From Bibi to Herzl

September 20, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Zionism vowed to make the Jews people like all other people. Israel promised to be the fulfilment of the Zionist aspiration. But the reality on the ground proved otherwise. It didn’t take long before Israel became ‘The Jewish State’ – a state like no other. In this talk, I present a new outlook of the Zionist project and its collapse. I can now throw new light on the most peculiar anomalies in Zionist history, such as labour Zionist brutality towards indigenous Palestinians in ’48, the rise in the prominence of the holocaust in Israel after ’67 and the current manufactured antisemitism hysteria.

I do apologise for the quality of the sound, we work hard to improve it.

Transcending ‘Chosenness’: Journey of an ‘ex-Jew’

September 11, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

40474_GILAAD_1536594598559.jpg

GA: TRT published yesterday this extensive interview. Those who struggle with my ideas or fail to understand where I come from, may want to read this article. It clarifies where I stand on most relevant issues.

Transcending ‘Chosenness’: Journey of an ‘ex-Jew’

An interview By Nafees Mahmud

How a former Israeli citizen Gilad Atzmon left Israel and how becoming a musician helped him understand Palestinian suffering.

 

LONDON — If you are despised by both conservative Zionists and liberal anti-Zionists, it can only mean one thing: you are Gilad Atzmon.

Born in Israel in 1963 into a Zionist household, he saw his birthplace as the Jewish promised land and says he was expected to serve and cement the Israeli ideology of Jewish supremacy.

However, at age 17, he was mesmerised by the sounds of African American jazz musician Charlie Parker. As a passionate Israeli, this challenged what he’d believed up until that point: only Jews produce greatness.

Serving as a paramedic and musician in the Israeli military during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, he witnessed the immense suffering of Arabs.

At this point, he says, he began to view life “from an ethical, rather than a Zionist point of view.”

Years later he moved to Britain to study philosophy and launched his career as a jazz musician. Today, he attempts to enlighten and unite people through his art.

Yet his work as a writer examining Jewish identity has seen him described as a peddler of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He argues that this is an attempt to censor honest analysis of, and reflection upon, Jewishness’ immense impact on mass culture, politics and global economics through the likes of The Frankfurt School and Milton Friedman.

As Israel increasingly meets international criticism and boycott, Atzmon believes his former homeland can only be seriously challenged for its injustices, if it is understood in the wider context of Jewish identity politics – a context he is trying to remove himself from. TRT World spoke to him to find out why.

 

TRT WORLD: As a musician, how do you feel about Lana Del Ray and many others cancelling their performances at the Meteor Festival in Israel following pleas from the BDS campaign?

Gilad Atzmon: It’s a beautiful thing.

I don’t support BDS mounting pressure on artists, but I think it is well appreciated when artists refuse to perform in states where there are so many crimes against humanity. I myself decided to boycott Israel a long time before the BDS movement was born. Since 1996, I haven’t visited my home country.

There have been major stories in the news this year regarding Israel. One of the most significant was the Jewish nation-state bill. What do you make of that?

GA: It confirms what we’ve known for more than a while: Israel is the Jewish state and everything that is happening in Israel should be understood within the context of its Jewishness. It confirms what I’ve been saying for many years. We must dig into the notions of Jews, Jewishness and Judaism to understand the difference between these three and the relationship between them.

Break that down for us.

GA: I make a clear differentiation between Jews, the people, which I regard as an innocent category; Jewishness, the ideology; and Judaism, the religion.

I argue that both Jews and Judaism are innocent categories. The fact you are born a Jew doesn’t make you a war criminal or a supremacist. Also, Judaism is a relatively innocent notion. We know the only genuine Jewish collective who really operate actively for Palestine are Torah Jews, Orthodox Jews.

When it comes to Jewishness, this is complicated.  I had a debate about this with a supremacist Jew yesterday and his argument was there is no such thing as Jewishness – it changes along the years. I couldn’t agree more, elasticity is inherent to Jewishness.  One thing that remains constant is the exceptionalism. Jewishness is different explorations of the notion of “chosenness.

” Some Jews feel they are chosen because they are elected by God, some Jews feel they are chosen because they are Bolsheviks, and a week later they can feel chosen because they are supporting a free market – like Milton Friedman. They can feel chosen because they are religious, and they can feel chosen because they are secular. It is this exceptionalism that is the core of “chosenness,” that is racially driven, that I believe is the common ground for all Jewish cultures.

This is why I have never in my life referred to Jews biologically, nor as a race, nor ethnicity. But I believe supremacy is something that is essential to Jewishness. This is why instead of talking about “Jews” I talk about the people who identify “politically” as Jews.

Gilad Atzmon (Tali Atzmon/)

You’ve made a 180 degree turn from what Israel represents, but tell us about your childhood during which you say you were heavily influenced by your Zionist grandfather.

GA: I don’t think you can talk in my case about 180, 45 or even 360 degree turns. I see my role as a philosopher, and as a philosopher, my job is to refine questions rather than subscribe to or recycle slogans. I’m working now on Zionism, and I find – this is interesting – you’ll be the first one I explore this idea with. I grew up in a society that saw itself as a revolutionary society. I was subject to an ultranationalist upbringing driven by complete contempt towards the diaspora Jew, something I didn’t understand because I was growing up in Israel and I didn’t know any diaspora Jews. But the diaspora Jews were seen by us as a bunch of capitalists, unsocial abusers of the universe, and we were born to become ordinary people – workers. My father was a hard-working man, my mother was a hard-working woman and I was raised to be a hard-working Israeli.

Unlike the diaspora Jews who went like lambs to the slaughter in Auschwitz, we were raised to fight and, accordingly, I was happy and looking forward to dying in a war. This was my upbringing. Let me tell you: when the war came, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to die for Israel. I started to understand that something wasn’t right.

Now, I never understood what the problem was with the diaspora Jews. All I knew was that when you immigrate to Israel, we called it aliyah. Aliyah means ascending. If you leave Israel and become a diaspora Jew, it is called yerida descending. So here, you already see within Zionism an internal concept of “chosenness;” so the Israelis are the “uber-chosen.”  What I do understand, nowadays, looking at the shift that happened in Israel after 1967, Israel gradually stopped seeing itself as the Israeli state and more and more as the Jewish state. The dichotomy between “us” the special emancipated Israelites and the diaspora Jews started to disappear.

As we became a Jewish state, we started to adopt more and more Jewish symptoms. We became victims, we started to cry about the Holocaust. When I was young, we looked at the Holocaust with contempt. We looked at the Jews who went like lambs to the slaughter with contempt. If you don’t believe me, read Tom Sergev: The Seventh Million. It’s about the million who survived the Holocaust, how badly they were treated in Israel. There are films about it. My parents tell me, and you can hear it from a lot of people, that they were not allowed to play with or bring home young survivors of the Holocaust. They were looked upon by the Israelis at the time as sub-humans. There is a film about it: Aviya’s Summer.

What I understood recently is that I was initially very enthusiastic about this Israeli revolution. I agreed with it.

I just wanted to be an ordinary human being. But as Israel was transforming into a Jewish state, I had to leave the country.

What were you taught at school about the creation of Israel?

GA: We were misled. We were told the Palestinians left willingly. I didn’t hear the word nakba until the late nineties. However, when I was in Lebanon in 1982, I started to see all the refugee camps. I started to dig into it and I realised the scale of the ethnic cleansing.

Can you share some of the things you saw?

GA: I don’t like to talk about it. But when I saw the Israeli army in Lebanon, I understood that we were not as righteous as we claim to be and this was the beginning of my transition in the early 1980s. My journey really started there.

What was the tipping point that made you leave?

GA: Very simple – the Oslo Agreement of 1993. Until that point, there was a common belief that we, the Israelis, wanted peace. When I look at the peace deal that was imposed on the Palestinians, I realised by then the Palestinians were the ones expelled from the country that I believed to be mine. I understood then that we don’t mean peace, that what Israel means by peace is security for the Jews.

This is why I am not hopeful. You will not hear me talking about resolution. Israel will be defeated into a solution by the facts on the ground.

How did music change you? It’s part of your journey away from Israel, isn’t it?

GA: It was the first time I understood that I can join a discourse that is universal – aiming at beauty – rather than being a part of an ultranationalist tribal ethos. If jazz was the music of the oppressed, I gladly joined the oppressed and learned their language and I made it into quite a successful career.

How does being a jazz musician aid your philosophical work?

GA: In my thirties, I tried to integrate Arabic music into my jazz. By then I could pretty much play any kind of music, but I realised how difficult it is for me to play Arabic music which is surprising because I grew up with Umm Kulthum, the Egyptian singer, all around me.

I found it really difficult. But then I realised that in Arab music it’s all about the primacy of the ear, as opposed to Western musical education where they put you in front of notes and you have to learn to translate the primacy of the eye. The West is obsessed with the primacy of the eye but humanity is all about the primacy of the ear.  Primacy of the ear is where ethics starts. We have to listen to each other. I made a huge effort to listen to the Palestinians and understand their plight. If you were a Jewish journalist you would say: “What about listening to the Jews?” I say listening to the Jews is not necessary because you get it all over – from the media to the Holocaust museums. But Gaza, Syria, Iraq, Libya is the holocaust that is most relevant for us now.

Tell us about some of the thinkers, philosophers and activists who have influenced you?

GA: I am disgusted by most forms of activism and I think activists have very little to contribute to our understanding. This is why they achieve nothing.  They are part of the controlled opposition. I ended up learning German philosophy. I started with Immanuel Kant and what I took from him is the ability to refine questions. Then Hegel, Nietzsche and most important, Heidegger who is the ultimate master in refining questions, and this is what I do. By refining questions, I can see the answers are flexible. They are changing as the questions are shifting.

Heidegger was about “being,” right?

GA: Obviously, but being is the goal. How do you reach the understanding of “being,” if ever? Through questioning. What is “being?” What is that thing that is unique, most fundamental to us human beings? What he called dasein. This “Being,” with a capital B, that we can never touch.

So, what were you told “Being” was when you were growing up in Israel?

GA: I guess that being an Israeli meant, at the early stage of my upbringing, being forceful, being determined, fighting for what you believe in and the willingness to sacrifice for that goal. Believe it or not, in that sense, I am 100 percent Israeli and I had to leave Israel because Israel was not Israel anymore. It stopped being Israeli. It became Jewish, and Jewishness is celebrating victimhood which is something that I would never do. I prefer to die than be a victim.

How do you describe yourself now?

GA: I aim at a universal understanding of humanism. To be a universal humanist is a challenge for everyone, it’s a task rather than a state of being. It is being inspired by the ability to see yourself as an ordinary creature. To remove yourself from any sense of privilege.

Universal humanism is not the human rights declaration, not a set of commandments. It’s an organic thing that is changing all the time and is finding itself to be more and more inclusive, and this is why you can only aspire to become one and work on it twenty-four seven rather than declare yourself to be one.

Is universal humanism not part of the cultural Marxist doctrine, which you find impedes human flourishing?

GA: On paper, yes. But in reality, definitely not. The new left, cultural Marxists – the Frankfurt School – are all people in the open who define who is in and who is out.  They invented no platforming. How can people who adhere to no platforming be universalists?

Aren’t you still seeing the world from a Jewish perspective despite trying to move beyond this?

GA: I hope not, you know. Some people would argue they see some Jewish traits in my thinking, and I accept that. The one thing that I would admit to you is that the one thing I learnt from Otto Weininger – he’s one of the people who inspired me – is that in art, self-realisation is the realisation of the world. So while a scientist looks at the world and tells us something about the world, artists close their eyes and write a poem, and through this poem we understand the world, or through a symphony – and this is the most important thing. So when I look at myself, I occasionally deconstruct the Jew that is left in me. It’s not a privilege, it’s an instrument towards developing a better understanding and a better world.

This interview has been edited for clarity

Julia Salazar and Jewish Privilege

September 04, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

A few years ago in Portland, a pro Palestinian activist told me that he was a bit uneasy. A recent study of Portland’s demography had found that the number of Jews in the city had doubled overnight. This concerned my activist friend for the obvious reasons. Jewish migration is often attached to political and cultural transitions. He asked me, as an expert on Jewish affairs, what is it that brings so many Jews to his northern American city.  I thought about it for maybe 30 seconds and, even without examining the evidence, I offered a possible answer. “It is certainly easy to imagine that many Jews migrated to your city, but it is more likely that what happened is that many more people, Jews and gentiles, have chosen to identify themselves as Jews.”

Jewish identification in the 21st century is an obvious privilege, some might claim, the ultimate political privilege. As we know, Judeo-centric exceptionalist politics are protected from criticism by different legal and cultural instruments such as the bogus IHRA definition of antisemitism and the tyranny of correctness. If you are a Jew, you are perceived as a well-connected character, probably slightly more ‘sophisticated’ than the average American. Whether we like to admit it or not, a young law school graduate, may benefit from appearing to be Jewish as he interviews for his first job at a NY law firm.

Last year in San Diego, an astute Palestinian- American friend, loudly joked during the Q&A following my talk: “I really don’t understand my people. All we have to do is to convert en mass into Judaism and then make Aliya and take our land back.”

It is hardly a secret. In the world in which we live, the ultimate political privilege is reserved for Jewish ID politics. The Jewish Identitarian ethos goes far beyond Jewish political orientation. It is the piece that unites the Jewish right and left. The Zionists claim the right to live ‘in peace’ on someone else’s land. The so-called ‘anti’ Zionists insist that their Jewishness places them in the very special position to “kosher” the entire pro Palestinian movement.

N.Y. State Senate hopeful Julia Salazar is just 27 years old, but she has clearly grasped the universe around her. She wants to be elected and she understands that being a Jew is the quickest path to her goal. The Brooklyn candidate stated that her Jewishness is based largely on “family lore,” but to her great surprise, the Jews weren’t happy to take her in. Haaretz quickly pointed out that Salazar doesn’t belong to the chosen people.  A Jewish ex-friend told the Israeli paper Salazar had “admitted she couldn’t go on Birthright trip because she wasn’t Jewish.”

Apparently the ‘ex friend’ told the Israeli paper that “As someone who values and cherished my Jewish identity, I’m incensed at the idea of another person fabricating a similar identity for political gain, for the purposes of recognition and to get ahead in life.”  The message here is unambiguous although hardly news. Jewish identity is an exclusive tribal setting that is racially defined. Unless Salazar can show her mother’s Jewish racial purity, she is basically out of the Jewish club and can’t be a beneficiary of the Jewish privilege.

The Zionist outrage around Salazar is to be expected. For whatever political reasons, Salazar who runs in Brooklyn, decided to adopt the Jewish pro BDS position. In the eyes of Israel firsters she committed two crimes: she ‘pretends’ to be a Jew and then, if this were not enough, she actually pretends to be a ‘self hating’ one.

The good news for humanity, however, is that Salazar, like many others, can read the political transition in the west. She probably sees how popular Corbyn is in Britain despite the relentless and duplicitous campaign against him. Salazar may understand that many people see Israel as the ultimate evil.  She may even believe that Trump won the election because he was “dog whistling” by pointing at Soros, the Fed, Goldman Sachs, etc.  But it goes further. Salazar is living in NYC and she may well sense or even share her neighbours’ renewed anger every year when the list of “NYC 100 Worst Landlords” is published. Perhaps Salazar believes that the only chance to survive in American politics in the current climate is to become a Jew. To oppose Israel as a Jew, to oppose NYC slumlords as a Jew, to oppose AIPAC as a Jew. Perhaps Salazar believes that the only way to emancipate America from what may seem to some as Jewish hegemony, is to become a Jew. If you can’t beat them, join them.

Here is the bad news for Salazar, it is not going to work. The Jews have rejected the young Latina. Apparently she isn’t racially qualified.

The Jewishpress writes today. “There are, at least, three reasons why many of us (Jews) find her vaguely annoying. These are:1) Her apparently untrue claims to be Jewish. 2) Her antisemitic anti-Zionism. 3) Her anti-democratic socialism.”

But it isn’t only the Zionists who reject the young Latin Jewish candidate, the so-called ‘Jewish Progressives’ do not really want her either.  The Jewish ‘progressive’ Forward isn’t pleased with Salazar either. Mijal Bitton writes “… the Salazar dustup revealed a fundamental and seldom explored paradox in the liberal discourse on identity: the tension between essential and exclusive identity politics predicated on group experiences on the one hand, and notions of identity that validate choice and malleability in how individuals self-identify on the other.”

Not surprisingly, Bitton, like most Identitarians, doesn’t understand the crux of ID politics. The so called ‘paradox’ she refers to is actually inherent in the dialectic tension that forms the core of the Identitarian discourse.

Identitarianism doesn’t reveal ‘what people are,’ instead it tells what people ‘identify as.’ John identifying himself ‘as a gay’ doesn’t necessarily mean that John is a homosexual. It only reveals that John likes to see himself and to be seen by others ‘as gay.’ This essential understanding of the misleading nature of the Identitarianism was explored by the comic ‘Daffyd Thomas – The only Gay in the village.’ Thomas identifies as ‘a gay.’ He adopts gay symbolic identifiers, he speaks as one, he demands the attention and the privilege of one, but at the same time he is totally removed from the sexuality that has traditionally been the crux of ‘being’ gay.

In an attempt to resolve Salazar’s Jewish identity complex, Bitton argues that Salazar’s defenders have two arguments: “The first defends her on the grounds that she represents a hybrid identity distinctly Latin/Sephardi/non-white, and as such inaccessible and misunderstood by her white, Ashkenazi, American critics. The second defends her on the grounds that Jewish identity, like Salazar’s, is malleable and does not fit into one mold.”

Both arguments can be summed into a single intellectually duplicitous doctrine that is set to block criticism of any given Identitarian discourse. It attributes blindness to the Other.  But isn’t this exactly what Jewish institutions are doing routinely? Just a month ago, in a letter to the Labour Party ruling Body, British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis wrote “It is astonishing that the Labour Party presumes that it is more qualified than…the Jewish community to define antisemitism.” Essentially, the Chief Rabbi is complaining that a bunch of Goyim in the Labour party see themselves as qualified to decide what antisemitsm is for the Labour party.

So, while the British Chief Rabbi claims that ‘antisemitsm’ is a Jew -protected discourse, Bitton complains that Salazar’s identity as Latina, Sephardi, or as a Jew of Color, intrudes on protected property; “it can only be understood, and interrogated, by the small number of those born into similar identities.”

In fact, Salazar has been copying Rabbi Mirvis’ tactics. This doesn’t only confirm that she is a Jew, it may qualify her to become Brooklyn’s chief Rabbi.

Bitton says of Salazar defenders that, “According to them, Salazar’s minority group identity confers upon her certain inalienable rights of representation inaccessible to others, but she can also legitimately choose to be Jewish in her own individual way.”

This may seem a contradiction to some. But this is exactly the primary rule of Jewish ID politics. Jewish identification is largely a racially exclusive club. But those who manage to fit in are totally free to choose their own way; they can be orthodox, conservative, reform, secular, atheist, self loving, self hating, Zionists, anti or even AZZ (anti Zionist Zionists). The members of the Jewish Identitarian club are welcome to select any combination of the above while knowing that any criticism from an outsider can be dismissed as a form of ‘antisemitsm.’ But candidate Salazar can’t take part in this Identitarian exercise. Why? Because she isn’t racially qualified.

Whether Bitton understands it or not, her futile attempt to deconstruct Salazar reveals that the Jewish Identitarian concept is, in practice, an exercise in Jewish racial classification. There is no difference between Salazar’s identitarian choice and JVP or other Jewish progressive schools of thought. None of the Jewish progressive schools is asked to clear its contradictions. The JVPs are not asked to source the so called ‘Jewish values’ that stand at the core of their ‘Jewish activism.’ The only difference is that Salazar isn’t racially Jewish. Her mother’s blood is not of the right kind. She is, accordingly, rejected.

Bitton herself seems to grasp that her attempt at deconstruction of Salazar achieves little.  Bitton ends her Forward article by admitting that “Salazar’s story demands that we (Jews, presumably) explore the way in which we approach identity. Is it malleable, individual and pro-choice, or it is essential, exclusive and inherited? And if it can be both, then those who choose a selective approach to identity must demonstrate moral consistency in their rhetoric.”

I guess that the answer is really simple. Jewish identity is both malleable and racially exclusive. It is elastic enough to fit different Jewish tribal interests. Salazar, I believe, would face no problem from whatsoever in becoming a ‘Jew’ if she were a supporter of Israel and an enemy of BDS. Israeli patriots are noticeably racially tolerant of Goyim who support the Jewish national project as many Russians immigrants to Israeli could happily attest.

books forsale .png

 

To understand ID politics and Jewish ID politics in particular read

The Wandering Who? & Being in Time

 

Is it Zionism or Jewishness? You decide

July 30, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Greenstein vs. Atzmon – a radio debate moderated by Tony Gosling

In the early 2000s I realised that if Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, we must first ask who are the Jews, what is Zionism, what is Jewishness and how these notions relate to each other and affect Israeli politics, Jewish political lobbying, Jewish pressure groups and so on.

No one in Israel has ever criticized my argument. Israelis are naturally intimately familiar with the above notions. Israelis know that Jewishness and Jewish culture are at the core of Israeli politics. But the Jewish so-called  ‘anti’ Zionists were rather upset by my observation. It interfered with their delusional and largely deceptive dichotomies between Jews and Zionists, Zionism and Judaism, Israel and the Diaspora etc. Rather than saying that Jews and Zionism are opposites (Jewish anti Zionists) or that they are identical (messianic Zionism), I have been arguing that we are dealing with a complex continuum that can only be realised within the context of Jewishness and Jewish ID politics. Israel is what it is because Jewishness is driven by choseness – a Judeo-centric expetionalist doctrine.

Since 2005 Tony Greenstein has been my arch anti Zionist nemesis. He worked day and night trying to stop my concerts, my talks. He contacted venues and festivals and the many humanists who praised and endorsed my work. I offered Tony many times to share a platform with me so we could discuss that which we disagree upon. It never happened. Even when Tony was willing to do it, his ‘comrades,’ according to him, begged him not to do so.

Things clearly changed recently for Tony.  He was expelled from the Labour Party. He was a victim of the Zionist witch-hunt. He was accused of anti semitsm and had a chance to taste his own poison. Tony didn’t have any excuse. He had to face the man he vowed to eradicate yet failed.

In this radio program moderated by the great Tony Gosling, Tony Greenstein and myself debate what I believe to be the most crucial question  to do with Israel and Zionism. Is it Zionism or actually Jewish ideology that drives the barbarism of the state that calls itself  “the Jewish State”?

 

israel’s (apartheid state) Bolshevik heritage, Italian Painters Detained for Painting Ahed #Tamimi’s Image on Apartheid Wall

Italian Painters Detained for Painting Ahed Tamimi’s Image on Apartheid Wall

28 Jul
9:03 PM

Israeli forces, on Saturday, detained the Italian painters who painted a mural depicting jailed Palestinian teenager Ahed al-Tamimi, on the Israeli separation wall, to the north of the southern West Bank district of Bethlehem, said Munther Amira, a Palestinian Social Worker, activist and human rights defender.

The activist said, according to WAFA, that Israeli soldiers detained the two Italian painters while they were adding the last finishing touches to the painting that depicts Ahmed al-Tamimi. Forces also seized the painters’ equipment and supplies, and detained Palestinian activist, Mustafa al-Araj.

The painters reportedly came from Italy specifically to draw the painting ahead of Tamimi’s expected release from prison, tomorrow.

Ahed Tamimi was detained for confronting Israeli soldiers who had forced their way into her family’s yard, in Nabi Saleh village, to the north of Ramallah, occupied West Bank, soon after soldiers shot and critically injured her 15-year-old cousin, who was hit in the face. Her trial is still ongoing.

Tamimi’s story has garnered global attention, and both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have called for her release.

To be noted, some 85% of the wall’s route runs inside the West Bank, rather than along the Green Line; if completed as planned, the barrier will isolate 9.4% of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, said the United Nations OCHA.

Being Ordinary

giladprophet.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

The Jewish press in Britain and around the world has seemed thrilled for the last few days.  “One of Britain’s most vocal anti-Semites,”( apparently me) “was handed a humiliating court defeat in London on Monday” wrote The Jewish Algemeiner. On Twitter, Israel’s firsters wrote about me ‘grovelling’ at court.

I guess that lying is a bit of an official policy within such circles. In order to remove any questions regarding my position in court, here is my Lawyer’s statement as delivered on my behalf:

“Defendant’s Solicitor, Jeffrey Smele

On behalf of the Defendant, Mr. Gilad Atzmon, I agree with the words of my learned friend.  Mr. Atzmon never in fact intended that his article would suggest to the reader that Mr. Falter was a “fraudster” or that he personally profited from his position at the CAA.

Mr. Atzmon offers his sincere apology to Mr. Falter for his actions.”

(The official court settlement document can be found here.  The official court document that was the base for Falter’s claim, to which I apologised,  can be found here).

Contrary  to the exclamations in the  Zionist fake news, the court didn’t charge me with ‘antisemitsm’ or ‘lying.’  There was no mention of such words in the court’s ruling. In fact, ‘a trial’ didn’t actually take place. As proceedings evolved, I wasn’t willing to defend Justice Matthew Nicklin’s ‘definition’ of the meaning of my words. I didn’t agree that in my original paper I intended to accuse CAA chairman’s Gideon Falter of ‘fraud’ or ‘profiting personally.’  I saw no point in defending an interpretation that was merely attributed to my words.

But the issues raised here are far more complex. I wonder why these Zionist outlets see the need to engage in an intensive smear project that actually reflects very badly on the Jewish political project as a whole?

Jewishness is a sophisticated survival strategy. It is a strict regulatory system of adherence. It encourages internal debate but limits any such deliberation by clear boundaries. If Israel, for instance, deploys hundreds of snipers against unarmed Palestinian protestors and practically perpetrates a massacre, then it will allow a few of its people to speak out against its own brutality. The outcome is predictable: Israel’s war crimes are reduced to an internal debate among Jews. Within the context of the Jewish universe, every so-called ‘Jewish problem’ is met from within by Jewish dissent.

Jewish history reveals important exceptions — people who broke out; who decided to unveil the tribal matrix by means of universal thought. Jesus was such a character, he ended up nailed to the cross. Spinoza was another, he was punished by excommunication. Marx, in his early writing, broke ranks and pointed out on the intrinsic bond between Jews and capitalism. The 20th century brought about some Jewish heretics and to a certain extent I followed their path– rather than speaking ‘as a Jew’ and contributing to ‘controlling the opposition,’ I openly denounced my roots; spiritually, culturally and politically. I stopped being a Jew and dedicated my time to the production of a critical study of the tribal mechanism that drives Jewish politics and identity.

It has never been an easy journey. Since I launched my writing career, I have been subject to intense attempts to buy me out by recruiting me into the Jewish so-called ‘anti Zionist’ camp. Anti Zionists, as they call themselves, can offer a lot of support.  They are well connected and organised. They can set up your tours, concerts, talks, university lectures and media coverage.

It took me a few years to understand that my dissent was actually pretty similar to early Zionist thought, sharing its phantasmic idea of becoming ‘people like all other people.’ Indeed, my personal goal was to fulfil the early Zionist project for myself: to become an ordinary human being like all other goyim. I realised that to achieve my goal, the first step was to stop being a Jew.

In 2014 Professor Marc H. Ellis,  regarded by many as the leading contemporary Jewish theologian, published  Future of the Prophetic,  an extensive study of the Hebrew prophet. In his book, Ellis dedicated a chapter to me and my work. He reached the conclusion that yours truly is the new Jewish prophet.

“Like the ancient prophets Atzmon exposes Jews. At the same time, Atzmon believes that the Bible, from which the prophets spring, is bogus….Atzmon provides no hiding place for Jews anywhere.”  (Future of the Prophetic, Marc H. Ellis pg’ 332)

“Atzmon is extreme but, in his extremity, he is much like the biblical prophets.” (pg’332)

So in the world in which we live, some Jews see me as Satan incarnated, others have called me the last Hebrew prophet. Naturally, I was flattered by Ellis’ insight. And it helped me to grasp the role of the prophet within the Jewish survival paradigm. Making a dissenter into a ‘Hebrew prophet’ works to dismantle opposition. It reduces the universal critical insight into an internal Jewish exchange. I wrote to Ellis that

as much as I was thrilled by his view of my work, I didn’t see myself as either a prophet or a Jew.  Instead I saw the need to emphasise that rather than speaking ‘to Jews,’ I much preferred to talk about “Jewishness, Jewish culture and ID politics.”

My approach must have been frustrating for both Zionists and the so-called ‘anti’. Since the publication of my first book  (2001) I have been persistently harassed by Jewish ethnic activists of all persuasions (except probably Torah Jews). They have called me a racist, an anti-Semite, a bigot, etc. and yet, to their dismay, despite the strict legislation in Europe and America, I have never once been questioned by any law enforcement body about anything I have ever written or said.

I have challenged my detractors and those who call me a ‘racist’ and an ‘anti-Semite’ to point out where I have referred critically to Jews or anyone else as a ‘race,’ ‘ethnicity’ or ‘biology.’ I have vowed that if such evidence appears I will issue an apology and never write again. Yet no such reference has ever been put in front of me or anywhere else. Instead, I criticise Jewish ideology, culture and ID politics because I believe that ideologies, cultures and politics must be subject to debate and criticism!

I will keep doing this as long as the law in Britain allows. If this changes, I will either impose silence on myself, or leave London and move to a slightly freer city, perhaps Moscow or Teheran.

In case you want to support my legal costs

]
See Also

Like this:

Filed under: Britain, Freedom of Speach, Identity Politics, Iran, Russia | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Being Ordinary

‘Orthodox Judaism Is a Religion of Lying and Deceit’ – The Saker Interviews Michael Hoffman

Posted on by michaellee2009

The Saker Interviews Michael Hoffman

An excellent and very important interview.

Note from RI Editor Charles Bausman. While researching my February 2018 article, It’s Time to Drop the Jew Taboo, I also came across the works of Michael Hoffman, and read one of his books, ‘Judaism’s Strange Gods‘, and like the Saker, came to the conclusion that Hoffmann has performed a huge service with his academic work. This is an excellent and important interview. I hope it is released in audio format. Many thanks to the Saker for the huge amount of work involved in publishing a long interview like this.


Introduction by the Saker: I have always had a passion for theology in general and the studies of religions in general. Several years ago I discovered, quite by chance, a book written by Michael A. Hoffman II entitled Judaism’s Strange Gods which I found most interesting and thought provoking.

Reading that book, I felt that I wanted to find out much more and I ended up ordering and reading Michael A. Hoffman II’s magnum opus Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit which absolutely amazed me: over 1000 pages packed with information, sources and most interesting analyses. Needless to say, the book was also very controversial and elicited all sorts of negative reactions from various reviewers.

Here I need to immediately begin by a disclaimer: while the topic of “Rabbinical Phariseism” (modern “Judaism” should be called something like “Rabbinical Phariseism” since all modern Judaic denomination are descendants of the sect of the Pharisees; furthermore, this religion is dramatically different from the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: it is the religion of Maimonides, Karo, Luria and others) has always fascinated me and while I do have a graduate degree in theology, I am absolutely not qualified to endorse or refute the views of Hoffman.

What I can say is that his books are very well written, well researched, fully sourced and that I see no contradictions between what he wrote and the little I personally know about this topic. As for his critique of the religion of the Rabbinical Pharisees (from which all form of modern “Orthodox Judaism” stem from), it is not “racist” in any way: unlike ethnicity, a religion is a personal choice and thus a legitimate target for scrutiny and criticism and Hoffman’s condemnation of Rabbinical Phariseism is in no way harsher than the writings of Church Fathers like Saint Justin Martyr, Saint John Chrysostome, Saint Cyprian of Carthage or Saint Ephrem the Syrian.

Hoffman recently published another amazing book, the 700 pages long “The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome” which I began reading (I am about 1/3rd through) with, again, rapt interest. Yet again, here was a very well researched and beautifully controversial book which gave me as strong desire to speak with the author and, luckily for me, Michael A. Hoffman II has kindly agree to replies to my questions to him on his life and research. The following is the full unedited Q&A with I had with him.

* * *

The Saker: I am absolutely amazed at the width and depth of your research – could you please introduce yourself and then tell us how and where you acquired such a deep knowledge of topics which are almost never discussed nowadays and which the general public is almost totally unaware of? Do you have formal degrees in theology or history, or are you self-taught? What made you decide to spend so much time and effort deeply delving into topics which are often considered obscure, arcane if not completely irrelevant by most of our contemporaries?

Hoffman: My maternal grandfather Joseph Palace, with whom I had many discussions in my youth, was an amateur revisionist historian. He had been a successful businessman and seemed to have inside information about national events. He somehow knew in November 1960 that Joe Kennedy had bought the Chicago-area votes that helped swing the presidential election to his son Jack. He introduced me to other anomalies of history.

I attended college in my native New York in the early 1970s when the country was being torn apart by the Vietnam War and the change-of-era time. Because I majored in political science and history, I was often at odds with many of my liberal professors—not due to their Leftism, but their tunnel vision and abhorrence of dissenting ideas, in spite of posing as dissenters.

I was fortunate to find a few professors who were honest academics, particularly Francis J.M. O’Laughlin at Hobart College, and my Palestinian professor at the State University of New York at Oswego, Faiz Abu-Jaber. The latter repeatedly urged me to research the history of Freemasonry in upstate New York, where America’s great anti-masonic revolt was ignited after Masons murdered William Morgan in 1826. The result was my 1978 pamphlet, Masonic Assassination.

I left the university and drifted around the country doing manual labor on farms and as a longshoreman. Further into the 1970s I was writing for obscure publications like Fortean Times, where I became a columnist, and working as a reporter at radio stations, including one station that was an ABC News affiliate. I also began writing for the wire service of the NY bureau of the Associated Press (AP). Eventually I was hired by Willis Carto to write a column for his paleo-conservative Spotlight newspaper, which in 1979 had nearly 400,000 readers.

As a Spotlight reporter I covered the spectacular “Holocaust” show trial of German-Canadian activist Ernst Zündel in 1985 in Toronto, Canada and wrote a book about it, which was published by the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) in California, where I became assistant director. The trial took nine weeks and in the course of it I became acquainted with Zündel’s defense team and witnesses, among them revisionist historians like Robert Faurisson and David Irving, and German veterans of Word War II, from a grunt who drove a tank in Rommel’s Afrika Corps, to General Otto Ernst Remer, the commander of Berlin when the attempt was made on Hitler’s life.

In the 1990s some of my books started to take off in term of sales, including They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America, and in 2001, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare. I have been privileged ever since to lead the precarious life of an unaffiliated professional historian, while sometimes moonlighting as a copy editor for mainstream publications in the U.S.

The Saker: Clearly, when you began writing your books you must have been acutely aware that this would get you all sorts of ugly personal attacks and accusations – yet you went ahead and, far from being silenced, you continued to publish book after book and now, after having taken on Rabbinical Phariseeism, your latest book reveals an amazing level of depravity and heresy in the Latin Church (another misnomer since the “Roman Catholic” Church is neither “Roman” nor “Catholic” in the sense of “universal) since at least the Italian Quattrocento (15th century), many centuries before the First or Second Vatican Councils.

In this latest book you are even committing a sort of “thoughtcrime of thoughtcrimes” and denouncing the very strong collusion between Judaic black magic (especially in the form of its kabbalistic teachings) and the top Latin theologians and clergymen. What is your motivation in unearthing all these most interesting, but also long-forgotten, events and what gives you the courage to take on such powerful institution as organized Jewry and the Vatican? What are you trying to achieve, whom are you writing for, what gives you such courage and energy?

Hoffman: My family heritage is one of asking questions about everything. This for me is a normal state of mind — siding with the underdog, questioning authority. If you couple that with a burning curiosity, a desire to learn everything and to gain forbidden knowledge, then when one encounters a hint that white people in British America might have been chattel slaves on 17th century sugar and tobacco plantations, one experiences an insatiable hunger for knowledge in that realm, and if the information has been mostly suppressed, then the hunt becomes all the more compelling.

Some Orthodox Judaic people have a derogatory phrase they employ concerning those who abandon Judaism. They say that those who leave are “chozrim b’she’ela” which denotes, “returning to questioning.” In my view this is a left-handed compliment since it is the mission of the independent, ennobled human mind to always return to questioning.

You mentioned “organized Jewry.” I don’t see myself as taking on “Jewry” per se. Orthodox Judaism, yes. Israeli Zionism, yes. But since both of those institutions are at their core fundamentally anti-Judaic, I view my work as an expression of love for Judaic people and as a conduit for their liberation.

A prime source of Jew hate is Talmudism itself, which oppressively tyrannizes and micromanages the lives of Judaics born through no fault of their own, into its psychic prison, while Israeli Zionism imprisons Judaics in a permanent war footing with the indigenous people of the Middle East. To free Judaic persons from these two prisons is an act of compassion and charity. We should never forget that our work is pro-Judaic. It is the Talmudic and Kabbalistic rabbis and Zionists who are putting Judaic people on the road to ruin.

The Saker: Now, turning to your books on Rabbinical Phariseism, could you please summarize the main theses of your books on this topic? What is, in your opinion, the true nature of Rabbinical Phariseism, what are its core tenets/beliefs? What would you say to an average person are the myths and realities about what is referred to as “Judaism” in our society?

Hoffman: Orthodox Judaism, which is the scion of the religion of the ancient Pharisees, is above all, self-worship, and pride is the paramount destroyer. In the occult scheme of things, the ideology closest to it was Hitler’s National Socialism, in that it shares this predominant characteristic of pathological narcissism.

Christians and many other goyim (gentiles) have been deluded into imagining that Judaism, while being somewhat flawed due to rejecting Jesus, nonetheless manages to be an ethical religion reflective of the prophets of the Old Testament. Hillel, the first century A.D. Pharisee who is believed to have been a contemporary of Jesus, and Moses Maimonides (“Rambam”), the medieval philosopher and theologian, are most often held up as exemplars of this supposed ethical Judaism.

The myth of the benevolence of these two can only be sustained by ignorance. The problem is, that when a scholar begins to unearth facts that undermine pious media legends about men like Hillel and Maimonides, they enter “anti-Semitism” territory: if they dare to retail the truth, their ability to earn a living and keep their good name and reputation will be damaged, sometimes irreparably by the myth-makers who have the power to permanently stigmatize them as “haters and anti-Semites.”

I’m beyond those fears, so I can venture to say that Hillel offered theological grounds for the molestation of children and invented a “prozbul” escape clause for evading the Biblical command that no loan shall be in force more than seven years. Maimonides detested Jesus Christ with a volcanic hatred that led him in his writings to urge the murder of Christians when it is possible to do so without being detected. These facts are documented in my books Judaism Discoveredand Judaism’s Strange Gods.

Meanwhile, if you google “Hillel” or “Maimonides,” or you consult Wikipedia, you’ll find them described in terms of saccharine sainthood and humanitarian benevolence.

Orthodox Judaism, I regret to say, is a religion of lying and deceit. Duplicity and mendacity are formally inculcated. They are not incidental. There isn’t even a great deal of trust among Talmudists themselves. Witness what Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, one time head of the reconstituted Sanhedrin in Tiberias, and premier translator of the Babylonian Talmud, has pronounced on this matter:

“Rabbis are liable to alter their words, and the accuracy of their statements is not to be relied upon.” (The Talmud: The Steinsaltz Edition [Random House], Vol. II, pp. 48-49). In BT Yevamot 65b permission is given to lie “in the interests of peace,” a category so broad it is capable of serving as an alibi for countless situations in which scoundrels wish to conjure excuses for their falsehoods. There is also the general permission to lie to a gentile (BT Baba Kamma 113a).

These facts are not published in major media such as the New York Times. Yet the Times does not shy from insinuating that Shiite Islam is a religion of liars: “…there is a precedent for lying to protect the Shiite community…part of a Shiite historical concept called taqiyya, or religious dissembling.” (New York Times, April 14, 2012, p. A4).

Another defining theological aspect of Orthodox Judaism is its dogma that non-Jews are less than human. This is how the goyim are viewed in the Talmud and its sacred successor texts. In certain branches of Kabbalistic Judaism, such as the politically powerful and prominent Chabad-Lubavitch sect, their founder, Rabbi Shneur Zalman, formally promulgated the doctrine that goyim are not just less than human, they are non-human trash — “supernal refuse” — which is a reference to their Kabbalistic status as kelipot who possess “no redeeming qualities whatsoever.”

The Saker: My personal research has brought me to the conclusion ever since the recognition by Christ as the Messiah promised by the prophets of the Old Testament by one part of the first century Jews and the rejection of Him by the other part, the latter group began by developing an “anti-Christian scriptural toolkit” which included, of course, the forgery of the so-called Masoretic text, the development of the Talmud and the various commentaries, interpretations and codification of these texts.

The goal was to develop a “polemical arsenal” so to speak. At the same time, the first kabbalistic concepts were developed for the internal use inside the anti-Christian communities. Would you agree with this (admittedly summarized) description and would you then agree with my personal conclusion that Rabbinical Phariseeism is at its core simply a religion of “anti-Christianity”?

Hoffman: I think you’re correct up to the Renaissance, which is the point at which members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy including many popes, were secretly initiated into Kabbalistic mysticism. The belt of that transmission is chronicled in detail in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. Rabbinic Phariseeism is more than a religion opposed to Jesus for this reason: in its beginnings in the time before Christ, it had existence as a creed founded upon esoteric oral teachings that nullify the Bible itself.

Orthodox Judaism is an anti-Biblical religion. Yes, it has a “Moses” and a “Noah” as its patrons and it names other patriarchs too, but these are not the Moses and Noah of the Bible. These are radically falsified figures who bear those names. Pharisac Judaism is contemptuous of the Biblical Noah about whom, in the Midrash, it makes scurrilous claims. There is even contempt for Moses. About Isaiah, who said that Israel has filthy lips, the Talmud teaches that Isaiah was justly killed by having his mouth sawed in half for “blaspheming Israel.”

In both Left-wing New Age and Right-wing neo-Nazi circles, the heresy of Marcion is alive and well and the Old Testament is execrated. It is equated with the Talmud (most famously on the Right by Douglas Reed in The Controversy of Zion). The problem with that tack is that the Old Testament is absolutely not a book of self-worship of the Jews. It is radically different from the Babylonian Talmud. The Bible is an antidote to self-worship. The Old Testament excoriates Israelites in the strongest possible terms.

One notable instance of the Bible’s ego-deflation pertains directly to Jews (Judeans) in the person of the eponymous patriarch Judah. In Genesis chapter 38, Judah’s daughter-in-law Tamar disguises herself as a temple prostitute. Not knowing it is her, and thinking she is a votary of the Canaanite fertility goddess Astarte, Judah has sexual relations with her.

This was a horrendous transgression because in having sex with a cult prostitute one is having relations with a prostitute who seeks to channel the goddess by being possessed by her spirit. In this sexual act Judah would have been risking demonic possession himself.

Later in Genesis 38, when Judah seeks for the woman so as to pay her for her services, he asks the local people, “Where is the temple prostitute (the qedesha)?” Orthodox Judaism concocts fabrications to protect Judah’s reputation. Many Christian Bible translations influenced by rabbinic exegesis do something deceptively similar when they mistranslates Judah’s question as, “Where is the (common) prostitute (the zona)”?

That’s not the word Judah used in the Hebrew text. He didn’t ask after a simple zona. He asked of the whereabouts of a qedeshah. The Word of God in this scripture is teaching Israel, and specifically the tribe of Judah, not to become conceited regarding their lineage and genealogy because none other than their illustrious forefather and namesake, Judah, committed a perverted transgression.

Near the end of Genesis 38, Judah admits his hypocrisy and repents. Here the book of Genesis is imparting a very Christ-like Old Testament lesson about sinners, repentance and humility— which the Pharisaic rabbis in their arrogance, reject. In their Midrash on Genesis 38, they have the chutzpah to blame God for Judah having sex with a woman he believed to be a temple prostitute. They write, “Thus it is taught, ‘Judah would have never sinned with Tamar, but God sent the ‘angel of lust’ to tempt him to do so.” Nothing in the Bible supports this exculpatory allegation which blames God and renders Judah innocent of sin, since he was supposedly only doing God’s will.

Wherever there is the spirit of fanatical race pride, there is the spirit of the oral gnosis from which the Talmud, Midrash and similar authoritative rabbinic texts are derived.

To give another example, look at the language employed in Ezekiel 16:23-25. God says to Israel: “To crown your wickedness…declares the Lord Yahweh…At the entry of every alley…you opened your legs to all comers in countless acts of fornication. You have also fornicated with your big-membered neighbors, the Egyptians…you do not act like a proper prostitute because you disdain to take a fee…you bribe them to fornicate with you.”

A divine statement of such power, which mocks the Israelites for their immorality, is anathema to the Talmudic mentality, which is why the Talmud teaches that Yahweh is subservient to the rabbis, and they have the right to modify His divine law by means of situation ethics.

The Saker: I am often told that Zionism is secular and that its leaders were all secular, primarily, socialist, intellectuals and that there is no continuity between the small shtetls controlled by rabbis in eastern Europe and modern Israel because Zionism is essentially a Jewish version of 19th century European secular nationalism and, far from having its roots in Yiddish speaking religious communities, Zionism represents a secular emancipation from this self-enclosed and religion-centered world. What do you think, is there are continuity between modern “secular” Zionism (from Ahad Ha’am and Hertzl to modern Likudniks) and Pharisaic Judaism or not? And, if yes, could you please describe it?

Hoffman: The bridge between not only Talmudic Judaism and Zionism, but Bolshevism as well, is personified by Moses Hess, who Karl Marx termed, “My Communist rabbi.” Hess was not a rabbi in a formal sense, but he was enamored of the Talmud, as well as Communist and Zionist ideology. Hess recognized that what unites all three, their common bond, is Judaic self-worship.

The controversies and rivalries arise in the debate over which vehicle is best for the supremacy of the Judaic people over humanity: Judaism, Bolshevism or Zionism? Hess argued that depending on the zeitgeist, any one of the three would prove suitable.

Yes indeed, the founders of the Israeli state were secularists and Socialists who had little regard for the Talmud as a way of ordering the life of a modern nation. They viewed its code of conduct as a relic from a superstitious past. They were modern and “progressive.” Moreover, the pioneering Zionists had violated a fundamental tenet of Orthodox Judaism, which held that only the Messiah himself could initiate the founding of a reborn Israeli nation. Until the appearance of the Messiah, the Jews could not engage in armed struggle to achieve that end.

That was the view of the majority of Talmudic rabbis in 1948. Seventy years later it is the view of only a minority, mostly among certain Hasidic sects, such as the Satmar. Voila, in seven decades Orthodox Judaism has become a pillar of the Israeli state. The fanatical Israeli “settlers” are comprised of “religious Zionists.” The Talmud is their inspiration for using violence to steal what is left of Palestine in order to build “Eretz Israel.” How did this transformation occur?

Orthodox Judaism is a religion of situation ethics. There are few beliefs that are not negotiable. What is non-negotiable is the supremacy of the Judaic people and whatever aids that supremacy. Nothing else counts. Look at Gershom Scholem, the German-Israeli scholar who helped to bring the Kabbalah into respectability and prominence in the Israeli state.

Scholem and Judaic-American intellectual Hannah Arendt, the one-time girlfriend of German philosopher Martin Heidegger, had been friends in Paris before World War II. Arendt published a fair-minded book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, which infuriated Scholem. But not because she erred in her facts. He was incensed at her allegedly “heartless, downright malicious tone” regarding the Nazis’ mass murders of Judaics, and he cast aspersions on her in the pages ofEncounter magazine.

Arendt had transgressed, according to Scholem, because she had failed to write in deference to the supreme criterion that must be the idol of every Judaic person: “ahavath Israel” (“love for the Jews”). The truths that Arendt had written were utterly beside the point.

If it turns out that Zionism is the best vehicle in our time for advancing Judaic supremacy, then most of the gedolei (rabbinic elite) of Orthodox Judaism will continue to cooperate with it. In his novel Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens portrayed the Judaic arch-criminal Fagin donning innumerable costumes and disguises. Talmudism, Bolshevism and Zionism are the garments that Judaic megalomania dons and discards as it marches through the corridors of time.

The Saker: In a recent article for the Unz Review entitled “A Crash Course on the True Causes of “Anti-Semitism” I posted a video of Bar-Hayim is an “Israeli Orthodox rabbi who heads the Shilo Institute (Machon Shilo), a Jerusalem-based rabbinical court and institute of Jewish education dedicated to the Torah of Israel”. Not a lightweight by any means who declared, among other things that: video time stamps indicated; see full video here:

My first question regarding this gentleman is simple: who authoritative do you consider him and how widespread are his views amongst “Orthodox” Judaics? How close are his idea to the current mainstream of Orthodox/Hasidic “Judaism?

Hoffman: I wouldn’t know the status of this particular rabbi in the Israeli state. The situation is in turmoil at present in terms of halachic authorities because there are competing religious bodies. There is disarray even in the headquarters of the chief rabbinate. The last Ashkenazi “Chief Rabbi of Israel,” Yona Metzger, is currently serving a prison sentence for theft and bribery.

Another source of tumult is the heated controversy over the conversion to Judaism performed by Orthodox Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of the storied East Side synagogue in Manhattan, which was rejected by an Israeli rabbinic court, which invalidated the conversion of the (unnamed) woman and blocked her from marrying in an Orthodox ceremony in the Israeli state. This was a shock because it cast some doubt on another conversion performed by Lookstein— of Ivanka Trump.

Judaic unity is only possible due to an external threat like Jew hate. If there was virtually no hatred for Judaics, and Jesus’ injunction to love one’s enemies actually was practiced, there would be civil war inside the ranks of Talmudists and Zionists, which is one reason why Zionists have been caught covertly directing neo-Nazism, as for example in Canada in the 1960s and ‘70s as documented by Paul Fromm and Ron Gostick. The Stasi East German Communist secret police meanwhile, under the Judaic Markus Wolf, chief of the foreign intelligence branch, are known to have backed neo-Nazi groups in West Germany.

Here in the U.S. it’s sometimes the case when Palestinians are gaining sympathy, or Israeli perfidy comes to the fore (as in the Jonathan Pollard espionage scandal), a dozen or so jerks with swastika armbands will assemble as if on cue, in some major American city, and virtually overnight the media are once again saturating America with the “Holocaust” narrative, and whatever Israeli scandal or Palestinian tribulation had managed to gain some notoriety, is lost in the agit-prop.

Returning to the candid statements attributed to this rabbi Bar Hayim — they are all accurate. Perhaps he’s been reading Judaism Discovered? He may be a renegade among rabbis, or on the other hand, he may be an astute Kabbalist engaged in a type of sophisticated psychological warfare known as the “Revelation of the Method.”

It can be briefly explained as follows: at midnight on the clock of destiny in this eschaton, the goyim have been sufficiently processed and conditioned to such an extent that the criminals who have been oppressing them for centuries are now in a position to reveal to their victims what they have perpetrated against them, in the expectation that the victims are so depleted spiritually they will not respond proactively to the revelation. In the wake of the revelation if the passivity of the goyim continues, their psychological conditioning and enslavement increases exponentially.

Rabbi Bar Hayim could never divulge these truths to medieval Catholic peasants. There would be hell to pay. I suppose that if his revelations were to become better known in a country like Poland, which most closely approximates in our time a living Catholic faith among the masses at the parish level, there might yet be severe repercussions. But in Britain, Europe, Canada and the United States these truths are met with a collective shrug of apathy and paralysis, which serves to escalate the rate of our moral and psychological deterioration.

As far as how widespread are the teachings of Orthodox Judaism? I would say it depends on whether the Judaics are living in shetl-like conditions in Mea Shearim in Jerusalem, or more freely in a place like Los Angeles. To what extent has their education been at a yeshiva? The process of inculcating the Talmudic mentality is both cultural and pedagogic. I surmise that at the very least, the majority of adult males in Orthodox Judaism have a sense of their own superiority over the goyim, and will treat them unfairly when it is to their advantage and they can do so with impunity.

In the Israeli state, the one place on earth where Zionists have nearly complete power, how do the goyim fare? Would you like to be a Palestinian residing in Gaza, or even east Jerusalem for that matter? This is the fate of any subject population in any nation where Zionists or Orthodox rabbis possess something approximating total power.

The Saker: I would now like to touch upon the so-called “Noahide Laws” [listed by “Rambam” (Maimonides) as: prohibition of idolatry, blasphemy, homicide, of sexual immorality, of theft, on (eating) a limb of a living creature and the imperative of legal system] and I would focus on the first one: idolatry. Rabbi David Bar-Hayim explains that it refers to “Avodah Zarah” or “foreign worship”. Modern Judaics explain that Christianity is a “special type of avodah zarah is forbidden to Jews but permissible to gentiles, so that a non-Jew who engages in Christian worship commits no sin”.

Hoffman: Thank you for making me laugh. I’ve had a difficult day so the mirth is welcome. They want us to believe that Chazal (the supreme sages of the founding era of the Mishnah and Gemara), issued a decree stating that idolatry is forbidden to the Jews, but permissible to gentiles who worship the hated Jesus? Whoever believes that, I have a mountain here in Idaho that I will sell them at a discount.

You mentioned Moses Maimonides. He is the principal halachic authority in Ashkenazi Judaism. He wrote in his Avodat Kochavim (chapter 10): “Show no mercy to a non-Jew.” In this same volume, which comprises part of his magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides decreed: “It is a mitzvah (religious duty pleasing to God) to destroy Jewish traitors, minim and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos and their students. May the name of the wicked rot.”

The words min and minim have been explained away as denoting “idolaters, akum,” wayward heretical Judaics, and other villains. The authoritative Shulchan Aruchhowever, pinpoints the source of the words min and minim to rabbinic wordplay on a description ascribed to Christians, “the faithful.” To mock the Christians, the rabbis of the Talmud took to calling them “sorts” as in “all sorts of malefactors.”

Min and the plural form minim are therefore primarily references to Christians, while Tzadok and Baithos are examples of apikorsim, i.e. opponents of the Talmud. Min and minim are references to both Judaic and non-Judaic Christians. There is indeed, admittedly, a more intense detestation of Judaic people who convert to Christianity, in that they may be classed in other penal categories such as rodef (“pursuer”) and moser(“informant”).

The notion that gentile Christians are exempt from being treated as idolaters under the Noahide Laws, is shown to be demonstrably false in Hilchot Avodah Zara 9:4, where Maimonides states without qualification of any kind, that Christianity constitutes avodah zara, the worship of a false god. Let the apologists for Orthodox Judaism show us where in the Mishnah and Gemara, or in Rashi, the Mishneh Torah or the Shulchan Aruch, there is a dogma that the non-Judaic worshipers of Jesus Christ are not idolaters?

One whole volume of the Babylonian Talmud is devoted to the study of Avodah zara(idol worship). This tractate starts out discussing ways to cause non-Jews “distress.” For example, three days before the “idol-worshiping festivals” of Christmas and Easter, Rabbi Yehuda teaches that repayment of debts should be demanded from the goyim because it will cause them distress during their festive season (BT Avoda Zara 2a).

There’s a long section in tractate Avodah zara going over the details pertaining to goyim and the kashrut (kosher) status of wine. If goyim have unsupervised access to wine intended for Jews, then it can no longer be considered kashrut—the supposition being that the goyim poisoned or otherwise tainted the wine. There’s a hilarious passage where certain thieves come to the town of Pumbedita and open numerous barrels of wine. The sages of the Gemara consider whether the wine is contaminated by the thieves and therefore no longer kashrut. One sage relieves their anxiety. He tells them not to worry, “The wine is permitted. What is the reason? Most of the thieves in Pumbedita are Jews” (BT Avoda Zara 70a).

The Saker: Furthermore, can you explain why in the US these rabidly anti-Christian laws have been proclaimed as the “bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization” by both President Reagan and Congress? Jews are a small minority in the USA, and Orthodox/Hasidic Jews are a minority amongst US Jews – so who is behind such weird and yet very official proclamations?! Is this the result of lobbying by the so-called “Christian Zionists”?

Hoffman: I will answer from the New Testament. “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truthand so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion so that they may believe a lie, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (II Thessalonians 2:9).

Americans have an insufficient love for vital truths and it is God Himself who permits them to be seriously deluded as a result of their indifference. The stuff that the denizens of Churchianity such as Vice-President Mike Pence believe about “Israel” (more properly termed “counterfeit Israel”), is a curse on Pence and the nation in which he is a government leader.

Mr. Pence and his fellow “evangelicals” make themselves believe that the religion whose holiest book places Jesus in hell being eternally boiled in hot excrement (BT Gittin 57A; cf. https://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2018/03/farrakhans-defense-of-jesus-against.html ), is the apple of God’s eye. They take pleasure in being on the side of the powerful; the truth be damned. There’s a price to pay for that level of degeneracy and it is God who imposes it. The double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.

The “patriotic” wars America has waged from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq, have added to the grievous woes of this world. The Deep State inside the U.S. government, which we fund with our taxes and which has our nation sunk in a trillion dollars in debt, is our formidable enemy. These indicators of decline and others even worse, like the opioid and methamphetamine epidemic of addiction, are the price America pays for its indifference to truth—we prefer situation ethics—and by that yardstick, objectively we are already Talmudists.

The Saker: In your books you explain that the primary book studied by Judaics is not what Christians call the Old Testament, but the Talmud. Yet even in the Talmud there are numerous references to the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). Do you think that most rabbis sincerely believe in the “official” characterization of Christ as a “magician” and “blasphemer” who was sentenced to death for his blasphemies, or have they rejected Christ because He, from their point of view, did not fulfill what they saw as God’s promise to the Jewish people, an earthly kingdom and, instead, gave to the “nations” (goyim) the world he has promised the Jews? Could it be that in their mysticism, the rabbis deliberately reject God’s Messiah and try put themselves into His place?

Hoffman: It’s difficult to say which path is taken among the majority, but both lead to the same destination: execration of the Gospel, which is often obstructed as much by internal subversion by Talmudic and Zionist agents within the churches, as from hostile forces external to it. The capture of the papacy in the 16th century was a watershed in this regard. This profound secret is contested by those who reply, “But the popes burned the Talmud!” Like the history of the enslavement of whites in early America, our rejoinder is, to which century are you referring?

The experience of whites in bondage in the 17th century resembled in many cases chattel slavery. By the early 19th century that experience was almost entirely that of indentured servitude, although the whip smarted no less when it struck Andrew Johnson, future Vice-President of the United States, for whom a reward was offered and a wanted poster issued when he ran away to Tennessee to escape his bondage in North Carolina.

In the history of the Catholic Church, if the reference is to the incineration of Talmud manuscripts in the medieval era, for example in the wake of the Paris Disputation in the 13th century, in which Nicholas Donin, an eminent Judaic convert to Christianity, debated and defeated the rabbis in the presence of the monarchs of France, on the contested subject of the Babylonian Talmud’s malice toward Christ—then truly that burning was a sincere effort to eradicate it.

In the papal 16th century however, the token burning of the Talmud authorized by the popes was almost entirely for theatrical effect. In The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome we demonstrate that it was the papacy which supported the printing (and circulation) of the finest edition of the Talmud ever published in recorded history, the magnificent Bomberg edition (1519-1523), which it is fair to say permanently rescued the Talmud from the possibility of extinction.

The only book more sacred to the pontiffs of the Renaissance was the Kabbalah, and we document an instance when, as part of a clever ruse worthy of the Mossad, agents of the papacy (led by Sixtus of Siena) burned the Talmud in order to distract from a rescue operation they mounted in Cremona to save copies of the Kabbalistic Zohar that had been printed by the Catholic publisher Vincenzo Conti. Sixtus of Siena’s patron and protector was Cardinal Michele Ghisleri, who as Pope Pius V would help inspire the the forces that defeated the Turks at the naval battle of Lepanto.

At this juncture we ask an inconvenient question: which is more damaging — the invasion of Europe by the Turks—or the invasion of the minds and souls of the Catholic intellectual elite by the Kabbalah? Renaissance (and post-Renaissance) Rome’s duplicity is of a depth that is more than most people can imagine, and having an insufficient love for the truth, they cling to the legends they have imbibed rather than the harsh reality that the documentary record imparts.

For the Messiah-rejecting Judaics, it’s an axiom among paleo-conservatives that the Leo Strauss school of Neoconservatism is its own messiah. You see this messianism in their secular sphere of action. Look at the headline on p. A12 of the New York Times of February 27, 2003, just days before George W. Bush invaded Iraq: “Israel Says War on Iraq Would Benefit the Region.”

The Times wrote: “Israelis are now putting…hopes in an American war on Iraq…‘The shock waves emerging from post-Saddam Baghdad could have wide-ranging effects in Tehran, Damascus, and in Ramallah,’ Efraim Halevy, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s national security adviser, said in a speech in Munich this month….Until recently, Mr. Halevy was the chief of the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency. He said, ‘We have hopes of greater stability, greater enhanced confidence from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic shores of Morocco.’

“Israelis have also suggested that that an Iraq war may salvage their economy…Mark Heller, a senior researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, said the potential engine for change would be the example of a transformed Iraq. ‘It’s at least conceivable that Al Jazeera will end up showing pictures of Iraqis celebrating in the streets, in which case people in other places like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to start saying, ‘If Iraqis deserve decent government, so do we.”

This is the utopian stupidity the Israelis sold to the Americans. The Zionists and Talmudists are their own messiah and they will, at any cost in human life and material treasure, seek to “perfect” the world in pursuit of their messianic utopia. Megalomaniacs don’t learn from their mistakes, even when they are catastrophic blunders. Bill Kristol will maintain his trademark smirk no matter the consequences of his own derangement.

The only post-war “celebrating in the streets” the Iraqis did was in 2008 when the intrepid journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi attended a Baghdad news conference where President Bush was speaking, touting the allegedly marvelous achievements of the U.S. invasion. Zaidi threw his shoes at Bush, shouting, “This is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog.

This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq.” Guards tackled Zaidi. He was beaten in jail and sentenced to three years in prison (he served nine months). Zaidi’s insult to Bush made him a celebrated hero in the Arab world.

But is there more to it? Is there an occult side? Here’s the data, draw your own conclusions: the Satanic character of traditional Judaism is not particularly difficult to discern if one adheres to the facts. The principal sacred text of the Kabbalah is the openly Satanic Zohar, which states the following: “Israel must make sacrifices to Satan so that he will leave Israel unmolested” (Zohar 2:33a). Also this: “The evil impulse is good, and without the evil impulse Israel cannot prevail in the world” (Zohar 1:61a).

These are appalling statements in a sacred book revered by the most politically influential rabbinic organization in America, Chabad-Lubavitch. I wish I could say they are anti-Semitic fabrications, but they are not. I can xerox them for you, with their context intact, from the edition of the Zohar published by Stanford University. Palestinians and goyim in general have the right and duty to assess the impact of this demonic Kabbalism in light of events in the Middle East and de facto Zionist control of the White House and Congress.

At first glance, it’s a seemingly lurid, even crackpot question to pose: was the Iraq War one of the Kabbalistic sacrifices which “Israel” must make to Satan, as the Zohar counsels? In the interests of justice and the advancement of knowledge, the question should be asked, and the Zohar should be studied (in the uncensored Pritzker edition from Stanford), in pursuit of an answer. The Zionist-instigated Iraq invasion took the lives of approximately a quarter-million Iraqis and 4,000 American youth.

The fact that America fought the Iraq war for so-called “Israel” is slammed as a “virulent anti-Semitic fabrication.” But we have only to read the Times of February 27, 2003 to learn that the Israelis virtually lusted for the U.S. to invade, while pushing a boatload of nonsense with which to persuade the collective American golem of the prudence of their messianic Neocon mission.

To address the other part of your question, yes, the Old Testament is the prestigious prop that Orthodox Judaism wears emblazoned upon its public escutcheon. But as Jesus declared in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, the Pharisees nullify the Word of God while adhering to their own “traditions of men.” They call it “Torah” but it is really only their anthropomorphic oral law (Torah she’beal peh), later committed to writing after their rejection of the Messiah of Israel, beginning with the Mishnah.

The only authentic Torah of Yahweh is the written Torah (Torah she’bich tav)—the Pentateuch of Moses. It’s perverse that sola Scriptura “evangelical” Protestants delude themselves into imagining that the Pharisaic Judaism that concocted two diametrically opposed Torahs, is of God.

They criticize Roman Catholic and Greek and Russian Orthodox Christians for giving authority to apostolic tradition, yet they claim that God is in love with the religion that is predicated on the authority of a bogus oral “Torah,” which Jesus repeatedly refuted and chastised in His confrontations with the Pharisees.

The Saker: I want to ask your opinion about two very different movements: first, the Karaites, who say that they reject the Talmud and “Rabbinical Judaism” and of Neturei Karta which are Haredi, but who vocally oppose the state of Israel and secular Zionism.

In the Russian Empire the Karaites petitioned the Czar in order not to be considered as “Jews” and that their petition was accepted. I was also recently told by a friend that Nazi Germany also did not consider Karaites as Jews. And yet, as far as I know, and please correct me if I am wrong, the State of Israel considers them as “Jews”.

But since they reject the Talmud, would that not make them apikorsim-traitors? How would you characterize the Karaites? What about the Neturei Karta? They reject the state of Israel, yet they live there, even in Jerusalem’s Meah Shearim quarter. But they travel to anti-Zionist conferences, even to Iran, and have met with the Iranian President. How do they escape being condemned as traitors or moser-informants? How different are they, in your opinion, from the other Haredi?

Hoffman: Karaites are the Judaics that Christians imagine Orthodox Judaism to be: an Old Testament-only religion. The Karaites were contemptuous of the rabbis of the Talmud for masquerading as the avatars of the Old Testament. They were cruelly persecuted by the rabbis in turn.

Karaites have sometimes served to assist Christian scholars in discovering and parsing recondite rabbinic texts. Historically they have exhibited scant devotion to Judaic racial-nationalism. In the past 20 years or so however, some Karaite groups have accommodated themselves to Zionism and to a Judaic racial identity which would have been anathema to their forefathers.

No doubt the Tsars had the good sense to differentiate between Karaites and Talmudic Orthodox Judaism. I have heard the rumor about the Nazis and until I see the documentation, I don’t believe it. Adolf Hitler was driven by a Helena Blavatsky-type of occult Jew hate, which he acquired through Dietrich Eckart and others in Eckart’s milieu. Hence, Hitler viewed Judaic people the way Orthodox rabbis view goyim: as irredeemably evil, without regard to mitigating factors such as whether or not they were Karaites.

Many illustrious and sincere Judaic converts to Catholicism for instance, were nonetheless rounded up by the Nazis and died in concentration camps, among them the theologian Edith Stein and the author Irène Némirovsky (whose novel David Golder is now considered anti-Semitic).

The Nazis rather mysteriously liquidated stalwart activists and publishers like the Polish priest Maximilian Kolbe, whose educational work had resulted in massive public revulsion toward Judaism and Freemasonry. Kolbe headed a Catholic publishing empire dedicated to revealing the perfidy of Talmudic rabbis and Freemasons. What was he doing interned in Auschwitz? From the information we have seen, Karaites enjoyed no special immunity from Nazi persecution or extrusion, unless there were individual acts of mercy on the part of German personnel lower down in the chain of command.

The Israeli state is replete with apikorsim and in fact was founded by them, as we have said. In “Israel” in 2018 it remains largely a matter of indifference whether one is an atheist-Judaic, a Buddhist-Judaic or a Karaite-Judaic. If you were born of a Judaic mother you have the right to take up residence under the 1950 “Law of Return.”

As for the Neturei Karta, which is a very small group relative to other anti-Zionist “ultra-Orthodox” Hasidim such as the Satmar, they achieved fame (or infamy, depending on your perspective), when they participated in the “Holocaust” revisionist conference in Iran in December, 2006 and maintained friendly and supportive relations with the revisionists who were present.

Another anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox group, the Eda Haredit community, are of interest, in part because they are offshoots of the more substantial Hasidic sects like Toldot Aharon and Satmar, and less prone to engage in publicity stunts, yet they cause headaches for the Israeli government.

These groups are the heirs to the “old Yishuv” — the Talmudic community that resided relatively peacefully side by side with the Arabs in Palestine, before the conquest by Britain and the Zionists. They don’t accept Israeli government welfare payments or the National Insurance program. Most contentious of all, they despise the Israeli military and refuse to be conscripted. Eda Haredit members lynched an effigy of an Israeli soldier and hung it from a building in Jerusalem. They demonstrate in the streets against the draft and are beaten by Israeli police and soldiers.

Dozens of them are in prison. They can’t obtain a passport until they reach 35-years-of-age — the age at which subjection to the draft ends. They are viciously attacked by the majority of the Hasidim who favor Zionism, such as in the pages of the influential Talmudic newspaper Yated Ne’eman.

In sum, yes, they are courageous dissidents vis a vis secular Israeli society and the mainstream of the modern Orthodox and Hasidic movements.

However, if we revert back to the time before the founding of the Israeli entity, all of these groups — Neturei Karta, Satmar, Eda Haredit and their progenitors, detested Jesus, obstructed Christians, oppressed their adherents by micromanaging their lives, practiced the arts of deception and theft, and are suspected of widespread child molestation based on the halacha which permits sex with children under a certain age (for boys it is below the age of nine). The relevant Babylonian Talmud tractate shows that this permission to molest young boys is granted:

“The law is in accordance with the ruling of Rav….Rav says, ‘…the Torah does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old to be like the intercourse of one who is at least nine years old, as for a male’s act of intercourse to have the legal status of full-fledged intercourse the minimum age is nine years…if a child who is less than nine years old engages in homosexual intercourse passively, the one who engaged in intercourse with him is not liable” (BT Sanhedrin 54b).

This is plainly criminal and inhuman. Outside of Tantric Hinduism and the Church of Satan, we can think of no other religion which formally renders such abominable predation permissible. Consequently, in terms of the rehabilitation of their image, if they continue with their allegiance to Talmudic and post Talmudic halacha of the horrendously foul nature we find in Sanhedrin 54b, it matters not to a Christian whether a few Hasidic sects are implacably opposed to Zionism and the Israeli state. Their anti-Zionism does not absolve them of their other transgressions. They remain an offense to God and man.

The Saker: I have many secular Jewish friends, some who are somewhat aware of the kind of issues you have raised in your replies (those with at a least basic religious education), but most of them are totally oblivious to these facts. For example, they would dismiss the Hasidic rabbis and their followers as irrelevant nutcases and – correctly – point out that there are plenty of genocidal maniacs in other religions too!). In fact, many of them would very strongly suspect that those who, like you, raise these issues, of harboring strong anti-Jewish motives. There is, after all, a secular Jewish identity, at least since the 19th century, which is strongly based on the cultural aspects of “Rabbinical Judaism.”

Hoffman: On what basis can this writer be accused of “harboring strong anti-Jewish motives”? This monotonous jargon does not impress. Reckless accusations founded on nothing more than a morally superior interlocutor’s ignorant presumption that any rigorously critical study of Orthodox Judaism is hateful, does not call forth a response, other than pity.

We would laugh out of consideration an Italian who came forward to announce that the articulation of harsh truths about the papacy was evidence of harboring strong anti-Italian motives. Here is the only standard that matters: res ipsa loquitur. The facts speak for themselves.

Who are these self-described “Jews” for whom the pidyon shevuyim (redemption of the captive) means nothing? What are their credentials for passing judgments on the accuracy of our research or the purity of our motives? Are they scholars? Clairvoyants?

If they “dismiss” the Hasidic rabbis as inconsequential “nutcases,” perhaps your secular Judaic friends may wish to look closer at the identity of the personnel holding many top ministerial posts in the cabinet of Binyamin Netanyahu, and influencing the United States government through the efforts of Chabad-Lubavitch and Agudath Israel of America. Maybe they will condescend to take a peek at demographic statistics showing that the strictly Orthodox are the fastest-growing Judaic population in the Israeli state and the United States.

Furthermore, throughout our conversation I have made reference to Orthodox Judaism without limiting myself to Hasidim. The “modern Orthodox” as they are known, to distinguish them from Hasidim, are heirs to the zealous Talmudism that pre-existed Hasidism (which arose in the 18th century).

They number in their ranks Jared Kushner, Steven Spielberg, former Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and tens of thousands of other movers-and-shakers in government, business and media. The modern Orthodox operate Yeshiva University in New York, which includes the prestigious Cardozo School of Law, whose graduates often become elite government and corporate attorneys and staff powerful non-governmental agencies such as the ADL. “Irrelevant nutcases”?

The Saker: I always try to explain that, unlike ethnicity, religion in a choice and thus a legitimate target for scrutiny and criticism and my secular Jewish friends accept that on a logical level, but on an emotional level they still feel like something dear to them is being attacked. How do you deal with that?

How do we, by even raising these topics, avoid pushing our non-Haredi or, at least, non-Orthodox, Jewish friends or readers to “circle the wagons” with the hardcore Haredi? What do you think is the best strategy to completely separate issues of ethnicity/culture with specific issues of faith/religion?

Hoffman: If accurate scholarship pushes these supposedly confirmed secularists into the ranks of the religious-fanatic Hasidim (“Haredi”), then they must take the consequences of the choices they make. If our study of early modern papalism in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome were to cause a defensive over-reaction on the part of nominal Catholics, who then swore fealty to the ultramontane extremes of popery, how would anyone overcome folly like that, made by one’s own free will? There is a Yiddish proverb: “A shpigl ken oykh zayn der grester farfirer.” (“A mirror can also be the biggest deceiver”).

The Saker: thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my questions!


Historian Michael Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York Bureau of the Associated Press and the author of nine books of history and literature. These include Judaism Discovered, as well as Judaism’s Strange Gods; Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not; The Great Holocaust Trial; Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, and his latest, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. These volumes are available from Hoffman’s online store. Hoffman is the editor of Revisionist History® newsletter (https://truthfulhistory), published six times a year. Website: www.RevisionistHistory.org


Source: Unz Review

 

Pingpong: Richard Forer vs. Gilad Atzmon

Posted on by samivesusu

June 04, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

In this talk Richard Forer and Gilad Atzmon engage in a lively back and forth discussion about identity politics, truth and  truthfulness in the context of Israel and Palestine.

This talk was recorded on May 12, 2018.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buT9msHzIgM

To Support Gilad’s Legal Defence Fund

In Case You Missed It: What Is Antisemitism?

Posted on by indigoblue76

By Michael Neumann

March 27, 2018 “Information Clearing House” – Every once in a while, some left-wing Jewish writer will take a deep breath, open up his (or her) great big heart, and tell us that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not antisemitism. Silently they congratulate themselves on their courage. With a little sigh, they suppress any twinge of concern that maybe the goyim–let alone the Arabs–can’t be trusted with this dangerous knowledge.

Sometimes it is gentile hangers-on, whose ethos if not their identity aspires to Jewishness, who take on this task. Not to be utterly risqué, they then hasten to remind us that antisemitism is nevertheless to be taken very seriously. That Israel, backed by a pronounced majority of Jews, happens to be waging a race war against the Palestinians is all the more reason we should be on our guard. Who knows? it might possibly stir up some resentment!

I take a different view. I think we should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues. I will argue for the truth of these claims; I also defend their propriety. I don’t think making them is on a par with pulling the wings off flies.

“Antisemitism”, properly and narrowly speaking, doesn’t mean hatred of semites; that is to confuse etymology with definition. It means hatred of Jews. But here, immediately, we come up against the venerable shell-game of Jewish identity: “Look! We’re a religion! No! a race! No! a cultural entity! Sorry–a religion!” When we tire of this game, we get suckered into another: “anti-Zionism is antisemitism! ” quickly alternates with: “Don’t confuse Zionism with Judaism! How dare you, you antisemite”

Well, let’s be good sports. Let’s try defining antisemitism as broadly as any supporter of Israel would ever want: antisemitism can be hatred of the Jewish race, or culture, or religion, or hatred of Zionism. Hatred, or dislike, or opposition, or slight unfriendliness.

But supporters of Israel won’t find this game as much fun as they expect. Inflating the meaning of ‘antisemitism’ to include anything politically damaging to Israel is a double-edged sword. It may be handy for smiting your enemies, but the problem is that definitional inflation, like any inflation, cheapens the currency. The more things get to count as antisemitic, the less awful antisemitism is going to sound. This happens because, while no one can stop you from inflating definitions, you still don’t control the facts. In particular, no definition of ‘antisemitism’ is going to eradicate the substantially pro-Palestinian version of the facts which I espouse, as do most people in Europe, a great many Israelis, and a growing number of North Americans.

What difference does that make? Suppose, for example, an Israeli rightist says that the settlements represent the pursuit of aspirations fundamental to the Jewish people, and to oppose the settlements is antisemitism. We might have to accept this claim; certainly it is difficult to refute. But we also cannot abandon the well-founded belief that the settlements strangle the Palestinian people and extinguish any hope of peace. So definitional acrobatics are all for nothing: we can only say, screw the fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people; the settlements are wrong. We must add that, since we are obliged to oppose the settlements, we are obliged to be antisemitic. Through definitional inflation, some form of ‘antisemitism’ has become morally obligatory.

It gets worse if anti-Zionism is labeled antisemitic, because the settlements, even if they do not represent fundamental aspirations of the Jewish people, are an entirely plausible extension of Zionism. To oppose them is indeed to be anti-Zionist, and therefore, by the stretched definition, antisemitic. The more antisemitism expands to include opposition to Israeli policies, the better it looks. Given the crimes to be laid at the feet of Zionism, there is another simple syllogism: anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is antisemitism, antisemitism is a moral obligation.

What crimes? Even most apologists for Israel have given up denying them, and merely hint that noticing them is a bit antisemitic. After all, Israel ‘is no worse than anyone else’. First, so what? At age six we knew that “everyone’s doing it” is no excuse; have we forgotten? Second, the crimes are no worse only when divorced from their purpose. Yes, other people have killed civilians, watched them die for want of medical care, destroyed their homes, ruined their crops, and used them as human shields. But Israel does these things to correct the inaccuracy of Israel Zangwill’s 1901 assertion that

“Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country”.

It hopes to create a land entirely empty of gentiles, an Arabia deserta in which Jewish children can laugh and play throughout a wasteland called peace.

Well before the Hitler era, Zionists came thousands of miles to dispossess people who had never done them the slightest harm, and whose very existence they contrived to ignore.

Zionist atrocities were not part of the initial plan. They emerged as the racist obliviousness of a persecuted people blossomed into the racial supremacist ideology of a persecuting one. That is why the commanders who directed the rapes, mulilations and child-killings of Deir Yassin went on to become prime ministers of Israel.(*) But these murders were not enough. Today, when Israel could have peace for the taking, it conducts another round of dispossession, slowly, deliberately making Palestine unliveable for Palestinians, and liveable for Jews. Its purpose is not defense or public order, but the extinction of a people. True, Israel has enough PR-savvy to eliminate them with an American rather than a Hitlerian level of violence. This is a kinder, gentler genocide that portrays its perpetrators as victims.

Israel is building a racial state, not a religious one. Like my parents, I have always been an atheist. I am entitled by the biology of my birth to Israeli citizenship; you, perhaps, are the most fervent believer in Judaism, but are not. Palestinians are being squeezed and killed for me, not for you. They are to be forced into Jordan, to perish in a civil war. So no, shooting Palestinian civilians is not like shooting Vietnamese or Chechen civilians. The Palestinians aren’t ‘collateral damage’ in a war against well-armed communist or separatist forces. They are being shot because Israel thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die, so people with one Jewish grandparent can build subdivisions on the rubble of their homes. This is not the bloody mistake of a blundering superpower but an emerging evil, the deliberate strategy of a state conceived in and dedicated to an increasingly vicious ethnic nationalism. It has relatively few corpses to its credit so far, but its nuclear weapons can kill perhaps 25 million people in a few hours.

Do we want to say it is antisemitic to accuse, not just the Israelis, but Jews generally of complicity in these crimes against humanity? Again, maybe not, because there is a quite reasonable case for such assertions. Compare them, for example, to the claim that Germans generally were complicit in such crimes. This never meant that every last German, man, woman, idiot and child, were guilty. It meant that most Germans were. Their guilt, of course, did not consist in shoving naked prisoners into gas chambers. It consisted in support for the people who planned such acts, or–as many overwrought, moralistic Jewish texts will tell you–for denying the horror unfolding around them, for failing to speak out and resist, for passive consent. Note that the extreme danger of any kind of active resistance is not supposed to be an excuse here.

Well, virtually no Jew is in any kind of danger from speaking out. And speaking out is the only sort of resistance required. If many Jews spoke out, it would have an enormous effect. But the overwhelming majority of Jews do not, and in the vast majority of cases, this is because they support Israel. Now perhaps the whole notion of collective responsibility should be discarded; perhaps some clever person will convince us that we have to do this. But at present, the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity. So if it is not racist, and reasonable, to say that the Germans were complicit in crimes against humanity, then it is not racist, and reasonable, to say the same of the Jews. And should the notion of collective responsibility be discarded, it would still be reasonable to say that many, perhaps most adult Jewish individuals support a state that commits war crimes, because that’s just true. So if saying these things is antisemitic, than it can be reasonable to be antisemitic.

In other words there is a choice to be made. You can use ‘antisemitism’ to fit your political agenda, or you can use it as a term of condemnation, but you can’t do both. If antisemitism is to stop coming out reasonable or moral, it has to be narrowly and unpolemically defined. It would be safe to confine antisemitism to explicitly racial hatred of Jews, to attacking people simply because they had been born Jewish. But it would be uselessly safe: even the Nazis did not claim to hate people simply because they had been born Jewish. They claimed to hate the Jews because they were out to dominate the Aryans.

Clearly such a view should count as antisemitic, whether it belongs to the cynical racists who concocted it or to the fools who swallowed it.

There is only one way to guarantee that the term “antisemitism” captures all and only bad acts or attitudes towards Jews. We have to start with what we can all agree are of that sort, and see that the term names all and only them. We probably share enough morality to do this.

For instance, we share enough morality to say that all racially based acts and hatreds are bad, so we can safely count them as antisemitic. But not all ‘hostility towards Jews’, even if that means hostility towards the overwhelming majority of Jews, should count as antisemitic. Nor should all hostility towards Judaism, or Jewish culture.

I, for example, grew up in Jewish culture and, like many people growing up in a culture, I have come to dislike it. But it is unwise to count my dislike as antisemitic, not because I am Jewish, but because it is harmless. Perhaps not utterly harmless: maybe, to some tiny extent, it will somehow encourage some of the harmful acts or attitudes we’d want to call antisemitic. But so what? Exaggerated philosemitism, which regards all Jews as brilliant warm and witty saints, might have the same effect. The dangers posed by my dislike are much too small to matter. Even widespread, collective loathing for a culture is normally harmless. French culture, for instance, seems to be widely disliked in North America, and no one, including the French, consider this some sort of racial crime.

Not even all acts and attitudes harmful to Jews generally should be considered antisemitic. Many people dislike American culture; some boycott American goods. Both the attitude and the acts may harm Americans generally, but there is nothing morally objectionable about either. Defining these acts as anti-Americanism will only mean that some anti-Americanism is perfectly acceptable. If you call opposition to Israeli policies antisemitic on the grounds that this opposition harms Jews generally, it will only mean that some antisemitism is equally acceptable.

If antisemitism is going to be a term of condemnation, then, it must apply beyond explicitly racist acts or thoughts or feelings. But it cannot apply beyond clearly unjustified and serious hostility to Jews. The Nazis made up historical fantasies to justify their attacks; so do modern antisemites who trust in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. So do the closet racists who complain about Jewish dominance of the economy. This is antisemitism in a narrow, negative sense of the word. It is action or propaganda designed to hurt Jews, not because of anything they could avoid doing, but because they are what they are. It also applies to the attitudes that propaganda tries to instill. Though not always explicitly racist, it involves racist motives and the intention to do real damage. Reasonably well-founded opposition to Israeli policies, even if that opposition hurts all Jews, does not fit this description. Neither does simple, harmless dislike of things Jewish.

So far, I’ve suggested that it’s best to narrow the definition of antisemitism so that no act can be both antisemitic and unobjectionable. But we can go further. Now that we’re through playing games, let’s ask about the role of *genuine*, bad antisemitism in the Israel-Palestine conflict, and in the world at large.

Undoubtedly there is genuine antisemitism in the Arab world: the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the myths about stealing the blood of gentile babies. This is utterly inexcusable. So was your failure to answer Aunt Bee’s last letter. In other words, it is one thing to be told: you must simply accept that antisemitism is evil; to do otherwise is to put yourself outside our moral world. But it is quite something else to have someone try to bully you into proclaiming that antisemitism is the Evil of Evils. We are not children learning morality; it is our responsibility to set our own moral priorities. We cannot do this by looking at horrible images from 1945 or listening to the anguished cries of suffering columnists. We have to ask how much harm antisemitism is doing, or is likely to do, not in the past, but today. And we must ask where such harm might occur, and why.

Supposedly there is great danger in the antisemitism of the Arab world. But Arab antisemitism isn’t the cause of Arab hostility towards Israel or even towards Jews. It is an effect. The progress of Arab antisemitism fits nicely with the progress of Jewish encroachment and Jewish atrocities. This is not to excuse genuine antisemitism; it is to trivialize it. It came to the Middle East with Zionism and it will abate when Zionism ceases to be an expansionist threat. Indeed its chief cause is not antisemitic propaganda but the decades-old, systematic and unrelenting efforts of Israel to implicate all Jews in its crimes. If Arab anti-semitism persists after a peace agreement, we can all get together and cluck about it. But it still won’t do Jews much actual harm. Arab governments could only lose by permitting attacks on their Jewish citizens; to do so would invite Israeli intervention. And there is little reason to expect such attacks to materialize: if all the horrors of Israel’s recent campaigns did not provoke them, it is hard to imagine what would. It would probably take some Israeli act so awful and so criminal as to overshadow the attacks themselves.

If antisemitism is likely to have terrible effects, it is far more likely to have them in Western Europe. The neo-fascist resurgence there is all too real. But is it a danger to Jews? There is no doubt that LePen, for instance, is antisemitic. There is also no evidence whatever that he intends to do anything about it. On the contrary, he makes every effort to pacify the Jews, and perhaps even enlist their help against his real targets, the ‘Arabs’. He would hardly be the first political figure to ally himself with people he disliked. But if he had some deeply hidden plan against the Jews, that *would* be unusual: Hitler and the Russian antisemitic rioters were wonderfully open about their intentions, and they didn’t court Jewish support. And it is a fact that some French Jews see LePen as a positive development or even an ally. (see, for instance, “`LePen is good for us,’ Jewish supporter says”, Ha’aretz May 04, 2002, and Mr. Goldenburg’s April 23rd comments on France TV.)

Of course there are historical reasons for fearing a horrendous attack on Jews. And anything is possible: there could be a massacre of Jews in Paris tomorrow, or of Algerians. Which is more likely? If there are any lessons of history, they must apply in roughly similar circumstances. Europe today bears very little resemblance to Europe in 1933. And there are positive possibilities as well: why is the likelihood of a pogrom greater than the likelihood that antisemitism will fade into ineffectual nastiness? Any legitimate worries must rest on some evidence that there really is a threat.

The incidence of antisemitic attacks might provide such evidence. But this evidence is consistently fudged: no distinction is made between attacks against Jewish monuments and symbols as opposed to actual attacks against Jews. In addition, so much is made of an increase in the frequency of attacks that the very low absolute level of attacks escapes attention. The symbolic attacks have indeed increased to significant absolute numbers. The physical attacks have not.(*) More important, most of these attacks are by Muslim residents: in other words, they come from a widely hated, vigorously policed and persecuted minority who don’t stand the slightest chance of undertaking a serious campaign of violence against Jews.

It is very unpleasant that roughly half a dozen Jews have been hospitalized–none killed–due to recent attacks across Europe. But anyone who makes this into one of the world’s important problems simply hasn’t looked at the world. These attacks are a matter for the police, not a reason why we should police ourselves and others to counter some deadly spiritual disease. That sort of reaction is appropriate only when racist attacks occur in societies indifferent or hostile to the minority attacked. Those who really care about recurrent Nazism, for instance, should save their anguished concern for the far bloodier, far more widely condoned attacks on gypsies, whose history of persecution is fully comparable to the Jewish past. The position of Jews is much closer to the position of whites, who are also, of course, the victims of racist attacks.

No doubt many people reject this sort of cold-blooded calculation. They will say that, with the past looming over us, even one antisemitic slur is a terrible thing, and its ugliness is not to be measured by a body count. But if we take a broader view of the matter, antisemitism becomes less, not more important. To regard any shedding of Jewish blood as a world-shattering calamity, one which defies all measurement and comparison, is racism, pure and simple; the valuing of one race’s blood over all others. The fact that Jews have been persecuted for centuries and suffered terribly half a century ago doesn’t wipe out the fact that in Europe today, Jews are insiders with far less to suffer and fear than many other ethnic groups. Certainly racist attacks against a well-off minority are just as evil as racist attacks against a poor and powerless minority. But equally evil attackers do not make for equally worrisome attacks.

It is not Jews who live most in the shadow of the concentration camp. LePen’s ‘transit camps’ are for ‘Arabs’, not Jews. And though there are politically significant parties containing many antisemites, not one of these parties shows any sign of articulating, much less implementing, an antisemitic agenda. Nor is there any particular reason to suppose that, once in power, they will change their tune. Haider’s Austria is not considered dangerous for Jews; neither was Tudjman’s Croatia. And were there to be such danger, well, a nuclear-armed Jewish state stands ready to welcome any refugees, as do the US and Canada. And to say there are no real dangers now is not to say that we should ignore any dangers that may arise. If in France, for instance, the Front National starts advocating transit camps for Jews, or institutes anti-Jewish immigration policies, then we should be alarmed. But we should not be alarmed that something alarming might just conceivably happen: there are far more alarming things going on than that!

One might reply that, if things are not more alarming, it is only because the Jews and others have been so vigilant in combatting antisemitism. But this isn’t plausible. For one thing, vigilance about antisemitism is a kind of tunnel vision: as neofascists are learning, they can escape notice by keeping quiet about Jews. For another, there has been no great danger to Jews even in traditionally antisemitic countries where the world is *not* vigilant, like Croatia or the Ukraine. Countries that get very little attention seem no more dangerous than countries that get a lot. As for the vigorous reaction to LePen in France, that seems to have a lot more to do with French revulsion at neofascism than with the scoldings of the Anti-Defamation League. To suppose that the Jewish organizations and earnest columnists who pounce on antisemitism are saving the world from disaster is like claiming that Bertrand Russell and the Quakers were all that saved us from nuclear war.

Now one might say: whatever the real dangers, these events are truly agonizing for Jews, and bring back unbearably painful memories. That may be true for the very few who still have those memories; it is not true for Jews in general. I am a German Jew, and have a good claim to second-generation, third-hand victimhood. Antisemitic incidents and a climate of rising antisemitism don’t really bother me a hell of a lot. I’m much more scared of really dangerous situations, like driving. Besides, even painful memories and anxieties do not carry much weight against the actual physical suffering inflicted by discrimination against many non-Jews.

This is not to belittle all antisemitism, everywhere. One often hears of vicious antisemites in Poland and Russia, both on the streets and in government. But alarming as this may be, it is also immune to the influence of Israel-Palestine conflicts, and those conflicts are wildly unlikely to affect it one way or another. Moreover, so far as I know, nowhere is there as much violence against Jews as there is against ‘Arabs’. So even if antisemitism is, somewhere, a catastrophically serious matter, we can only conclude that anti-Arab sentiment is far more serious still. And since every antisemitic group is to a far greater extent anti-immigrant and anti-Arab, these groups can be fought, not in the name of antisemitism, but in the defense of Arabs and immigrants. So the antisemitic threat posed by these groups shouldn’t even make us want to focus on antisemitism: they are just as well fought in the name of justice for Arabs and immigrants.

In short, the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given. Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn’t, but who cares? Why should we pay any attention to this issue at all? Is the fact that Israel’s race war has provoked bitter anger of any importance besides the war itself? Is the remote possibility that somewhere, sometime, somehow, this hatred may in theory, possibly kill some Jews of any importance besides the brutal, actual, physical persecution of Palestinians, and the hundreds of thousands of votes for Arabs to be herded into transit camps? Oh, but I forgot. Drop everything. Someone spray-painted antisemitic slogans on a synagogue.

* Not even the ADL and B’nai B’rith include attacks on Israel in the tally; they speak of “The insidious way we have seen the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians used by anti-Semites“. And like many other people, I don’t count terrorist attacks by such as Al Quaeda as instances of antisemitism but rather of some misdirected quasi-military campaign against the US and Israel. Even if you count them in, it does not seem very dangerous to be a Jew outside Israel.

Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. He can be reached at: mneumann@trentu.ca

This article was originally published by “Counterpunch” –

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Information Clearing House.

The AZZ Freak Show starring Tom Pessah

Posted on by samivesusu

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)

 

The Banality of Good, last segment-Finding the Way Home

Posted on by samivesusu

February 07, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

If Jews can identify with their ‘promised land’, surely Palestinians, the true indigenous people of that land, should be entitled to do the same and actually return to their homes!

If Jews can identify with their ‘promised land’, surely Palestinians, the true indigenous people of that land, should be entitled to do the same and actually return to their homes!

By Clara S and Gilad Atzmon

Clara:   While not many people feel bounded with the soil nowadays, many people would argue that a spiritual home is not enough. I would agree. Identity groups seem to be an answer. But as you rightly said, identitarian views do not make a consistent argument for the universal, especially in a context of victimization. For others home is still a certain place they defend against the invasion of foreigners or wind turbines, which isn’t exactly a universal argument either.

Isn’t following a universal ethos a contradiction to the concept of home? And if not, how do we find our way?

Gilad:  Not at all, the bond to the soil, the love of the land, and even biological identitarianism can become universal as long as you accept that it applies to everyone. I am obviously anti- identitarian, but I do accept that, if Jews, Lesbians, Transsexual and Black can identify politically with their biology, then Whites can also do the same.  If Jews can identify with their imaginary  ‘promised land’, surely Palestinians, the true indigenous people of that land, should be entitled to do the same and actually return to their homes. In short every idea including egoism can turn into a universal ethos once it is stripped of exceptionalism.  And to address your question, ‘home’ can be a universal idea as long as we set universal conditions to facilitate such an idea. The Israel/Palestine conflict is a great test case. At the moment Israel is a chauvinist Jewish State. For Israel to become a universal adventure, it has to transcend itself into a ‘State of its Citizens.’  This idea was suggested by Palestinian-Israeli Knesset Member Azmi Bishara, soon after he coined this genius motto he had to run for his life.

Clara:   You have explained that Zionism was the promise to civilize the diaspora Jews by means of ‘homecoming’, making them people like all other people, a collective of people bonded with the soil and living in peace and harmony with their neighbors.

So is home, for you, living in peace with oneself and the universe, so to speak?

Gilad: To start with I am not a Zionist and making myself ‘people like all other people’ isn’t my objective. I also contend that making Jews people like all other people is a problematic motto for other people do not want to resemble other people.  Living in peace and loving my neighbors isn’t an objective for me but rather the way in which I live my life. However, my relationship with myself is a different matter all together. I, in fact, live in peace and harmony with my neighbours despite my upbringing and early indoctrination: despite the goy hatred, the chosenness, and the constant Shoah brainwashing. I had to clear  all those out of my system. This is exactly where self-hatred becomes a positive force towards harmony and reconciliation. 

 Clara:   I must admit, that when you first talked about self-hate being the path to the universal, I strongly disagreed. I thought it was exactly the path to hundreds of atomic bombs threatening the world. But I guess I didn’t grasp what you were saying at all. It is about that ‘know thyself’ moment in your life when you discovered you were ‘the Nazi here’ which changed everything, isn’t it?

 So I agree with you if you define self-hate as being able to look at yourself in a detached and self-critical way and self-love as not being able to do that. It needs that special ugly moment to develop such a capacity. To be honest, I have had such moments, too. But self-hate alone cannot be the way to harmony. I think you need to be able to love yourself to be able to love others. And btw, even though you call yourself a self-hater, I do not think that you hate yourself so much. You actually seem to be quite in peace with yourself and the world around you (a long as there is no smear campaign in sight).

Gilad: You are obviously correct. Let me address your point in a humorous manner. If you define Jewishness as an intense form of self-love, then Jewish self-hatred can be realised as ‘loving oneself hating oneself.’ We obviously accept that self hate is a metaphorical notion. I wouldn’t necessarily argue that it is a universal path. But it is clearly a recognized Jewish path towards the universal. It is a method of breaking out of intellectual and spiritual stagnation. I better admit that I love myself hating myself, this is probably what is left of the Jew in me. But I also love reading and exchanging with other self haters. For me the so-called self haters, Jesus, Spinoza, Weininger, Marx were whistleblowers, as we call them these days, they actually introduced a scope of harmony.

Clara:   We are talking about a painful individual process here. Can such a process be applied to a group? You said before that ‘there is no collective remedy to the Jewish question. If Jews want to rescue themselves, they must break out alone in the night, in the dark with the hope that they meet the universal at daybreak.

 Gilad: Yes, this is my view. There is no collective remedy for the Jewish question.  Why? Because people who are tied to each other by a phantasmic exceptionalist notion of race, biology or blood, will always fall into the same chauvinist racist trap. This is what happened to Zionism, it promised to emancipate the Jews from themselves but ended erecting the biggest ghetto walls known to man. This is exactly the trap the Jewish anti Zionist have fallen into. They promised to emancipate the Jews from the Zionist but ended operating within privileged racially oriented political ghettos that are identical with Zion.

Clara:   Isn’t that the end of any collective effort to fight for a peaceful and more just world?

Gilad: On the contrary, this is where we launch into a search for ethics in ourselves. This is where we depart from Jerusalem (the city of mitzvoth / commandments) and reinstate Athens (the capital of reason) once again. We dig into the meaning of being human regardless of our gender, race or skin colour. We leave the tribal behind and re-launch our expedition towards the universal.

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

cover bit small.jpg

 

The Banality of Good pt. 6: Jewish Power and Identity Politics

Posted on by samivesusu

February 03, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

By now, we are all Palestinians. Like the Palestinians we aren’t really allowed to dig into the true meaning of our oppression. Our opposition is shaped by the sensitivities of our oppressors.

By now, we are all Palestinians. Like the Palestinians we aren’t really allowed to dig into the true meaning of our oppression. Our opposition is shaped by the sensitivities of our oppressors.

 

By Clara S and Gilad Atzmon

Jewish Power and Identity Politics

Clara:   You show how Jewish institutions influence US policies, that it all happens in the open and that the Zionist lobbyists boast about their power. So, are Jews, in fact, controlling the world, just as the Nazis claimed they were?

Gilad: This is another multi layered question for which we must first clarify the terminology. Do the ‘Jews’ (the people) control the world? Absolutely not. But a few segments within the Jewish elite are certainly dominant and vastly over-represented within media, finance, culture, academia, politics, political lobbying, Hollywood and so on.  I elaborate on this volatile topic in my new book ‘Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto. The book was partially inspired by ‘The Jewish Century’, the monumental text by Yuri Slezkine that attempted to explain what it was within the Jews that made the 20th into their century: What is it about Jews and their culture that made them dominant in the West?  In Being in Time I offer a few of my original ideas. I also attempt to examine some other theories that have been largely rejected, but that I find  helpful.

My study suggests that the Jewish elite is extremely sophisticated as well as gifted.

Clara:   If they are so gifted, why do you see ‘their dominance in western culture’ as a problem? Can’t we all profit from their extraordinary talents?

Gilad:  To start with, we did and we do. That which we criticize is also that which makes our life special.  The obsession with the global free market which we hate is entangled with the imaginary sense of freedom we purport to celebrate.  The widespread  consumerism we hate is part of the illusion that we can posses whatever we want.

But this is a  problem as well.  The world we live in is not a nice place. It is  dystopic and we the people are becoming more nostalgic by the minute. At an earlier  point we saw ourselves as free subjects. Now not much is left of that decaying freedom.  We are reduced to consumers. The politicians who should  represent our needs and desires mostly just facilitate consumption by means of credit. Manufacturing has died on us and the prospect of a better future is remote. I addressed these troublesome issues in ‘Being in Time’. I believe that the identitarian revolution, or rather, the New Left ideology has a lot to do with the above. The Western subject has been indoctrinated to think and speak ‘as a’: as a gay, as a woman, as a black, etc. We learn to identify with our biology (gender, skin colour, sexual orientation, etc.)  We learn to see ourselves as an aggregation of biologically oriented tribes. Our people are a construct of multiple Israelite tribes, but the Israelites are better than anyone else at being Israelites, they have been doing it for 3000 years.

Clara: So identity politics are a Jewish construct?

Gilad: Exactly. And here is the most problematic twist. In ‘Being in Time’ I argue that the New Left has fallen into the Nazi trap. Dividing humanity by biology (race, skin colour, gender etc.) requires that we define ourselves and others in biological terms.  Instead of uniting under a dynamic universal ethos we are subject to new categories that make human universal harmony impossible.

We live in a totally fragmented society. Instead of fighting together for our common and universal needs, we are divided into identitarian groups and fight each other.

 Clara:   Biology? Doing what the Nazis did and even defining a ‘race’ when there is none? I see your point: a nice twist indeed.

Although defining oneself in terms of identity seems to be natural: we (nearly) all have experiences of loss and discrimination because of our ‘biological’ identity: as a woman, as a member of an ethnic minority, as somebody with a handicap, because of our sexual orientation, and on.

 Gilad: True. It is natural for people to identify with their biology.

This is why half of the Americans voted for Hillary Clinton. This is why ID politics is the only so called Left ideology that has gained in popularity. It also explains some of what what attracted the masses to Nazism.  And then, it also explains the logos at the core of Jewish tribalism.

 Clara: Gilad, I have a lot of sympathy for anti-discrimination and emancipatory movements. Without them I still would not have the right to vote and my independent career would not have been possible. The homosexual couple in my neighbourhood would have had to pose as cousins and a lot of barrier-free railway stations would be non-existent. And I, personally, love the mix of different ethnic cultures we experience in Germany, in spite of the problems that come with it.

For me as a teacher it has always been important to make sure I support those students who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths. The motto of our school is ‘Diversity is our strength’ and I stand by that.

 When I first encountered criticism of identity politics I didn’t take it seriously because I found the criticism regressive: it came from the kind of people who want to send women back to, as the German saying goes, Kinder, Kueche, Kirche (kids, kitchen and church), forbid abortion, kick out foreigners and view homosexuality as something sick. Though there were increasingly aspects to the ‘multi-culti’ and open-border ideas that made me wonder. I must admit that it was not until the last American presidential race that I realized that within the Democratic Party, identitarian politics had replaced policies that were, in my opinion, ‘genuine Left’ such as improving people’s social and economic situation and anti-imperialism. And I realized that the same had happened to the left in Germany.

 So has the Left been captured by identitarians?

 Gilad: Yep, I fully understand. Like many others, I used to agree with Left ideology  but as I grew older I found the Left to be increasingly  delusional, dogmatic and frequently  duplicitous. I couldn’t detect any suggestion of dialectical thinking. Even the aspiration towards equality had somehow evaporated. In ‘The Wandering Who’ I shifted. Instead of asking what the ‘J-word’ represents, I asked what do people mean when they identify themselves as Jews? In ‘Being in Time’ I employed an identical strategy. I asked what is it that people who identify as Leftists adhere to?

The answer was pretty troubling. The New Left shares little or nothing  with old Left values. The New Left is tribal, biologically oriented, and it is authoritarian and often proto fascist. The Left was not simply captured by the identitarians, it was hijacked. The New Left is occupied territory and this is another reason why we are all Palestinians.

This is why I argue that by now the Left / Right dichotomy is meaningless and on the verge of futile. Welcome to the post-political condition.

Clara: We are all Palestinians?

Gilad: I believe that it was me who coined the popular adage, ‘by now, we are all Palestinians.’ The meaning of this saying is devastating.

Like the Palestinians we aren’t really allowed to dig into the true meaning of our oppression.  The boundaries of pro Palestinian discourse are shaped by Jewish sensitivities. Tragically, this is an adequate description of our Western dissent.  Our opposition is shaped by the sensitivities of our oppressors.

Clara:   So could we say that emancipation has been replaced by victimization? Are identity politics a  powerful movement of people who see the world through the restricted perspective of victims of racist, sexist or some other prejudice or discrimination?  Is its philosophy that ‘The world would be a better place, if everybody saw it the way I do’; ‘If xy changed his attitude, I could fulfill my  potential, I cannot do that because xy doesn’t let me do it’? Then it is always somebody else who is made responsible. No wonder that white males, who until now were symbols of oppression, also want to be recognized as victims. The steps from this thinking to hate and destructive violent behaviour are not that big:

“We shall have our manhood. We shall have it or the earth will be leveled by our attempts to gain it.” That is how Eldrige Cleaver  described the needs of blacks.  The way the MeToomovement brings down male ‘perpetrators’ also seems to be more driven by spite and the wish to humiliate than by the wish to bring wrong-doing to light and peace to women who have been scarred. True ‘souls on ice’!

And because we have to be ‘politically correct’ we are not allowed to criticize  victims so as not to hurt their feelings. But this doesn’t heal the harm. You go on feeding this particular ‘child,’  it will never be satisfied and will grow into a big fat monster crying ‘feed me!’ till the end of time.

But how does Jewish victimization and their huge success in the 20th century connect?

Gilad  It is amazing for me to read your comment  because I examined  ID politics and victimhood using a similar approach in ‘Being in Time’.  On the one hand we are all broken into biologically oriented tribes. We are defined by our skin, gender, mother’s gene, sexual orientation, yet it is only the biologically identified Jews who have a state, hundreds of atomic bombs, squadrons of F-35s and the question is why? Let me shock you. Because Jewish identity involves self- hatred. Early Zionism was the promise to change the Jews, to relieve them of their victimhood. To make them people like all other people. When identitarians learn how to hate themselves, they may start to move forward, they may even find their path back to the universal.

Clara:   Do you mean that self-hatred was the key to Zionism and if Jewishness hadn’t hijacked Zionism, the Jews could have found the path to the universal?
Gilad: Exactly, Zionism was driven by hard core self-loathing. A core principle of  Early Zionists was ‘negation of the Galut (Diaspora)’. This form of self-hatred  fuelled the fantasy of a new Jewish beginning. Zionism was a form of Jewish empowerment, that tried to replace victimhood.

Clara:   ‘… but I laugh, and eat well, and grow strong …’

Gilad: Yes. Instead of blaming the Goyim for anti-Semitic crimes, early Zionists looked into Jewish history and culture and tried to identify what is it in Jewish culture and politics that brings about anti-Semitism. This may explain why Jewish identitarianism has achieved far more than other  identitarian groups. Early Zionism, as far as I am concerned, was an astonishing transition in Jewish history.  Yet, the fact that it failed is even more significant. It might mean that there is no collective remedy to the Jewish question. If Jews want to rescue themselves, they must break out alone into the night, in the dark, with the hope that they may meet the universal at daybreak.  

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

cover bit small.jpg

Daily Sabah: Exclusive interview with Gilad Atzmon

Posted on by uprootedpalestinians

Comment:

Brother Gilad said: To survive is to win.

I say: To Win is to Survive and to Survive is to Resist. To Win Palestinians should realize that Palestine is a Part of Greater Syria “Bilad Asham”. They should bury Afratat’s slogan about “Palestinian Independent  Decision”. Thanks to Syria and allies for keeping the Palestinian Cause alive. Thanks to Daesh for breaking Sykes-Picot borders. Thanks to stupid TRUMP for uniting real Arabs and Real Muslims and Real Humans.

UP

Daily Sabah: Exclusive interview with Gilad Atzmon

January 22, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

I left Israel because I didn’t want to live on someone else’s land.

I left Israel because I didn’t want to live on someone else’s land.

https://www.dailysabah.com/

Gilad Atzmon In an interview with Daily Sabah’s editor Burak Altun digging into  the current crisis in the Middle East

Burak Altun: Mr Atzmon, you are one of the most gifted jazz musicians around. In addition, you  are actively engaged in peace in the Middle East and criticize the state of Israel  within that context. I can see two separate identities here – you are a musician and a political activist. At the social and political level, you complain about identity politics in the West. What is it all about?

Gilad Atzmon: To start with, you are very kind in your description of me, but let me correct you. I am not a political activist, I have never been involved in politics and I prefer to stay away from the so called activist community. The reason is simple. Activists always know the answers. I am a philosopher. My task is refining the questions. I can easily live in peace with more than one answer and even with competing and contradicting  answers.

However, let me address your question regarding identity politics. In the world in which I grew up the role of the political and especially Left politics was to point at that which unites us. Our left icons insisted that it didn’t matter whether one is a Muslim, Black, Jew or Woman, we were all united against the mammonites, those capitalist plunderers in the City. But this has  changed. At a certain stage the Left decided to embrace new tactics. We were taught how to speak ‘as a’: as a woman, as a Jew, as a Black, as a gay and so on. Instead of being united we were set up to fight each other. In this New Left/progressive universe, we the people are divided by our biology yet the global market is united in its war against us the people, against humanity and humanism.

How do you explain the allegations of anti-Semitism, which are repeatedly directed against you? You yourself differentiate between Judaism (the religion) and Jewish politics.  According to the logic of those who accuse you, critics of “Islamism” must be Islamophobes.

The accusation of anti-Semitsm is obviously an empty one. It is designed to stifle criticism of Israel and Jewish power. In my entire life I have never criticized Jews or anyone else as a people, race, biology or ethnicity. I deal solely with ID politics, ideology and culture!   For me racism becomes a problem when blind hatred is performed, when you hate X for being X, when you hate Black people for being Black or when you hate White people for being White. I can’t think of anyone who hates Jews for being Jews. I would admit that more than a few may oppose Jews for what they interpret as Jewish politics, Jewish Lobbying, Jewish ideology and so on. This tendency deserves our attention. It clearly deserves Jewish attention but Jewish power is the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power.

Now, your point regarding Islamists and Islamophobia deserve attention. I don’t believe that there are such things as ‘Islamists’ or ‘Islamism.’ In Islam, like in Judaism, there is no distinction between the political and religio.  Islamism is a Zionist/Neocon invention. It was created in an attempt to draw an imaginary dichotomy between the religious reality and the political. It is basically a projection of the Jewish post-assimilation reality on the Muslim world. It was invented in order to provide a ‘rationale’ for America and Britain so they could flatten Arab cities on behalf of Zion.

You said once in an interview for Russia Today that your charm is your defense against the antisemitic allegations. Can you elaborate? Can a likeable person basically not be an anti-Semite? And do you sometimes wonder if your critics are secretly playing your music before they go to bed? 

My comment on George Galloway was obviously comical. It is pretty obvious that a person who plays music every night with many Jews and shares platforms with rabbis cannot be ‘anti-semitic.’ It is hardly a secret that many of my supporters are Jews and even Israelis.

I would have loved to think that my detractors can enjoy my music. But I do not have any reason to believe that they are aesthetically inclined.

You grew up in a Zionist family and witnessed the Lebanon War in 1982. Would you be so committed to peace in the Middle East today if you had not had that experience? How do you feel about it when you reflect on your past?

It is hard to say. I am not a political person. I am doing what I am doing because I am curious.

I left Israel because I didn’t want to live on someone else’s land. But when I witnessed the Jewish Diaspora Zionists’ hawkish attitude and even worse, the duplicity at the core of the Jewish anti-Zionist discourse, I realised how intense Jewish identity is. I started to dig into it. We are dealing with complex and fascinating people who are shaped by a very old tribal philosophy that morphs quickly. By the time you think that you understand Jewish ID politics, it only suggests that Jewish ID politics has already morphed into something else. 

My philosophy hero Otto Weininger taught me that in art, self exploration is exploration of the world. For me, self reflection is understanding the troubling affairs around us. I guess that this is why Jews are so troubled by self hatred. It is an attempt of unveiling the concealed, the deepest secrets Jews tend to hide from themselves.

I do not need to ask you how about your stand on the U.S. decision regarding Jerusalem – but it would be interesting to know if you see a long-term departure from the “Trump’s Middle East policy. At the moment, the outcry is particularly great – which is partly due to the relevance of  Jerusalem. However, there had been no constructive development in the Middle East under Obama’s leadership. How do you rate the role of the USA – and especially the Israel lobby? You once said that AIPAC offered you money to become a member. Was the amount not big enough? 

Trump doesn’t have a middle East policy. And this is not a bad thing. America is not a key player anymore and this is a very positive development. We should thank Trump and Kushner for it. But it is true that this deterioration didn’t start just a year ago. I believe Obama made a conscious decision to pull out from the region. 

There is no doubt that AIPAC has been dominating American Middle East policy for a long time and it is totally obvious that AIPAC was serving the interests of a foreign state rather than American national interests. Americans can only blame themselves for letting this happen.

Since I left Israel, I have never been approached by a single Israeli or a Zionist body who tried to buy my support or collaboration.  The Jewish institutions and people who attempted to bribe me a few times in the past were of the Jewish anti-Zionist persuasion. I was offered to be ‘looked after’ and protected as long as I accepted their duplicitous terminology or just dumped my own. They wanted me to limit the discussion to Zionism and to make sure I drift away from the study of Jewish ID politics. Several times I was asked to denounce and disavow several people. I always rejected any dialogue with these kinds of tribal agent. In some cases I exposed these attempts. 

How do you rate the recent move by the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) led by President Erdoğan against the Trump decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? Will the UN resolution do something?

I’ll be honest with you. I do not think that anyone, including President Erdoğan, can liberate the Palestinians except the Palestinians themselves. How they do that is indeed a complicated question. I believe that Abbas is right. Time is their weapon. To survive is to win. The only people who can destroy the Jewish state are the Jews themselves. This is how they have always done it along their history.

In recent years, President Erdoğan has repeatedly, loudly complained of the Israeli government’s behavior towards the Palestinians and used harsh words such as “terrorist state” or “child murderer” regarding Israel. Many leaders of Arab states would never dare to do so that concretely. So Erdoğan’s popularity in Palestine seems very high. Do you believe that President Erdoğan can build a powerful counter-pole to Israel and the United States? It seems as if the EU member states have also moved a bit toward the Palestinians politically since the last Jerusalem crisis – even if they are looking for political pressure against Israel in vain.

President Erdoğan was indeed outspoken when it comes to Israel but I do understand how volatile the situation he is in. He has to deal with a very complex situation. Syria, the Kurds, Gülen, NATO, Russia and the USA. Unfortunately, Israel is a key player in all of that. We have seen the Turks swinging on issues to do with Israel. At the end of the day, Erdogan was elected to serve the Turkish people and this mission is probably difficult enough considering the complexity involved.

Do you still believe in the possibility of a two-state solution?

I’ve never believed in a two State Solution. And I am not so sure that the discussion about solutions is leading anywhere. It is designed to keep some activists busy so they have something to shout in their gatherings and pickets. 

What we really see is facts on the ground. Israel and Palestine are one state. One electrical grid, one international pre dial number (+972), one sewage system yet this state is oppressive, abusive and often genocidal towards the indigenous people of the land. Why? Because Israel defines itself as ‘the Jewish State.’ It is a state of the Jews rather than ‘a State of its citizens.’ For the situation to be resolved Israel must be ‘de-Jewishified’ (stripped of its Judeo-centric  exceptionalism and become  a state of its citizens, regardless of their ethnicity or religion). However, when this happens Israel will become Palestine from the river to the sea.

Thank you very much for the interview Mr Atzmon, and good luck with your music and your political commitment to peace in the Middle East.

All the best…

 

The Occidental Observer – “Being in Time” Book Review

Posted on by samivesusu

December 04, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA: Two weeks ago I posted a banal book review by  David Rich, an ultra Zionist caricature. Today The Occidental Observer published a review of Being in Time. This review is critical of some aspects of my work.  However, unlike the intellectually hollow Jewish rabid nationalist  Rich who offered little but name calling (fascist, anti-Semite etc.) Nigel Jackson’s text is scholarly oriented. Jackson locates Being in Time within a philosophical, intellectual and political framework.  He also examines the text from  right wing perspectives referring to some texts that are new to me. I learned a lot from this review. I tend to believe that there are no people within the contemporary Left milieu who could produce such a scholarly text anymore, and this is indeed sad on the verge of tragic!

being in time .jpg

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

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

 

Review of Gilad Atzmon’s “Being in Time”

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/12/04/review-of-gilad-atzmons-being-in-time/

Nigel Jackson

Being in Time by Gilad Atzmon (Skyscraper Publications, UK, 2017)

…the Radical party, who, to gratify their political prejudices, would join with Satan himself. (George Borrow, Lavengro, Chapter XLII)

In this well-produced and sturdily presented 213-page book the internationally celebrated jazz musician and political commentator continues the analyses of Jewish religion, culture, history and political influence in world politics which he initiated earlier in his 2011 book The Wandering Who?: A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. After reading it twice, I conclude that, among other things, he has provided very strong support for two men, often publicly reviled, whom I have admired and thought much about since 1964: Eric Butler, founding director of The Australian League of Rights, and Captain A. H. M. Ramsay, the British Conservative MP in the 1930s and 1940s.

Butler in 1946 published his book The International Jew which was very strongly attacked by hostile critics as being a deplorable anti-Semitic tract. His unwise use of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a framework for his study made the book an easy target, though its hostile critics did not successfully come to terms with its overall contents. However, his use as an epigraph of a sentence by Oscar Levy, who in his time was a famed Jewish writer and disciple of Nietzsche, would appear to have been thoroughly justified now by Atzmon, another Jew. ‘The question of the Jews and their influence on the world, past and present, cuts to the root of all things and should be discussed by every honest thinker.’ That could equally be an excellent epigraph for Being in Time.

Atzmon cites Yuri Slezkine’s 2006 book The Jewish Century as a confirmation of ‘Jewish dominance’ in world politics. He writes: ‘I do not care about ethnicity, biology or race, but I do care about ideology…. I see the cultural and ideological impact of Jerusalem on pretty much every aspect of Western life. But, unlike most commentators, I allow myself to voice my criticism of that aspect.’

Butler, following C. H. Douglas, identified the seat of the world’s ills in a corrupt financial system manipulated by a wealthy elite, largely if not wholly Jewish. Atzmon identifies the bad, ‘trade-oriented’ side of capitalism as ‘Mammon: banking, stock market, investment, currency manipulations and so on.’ This, he argues, is the root cause that has led to mass impoverishment of blue-collar workers in the USA and Britain, hence the election of Donald Trump and the British vote to leave the European Union. ‘Mammon… makes the rich richer but leaves them detached from the rest of society…. While traditional manufacturing involves labour on a large scale, Mammon is concerned only with the accumulation of wealth for its own sake and, as such, is impervious to social or ethical issues [including] care for the worker…. At present Mammonism is the driving force behind global capitalism…. As a direct result, production and manufacturing must always gravitate to where labour and production are cheapest.’

Atzmon expresses admiration for the prophetic writing of Henry Ford in his 1920 book, also called The International Jew. ‘Ford didn’t refer to the Jews as a whole, he didn’t criticise the Jews as a race or as an ethnicity…. He did oppose a tiny segment within world Jewry. For him the “international Jew” was a reference to a bunch of oligarchs and Mammonites.’ Atzmon writes in that tradition.

The originality of his analysis of this aspect of Jewish affairs lies in his detailed explanation of how it came about and how it has dominated the discourses of cultural Marxism, identity politics and political correctness to the great detriment of human freedom and living conditions in Western nations. It is, he explains, not so much a matter of conspiracy and secrecy as of centuries of development of relevant cognitive skills and practical marketing abilities in a Jewish elite whose spokesmen have actually been quite open about the success they have attained.

II

In 1964 I read Captain Ramsay’s book The Nameless War, which is also a manifesto against the dominance of a Jewish financial elite. Especially interesting to me was his account of recent Spanish history: ‘The next revolution to merit our attention is the one that broke out in Spain in 1936. Fortunately for Europe, it was frustrated by General Franco and a number of gallant men, who instantly took the field in opposition to the revolutionary forces, and succeeded in a long struggle in crushing them.

‘This achievement is all the more remarkable in view of the latest development in revolutionary organisation, which was then revealed in the shape of the International Brigades…. They were recruited from criminals, adventurers and dupes from 52 different countries, mysteriously transported and assembled in formations in Spain within a few weeks of the outbreak of disorder, uniformed in a garb closely related to our battle dress and armed with weapons bearing the Jewish five-pointed star. This star and the Seal of Solomon were upon the signet rings of N.C.O.s and officers in this communist horde of ill-disciplined ruffians. I have seen them myself in wear.’ Ramsay explained that German and Italian help was provided to the Spanish Nationalists after ‘Barcelona had been declared in October 1936 the capital of the Soviet States of Western Europe.’ (That was obviously a failed fore-runner of the European Union!)

Ramsay, a Catholic British patriot who sought to keep Britain out of what he could see would be a disastrous war with Germany, was arrested under the infamous Regulation 18B, soon after Winston Churchill assumed power in wartime Britain, and imprisoned without trial until 26th September 1944. In 1998 a detailed study of ‘British anti-Semitism’ in 1939 and 1940 was published, largely focusing on Ramsay. This was Patriotism Perverted by Richard Griffiths, whose hostility to right-wing conservatism had already been exhibited in his 1980 book Fellow Travellers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany 1933–39. It seems from its index that Patriotism Perverted entirely ignores the above information about the Spanish Civil War which Ramsay had reported. Griffiths, one presumes, was a ‘guardian of the discourse’ (to use Atzmon’s term) and not a ‘guardian of the truth.’

Information in Being in Time, which derives partly from George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia, seems to clearly justify Ramsay’s defence of Franco. Atzmon writes: ‘Orwell’s experience as a combatant with the Yiddish-speaking International Brigade in 1936 had left him disgusted by the intolerant correctness that was intrinsic to the revolution-motivated warriors around him.’ It made him ‘an opponent of the communist “party line” and crude “red” dogmatism.’ Atzmon states that a quarter of the Brigade were Jewish. ‘The Red Jews who travelled to Spain ended up fighting in Jewish legions because identity politics and Left-orientation are largely a Jewish intellectual domain that is actually quite foreign to working people…. The revolutionary Jews didn’t believe in God or keep the Sabbath but they were killing Spanish Catholics and often burning their churches, something Rabbinical Jews never did.’ Atzmon adds in a footnote the welcome news that ‘a growing number of contemporary historians accept that General Franco wasn’t a ‘Fascist’… [or] a ‘National Socialist’. He was a Catholic patriot.’ Unfortunately, ‘the delusional intent at the core of the Spanish International Brigade… is still a sacred taboo within Left circles.’

III

Atzmon is a master of iconoclasm within the realm of the political order. He is not always so adroit when seeking to articulate his vision of the good life as the foundation on which a better society can be built. For example, he foolishly sneers at the greatest of the mysteries of Judaism: ‘The Jewish God doesn’t even allow his people to utter his name.’ Those who turn their backs on the tradition in which they were reared often become too severe in their criticism of it. The Jewish commandment he rejects is designed to remind Jews of the nature of the Ain-Soph as an ultimate reality beyond words and forms. All the great sacred traditions attest to that reality in their profoundest teachings.

Atzmon sets up a series of binaries on which to base his discussion and one of these needs to be carefully examined. He writes: ‘Leo Strauss contends that Western civilisation oscillates between two intellectual and spiritual poles – Athens and Jerusalem. Athens … is the birthplace of reason, philosophy, art, science and the logos. Jerusalem … is the city of God where God’s law prevails. The philosopher, the true historian, or the essentialist … is the Athenian, “the guardian of the truth.” The Jerusalemite is “the guardian of the discourse”, the one who keeps the gate, in order to maintain law and order at the expense of ecstasies, poetry, beauty, reason and truth.’

This contrast does less than justice to Jerusalem and Jewish culture. The Old Testament contains many moving celebrations of ecstasy and beauty in most poignant poetry. Think of the Psalms and the Song of Songs. Strauss may have been right to point to an ongoing struggle between defenders and critics of doctrine, but identifying the one with Jerusalem and the other with Athens begs too many questions. It is notable that Atzmon says nothing at all about the magnificent system of the sephiroths in Jewish mysticism.

‘While Islam and Christianity are belief systems, Judaism is an obedience-regulatory system,’ suggests Atzmon. The truth is that all three ‘religions of the book’ contain both those systems, as well as mystical and esoteric traditions that go beyond them.

The phrase ‘guardians of the discourse’ need not always contain a pejorative sense, yet Atzmon usually gives it that. For example: ‘The Jerusalemite cultural Marxism is sustained by an institutional dismissal of the truth and the removal of any method that may result in approaching the truth.’ Such a dismissal is bad; but in other contexts ‘the discourse’ is rightly protected by its adherents, when tides of barbarism threaten to sweep away the garnered and stored wisdom and knowledge of the past.

Philosophy appeals to him more than religion: ‘The Abrahamic religions are founded on a set of counterfactual premises.’ Such premises may from one point of view be susceptible to challenge; but from another point of view they may be part of myths which emerged from the Real. ‘The Hebrew Bible is a chronicle of shunned prophets.’ Yes, but Jewish tradition has maintained them in memory and celebrates them today.

Despite these inadequacies of definition, Atzmon is basically a man of light. Following Martin Heidegger, he acknowledges the existence of ‘the Real’, which he distinguishes from contingent aspects of our mundane world: ‘The Real refers to truth that is unchangeable and absolute. The Real is metaphysical and abstract. Reality… is based on sense perception and the material order. The Real emerges as that which is outside language, within the domain of the inexpressible. The Real resists symbolisations.’ Atzmon adds: ‘Philosophy can be summed up, as Heidegger put it, as a prolonged story of “forgetfulness of Being”, the story of that which is closest to us and yet most mysterious and unattainable. Being and time are like the tip of your nose, so close you fail to see it. The truth is there at all times, all we have to do is open our eyes and contemplate it.’

It is in the light of this approach that Atzmon can write that for him ‘inquiry is a never-ending self-examination’ and note approvingly that for the film director Quentin Tarantino ‘dilemma is the existential essence.’ It is easy to see why Atzmon has become such a powerful defender of intellectual freedom. He is generous-hearted too: ‘An ethical society should care for all of its members, that they live and thrive.’

IV

Being in Time is a devastating attack on the corruption of the political process in Western nations at the present time, as the following quotations show.

‘Left ideology is like a dream.’ It is sustained by ‘the addictive rush of effecting change.’

‘Democracy operates to convey a false image of freedom of choice.’

‘While Western corporate culture is guided by the principle of a strict hierarchy defined by the survival of the fittest, academia, media and culture suppress any attempt to grasp the meaning, the nature and the essence of “fitness”…. [This is] sophisticated institutional oppression.’

‘Interference with language is nothing short of an attempt to limit intellectual freedom.’

‘There is a critical discrepancy in contemporary Left, liberal and progressive movements…. Jewish ethnocentrism and even Jewish racial exclusivity is fully accepted, while other forms of ethnocentrism are bluntly rejected…. The [progressive] discourse is selective, incoherent and unprincipled.’

‘The traditional cosmopolitan Left lacks the political means to replace this rapturous sense of volkish belonging with anything meaningful or popular enough to compete.’ [Atzmon is discussing the attachment of workers to their national icons.]

‘What does [identity politics] have to do with opposition to capital accumulation … mammonism? The answer is nothing.’

‘If the Left ideology is shaped and structured like a dream, then the role of the ideologist is to sustain the slumber.’

‘Cultural Marxism … is a largely manipulative method that is set to diminish or even dismantle the so-called bourgeois hegemonic culture in favour of an imaginary emancipation.’

‘The Jerusalemite cultural Marxism is sustained by an institutional dismissal of the truth and the removal of any method that may result in approaching the truth.’

‘The entire New Left infrastructure [has] … one basic mission: to divert attention from the blunders of Mammonism and from those who benefit most from Mammon.’

‘Since the 1970s America and the West have gone through a radical transition…. The Western worker has been reduced to a mere consumer.’

‘More and more people are losing the means necessary to sustain consumption and are sentenced to deprivation.’

‘Biology does not sit well with the ideas of equality, social change, the dream of what ought to be.’

‘The attempt to break society by means of identity politics also helps hide the fact that, for all our social justice sophistication, our society is subject to crude cognitive segregation.’

‘The reality of cognitive partitioning defies the fantasy of the “ought to be” and the utopian dream…. There is no possibility of full justice or equality.’

‘For the Left elite to tackle their issues, they would have had to transform their entire philosophical and methodological structure. They’d have had to … proceed into an ethical thinking that is dynamically flexible and unpredictable.’

‘Facing reality defies the nature of Left, liberal and progressive thinking.’

‘“After politics” is a tale of the complete victory by one oligarchy. The consequences may be fatal for our planet.’
‘Creating and maintaining dissent in order to control opposition is deeply embedded in modern, Jewish, secular politics.’

The overall picture is of a massive river of ‘useful idiots’ manipulated by a very small minority intent on maintaining their power, wealth and privilege. It would be nice to see some of our local Leftists grasping the nettle and admitting that they have been leading the troops to disaster rather than saving the world and preparing a paradise on earth.

V

It must be admitted that Atzmon uses a broad brush approach, reliant on many sweeping statements and generalisations. What, however, if his basic thesis is the truth? Then quibbles about exceptions and about inadequate definitions and terminology will not prevent Being in Time from being a prophetic masterpiece containing ‘the word for the day.’

Naturally Atzmon has been attacked as an ‘anti-Semite’, but, although his targets clearly extend across much of the range of contemporary Jewish culture and are not restricted to the mammonist elite, he is not blind to the misplaced idealism of many ‘progressive’ Jews and gentiles, nor does he write in a spirit of malice or hatred.

He has been careful in his discussion of the Jewish Holocaust, which he sees as the most popular ‘Jewish religion’ in our time. He has neither denied it in this book nor affirmed it. However he makes pertinent remarks about it:

Crucially, the Holocaust affirms the uniqueness of its followers. It is devoted to the primacy of Jewish suffering, granting the Jew the crown of thorns as the ultimate sufferer. It is also used to justify every Jewish action, from ethnic cleansing to genocide…. The Holocaust religion has united “The Jew” and “The Jews” within a self-sufficient, comprehensive and independent “God-less” narrative. Jews constitute the victims, the oppressors and the redeemers…. The religion prescribes a manner of speech and a strict set of commandments. Most crucially … it is totally and deplorably intolerant of any form of dissent.

Atzmon adds: ‘Real Jewish power is… the power to silence criticism of Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse — and particularly criticism of itself.’ This very brave man has certainly set out to bell the cat!

VI

The book engages in relatively little discussion of the Right, of conservatism. This is because Atzmon sees the contemporary disaster as being the result of a much more powerful Left.

He associates the Right with rootedness, something T. S. Eliot described in his essay ‘Virgil and the Christian World’ as piety. He also associates it with romanticism and nostalgia for a better and vanished past. He hardly attends to the ongoing struggle of those of us on the Right which, essentially, is to ‘redeem the time’ and conserve as much as possible of our heritage while at the same time helping to build a better future in line with sacred tradition and the best elements of Western European culture.

cover bit small.jpg

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

Being in Time – A Post Political Manifesto, 

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

The basic trouble is that the entire relationship between Israelis and diaspora Jews is built on a lie: the belief that they are the same people. They are not.

Posted on by michaellee2009

The myth of one Jewish nation

By Uri Avnery

Zionism is an anti-Semitic creed. It was so right from the beginning.

Already the founding father, Theodor Herzl, a Viennese writer, penned some pieces with a clear anti-Semitic slant. For him, Zionism was not just a geographical transplantation, but also a means of turning the despicable commercial Jew of the diaspora into an upright, industrious human being.

Herzl travelled to Russia in order to win the support of their anti-Semitic, pogrom-inciting leaders for his project, promising to take the Jews off their hands.

Indeed, it was always a main plank of Zionist propaganda that only in the future Jewish state will Jews be able to live a normal life. The slogan was to “overturn the social pyramid” – putting it on a sound basis of workers and farmers, instead of speculators and bankers.

When I was a schoolboy in (then) Palestine, everything we learned was soaked with a profound contempt for “exile Jews”, those Jews everywhere who preferred to stay in the diaspora. They were definitely much inferior to us.

Adolf Eichmann famously declared that he preferred to deal with the Zionists because they were more “biologically valuable”.

The climax was reached by a small group in the early 1940s, who were nicknamed “Canaanites”. They proclaimed that we were a new nation altogether, the Hebrew nation, and that we had nothing to do with Jews anywhere. When the full scope of the Holocaust became known, these voices were lowered, but not silenced.

The anti-Semites, on their part, always preferred the Zionists to other Jews. Adolf Eichmann famously declared that he preferred to deal with the Zionists because they were more “biologically valuable”.

Even today, Jew-haters everywhere loudly applaud the state of Israel, as evidence that they are not anti-Semites. Israeli diplomats are not averse to utilising their support. They love the alt-right.

This never prevented the state of Israel from exploiting the support of world Jewry. Long ago there used to be a joke: God Almighty divided his bounty justly between the Arabs and the Israelis. He gave the Arabs oil, which provided them with economic and political clout, and He provided the Israelis with world Jewry, for the same purpose.

In the early days of the State of Israel, it desperately needed the money of American Jews – literally to buy next month’s bread. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion was persuaded to go to the US to woo them. But there was a problem: Ben-Gurion, an arch Zionist, was determined to tell them to leave everything and come to Israel. His aides had a hard time persuading him please not to mention aliyah (immigration, literally “to go up”).

The uneven relationship prevails to this very day. Israelis secretly despise American Jews for preferring the “fleshpots of Egypt” to living like upright people in the Jewish State, but demand their unconditional political support. Most American Jewish organisations do provide this. They wield huge power in Washington DC, where AIPAC `(American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the Zionist lobby, is considered the second most powerful political organisation after the National Rifle Association.

Unfortunately, the relationship creates more and more problems which cannot be hidden anymore.

… Jew-haters everywhere loudly applaud the state of Israel, as evidence that they are not anti-Semites. Israeli diplomats are not averse to utilising their support. They love the alt-right.

The latest outburst came from an unexpected source. Its bears an unusual name: Tzipi Hotovely. Hers is a Georgian name. Her parents did indeed emigrate (or “make aliyah“) from that former Soviet republic. (Since in the Hebrew script vowels are not written, few Israelis know how to pronounce this name correctly.)

Tzipi (diminutive of Tzipor, bird) is both an intelligent and beautiful woman of 39. She is also an extreme rightist. Her outlook is a combination of radical nationalism and orthodox religion. She is, of course, a member of the Likud. This helped her to reach the high position of deputy foreign minister.

So who is the foreign minister? Nobody. Netanyahu is much too clever to appoint anyone to this high position, lest he or she become a competitor. This elevates Tzipi’s standing.

Generally, Hotovely keeps quiet. But a few weeks ago, she threw a virtual bomb.

In an interview with an American outlet, the Israeli deputy foreign minister viciously attacked American Jewry, repeating old anti-Semitic slogans. Among other things, she blasted the American Jews for not sending their sons to the US army. As a result, she said, they are unable to understand Israelis, whose sons are fighting every day.

This is an old accusation. I remember seeing a Nazi leaflet dropped from German planes over the American lines in France during World War II. It showed a fat, cigar-puffing Jew sexually molesting a pure Aryan American woman, with the inscription: “While you are shedding your blood in Europe, the Jew is raping your wife back home!”

The accusation itself is, of course, nonsense. Conscription has long since been abolished in the US. The US army consists of lower-class volunteers. Jews generally do not belong to these.

Hotovely has been widely condemned, but was not dismissed. She continues to be in charge of all Israeli diplomats.

This incident was only the latest in a long series of troubles in the relations between the two communities.

Right from the beginning, the state of Israel has sold many religious privileges to the Israeli Orthodox establishment, whose votes in the Knesset were and are essential for putting together a governing coalition.

In Israel, there is no civil marriage. All marriages are religious. If an Israeli Jewish man wants to marry a Christian or Muslim woman – a rare occurrence – they must go to neighbouring Cyprus to marry. Foreign marriages are recognised.

But in modern Judaism there are several religious communities. In the US, the main communities are liberal – Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism. These are hardly recognised in Israel. All marriages are strictly Orthodox. So is the overseeing of kosher establishments, a hugely lucrative enterprise.

This means that the main streams of American Judaism have practically no rights in Israel. They hardly exist here.

As if this was not enough, there is a vicious conflict about the Western Wall, the holiest Jewish site. It is considered the only remnant of the Jewish temple, which was destroyed by the Romans some 2,100 years ago. (Actually, it is only a remnant of an outer supporting wall.)

… the entire relationship between Israelis and diaspora Jews is built on a lie: the belief that they are the same people. They are not.

While belonging in theory to all Jews, the Israeli government has turned this holy place over to the Orthodox establishment, which allows only males to approach it. The reform community and women’s organisations protested, and at long last a compromise was reached, which reserves the main part of the wall for the Orthodox, but leaves a separate part to women and reform Jews. Now the government has annulled this compromise.

The basic trouble is that the entire relationship between Israelis and diaspora Jews is built on a lie: the belief that they are the same people. They are not.

Reality separated them long ago. The real situation is that Israeli “Jews” are a new nation, created by the spiritual, geographical and social realities in the new country – much as US Americans are different from the British or the British are different from Australians.

They have a strong feeling of belonging to each other, of a joint heritage and of family ties. But they are different.

The sooner the two sides recognise this officially, the better it is for both. American Jews can support Israel, as – say – Irish Americans can support Ireland, but it’s up to them. They don’t owe allegiance to Israel and are not obliged to pay us tribute.

Israel, on its part, can help Jews anywhere when they are in trouble, and allow them to join us. Welcome.

But we do not belong to a joint nation. We in Israel are a nation composed of Israeli citizens. American and other Jews are part of their respective nations and of the world-wide Jewish ethnic-religious community.

Netanyahu would like to be, like Queen Victoria, “king and emperor” – King of Israel and Emperor of the Jews.

Well, he ain’t.

Leaked report: israel acknowledges Jews in fact Khazars

Posted on by michaellee2009

Leaked report
Leaked report: Israel acknowledges Jews in fact Khazars; Secret plan for reverse migration to Ukraine

 

A Warlike Turkic People—and a Mystery

It is well known that, sometime in the eighth to ninth centuries, the Khazars, a warlike Turkic people, converted to Judaism and ruled over a vast domain in what became southern Russia and Ukraine. What happened to them after the Russians destroyed that empire around the eleventh century has been a mystery. Many have speculated that the Khazars became the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews.

Schnitzler1857.emp

The Khazar Empire, from M. J-H. Schnitzler’s map of The Empire of Charlemagne and that of the Arabs, (Strasbourg, 1857)

Arabs have long cited the Khazar hypothesis in attempts to deny a Jewish historical claim to the land of Israel. During the UN debate over Palestine Partition, Chaim Weizmann responded, sarcastically: “lt is very strange. All my life I have been a Jew, felt like a Jew, and I now learn that I am a Khazar.” In a more folksy vein, Prime Minister Golda Meir famously said:  “Khazar, Schmazar. There is no Khazar people. I knew no Khazars In Kiev. Or Milwaukee. Show me these Khazars of whom you speak.”

KhazAxe1

a warlike people: Khazar battle axe, c. 7th-9th centuries

Contrarian Hungarian ex-communist and scientist Arthur Koestler brought the Khazar hypothesis to a wider audience with The Thirteenth Tribe (1976), in the hope that disproving a common Jewish “racial” identity would end antisemitism. Clearly, that hope has not been fulfilled. Most recently, left-wing Israeli historian Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People took Koestler’s thesis in a direction he had not intended, arguing that because Jews were a religious community descended from converts they do not constitute a nation or need a state of their own. Scientists, however, dismissed the Khazar hypothesis because the genetic evidence did not add up. Until now. In 2012, Israeli researcher Eran Elhaik published a study claiming to prove that Khazar ancestry is the single largest element in the Ashkenazi gene pool. Sand declared himself vindicated, and progressive organs such as Haaretz and The Forward trumpeted the results.

Israel seems finally to have thrown in the towel. A blue-ribbon team of scholars from leading research institutions and museums has just issued a secret report to the government, acknowledging that European Jews are in fact Khazars. (Whether this would result in yet another proposal to revise the words to “Hatikvah” remains to be seen.) At first sight, this would seem to be the worst possible news, given the Prime Minister’s relentless insistence on the need for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” and the stagnation of the peace talks. But others have underestimated him at their peril. An aide quipped, when life hands you an etrog, you build a sukkah.

Speaking off the record, he explained, “We first thought that admitting we are really Khazars was one way to get around Abbas’s insistence that no Jew can remain in a Palestinian state. Maybe we were grasping at straws. But when he refused to accept that, it forced us to think about more creative solutions. The Ukrainian invitation for the Jews to return was a godsend. Relocating all the settlers within Israel in a short time would be difficult for reasons of logistics and economics. We certainly don’t want another fashlan like the expulsion of the settlers in the Gaza Hitnatkut [disengagement].

“We’re not talking about all the Ashkenazi Jews going back to Ukraine. Obviously that is not practical.

Speaking on deep background, a well-placed source in intelligence circles said: “We’re not talking about all the Ashkenazi Jews going back to Ukraine. Obviously that is not practical. The press as usual exaggerates and sensationalizes; this is why we need military censorship.”

Khazaria 2.0?

All Jews who wish to return would be welcomed back without condition as citizens, the more so if they take part in the promised infusion of massive Israeli military assistance, including troops, equipment, and construction of new bases. If the initial transfer works, other West Bank settlers would be encouraged to relocate to Ukraine, as well. After Ukraine, bolstered by this support, reestablishes control over all its territory, the current Autonomous Republic of Crimea would once again become an autonomous Jewish domain. The small-scale successor to the medieval empire of Khazaria (as the peninsula, too, was once known) would be called, in Yiddish, Chazerai.

SprunerCarl.det.1000

the Khazar Empire, map of Europe in the Age of Charles the Great, from Karl von Spruner, _Historisch-geographischer Hand-Atlas_ (Gotha, 1854)

the Khazars did not have to live within ‘Auschwitz borders.’”

“As you know,” the spokesman continued, “the Prime Minister has said time and again: we are a proud and ancient people whose history here goes back 4,000 years. The same is true of the Khazars: just back in Europe and not quite as long. But look at the map: the Khazars did not have to live within ‘Auschwitz borders.’”

EmpCharlMonin.1841.500

no “Auschwitz borders”: the great extent of the Khazar Empire (pink, at right) is readily apparent in this map of Europe circa 800, by Monin (Paris, 1841). Compare with Charlemagne’s empire (pink, at left)

“As the Prime Minister has said, no one will tell Jews where they may or may not live on the historic territory of their existence as a sovereign people. He is willing to make painful sacrifices for peace, even if that means giving up part of our biblical homeland in Judea and Samaria. But then you have to expect us to exercise our historical rights somewhere else. We decided this will be on the shores of the Black Sea, where we were an autochthonous people for more than 2000 years. Even the great non-Zionist historian Simon Dubnow said we had the right to colonize Crimea. It’s in all the history books. You can look it up.”

Old-New Land?

Black Sea, showing Khazar presence in Crimea and coastal regions: Rigobert Bonne, Imperii Romani Distracta. Pars Orientalis, (Paris, 1780). Note Ukraine and Kiev at upper left. At right: Caspian Sea, also labeled, as was the custom, as the Khazar Sea

Black Sea, showing Khazar presence in Crimea and coastal regions: Rigobert Bonne, Imperii Romani Distracta. Pars Orientalis, (Paris, 1780). Note Ukraine and Kiev at upper left. At right: Caspian Sea, also labeled, as was the custom, as the Khazar Sea

“We’d like to think of it as sort of a homeland-away-from-home,” added the anonymous intelligence source. “Or the original one,” he said with a wink. “After all, Herzl wrote about the Old-New Land, didn’t he? And the transition shouldn’t be too difficult for the settlers because, you know, they’ll still get to feel as if they are pioneers: experience danger, construct new housing, carry weapons. The women can continue to wear scarves on their heads, and the food won’t be very different from what they already eat.”

In retrospect, we should have seen this coming, said a venerable State Department Arabist, ticking off the signs on his fingers: a little-noticed report that Russia was cracking down on Israeli smuggling of Khazar artifacts, the decisions of both Spain and Portugal to give citizenship to descendants of their expelled Jews, as well as evidence that former IDF soldiers were already leading militias in support of the Ukrainian government. And now, also maybe the possibility that the missing Malaysian jet was diverted to Central Asia.

A veteran Middle East journalist said: “It’s problematic, but in a perverse way, brilliant. In one fell swoop, Bibi has managed to confound friend and foe alike. He’s put the ball back in the Palestinians’ court and relieved the pressure from the Americans without actually making any real concessions. Meanwhile, by lining up with the Syrian rebels and Ukraine, as well as Georgia and Azerbaijan, he compensates for the loss of the Turkish alliance and puts pressure on both Assad and Iran. And the new Cypriot-Israeli gas deal props up Ukraine and weakens the economic leverage of both the Russians and the Gulf oil states. Just brilliant.”

Reactions from around the world

Given the confluence of the weekend and the Purim and Saint Patrick’s Day holidays, reporters scrambled to get responses. Reactions from around the world trickled in.

• Members of the YESHA Council of settlers, some of them evidently the worse for wear after too much festival slivovitz, were caught completely off-guard. Always wary of Netanyahu, whom they regard as a slick opportunist rather than reliable ideological ally, they refused to comment until they had further assessed the situation.

Most of the hastily offered reactions fell into the predictable categories.

Right-wing antisemitic groups pounced on the story as vindication of their conspiracy theories, claiming that this was the culmination of the Jews’ centuries-old plan to avenge the defeat of Khazaria by the Russians in the Middle Ages, a reprise of Israel’s support for Georgia in 2008. “Jews have memories as long as their noses,” one declared.

a continuum of conquest and cruelty?

• From Ramallah, a Fatah spokesman said the offer was a start but did not go nearly far enough toward satisfying Palestinian demands. Holding up an image of a Khazar warrior from an archaeological artifact, he explained:

There is a continuum of conquest and cruelty. It’s very simple, genetics does not lie. We see the results today: the Zionist regime and brutal Occupation Forces are descended from warlike barbarians. Palestinians are descended from peaceful pastoralists, in fact, from the ancient Israelites that you have falsely claimed as your ancestors. By the way, it is not true, however, that your ancestors ever had a temple in Jerusalem.

 

 

Boy, are our faces red. We were caught flat-footed and thought that the return to Spain and Portugal was the real story. Obviously, that was an impeccably planned and clever feint to distract attention from the coming revolution in Ukraine. Nicely played, Mossad.

• Prolific blogger Richard Sliverstein, whose knowledge of Jewish culture and uncanny ability to ferret out military secrets regularly provoke astonishment even among his critics, commented:

Frankly, I’m surprised that my Mossad sources did not get this story to me first. But I’ve been up against a deadline for an essay on the kabbalistic significance of sesame seeds, the main ingredient in hummus, so I haven’t caught up on my email. But, do I feel vindicated? Well, yes, but it’s scant satisfaction. I’ve been saying for years that the Jews are descended from Mongol-Tatar Khazars, but it has barely made a dent in the propaganda armor of these Zionist hasbaroid dolts.

• An official of a leading human-rights NGO said:

Evacuating illegal settlements must be a part of any peace deal, but first forcing settlers to leave Palestine and then resettling them in Ukraine may be a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. We’ll see what the ICC has to say about this. And if they think they can be even more trigger-happy in Ukraine than the West Bank, they have another thing coming.

• Ultra-Ultra-Orthodox spokesman Menuchem Yontef (formerly of Inowraclaw) welcomed the news:

We reject the Zionist state, which is illegitimate until Mashiach comes. We don’t care where we live as long as we can study the Torah and obey its commandments in full. However, we refuse to serve in the military there as well as here. And—we also want subsidies. That is G-d’s will.

• The spokeswoman for a delegation of Episcopalian peace activists, reached after the Christ at the Checkpoint conference in Bethlehem, said, with tears in her eyes:

We applaud this consistency of principle. If only all Jews would think like Menuchem Yontef—in fact, I’d like to call them “Menuchem Yontef Jews”: “M. Y. Jews,” for short—then antisemitism would disappear and members of all three Abrahamic faiths would again live together peacefully here as they did before the advent of Zionism. The nation-state is a relic of the nineteenth century, which has caused untold suffering. The most urgent task for world peace is the immediate creation of a free and sovereign Palestine.

• Noted academic and theorist Judith Buntler mused:

It may seem like a paradox to establish alterity or ‘interruption’ at the heart of ethical relations. But to know that we have first to consider what such terms mean. One might argue that the distinctive trait of Khazarian identity is that it is interrupted by alterity, that the relation to the gentile defines not only its diasporic situation, but one of its most fundamental ethical relations. Although such a statement may well be true (meaning that it belongs to a set of statements that are true), it manages to reserve alterity as a predicate of a prior subject. The relation to alterity becomes one predicate of ‘being Khazarian.’ It is quite another thing to understand that very relationship as challenging the idea of ‘Khazarian’ as a static sort of being, one that is adequately described as a subject. . . . coexistence projects can only begin with the dismantling of political Zionism.

not the “two-state solution” they expected?

• Anti-Israel BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) leader Ali Abubinomial put it more simply. Pounding his desk, he fumed, “So, Israel and Khazaria? This is what the Zionists mean by a ‘two-state solution’?! Do the math! Has no one read my book?”

• Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) called an emergency meeting to establish ties with the Pecheneg Liberation Organization (PLO), saying, “Pechenegs should not pay the price for European antisemitism.” The new solidarity group, “Students for Pechenegs in Ukraine” (SPUK), proclaimed as its motto: “From the Black to the Caspian Sea, We’re Gonna Find Somebody to Free!”

• For his part, peace activist and former East Jerusalem administrator Myron Benvenuti responded with equanimity: “I’ve got nothing to worry about: I’m Sephardic and my family has lived here for centuries. Anyway, if I have to go somewhere else, it’s going to be Spain, not Ukraine: more sunshine, less gunfire.”

The consensus of the broad majority of “Middle Israel,” which feels that Netanyahu is not doing enough for peace but also questions the sincerity of the Palestinians, is skeptical and despairing. One woman said, in frustration: We all long for an agreement but just cannot see how to achieve it. For now, all we can see is this Chazerai

Gilad Atzmon Explains the Murder of the West by Identity Politics – Introduction by Paul Craig Roberts:

Posted on by samivesusu

August 29, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Paul Craig Roberts:

Gilad Atzmon Explains the Murder of the West by Identity Politics

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/28/gilad-atzmon-expains-murder-west-identity-politics/

“Strange, isn’t it, that one Jew, Gilad Atzmon, understands the dire situation of the Western World far better than does the entirety of the Western intellectual class, including its large Jewish component.

Read this and if you are successful in doing so, that is, not too handicapped by the low level of education to which Western “education” has degenerated, you will understand very much.

It is likely that Identity Politics has put the Western World into a situation from which recovery is impossible. All the rest of the world need do is to wait.”

cover bit small.jpg

Gilad Atzmon’s Being In Time: A Post Political Manifesto is available now on: Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and gilad.co.uk.   

 

Being In Time In Virginia

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2017/8/15/being-in-virginia-in-time

static1.squarespace.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon
In my recent book Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I pointed out that the West and America in particular have been led into a disastrous Identity (ID) clash. This week in Virginia we saw a glimpse of it.

In the book I argue that the transition from traditional Left ideology into New Left politics can be understood as the aggressive advocacy of sectarian and divisive ideologies. While the old Left made an effort to unite us all: gays, blacks, Jews or Whites into a political struggle against capital, the New Left has managed to divide us into ID sectors. We are trained to speak ‘as a…’: ‘as a Jew,’ ‘as a black,’ ‘as a Lesbian.’ The new left has taught us to identify with our biology, with our gender, sex orientation and our skin colour, as long as it isn’t ‘White’ of course.

In Being in Time, I noted that it was a question of time before White people would also decide to identify with their biology. And this is exactly what we saw in Virginia last weekend.

Tragically, ID politics is a vey dangerous political game. It is designed to pull people apart. It is there to introduce conflict and division. ID politics doesn’t offer a harmonious vision of society as a whole. Quite the opposite, it leads to an increasingly fractured social reality. Take, for instance, the continuous evolution of the LGBT group. It is constantly expanding to include more and more sectarian sexually oriented social subgroupings (LGBTQ, LGBTQAI and even LGBTQIAP ).

In the New Left social reality, we, the people are shoved into ID ghettos that are defined by our biology: skin colour, sexual orientation, the Jewish mother, etc.

Instead of what we need to do: fight together against big money, the bankers, the megacorporations, we fight each other, we learn to hate each other. We even drive our cars over each other.

I am opposed to all forms of ID politics, whether it is White, Black, Jewish, Gender or sex oriented. But, obviously if Jews, Gays and others are entitled to identify with their ‘biology’, white people are entitled to do the same. I think that universalism is what we used to call it when we still cared about intellectual integrity.

The problem created by ID politics is extremely grave. ID politics doesn’t offer a prospect of peace and harmony. Within the context of ID politics, we cannot envisage a peaceful resolution of the current ID clash. Can anyone foresee the LGBT community embracing KKK activists into their notion of ‘diverse society?’ The same can be said about the KKK, are they going to open their gates to cultural Marxists?

ID politics equals ID clash, an irreconcilable conflict with no end, the complete destruction of American and, to a certain extent, Western civilisation.  This may explain why George Soros and his open society are invested in this battle. As long as the working people are fighting each other, no one bothers to challenge the root cause of our current dystopia, namely the banks, global capitalism, wall street, Mammonism and so on.

The remedy is clear. America and the West must, at once, break away from all forms of ID politics. Instead of celebrating that which separates us, we must seek what unites and makes us into one people.  I am advocating a radical spiritual, ideological and metaphysical transition. Whether or not we like to admit it, these moments of unity are often invoked by waves of patriotism, nationalism and religious figures. But they could also be inspired by the spirit of justice, equality, compassion and love.  Neither the New Left or the Alt Right offers any of the above. They are equally invested in Identitarian ideologies. The electoral success of Trump, Corbyn and even Sanders or Le Pen points at a general human fatigue.  Readiness for change is in the air.

The Identitarian Shift & the Primacy of the Symptom
(Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto  pg. 49)
ID politics manifests itself as a set of group identification strategies. It subdues the ‘I’ in favour of symbolic identifiers: the ring on the appropriate ear, the nose stud, the type of skullcap, the colour of the scarf and so on.

Within the ID political cosmos, newly emerging ‘tribes’ (gays, lesbians, Jews, Blacks, Whites,vegans, etc.) are marched into the desert, led towards an appealing ‘promised land’, where the primacy of the symptom (gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, skin colour etc.) is supposed to evolve into a world in itself. But this liberal utopia is in practice a sectarian and segregated amalgam of ghettos that are blind to each other. It has nothing in common with the promised universal, inclusive cosmos.

‘The personal is political,’ as the common feminists and liberal preachers have disseminated since the 1960s, is a phrase designed to disguise the obvious; the personal is actually the antithesis of the political. It is, in fact, the disparity between the personal and the political that makes humanism into an evolving exchange known as history. Within the Identitarian discourse, the so-called ‘personal’ replaces true and genuine individualism with phony group identification – it suppresses all sense of authenticity, rootedness and belonging, in favour of a symbolism and imaginary collectivism that is supported by rituals and empty soundbites.Why are we willing to subject ourselves to politics based on biology, and who wrote this new theology found in pamphlets and in the growing numbers of ID Studies textbooks? Is there a contemporaneous God? And who created the ‘pillar of cloud’ we are all to follow?

It is clear that elements within the New Left, together with Jewish progressives and liberal intelligentsia, have been at the heart of the formation of the ideological foundation of ID politics. At least traditionally, both Jewish liberals and the Left were associated with opposition to any form of exclusive political agenda based on biology or ethnicity. Yet, one may wonder why does the New Left espouse such an exclusivist, sectarian and biologically driven agenda?

21st Century: ID Politics Vs. The People

Posted on by samivesusu

Patrick Henningsen with Gilad Atzmon and Jay Dyer

https://widget.spreaker.com/player?episode_id=12612322&theme=light&playlist=false&playlist-continuous=true&playlist-loop=false&playlist-autoupdate=true&autoplay=false&live-autoplay=false&chapters-image=true&cover_image_url=https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/images.spreaker.com/original/8d7725a748f63de6320a638a594518fb.jpg

cover bit small.jpg

 Being In Time: A Post Political Manifesto is available now on: Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and gilad.co.uk.   

http://21stcenturywire.com/

This week we deliver another LIVE broadcast from the UK, as SUNDAY WIRE host Patrick Henningsen is joined by two incredible guests to discuss the disturbing political situation in America. In the first hour we’ll be joined by artist and the brilliant and controversial best-selling author and internationally acclaimed jazz artist, Gilad Atzmonto discuss Charlottesville and the problem of Left vs Right identity politics in the West, as well its roots in Jewish ID politics, and how society might be able overcome the downward spiral it currently finds itself in. In the second hour we’re joined by author and analyst, Jay Dyer, from JaysAnalysis.com to talk about America’s new culture wars and why Leftist activists are now pulling down statues across the country and how this might accelerate to more censorship and ceremonial ‘book burning’ activities. In the final segment, we hear a thought-provoking interview with an American man who managed to turn from hating all Muslims to adopting a more open-minded, civil approach to dialogue – proving that communication is the key to conflict resolution.

Being in Time – a Revolutionary Leftist review by Roy Ratcliffe

Posted on by samivesusu

Introduction by GA: the following is an extended review of my latest book, Being in Time, by Roy Ratcliffe, one of the last free creative thinkers within the Left milieu.

Far from being surprising, Ratcliffe, a revolutionary Marxist, found a lot of truth in the book. The same can be said about conservative and Right Wing intellectuals who also praised the book. How is it possible that both Right and Left ideologists/intellectuals agree upon the validity of a critical text?  Being in Time offers an answer to the above question. In Being in Time, Traditional Left and Right thinking modes are complimentary substances. They are like day and night, the ‘dream’ and the ‘real,’ together they from a mirror image of the human psychic, that mental transition between the ‘ought to be’ and ‘Being.’

Being in Time – a post political manifesto is critical of all forms of Identity (ID) politics: Jewish, gender, White, Black etc. The book argues that the breaking of society into biologically oriented ID sectors has obliterated our ability to fight together as one people. It was set to serve the interests of big money: the Soroses, the JP Morgans, the Goldmans, the Sachses. Being in Time attempts to explain why the USA is being pushed into a civil war. It explains why Trump became the president. It predicts Corbyn’s growing popularity.  It seeks a to offer a new synthesis of our human faculties. Instead of looking into that which spreads us apart, time is ripe to look into that that which unites us all.  

Read More

Jewdas Lies (video-must watch)

Posted on by samivesusu

August 04, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

https://youtu.be/TKMITv5ZPdw

By Gilad Atzmon

Jewdas calls itself a source of “Radical Voices for the alternative (Jewish) diaspora.” But If Jewdas is the ‘alternative’ then we really prefer the original.

Collaborating with the Campaign Against Antisemitsm’s (CAA) war against British jazz, Jewdas also decided that me playing Jazz is simply unacceptable. They are determined to stop me.

Two days ago at the Vortex Jazz Club in London, a bunch of skullcap boys joined by three Antifa members appeared 50 minutes ahead of my gig with leaflets that were blatantly duplicitous from top to bottom. Jewdas protestors urged my audience not to attend my gig. They obviously failed in their mission. The gig was sold out.

Interestingly enough, the leaflet offered one single ‘quote’ from my book ‘The Wandering Who.’ The quote read:  “Some brave people will say that Hitler was right after all.”

Far from being surprising, this line doesn’t exist in The Wandering Who. Jewdas consciously lied in an attempt to defame me by misrepresenting my thoughts. The line that does appear in The Wandering Who suggests the complete opposite meaning.

“We, for instance, can envisage an horrific situation in which an Israeli so-called ‘pre-emptive’ nuclear attack on Iran escalates into a disastrous nuclear war, in which tens of millions of people perish. I guess that amongst the survivors of such a nightmare scenario, some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might have been right after all.’

The above is obviously a fictional scenario, and by no means a wishful one, yet such a vision of a ‘possible’ horrific development should restrain Israeli or Zionist aggression towards Iran.” (The Wandering Who, pg 179)

In The Wandering Who I call for an introspective understanding of history that would deter Israel and its lobbies from pushing us into more wars.

The fact that Jewdas consciously lied provokes the necessary question. If I am as bad as Jewdas and the CAA insist, why do they see the need to doctor my words and even manufacture my statements? Surely, if I am anti-Semitic and Nazi supporting as Jewdas believes, it should have by now found a genuine statement by me that can support such a claim.

I ask myself whether Jewdas’ leaders reckon that young Jews in skullcaps standing in the street, intimidating a jazz club, distributing lies about an international musician, harassing bandmates and audiences reflects greatly on the Jewish community. I will save Jewdas the trouble of using their brains. NO is the obvious answer. The jazz community: musicians, audience, clubs are all disgusted by this anti Atzmon campaign.

In the Jewdas flyer I am accused of Holocaust denial. My followers as well as my detractors know very well that I am playing and teaching in Germany regularly. In fact next week I am leading a workshop in south Germany. Holocaust deniers are not welcome in Germany. If Jewdas or the CAA possess the evidence of me being a holocaust denier they better get me arrested or at least questioned in Germany.  My position on the holocaust is established worldwide.  I am against the holocaust or any other event in the past being treated as a religion or a dogma. I insist that if history is the attempt to narrate the past as we move along, then re-visting and revising the past is the true and only meaning of historical thinking! The holocaust like all other events must be subject to revision, so spoiled kids like Jewdas can review their own book burning actions within the appropriate context. I also contend that if the Holocaust is a religion, I persist upon being an atheist.

Jewdas must be completely detached from British society and the reality around them. In the flyer they accuse me of spreading Nazi propaganda and ideology in my concerts. Does this bunch of Jewish youngsters really believe that such a scenario is even conceivable in Britain or anywhere else? The question here is how such a ludicrous idea came into their undeveloped minds. The answer, interestingly enough, is available in The Wandering Whoand Being in Time, the books Jewdas are pretty much desperate to burn. What we see here is Pre-TSD (Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder). Within the context of Jewish Identity politics, being tormented by a delusional event is pretty common and even epidemic. Israel is terrified by a nuclear Iran and Jewdas is terrified by the possibility of Gilad Atzmon’s gigs being neo-nazi beer cellar gatherings. What we are dealing with here is an obvious case of projection. The Jewdases attribute their own problematic symptoms of hatred and vindictiveness to me.

Jewdas claims to be an alternative Jewish diaspora group, they claim to support Palestine and multi-culturalism. But the Palestinians were with me inside the vortex. Two of the most prolific leaders of the Palestinian solidarity movement worldwide (Jafar Ramini and Greta Berlin) were sitting in front of me at the vortex. We had Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Iranians. How do I know? They bought my books and CDs and I signed them. The Vortex was packed with people of all ages, from every corner on this planet. On stage we had an NYC Jewish guitarist, and ex Israeli bass player, an Italian drummer and myself. If Jewdas are interested in an alternative diaspora, they better come to my concerts and learn how to intermingle with real diversity and real people. If Jewdas are interested in an alternative diaspora, they should consider not to identify politically and culturally with a race. Because to my ears, Jewish Voice for Peace and Alternative Jewish Diaspora sound as bad as Aryan voice for Peace or Alternative Aryan Diaspora. In short, people who identify politically as a race are not the ones to teach us about tolerance.

The Vortex jazz club offered to host a discussion between my Jewish detractors and myself. I welcomed the idea, I sent an invitation to Jewdas, I am yet to hear back.

I should mention that if the campaign against my music was designed to ruin me financially, it may achieve the opposite. My book sales tripled in the last week or so. I guess I shouldn’t complain yet.

Gilad Atzmon’s book Being In Time: A Post Political Manifesto is available now on: Amazon.co.ukAmazon.com and gilad.co.uk.   

Learn more on Jewdas: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2016/2/2/jewdas-a-glimpse-into-jewish-left-duplicity

« Previous PageNext Page »
%d bloggers like this: