right.

 The Holocaust, History and religion:

I have never denied and I do not deny the Holocaust or any other historical chapter. However, I am against all history laws. In my writing I argue that history is the attempt to narrate the past as we move along. Accordingly, history becomes a meaningful adventure once we revisit and revise the past.  When history becomes a sealed untouchable chapter it is reduced into a religion. Like a few prominent Israeli thinkers actually (Adi Ophir, Yishayahu Leibovitz…),  I do believe that the Holocaust has been reduced into a religion. If this is the case we also deserve the right to be agnostic.

 Jews, Judaism, Jewishness

If Israel defines itself as the “Jewish State” (and it does define itself as the “Jewish State”), the first questions we must ask are: what is Judaism? Who are the Jews? What is Jewishness? We have to find out how these elements work against each other how do they impact Israeli politics, Jewish Lobby politics and so on….

In my work I differentiate between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (ideology and culture). I do not critique Jews, I hardly touch Judaism, and when I do it I am very careful and I deal with interpretations. My field of study is Jewishness and Jewish Identity Politics. I do believe that ideologies, culture and politics must be subject to critical examination.

Finally.

I immigrated to Britain 25 years ago. It was a wonderful free place. I raised my family here. I love this country. I love the people and I also feel loved by so many people who have actually stood by me all along and especially at the moment and I’m really talking about many of thousands of people. My readers and followers know very well that there is not a single element of truth in that which is said about me at the moment, mainly in the Jewish press. Britain, like other Western societies, is rapidly becoming a very dark place. Freedom of speech is reduced into nostalgia. Disastrously enough some elements in the Labour party play a key role in this emerging disaster.

I urge my followers and everyone else who maybe interested in the current witch hunt and the tyrannical shift in British society, to stay tuned to my work and my site. I am punished here because I am probably one of the last standing resistance voices in this kingdom. I stand firm where, sadly, politicians, academics, Journalists  and other artists are too quick to bow.

Love you all

 Merry Christmas 

Murder Of A Holocaust Survivor

Related Videos

Palestine news

 

Another View of the EU (European Union)

 

December 10, 2018

by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker BlogAnother View of the EU (European Union)

The MacDonaldization of words forces many to lay that reason asleep which disturbs their gayety. Among recent new entries is ‘Brexit’, a word suitable to a speaking-club made of millions, where most half-hear what, if they heard the whole, they would but half-understand.

Furthermore, some words in time are debased by repetition, and can no longer be heard without an involuntary sense of annoyance. Hence I will spare my twenty-five readers further comments on how England will work-out her separation from the European Union. Official news suggests that about half of the citizenry is filled with all that sparkles in the eye of hope, while the other sees but penury ahead and thickens the gloom of one another.

Being a matter of contest, the success of one party implies the defeat of the other, and at least half the transaction will terminate in misery.

Instead I will deal with two separate events in another European country, a historic Italian chocolate factory being moved to Turkey, and the saga of an Italian truck driver – both edifying examples of the benefits of the European Union and of globalization at large.

To start, while being conscious that dainty bits make rich the ribs but bankrupt quite the wits, I confess to liking chocolate. On mountain-walks or bike-rides I rate it well above any ‘energy-bar’, another recent entry in the MacDonaldized English dictionary.

As a brief aside, in his essay “In Praise of Idleness”, Bertrand Russell presents an argument in support of useless knowledge and says that he enjoyed peaches and apricots more since he learned that they were first cultivated in China in the early days of Han Dynasty, and that the word ‘apricot’ is derived from the same Latin source as the word ‘precocious’, because the apricot ripens early; and that the A at the beginning was added by mistake, owing to a false etymology.

In the same spirit… the chocolate factory in question is (was) dear to my heart for being old, historic and located in a small town not far from where I was born – besides being famous worldwide for a special brand of chocolates.

The town is Novi Ligure, mostly unknown outside Italy. Its ancient Latin name was Curtis Nova (New Court) and in 970 AD Emperor Otto 1st donated it to a monastery. In time it became an Independent Township, then it changed hands among various neighboring feudal rulers. When Napoleon invaded Italy in 1798 he annexed it to the French Empire. After Waterloo and the Congress of Vienna, Novi became part of Piedmont and the Kingdom of Savoy.

In 1860 – one year before Italy became a country as the Kingdom of Italy – Stefano Pernigotti set up a shop in the market square selling his home-made ‘torrone’ (an Italian hard candy of Arabic origins) and ‘mostarda’ (an Italian chutney). In 1882 King Humbert I allowed the Pernigottis to use the royal emblem on the cover of their products – then Pernigotti started experimenting with chocolate. Their actual chocolate industrial production began in 1927 with the ‘Gianduiotto,’ a now world-famous and classy dessert chocolate.

During the 1980s, reaganomics, thatcherism, their continental followers and globalization created a crisis. Heinz acquired the company, but management and manufacturing remained in the hands of the last Pernigottis. Followed a sequence of different ownerships and management transfers, until the Turkish group Toksoz acquired it two years ago. Now Toksoz announced the closure of the Italian plant for good and the 200 employees will be laid off. There have been demonstrations by workers and their families, but very likely nothing will come of it.

Turkey is not part of the European Union, but, as far as workers’ rights, there is no difference, as the next recounted saga of an Italian truck driver will illustrate.

I translate here the actual recordings of an interview that the truck driver gave to a journalist. The translation cannot fully convey the spirit and nuances of a truck driver’s rendition of his state of mind and view of life, but the reader can easily imagine.

“I’m 52 years old and have always been a truck driver. I started at 20, driving a small truck, delivering drinks in my area, which is a valley in Northern Italy where the “white-asses” (read the Christian Democrats) were always predominant. Then came Bossi, (leader of the Northern League – more on him and the League later) who began to pick up more votes than the white-asses ever did. But with the League, things, as I’m about to tell you, instead of improving worsened.

At the age of 23, I began driving a large truck for a young entrepreneur of the town (near Milan). I carried iron rods. The truck was always overloaded by up to 100 tons. In those conditions, to stop the truck you need tens and tens of extra meters: if you are a car or a cyclist or a pedestrian at less than that distance braking is useless. The truck does not stop and mangles everything.

It happened to some of my colleagues, but even after that no one ever checked. That overload was a weapon: one unexpected occurrence and all is gone, cargo, bodies and all. One day I said to the boss:

– Boss, do we need to overload the truck in this manner?

– I am forced to do it – he replied – because to win the contract with the foundry, I had to lower the rates. If I respect the load limits I have to make more trips and I will be in the red. If you don’t feel like driving on overload, I can find someone else.

To make all of the trips our owner was committed to do, we also had to reduce loading and unloading times. Which meant that the load was not secured to the floor – a real problem during transport because materials can slip.

One day, a friend and colleague who was carrying cold-drawn steel tubes, had to brake suddenly to avoid a tractor coming out of a field. My friend was driving like crazy, because another risk factor was speed: to respect the scheduled deliveries, you were forced to routinely exceed the legal limits.

When my friend saw the tractor he immediately realized he had no chance of stopping in time, precisely because it was overloaded and going too fast. But, instinctively, he pushed on the brake, partly due to conditioned reflex and partly to the fear of killing the poor fellow driving the tractor.

The tractor, on seeing the truck in the mirror approaching at crazy speed, swerved into a field, tipped over but the driver was not seriously hurt. But the braking of the truck caused the mountain of steel tubes to slide against the cabin, killing my friend. His body was so mangled that his wife identified him from a shoe. “I bought him these shoes the day before yesterday at the market,” she said. The rest of her husband was literally mush, “Martha, it’s better you don’t look,” said a firefighter who knew her.

Then the steel tube manufacturers transferred their ironworks in Eastern Europe and I was unemployed for a few months. Until the owner of a company who contracted for a larger company in another province hired me.

It was, in fact, a detached department of the same larger company, with about 200 employees. But in this detached department employees were split-up into many small sub-companies, each with less than 15 employees. The 200 employees worked essentially elbow-to-elbow, but the payroll had the stamp of 14 different companies. This enabled the employer to bypass the workers’ statute and trade-union rights that apply to companies with over 15 employees. Therefore the boss was free to fire anyone at any time and without reason.

Yet no one complained. They thought that, in a ‘valley of hunger’ like ours, it was already a sign of grace having a boss and a shitty job, because both are still better than no boss and no job.

I was on the TIR truck (TIR= acronym of International Road Transport) from Monday to Friday and often on Saturday and even Sunday, if there were urgent deliveries. Yet I was considered as having a privileged position. I climbed in the cabin at six in the morning and left it at six in the evening, with an hour stop for lunch, later reduced to twenty minutes because the intensity of the traffic forced you to make up for lost time. More and more often I happened to leave after eight in the evening.

A couple of years ago the owner calls me, invites me to sit down, and shows me a letter with a header consisting of a yellow and red truck, and asks:

– Camillo, you know Willi Betz?

– Who is he?

– He is a sharp and sly German who understood everything about the European Union and organized himself ahead of time to use it to advantage.

Basically, the boss explains to me that this German set-up a transportation company with hundreds of trucks in an Eastern European country. Now, thanks to the European Union, which has knocked down the borders, they can transport goods anywhere without any problems, no bureaucracies, no duties, nor loss of time. At the wheel of all those trucks the German has put East European drivers, whose wages are one-third of ours.

– In short, Camillo – my master comes to the point – you understand that if I sell my truck and have Bets transport my goods I save a lot of money. Look here – and he shows me a letter by Betz hammering it with his finger – have you seen those prices? Calculating your contributions and the cost of the truck, you cost me 60% more than a driver of Betz…

– Boss, you don’t mean to lower my pay by 60%?

– Nooo! Whom are you taking me for? A slave driver? I am happy with a 40% reduction.

My blood went to my head, I wanted to punch the bastard. But I checked myself. My wife lost her job in the garment industry many years ago and I still have one son at school. The other works but earns so little that each month he asks me to help… So I accepted.

Six months ago, the boss calls me in again. With him there is a guy I don’t know, greasy haired and badly dressed.

– Camillo – says the boss– this is Vilic… his name would be a bit complicated to learn, but let’s call him Vilic. He comes from Poland and for a while he will give you a hand.

I’m worried. Each time the boss announces a novelty it turns out to be a rip-off.

– Vilic, continues the boss, will make a few journeys with you, to learn the way. Then he will take your place, but you don’t have to worry, because you will drive a new truck and make deliveries elsewhere, even abroad. You know, the bosses of the mother company are moving operations to the East and I need someone I can trust, like you, for deliveries to their new factory, and you will see advantages from this change.

The prospect of international travel and of being away for a whole week scares me a little, but I think of the gain. I have driver friends who commute between Milan and Poland, and bring home a salary that is the double of mine.

I begin my journey with Vilic at the side. He brought a bag with him, from which drifts out an unpleasant smell of food. He wears the same clothes when I first met him in the office of the boss, and smells a bit.

He speaks little, in a broken Italian. At any road deviation I point to a reference that will help him remember. Here, you see that big sign? Careful, here you must stay on the left and turn…

He points with his finger at the sign, tells the names of the towns we go through, and takes notes in a notebook.

We stop at a rest station. He tells me that he brought food with him. He pulls from the bag an oily paper bag, and begins to eat a kind of meatballs that exude an unpleasant smell of garlic. When I go to the toilet, I find him drinking from the faucet.

This continues for a week, he’s always dirty and smelly, always munching on meatballs. One day I offered to buy him lunch, but he refused.

I thought that he had no money and felt uncomfortable for not being able to reciprocate. So the next day, I made up that the owner had offered lunch to us both. He devoured everything like a very hungry creature. With the beer he opened up for the first time with a few confidences. He said he had a wife and a daughter, who, however, left him.

He told me that at night he sleeps in a kind of closet that the boss found for him, and that, with the first pay-check, he will move into digs that a Polish shopkeeper has promised him in exchange of an advance.

He told me his wages: less than half of mine, and no contributions. The boss convinced him to register as a business owner and independent contractor. I look at this poor soul with the unpronounceable name and I feel great pity for him. Yet, according to European Union statistics, he is an industrialist, a businessman, a sole proprietor, the founder of a start-up company!

One Saturday evening I speak with my wife about these filthy tricks, and she says:

– Camillo, according to me, your boss cannot get away with this business! Do you remember what Bossi said at Ponte di Legno? [Bossi was the notorious boss of the Lega Nord – I will get back to this later. Ponte di Legno is the resort where Bossi went on vacation, near Camillo’s town].

Bossi said that we have everything to gain with the European Union. Why don’t you go to talk about your situation with Congressman Magrelli? [name altered].

So I go to see Congressman Magrelli, whom I have known for many years, we use the ‘thou’ when talking to each other.

– Dear Magrelli – I say at the end of a meeting in the headquarters of the League Section in the Valley – do you think it’s right that they reduce my pay by 40% while they hire a Pole to do the driving, treating him as an independent contractor and with a pay at the level of hunger?

– Dear Camillo, says Magrelli, we of the (Northern) League are not afraid of free competition, because a free market benefits all.

– But if the free market is the freedom to reduce the pay of the Italians to the level of those of the slaves of the East, the European Union is a big workers’ rip-off! But tell me Magrelli, Bossi preaches the autonomy of Padania (Northern Italy), but he is not even able even to defend the autonomy of Italy?

At this point, Magrelli moves away to greet someone else, and we are no longer able to talk. Every time I get closer to him, and try to restart our conversation, he ignores me until he leaves.

Last week the owner calls me again. He keeps his gaze low and his features are drawn. With a wave of the hand, he invites me to sit down without even looking at me. Minutes go by while he shifts sheets on his desk, reads or glances at them, as if I were not there. Then he says:

– Unfortunately, things are not good, we need to cut costs, and you are a burden that we can no longer afford… tomorrow Vilic takes your place, as he has learned roads and ways.

– Will I then be given another truck to drive?

– No, No… in fact, here lies the problem, the mother company has moved operations to the East and has taken over cross-border deliveries – they will handle them.

I never felt so humiliated. I was shown the door because a slave imported from Poland costs much less than me, who had already given up 40% of the salary.

As for the Northern League, here is a related personal but short chapter from my extended chronicles of wasted time. The N League had originally acquired notoriety, among other things, for having introduced the language of the toilet in the main stream of Italian politics. Though tasteless, I rated the matter as an act of sincerity, given the notoriously pharisaical nature of politicians at large.

Still, it never dawned on me to participate in the N League or in any other party. Then a friend of mine called me to say that the Politbureau of the N League had decided to establish a foreign chapter. The goal, my friend said, was to soften the tone and modify the coarse impression of the party abroad – as well as, indirectly, projecting an alternative image of the party at home. That is, the objectives of the Foreign League were cultural. One of which was a broadcast, on the League’s Radio Network, of call-in shows. Another was to establish links with political or educational groups in various countries interested in preserving their own local languages.

Though generally skeptical, I decided to believe my friend and accepted the invitation. It was a voluntary operation – no salaries or compensation involved.

For some time I broadcast a live monthly radio program titled “Window on America,” which was well followed, at least judging by the number of phone calls and messages. Then some inexplicable events converted a developing suspicion into a conviction – namely that the objectives of the Foreign N League were not as stated – therefore I resigned.

A few short months later, the bubble burst. It turned out that Bossi and a restricted conniving crew, were crassly and personally appropriating the funds that flowed into the coffers of the League, thanks to the quizzical Italian system of funding political parties. Unofficially included in the bubble were 3 million Euros assigned to the Foreign N League.

In time Bossi was condemned to over 2-year imprisonment. But, via continued and extended appeals, it is expected that the sentence will exceed the statute of limitations, hence it will not be served.

Something similar happened with Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister who vied with Bill Clinton to get the Nobel Prize for porno-lies and porno-politics. Sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment for a fiscal fraud of gargantuan dimensions, his sentence was converted into a few sessions of community service in a retirement home.

These people represent the simple, squalid and frightening concretion of personal interest with the arrogance of power. In the end, the only good thing that can be said of them is that they are not worse than what they could be.

But what connects the tortuous Brexit, a closed chocolate factory, the depressing story of a truck driver, the corruption of politicians and the European Union?

Most readers will know already. They are examples and consequences of an ideology imposed from above under different disguises.

All men are agreed concerning the truth, when demonstrated; but they are too much divided about latent truths, or when truth conflicts with prejudice. Brexit is/was about immigration from within and from without of the European Union. The saga of the truck driver made redundant, thanks to the European Union, is both an example and an archetype.

As many by now know, the founder of the European Union was Coudeneuve-Kalergi in the 1920s. When his book , “Praktischer Idealismus” came out, it caught the attention of wealthy (Jewish) bankers who offered massive financial backing for the program. A “Coudeneuve-Kalergi” prize is conferred yearly to the best among the deserving “European-Unionizers.” Two years ago the current Pope got the prize.

However “anti-semitic” it may sound, it is not my or anyone else’s invention. Kalergi envisioned a mongrelized Europe led and controlled by the best of the Jews. They would retain their racial-ethnic identity, though the genetic stock of their upper echelon was to be strengthened by intermarriage with the best of the European nobility.

WW2 disrupted the plan. After the war, the Allies (Roosevelt and Churchill) first signed off on the Morgenthau Plan for the actual physical elimination of the German race. Morgenthau was Roosevelt’s Jewish Secretary for the Economy. And only the fear of Germany’s assimilation by the Soviet Union caused the Morgenthau plan to be scrapped.

Nevertheless, the Kalergi plan restarted with a vengeance in the early 70s, following three events that I do not think unconnected.

a) The 1968 ‘student’ revolution, a product of Cultural Marxism – whose end result was trading the workers’ struggle for sexual liberation and degeneracy.

b) The 1967 Israeli aggression and annexation of Arab and Palestinian lands, aiming at the goal of a “Greater Israel” (from the Nile to the Euphrates). It turned out to be a test to see if the world would react to the utter disregard by Israel of the UN resolutions, calling for the return of lands stolen through aggression in 1967. As we know the world did nothing.

c) The launching of the “Holocaust” in 1972, a program whose strength increases in proportion to the distance in time from the alleged historical occurrence of the event.

Add to this a parallel phenomenon in the US, with massive Jewish congressional and senate pressure to first eliminate quotas on immigration and now to eliminate borders altogether.

For the saga affecting the truck driver in Italy is repeated in America on a scale comparable or greater than in Europe. The human tsunami that reached California from the South essentially eliminated jobs for those Americans who cannot survive on radically lower wages.

But unlike Americans, immigrants can accept jobs at essentially any compensation, because they automatically join the welfare system, which includes various supplementary benefits and health-care.

Of course it would be inhuman to deny treatment to a person who needs it. At which point the endlessly intractable issue of health-care meets with the equally intractable issue of the hyper-medicalization of America. Prompted and encouraged through massive advertising to seek treatment for any ailment, the migrant patient could not possibly pay for insurance, medicines and costs. Whereupon the government becomes the payer, and the consequences are easy to envision and calculate.

In the meantime, the human tsunami in California initially caused Americans looking for a job to move North. But now the same tsunami is moving North. Trump promised to put America First, but at least so far, it turned out to be mostly a euphemism for “Israel First.”

One factor, certainly ignored by the Zionist controlled media, but even overlooked by the social media, has to do with the nature of current Zionism. And I realize that the subject would need a better treatment than the simple following references.

There have been different currents (religious and political) among Jews. Through history, the strain that most antagonized the goy is referred to as ‘Classical Judaism.’ Exemplified by the case of the ultra-religious Jew who refused to allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath to call an ambulance for a non-Jew who collapsed in a street of Jerusalem. Or by the declared contempt for the goy at large by high-ranking rabbi(s), who said and say that that the goy will hopefully live long, because they are like donkeys, alive only to serve the Jews.

Furthermore, it is generally unknown, that at the historical peak of Classical Judaism, Jews always succeeded in allying themselves with the upper echelons of goy society, kings, lords, even some Popes. For, setting National Socialism aside, resentment and pogroms against the Jews came from below, not from above.

Today, the same symbiotic relationship of old seems to bind the American Congress with the neo-cons and their own current-day version of Classical Judaism. Which goes some way to explain the fathomless hypocrisy inspiring the present (nominally American) foreign policy. Including ignoring the ongoing murders of Palestinians, waging disastrous wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, declaring unending friendship with the retrograde state of Saudi Arabia, (with Trump literally dancing with the Saudis,) piling beyond-ridiculous accusations and threats against Russia, subjecting to racketeering, via the international payment system, countries that do not pay homage to Israel, and so on.

There is no viable explanation as to why more reasonable currents of the Jewish community are unheard or ignored. Because there is no plumb line long enough to fathom the depth of hypocrisy, contained in some pronouncements of the Talmud, on which Classical Judaism was founded. And the current neo-conservative practitioners of Classical Judaism seem to have preserved with steadiness a doctrine which their ancestors have accepted with docility.

To conclude, this was but a quick sketch, traced by the pencil of concern for the patience of the readers. And I realize that in detailing, however cursorily, what I learned, I fear I may be accused of exaggeration. All I can do is cautiously to avoid deserving it. The intent is always to motivate readers to inform themselves independently. The subject is highly interesting, let alone critical, and it would be a fault of no trifling nature to treat it with levity.

The Zionist Circular Maze

December 07, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Israel-EU-flags-840x420.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

On Thursday Israel cheered as the EU called on its member states that have not yet done so  “to endorse the non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism employed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).”

Israel called this move a “breakthrough,” the European Jewish Congress hailed the declaration as  “unprecedented.”  Both are correct: the Europeans ‘adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is both a ‘breakthrough’ and ‘unprecedented.’ It confirms that Europe has explicitly abandoned its Athenian ethical ethos.

Rather than declaring its opposition to racism as a universal precept and denouncing all forms of discrimination and prejudice against any group or person of any X’ simply for being X’ (for example, a Jew for being a Jew, a Black person for being Black, a Gay person for being Gay, etc.), the EU has fallen into the most banal trap and subscribed to the primacy of Jewish suffering.

A lot has been written criticising the IHRA definition, how it stifles free speech and treats one particular group as exceptional but I think we have failed to address the most important question the IHRA raises. Why are Jewish institutions so enthusiastic about a definition that clearly extinguishes the Zionist promise to make ‘Jews people like all other people.’ The IHRA validates the vile antisemitic claim that Jews are somehow different than others, as no other people have advocated for nor benefit from an IHRA-like definition of prejudice directed solely against them. One should wonder why Jewish institutions see a need to impose such a definition on individuals, organisations, states and even continents.

The answer is circular. Jewish institutions need the IHRA definition simply because they have managed to impose such a definition —  since the acceptance of the IHRA definition points at boundless political power, the IHRA definition serves to target and suppress any exploration, discourse or even  discussion of such power.

This reflexive reasoning recalls the old rude joke; ‘why does a dog lick its testicles?  Because it can.’  Why does the Lobby impose the IHRA definition on us? Because it can.

I wish the effects were merely so simple. The dog joke is amusing because it hints that if men could indulge in a similar gratifying act, the world would be somehow calmer and friendly like the happy dog. The joke is basically a comical illustration of Freud’s pleasure principle. But the IHRA definition is neither funny nor pleasing. It is hardly gratifying for those who have endorsed it, and in some cases its adoption has involved a chain of abuse and harassment (in the British Labour Party, for instance). While the dog is thrilled or titillated by his own act, it is not clear whether Europeans and Americans are at all happy to have to endorse a ‘non legally binding definition’ imposed on them by a powerful foreign lobby. It is reasonable ask why the EU Council has adopted a non universal definition of racism. It has done so  because it doesn’t have another option.

This state of affairs is far from simple, harmonious or peaceful. It is in fact, pretty much a situation that incites instability, fear and anger.

Despite Netanyahu’s Pressure, EU Doesn’t Link Anti-Semitism to Anti-Zionism

European Commission in Brussels

December 7, 2018

The European Union issued a new declaration on Thursday that doesn’t link anti anti-Semitism to anti-Zionism.

The declaration adopts softer tone than the one originally proposed by Austria, which was promoted over the past few months by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu had requested that the EU adopt the working definition of anti-Semitism issued by the so-called International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental organization that was founded 20 years ago.

This definition states that some criticism of the Zionist entity could be anti-Semitic, such as: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

Some EU countries, however, were concerned that this definition could prevent criticism of Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories. A compromise was therefore reached and the final statement calls on member states to use the IHRA definition as a “guidance tool,” without making it obligatory, Israeli daily, Haaretz reported.

Thursday’s statement was issued by the European Commission in Brussels and approved by the forum of EU justice and interior ministers. It calls on EU members and the European Commission to take steps “to guarantee their safety and well-being” of Jewish communities and “take concrete steps to better protect the Jewish community in Europe and to continue their fight against anti-Semitism.”

The declaration also notes the “importance of education about and remembrance of the Holocaust,” along with a recommendation to adopt the IHRA definition.

SourceIsraeli media

Robert Faurisson and the Study of the Past

October 23, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

0.jpg

The history of ideas provides us with the names of those few men and women who challenged the boundaries of tolerance.  Professor Robert Faurisson was one such man. Faurisson, who died last Sunday at age 89, was a French academic who didn’t believe in the validity of parts of the Holocaust narrative. He argued that gas chambers in Auschwitz were the “biggest lie of the 20th century,” and contended that deported Jews had died of disease and malnutrition. Faurisson also questioned the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank many years before  the Swiss foundation that holds the copyright to the famous diary “alerted publishers that her father (Otto Frank) is not only the ‘editor’ but also legally the ‘co-author’ of the celebrated book” (NY Times).

In the France of the late 1960s-1970s Faurisson had  reason to believe that his maverick attitude toward the past would receive a kosher pass. He was wrong. Faurisson may have failed to grasp the role of the Holocaust in contemporary Jewish politics and culture. And he did not grasp that Jewish power is literally the power to silence opposition to Jewish power. 

In 1990 France made holocaust revisionism into the crime of  history denial.  Faurisson was repeatedly prosecuted, beaten and fined for his writings. He was dismissed from his academic post at Lyon University in 1991.

I am bothered by the question of why Jews and others  attached to their politics are desperate to restrict the story of their past. This question extends far beyond the holocaust. Israel has enacted a law that bans discussion of the Nakba – the racially motivated ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people that occurred a mere three years after the liberation of Auschwitz. Similarly, exploring the role of Jews in the slave trade will cost your job or lead to your expulsion from the labour party. My attempt to analyse the true nature of the Yiddish Speaking International Brigade in the 1936 Spanish Civil War outraged some of my Jewish ‘progressive’ friends.

Jean-François Lyotard addressed this question.  History may claim to relate what actually occurred, but what it does more often is operate to conceal our shame. The task of an authentic historian is, according to Lyotard, similar to that of the psychoanalyst. It is all about removing layers of shame, concealment and suppression to try to uncover the truth.   

It was the work of Faurisson that helped me to define the historical endeavour in philosophical terms.  I define history as the attempt to narrate the past as we move along. To deal with history for real, is to continually re-visit and revise the past in light of our cultural, social and ideological changes. For instance, the 1948 Nakba came to be thought of in terms of ethnic cleansing in the early 2000s when the notion of ‘ethnic cleansing’ entered our vocabulary (and our way of understanding a conflict) following the crisis in Kosovo. The real historian reevaluates the past and embraces adjustments that place our understanding of that past in line with our contemporaneous reality and terminology.

Professor Faurisson and the controversy around his work illuminates the distinction between real history and religion. While history is a vibrant dynamic matter subject to constant ‘revision,’ the religious approach to the past is limited to the production of a rigid unchanging chronicle of events. Authentic history invokes ethical thinking to examine the past in light of the present and vice versa, religious history often operates by denying or rejecting increasing ethical insight – it judges actions and events according to set predefined parameters. The question at stake is not what happened in the past but the freedom to research and evaluate the past without being threatened by ‘history laws.’ In the same manner I support ‘progress’ in cancer research, although I do not  produce scholarly comments on related scientific findings, I support the past being continually re-examined although I offer no  judgment of any kind regarding the validity of those historical findings. For history to be a valid and an ethical universal pursuit, history laws must be abolished.

In 2014 I met Robert Faurisson and discussed with him different questions about the meaning of history and what the past meant to him.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2e7359

Why Holocaust Education is Failing?

October 17, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Auschwitz-3.gif

 

 By Gilad Atzmon

Despite the vast amount invested in Holocaust education and in spite of the fact that the Holocaust is the only compulsory subject in the British national history curriculum, British pupils seem not to follow the message of the rigid topic. For some reason, they struggle to buy into the primacy of Jewish suffering. They show little interest and learn mostly nothing.  Yesterday’s Tablet Magazine article,  “The Failure of Holocaust Education in Britain”, produced a clumsy attempt to grasp the reason for the failures of Holocaust education.

UCL’s  Centre for Holocaust Education has recently conducted  the ‘world’s largest ever study of its kind, it interviewed over 8,000 pupils aged 11-18 in England. Andy Pearce who work as a researcher at the centre told the Tablet that apparently  25-30 years of Holocaust education “is failing to make an impact.”

Pearce reports that when students were asked who was responsible for the Holocaust, “Hitler dominated the answer.” This is presumably a ‘wrong answer.’ Pearce continues, “Incredibly when we asked them to tell us who the Nazis were, students responded by saying they were ‘Hitler’s minions’ and ‘Hitler’s paratroopers.’” Pearce wasn’t happy with this answer either. “There was no reference to the Nazi Party as a political movement. Students also told the researchers that most Jews were killed in Germany. There was no understanding of collaborating regimes and many believed that mass killing began in 1933.”

Pearce inadvertently provided some crucial insights into the systematic failure of ‘holocaust education.’ While Heidegger taught us that to educate is to teach others how to learn, indoctrination is a very different exercise. It teaches how to produce the ‘right’ answers. The Holocaust, as taught and preached, falls into the domain of indoctrination. It is not a subject matter that is open to discussion or revision. The Holocaust as a subject does not accommodate dilemma or confusion. It is treated like a religious text with a rigid structure that doesn’t allow deviation.

For history to be relevant it must contain a dynamic discourse with present day, historical and contextual connotations. If the Holocaust is to be a vibrant topic that is engaging and enlightening for young enthusiastic minds, then the Holocaust must be placed into a context, such as comparing Auschwitz to Gaza. Nuremberg laws must be juxtaposed with the Israeli National Bill and the Israeli Law of Return. For the Holocaust to win our kids’ attention they must try to address the most difficult of questions: How and why was it that just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the newly born Jewish State ethnically cleansed the vast majority of the indigenous Palestinians? For the Holocaust to garner universal interest, it must carry a universal message!

Apparently ‘Holocaust education’ in Britain and in the West in general is dependent on Holocaust survivors. Elli Olmer is an outreach teacher for the Holocaust Education Trust. She told the Tablet, “I love what I do and hope to do it for many years but it all depends on what happens after we lose our survivors.” Despite Israel’s scientific gains in life extending technologies, it seems survivors aren’t going to live forever. Moreover, many survivors complain that their ability to reach young audiences is fading for the obvious reasons. However, their approach that engagement with a chapter in the past can only be reached through personal experience with people who lived through that chapter shows that the Holocaust is understood by these so called ‘educators’ as an a-historical narrative.

Historians revisit Napoleonic wars without depending on ‘meetings’ with survivors of those wars. We believe that we can learn about  the Roman empire without expecting veteran Roman generals to visit our classes. Why then does the Holocaust needs its survivors? Why can’t the Holocaust be taught as a proper historical chapter through analysing texts and documents and encountering some opposing views? Because Holocaust education is driven by political interests and laws requiring such education are passed by means of emotional manipulation. It is there, of course, to serve Israeli and Jewish politics — the Holocaust is the raison d’être behind the Jewish state. But the Holocaust is also used to serve other global political trends such as (im)moral interventionism, pro immigration, anti racism, pro liberalism and so on.

The use of the Holocaust for political ends suggests that British youngsters may actually be more sophisticated than the banal minds that attempt to crudely indoctrinate them into submission. They sense that something about the holocaust education is not ‘straight forward,’ so to say. It is not taught as an open discourse, it is somehow different than other chapters in the past. It isn’t really open to discussion.

As could have been expected, Corbyn and the Labour party are dealt some of the blame. “The current debate over anti-Semitism in Britain’s opposition Labour Party and the views of its leader Jeremy Corbyn have also had a negative impact on Holocaust education in the classroom and made better teacher training even more imperative.”  Apparently, British youngsters do not live in a bubble. “Students now ask about Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism… Two to three years ago I would not have had pupils who would have heard the terms,” a teacher said.

The UCL team also examined what teachers hope to achieve by teaching the Holocaust.  “There is a belief that if we study the Holocaust it will stop it happening again.” The truth of the matter is that  there is more than one  holocaust happening at the moment: Palestine, Libya, Syria just to mention a few. The Holocaust will become a meaningful lesson when it is finally emancipated from the primacy of Jewish suffering and  when we return to empathy and compassion as a basic tenet of our culture. Unfortunately I do not see the Holocaust Education Trust leading us in such a direction.

Surprisingly enough, Mike Levy, a Holocaust educator based in Cambridge, admitted to the Jewish outlet  that there is “an atmosphere of fatigue in the air when it comes to talking about the Holocaust and that students and teachers want to learn more about other genocides and contextualize the Holocaust.” I  agree with Mr. Levy. Let’s expose our kids to Aleppo, Tripoli  and Gaza and show them the crimes that are committed by our own democratically elected governments.  Let them figure out for themselves who are the Nazis of our time.  I believe that this would be the first step in preventing the next Holocaust.

 

On the censorship of Michael Hoffman’s books by Amazon

On the censorship of Michael Hoffman’s books by Amazon

The Saker

September 13, 2018

[This article was written for the Unz Review]

A couple of months ago I did an interview with one of the foremost scholars of rabbinical Judaism, Michael Hoffman. The occasion was the release of his latest book “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome”. At the time I did not expect to have to ask for a follow-up interview with him, but when I learned that Amazon had censored his books (please see Hoffman’s own account of this here). Specifically, the ban is on three of his books. A complete ban (Kindle + printed book) on Judaism’s Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded, as well as The Great Holocaust Trial: Revised and Expanded, while his textbook, Judaism Discovered, has been removed from the Kindle. I felt that I had to talk to him again and he kindly agreed to reply to my questions. I submit to you the full text of our Q&A which I will follow-up with a short commentary.

*******

The Saker: Please summarize what happened to your books and Amazon and tells us what specific explanations were given to you. Did Amazon ever offer you a “page and paragraph” list of “offending” passages? Do you have any means of knowing exactly what your book is being banned for?

Hoffman: Whether it is Facebook, Google or Amazon, the excuse most often cited for suppression is “content guidelines’ violation.” Amazon notified us on August 13 that two of our titles, which they have been selling for years and in thousands of copies, Judaism Discovered, our 1100 page textbook published in 2008, and Judaism’s Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded, published in 2010 — were being permanently removed after “review” by the Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) unit of Amazon. A facsimile of the KDP notice can be viewed here:

https://www.revisionisthistory.org/page8/page8.html

In their e-mail they told us that “…we found that this content is in violation of content guidelines.” In studying their content guidelines one encounters a vague, generic statement about not permitting that which is “offensive.” There is no guidance as to what “offense” has suddenly arisen after these books were sold on Amazon for several years. Like the Red Queen in Wonderland who declared to Alice that, “A word is anything I say it is!” — that which “offends” is anything Amazon says it is. A third book, The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for the Right to Doubt the West’s Most Sacred Relic, was also forbidden.

Does Amazon have the chutzpah to publicly categorize these books as “hate speech” or some other alibi for censorship that could be contested? No, they do not. They leave authors and publishers twisting in the wind, making it more difficult to appeal the decision and report to the public on the tyranny. Although since they allow no appeal, it’s a moot point. Personally, I have no doubt concerning why my books were censored.

The Saker: What is, in your opinion, the true intent behind the ban on the sales of your book? What is Amazon’s interest in this?

Hoffman: I don’t believe Amazon has much interest in this. It is more likely that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SLC) is the interested party. Last August 7 the New York Times online published a revealing piece by David French in which he wrote: “We live in a world where the Southern Poverty Law Center, a formerly respected civil-rights organization, abuses its past trust to label a host of mainstream organizations (including my former employer, the Alliance Defending Freedom) and individuals as ‘hate groups,…based sometimes on…outright misreadings and misrepresentations of an individual’s beliefs and views…Amazon recently booted Alliance Defending Freedom from its AmazonSmile charity program because of the center’s designation.”

At around the time in 2017 that the SPLC was trying to interfere with the business operations of people such as myself, by intimidating banks and credit card processors into refusing to process payments for books, Paypal notified us that due to the contents of our website (www.RevisionistHistory.org) we were an embarrassment to their brand and they were terminating our account. As long as Paypal was owned by libertarians, all was well and we had a high customer satisfaction rating for our integrity and dependability. The original Paypal mainly cared about whether you were a responsible seller. A politicized administration eventually took over Paypal and in 2017 we were terminated, very likely on the “advice” of the SPLC.

To return to Amazon, CEO Jeff Bezos founded it in 1994. It was very much a libertarian book operation from the start. From 1994 until a year or two ago, Amazon only refused to sell hard core pornography and books that constituted direct appeals to violence or law-breaking, which is how it should be. Every other type of book was sold, without censorship, which is one reason for Amazon’s early success and increasing market share. Then last year, after Mr. Bezos had reached the status of one of the world’s wealthiest persons, and Amazon’s total value was beginning to approach that of Apple and Google, Amazon staged a huge purge and eliminated more than a hundred World War II revisionist history books published by Germar Rudolf’s CODOH organization (books smeared as “Holocaust denial”). This year it was my turn. Next year it might be any author not part of the university press syndicates or the major houses. Such is the heedless power and immunity of Amazon.

It’s important to note that the thought police who removed three of my books were based in the digital division of Amazon, where the electronic Kindle books are marketed and managed. A Kindle permits anyone connected to the Amazon website to read approximately the first thirty pages of any Kindle book free of charge. Consequently, my Judaica scholarship was on display around the world and therefore it was much harder to lie about me and mischaracterize my Talmud and Kabbalah research under those circumstances.

We were also beginning to sell ever increasing numbers of these Kindle books to people in Asia, particularly India and Japan. It’s my hunch that Big Brother is not half so worried about printed books as the digital kind. Removing the three books from the Kindle was the primary objective.

To be banned by Amazon is not equivalent to being banned by any other private business. Most publishers will admit that Amazon has replaced Bowker Books in Print as the industry’s authoritative guide to what books in English have been printed in the past and what is in print now. Amazon is currently the reference source. For a book to be forbidden by Amazon renders it largely invisible. It is equivalent to burning the book. So this is not a matter of Amazon exercising the prerogative of private enterprise. Amazon is a monopoly. It has no rival. If your book doesn’t exist on Amazon, then for most people who are not research specialists, your book doesn’t exist. The consequences for the pursuit of knowledge are ominous.

There is a problem here for Amazon as well. The more Amazon excludes books that embody facts and ideas that constitute radical dissent, the more it becomes a narrow censor’s aperture rather than a reliable bridge to the entire range of the Republic of Letters.

Apologists for censorship of radicals and authentic conservatives often claim that no First Amendment rights are violated when Amazon bans books, therefore it is not a civil rights issue, merely an inconvenience of the capitalist system. In the 1950s however, when the privately-owned movie studios banned certain directors, actors and screen-writers judged to be Leftists or Communists, that action on the part of private enterprise was inscribed in the rolls of the culture wars as the infamous “Blacklist,” and we are still reading and weeping over it sixty-five years later. So it depends on whose ox is being gored.

My Judaica studies are free of “Jew hate,” as anyone who peruses the sections in both books titled “To the Judaic Reader” knows. There we state that the books are dedicated to pidyon shevyuim (redemption of the captive), i.e. rescuing those Judaic persons who are in bondage to the Talmud and the Kabbalah.

Our enemies easily turn to their advantage books containing hatred of “The Jews.” What they absolutely have no credible answer to is a critique predicated, as our books are, on a sincere foundation of true Christian love. Boundary-breaking scholarship united to compassionate concern for the welfare of Judaic people is almost unprecedented in this field. This approach makes my studies of Judaism among the most powerful and effective because they are free of the “hate speech” which is the pivot upon which turns the machinery of liberal-approved censorship. For that reason, making Judaism’s Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded, and Judaism Discovered available on the Kindle undercut decades of hatred and libel. Therefore those volumes had to be suppressed.

The Saker: Since this ban was put in place – what reactions have you heard? who has spoken in defense of your scholarship and right to be heard? has anybody taken your defense or spoken up for you?

Hoffman: Ron Unz allowed me to publish a note on the ban at unz.com and you, the Saker, have taken an interest. Our many friends, readers and subscribers have expressed outrage on Twitter and in e-mail. Meanwhile we have contacted everyone from a columnist for Taki’s website to the legacy media, to no discernible effect thus far. The Washington Post, which is owned by Mr. Bezos, has as its motto, “Democracy dies in darkness.” Yet it is in that very darkness where Amazon’s book-banning dwells, due to the apathy of the media and the American Library Association. To ban books by a vulnerable independent scholar is not exactly a daring move in this age where “hate speech” is anything that offends someone’s cherished myth. The definition is so loose it functions as an inquisitor’s sword.

On the positive side, we have seen an uptick in orders to our own online store for the printed books which Amazon has banned [https://truthfulhistory.blogspot.com/2016/02/judaica-books-and-resources.html]. There is no replacement for the banned Kindle editions, however.

The Saker: What do you believe could be done to resist this state of affairs? what can we all do to put at stop to this kind of censorship?

Hoffman: In a general, the supporters of the lies of the Overlords wage spiritual and psychological warfare with far more dedication, commitment and self-sacrifice than the purported allies of God’s truth. The Cryptocracy’s defenders are 24/7 militants resolved to contend with their perceived foes with every ounce of their being. Whereas on the side of Christian conservative renewal, with honorable exceptions, I find mainly armchair warriors and folks so enormously distracted by the choices offered by the Internet’s deluge of words and images, that they are nearly paralyzed by the spectacle.

Compare the reception Judge Kavanaugh received in the Senate hearings with that of recent Supreme Court nominees Kagan and Ginsburg. The Republicans were too cowed to seriously confront those ladies. Maintaining decorum was the chief concern of the timid GOP at the time, while Kavanaugh faced a near riot in the visitor’s gallery and extremes of withering interrogation and contempt from defiant Democratic senators.

When CODOH’s books were banned we reported the case extensively online and in our printed newsletter. We contacted an executive with the American Library Association to elicit his response and express our outrage. We did what we could even though we have almost no relationship with CODOH. We would do the same for any person of good will who is denied the right to advance human learning with suppressed facts and ideas. This was formerly a truism in America, up until the rise of the punks of social media who seem to be more like a branch of Antifa than an intellectual class invested in discovery and enlightenment.

Advances in human knowledge are achieved on the basis that “error has rights,” for the reason that enshrined dogmas are often wrong and demonized dissidents are sometimes the bearers of rare discoveries. But the epigram of our time is “Error has no rights,” which was the doctrine of the fiery Inquisition, of the head-chopping French Revolution and of the Bolsheviks and Maoists. If error has no rights then neither does truth, in that what is denounced as hateful error by the mob is sometimes a destabilizing, necessary and even cosmic truth.

*******

Reading Hoffman’s words I thought that what happened to him is so typical of the Orwellian world we live in where the what I call the “Skripal rules of evidence” (aka “highly likely”) have replaced even basic evidentiary notions, a world in which false flag attacks are announced weeks in advance, a world in which the Planetary Hegemon has declared urbi et orbi that nothing in the body of international law applies to the “indispensable nation” (or to the parasitic host feeding off it) and where “might makes right” has become the motto by which everybody lives. Of course, the censorship of a book cannot be compared to the initiation of a war of aggression (which is the “supreme international crime” under international law: this was the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trial on this topic: To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole). Still, there is something uniquely devious and evil about the censorship of Hoffman’s books by Amazon, several things in fact:

  1. What is attacked in not a person or even a group, but ideas, arguably the most precious attribute of mankind. This is therefore not only an attack on a human being, but an attack on the very notion of humanity as such
  2. While the method is different, the intention here is no different from the book burnings of the Nazis or the Papacy except that in these latter cases it was obvious who ordered the burning of putatively “degenerate” or “heretical” books. Thus the ideological motive of the Nazis and Papists was always clear whereas in the case of Hoffman this ideological motive is hidden (even if obvious with anybody with a modicum of intelligence).
  3. The ultimate hypocrisy lies in the fact that most so-called libertarians (from the Left to the Right) have nothing to say about this because this is not a case of censorship by government but the action of a corporation which has the “right” to do as it wishes, nevermind that the result is still a clear de-facto infringement of Hoffman’s First Amendment rights and the freedom of academic scholarship.
  4. The US government and Congress, by allowing monopolistic corporations such as Amazon to have that kind of power are basically engaging in what I would call “censorship by proxy” which is to be expected from a deep state which now does almost everything by proxy in order to bypass fundamental US and international laws (“extraordinary renditions” anybody?).
  5. Unlike the government which does have to produce at least some evidence before it can censor an individual or organization, a US corporation does not even have to justify itself by a single word. This is viewed as a triumph of deregulation by mindless libertarians who would gladly surrender all their freedoms as long as it is not to the state. In the real world, of course, they still end up handing over their freedoms to the state, except that the state is hiding behind their beloved corporations.

It is also pretty obvious that those who might, at least in theory, have something to say about this kind of censorship by proxy remain silent because, at least according to them, Hoffman is an “anti-Semite” (which, having read many of his books, I can attest is a total falsehood; by way of evidence here are sample pages from his book: https://twitter.com/HoffmanMichaelA/status/1039159686233088000) and thus he is undeserving of support. So-called “anti-Semites” are, along with the pedophiles, the “consensus villains” of the day (I explain that in detail here) but what the anti-anti-Semites fail to realize is that each time a “consensus villain” is deprived from his rights, this sets a precedent for everybody else. This is why Yehuda Bauer warned us when he wrote: “Thou shalt not be a victim, Thou shalt not be a perpetrator, And above all, Thou shalt not be a bystander”. To no avail, alas: we live in society of silent bystanders apparently! And when YouTube decides to silence all the Syrian state channels to better prepare for a false flag chemical attack, everybody looks away – “ain’t my problem”…

We all know that in Europe (and in Russia) you can be jailed and your books banned if a court finds them to be “revisionist” or “anti-Semitic” or “hateful” and the like. But at least in Europe (and in Russia), you get your day in court and you can defend yourself against accusations which the state has to prove. In Russia, just last week, a man accused of “rehabilitating National-Socialism” (for reprinting an article by another author!) was found non guilty by a majority of jurors (5 to 3) (the punishment he was facing was a fine and several years in jail). Thank God, in the “home of the brave” no such thing could happen, right?!

True, Hoffman does not risk jail (yet!). But in terms of crushing crimethink, I submit that the US system is much more effective because it allows the deep state to hide behind the veil of corporate malfeasance. There have been plenty of revolutions against a state, but I don’t know of any revolutions against the corporate dictatorship.

You tell me: which is worse, the absence of freedom or the illusion of freedom?

Personally, I find the latter *much* worse.

I never expected the corporate presstitutes to really care about our freedoms, ditto for the libertarians and the progressive Left. They are all too busy with their narrow ideological agenda. As for the US academic world, it has shown its true face when it allowed the persecution of Professor Norman Finkenstein. But I have to say that I am shocked by the fact that the blogosphere and the so-called “alternative media” has remained so silent in the face of such a blatant censorship by proxy by the deep state against one of the foremost US historians.

I urge all those reading these lines to speak up on Hoffman’s behalf and to support him by purchasing his superb and censored books. This is how every one of us can resist the Hegemon and his rule!

The Saker

Jews and Gentiles

September 10, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Family_Quarrels_or_The_Jew_and_the_Gentile-1113x640.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

Early Zionism was a significant and glorious moment in Jewish history; a moment of dramatic epiphany fueled by self-loathing. The early Zionists promised to save the Jews from the Jew and to liberate the Jew from the Jews. They were disgusted by the Diaspora non-proletarian urban Jewish culture which they regarded as parasitic.  They promised to bond the new Hebrews with labour and soil. They were convinced that they could transform what they saw as a greedy capitalist into a new ‘Israelite hard working peasant.’  They believed that they could make the ‘international cosmopolitan’ into a nationalist patriot, they believed that they knew how to convert Soros into a kibbutznik: they were certain that it was within their capacity to make Alan Dershowitz into a Uri Avneri and Abe Foxman into a peacenik. They promised to make Jews into people like all other people while failing to realize that no other people really want to resemble others.

Zionism has been successful on many fronts. It managed to form a Jewish state at the expense of the indigenous people of Palestine. The Jewish state is a wealthy ghetto and one which is internationally supported. But Israel is a state like no other. It is institutionally racist and murderous.  It begs for American taxpayers’ money despite being filthy rich.  Sadly, Zionism didn’t solve the Jewish problem, it just moved it to a new location. More significantly, not only did Zionism fail to heal the Jews as it had promised to do, it actually amplified the symptoms it had vowed to obliterate.

Accordingly, the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitsm should be regarded as a Zionist admission that the task of making Jews people like all other people has been a complete failure. No other people have so intensely and institutionally engaged in the suppression of other people’s freedom of speech. Jewish and Zionist bodies work openly and in concert to silence every possible criticism of their state. The real reason for the fight to make the IHRA definition law is that the Zionist position on antisemitism is indefensible.  If the Jews need a special definition of hatred against them (as opposed to a definition of hatred that includes hatred of any people based on race or religion) it proves that, at least in the eyes of the Zionists who push for the definition, Jews are somehow different.

In addition, and for quite some time, history laws and regimes of correctness have been employed to block our access to the Jewish past. This is paradoxical given the fact that the Zionist project is a historically driven adventure: while Zionists often claim their right to self determination on their so-called ‘historical land,’ no one else is allowed to critically examine the Jewish historical past. The Jewish past is, instead, what Jews consider to be their past at a given moment, and as the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand suggests, this so called ‘narrative’ is often an ‘invention.’  No one is permitted to look into the validity of claims made about Jewish participation  in the slave trade. Gentiles are not entitled to look into the role of Jewish Bolsheviks in some colossal communist crimes. The Nakba is legally isolated by walls of Israeli legislation. And it is axiomatic that no one may freely engage in critical thinking on any topic that is even tangentially related to the holocaust. For my suggestion that Jews should self reflect and attempt to understand what it was that led to the animosity against them in the 1930s, I am castigated by some Jewish ethnic activists as a holocaust denier.

French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard taught us that history claims to tell us ‘what happened’ but in most cases it actually does the opposite: it is there to conceal our collective shame. To suppress their shame, Americans build holocaust museums in every American city rather than explore their own slave holding past. Rather than deal with their dark imperial history, the Brits allocated a large part of their Imperial Wars Museum to a Holocaust Memorial. Both American and British holocaust museums fail to address the shameful fact that both countries largely blocked their gates to European Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust. According to Lyotard, the role of the true historian is to unveil the shame, removing layer after layer of suppression. This painful process is where history matures into ethical awareness. And then, there is no examination of responsibility for historical wrongs in the Zionist narrative, for the notion of shame, that instigated the Early Zionist ideology, is totally foreign to Zionist culture and politics.

Israel not only couldn’t be bothered to build a Nakba museum: it does not even acknowledge the Nakba. Zionists didn’t express remorse that their Jewish state deployed snipers to hunt Palestinian protestors, killing hundreds and wounding thousands of them.

Neither Zionists nor Israelis feel the need to find excuses for the fact that their laws are racist: Palestinian Israeli citizens are 7th class citizens and the rest of the Palestinians who live in Israeli controlled territories are locked up in open air prisons. Zionism doesn’t have to deal with shame because shame involves uncanny introspection, it entails humility, ordinariness.   Unlike the Americans and the Brits who made other people’s suffering into their empathy pets, the Zionists, the Israelis and Jews in general are clearly happy to celebrate the primacy of Jewish suffering while making sure everyone else adheres to this principle.  Zionism skillfully put into play the means that suppress criticism all together. But by doing so, Zionism essentially blinded its followers to its own crimes, and it put an end to the dream to become people like all other people.

Although Zionism was an apparatus invented to fix the Jews, to make them ordinary, it had the opposite effect. It made it impossible for its followers to integrate into the rest of the nations as a people amongst people. While Zionism was born to obliterate choseness, as it was practiced it was hijacked by the most problematic form of  Jewish exceptionalism. Interestingly enough, today, just ahead of the Jewish new year, Haaretzrevealed that 56% of Israeli Jews see themselves as chosen. I guess the rest see themselves as exceptional.

 56% of Israeli Jews see themselves as chosens.

56% of Israeli Jews see themselves as chosens.

If some Zionists out there are still committed to the original Zionist dream, then owning the shame that is attached to the Zionist sin is probably the way forward. Because as things stand at the moment, the only public figure who insists upon seeing Jews as people like all other people and actually act upon it is, believe it or not, Jeremy Corbyn.

Tomorrow (9-11) in Manhattan I will dig into the history of Zionism from Herzl to Bibi:

From Herzl To Bibi Poster.jpg

 

The Holocaust and its Deniers

August 02, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Screen Shot 2018-08-02 at 18.13.01.png

By Gilad Atzmon

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, some Jewish intellectuals and humanists expressed the thought that ‘after Auschwitz Jews have to locate themselves at the forefront of the battle for humanity and against all forms of oppression.’

This is a principled and heroic ideal, but the reality on the ground has been somewhat different. Just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the Jewish state ethnically cleansed the vast majority of indigenous Palestinians. Two years later, in 1950, Israel’s Knesset passed the Law of Return, a racist law that distinguishes between Jews who have the right to ‘return’ to someone else’s land and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees that were expelled by force from their villages and cities.

In the seven decades since, the Jewish State has committed every possible human rights abuse. It made Gaza into the biggest open-air prison in human history and has repeatedly dropped bombs on the most overpopulated place on earth. Recently the Jewish State deployed hundreds of snipers against unarmed Gazans who were protesting at the border. Israel killed dozens and wounded more than 13,000 Palestinians, the majority severely, with over 1,400 struck by three to five bullets.

If the Holocaust left Jews with a mission to fix the world, the Jewish State has done the opposite. Its crimes against humanity can be seen as a complete denial of the Holocaust’s message.

Some Jews who survived the Holocaust did dedicate their lives to a universal battle for a better world. Among these heroes was Hajo Meyer, a Dutch Auschwitz survivor who, for the obvious reasons, saw the similarities between his own suffering and the Palestinian plight.

In 2003 Meyer wrote The End of Judaism, accusing Israel of usurping the Holocaust to justify crimes against the Arabs. He participated in the 2011 “Never Again – For Anyone” tour. He correctly argued that Zionism predated fascism, and he also reiterated that Zionists and Fascists had a history of collaboration.

Meyer exemplified the Jewish post-Shoah humanist promise. After Auschwitz he located himself at the forefront of the fight against oppression. He fought Israel.

On Holocaust Memorial Day 2010, Meyer was invited to an event at the British Parliament which included MP Jeremy Corbyn. At the event Meyer compared Israeli racial policy to the Nuremberg laws. At the same event, Haidar Eid, a Palestinian academic from Gaza, pointed out that “the world was absolutely wrong to think that Nazism was defeated in 1945. Nazism has won because it has finally managed to Nazify the consciousness of its own victims.”

Eid didn’t ‘compare’ Zionism with Nazism, he described an ideological continuum between Nazi ideology and Israeli policy. He maintained that the racial discriminatory ideology of the Nazis was picked up by the Jewish state and has been rife in the Jewish State since then.

Yesterday MP Jeremy Corbyn was attacked by the Jewish lobby for being present at that meeting that explored these universal ethical positions. Our Labour candidate for prime minister anemically recalled that at the event in question views were expressed which he did not “accept or condone.” Corbyn even apologized “for the concerns and anxiety that this has caused.” I wonder why my preferred candidate has to express regret for being in the presence of a humanist exchange. I wonder why our next PM feels the need to disassociate himself from people who advocate ‘for the many, not the few.’

The message for the rest of us is devastating. The battle for a better world can’t be left to Corbyn alone. Needless to say, the Jewish State and its Lobby haven’t located themselves at the forefront of humanity. It is actually the Palestinians who have been pushed to the front of that frustrating struggle. Not to see that is to deny their holocaust.

 

Zuckerberg On Denial and Being Wrong

July 20, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

zukkkk.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

In an interview with technology website Recode, Mark Facebook  Zuckerberg stated that posts from Holocaust deniers should be allowed on Facebook.

In response to a question on Facebook’s policy on fake news, Mr. Zuckerberg offered, without prompting, the example of posts by Holocaust deniers.

“I’m Jewish and there’s a set of people who deny that the Holocaust happened,” he told reporter Kara Swisher. “I find it deeply offensive. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong. I don’t think that they’re intentionally getting it wrong.”

He added, “everyone gets things wrong and if we were taking down people’s accounts when they got a few things wrong, then that would be a hard world for giving people a voice and saying that you care about that.”

Despite the fact that FB has earned itself a reputation as a tyrannical Zionist force and an enemy of elementary freedoms, Zuckerberg expressed a clear position consistent with whatever is left of the true American spirit and the 1st Amendment.

The Jewish press is totally upset by Zuckerberg’s policy.  Israeli commentators denounced his remarks.  Here in Britain, the editor of the so called ‘anti-fascist’ magazine Searchlight, Gerry Gable, told the BBC that  “Because of his financial powers, he [Zuckerberg] just does a bit of tinkering without understanding how this material could inspire crazy people to firebomb synagogues, mosques or churches.” I can’t see how comments about the past incite violence against “synagogues, mosques or churches.” But of course, “crazy people” can firebomb anything at anytime, regardless of Zuckerberg’s recent intervention. I’d advise the Gable that the perception of Facebook as a tyrannical Zionist power that silences differing viewpoints may be far more dangerous for Jews and others.

I probably should have finished today’s article here. But I just can’t stop myself from taking this discussion at least one step further.

Here is a point to ponder: with Zuckerberg presenting a reasonable and tolerant attitude to historical debate, WWII, history revisionism and the Holocaust can easily be reduced to an internal Jewish debate. This is the point I make in my recent book, ‘Being in Time.’ I contend that when Jews accept that something about their culture, ideology or politics is perceived as a ‘Jewish problem,’ some Jews are quick to form a satellite opposition.

When it became clear that the criminality of the State that defines itself as the ‘Jewish State’ had become a Jewish problem, Jews for Palestine was created. The Palestine solidarity movement was rapidly reduced to an internal debate among Jews. Here in Britain, some Jews grasped that the Jewish campaign against Jeremy Corbyn is very dangerous for the Jews.  Jews for Corbyn was formed. At the moment, the future of the Labour party has become an internal Jewish debate between the Zionist Jewish Labour Movement and the so called ‘anti’ Jewish Voice for Labour. Neocon wars are now an internal Jewish debate between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky. In his brave essay, ‘On The Jewish Question,’ Karl Marx comes to the conclusion that Capitalism is a ‘Jewish symptom’. Not surprisingly, many of his followers were of Jewish origin and the battle of capitalism (for and against) became an internal Jewish discourse. It is possible that Zuckerberg, who is not stupid, can sense the growing resentment to FB’s Zio-centrism and he is clever enough to present a new more liberal principled view. He even kindly allows the rest of us to be wrong.

In ‘Being in Time’ I note that the emergence of a Jewish satellite opposition is not necessarily a conspiratorial maneuver. It is only natural for Jews to oppose the crimes committed in their name by the Jewish State. It is equally natural for Jews to oppose Zio-con global wars. It is also reasonable for Zuckerberg to try to amend the negative impression his company bought itself in recent years and to decide to promote basic freedom of speech. The outcome, however, could be problematic. The entire debate on elementary rights and freedoms can easily become an internal Jewish discourse.

To understand ID politics read

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

Amazon.co.uk , Amazon.com and  here (gilad.co.uk).

On Jewish controlled opposition:

Chief Rabbi Vs. Labour Party

July 17, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

labour rabbi.jpg

Reported by Gilad Atzmon

The BBC reports this morning that Britan’s chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis has said Labour will be “on the wrong side” of the fight against racism unless it toughens up its anti-Semitism code of conduct.

Rabbi Mirvis said Labour’s new anti-Semitism definition sent “an unprecedented message of contempt to the Jewish community”.

Apparently the Chief Rabbi is not alone. The J Post reports this morning that “Sixty-eight British rabbis signed an open letter decrying antisemitism in the country’s labor Party and calling on the party to accept the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.”

Labour has defended its new code as the most “comprehensive” of any party.

But one may wonder, why do we need a special definition for antisemitsm? Is a general and universal denouncement of racism, bigotry and discrimination of all kinds not sufficient?  Are Jews somehow special?

The new Labour code does endorse the IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism and includes behaviours it lists as likely to be regarded as anti-Semitic – yet Jewish critics point out that it leaves out four examples from that definition:

*  Accusing Jewish people of being more loyal to Israel than their home country

*  Claiming that Israel’s existence as a state is a racist endeavour

*  Requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations

*  Comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis

Far from being surprising, Corbyn’s Labour see Israeli criminality as a problem and insists upon the right to criticise the actions of the Jewish State and its lobbies in political, cultural and historical contexts.

Rabbi Mirvis attacked the omission of these examples by the Labour and said it was “astonishing that the Labour Party presumes it is more qualified” to define anti-Semitism than the Jewish community.

The Rabbi could be slightly confused here.  Jews are more than welcome to define antisemitsm, as they like, but the labour party has the duty to define what it regards as an anti Jewish bigotry in accordance to its own alleged universal values.

Mirvis said Labour risked being on the “wrong side of the fight” against racism and intolerance

I would argue however that the Labour party, Rabbi Mirvis and most British Jewish institutions are on the wrong side of history here. If racism and Bigotry are defined as the discrimination of X for being X (X=woman, Jew, Black, Muslim, Gay, White etc.), then for Britain to move forward and to sustain the spirit of the common law, it must oppose all forms of racism and bigotry all together and equally.  

To fight racism we need to follow one simple universal guideline rather than looking for the specific demands of one group or another.

 

To support Gilad’s legal costs…

In Memory of Philip Roth

May 26, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: I wrote the following  book review a decade ago. 10 years later, Israel and its subservient English Speaking Empire are still mounting pressure on Iran,  the Middle East is bleeding and peace looks like a remote fantasy. Pre TSD is the medium in which we operate and a prospect of a better future seems like a delusional dream. A decade ago I concluded this review wiring that “the current plot isn’t just against America. It is a plot against humanity and human dignity.” Sadly, nothing really changed.

6_13_025.jpg

The Plot Against America – a book report and a reality check

by Gilad Atzmon

…Roth is no doubt an astonishing writer but somehow he has always failed to convince me. I always had the feeling that Roth is just too aware of his enormous talent; something that made him slightly technical and pretentious at times. Being a prolific writer, Roth can be slightly impersonal to my taste and yet, in his latest book he is free from that. No literary imposed tactics or strategies can be traced. In his latest book, Roth is overwhelmingly personal. Astonishingly enough, the fictional reality he conveys is so convincing that I found myself totally captivated from beginning to end. So enthralled was I, that I even managed to forget how depressing the world is out there. I avoided the anti-Iranian media blitz. I switched it off for three days and let the international community attack the Iranian president in a single Judeified voice.

‘The Plot Against America’ is a fictional tale that unwinds like a historical document enriched with personal detail. Its theme is: what would have happened if ace pilot Charles Lindbergh, the man who made the first solo transatlantic flight in 1927, the man who later called Hitler ‘a great man’, and was decorated by the Führer for his services to the Reich, had run for the American presidency against Roosevelt in 1940 and managed to win? Lindbergh’s message to the American nation is a classic Republican isolationist one. ‘No more war! Never again will young Americans die on foreign soil’. The year is obviously 1940 and Lindbergh is referring to Europe and the Pacific rather than Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or Iran. In Roth’s book, instead of Roosevelt being elected for an unprecedented third term, Lindbergh wins in a landslide victory. He then signs non-aggression treaties with Germany and Japan. Soon enough the charismatic Lindbergh is cheered by American society as a whole. Every American loves him except of course the Jews who are far from being happy with a ‘peace loving’ president who happens to make business with the enemies of the Jewish people. But in fact this isn’t entirely true, a single prominent liberal Rabbi named Bengelsdorf positions himself right behind the new president.

The narrator is Philip Roth himself, a seven-year-old Jewish Ghetto boy from Newark, New Jersey. He tells a story of a Jewish family encountering a major disastrous political shift. Young Phil is telling the story of father Herman, mother Bess and brother Sandy. It is a story of collective fear, a story of a Jewish family’s reaction to the rise of anti-Semitism. However, throughout the book it is very hard to determine whether anti-Semitism constitutes a real objective threat or rather something the Jews bring on themselves. This very confusion is in my opinion the greatest literary asset of the book.

Roth is sketching a very deep and complex narrative in which each family member responds differently to the ‘devastating’ historical circumstances. Once again, Roth managed to convey an interesting image of the difficult amalgam of the Jewish identity both psychologically and sociologically. Like most American Jews, Herman the father is overtly pessimistic from the very beginning. He wouldn’t give Lindbergh even a single day of mercy. However, he is a proud patriotic American. He demands his civil rights. Were he in our midst, he would criticise the emerging catastrophic reality applying to the American liberal ideology. The mother Bess is far more practical, she tries to maintain the family’s sanity, behaving as if life must go on. More than anything else, she must calm down her righteous husband. Phil’s brother Sandy is a gifted painter and assumes a very interesting role. In the summer he disappears for an “apprenticeship” with a tobacco farmer in Kentucky. In a way he makes it into the heart of America. Later he is joining a new assimilation scheme by encouraging Jewish city boys to follow his example. This program is put together by Rabbi Bengelsdorf, the devoted supporter of Lindbergh. Sandy is doing very well, eventually he is invited to a reception at the White House. This is obviously far more than Herman can take. For Herman, the democratically elected American president is nothing but an enemy of the Jews and he refuses to give his son permission to go to Washington. The tension between family members threatens the stability of the family itself, which is on the brink of falling apart. However, all that time,  America has been kept out of the war. American boys aren’t dying in a far away country. American people are very happy but somehow the Jewish Americans aren’t.

All the way through the book father Herman is portrayed as a paranoid Ghetto Jew. He is totally single minded in interpreting reality, he is overly tragic. But he isn’t alone in his obsession. Alongside his Newark Jewish Ghetto neighbours he draws a lot of support from the famous Jewish journalist and broadcaster Walter Winchell who is spreading his anti-Lindbergh poison to the nation. It doesn’t take long before Winchell is stripped of his positions as a journalist, first in the printed press and later in his prime time radio slot. But Winchell won’t surrender; once he loses his job, he decides to run for the presidency. Winchell, the Jew, decides to reshape the American future. In other words, he is determined to take America into war in Europe. Within a short time into his campaign, Winchell is assassinated. Again, the reader may wonder whether the assassination is an anti-Semitic act or rather a punishment Winchell and the Jews insist upon bringing on themselves.

All the way through most of the book I couldn’t make up my mind whether the plot against America is a Jewish or rather a Nazi one. Clearly most of America into war that may serve their cause or if it was Hitler who employs an agent in the very centre of the American administration as the mastermind behind the plot. When time is ripe, young Phil provides us with a shadow of an answer.

Towards the very end of the book Lindbergh disappears with his private fighter plane without leaving a trace. Mysteriously, the wreckage of his plane has never been found. No forensic evidence can suggest what happened to him. Foreign governments volunteer their versions: the Brits blame the Nazis for kidnapping the president, the Nazis suggest that it was ‘Roosevelt and his Jews’ who abducted the American hero. These suggestions are all highly charged, unfounded gossip that are there to serve an international political cause. However, Roth deliberately decides to leave us with a very personal account. We hear Rabbi Bengelsdorf’s account told by his wife Evelyn who happens to be Philip’s aunt. Brilliantly, Roth’s historical narrative takes the shape of modern ‘Jewish history’. History is then reduced to a mere personal account in the shape of gossip devoid of any factual or forensic reference.

Following Rabbi Bengelsdorf’s account, we are entitled to assume that Lindbergh was indeed a Nazi agent. Anyhow, this is the time to remind us that Roth’s President Lindbergh is a fictional character. In fact Lindbergh, the real man, was an American hero, a man who ended the Second World War as a P38 combat pilot at the age of 42. ‘The Plot Against America’ is a fictional tale, Lindbergh wasn’t a traitor, he was an American patriot who happened, like many others, to have admired Hitler for a while. Lindbergh was an American nationalist who loved his people and truly believed that his country should stay out of the ‘Jewish War’. Roth’s Lindbergh is indeed imaginary, but the Jewish collective paranoia isn’t. It is very real. Moreover, the Jewish intent upon shaping American reality is more than real.  Most importantly, while the Nazi plot to run America is totally fictional, the Jewish Plot to run America is now more vivid than ever. Nowadays, when the American army is acting as an Israeli mission force in the Middle East, when Syria and Iran are just about to be flattened by Anglo-American might, it is rather clear what the real meaning of the ‘Plot Against America’ may be.

I read Philip Roth’s book while the entire international community was standing shoulder to shoulder behind the war criminal Sharon. While in Roth’s book the Herman Roths and the Walter Wichells were expecting  America to sacrifice its best sons on the Jewish altar, we are now watching the entire world joining the Jewish war against Islam. It is rather depressing to see our Western politicians enthusiastically adopting the most corrupt version of Jewish morality: a totally blind worldview based on supremacist endorsement of the justice of the stronger. Clearly, there is no isolationist Lindbergh to save us all. Unfortunately, there is not even a single Rabbi Bengelsdorf to suggest an alternative friendly human Jewish morality.

By the time I put Roth’s book down, the storm around the Iranian president subsided somehow. The Jewish world and the Jewish state had another great victory to be cheerful about. The UN’s General Assembly has passed a resolution designating 27 January as the annual ‘Holocaust Memorial Day’ throughout the world.

Why the 27th of January? Because this is the day Auschwitz was liberated. The resolution also rejects any denial that the Holocaust was a historical event in which the mass murder of six million Jews and other victims by Nazi Germany during World War II took place. Seemingly, the UN has a new role, while for years it has been engaged in securing world peace, now it is mainly concerned with securing Jewish history.  No doubt, a very nice present for the Jewish state, a state that holds the highest record for failing to comply with UN resolutions.

By the time I put Roth’s book down I am more or less ready to learn my lesson. Once again I failed to acknowledge that suffering is an exclusive, internal Jewish affair. No one is allowed entry, neither the Palestinians of Gaza’s concentration camp, nor the massacred inhabitants of Fallujah and Tikrit. One million victims of Rwanda are obviously out, three million in Vietnam are out as well, so are the innocent civilians of Hamburg, Hiroshima, Dresden and Nagasaki and millions of others who were killed in the name of democracy. By the time Roth’s ‘Plot Against America’ finds its way onto my bookshelf, I agree with myself at least: A young Rabbi Begelsdorf is long overdue. If we are being Judeified, we may as well take the best of Judaism rather than its supremacist brutality, namely Zionism. By the time Roth’s tome is resting I realise as well that the current plot isn’t just against America. It is a plot against humanity and human dignity

Netanyahu uses the “6 million jews” myth again

Source

No matter how you cut it, Netanyahu lacks the moral and political backbone to be a head of a state.

by Jonas E. Alexis

You can’t make this stuff up: Netanyahu, the problem child in the Middle East, has told Vladimir Putin that Iran has vowed to annihilate six million Jews! If you think that Netanyahu would never come up with something so dumb, then you are underestimating Netanyahu’s fantastical imagination. This is his exact word:

“There is a country in the Middle East, Iran, which calls for the destruction of another 6 million Jews.”[1]

No one with an ounce of brain cells knocking together would invent such a stupid statement. The simple fact is that outside of Israel, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East. Moreover, “Jews feel safer in Iran than in US & EU despite Tel Aviv-Tehran tensions.”[2] And they have been there for centuries! How does Iran plan to annihilate those people? Who is Netanyahu really fooling this time? his finest puppet (Donald Trump)?

When Netanyahu made similar statements back in 2015, Iranian officials responded by saying: “It is truly, truly regrettable that bigotry gets to the point of making allegations against an entire nation which has saved Jews three times in its history…”[3]

What do Iranian Jews have to say about Benjamin Netanyahu himself? Do they regard him as their representative? Or they see him as their leader? Or do they view him as another Israeli demagogue? Ciamak Morsadegh, an elected Iranian parliamentarian who happens to be Jewish, declared:

“Benjamin Netanyahu and the anti-Semites need each other: they supply each other with what they need – intolerance and hatred. The fact is, Iran is a place where Jews feel secure and we are happy to be here. We are proud to be Iranian. I know this doesn’t follow the Zionist script, but this is the reality. No one forces the Jews to stay here.

“The Israelis offer money to Jewish people to emigrate to Israel, but we choose to stay. My view is that the actions of Netanyahu and his government, the way they behave towards the Palestinians, cause problems for Jews everywhere. I am not the only one holding these views. Am I not allowed to say it because I am a Jew?”[4]

Mr. Bibi, we have a situation here. If Iranian Jews are largely happy and do not feel threatened, how can you say that Iranian officials are seeking to destroy at least six million Jews? Where did you get that figure?

Here again and again we see that Netanyahu is either crazy or is following a diabolical script. Avner Cohen has said in the past that Netanyahu is sometimes “crazy.”[5] Former Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin declared that Netanyahu makes “decisions from messianic feelings.”[6]

No matter how you cut it, Netanyahu lacks the moral and political backbone to be a head of a state. If the Jewish community in Iran even approves a nuclear deal,[7] then how can Netanyahu really say that Iran has “a ruthless commitment to murder Jews”? This is one reason why Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein calls him “a maniac.”


  • [1] Quoted in Henry Meyer , Andrey Biryukov , and David Wainer, “Netanyahu Warns Putin That Iran Wants to Destroy 6 Million Jews,” Bloomberg, May 9, 2018.
  • [2] “Jews feel safer in Iran than in US & EU despite Tel Aviv-Tehran tensions,” Russia Today, February 9, 2018.
  • [3] “We saved Jews 3 times, Netanyahu should revise history lessons – Iranian FM,” Russia Today, March 5, 2015.
  • [4] “Iran’s Jews on life inside Israel’s ‘enemy state’: ‘We feel secure and happy,’” Independent, March 16, 2016.
  • [5] Avner Cohen, “Israel’s leadership: Messianic and then some,” Haaretz, May 6, 2012.
  • [6] Quoted in Daniel Tauber, “Can Netanyahu’s messianism save us?,” Jerusalem Post, July 3, 2012.
  • [7] See for example Reese Erlich, “Iran’s Jewish community gets behind nuclear deal with U.S.,” USA Today, August 7, 2015

Corbyn Prevailed

April 25, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

corbyn-1-1.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

The BBC reported last night that Britain’s self-appointed ‘Jewish leaders’ continue to be disappointed by Jeremy Corbyn. Following a meeting with the Labour leader, the Jewish Leadership Council and Board of Deputies of British Jews (BOD) announced that Corbyn “did not agree to any of the concrete actions they asked for.” This must have been upsetting for them.

The ‘leaders’ provided the commands that Corbyn rejected.

They wanted Corbyn to commit to “a fixed timetable to deal with anti-Semitism cases.” I suppose that teaching ‘Labour type’ Goyim that time is of the essence is not such a bad idea.

They wanted Corbyn to “expedite the long-standing cases involving Mr. Livingstone and suspended party activist Jackie Walker.” This command is understandable; bearing in mind centuries of Jewish suffering, the time is ripe for a bit of revenge.

Consistent with Talmudic Herem  (excommunication) culture, the British Jewish ‘leaders’ insisted that “No MP should share a platform with somebody expelled or suspended for anti-Semitism.” This sounds reasonable so long as thieveswar criminals and sex offenders remain on the kosher list so that British MP can share platforms with Israeli prime ministers and presidents.

The Jewish leaders complained that Corbyn has yet to “adopt in full the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.”  I imagine that this is troubling as it indicates that Corbyn still regards Jews as ordinary people. Following some bizarre universalist ethical perception, Corbyn refuses to accept the primacy of Jewish suffering.

I guess that sooner or later Brits will have to decide whether they prefer to live in a United Kingdom or in an occupied territory…

The Fading Holocaust

April 16, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 A new survey by Claims Conference finds a significant lack of Holocaust knowledge in the United States.

A new survey by Claims Conference finds a significant lack of Holocaust knowledge in the United States.

by Gilad Atzmon

“Holocaust Is Fading From Memory” the New York Times reported last week. Apparently a survey commissioned by the ‘Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany’found that “many adults lack basic knowledge of what happened — and this lack of knowledge is more pronounced among millennials, whom the survey defined as people ages 18 to 34.”

The Jewish Material Claims Against Germany reported that “Thirty-one percent of Americans, and 41 percent of millennials, believe that two million or fewer Jews were killed in the Holocaust”

This leaves me wondering how it is that the number Jews who died in the holocaust keeps dropping in people’s minds. The numbers of dead Russians stays solid at around 20 million. The number of the Brits who died in the Blitz also stays at around 40,000. The number of Palestinians ethnically cleansed by the newly born Jewish State just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz remains solid at about three quarters of a million. Only the number of Jews who died in the big war keeps fluctuating. I’d like to suggest to our friends at ‘Jewish Material Claims Against Germany’ that statistics may not provide the answer. They may want to ask themselves why is it that despite intense holocaust indoctrination in the newly formed religion’s tenet, namely the primacy of Jewish suffering, the message is somehow ignored and often rejected. The anomalies go further. The Russians, the Vietnamese and the Palestinians do not constantly measure  Americans’  acknowledgment  of their suffering. They do not poll Americans’ approval rate of their holocausts on a weekly basis so the next question is why Jewish institutions feel the need to do so.

The NYT reports that “Forty-one percent of Americans, and 66 percent of millennials, cannot say what Auschwitz was.”

This, I must admit, is worrying. By now we have a holocaust museum in pretty much every city in the West.  Clearly this has not been enough. I recommend that we consider building a holocaust shrine on every street of every city in America.  And if this fails, there may be no other option but to push for legislation that makes it compulsory for every household in America and beyond to dedicate a room to Holocaust commemoration.

Matthew Bronfman, a board member of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany told the NYT,  “As we get farther away from the actual events, 70-plus years now, it becomes less forefront of what people are talking about or thinking about or discussing or learning action, I think we’re really going to be behind the eight ball.”

Maybe, just maybe, when the ‘Jewish material claims’ body starts to look at Palestinians’ material loses in the name of the holocaust, the American people and everyone else (including Jews) may see a point in internalizing the meaning of Auschwitz as a universal message and a lesson in history.

Thursday thoughts: explorations in the Semitic dimension

Why is the world today (2018) the way that it is?

Consider these historical facts:

We have had centuries of revolution in the Western world.  Jews have played critical roles in these revolutions.

It is now 170 years since Marx’s Communist Manifesto was published.  1848 was known as a year of revolutions in Europe.

Modern psychiatry or psychology (psychoanalysis) was founded by several Jews in Europe in the late 1800s (Freud and his cohorts).

We have had 125 years of Zionism.

It has been 120 years since the “forged”, but strikingly prescient, Protocols were circulated.

Large scale emigration of Jews from eastern Europe into the United States begins in the waning years of the 19th century and accelerates greatly in the first 25 years of the 20th century.  This large influx of Jews with alien ideas begins to transform US society beginning in the administration of President Woodrow Wilson (one of the most damaging administrations in US history).

The world has endured a century of murderous, atheistic Bolshevism in various forms throughout the world.  Ethnic Jews foisted this program on to the world.

The Jew (Zionist) orchestrated Balfour Declaration (1917) brings America into the European War (World War One) resulting in a defeat for Germany and the punitive Versailles Treaty.  The seeds for a second world war are sown.

The Institute for Social Research (also known as The Frankfurt School) was started in Weimar Germany in the 1920s.  When Hitler came to power early in 1933, these Jewish social revolutionaries fled to New York and set up shop with the help of US Jews.  We have them to thank or blame for the destructive social engineering known today as the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.

Powerful Jewish interests in Britain push the British to war with Germany in 1939.  The Jewish Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union have built the world’s largest army in history and await the opportunity to spread their revolution by force of arms.  This they do beginning in September, 1939 by annexing eastern Poland.  Then the USSR attacks Finland in late 1939.  In the spring of 1940, it is the Baltic States’ turn as these 3 small nation states are occupied by the Red Army.  Later in 1940, Stalin seizes part of Romania.  (There are many who believe that Hitler’s invasion in June, 1941 was a preemptive strike to forestall a Bolshevik onslaught against central and western Europe.)  Jews in the Roosevelt Administration opportunistically seize upon FDR’s infatuation with both Stalin and utopian communism and urge FDR to aid those countries at war with Germany, which FDR does through Lend-Lease.  As well, Soviet spies penetrate FDR’s government bureaucracy.  During the war, FDR’s policies and agreements favor the USSR at the cost of all other nations and peoples involved.  The outcome of the war is a victory for the Jewish banking interests in London and New York, and a victory for Jewish communists throughout Europe (with the enslavement of Christian nations in central and eastern Europe).

We have had 70 years of holocaustism, which seeks to inculcate the idea of a perpetual victimhood of the Jews in the minds of goyim (gentiles, non-Jews).  Obviously, when we obsess on alleged Jewish suffering, we are not likely to focus on Jewish villainy, or even suspect that such villainy exists.

Rabid and heretical Christian Zionism spreads widely in American Protestantism in the 1960s and 1970s.  The pro-Israeli lobby in the US is greatly strengthened by the support of millions of these deluded Christian Zionist voters, and this impacts US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Also in the 1960s, feminism is effectively hijacked by 3 Jewesses, Friedan, Abzug, and Steinem (half Jewish) and becomes radical or gender feminism which promotes enmity between the sexes.  Also, at this time, pornography spreads and is accepted in the culture.  Hugh Hefner was not the only Jew promoting and publishing pornography.  The adult film industry is largely run by Jews.

The world’s finances and financial markets are largely controlled by the interlocking Rothschild banking empire.  Financial panics and recessions/depressions can be caused at any time to wipe out middle class savings and make people more dependent upon government “assistance”.

We are being told that nationalism anywhere in the world is “anti-Semitism” by default.  Another lie from the Jews.

The elders in Israel threaten the world with nuclear holocaust via their Samson Option if Israel’s existence is seriously threatened or in jeopardy.  Long before the revelations of Mordechai Vanunu in the mid 1980s, the world knew that Israel possessed atomic weapons.  The Israeli threat of atomic holocaust for the world cannot simply be ignored.

The current world order, or the New World Order in progress, is a Semitic scam and sham.  We are all to be serfs and debt slaves on the global plantation (another collectivist, Talmudic utopia) ruled from Jerusalem.  Christian Zionists, lackeys for the Jews, may patrol the fields with whips in their hands as overseers for the absentee Jewish landlords.

We are all Palestinians now, with a life sentence in this New World Order.

Has not humanity paid a high enough price for the arrogance, deceit and betrayal of these chauvinistic Jews, for their crimes, for Jewish villainy?

conclusions and recommendations

We have lamented before that the Jewish Revolutionary Nature is incompatible with Western, Christian Civilization.  The above noted historical movements and facts demonstrate the truth of this position.  (An in-depth analysis of each of the above movements is obviously beyond the scope of this blog post.  However, the interested reader can do an Internet search for articles and books on all of the above noted historical movements and find the Jewish influence and control behind each.)  The Jews when acting on this revolutionary nature, which seems to be embedded in their genes as it persists from generation to generation, subvert the culture of whatever host society (nation) they live in.  They act to divert and deform the normal, natural development and progress of that culture.  It is a zero sum game that the Jews seek to always win.

You may cry out that not all Jews are social revolutionaries.  You would be quite right, but that does not alter the above facts.  In the Bolshevik Revolution, not every Russian Jew was a communist, but nearly every communist leader and inciter of violent revolution was an ethnic Jew.  The Cheka and NKVD mass killers were disproportionately Jewish.

The current trajectory of world society is for greater loss of freedom and more intrusive governmental control of our lives, and for Cultural Marxism and multiculturalism to continue to divide and demoralize western and Christian peoples.

Western historiography must be reformed by people who are free of bias and are capable of objectivity when investigating and chronicling historical events.  Censorship of facts solely because these offend the Jews or expose their villainy can no longer be tolerated.  We need publishing houses that are not controlled by Jewish ownership.

No more wars should be fought by Christian peoples for these damned Jews and their nefarious schemes!!

No more believing in this Chosen People nonsense to give the Jews a free pass any longer.

Humanity cannot afford the cost of Jewish Supremacism and domination any longer.

copyright 2018 – larrysmusings.com

Insane Aggression on Display

March 07, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 It is a bad idea to mount pressure on their host nations to suspend their relationships with other nations.

Reported by Gilad Atzmon

One would expect that Jews would have learned from past mistakes that it is a bad idea to mount pressure on their host nations to suspend their relationships with other nations.

The Zionist outlet Israel Hayom reported recently that The Ruderman Family Foundation, a prominent Jewish-American Foundation launched  a campaign calling for the United States to sever its ties with Poland.

As could be expected, it did not go well. The Jewish foundation produced an obscenely belligerent video in support of their campaign, which I urge you to watch.

The video is a distressing display of the aggression that is attached to contemporaryJewish nationalist identification. The fact that such a video wasn’t restrained and became viral within some Jewish and Israeli circles indicates that we are facing a collective that seems to lack the capacity to understand the consequences of its own actions. This hubris coupled with a complete lack of superego creates a very dangerous zone.

Naturally, the Polish people didn’t approve of the call for a war against their country. Michal Dworczyk, an aide to Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, described the video as an “affront to the thousands of Poles who risked their lives during the war to help Jews.”

Polish state television’s news channel, TVP Info, called the video “shocking” in the top story on its website.

Witold Jurasz, a journalist with the private Polsat broadcaster, blasted the video as “offensive and scandalous,” and said it “spits in the face of every Pole” – even those who, like him, oppose Poland’s Holocaust law.

The campaign aroused enraged responses and was widely criticized in the Polish media. One critic even remarked, “Polish Holocaust? This is as if the USA attacked Pearl Harbor.”

According to the Israeli paper

“tens of thousands of reactions to the campaign appeared on social media, including blatant anti-Semitism. Many responses were posted on the official petition site, such as: ‘The Jews don’t have a monopoly on the Holocaust;’ ‘stop lying, there were no Polish death camps;’ and “’in the name of 36 million Poles, the Polish Holocaust didn’t happen.’

The Polish Embassy in the U.S. released a statement blasting the campaign and video:

“We are shocked that the Ruderman Family Foundation has published a reprehensible video blaming Poland for the Holocaust…We condemn this historically inaccurate production and treat it as a malicious attempt to heighten emotions during a sensitive time.”

The Ruderman Family Foundation apparently ignored the Polish protest altogether, but luckily it was slightly more attentive to a lone Jewish Polish voice. Jonathan Ornstein, director of the Jewish Community Center in Krakow, confirmed to the Israeli paper that he had explained to foundation president Jay Ruderman how troubling the video was and had been assured that the video would be removed.

“The term ‘Polish Holocaust’ is not accepted by any reasonable person whether Jewish, Polish, Israeli or German,” Ornstein added. “Emotions are running high and harmful, inaccurate comments from various sides have been published, but this is indefensible.”

The Ruderman Family Foundation released a statement saying that

“after a hugely successful campaign that went viral internationally and among American Jews and Israelis who have signed the petition – the Foundation was contacted by the Polish Jewish community and because of their concerns for their safety, we decided to halt the campaign.

If they want to burn it , you want to read it..

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk)

The AZZ Freak Show starring Tom Pessah

March 05, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 By now, the discourse of the oppressed is defined by the sensitivities of the oppressor. 

By now, the discourse of the oppressed is defined by the sensitivities of the oppressor.

By Gilad Atzmon

If you want to understand how Jewish domination of the Palestinian solidarity movement has derailed the Palestinian struggle and caused complete paralysis of the movement, the explanation can be found in 972.com and Tom Pessah .

“Anti-Semitism is unlike most other forms of hatred” writes Pessah at 972.com today.  And why? Because  “it is both a form of bigotry and a false accusation.”  An Israeli Jew ‘pro’ Palestinian is telling us that while hatred of Jews is based on lies, other forms of hatred (misogyny, anti black, Islamophobia) must be factually supported. Can you think of a more telling example of morbid Judeo centrism?

“Bigotry is always bad,”  Pessah writes. And it seems that the tribal merchant has uttered what seems like a universal sentiment, until it becomes clear that again he is only referring  to his tribe. “It is bad for Jews inside the pro-Palestine movement .. it is bad for attracting Jews from outside the movement… and it provides plenty of ammunition for those seeking to silence Palestine solidarity activism by equating it with anti-Semitism.” Pessah’s  attack on ‘bigotry’ is only as it applies to Jews.

If self-love were a Jewish sport, Pessah would be an Olympic gold medalist . His Jews-only organisation, Jews For Racial and Economic Justice’s (JFREJ) new booklet, “does a good job of defining anti-Semitism as an ideology that uses lies and stereotypes about Jews in order to blame them for society’s problems.” Can  Pessah tell us how many goyim are members of the board of this exclusionary Jews-only oranisation? I looked at the booklet. I saw a lot of the usual ‘Zionism is not Judaism’ but I didn’t see  any attempt to explain what was meant by Jewishness. There were no references to the Jewishness of the Jewish State. The demography of the Ziocon club wasn’t mentioned in the booklet either.  What the JFREJ offers instead is the usual  lame  solidarity Hasbara — a desperate attempt to conceal the embarrassing fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and is supported by a vast majority of Jewish institutions.

In his article, Pessah, an Israeli Jew who dwells on Palestinian land, attempts to impose boundaries on the Palestinian solidarity movement. It is no secret that Jewish activists feel threatened by the Palestinian Right of Return. In fact, the entire Jewish solidarity project can be seen as an attempt to weaken the Right of Return by diluting its content with as many misleading slogans as possible; For example: ‘End of Occupation, ‘Colonialism,’ ‘settler colonialism,’ ‘Apartheid’ etc. These terms are designed to divert the solidarity movement from the essential Palestinian cause and, in practice, to provide Israel with the right to exist.

To read more about The Jewish Solidarity Spin.

Pessah admits that he was initially concerned by the Palestinian Right of Return. But his anxiety was allayed when some “non-Arab pro Palestinians” explained to him that “Palestinians returning to their homeland didn’t have to mean expelling the current Jewish inhabitants. From then on, I started to make the right of return a central part of my advocacy work.”

And so, once again, we see that Pessah’s ‘solidarity’ is primarily concerned with Jews. It was only when he understood that Israelis would not be affected by the Right of Return that Pessah decided to integrate the slogan into his pro Palestinian phrase-book.

An Israeli Jew is now an authority on the true meaning of the Right of Return? It makes me wonder if Pessah has confirmed that the Palestinians have now given up on their villages, cities, orchards and fields? If this is the case, then please, set up a meeting immediately with Pessah, 972’s editorial staff and Bibi Netanyahu, seal a peace deal and once and for all put this Israeli/Palestinian conflict behind us.

But then, what is the meaning of the powerful Palestinian chant, “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free?”  Pessah offers an interpretation. “We meant freedom for everyone.” Apparently the Zionists didn’t buy his nonsense. So Pessah and his ‘solidarity’ group have “promised to stop using this chant.”

Pessah writes,

“We had gone out of our way to be sensitive, taking the claim of Jewish safety seriously, while ignoring the politics these (Jewish)  lobby groups were trained to promote.”

Precious, isn’t it?

The followers of my work know that I contend that the result of Jewish domination within some segments of the Palestinian solidarity movement can be described in very clear terms:

The discourse of the oppressed is defined by the sensitivities of the oppressor.

Pessah has been stupid enough to bring this devlopment to light.

“When one of our allies confused the terms ‘Jews’ and ’Zionists,’ I wrote a long letter to my colleagues about the differences between the two.” We do not need Pessah  or Ali Abunimah to tell us that Zionism and Judaism aren’t identical. Leibnitz has provided us with the relevant theory.

The problem is that we cannot determine where Zionism ends and Jewishness starts. Similarly, it is impossible to determine where Pessah and the AZZs end and Netanyahu begins. All of them care primarily about Jews and their interests, they may disagree on the details.

Pessah proudly informs his 972 Jewish followers how he helped to silence a Muslim preacher, Abdul Malik Ali,  because he had claimed that

(a) “Zionist Jews” were behind a series of violent incidents that were blamed on Muslims, including 9/11, and that

(b) these same Jews owned the media. “Since then,” Pessah writes,

 

“Abdul Malik Ali has never been invited back to speak, and we were taken seriously after demonstrating that we did not conflate anti-Semitism with opposition to Israel’s policies.”

The generally admired Alison Weir is also an “enemy” as far as Pessah is concerned.  Pessah apparently  takes pride in her expulsion from the Leading BDS coalition.

As usual, yours truly is the ultimate enemy. This time I am accused of being

“a Holocaust denier and an active proponent of Nazism.”

I guess it really gets under these tribals’ skin that I insist that we stop treating the holocaust as a religion and instead elevate it to an historical chapter subject to the usual open scrutiny. Pessah boasts about the call made in 2012 for my disavowal. As Pessah and others surely know, this call had zero impact on my work or my career. If anything, it confirmed to many much that I have to say about Jewishness, choseness and the duplicity inherent in the AZZ camp. I have never worked closely with any Jewish groups or solidarity bodies dominated by tribal interests. I am a writer. I wrote The Wandering Who, which is, without a doubt the best selling book on Jewish ID politics. The book digs into the corrosive work of Jewish solidarity groups. It explains the tribal ideology that drives Pessah, Mondoweiss JVP, 972 and future Judeo-centric bodies to come.

If Pessah weren’t offended by my work and did not try to discredit me, I  would take it as an insult and consider early retirement.

If they want to burn it , you want to read it..

cover bit small.jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto

Amazon.co.uk  ,  Amazon.com  and   here  (gilad.co.uk)

 

%d bloggers like this: